PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS PAUL’S F IRST EP ISTLE TO THE COR INTHIAN S Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians
PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS A Church in Crisis by David Ethan Cambridge
Copyright 2006 D.E. Cambridge
All rights reserved. No part of this booklet may be stored or reproduced in any form without the written permission from the author.
IT IS ILLEGAL AND UNETHICAL TO DUPLICATE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
Title Lesson Page Introduction 7 A Historical and Social Background of Corinth 9 SECTION ONE: Concerning Things Reported Greetings and Thanksgiving (1:1-9) 1 17 Factions in the Church (1:10-4:21) 2 23 Morality in the Church (5:1-6:20) 3 43 Incest (5:1-13) Litigations (6:1-11) Fornication (6:12-20) SECTION TWO: Concerning Things Asked Concerning Marriage (7:1-40) 4 59 Marital Obligations (7:1-7) Advice to Special Groups (7:8-16) One’s Calling and Station in Life (7:17-24) Regarding Virgins and Widows (7:25-40) Christian Liberties (8:1-11:1) 5 75 Meat Sacrificed to Idols (8:1-13) Paul’s use of Liberty (9:1-23) The Peril of the Strong (9:24-10:22) Final Statement of Principles (10:23-11:1) Conduct in the Assembly (11:2-14:40) 6 99 The Head Covering (11:2-16) The Lord’s Supper (11:17-34) Spiritual Distinctions (12:1-14:40) The Resurrection (15:1-58) 7 139 SECTION THREE: Final Instructions and Comments The Collection (16:1-4) 8 157 Closing Comments and Greetings (16:5-24) 9 163 ARTICLES Command or Custom by H.O. Hutto 171 Women and “Whole Church Meetings” by Jeff Smelser 187 Is Giving an Act of Worship? by Greg Litmer 203
PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Introduction
About these lessons This is a series of nine lessons on Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians. The level of difficulty is intermediate to difficult but the basics are within everyone’s ability to understand.
In preparing these studies, I have consulted the works of Albert Barnes, Richard Lenski, Nigel Watson, David E. Garland, James Coffman, and Mike Willis. By far the best commentary on 1 Corinthians is by Mike Willis. In his interpretation, Mike carefully considers the context and the original language, and his explanations are very readable and easy to understand. In this booklet there are many quotes from Mike’s commentary and the similarity in language between Mike’s comments and my own are no coincidence.
To avoid an overly large volume and in order to get through this series of lessons in a reasonable amount of time, I have excluded a large amount of contextual and linguistic argumentation. My approach, then, has been to examine the evidence and simply present what I believe to be the correct understanding of the text.
There are some passages that contain concepts that are very difficult to understand and interpret but I have attempted to do so with the measure of wisdom God has given me.
To aid the memory, I have included a summary at the end of each Roman Numeral. There is also a summary and application at the end of each lesson. Students are invited to consider what applications can be made and make a note of them as we go through each lesson; a discussion of these applications will commence at the conclusion of each lesson.
The aim of these lessons The aim of these lessons is give the student a better understanding of 1 Corinthians. Students can help themselves by devoting some time each day in reading through the chapter we are currently studying, taking notes, and preparing questions and comments.
7 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
8 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Historical and Social Background of Corinth
What is the history of Corinth? The city of Corinth was founded in the 10 th Century BC and had been the richest port and the largest city in ancient Greece. In 146 BC, Corinth rebelled against Rome when they demanded it dissolved the Achaean League 1. Such a rebellion was ill-fated and the Roman army, under the leadership of Lucius Mummius 2, was laid waste. The city lay in ruins for about 100 years until Julius Caesar, perceiving its strategic value, rebuilt Corinth in 46 BC. Once again, the city thrived and was established as the political and commercial capital of the province of Achaia.
Where was Corinth located? The Roman Empire was comprised of several provinces and the city of Corinth was in the province of Achaia.
The province of Achaia
Corinth was about 48 miles west of Athens and situated on the Isthmus 3 that connects the Peloponnesus and mainland Greece.
1 A political confederation of Achaean and other Greek cities, established in the late 3rd century B.C. 2 A Roman statesman and general. 3 A narrow strip of land bordered on both sides by water that connects two larger land masses.
9 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
What were the advantages of being situated on the Isthmus? The two harbors on either side of the Isthmus were the Corinthian Gulf and the Saronic Gulf. In order to cross from one Gulf to another without sailing around the Pelponnesus, a Diolkos was constructed to connect the two harbors.
The Diolkos was a stone-paving roadway that ran between the two harbors and varied between 10 and 3.5 meters in width. The starting point began at the very edge of the sea of the Corinthian Gulf. It was from here that ships were dragged onto the Diolkos. To begin with, the ships sat on wooden cylinders and were then transferred to a special wheeled vehicle. The ship was then dragged across the Isthmus to the Saronic Gulf. This ingenious feat of engineering meant that ships could avoid the treacherous sea around the Peloponnese and speed up their journeys. It also brought an increased traffic flow through the city; the east to west traffic from the Corinthian Gulf to Saronic Gulf and the north to south traffic from the Peloponnesus to mainland Greece all had to pass through Corinth.
In 1882, a French firm began constructing a canal along virtually the same route, and was completed in 1893. The Corinth Canal is 6,343 meters long, 25 meters wide, and 8 meters deep. The earth cliffs flanking it reach a maximum height of 63 meters.
With so much traffic passing through it, Corinth inevitably became a great trade center and brought much wealth and affluence to the city. Corinth soon became the commercial capital of Greece even as Athens was the educational capital.
What was the social and ethnic makeup of Corinth? Julius Caesar rebuilt the city in 44 BC and repopulated the city with Roman freedmen 4. As Corinth began to thrive, it attracted people from all races, cultures, and social walks of life: Greeks, Europeans, Phoenicians, Roman elite, and Jews; these being statesmen, soldiers, tradesmen, philosophers, sailors, priests and priestesses, peddlers of every form of vice, freed men and slaves. As is true of many great cities, there was sharp divide between the rich and the poor. Virtually all those possessing wealth tended to live in the city while the poorer folk were found in the suburbs.
4 Freedmen formed a large social class in ancient Rome. It was the exceptional feature of ancient Rome that almost all slaves freed by Roman owners automatically received Roman citizenship (Wikipedia).
10 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
What was the predominant religion in Corinth? Corinth had two patron deities: Poseidon, god of the sea, who was appropriately reflected in the naval power and devotion to the sea, and Aphrodite, goddess of sexual love, who was reflected in the city's reputation for immorality. The temple of Aphrodite was central to their worship and it had, allegedly, one thousand female prostitutes that were famous for their great beauty. The income of the temple prostitutes provided a major source of the city's income. This practice, coupled with the characteristic looseness of a port city of a mixed and transient population, gave Corinth a reputation far beyond the cities of its day.
What factors had a direct bearing on the Corinthians’ behavior and thought? With this context in mind, we shall consider two factors that had a direct bearing on the Corinthians’ behavior and their misinterpretation of the Christian faith that Paul addresses in his epistle: social relations and religious/philosophical influences.
Social Relations Roman colonies, it is said, were like miniatures of Rome; established to foster the majesty of Roman culture, religion, and values. Corinth, likewise, was imbued5 with Roman cultural values. Many of the inhabitants were so affluent that wealth and ostentatious display became the characteristic of Corinth .
The central tradition of city culture was trade, business, and entrepreneurial pragmatism 6 in the pursuit of success. It was these values that gave rise to an appetite for the attainment of public status, promotion of personal honor, and power . One’s status was dependant upon occupational prestige, income or wealth, education and knowledge, religious purity, family and ethnic group position, and local community status. Corinth was a place filled with people who were obsessed and preoccupied with these things.
Religious Influences Corinth, as we might expect of a cosmopolitan city, was a religious melting pot. Some of the gods and cults included Apollo, Aphrodite, Asclepius, Athena, Athena Chalinitus, Demeter and Kore, Dionysus, Ephesian Artemis, Hera Acraea, Hermes, Jupiter Capitolinus, Neptune, Tyche, Fortuna, and Zeus. The Imperial cult, an alliance of throne and altar, was also popular. It seems that no one worshipped one god exclusively; the general attitude seemed to be, “the more gods one appeased and had on one’s side, the better.” Regardless of what other gods were worshipped, everyone was expected to belong to the Imperial cult, which worshipped political power as divine.
We should not be surprised, then, if the dominant culture of Corinthian society had an affect on the Christians. Most of the problems that Paul addressed had arisen from such cultural influences: competing with one another for power, prestige, and popularity. The pressure on Christians to conform and honor the gods was tremendous because to reject them was tantamount, in the eyes of society, to being an atheist.
Conclusion
Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians should be read with this historical and social background in mind. It is this background that explains the predominantly social rather doctrinal problems that arose, and their misinterpretation of the Christian faith.
One gets the impression that being a member of the church was just another way of securing some social standing and that the faith was merely a new wisdom to which one could aspire.
5 To be permeated through with. 6 “The doctrine that practical consequences are the criteria of knowledge and meaning and value" (Webster’s). In other words, truth is determined by consequences. Whether something is right or wrong, good or bad is primarily dependent on results.
11 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
12 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
SECTION ONE Concerning Things Reported
13 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
14 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
GREETINGS AND THANKSGIVING
This section covers 1:1-9
15 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
16 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Greetings and Thanksgiving (1:1-9)
"1Paul, a called apostle of Messiah Jesus by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 To the church of God existing in Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Corinthians 1:1-9)
Introduction
1. The letter begins with a contemporary greeting and thanksgiving.
a. This formula is seen in several of Paul’s letters except Galatians, 1 Timothy, and Titus.
b. The following extract is from a letter of a young man named Apion to his father…
“Apion, to Epimachus his father and lord, many greetings. Before all things I pray you are in good health and that you may prosper and fare well continually together with my sister and her daughter and my brother. I thank the Lord Serapis that, when I was in peril in the sea, he saved me, immediately” (Thompson) .
2. In this lesson, we will examine Paul’s greeting and thanksgiving and see how it relates to the content of the letter.
I. Paul’s Calling As An Apostle (1:1) Paul emphasises his office and authority to ensure his words are heeded.
A. Paul emphasises his calling and authority:
1. Paul is not a self appointed apostle but was hand-picked by Christ Jesus to preach the gospel. Paul’s calling is recorded in three places – Acts 9:1-20; 22:1-16; 26:1-18.
2. The emphasis on being a called apostle demonstrates his equality with the twelve (2 Corinthians 11:5) . His claims are further substantiated, in that, he performed all the signs of an apostle (2 Corinthians 12:11-12) .
3. To add further emphasis, Paul states that his calling was “by the will of God” (Cp. Galatians 1:15-16) . This not only highlights his authority but emphasizes that God was acting through Jesus when He called him, and that Paul’s apostleship was divinely approved from the beginning.
B. Paul’s emphasis on his calling and authority was due to some among the brethren who were challenging his office and authority (1 Corinthians 9:1-3; 2 Corinthians 12:11-13) . This may have been due to both inside and outside influences.
Summary (i) Paul was not self-appointed but a called apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God who had equal authority with the other twelve apostles. Paul established his authority from the outset to ensure their attention and obedience. (ii) There were some within the church who challenged Paul’s office and authority.
II. The Church At Corinthian (1:2-3) Despite the reputation of Corinth, a church existed in its midst. The church was riddled with problems but they are still recognized as a church. The focus in this section is on what God has done – called, sanctified, and blessed.
A. The church existing in Corinth:
1. In view of the reputation attached to Corinth, it is a wonder that a church existed there at all!
2. In view of the worldliness and immorality that existed in the church, it is remarkable that Paul still refers to them as a church! This should not cause us to become lax in regards to sin because Paul’s purpose in writing was to correct the problems at Corinth (2 Corinthians 10:1-11) . A church cannot continue in such a state for very long without jeopardizing their standing (Revelation 2:5) .
17 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
B. Their sanctification:
1. They were a church, an ekklesia , an assembly of people called out of the world by God. They were called out of the world into God’s kingdom (Cp. Colossians 1:13) .
2. They were sanctified or set apart.
a. “Sanctified…”
1) The primary meaning of “sanctify” is “to consecrate.” In the Old Testament, it referred to priests, places, vessels, etc. that were set apart from ordinary daily use for holy purposes. The members of the church, then, had been set apart for holy purposes; they were a holy people (Cp. 1 Peter 2:9) .
2) Sanctification does not describe a moral action on their part but an action of God . This sanctification took place at their immersion:
"Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:11)
3) Since they were set apart and were, therefore, a holy people, it follows that moral purity should be characteristic of God’s people (Cp. Titus 2:14) . Moral purity is not imparted by sanctification. Sanctification, in the sense of moral purification, is a process that continues throughout our life (2 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8); they had not “arrived” as they supposed. One cannot claim to be called out of the world and continue to live a worldly life (Cp. 1 Peter 1:5) .
b. “In Christ Jesus…”
1) The word “in” should be understood in an instrumental sense. It is through the instrumentality of Christ Jesus that they were sanctified or set apart to God.
2) It is essential to understand that sanctification is an act of God ; not on the basis of what a person is, but on the basis of what Christ Jesus has done for us. It is through His atoning sacrifice that a person is sanctified (Hebrews 10:10, 14; 13:12) .
c. “Saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
1) They were not called to be saints but were called saints. It was by virtue of their calling that they were saints. The emphasis is on the fact that they were called by God 7.
2) A saint is one who has been sanctified. The purpose of this repetition is to show that they are part of a universal church, they are related to all those in every place that are Christians. This should have stirred up feelings of oneness and unity in the church, a church that was on the verge of division.
3) The word “Lord” is used in opposition to servant. The Lord commands and the servant obeys. All the Christians at Corinth were servants; they are all of equal status before their Lord and obliged to obey Him. This should stir up feelings of humility in a church where pride was the root cause of division.
C. Their blessedness:
1. If I were to say, “Greetings and best wishes from the Prime Minister,” you would ask, “Who are you to pass on greetings and best wishes from the Prime Minister? What is your relationship to him that you speak on his behalf?” Paul, as an apostle of Jesus Christ, is speaking on behalf of the Father and the Lord. This, of course, adds weight to his words in this epistle.
"If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment" (1 Corinthians 14:37)
7 They were called through the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14).
18 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2. The grace and peace here speaks of the undeserved favour that had been bestowed upon them when they believed the gospel, and the resulting peace in knowing their sins had been forgiven (Cp. Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:6; 2:8). But the sense here is that this grace and peace would increase (Cp. 2 Peter 1:2) .
Summary (i) Despite being a corrupt and immoral city, a church existed in Corinth. (ii) This was God’s doing because He called and sanctified them, along with all who call on the name of Jesus. (iii) As an apostle, Paul speaks on behalf of the Father and Son, and speaking on behalf of the Father and son, reveals that God’s desire is for these brethren to continue growing in grace and peace.
III. Thanksgiving (1:4-9) The church at Corinth was riddled and beset with problems but Paul can still be thankful to God for the grace He has bestowed upon them.
A. Paul always gave thanks to God for the grace that had been given to them (Cp. 2 Corinthians 11:28) .
1. The “grace” here is that which they had received at some point in the past; this is indicated by the word “given.” This might be a reference to their salvation (Ephesians 2:8) or their reception of spiritual gifts, or possibly both.
2. The result of this grace was that “in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge.” This probably refers to the speaking of the revealed word in any form (by those who spoke in tongues, by inspiration, or those with outstanding speaking ability, like Apollos).
3. The testimony about Christ, as preached by the speakers, was confirmed in them by the miraculous gifts given to them by God.
4. The word “so” introduces the result of this enrichment in all things and of the testimony being validated…they lacked no miraculous gift in validating the testimony about Christ (Cp. Mark 16:20; Hebrews 2:1-4) . From this we can conclude that they were, on the whole, doctrinally sound. This epistle, then, is not so much concerned with doctrine as it is with practical problems regarding disorders in conduct. However, there is one serious doctrinal error that Paul deals with in chapter fifteen.
B. By the grace of God, the brethren at Corinth were enriched in all speech and knowledge and lacked no spiritual gift. But they had not yet been perfected because they were yet “awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Their hopes and expectations were not on things of this world but rooted in the future revelation of Jesus Christ (Cp. Philippians 3:20) .
1. God promises to keep them firmly established until the end. Of course, this is conditional upon them remaining in Christ (Cp. 1 John 2:4-6) .
2. The result of God’s confirming them to the end is that they will be found blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. Not blamelessness based on their own works or merits, but blamelessness imputed to them through faith in Jesus’ vicarious sacrifice (Ephesians 5:27; Colossians1:22; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 5:23) .
"Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless" (2 Peter 3:14 NASBR)
3. The promise is certain because “God is faithful” (Cp. Hebrews 10:23) .
4. God was faithful to His Son, Jesus, who stands to inherit all things, and those who are called into fellowship with Jesus are heirs together with Him (Cp. Romans 8:16-17) .
Summary (i) Despite all of the problems in the church, Paul is able to thank God for the grace of God bestowed upon them. (ii) The church was enriched in all speech and knowledge and had a generous variety of spiritual gifts; so that the testimony about Christ was fully confirmed in them. These brethren were eagerly awaiting the return of the Lord and were assured that God would confirm them to the end.
19 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Summary & Application
1. Paul’s Calling and authority:
a. Summary. There were some at that time who questioned whether Paul had the right to call himself an apostle, which would naturally lead to a rejection of his authority. So, at the outset, Paul affirms that he was a called apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God . The brethren really had no reason to challenge him because they themselves had witnessed the evidence of his office and authority (2 Corinthians 12:11-12) .
b. Application. The Bible is the inspired word of God and the evidence of this is ample and varied. Before we even think about challenging the inspiration and authority of any book or epistle of the Bible, we should carefully review the evidence that led us to accept its inspiration in the first place (2 Timothy 3:16-17) .
2. The church at Corinth:
a. Summary. Corinth was a city in which there was much wickedness, corruption, idolatry, and immorality, and yet there in its midst existed a church (Cp. Revelation 2:13) . In the church, too, there was much worldliness but it is still called a church. God is, ultimately, the one who is to be given the glory for the existence of the church in Corinth. By the grace of God they were called out of the world, and by the grace of God they were forgiven of their sins, resulting in peace.
b. Application. It is not unusual for men to be surprised at seeing the existence of a church or the presence of a righteous man in a city or town that has a reputation for wickedness, corruption, and immorality. But the Scriptures furnish us with examples of a church in a corrupt city (1 Corinthians 1:2) , a righteous man in a wicked city (2 Peter 2:6-7) , and a single faithful family in an ungodly world (2 Peter 2:5) . Also, it is not unusual for us to say within ourselves, “I’m not going to preach in that town because they are too wicked” or “It’s not worth preaching the gospel to him because he’s so wicked and it would be a waste of time.” Here, then, is our misconception: we are not called to judge whether a city or individual is worthy of hearing the gospel, nor are we called to evaluate whether to preach based on the chances of getting a positive response…our duty is to simply sow the seed into the hearts of as many people as possible (Mark 16:15; Acts 8:4; cp. 18:9-10).
"So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:11 NASBR)
3. Thanksgiving:
a. Summary. When you consider the worldly attitudes and disorders among the brethren at Corinth, we may wonder that Paul had any thanks to offer at all for these brethren! But Paul always remembered these brethren in his prayers and gave thanks for the grace they had received. They were blessed with eloquent speakers and did not lack any spiritual gift.
b. Application. So often, we are quick to find fault with a church and assume that their candle stick has long been removed. If we had been on vacation and visited the Corinthian church, how would we have judged them? Would we have recommended that church to travelling brethren? Would we have included them on a list of faithful churches? Despite all the problems in Corinth, Paul thanked God for that church and for the grace they had received. Can we do the same?
20 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH
This section covers 1:10-4:21
21 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
22 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Factions in the Church (1:10-4:21)
"10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. 13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you immersed in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I immersed none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were immersed in my name. 16 Now I did immerse also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I immersed any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to immerse, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. 18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside. 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well- pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no man may boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, just as it is written, let him who boasts, boast in the lord. 1And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. 6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9but just as it is written, things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love Him. 10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:10-2:16)
23 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
"1And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? 4 For when one says, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are you not mere men? 5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. 16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are. 18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness; 20 and again, the Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless. 21 So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, 23 and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God. " 1Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy. 3 But to me it is a very small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. 4 For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. 5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts; and then each man's praise will come to him from God. 6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 7 For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? 8 You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and indeed, I wish that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. 9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. 11 To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; 12 and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; 13 when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now. 14 I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church. 18 Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant but their power. 20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power. 21 What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love and a spirit of gentleness?" (1 Corinthians 3:1-4:21)
24 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Introduction
1. Many philosophers came to Corinth with their own particular “wisdom,” which they taught to their disciples in the schools they established. Individuals who attached themselves to a particular teacher not only considered the teacher wise but also themselves as wise for following him.
2. With this social background in mind, we begin to understand how and why factions in the church arose; they misunderstood the nature of the gospel as being a new human wisdom, the position of evangelists as roving philosophers, and their own position .
3. Their misconceptions led to strife and divisions within the church. Paul deals with this by showing the absurdity of a divided body (1:10-17) , the true nature of the gospel (1:18-2:16) , the true position of evangelists (3:1-4:15) , and their own position as a united body (4:16-4:21) . Paul does not depend on his own I. Condemnation Of Party Strife (1:10-17) authority but he appeals to them The Corinthians had an erroneous view of the nature of the gospel and the evangelists that resulted “in the name of our Lord Jesus strife and divisions. Christ.” What greater appeal is A. Paul had already reminded the brethren that he was a called apostle of there than this? What greater motivation is there than to do (1:1) Christ Jesus by the will of God and one who spoke in behalf of God something for the name of Jesus? the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (1:3) . Paul, as a spokesman for the Lord, appeals to the brethren for unity. He was able to make this appeal because their allegiance was to Christ. They should want to be united because Jesus wants them to be united (John 17:20-21) ; they could not maintain their allegiance to Christ and allow the congregation to be divided.
1. Paul’s exhortation is that they “all agree and that there be no divisions among you” (1:10a). This appeal is to be contrasted with the state of affairs in the church where there was disagreement and divisions among them. The word “divisions” originally designated a tear in a piece of material. The metaphor indicates that the church was not formally divided but it had tears in it.
2. The agreement and unity Paul enjoins can only be achieved if they are “completely joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1:10b) . The metaphor of torn material is continued as Paul urges them to “resew the torn cloth.”
a. They were to be of the same “mind,” which denotes the Christian way of thinking . The same word is used where Paul says, “But we have the mind of Christ” (2:16) . This refers to the thoughts of Christ revealed by the Holy Spirit through the apostles and prophets. Paul, then, is urging them to accept the word of Christ as the final authority in settling their disputes and mending the tears in the church.
b. To be of the same “judgment” refers to the manner of deciding a particular issue. Whenever a question arises, everyone must approach the matter with the same mind, i.e., the revealed word of Christ will be the final authority. A consideration of what has been revealed on the issue will be the accepted conclusion or judgment.
B. The problems in the church had been reported to Paul by those of Chloe’s household (1:11) . The contents of their report can be determined by examining the content of the letter. The first problem Paul deals with is that of parties that had formed around the apostles and evangelists (1:12) . Parties had formed around some, like Paul and Apollos, who had actually worked with the church and others, like Peter, who had not personally visited Corinth but were well known.
1. The report from those of Chloe’s household was that there were contentious among them. The word “contentions” is from the Greek word eris . Barclay comments…
“But in the NT itself, eris , strife, is always an evil thing…Eris invades the church and becomes characteristic of the church, when leaders and members of the church think more about people and about parties and about slogans and about personal issues than they do about Jesus Christ. Here is our warning. Whenever in a church Jesus Christ is dethroned from the central place, all personal relationships go wrong. When a man begins to preach, not to exalt Jesus Christ, but to exalt his own personal and private view of Jesus Christ, this to say, when a man preaches a theology rather than the gospel, when a man begins to demolish his opponent rather than to win him, then eris comes in (Barclay, Flesh and Spirit ).
25 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2. The contentions here were not over doctrinal matters but over those seeking to promote factions in the church. The Corinthians were accustomed to itinerant philosophers who brought and resounded their particular “wisdom” to the disciples they had accrued during their stay.
a. The gospel was viewed as a new type of wisdom or philosophy.
b. The preachers were viewed as competitive philosophers.
C. Having identified the problem, Paul asks two questions designed to show the absurdity of their situation:
1. “Has Christ been divided?” (1:13a) . Paul is asking them if the physical body of Christ is divided. The answer, of course, is “No.” The application to make is, “How, then, can the spiritual body of Christ be divided?” If the physical body of Christ is not divided, then the spiritual body cannot be divided.
2. “Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you immersed in the name of Paul?” (1:13b) . The answer to both questions is, “No.” The brethren were exalting preachers above Christ and professing allegiance to those who immersed them. But it is Christ who was crucified for them and it is into Christ that they were immersed (Cp. Galatians 3:27) . The only one to whom they belonged and owed their allegiance is Christ.
a. Paul was horrified that a party had formed around his name and so, in such a circumstance, was glad that he had only immersed a few people at Corinth “So that no one would say you were immersed in my name” (1:15) , i.e., so that no one else would claim they belonged to him.
b. “For Christ did not send me to immerse, but to preach the gospel” (1:17) . Is Paul saying that immersion is not necessary for the remission of sins? The following comments are helpful…
“Jesus Himself commissioned His apostles to ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptised shall be saved…’ Mark 16.15-16. It is clear that the apostles were sent to preach but the response is down to the hearers, they must believe and they must be baptised. Peter commanded believers to ‘repent, and each one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins’ Acts 2.38. The apostle fulfilled his commission to preach but the response was down to the hearers, they must repent and be baptised. The primary mission of evangelists is to preach the gospel, but what did they preach? They preached the cross and they told men how to respond: believe, repent, and be baptised. Baptism is an essential part of the response to the message and if baptism is not essential then faith and repentance are not essential, for they are all equally commanded. The apostles were sent to preach the gospel, the response is down to the individual, and who performs the baptism is of little importance” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary, 1 Corinthians ).
“Some have been diligent to make this passage an excuse for denying the necessity of the believer's baptism into Christ, as for example, Metz, who said, ‘The gospel of grace and faith that he proclaimed was as free from outer ritual and ceremony as it was devoid of legal observances.’ If such a view is tenable, how can Paul's baptism of Stephanas, Gaius, and Crispus be explained? Of course, what Paul referred to here was the ADMINISTRATION OF THE RITE OF BAPTISM, there being nothing here to the effect that Paul preached salvation without baptism. He like all the apostles had been commanded to ‘make disciples of all nations, baptizing them’ (Matthew 28:19)” (Coffman) .
D. Paul had been sent to preach the gospel, “Not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void” (1:17b) .
1. Some suppose that Paul here refers to the style of preaching but the context – 1:18-2:16; 3:18-23 – suggests he is saying that he had not presented the gospel as some kind of new philosophy.
2. The words, “the cross of Christ,” are used here to refer to the sum total of Christ’s revelation. As Willis says, “Because of the importance of Jesus’ death for Christianity, this one thing can stand for the whole revelation of Christ.” The gospel is not a new system of thought about God but is God’s power to save.
Summary (i) As an apostle and a spokesman on behalf of the Father and the Son, Paul appeals to the brethren to be united by accepting the word of Christ as their final authority in settling their disputes. (ii) The Corinthians had an erroneous view of the gospel and evangelists that led to self-promotion and the formation of parties. (iii) Paul sought to counter the situation by demonstrating the absurdity of a divided body and showing that their allegiance was to Christ alone.
26 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
II. The Gospel: The Wisdom Of God (1:18-2:16) The Corinthian brethren had misunderstood the nature of the gospel and viewed it as a new wisdom. Paul now corrects this erroneous view.
A. The gospel is not a philosophy or a new system of thought about God; it is God’s power to save (1:18-25) .
1. The preaching of the cross (1:18) :
a. To those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness (1:18a) .
1) The present tense, “who are perishing,” denotes a chosen course of life that is suicidal and leading to eternal destruction.
2) Jesus had suffered a cruel and shameful death, which was reserved for hardened criminals, rebellious slaves, and traitors against the Roman Empire. Jesus was rejected by the very people He came to save (John 1:11; Luke 17:25) , deserted by His disciples (Matthew 26:56) , crucified by the authorities (Matthew 27:26) , and was, seemingly, powerless to save Himself (Matthew 27:39-50) . Such a story was repugnant to people’s sensibilities. “The word ‘cross’ should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes and his ears” (Cicero, Pro Rabirio Perduellionis ). To proclaim a crucified Jew as the saviour, God’s Son, and the coming judge of the world, was considered by the educated to be utter madness or foolishness. “Paul’s emphasis on the cross might suggest that the Corinthians were ashamed to mention it because of its repugnance to people’s sensibilities” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
b. To those who are being saved the message of the cross is the power of God (1:18b) .
1) The present tense, “being saved,” denotes a chosen course of life that leads to eternal life. Salvation is sometimes described as a past event (Romans 8:24) , a present abiding state (Ephesians 2:5) , a process (1 Corinthians 15:2) , and as a future result (Romans 10:9) . It is here viewed as a process (Cp. Philippians 2:12) .
2) In contrasting the thoughts of those who are perishing with those who are being saved, we might expect Paul to use “foolishness” and “wisdom,” respectively. Willis says, “The contrast is stronger than if ‘wisdom of God’ had been used, although such a construction would be logically correct; the ‘power of God’ necessarily presupposes the opposite of ‘foolishness’ because the power of God brings enlightenment, repentance, sanctification, peace, hope, etc. A wisdom can bring conviction but not salvation; salvation requires power – the power of God” (Cp. Romans 1:16) .
2. God destroys the wisdom of the wise (1:19-20):
a. The passage quoted by Paul is from Isaiah 29:14. Willis suggests that this quotation, and those that follow, are used in the sense of using Scriptural terminology to express one’s thoughts, and not to say that Isaiah foretold that the gospel would be of this nature.
“The context of the Isaiah passage was the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian Sennacherib. The wise men of that day counselled that deliverance would come through political alliances, but God destroyed the wisdom of the wise. The alliances caused Judah nothing but trouble; Sennacherib invaded the land and laid siege to the city. Deliverance came, not from political counsellors, the wise men, but from the Lord. Jehovah sent an angel into the camp of the Assyrians who smote 185,000 of the soldiers; Assyria was forced to lift the siege of the city. The judgement of God against human wisdom did not begin in Corinth; God had already revealed that human wisdom was insufficient to grant deliverance to a people” (Willis) .
b. The application to be made by the Corinthians is this: the wise men considered the gospel to be foolishness and considered their own wisdom superior to the gospel. But God would destroy the wisdom of the wise and nullify the understanding of the prudent.
27 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
1) For all their wisdom, the wise, the scribe, and the debater had not come to know God. The city of Athens, for example, was the great learning centre of Greece but, despite all their wisdom, what did they know about God? When Paul came to Athens he found they did not know anything about God (Acts 17:16-34) .
2) It is true that man can know something of God’s deity and power from creation (Romans 1:19-20) but they cannot learn from nature whether God is one or many, good or bad, whether loves or hates us, or what one must do to be saved. Man can only know these things through God’s direct revelation – His word.
3. Christ, the power and wisdom of God (1:21-25) :
a. God has chosen to fully reveal Himself and the plan of salvation, not through nature, but by His word and the foolishness of preaching (1:21b) . The word “foolishness” here is used accommodatively…what men call “foolishness” is, nonetheless, the power of God leading to salvation for those that continue believing. Those who have been saved by the gospel are those who are being saved because they continue believing (Cp. Hebrews 3:6) .
b. God revealed Himself in Christ through many signs and continued to do so through the Spirit, but the Jews were never satisfied with these and demanded a sign from heaven (Matthew 16:1) ; they sought the kind of sign that was visible in the heavens, such as the sun standing still. But the signs Jesus gave were sufficient (John 20:30-31) . The Greeks sought wisdom; before they could accept anything it had to be rationally self-authenticating. As we have already seen, they viewed the concept of a Jew dying on the cross for sins of the world as absurd. The message of the cross, then, was a stumbling block for the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks (1:22-23) .
c. However, for those who have been called through the gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:14) , whether Jew or Greek, the gospel message is considered the power of God for salvation (1:24; Romans 1:16) .
B. Their calling is evidence that the gospel is not a system of philosophy (1:26-31) .
1. Paul calls upon the brethren to look among themselves and take note of their social makeup (1:26) . Note the emphasis on “called.” It was God who called them out of the world. The key phrase here is “according to the flesh.” This simply means that there were not many who were considered wise, etc. according to human standards .
a. Wise. There were some among them who were considered wise according to human standards but the majority were, in the world’s eyes, considered ignorant.
b. Mighty. There were some who had professions in which they held positions of power but the majority were simply common workers.
c. Noble. There were some high-born, aristocrats, among them but the majority were ordinary working class people of ignoble birth.
2. By human standards, the majority that made up the church were foolish, weak, base, despised, and of no value. But God has chosen what the world rejects to confound or shame those who consider themselves wise (1:27-28) . “What is in view is not the state of the person who is put to shame as much as it is the situation which brings the shame. By choosing the foolish things, God has brought shame on the wise” (Willis) .
3. The Corinthian brethren viewed the gospel as another philosophy (a new system of thought about God) and the evangelists as roving, competitive philosophers; this, inevitably, lead to parties forming around these men of whom they would boast (1:12) . But Paul reminds the brethren of their calling and so, in choosing to exalt what men of this world reject and despise, God has removed any occasion for boasting before Him (1:29) .
28 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
4. Paul now reminds the brethren how they came to be what they are: it was not through man’s wisdom they came to be what they are, but it was through God’s work through Jesus Christ that they came to be what they are (1:30) . (i) God is the one that called them, (ii) God is the one that chose what the world rejected and despised, (iii) God is the one who accomplished this through Jesus Christ.
a. And it is Jesus whom God has made our wisdom (1:30) . Paul then The gospel is not another philosophy elaborates on the manner in which Jesus is our wisdom: because it is so unlike any philosophy; by it we are made righteous, we are 1) Righteousness. This refers to our legal justification. It is sanctified, and we are redeemed. What through Christ’s work in bearing the punishment for our sins philosophy does that! that we are made righteous. A faithful Christian cannot be accused of sin because he has had his sins remitted.
2) Sanctification. Jesus is the source of our moral purity because our ethics come from Him. It is by the revealed word, given to us by Him, that we learn right from wrong.
"Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" (John 17:17 NASBR)
3) Redemption. This refers to buying back a person out of slavery. We were in slavery to sin but Jesus paid the price to set us free (Cp. Romans 6:4-7) .
b. God has made Jesus our wisdom and achieved for us in Him, by His grace, what man could never do through any philosophy. On what grounds, then, is there any occasion for man to boast? The only legitimate boasting is in the Lord (1:31) . The quote is from Jeremiah 9:23-24 and the word “Lord” is Jehovah. This word is applied to Jesus and, since it identifies Jesus with Jehovah, is an expression of His deity.
C. The manner in which the gospel was presented shows it is not a philosophy (2:1-5) .
1. Paul’s manner of preaching:
a. The philosophers of the day were known for their eloquence (superiority) of speech and, of course, the philosophical (wisdom) content of their discourses. But Paul did not present the gospel in this manner (2:1) . He had resolved to preach only “Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (2:1) . The meaning is, he preached that Jesus is the Christ, and as the Christ who was crucified. Paul did not try to hide the fact of Jesus’ shameful death (perhaps the Corinthians did); a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks. Paul’s gospel was not a new philosophy.
b. The philosophers would hold themselves in such a way as to show great confidence and haughtiness, and may have even appeared as arrogant. This is what was expected of a great orator. But Paul says he was with them in weakness, fear, and much trembling (2:3) . This was hardly what one would expect of a great orator who proclaimed a new philosophy.
c. The philosophers would present their message “with technical words, words of art, contrived by human wisdom to captivate the affections; and with bare probable arguments only, a show of reason to persuade the mind to an assent, when nothing solid and substantial is advanced, only a run of words artfully put together, without any strength of argument in them” (Gill) . But Paul’s preaching did not derive its power to convince from such rhetorical art (2:4a) - Such a method of presentation would draw attention away from the message to the messenger. Rather, Paul depended upon the “demonstration of the Spirit and power” (2:4b). This is a reference to the conformation of the gospel by the miracles that accompanied it (Mark 16:17-20; Hebrews 2:4) .
2. The reason why Paul presented and preached the gospel the way he did was to ensure that their faith rested on a sure foundation. The faith they had was confirmed, but any faith that rests on the wisdom of men is not so sure because (i) it is unconfirmed and (ii) someone is likely to come along with a new philosophy that is more appealing. One is liable to be blown to and fro by every wind of philosophy (Cp. Ephesians 4:14) .
29 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
D. The gospel is God’s wisdom (2:6-16) .
1. The gospel is not a humanly devised wisdom but that is not to say it is not wisdom at all. Paul now shows in what respects the gospel is the wisdom of God. The gospel is the wisdom of God as opposed to systems of thought that rest solely upon human reason . The gospel, therefore, is superior to every form of philosophy devised by man.
a. Paul has already shown man cannot come to know God through philosophy (1:21) .
b. He has also shown that although the gospel is considered foolishness by the world, it is, in fact, the wisdom of God (2:5) .
2. Paul now explains in what sense the gospel is God’s wisdom:
a. It is the wisdom of God because its origin is divine (2:6-9) :
1) The gospel was indeed “wisdom” but it is to be distinguished from the “wisdom of this age” and the “rulers of this age” that are “passing away” (2:6) . Paul said it was a wisdom that “we speak” (2:7) . The “we” here refers to those to whom God revealed His will through the Holy Spirit (2:10- 13) ; the apostles and prophets…
"For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit" (Ephesians 3:1-5 NASBR)
2) This wisdom is called “the hidden wisdom” (2:7a) because until God chose to reveal it, it was only known to Him. Man, through his own wisdom, had never been able to discover God’s wisdom (2:7b) . Had the rulers known the wisdom of God, they would never have “crucified the Lord of glory” (2:8) . “The fact that the rulers of this world crucified God’s only Son proved their ignorance of God’s divine plan through Him” (Willis) .
a) The reference here to the crucifixion (2:8) shows Paul had in mind God’s eternal plan through Christ Jesus when he spoke of “the wisdom of God” in 2:7.
b) The phrase “Lord of glory” is an attribute of God (1 Chronicles 16:28; Acts 7:2; Ephesians 1:17) that Paul here applies to Christ. As Willis says, “…one can see that the expression is an assertion of the deity of Jesus Christ. The expression is theologically important because it implies that Jesus is Lord of glory, that is, Jehovah. A more direct statement of the deity of Jesus cannot be imagined.”
3) Paul concludes by expressing his conclusion in the language of Scripture 8 (as those who are filled with the Spirit – See Ephesians 5:18 & Colossians 3:16 - are accustomed to do.). His conclusion is that man cannot perceive the wisdom of God by the senses; man cannot perceive of “the things” that God has prepared for those who love Him (2:9) . The “things” of which Paul is speaking are the spiritual blessings made available to us through His Son, Jesus. This is seen in the next verse where Paul begins, “But God has revealed them to us…” (2:10) .
b. It is the wisdom of God because it can only be revealed by God (2:10-13) :
1) While it is true that no man is able to discover the things that God has prepared for those who love Him (2:9) , it is also true that God had revealed these things to the apostles and prophets through His Spirit (2:10) . As we said above, the reference to the crucifixion shows that Paul had God’s eternal plan of redemption in Christ in mind when he spoke of “these things.”
8 Paul’s concluding thought seems to be a composite from Isaiah 64:4 and 65:17.
30 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2) The things that had been revealed were done so in two ways: objectively, when God sent His Son to die for us; subjectively, when God revealed the significance of the events through the apostles and prophets by the Spirit (2:10) .
3) The illustration Paul gives confirms man’s need for the Spirit in understanding God’s wisdom 9. The point of the illustration is that just as a man cannot know the things of another man except the man communicate it in some way, so no one can know the mind of God unless He communicates it in some way (2:11) . What the apostles and prophets had received was not “the spirit of the world.” Coffman says, “What Paul had in view here was the secular, materialistic thinking of unregenerated people. The Germans had a word for it, the Zeitgeist, which means ‘the spirit of the times,’ or ‘the intellectual and moral tendencies of an age or epoch.’" Rather, they had received “the Spirit who is from God” (2:12) .
a) The apostles and prophets had received the Spirit of God in order that “we may know the things freely given to us by God” (2:12b) .
b) It is these things that the apostles and prophets spoke, not in words taught by human wisdom or “Not such as human philosophy or eloquence would dictate. They do not have their origin in the devices of human wisdom, and they are not expressed in such words of dazzling and attractive rhetoric as would be employed by those who pride themselves on the wisdom of this world” (Barnes) . They spoke in words taught by the Spirit, “combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.” Willis says, “The spiritual things which have been freely given to us by God are put together (united, explained, interpreted) with the spiritual words taught to the apostles by the Holy Spirit” and “The idea is that the Holy Spirit revealed both the content of the revelation and the words through which the revelation was imparted.”
c. The natural man cannot understand God’s wisdom (2:14-16) :
1) The “natural man” (2:14) in the context of Paul’s argumentation refers to the man who is not guided by the revelation from God but who lives on the basis of human reason alone. To this man, the things of the Spirit are foolishness, he cannot understand them, and he cannot know them (Cp. 1:18, 23) .
2) The natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit (2:14) “because God has decreed that human wisdom does not have the ability to know God (1:21)” (Willis) . Such a person might hear about the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, he may even witness these things, but he will not be able to perceive their significance without a divine revelation from God. Matthew 27:33-50 shows this to be true.
3) The reason the things of the Spirit cannot be understood by the natural man is because such things can only be discerned (examined) spiritually (2:14b) , i.e., “in a manner consistent with the Holy Spirit. In other words, only the man who accepts revelation can properly evaluate and examine spiritual things” (Willis) .
4) But the spiritual person, who is guided by the revelation of God, is able to discern all things (2:15a). This refers to the “things” revealed by the Spirit, the spiritual person is able to discern and understand the significance of all that God has done and is doing because he is guided by the light of the Spirit’s revelation.
5) The spiritual person is able to discern all things but he himself is judged by no man (2:15b) . Paul is saying that the natural man cannot judge the spiritual man. They do indeed pass judgments but such judgments are worthless.
9 If Paul’s illustration is pressed beyond its intended purpose then we might be led to false conclusions. Illustrations, like parables, are given to make a point, once the point is understood then we should not attempt to press it any further.
31 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
a) “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct Him?” The quotation in verse, 16a, is from Isaiah 40:13. Paul is not quoting this verse to show that a prophecy has been fulfilled but simply to express his thoughts; he is explaining why the natural man is not qualified to judge the spiritual man. The natural man does not accept the Spirit’s revelation of the mind of God and it is, therefore, foolishness to pass judgment on the spiritual man who does accept divine revelation. They may as well try to instruct the Lord or pass judgment on Him.
b) Paul concludes with, “But we have the mind of Christ” (2:16b) . The apostles and prophets had received the thoughts of Christ by the Spirit of God.
Summary (i) The gospel is not some new system of thought about God (philosophy) but the power of God to salvation. The world has sought to know the mind and will of God through its own wisdom but had failed. Did those who purport to be wise recognise the Lord when He came into the world? Did they realize the significance of His death on the cross? No. But God has now revealed that it is through Jesus’ death on the cross that man can be saved. God has destroyed the wisdom of the wise. (ii) The social makeup of the church proves the gospel is not another philosophy because if it were, then it would hardly have attracted the kind of people that the world despised and rejected. (iii) The manner in which the gospel was presented proved that the gospel is not a philosophy because the evangelist’s style of presentation was nothing like the roving philosophers. (iv) The gospel is certainly not a human wisdom but, nevertheless, it is the wisdom of God because of its divine origin and power to do what no human wisdom can do - save man from his sins. It is a wisdom that cannot be known except God reveal it, it is a wisdom that cannot be understood by the carnal man but only by the spiritual man.
III. The Proper Evaluation Of The Office And Work Of A Preacher (3:1-4:15) The Corinthians had a misconception of evangelists and their work that Paul now seeks to correct.
A. The divisions that existed in the church were the result of immaturity and a carnal mind (3:1-4) :
1. Paul had previously explained that the gospel contained a wisdom for the mature (2:6-16) but he had not expounded on this wisdom to them on his first visit because, being babes in Christ and carnal (unspiritual), they were not able to bear it (3:1-2a) .
a. The phrase “men of the flesh” or “carnal men” is not from the same Greek word that is translated “natural man” in 2:14, but is from a word that means unspiritual . When Paul says he could not, on his first visit, speak to them as spiritual men but as to carnal (3:1a) , he is not saying they were natural men, i.e., those who rejected God’s revelation, but he is saying they were not altogether spiritual. The spiritual person not only accepts God’s revelation but also patterns his life after it; this was their failing. They were certainly more advanced than the natural man but had not yet matured in Christ.
b. The Corinthian brethren were still babes in Christ (3:1b) . Their failure to mature was probably due to their lack of desire for the milk of the word (1 Peter 2:1-2) . Thus, he had fed them with food commensurate with their level of maturity (3:2) .
"For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil" (Hebrews 5:12-14 NASBR)
2. Paul may have expected some growth since his last visit but the report given to him by those of Chloe’s household brought disappointing news (1:11) ; they had not grown; they were still carnal and the evidence of this was apparent (3:2-4) :
a. It is important to realize that the Greek word translated “fleshly” (NASB) or “carnal” (KJV) in verse 3 is not the same as the Greek word translated “fleshly” or “carnal” in verse 1. The Greek word sarkinos in verse 1 denotes one who is unspiritual and the Greek word sarkikos here in verse 3 denotes one who is controlled by fleshly desires .
32 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
b. The evidence that Paul sites to prove they are still carnal or controlled by fleshly desires is the fact that there is jealousy ( zelos ), strife ( eris ), and divisions ( dichostasia ) among them (3:3b) .
1) The jealously referred to here is probably connected with brethren jostling for preeminence. As Willis says, “The desire to be ‘top dog’ in the church was ambition which got out of hand.” This situation arose because the different parties that had formed viewed themselves, and the preachers, to be in competition with one another.
2) Strife is when one is contentious and argumentative; it is the result of jealousy. Such was the jealousy and strife that came from a misconception of the gospel as a new philosophy and a paralleling of preachers with the roving philosophers. We see here a progression from 3) The divisions 10 mentioned here refer to the parties mentioned in jealousy to strife that finally ended 1:12. This would indicate that the situation in the Corinthian in divisions among the brethren. church was more serious than we thought. The church not only had tears in it but had been torn ( dichostasia ) into separate pieces .
c. The corroborating evidence. The fact that one was saying, “I am of Paul” and “I am of Apollos” is the proof of his charge (3:4) .
B. Immaturity and misconceptions about the nature of the gospel and those who proclaimed it was a recipe for disaster. Their misconceptions might never had arisen if they had Paul lists jealousy and strife as companion not harbored evil desires for preeminence and distinction, and works of the flesh (Galatians 5:20) and as divisions would never have occurred had they not followed the works of darkness, things that gratify the promptings of the flesh. Having dealt with the root cause, Paul desires of the flesh (Romans 13:12-14). Treating the church community as an arena in now reveals the proper place of preachers (3:5-23). Note: rather than which to manoeuvre and advance their using the names of the factious party leaders in Corinth, Paul has chosen to use personal status reveals that they are controlled himself and Apollos as examples (see 4:6). This does not mean, however, that by human motives and the purely human order there was not a Paul or Cephas party (this is explained later). of things…They act no differently from the 1. Paul asks the brethren what position he and Apollos occupy rest of Corinthian society (David E. Garland). that they should call themselves by their names (3:5a) . The truth is that both Paul and Apollos were simply servants of Christ through whom they heard and believed the gospel (3:5b) . If, then, they are merely servants…
a. Paul and Apollos (or any man) were certainly unworthy to be exalted as heads of parties in the church. There is only one who should be exalted – Jesus Christ.
b. It is inappropriate to exalt a servant above his station (Romans 12:3) .
“Paul is not trying to discredit evangelists. Rather, he is trying to correct the Corinthians’ misunderstanding of them. Because of the influence of the itinerant Grecian philosophers who sought to build a coterie of followers around themselves, the newly converted Corinthians tended to conceive of their evangelists in the same manner. Thus they sought to exalt them as leaders of a party. Paul said that this was not appropriate; Christians have only one Lord. All Christians, including the evangelists, are servants of Christ” (Willis) .
2. Paul now demonstrates that, rather than exalting and glorying in God’s servants, it is God alone who is entitled to exaltation and glory (3:5-7) :
a. God gives to every man certain abilities (3:5c) : Paul had been given the ability to plant churches and Apollos the ability to water (3:6a) . This, of course, the Corinthian brethren had seen for themselves; Paul had founded the church at Corinth and Apollos arrived after Paul’s departure and continued teaching. The goal of both men is the same – to produce faith.
10 There is some uncertainty as to whether the word “divisions” is textually authentic. Several translations retain it while others omit it. So, for example, it is retained by the KJV and the NKV and omitted by the ESV and the NASV.
33 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
b. Paul had planted, Apollos had watered, but it is God who continues to give the increase; God’s work goes on and only God can cause the growth (3:6b) .
c. Paul is saying that regardless of who does the planting and watering, they are nothing compared to Him who causes the growth and continues to give the increase (3:7a). It should be obvious, then, that exalting an evangelist as a head of a party is inappropriate because all the glory belongs to God (3:7b) .
3. These verses (3:8-17) are really directed at the preachers in the Corinthian church and serve to warn them against continuing in their destructive desires and behaviour. There was jealousy, strife, and divisions…they were destroying the church of God.
a. The one who plants and the one who waters are one, i.e., they are both working together to achieve the same goal. Both men are co-operating and working together to the same end , they are not divided and competing against one another. This being so, it is absurd and nonsensical to form warring parties around these men (3:8a) . It is important to note that each one will receive a reward, not according to the abilities he has, but according to his labor (3:8b) . Paul planted and Apollos watered but God would reward them according to their labor .
b. While it is true that some plant and some water, it should be remembered that…
1) We are God’s co-workers (3:9a) . The “we” here refers to Paul and Apollos, they are co-workers that belong to God. The emphasis and significance here is on the fact that evangelists are God’s co- workers; evangelists belong to God . What right, then, do the Corinthian brethren have to act as if the evangelists were theirs to be summed up and judged, exalted or abased, rewarded with praise or chastised with criticism? The evangelists belong to God and He is the one who judges them.
2) Paul planted and Apollos watered but the field belongs to God, not the evangelists (3:9b) . Willis says, “ The word husbandary (KJV) refers to a cultivated field; the Corinthians were not only a field owned by God (if this alone had been intended, agros would have been used) but also a field in which God had expended labor and expense. They were God’s cultivated field .” The church did not belong to the evangelists it was not their work; they were co-workers who belonged to God. The church at Corinth was the work of God.
3) The church is also called God’s building (3:9c) . The emphasis is again on the church belonging to God. They belonged to God because He is the architect and the builder (Hebrews 3:4) and, furthermore, the work of construction is actually still an ongoing project (Ephesians 2:22; 1 Peter 2:5) . Since God is the builder, how is it that the brethren are pledging their allegiance to evangelists and forming parties? The Lord is the only one to whom we pledge our allegiance .
c. Paul issues a warning to those who would build on the foundation (3:10-15) : Paul had laid the
1) A good foundation is essential upon which to build and Paul had laid such foundation in Corinth but the preachers there a foundation in Corinth (3:10a) . It is then the responsibility of those who were destroying the 11 continue to build to be careful how they build upon it (3:10b) . The building. Paul, then, foundation on which the church is built is Jesus Christ (3:11; cp. Matthew issues a strong warning. 16:13-18; 1 Corinthians 2:2). The implication here is that Paul is not responsible for the problems at Corinth (because he laid a good foundation) but those who were building upon it were responsible.
2) In general, evangelists must take great care in how they build upon the foundation because the day is coming when every man’s works will be revealed (3:12-15) . This passage gives rise to many questions regarding the materials used to build…what do they represent? Some, like Barnes, suggest they represent doctrines but this would mean that a preacher who teaches false doctrine will be saved! (3:15). Rather, I believe the materials are those people converted by the preacher . A preacher must share some degree of responsibility for the quality of his converts because he teaches them through both his preaching and behavior.
11 “to build upon” refers to preaching and teaching – see 2 Corinthians 10:8; 12:19; 13:10; cp. Ephesians 2:19-22.
34 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
“Ministers must be very careful how they build on the foundation. Those who exercise great caution and care as they build will see the fruit of their labor endure throughout eternity and will be rewarded, but those who have not been so cautious and careful as they build will realize they have laboured in vain as they see their work come to nothing and will forfeit any reward. What is in view here is not a judgment to determine their salvation but their reward on the basis of their quality of work ” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
3) The previous passage warns evangelists that the quality of each man’s work will be tested by fire and, although shoddy work will result in his work being burned up, he himself shall be saved (3:12- 15) . Here, though, the warning is more serious: Paul reminds evangelists that the church is the temple of God in which the Spirit of God dwells and anyone who destroys that temple will himself be destroyed (3:16-17) . There were those in the Corinthian church who were destroying the church through their jealousy, strife, and rivalry, which had resulted in divisions.
4. In the final passage of this chapter Paul resounds the dominant theme of chapters 1 and 2: the attainment of the wisdom of God through the rejection of the wisdom of this age (3:18-23) .
a. The trouble-makers in the church at Corinth were self deceived (3:18a) ; they imagined they were wise because of the attachment to those they hailed as the head of a particular party (1:12) , and they believed they had attained to knowledge (8:2) , and that they were spiritual (14:37) . This self deception had arisen from an erroneous view of the nature of the gospel and the evangelists. As long as this self-deception continued, the church would continue to deteriorate.
b. These brethren purported to be wise but were fools. To become truly wise they must become fools (3:18b) , i.e., a fool according to this world’s standards. How does one become a fool according to this world’s standards? By renouncing the wisdom of this world as folly and accepting the gospel as the true wisdom and power of God.
c. The wisdom of this world is foolishness in the sight of God (3:19) . The quotation from Job 5:13 and Psalm 94:11 serve to reinforce the point that God considers the wisdom of this world as foolishness.
d. The word “therefore” brings us to the conclusion of what Paul has been expounding upon in this chapter: preachers are the servants of God and human reason is inferior to divine revelation and, this being the case, no man should glory or boast in one’s relation to man, saying, “I am of Paul…” . Rather than them being of Paul or Apollos, they (apostles and evangelists), in fact, belong to them! In fact, says Paul, “all things belong to you…” (3:21) .
1) Paul, Apollos, Cephas. The preacher’s office was created to fulfil the needs of the church.
2) The world. The world exists and subsists for the usefulness of Christians.
3) Life and death. In life we live to glorify God, in death we receive a crown of glory.
4) Things present, things to come. “All things, whether this refers to world conditions or personal circumstances, are to be used by the Christian in the service of God. They exist for his use and, hence, belong to him. Time will not change this fact” (Willis) .
5) One thing that does not belong to them is Christ (note the absence earlier) because all things belong to Christ (3:23) . None of the above things would belong to them if they did not belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God. So that God is all in all.
C. Paul has been refuting an exaggerated estimate that the Corinthian brethren had of evangelists. Paul now explains the true role and purpose of evangelists (4:1-5) :
1. Evangelists are to be regarded as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God (4:1) :
a. All evangelists are servants of God (4:1a) . The word servant is not to be confused with the word slave .
35 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
1) The servant is a subordinate, bound to obey, but works as a free person, not as a slave. The following quote is helpful…
“The hyperetes (servant) differs from a doulos (slave), however, for the hyperetes (servant) is free and may claim a due reward for the service rendered. As distinct from diakonos (deacon) or the rapon , hyperetes carries the emphasis of learning what is to be done from the superior, and doing it with no prejudice to personal dignity or worth” (Rengstorf TDNT p. 1232).
2) If the evangelists confess that they are willing servants of Christ in the household of God, then the brethren should not look upon them as heads of parties.
b. A steward was a household slave or freedman who was given authority to run the affairs in his master’s household. In this case, they are “stewards of the mysteries of God” (4:1b) . Evangelists have been given the responsibility to dispense these mysteries to all the world (Cp. Mark 16:15-16) .
2. Stewards, of course, need to be found loyal and trustworthy, and especially so in the case of being stewards who have been entrusted with revealing the will of God to men (4:2) . It truly is an awesome responsibility (9:16-17) . The word found has the meaning ‘to find out by inquiry.’ It is God, however, who does the finding or proving, not the Corinthian brethren; as it seems they were doing. It is not hard to imagine the brethren exalting the leaders of their respective parties and criticizing the rival leaders of other parties. Paul’s response…
a. Paul’s estimation of human judgment. We should realize that Paul’s purpose is not to belittle the brethren or their judgment but to show the inferiority of all human judgments to divine judgments. Note: in the case of Paul, some exalted him as the head of a party but others depreciated him to the point of denying his apostleship; which shows the untrustworthiness of human judgments (ironically, both judgments were wrong).
1) The examination of Paul by the Corinthian brethren or any human court meant little (4:3) because man is not all knowing and all powerful to make an infallible judgment. This is proved by the fact that some exalted him as their party leader while others criticized his behavior and challenged his right to be called an apostle (9:3) .
2) Paul did not even trust his own judgment of himself; even though his own conscience does not condemn him in any way he says, “Yet I am not acquitted by this” (4:4) . Paul once persecuted the saints believing he was doing God’s will (Acts 26:9-11) ; his conscience was clear (Acts 23:1) but he stood condemned before God (Acts 22:1-16) .
b. All judgment belongs to the Son (4:4) and, therefore, they were to cease making judgments. What judgments are in view here? “The type of judgment condemned here is that which involves estimating the true worth of a preacher and one which involves judging one’s heart” (Willis) .
1) The judgment will take place when the Lord returns (4:5a) .
2) All our hidden deeds and all our secret motives will be exposed on that day, and only then will each person receive their due reward (4:5b) .
D. The Corinthian brethren were proud, conceited, arrogant, complacent, self-satisfied, etc., some because they considered themselves as great and wise teachers and others because they were followers of such men. These brethren really believed that they had “arrived;” they were filled, they were rich, they were kings (4:8) , they were wise, they were strong, and they were distinguished (4:10) . It seems they were claiming to be experiencing a higher, more elitist spirituality than Paul. Paul will now show them that (i) they have no cause to boast, (ii) they had not arrived, and (iii) the road to glory is through humility and service (4:6-13) .
1. Paul begins by explaining that the things he had applied to himself and Apollos were actually directed at them! (4:6a) . Paul had no desire to name names and humiliate them but he did desire that they would learn the lesson that they should not “exceed what is written” (4:6b) ; as it was this that led to them becoming arrogant in behalf of one another (4:6c) .
36 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
a. “These things” probably refers to all that he has written thus far. However, we should not suppose that there was no Paul party or no Apollos party. As Willis says, “…the illustrations used in ch. 3 (‘I planted’; ‘I laid the foundation’) were applicable in Corinth to no one else except Paul.”
b. “…in us you may learn not to exceed what is written.” This means that the Corinthian brethren should learn from the apostles about attitude, speech, and behavior.
1) The apostles did not display a haughty attitude concerning their knowledge and gifts, they did not exalt themselves above their peers, and they did not behave in such a way as to cause divisions within the church. The apostles had learnt not to exceed what is written.
2) Where is all this written? The Scriptures Paul quoted earlier are examples – Isaiah 29:14; Jeremiah 9:23; Job 5:13; Psalms 94:11. These Scriptures show that one should only boast in the Lord. The apostles did not go beyond what was written and the Corinthian brethren should also learn to stay within the limits of revelation.
2. The roots of their conflict lie in the human desire to be distinguished and to rise higher on the social ladder. Paul asks the brethren questions designed to puncture their inflated view of themselves (4:7) :
a. Who makes you to differ from another and what do have that you did not receive (4:7a)? Whatever might distinguish one person from another and whatever natural endowments, spiritual gifts, etc one might have…all have come from God and not from one’s own achievements. This being so, no one has any cause to be puffed up against another because it was God who willed these distinctions and gave these gifts (cp. Romans 12:3ff) .
b. If they will now acknowledge that God has willed these distinctions and given them all that they have, then why do they glory or boast as if this were not so? The following quote is interesting…
“Human beings have a strange ability to double-think, to think two things at the same time. A person knows within himself that he has faults but conducts himself as though he had none, and here is another example: the Corinthians know that all they have is from God but behave as though they had gotten all things through their own efforts. It is self-deception” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
3. The Corinthian brethren imagined that they had “arrived” ; they were full, rich, and reigned as kings (4:8) . This reminds us of the church in Laodicea who supposed they were rich and in need of nothing (Revelation 3:14-22) . Paul shows them that, far from having arrived at their destination, they had, in fact, being travelling in the opposite direction!
“We are not to understand Paul to be merely complaining in these verses. Rather, his purpose is didactic 12 . He wants to show the Corinthians how ridiculous their boasting in men actually is. Those in Corinth who considered themselves to be somewhat and the apostles nothing were ludicrous. Through sarcasm and irony, Paul labored to correct this sad situation” (Willis) .
a. The Corinthian brethren saw themselves in an exalted position in society but the apostles were in the last or lowest position in society, like men condemned to death (4:9) . From several references in the text, Willis concludes, “Paul is using a figure of speech in this verse to describe the apostles’ lowly position. The Greeks usually concluded the day’s activities by bringing in condemned men to fight the gladiators or wild beasts. The men were unarmed and, therefore, had no chance of survival. In Paul’s mind, that was the condition of the apostles. God had put them in a position of doom. He made a public display of them by exhibiting them to the world as men appointed for death.”
b. The Corinthian brethren considered themselves wise , strong (“Your ministers are men of great parts, strong voice, masculine language, and powerful oratory; and you abound in outward prosperity, and are free from persecution for the cross of Christ” – Gill), and distinguished in Christ, but the apostles had become fools (the preaching of the cross was foolishness to the wise Greeks), weak (in his bodily presence and speech), and despised (because of their low position in society).
12 Instructive.
37 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
c. The Corinthians supposed they were rich, filled, and reigning but the apostles were hungry, thirsty, naked, buffeted 13 , and without any permanent dwelling. They worked to support themselves, being cursed they blessed, they did not give up in the face of persecution, and being slandered they were friendly. They were the lowest of the lowest (4:10-13) . The things in which the Corinthian brethren were so proudly glorying were not the things that mark a life fully given in service to God.
E. Paul’s purpose in writing these things was not to humiliate and shame them, though they might feel that way, but to correct them as a father would his children (4:14) .
1. Paul now elicits some respect and submission by drawing a contrast between the many instructors they had with their one father , Paul (4:14-15) .
a. When we think of an instructor or a tutor we normally think of a school-teacher or, more generally, one who teaches. But this is not the meaning of the Greek word paidagogos from which it is translated:
“The paidagogos was usually a slave who had the responsibility of superintending the youth in his charge. He conducted the boy to and from school, though generally was not the teacher; too, he superintended the conduct of the child” (Willis) .
b. The youth may have respected the tutor but he would always occupy a position of respect subordinate to that of the father. The point Paul makes is this: if you have respect for those who have charge over you, then, surely, as your father I deserve all the more respect? Paul was their spiritual father because he had begotten the church at Corinth through the preaching of the gospel (4:15) .
2. Paul now exhorts them, as their spiritual father, to imitate him (4:16; cp. 11:1) .
a. Paul was living a life that was consistent with the revelation of God and the Corinthians could, therefore, learn the revelation of God through his words and ways.
b. Paul had sent Timothy to remind them of his ways, which are in Christ, and which he taught in every church (4:17) .
F. The Corinthian brethren were behaving like children whose parents had left them in the house on their own for a while; they were misbehaving and things had got out of control; there was chaos and disorder. The children were behaving as if the parents were never coming back but Paul assures them that he would come to them, if the Lord willed it. Now that they knew he was coming, they had a choice: either get the house in order or they could expect him to discipline them himself (4:18-21) .
Summary (i) The brethren at Corinth had not matured as Paul had hoped, and the evidence of this was their attitude, behavior, and the resulting divisions within the church. (ii) Divisions arose through a misconception of the nature of the gospel and the place of preachers. Evangelists, like Paul and Apollos, were not roving philosophers but servants of Christ and, therefore, it was inappropriate to exalt them as party heads. Certainly, Paul and Apollos had been blessed with talents and abilities in connection with sowing the seed but it is God who gives the increase, He causes the growth. God, therefore, deserves all the glory. The evangelists and the church belong to God and, therefore, is the only one worthy of their allegiance. Paul warns teachers at Corinth to take heed how they build on the foundation he laid because the careless builder will lose his reward. The church at that time was being destroyed and so Paul issues a strong warning that those responsible would themselves be destroyed. (iii) Evangelists should be regarded as servants of God and stewards of the mysteries of God. While it is true that stewards must be found faithful, it is also true that man is not qualified to judge the worth of a preacher. God alone is qualified to make such judgments and will do so on the Day of Judgment. (iv) The brethren imagined that they had “arrived” and that they were experiencing a higher, more elitist spirituality than Paul. But Paul deflates their pride by reminding them that everything they had was from God and that the Christian life is one of suffering and humiliation and self-sacrifice. (v) Paul calls on the brethren to imitate him as one whose life was consistent with the revelation of God.
13 “…not only by Satan, as the apostle was, but by men; scourged, whipped, and beaten by them; scourged in the synagogues by the Jews with forty stripes save one; and beaten with rods by the Romans, and other Gentiles” (Gill).
38 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Summary & Application
1. Condemnation of party strife:
a. Summary. (i) The Corinthians were laboring under the misconception that the gospel was just another kind of philosophy or system of thought about God and that its preachers were akin to the roving philosophers of the day. (ii) This misconception led to the exaltation of leaders in the church and the parties that formed around them. This led to jealousy, envy, contentions, and, inevitably, divisions. (iii) The apostle Paul appeals to them in the name of Jesus Christ to be of the same mind and judgment. Paul argues that just as the physical body of Christ cannot be divided, so the spiritual body of Christ cannot be divided. Their allegiance must be to Christ alone because it was He who was crucified for them and it was into Him that they were all baptised. (iv) Paul was not sent to proclaim a human philosophy but to preach the wisdom of God – Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
b. Application. (i) Christians must not allow their faith to be influenced by the views and conceptions that are prevalent in an ungodly society. (ii) Christians must strive to maintain the unity of the Spirit that is revealed in the word of God. (iii) We can prevent ourselves being led astray by remembering that our allegiance is to Christ alone who purchased us with His blood on the cross.
2. The gospel: the wisdom of God:
a. Summary. (i) Paul was not some roving philosopher resounding a new human wisdom but a preacher of the gospel; the wisdom and power of God. Paul’s stress on the cross of Christ may indicate that the Corinthians shunned this aspect of the gospel because it was so repugnant to the wise and utter foolishness to the educated. But for Paul “Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” was the heart of the gospel of which he was not ashamed, even though it elicited derision and contempt. (ii) The message of the cross may have seemed like foolishness to the world but, in reality, it is the power of God to salvation for those who believe. Man cannot ever come to know God or discover a way of salvation through human wisdom. These things can only be known and realized through belief in the gospel. Thus, what man considers foolishness is the power of God to salvation, and so the wisdom of the wise is brought to nothing. (iii) A look at the social makeup of the church is proof that the gospel is not just a new wisdom. Those great orators who resounded their wisdom tended to attract the wise, the mighty, and the noble but the majority of the church was composed of ordinary people whom the wise despised and rejected. (iv) Paul was no philosopher, and this was evident by the manner in which he presented the gospel. Paul did not have the posture or the rhetorical skills of a great philosophical orator, but simply presented the gospel in a style that drew attention to the heart of the gospel that had the power to change lives. (v) Certainly, the gospel was not some new humanly devised wisdom but it was, nevertheless, the wisdom of God . Man could not discover this wisdom; it is a wisdom that God revealed. It is a wisdom that can only be understood by the spiritual man.
b. Application. (i) There may be aspects of the gospel that the wise, mighty, and noble of society might find distasteful but we should never neglect to preach the whole council of God on that account. We may find ourselves despised and rejected but better that than to be rejected by God! (ii) The world is full of philosophers and scientists who believe they have the answers to life, and some even the way of salvation. We must be careful about keeping company with and listening to such people because their constant spiel will eventually corrupt our thinking. We must, at all times, keep focused on the word of God and keep company with believers. (iii) The social and cultural diversity of the church reminds us that God has chosen what the world despises to be saved, and this should influence the kind of places we evangelize. (iv) The power to save is the gospel and, therefore, we should not rely on rhetorical skills or the wisdom of this world that would divert the hearer’s attention from the message to the messenger. Let us simply present the gospel and let the power in the word do its own work. (v) Christians have been truly blessed because we have the mind of Christ. While the world cannot understand the things of God, the Holy Spirit has revealed them to us. Let us continually offer praise and thanksgiving to God on this account.
39 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3. The proper evaluation of the office and work of a preacher:
a. Summary. (i) The divisions that existed in the church were the result of the brethren’s immaturity. They were not walking according to the Spirit but still walking according to the flesh. The evidence of this was clear to all: jealousy, envy, strife, and divisions. Immaturity and misconceptions about the nature of the gospel and those who proclaimed it was a recipe for disaster. (ii) Evangelists are servants of Christ and it is, therefore, inappropriate to glory and boast in them. It is God who gave each one their talents and abilities in connection with their preaching and it is God who causes the growth, and is, therefore, the one whose name should be exalted. (iii) Evangelists may differ in their work (some plant, some water) but they work with a common goal in mind, and each will receive a reward for his labor. But each must take great care how he builds on the foundation because the day is coming when each man’s work will be examined. A careless builder will lose his reward but one who destroys the church of God will himself be destroyed. The wisdom of this world is foolishness to God and so it makes no sense to boast and glory in men who purport to be wise. Rather than belonging to a particular evangelist…all evangelists belong to the brethren. In fact, all things are for the benefit of Christians. But all things belong to Christ and Christ belongs to God. (iv) Evangelists are servants of God and stewards of the mysteries of God. Stewards must be found faithful but man is not qualified to make such judgments. All judgment must be left to God. (v) The brethren imagined that they had “arrived” and that they were experiencing a higher, more elitist spirituality than Paul. But Paul deflates their pride by reminding them that everything they had was from God and that the Christian life is one of suffering and humiliation and self-sacrifice. (vi) Paul calls on the brethren to imitate him as one whose life was consistent with the revelation of God.
b. Application. (i) Just as we expect babies to grow and develop, we should expect babes in Christ to grow and develop. A failure on the part of Christians to grow will have disastrous consequences for the individual and the church. There are several areas of growth that are essential, e.g., growth in knowledge that comes through a habitual study and meditation of God’s word; growth in character that comes through the patient endurance of trials and temptations. (ii) Preachers are servants of God and we must be on our guard against thinking of them above what is written. Let us be sure that the attraction in attending services is to hear the word of God, not to hear the preacher, and let us be sure that our focus is on the message, not the messenger. (iii) God has given each man certain talents and abilities and, therefore, we should not expect all preachers to be engaged in exactly the same work. Some, like Paul, are foundation layers, some, Like Apollos, build on the foundation. Some preachers have a talent for pulpit preaching and others for personal work. The warning to be careful about how one builds is just as relevant today. (iv) We must also be on our guard against weighing up one preacher against another and judging the motives and intentions of the heart. We are not powerful or knowledgeable enough to make such judgments. We must leave such judgments to God. (v) We, whether as individuals or a church, must be on our guard against thinking that we have arrived, that we are rich and in need of nothing. The Christian life is one of continual growth, it is a life of self-sacrifice, and it is a life of suffering and patient endurance for our Savior, Jesus Christ. (vi) “Paul’s life was consistent with the revelation of God and, therefore, we can learn the revelation of God through both his words and his ways…We see, then, that Paul’s charge, ‘be imitators of me,’ requires us to use approved examples of the apostles as a means of determining what our conduct should be or what the will of the Lord is” (Willis) .
40 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
MORALITY IN THE CHURCH
This section covers 5:1-6:20
41 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
42 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Morality in the Church (5:1-6:20)
"1It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father's wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. 3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES" (1 Corinthians 5:1-13 NASBR)
"1Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? 4 So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, 6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? 7Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren. 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. 14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! 16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body" (1 Corinthians 6:1-20 NASBR)
Introduction
1. Morality was another problem in the church with which Paul now deals in this part of the letter. The three 14 instances of the Corinthian’s conduct with which Paul deals are: incest (5:1-13) , litigations (6:1-11) , and fornication (6:12-20) .
2. This section is not unrelated to the previous section. In the former section Paul had been addressing the factions that arose due to their misconceptions concerning the nature of the gospel and their view of evangelists (Dealt with in chapters 1-4). The Corinthians also had a misconception of themselves as spiritual, wise, strong, distinguished; they were full, rich, and were reigning as kings (4:8-9) . The following incidents show that, far from having reasons to be proud, they had every reason to be ashamed.
14 A legal proceeding in a court; a judicial contest to determine and enforce legal rights (Word Web)
43 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3. In urging the Corinthians to correct these things, Paul strongly asserts his apostolic authority. The theme of authority links these two chapters to chapters 1-4.
I. A Case Of Incest (5:1-13) Paul is shocked to hear about a case of incest and gives direction for the removal of the offender.
A. Paul is shocked to hear a report that there is fornication being committed by someone in the church (5:1a) :
1. The city of Corinth was, as we noted in the introduction, known for its corruptness and immorality but this was a case of fornication at which both Jews and Gentiles would have been appalled – incest.
a. This is evident from the designation, “father’s wife” (5:1b) . “One’s ‘father’s wife’ is a designation in the Old Testament and rabbinic literature for a stepmother” (Nigel Watson) .
b. The Law forbade relations of this nature (as did Graeco-Roman law):
"'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness" (Leviticus 18:8 NASBR)
"'If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them" (Leviticus 20:11 NASBR)
2. But what dismays Paul further is the attitude of the congregation:
a. This gross sin should have produced mourning on their part which, in turn, should have led them to remove this man from among them (5:2) .
b. But instead “they had become arrogant” (5:2a) . The idea is not that they had become proud of the man committing this sin but that they were proud in spite of it . They supposed they were spiritual, wise, strong, distinguished; full, rich, and reigning as kings (4:8-9) ; they were so full of themselves that they were complacent in regards to this sin; they turned a blind eye , as we would say.
3. How could they be so complacent? How could they turn a blind eye to such an offensive sin? Several answers have been suggested, none of which can be proved conclusively:
a. Nigel Watson suggests they were “seeing it as a sign of their new freedom as spiritual persons to set aside the conventions and taboos of society.” He basis this on the supposition that “All things are lawful for me” (6:12) was a slogan of the Corinthians that reflected a misunderstanding of their freedom in Christ.
b. Another commentator suggests, “The reason for their complacency in this matter may have been due to the fact that the offender was of some standing among them; perhaps of noble birth. He may have made generous contributions into the treasury of the church and even hosted the church meetings in his house; if this was the case, it is not difficult to understand how a congregation might be reluctant to confront such a distinguished person” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
B. The case was clear, a brother was committing fornication and action must be taken immediately. As far as Paul was concerned the man was judged to be guilty and must be removed from among them (5:3-5) .
1. There is no contradiction here between Paul’s statement earlier that we must “judge nothing before the time” (4:5) and his statement here of having judged the fornicator (5:3) . The judgment of Paul does not relate to the man’s thoughts and intentions (that man cannot know) but to his actions.
2. In verse 3 and 5, Paul speaks of being present with them “in spirit.” Willis sees this as nothing more than a natural expression used in the same sense as we do today. But Watson suggests, “It appears that he is thinking of his presence being communicated to them by the Spirit through the reading of this letter.”
44 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3. Paul now outlines the procedure for removing the fornicator from their assembly, and he makes it clear that he is giving these instructions “in the name of our Lord Jesus” (5:4a; cp. 2 Thessalonians 3:6) :
a. This is not a matter for any individual but a matter for the whole church to carry out when they were assembled (5:4) . There is no reason to assume that Paul refers to the Sunday meeting. The day and time are unimportant; the only important thing in view is that this is carried out “when you are assembled” . The reasons for this can be found in other Scriptures:
1) So that the whole church may fear (1 Timothy 5:20) . Such discipline acts as a deterrent (Deuteronomy 17:12-13; Acts 5:1-11) .
2) So that the sinner is publicly exposed. This will ensure the whole church acts consistently in inflicting the punishment (Romans 16:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:14) .
3) So that the whole church can seek his restoration (Matthew 18:17) .
b. The church is then, by the authority of Christ, to, “Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (5:4-5). Several questions arise: what does “deliver such a one to Satan” mean? What is meant by “for the destruction of the flesh” and how is this connected to the idea “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” ? Rather than entering into all the different interpretations, I will simply offer a brief comment and what I believe to be the proper interpretation: Compare 1 Corinthians 5:5 with 1) Delivering one over to Satan. This means to expel from the church 1 Timothy 1:20. Hymenaeus or kingdom and to hand them over to Satan, i.e., relegate to and Alexander were handed Satan’s kingdom. over to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme. I 2) The destruction of the flesh….There seems to be no end of believe that the same thought is interpretations concerning the meaning of this clause. Some say it in view in 1 Corinthians5:5. means that Satan is permitted to kill him, others that it refers to disease, some that it refers to fleshly appetites etc. But none of the explanations offers a satisfactory answer. The best explanation is the following…
“Many respected commentators have attempted to explain the meaning of these verses but none to the satisfaction of everyone or even the majority. The Corinthians understood what Paul meant but we, who are so far removed in time from the culture, customs, and language of that people, have no way of recovering the precise meaning. My own understanding, without entering into linguistic argumentation, is this: ‘you are to expel the wicked person from your community, thereby handing him into Satan’s kingdom, where he will eventually suffer the loss of his soul. But our sincere hope is that he will reflect upon his sin and become sorrowful on account of it; a sorrow that will lead to repentance, thereby saving his soul.’” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
C. Paul now considers the effect sin can have on the church, which he compares with leaven (5:6-8) .
1. The Corinthian brethren were boasting or glorying in their spiritual advantages (great wisdom, much knowledge, and all spiritual gifts) but this was not good (5:6) because it led to their complacency in regards to the disorders and immorality among them. It is the sin of complacency to which Paul refers as “a little leaven,” not the fornication.
a. What is leaven? “‘Leaven’ as spoken of in the Bible refers to yeast, a living plant that causes fermentation and corruption” (Garry D. Pifer 15 ).
b. When placed into a batch of dough, it slowly spreads and corrupts the whole lump of dough. If the Corinthian brethren continued in their toleration and complacency, then this would spread through the whole congregation.
15 www.home.earthlink.net/~gdpifer/___ye_shall_put_away_leaven_out_of_your_houses.html
45 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2. The situation was serious and, therefore, Paul urges them to…
a. “Clean out the old leaven” (5:7i). This is a reference to the instructions regarding the Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Passover began on the 10 th day of Nisan 16 . The lamb was killed on the 14 th day. Prior to the feast, every householder had to remove every trace of leaven from the house (Exodus 12:1-18) . How did this apply to the Corinthians?
1) Paul is instructing them to clean out the old leaven. The leaven, as we noted, referred to their sin of pride, arrogance, complacency, etc.
2) These are the sins that belonged to unregenerate man, the old man that ought to have been cast out. Note the following passage…
"Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience, and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices" (Colossians 3:5-9 NASBR)
b. “So that you may be a new lump” (5:7ii). A new lump of unleavened dough was prepared for use during the feast. By ridding themselves of their old sins the church could be untainted by sin.
c. “Just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover has been sacrificed” (5:7iii). The Corinthians were cleansed of their sin and were, therefore, a people unmarred by sin; they are a new lump. Paul is saying to them, ‘Be what you are’ and ‘live up to the calling to which you were called’ (Cp. Ephesians 4:1) .
d. “Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (5:8) . The Christian life is compared to the Feast of Unleavened Bread. It is a feast-life that is purged of sin and one of purity and righteousness.
D. It is at this point that Paul corrects a misunderstanding of something he had written in a former letter, viz, that one is not to associate with immoral people (5:9) . In correcting this misunderstanding we are, incidentally, given further instruction regarding our treatment of one who has been removed from fellowship.
1. Paul had written to the Corinthians and told them not to associate with immoral people (5:9) . They had, evidently, interpreted “people” to mean non-Christians. The word “associate” means “to mix together” (CWSD) . Paul argues that, if you take this to mean people of the world, then you would have to leave the world (5:10) . Whether he means one would have to leave the planet or withdraw from the world (e.g., go and live in a monastery) is unclear, but, certainly, any kind of leaving the world was not what he meant.
2. Paul explains that he meant they were not to mix together with a so called brother if he is immoral. In fact, one should not even eat with such a person (5:11) . Church discipline, then, is social exclusion. The judgment of those outside the church belongs to God but the church must judge and discipline those immoral members in the assembly (5:12-13) .
Summary (i) Paul was shocked to hear about a case of incest within the church and he was further dismayed at their failure to deal with the situation. (ii) The case was clear cut and Paul had already decided that such a person must be expelled from their assembly. This was to be done when the whole church was gathered together. It was hoped that this action would cause the offender to repent. (iii) Paul now deals with the church’s failure to deal with the situation when it first arose. Their complacency and indifference was sinful and such an attitude, left unchecked, would corrupt the whole church. Thus, he exhorts them to purge out these sins, which are remnants of the old man, and be what they are in Christ.
16 This closely corresponds to our April.
46 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
II. Litigations (6:1-11) Paul rebukes the church for not judging between brethren with civil disputes, and rebukes the individuals who were taking one another to court.
A. Paul had just been admonishing the church regarding their failure to judge the fornicator among them. He now addresses their failure to judge between brethren that have civil disputes (6:1-11) .
1. Willis suggests that “the problem of litigations was almost certainly a problem common to Gentile converts. The Jews deduced from Exodus 21:1 that taking a case before idolatrous judges was unlawful…The Jews consequently established their own courts to conduct legal matters. On the other hand, the Gentiles almost viewed the courts as a sport.”
2. This is not an isolated case but seems to have been a regular occurrence (6:8) .
B. Paul now discusses the reasons why their behavior is immoral (6:1-10) :
1. Disputes between brethren should not be taken to the courts because the lawyers and judges are not Christians (6:1) . They employ different standards of authority to that of Christians, so how can non- Christians arrive at decisions compatible with Christian standards of morality? The unjust cannot judge the just.
a. “Evidence indicates that the civil courts of this era were less than impartial and that substantial corruption did exist. They were not held in high esteem by the masses, who did not have equal access to them. Winter thinks that the term ‘’unjust’ specifically applies to the character of the honorary magistrates who presided and the juries who pronounced verdicts – they were open to bribery and biased toward the powerful…The wealthy were able to take unfair advantage of this judicial system by exercising their prestige and influence. One’s breeding, social standing, and reputation for character – one’s persona – also titled justice in favor of the elite. The poor always had the cards stacked against them…This background lends support to the conclusion that Paul is not simply exasperated that any Christian would take a case involving a brother to nonbelieving judges but that they would take it to those biased in favor of the rich and powerful” (David E. Garland) .
b. The kind of litigations Paul has in mind are not criminal but civil. This is indicated by the phrase, “matters of this life” (6:3) and the word “defraud” (6:7) . Paul taught elsewhere that God has given the government jurisdiction to execute punishment on wrongdoers in criminal cases (Romans 13:1-5) . This becomes clearer in verse 7.
2. Paul calls upon their knowledge of the future judgment to establish that they are fit to judge disputes between their brethren. The argument is from the greater to the lesser. (i) If Christians are going to judge the world (sit as judges in a supreme court), then surely you are fit to constitute a lesser court. (ii) If Christians are going to judge angels, then surely you are able to judge matters of this life. (iii) The conclusion, then, is that, if you have judgments of a civil nature to deal with, then why do you allow unrighteous judges to settle disputes between brethren? (6:2-4) . They should be ashamed (6:5a) . Many are intrigued by the statements that Christians are going to judge the world and judge angels (6:2-3) .
a. Problems with the concept of Christians judging men and angels:
1) That Christians are going to judge the world and angels is nowhere taught in the Scriptures.
2) Paul has already stated that men are not qualified to judge other men, let alone angels! (4:1-5) .
3) It is the Lord, not us, who will judge the world (4:5) .
4) I have never heard it taught from the pulpit that we are going to judge the world or angels and yet, from Paul’s words, “Do you not know,” it would seem as though this were a fundamental doctrine.
b. The question, “Do you not know,” is repeated six times in this chapter and is probably intended as a reproof to the church, who boasted of their knowledge, which probably arose from false teachers, but were ignorant of the doctrine of the apostles. The Corinthians, being puffed up with pride, claimed to have knowledge concerning the future judgment and, in their conceit, had an expectation that they would participate in the judgment of wicked men and angels. To paraphrase, Paul is saying, in a sarcastic way…
47 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
“You seem to have this knowledge that we will judge men and angels on the judgment day, so, if you are wise enough for such great things, how come you are not able to judge in trivial matters between the brethren?”
3. Having shamed the church for their failure to deal with civil disputes between brethren, Paul now exposes the unrighteous behavior of the individuals who were taking one another to court (6:7-11) .
a. The very fact that brother took brother to court was in itself a defeat for them. Paul then asks, “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” (6:7b) . There seems to be something in our nature that wants us to exclaim, “WHAT!” The idea of letting ourselves be wronged and defrauded seems like a ludicrous suggestion.
1) Enduring loss was better than taking a brother to court. This was an ethic by which Paul himself lived: "…when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now" (1 Corinthians 4:12-13). Note also the following Scriptures…
"Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men" (Romans 12:17 NASBR)
"See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people" (1 Thessalonians 5:15 NASBR)
2) Paul’s teaching was based on Jesus’ teaching…
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you" (Matthew 5:38-42 NASBR)
b. In taking their fellow brethren to court they were doing wrong and defrauding their brethren (6:8) . “There were some in the Corinthian congregation who made a habit of defrauding their brethren, using sinful devices, procuring advantage by the instrumentality of the pagan system of justice. Such persons would have been those who were skilled in such lawsuits, or those who through some circumstance might have enjoyed preferment in such courts. In any case, some of the Christians were being defrauded by other members of the church” (Coffman) .
c. Their behavior was unrighteous and they surely knew that the unrighteous would not inherit the 17 kingdom of God (6:9a) . Their unrighteous behavior was serious enough to keep them out of heaven.
1) “Do not be deceived” may indicate the influence of a false teacher within the congregation who was perverting the gospel of grace. Note the following passages: the first anticipates such a perversion and the second shows that some had perverted it.
"The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase?" (Romans 5:20-6:1 NASBR)
"For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:4 NASBR)
17 If a Christian cannot lose his salvation, as the Calvinists teach, then this would be a pointless warning, wouldn’t it? The fact is, Paul is warning these brethren that their behavior is serious enough to forfeit their inheritance.
48 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2) This catalogue of unrighteous deeds is a reminder that “all unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 5:17; cp. James 2:10). It also reminds the Corinthians of their former lifestyle as unregenerated (Cp. Ephesians 2:1-3) : “Such were some of you” (6:11) .
d. Some of the Corinthians had lived a lifestyle characterized by these sins but…
1) You were (a past action) washed (6:11a) . This is a Whitewash or Transformation? reference to baptism, but why didn’t Paul say The repeated “but” before each verb in the “baptised” instead of “washed” ? Simply because it Greek of 6:11 adds emphasis to their break with the past…The implication is that Christianity is corresponds to the washing away of the filth of not only offers a completely new sexual ethos past sins. The Corinthians themselves were baptised, and a new ethos regarding material possessions i.e., it was something to which they willingly but also brings about a complete transformation submitted. of individuals. God’s grace does not mean that God benignly accepts humans in all their 2) You were sanctified (6:11b) . This is something that fallenness, forgives them, and then leaves them God done when they were baptised…God set them in that fallenness. God is in the business not of whitewashing sins but of transforming sinners apart. (David E. Garland)
3) You were justified (6:11c) . This something that God had done when they were baptised…God declared them just. One can only be declared just if one’s sins are remitted, which shows that we are forgiven of our sins when we are baptised (Acts 2:38; 22:16) .
4) All this is only made possible “in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (6:11d) .
Summary (i) This is another case in which the church had failed to deal with internal problems. Brethren were taking their civil disputes before unrighteous judges that could and should be dealt with by the church. (ii) Paul then condemns the individuals involved and insists that it is far better to be wronged and defrauded than to take a brother to court before ungodly judges. (iii) Their behavior is unrighteous and Paul reminds them that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. (iv) This, and other unrighteous deeds, described some of the brethren before their conversion, but now they were cleansed of their sins, set apart for God’s use, and declared just through the blood of Jesus. They must be what they are in Christ Jesus.
III. Fornication (6:12-20) Paul corrects an erroneous view of the body the Corinthians have, by which they justify fornication.
A. Paul has already shown that fornication is a sin that cannot be tolerated, and that those who are guilty of this sin must be handed over to Satan (5:1-5) . In this section he explains why fornication is wrong. The reason that such an explanation is needed is due to their misunderstanding of freedom. Such a misunderstanding seems to have arisen from two serious errors on the part of the Corinthian brethren:
1. Accepting the principle of Gnostic thought that supposed that what was done by the body did not affect the spirit (See Willis) .
2. Taking Paul’s teaching out of context. It is difficult to determine whether the following are actually teachings of Paul or slogans of the Corinthians, but, whatever the case, they represent an erroneous theology. We will proceed in taking the view that they are the teachings of Paul that the Corinthians have misapplied.
a. “All things are lawful” (6:12) . Paul probably used this phrase in teaching that the distinctions between clean and unclean foods were now abolished. Paul had said, "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean" (Romans 14:14 NASBR) . Some of the Corinthians probably took this teaching out of its context regarding things that are indifferent and applied it to fornication.
b. “Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food” (6:13) . Some of the Corinthians probably argued that the natural processes must be satisfied. If a person is hungry, then he should not deny himself of food. Likewise, a person’s body has natural sexual desires and these should be satisfied just as naturally as a desire for food. Hence, fornication is morally neutral.
3. Paul has already stated that fornicators cannot inherit the kingdom of God (6:9) . His purpose in this section is not only to condemn fornication but to refute the arguments being used to justify it .
49 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
B. Paul’s arguments against fornication: All Things Are Lawful For Me Realm 1. There are some things that are absolutely 1. God’s purpose for the body (6:12-14) : forbidden (like the things listed in Galatians 5:19- 21). a. The first part of the argument that Paul refutes is Realm 2. There are some things that are commanded, connected with the statement, “All things are lawful and a failure to do them is sin (see James 4:17). for me” (6:12a). From this, the Corinthian’s Realm 3. There are some things that God permits but argument is that all things are lawful in connection does not require (like marriage, eating of all meats, with things that God is indifferent about. Paul’s observing one day above another).
reply… The concept of all things being lawful applies to realm 3. There are many things that fall into this third 1) Certainly, all things are lawful but “not all things realm of which God is indifferent, i.e., God “doesn’t are profitable” (6:12b) . For example, the Lord care” one way or the other whether you want to do or has declared all meats as clean (1 Timothy 4:4-5) not do a particular thing that falls within this realm. 18 Whether, for example, you want to eat pork or and, therefore, I may eat pork if I choose. abstain from it is your choice. However, if my brother is offended by me But even this freedom has certain limits. eating pork then I should refrain from eating it (Cp. Romans 14:21) .
2) Certainly, all things are lawful for me but “I will not be mastered by anything” (6:12c) . Many of the passions and appetites are lawful but we must not let these become our masters. Whether food or drink or passions, we must never let ourselves become addicted to any of these liberties 19 .
b. The second part of the argument that Paul The Corinthian’s Dualistic Understanding of Human Personality refutes is connected with the statement, “Food To properly grasp the Corinthians’ argument we need to is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, understand that, underlying their argument is their dualistic but God will do away with both of them” understanding of human personality. This view states that only the soul is capable of salvation, the body and its (6:13) . From this, the Corinthian’s argument is functions being of minimal importance and destined for that “since the physical body is mortal, sexual destruction. Thus, what is done with the body is a matter of relations were therefore a matter of indifference to God. indifference, being of no more importance than what one chooses to eat…As we satisfy the body’s need for food, so we may satisfy the body’s need for sex” (Nigel Watson) . Thus, they would argue, fornication was morally neutral. Paul’s reply…
1) While it is true that food and the stomach were designed for each other, the body and fornication were not designed for each other. Rather, the body was made for the Lord, and the Lord for the body (6:13) . Paul had earlier said, “Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (3:16) .
“The word ‘bodies’ (soma) envisages the whole of man, i.e., both flesh and spirit. Paul is delivering a death blow to their dualistic notions. Paul is saying that, not merely the physical body, the whole person is made for the Lord. In Romans 12:1 we are exhorted to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice to God. We understand this to mean that our whole self, flesh and spirit, is to be offered. Christ also is made for the body, to indwell and glorify it” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
2) God’s ultimate purpose for the body is not to destroy it but to raise it to immortality, just as God raised up the Lord (6:14) .
18 A meat declared unclean under the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 11:7). 19 One has to be careful about using this verse to prove that tobacco and alcohol addiction is condemned because Paul is actually discussing addiction to things that are lawful.
50 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2. Fornication is an immoral union that violates and compromises one’s union with Christ (6:15-17) . The Corinthians thought too little of their spiritual union with Christ and took too lightly their sexual union with prostitutes ; which Paul seeks to correct. Paul’s argument here rests on the incompatibility of these two unions.
a. The Corinthians ought to know that their bodies are members of Christ (6:15a). This union, of course, took place when they were immersed into Christ. Each person is a member (e.g., arm, leg, etc) that makes up the body of Christ. It is not just a part of us that is a member of Christ’s body but our whole selves - body and soul. It is a spiritual union; one becomes one spirit with Christ (6:17) . Such is your union with Christ.
b. In view of your union with Christ, is it right to take a member of the body of Christ and bring it into union with a prostitute? “May it never be!” Paul exclaims (6:15b) . The kind of union between a man and a prostitute is far more than just a sexual union, which Paul proves by citing Genesis 2:24, “They shall become one flesh.” This union involves both mind and body. One cannot be in union with Christ and in union with a prostitute; they are incompatible. Note the following quote concerning the idea of becoming one flesh…
“The sexual relationship is so intimate that a person becomes one body with his partner. The personalities merge in the sexual act. The manner in which Paul expresses this suggests that what he tells them they should have already known (‘know ye not…’). No one in Paul’s day would disagree with what he wrote. Though the Corinthians would admit this, some today would deny that a person becomes one with a harlot through intercourse. The sex act is seen as simply a physical performance that does not affect one’s personality. That is not true; the fornicator becomes more and more like the harlot in thought and attitude as he persists in the sinful relationship” (Willis) .
3. Fornication desecrates the temple of the Holy Spirit (6:18-20) :
a. “Flee fornication” is Paul’s advice (6:18) . This is in the present tense, which means that it should be one’s habitual practice. This makes perfect sense in view of all that Paul has revealed on this so far.
b. There is, though, another reason why one should flee fornication: it is because of the uniqueness of this sin. As Paul says, "Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body" (6:18) . This is a very difficult verse to understand and I have read at least nine different commentaries and numerous articles but they are either beyond my capacity to understand or just do not seem to give an adequate explanation.
“This verse must be understood in connection with verse 19, which states that ‘your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.’ If we sin against our bodies then we are guilty of desecrating the temple of God. Fornication desecrates the temple of God like no other sin; but why so more than suicide, gluttony, or drunkenness? This is because there is a union that takes place between the fornicator and the prostitute that does not occur when one commits other sins. Fornication is a unique sin against the body because your body is a member of the body of Christ; you are spiritually united with Christ. Further, your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Fornication is the only sin in which a union is involved and by which we desecrate the temple of God thereby” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
c. The Holy Spirit dwells in us (6:19) . We agree with Willis who says, “…the Holy Spirit is in us to the extent that we imbibe his word and emulate the Son’s conduct.” Further, our bodies are not our own because we have been purchased or bought back from slavery to sin (6:20a) . It is for this reason that we should glorify God in our bodies (6:20b) .
"Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31 NASBR)
51 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Summary (i) A combination of Gnostic thought and perverted teachings led to the belief that sins against the body were of little relevance. They argued that all things were lawful and that the body would be destroyed (it seems they denied the resurrection) (ii) Paul demolishes these arguments by showing that even freedom has its limits: while it might be true that there are things of which God is indifferent, we are only free to practice those things that are expedient and non-offensive. Fornication is both inexpedient and offensive. Further, they are mistaken; the body will not be destroyed but raised up even as Christ was raised from the dead. (ii) Fornication is an immoral union that violates and compromises one’s union with Christ. A Christian is in a spiritual union with Christ that is violated when one commits fornication because this also is a union between the man and the women. The two unions are incompatible. (iii) Fornication is unlike any other sin because it is a sin against one’s own body that is the temple of the Holy Spirit. In fornication there is a sinful union between a member of Christ’s body and the prostitute that desecrates the temple of God.
Summary & Application
1. A Case of Incest:
a. Summary. (i) Paul was shocked to hear about a case of incest among them and appalled that it was allowed to continue. Their complacency may have been due to an acceptance of Gnostic thought, a misapplication of what it means to be free in Christ, and one commentator suggests that they turned a blind eye because the man involved was of some standing and influence in the church and the community. (ii) But for Paul, the case was clear and the guilty man must be expelled from among them; this was to be carried out by the whole church. They were expected not to socialize with him. The purpose of this punishment was in the hope that he would repent and be restored. (iii) Paul refers to the Corinthians’ complacency as “a little leaven” and, left unchecked, would spread throughout the whole church and corrupt it. In Christ, the Corinthians were a new lump of unleavened dough; through their baptism into Christ, they were washed, sanctified, and justified, and Paul calls upon them to purge out the sins that were characteristic of the old man and be what they are.
b. Application. (i) Sin is sometimes justified due to an erroneous theology, which usually has its roots in something other than or in addition to the word of God. We must not, therefore, allow our thoughts to be influenced by Gnosticism, philosophy, pseudo-science, etc. Rather, we must “Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you” (Colossians 3:16) ; we must keep on growing in knowledge (1 Peter 2:2; Colossians 1:10) to prevent ourselves being deceived and blown to and fro by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14) . A congregation might turn a blind eye to a brother’s sin because of his standing within the church and the community. Such an attitude is inexcusable and reprehensible and will lead to the corruption of the whole church. (ii) The church must take action immediately when sin exists in the church. Action must be taken when the church is assembled, the person must be expelled from the assembly, and there is to be no social contact with them. This action is taken with a view to the sinner’s repentance and restoration. (iii) A congregation must constantly be on guard against sinful attitudes that allow sin to go unchecked; it is not difficult to imagine how quickly a church would become corrupt otherwise. We must not forget that God has called us, cleansed us, sanctified us, and justified us. The onus is on us to be what we are and not allow ourselves to revert back to our worldly ways.
2. Litigations:
a. Summary. (i) There were brethren within the church who were taking one another to court to settle their civil disputes. Paul sees a failure on the part of the church for not appointing wise brethren to settle these disputes. (ii) He also sees it as an utter failure on the part of those brethren who would seek “justice” from an ungodly and unrighteous judicial system.
b. Application. (i) Disputes between brethren may arise from time to time and the church should make every effort to settle these disputes. The kind of disputes Paul has in mind are those things that fall into the classification of “matters of this life” (6:3) . Allowing such disputes to be taken to court not only reflects badly on the church, but one is hardly likely to see justice because the world’s judgments are based on standards that are incompatible with Christian morality. (ii) The fact that disputes get to such a point in the first place is itself a fault with the parties involved. What should be our attitude when we are wronged or defrauded? In such cases we should simply allow ourselves to be wronged and defrauded. This may go against the grain but such an attitude is based on the teaching of Jesus (Matthew 5:38-42) and demonstrated by Paul himself (4:12-13) .
52 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3. Fornication:
a. Summary. (i) Several commentators have suggested that the Corinthian’s toleration of fornication was prevalent among the members of the church (as it was in Corinth generally). Paul’s discussion may suggest that some of the brethren were in the habit of using prostitutes. This toleration was probably influenced by Gnostic thought and a misapplication of Paul’s teaching. Their logic would run something like this: there is a distinction between the soul and the body; the soul is destined for salvation and the body is destined for destruction (note their denial of the resurrection in 15:12). Further, what was done by the body did not affect the soul. This was further reinforced in their misapplication of Paul’s teaching that “all things are lawful” and “food for the stomach and the stomach for food.” (ii) Paul refutes this logic with several arguments. First, he shows that the statement, “all things are lawful,” is not a license to sin; there are considerations to take into account in the exercise of this freedom. Second, while it is true that the stomach was made for food, the body was not made for fornication; it was made for the Lord. The body was not destined to be destroyed but will be resurrected on the last day, even as Jesus was resurrected. (iii) Fornication is a sinful union with a member of the body of Christ and a prostitute because the fornicator and the prostitute become one flesh; which they knew. They also knew that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and that to form such a sinful union with a prostitute was to desecrate the temple of the Holy Spirit. Their bodies had been redeemed by God and, far from deeds in the body being of little consequence, they are given that they might glorify God in their bodies.
b. Application. (i) We must not only be careful of outside forces influencing our thought but also beware of twisting the Scriptures. Those who do so consciously, do so to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16) , but we may also do so unwittingly. A rule that will help us is this: if what I believe justifies sin, then what I believe is wrong . While it is true that “all things are lawful,” it should also be understood that 1) this freedom is in connection with things of which God is indifferent, 2) before we practice our freedom in any respect, we should ask ourselves if it is expedient or profitable, 3) we must beware of certain practices that have a hold over us. (ii) Paul was able to refute the erroneous views of the Corinthians, and we too must be able to give an answer to those who misuse the Scriptures. (iii) Paul’s argumentation against fornication consists of some things that are difficult to understand (Cp. 2 Peter 3:15-16) but the message is clear – fornication is a sin, and those who practice it shall not inherit the kingdom of God. There are many other things that the Bible teaches that are wrong and we may not always understand why, but our lack of understanding is not a license to sin. Our bodies belong to God (being purchased by His blood), and we are members of Christ’s body. And our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. We must therefore seek to glorify God in our bodies.
Things Commanded Things Prohibited Things Permitted but not Required This is what Paul Baptism Fornication Eating of all meats was talking about The Lord’s Supper Murder Marriage when he said that “all things are Benevolence Theft Observing one day lawful for me.” All above another things that fall into this category are lawful for me.
53 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
54 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
SECTION TWO Concerning Things Asked
55 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
56 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
CONCERNING MARRIAGE
This section covers 7:1-40
57 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
58 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Concerning Marriage (7:1-40)
"Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But this I say by way of concession, not of command. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife? Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct in all the churches. Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called. Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord. But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better. A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God" (1 Corinthians 7:1-40 NASBR)
Introduction
1. A number of questions had arisen among the Corinthians in connection with those who were single, married, and in mixed marriages (Christians and non-Christians). I have had some difficulty in understanding all that Paul has written and I do not claim to have all the answers:
a. The first difficulty is in connection with discerning what stated principles are intended for universal application and what principles are only in consideration of the “present distress” (7:25) .
b. The second difficulty is in determining the meaning of certain terms (as witnessed by the disagreement among commentators); this is important because they shape our belief and practice.
59 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
c. The third difficulty concerns Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:1-9. The question we must answer is, “Was Jesus’ teaching meant for universal application for all time or was it limited in application and time?” How we answer this question will affect our understanding and application of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7.
2. Paul’s discussion tackles problems relating to celibacy and sexual abstinence being advocated in the church. From where did such concepts arise? “The problem could have arisen from the Gnostic tendency to separate the flesh and the spirit. Though it might sound surprising, the Gnostic apostasy was composed of both those who were ascetics and those who were libertines, both groups drawing their conclusions from the idea that the flesh was inherently evil” (Willis).
I. Marital Obligations (7:1-7) A discussion of the marital obligations of husbands and wives.
A. Marriage is the only legitimate realm in which to express our passion (7:1-2) :
1. Paul’s opening words, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” are difficult to understand:
a. Two possible explanations:
1) One explanation is to connect this with what is said in verses 32-35. A married person’s devotions are divided between the Lord and their spouse, but a single person can give all his attention to how he may please the Lord. In a climate of persecution a married person’s devotion to God is tested more sorely than a single person (this will be explained more fully when we get to those verses). Thus, from this point of view, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2) Another explanation is that the Corinthians had asked Paul whether celibacy was good or evil, to which he answers, “It is good,” i.e., it is not evil. This does not mean marriage is evil, though. It is a bit like asking whether refraining from eating meat is good or evil. “Good,” we will reply, but this does not mean that eating meat is evil. Both are good!
b. Whatever our interpretation it cannot contradict what is so clearly taught elsewhere. Note what the following Scriptures say about marriage and how Paul compares the relationship of Christ and the church to the husband and wife relationship:
"Then the LORD God said, It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him" (Genesis 2:18 NASBR)
"Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4 NASBR)
"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth" (1 Timothy 4:1-3 NASBR)
"Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband" (Ephesians 5:22-33 NASBR)
60 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2. Marry to avoid fornication (7:2) : SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE IS A SIN Paul says that one should marry to avoid a. The prevalence of fornication in Corinth was undoubtedly fornication. This clearly shows that sex outside a great temptation for single Christians and in view of the of marriage is sinful. The only sexual relations fact that this sin severs one’s relationship with Christ, it is of which God approves are those within the wise to do everything one can to avoid it. One safeguard confines of marriage (Hebrews 13:4). against committing fornication is to get married. This proves that sex outside of marriage is a sin (Cp. Hebrews 13:4) .
b. In saying that each man is to have his own wife and each woman is to have her own husband, Paul is emphasizing monogamy. This proves that polygamy 20 and polyandry 21 is forbidden.
B. Obligations to our spouses (7:3-7) :
1. When a person is baptised he is redeemed by the blood of Christ and he belongs to Christ, his body is not his own (6:19-20) . Likewise, when a man and woman enter into a marriage relationship they obligate themselves to each other to gratify one another’s sexual desires; each has equal authority over the other’s body (7:3) . To withhold relations is to defraud or rob one’s spouse and expose them to temptation (7:5a) . There is an exception, however:
a. The only legitimate reason for abstaining from relations is for a period of special devotion to God. Note carefully that this is to be by agreement and for a specified period of time (7:5a) . Once this period of special devotion is completed, normal relations must be resumed. To prolong abstinence is to open one’s self up to temptation (7:5b) .
b. Paul makes it clear that he is not commanding couples to have periods of special devotion but allows them under the conditions he has outlined (7:6) .
2. Paul encouraged single Christians to marry to avoid fornication but he really wishes that everyone was like 22 him, i.e., one who did not have the need for marriage (7:7a) .
a. But why would Paul wish this? As with the opening verse, he probably has in mind the present distress and wanted to spare single Christians being subjected to a greater trial of their faith that married persons would experience (this will be explained more fully when we get to verse 32-35).
b. Paul clearly states here that the degree to which one has control over his sexual desires is a gift of God (7:7b) . Note the following comment…
“It is clearly stated that the control one has over one’s passion is a gift from God. A man cannot decide to control himself in any degree more or less than God has so appointed. For one there is a necessity for marriage and for another there is no necessity. No man has a right to tell another to control his passions to a degree beyond what God has appointed, and those who forbid marriage as a religious requirement have not taken Paul’s words into consideration; and this has led to many evils. In forbidding a person to marry one must, then, deny Paul’s teaching” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary )
Summary (i) Remaining single is not a sin, it is just as good as being married. But in a climate of distress it is good not to marry; at least until the distress has passed. However, because of the prevalence of sexual immorality it is wise to get married to avoid fornication. (ii) But even married couples are not entirely free from the temptation of fornication and so each spouse must be sure they fulfill their obligations in regards to one another’s passions. Each one needs to remember that their bodies are not their own, each has power over the other’s body. To rob a partner of their due benevolence is to expose them to temptation. There may be times when, by agreement and for a specific period, a couple might abstain from normal relations to give themselves to prayer and fasting, but, again, normal relations must be restored to ensure that Satan is unable to take advantage. These periods of special devotions are not commanded but permissible.
20 Having more than one wife at a time. 21 Having more than one husband at a time. 22 If you’re sexual drive is very low or non-existent then fornication is very unlikely. Such a person, then, has no need to marry.
61 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
II. Advice to Special Groups (7:8-16) Advice to the unmarried, married, and those in mixed marriages.
A. The first group in view are the unmarried and widows (7:8a).
1. The “unmarried” includes virgins, bachelors, widowers, and widows. Yet, though all are unmarried, Paul makes a distinction between the unmarried and the widows. It may be that he singles them out for special encouragement due to the fact that widows often suffered greater economical hardship. In the Old Testament, widows were especially victims of injustice (Isaiah 10:2; Ezekiel 22:7; Job 24:3) .
2. Paul says it is good if widows remain unmarried (7:8b) . Yet, in 1 Timothy 5:14, he urges young widows to marry, bear children, and keep house. The difference is due to the “present distress” (7:26) . The exceptional circumstances made it unadvisable for all single people to marry. But he commands those who lack control over their passions (note 7:7) to marry (7:9a) . Why? “For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (9b) .
“…it is better to marry once for all than continually to fight one’s sexual passions. To marry is honorable; to burn with lust is sinful (Matthew 5:28)” (Willis) .
“This explains the reason ( yap ) which Paul assigns: ‘It is better to marry than to burn.’ The moral point decides, and ‘better’ is meant in this sense. Paul is again succinct and to the point; there is no need to say another word. The difference in the tenses is important: ‘to marry’ is an aorist to express a single definite act; ‘to burn’ is a present to indicate a recurrent condition. The latter is middle, ‘to burn in oneself’ with the strong fire of sexual desire, which, deprived of marriage, may result in criminal satisfaction or may in secret devastate the inner spiritual life. But the alternatives offered are not two evils, the lesser of which should be chosen, but a good on the one hand and an evil on the other, ‘for marriage is honorable in all.’ Paul states the facts unblushingly: one either has or has not the gift. If he has he may remain unmarried although he, too, may marry. Nor does Paul say that it would be ‘better’ for him to remain unmarried; all he says is that, if he elects not to marry, his unmarried state, like Paul’s, is ‘excellent.’ But if one lacks the gift, only one course is in order, he must marry, for moral danger is too deadly” (Lenski) .
“If a man’s passions are of such intensity then he should marry. To seek to suppress such desires would be futile and he would simply burn with passion and may be tempted into various evils: self-gratification, casual sex, liaisons, rape, etc. Religious leaders who forbid marriage to such as these share in their sins” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
B. The second group in view are married Christians (7:10-11) :
1. Paul makes it clear that what he says now is what is commanded by the Lord (7:10a) . Since the permanency of marriage is here commanded, the teaching of Jesus to which Paul alludes is probably in Matthew 19:6, "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." The command of the Lord is clear: a Christian man and wife cannot divorce (7:10b, 11b ).
a. You may notice in your Bible that the word divorce does not appear in verse 10. Most versions have “separate,” “leave,” or “depart.” Only the NET version has “divorce.” In verse 11, either of these words appear: “divorce,” “abandon,” “put away,” and “leave.”
b. All the commentators I consulted agree that in both cases a divorce is that to which Paul refers. Here is just one quote, “The verb in the phrase me choristhenai [used in verse 10] is passive but has a middle sense: ‘she is not, on her part, to separate from.’ In the context of Greco-Roman practice, the verb means to divorce and is synonymous with the verb aphienai in 7:11b, which Paul uses to command the husband not to send away his wife” (David E. Garland) .
62 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2. Allowing for the fact that a wife may depart, Paul insists that she remain single or be reconciled to her husband (7:11) . “The assumption behind this instruction is the same as in the teaching of the Lord: the marriage bonds remain intact regardless of what steps spouses might take to end the marriage” (David E Garland) .
3. Many commentators believe that a Christian can divorce a spouse for fornication. They base this on Jesus’ teaching in the gospels. But here are three basic views for your consideration:
"Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all? And He answered and said, Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. They said to Him, Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY? He said to them, Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery" (Matthew 19:3-9 NASBR )
a. First view. (i) The teaching here is for everyone under the Mosaic and Christian dispensations. (ii) Jesus teaches that a man and wife are married for life and may never divorce. However, there is one exception: if your spouse commits fornication then you may divorce them.
b. Second view. (i) The teaching here was only for those under the Mosaic dispensation and does not apply today. (ii) Paul’s teaching is that a Christian husband and wife are bound for life and may never divorce.
c. Third view. (i) The teaching here is for everyone under the Mosaic and Christian dispensations. (ii) Jesus teaches that a man and wife are married for life and may never divorce. A husband or wife must put away their spouse if they discover that their relationship is forbidden by divine law. (iii) The Greek word apoluo has been mistranslated as “divorce,” it should be “put away.” This mistranslation was because of their failure to see the distinction between divorce and putting away . The word “fornication” refers to the forbidden relationships as given is Leviticus 18.
C. The third group in view are those in mixed marriages, i.e., marriages between Christians and non-Christians (7:12-16) . The Lord did not address this particular circumstance in His teaching but Paul gives his ruling as an inspired apostle of Jesus Christ (7:12) .
1. The circumstances are that a brother or sister is married to an unbelieving spouse. The Corinthians’ questions may have been, “Should I divorce my unbelieving spouse?” and, “What if my unbelieving spouse divorces me?” These are the two questions that Paul answers.
a. The Corinthian brethren probably thought they might have to put away their unbelieving spouses based on Ezra 9:1-15 and Nehemiah 13:23-31. The answer to the first question is, “No, if the unbelieving spouse is happy to live with you then you must not divorce them” (7:12-13) . The reason is that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified through the believing spouse (7:14) . Both Willis, Garland, Watson, and Coffman struggle to come up with any satisfactory answer as to how a believer sanctifies an unbeliever or how it is that the children of these mixed marriages are holy. I think Coffman’s comments, though brief and simplistic, at least point in the right direction…
“‘This verb [sanctified] cannot mean `holy in Christ before God,' because that kind of holiness cannot be predicated of an unbeliever’ [Metz]. Paul here uses such a term in a ceremonial sense, rather than in a sense suggesting the salvation either of the unbelieving partner or of the children. As Johnson said: ‘Paul simply means that the Old Testament principle of the communication of uncleanness does not hold. The union is lawful and confers privileges on the members, such as the protection of God and the opportunity of being in close contact with one in God's family’”
63 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge b. Paul has made it clear that a believing spouse should not seek to divorce an unbelieving spouse, but what if the unbelieving spouse divorces the believing spouse, then what? Paul’s answer is simple, if they want to leave then let them leave (7:15a) . But what is not so simple is trying to determine what Paul meant by, “The brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases” (7:15b) . From this verse, some say that a Christian who has been deserted by the unbelieving spouse has the right to remarry and others have an alternative view.
1) Various views:
a) Willis : “My understanding of this verse is that the Christian is not called upon to subject himself to all kinds of abuse in order to force himself upon some unbeliever who does not wish to be married to him.”
b) Gill: “The Ethiopic version reads it, ‘to such an one’; one that is called by grace a church member, and so a brother or sister in Christ, is not to be subject to an unbeliever in matters of conscience, in things appertaining to the worship of God, and the service and glory of Christ; nor, being in such circumstances, that either Christ must be forsaken, or the unbeliever will depart, are they obliged to yield to such an one, but rather suffer a departure; nor are they bound to remain unmarried, but are free to marry another person, after all proper methods have been tried for a reconciliation, and that appears to be impracticable; desertion in such a case, and attended with such circumstances, is a breach of the marriage contract, and a dissolution of the bond, and the deserted person may lawfully marry again; otherwise a brother, or a sister in such a case, would be in subjection and bondage to such a person.”
c) Ron Boatwright: “In this verse we have a believer married to an unbeliever. Here ‘not under bondage’ is misconstrued, by those looking for a loophole, to mean that if the unbeliever divorces a believer, then the believer is free to remarry. This is false. This is not what it says. Authority to remarry if an unbeliever departs is not given here or anywhere else in the Bible. It is only wishful thinking. There is no Biblical authority for the deserted believer to remarry, even though it is assumed by many. Those who remarry without Biblical authority are living in continuous adultery because they are still bound to their first spouse as long as that spouse lives (1 Corinthians 7:39) . The teaching here is the Christian is not under bondage of having to give up his salvation and forsake Christ to please his spouse. A Christian must not abandon Christ simply to hold on to his unbelieving mate. The loyalty of the Christian belongs first to Christ. To such bondage Christians do not have to submit to in order to hold on to their marriage” (www.netbiblestudy.net/bulletin/new_page_107.htm ).
d) Coffman: “Some question whether or not such a brother or sister might remarry; but the view here is that, if not, then the brother or sister would still be in bondage. This is another exception, distinguished from the ‘adultery’ mentioned by the Lord (Matthew 19:9) , but the desertion of a Christian partner by an unbeliever is thought by some to be presumptive proof of adultery also. Besides that, Paul was dealing with mixed marriages, which were not in the purview of Jesus' teaching at all. Many have disputed this interpretation. DeHoff declared that ‘This does not mean that he (the forsaken one) is free to marry again.’ David Lipscomb also believed that, ‘In such cases, remarriage is not approved;’ but he went on to add that if the departing unbeliever should marry again, the wife or husband forsaken would be at liberty to remarry. It seems to this student, however, that Macknight's view of this place is correct. He said: ‘Here he declares that the party who was willing to continue the marriage, but who was deserted notwithstanding a reconciliation had been attempted, was at liberty to marry. And his decision is just, because there is no reason why the innocent party, through the fault of the guilty party, should be exposed to the danger of committing adultery.’”
64 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2) The difficulty lies in understanding the term under bondage but I agree with the following comment…
“Commentators and scholars have long debated the meaning of Paul’s words, ‘A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases’ . After all the debating on the meaning of the phrase, ‘not under bondage,’ there are two basic conclusions that are reached: the first is that the Christian spouse who has been deserted or divorced by the unbelieving spouse is free to remarry. The second is that the Christian spouse is not enslaved to maintain the marriage at the expense of faithfulness to the Lord. In view of the ongoing controversy and such divergent opinions, is it not wiser to side with caution than to risk siding with error on such a matter than will damn the soul? At any rate, if the unbelieving spouse depart and commit adultery, would not then the Christian spouse have the right to remarry?” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
2. Paul has been arguing to keep couples in a mixed marriage together. His reasoning is aimed at the believer, not the unbeliever. Paul now states a ground for staying married: you may save your spouse! (7:16) . But how might they do that? Peter gives us the answer:
"In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior " (1 Peter 3:1-2 NASBR)
Summary (i) In view of the “present distress,” Paul advises the unmarried and widows to remain unmarried. This advice, however, is only if one is able to control one’s passions; in which case, they should marry; as it is better to marry than burn with lust. (ii) The Lord’s command is clear: a Christian couple is not permitted to divorce. Should a couple separate anyway, they are commanded to remain single or be reconciled. (iii) Christians who are married to non-Christians should not divorce their unbelieving spouses. If, however, the unbelieving spouse wants to depart then let them depart.
III. One’s Calling And Station In Life (7:17-24) Paul has been discussing marriage and will resume it again in verse 25. How is this section connected with the former and that which follows? Also in this section, Paul states three times that one must remain in the station in which he was called (7:17, 20, 24). What is the reason for this emphasis? “The phrase ‘as God hath distributed’ A. Only Walk in the condition in which God has appointed you (7:17a). refers to the condition in which people are placed in life, whether as rich or poor, in a 1. The first word in this sentence is better translated “only” (other state of freedom or servitude, of learning or translations have “but” or “nevertheless” ) and shows that this ignorance, etc. And it implies that God section is connected with the previous section. In verses 15-16, appoints the lot of people, and orders the circumstances of their condition; that Paul had given one exception in which a Christian could religion is not designed to interfere directly consider himself loosed from his spouse. To prevent this from with this; and that people should seek to spreading into a widespread practice, Paul limited its show the real excellence of religion in the application by telling them that becoming a Christian was no particular sphere in which they may have been placed by divine providence before reason for changing one’s outward relationships (see Willis). they became converted” (Barnes). Thus, since marriage is the subject of the former and following sections, the application of this principle is related to the subject of marriage. The following examples of circumcision and slavery serve to prove his point; which is that, a person who is married ought not to feel compelled to put away their unbelieving spouse because he had become a Christian .
2. Paul’s emphasis (on remaining in the station in which one was called) is in response to an erroneous teaching. James Macknight explains that, “The Judaizers taught that, by embracing the true religion, all former obligations under which the convert lay were dissolved,” and, as Coffman says, “Any widespread acceptance of such an error would have resulted in social chaos and precipitated even more savage and relentless persecutions against the church; therefore, for both practical and ethical reasons the error had to be struck down.”
65 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3. Each person has received a personal calling (through the gospel) and appointment, i.e., one’s outward circumstances (in context – being slave or free, Jew or Gentile) in life are providentially assigned to him by God (7:17a) . Similarly, one’s ability in regards to self-control in sexual matters is a gift of God (7:7) . Whatever the circumstance in which one is called, one is commanded to continue in his station in life assigned to him by God. “Christianity does not constitute a reason for a man to create social upheavals. Rather, a man can serve God in whatever condition he is in when the Lord calls him to obey him” (Willis) . However, we must be careful not to make applications that were never intended…
a. What Paul doesn’t mean…
1) It doesn’t mean that one can continue in a career that is contrary to the will of God.
2) It doesn’t mean that one can continue in a marital relationship that is contrary to the will of God.
3) It doesn’t mean that one can continue in a false religion.
4) It doesn’t mean that one cannot make the most of legitimate opportunities to improve one’s circumstances.
b. What Paul means to say is that, Christianity does not create social upheavals. Christianity does not demand the slave become a freeman, the Gentile to become circumcised, or the dustman to become a brain surgeon.
B. What Paul commands the Corinthians is what he commands everyone in all the churches (7:17b) . This reminder is important for three reasons:
1. It reminds the Corinthians of his authoritative teaching as an apostle of Jesus Christ.
2. It shows that his teaching was not improvised counsel. The principle Paul laid down was the rule of thumb everywhere.
3. It demonstrates that deviating from this principle would make them abnormal or peculiar because in other churches this principle was accepted.
C. Paul now shows that national and social distinctions do not improve one’s relationship to God (7:18-24) .
1. National distinctions are irrelevant (7:18-20) :
a. Whether one was a Jew (circumcised) or a Gentile (uncircumcised) when one was called by God, he should not seek to change his national distinction because such is irrelevant and does not improve one’s relationship to God. The only thing that matters is that one is keeping the commandments of God (7:18) . Note also the following verses:
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love" (Galatians 5:6 NASBR)
"For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" (Galatians 6:15 NASBR) We emphasize once again b. Rather than seeking change, “Each man must remain in that condition in that, “Paul is teaching that which he was called” (7:20) . This is a restatement of what is said in verse becoming a Christian does 17. Whatever state you were in when God called you, in that you must not require a change in outward situations” (Willis) . remain. If circumcised then do not seek to be uncircumcised; if uncircumcised then do not seek to be circumcised; and if married then do not seek to become unmarried.
2. Don’t worry about your social position (7:21-24) :
a. Some were slaves when God called them but does this mean that their standing before God was any less than a man who is free? Paul’s answer is, “Do not worry about it” (7:21a). To think that changing one’s social status would make one more acceptable to God is an error. Whether slave or free, all are justified before God on the same basis – faith in Christ (Romans 5:1; Galatians 3:28) .
66 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
1) Paul says to the slave, “But if you are able also Christianity was designed to save men and women to become free, rather do that” (7:21b) . This may from sin; it was not designed to make this earth a sound like a contradiction because, on the one utopia. The influence of Christianity on social matters hand, he says that one must remain in the station occurred incidentally. Christianity changes men through the gospel to make their character what God in which one was called, but then, on the other desires it to be. As converted men permeate society, hand, he says to take the opportunity to become social changes are inevitable. Rather than the church free if it presents itself. becoming involved in politics, it should be concerned with converting the politicians! (Wil lis). 2) But, as we have been saying, Paul is saying that becoming a Christian does not require or demand change. There is a big difference between taking an opportunity to become a freeman (either by purchase or being loosed by a master) and taking freedom by force (running away or by an uprising).
b. Paradoxically, the slave is the Lord’s freeman, being free from the Law, sin, and death, and the freeman is the Lord’s slave (Romans 6:16-18) . The freeman is reminded that he is a slave of Christ, which removes any reason for arrogance against his slave (Cp. Ephesians 6:9) .
3. There were, it seems, those in the church that taught that Christians should do what was necessary to alter their national distinction, marital status, and social standing. Paul’s command is not to be deceived and comply with their desires, “Do not become slaves of men;” you belong to Christ who purchased you with His own blood (7:23; 1 Peter 1:18-19) .
4. Paul ends this section with the statement he has made twice already, “Brethren, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called” (7:24) . There is an additional thought here, “with God.” This affords some reassurance that whatever our circumstances, we have fellowship with God.
Summary (i) This section is connected with the previous one because Paul is showing that becoming a Christian does not require a change in one’s standing in connection with marriage, national distinction, or social distinction. Each one is to remain in that circumstance in which God called him. And it is God who assigned our circumstance. (ii) What Paul is commanding the Corinthians is not given ad hoc but is what he commands in all the churches. (iii) National distinctions and social standing do not improve or diminish one’s standing with God; Christianity does not require or demand that one alter one’s circumstances. However, this does not mean that one cannot take advantage of providential opportunities for one’s improvement. But effecting change through social revolutions is forbidden. Social change occurs through the permeation of the gospel in society.
IV. Regarding Virgins And Widows (7:25-40) Paul gives instructions to virgins and widows that are in consideration of the “present distress.” Paul makes it very clear that he is not commanding celibacy and that it is not a sin to marry.
23 A. Paul’s advice to virgins and widows (7:25-31) :
1. Paul advises virgins to remain in that state in which they were called. In other words, remain unmarried (7:25-26a) . This advice would naturally prompt the married to inquire, “If it is good for young girls to remain as they are, what about us? Should we then seek to dissolve our marriages?” Paul’s answer is consistent with all that he has said so far on this subject: a person should remain in that state in which he was called (7:27) .
a. But note that this advice is only given in view of the present distress (7:26b) . This means that we have to be careful about applying this advice universally to all circumstances. If, however, we find ourselves in similar circumstances then this advice would apply.
b. So what is the present distress? In 4:9-13, Paul describes some of the persecutions that he and the other apostles had already endured, and in 15:32 he speaks of “fighting with beasts at Ephesus.” We believe, then, that he is referring to a persecution that had already begun and was about to intensify. It is difficult to say for sure whether this was a general or local persecution.
23 The Greek term parthenos signifies maiden or virgin, and Paul uses the feminine article and thereby excludes all reference to a bachelor (Lenski).
67 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2. There is always the danger of being misunderstood and so Paul makes it very clear that, even despite his advice, if one decides they want to marry, then it would be no sin (7:28a) . He only has their interests in mind, he only wants to spare them “trouble in this life” (7:28b) . The trouble he has in mind is that which they would experience during the period of the present distress.
3. The proper attitude that will help them to get through difficult times (7:29-31) . Christians should always ensure that they have the proper attitude in regards to the world (Romans 12:2; 1 John 2:15; 1 Timothy 6:10) . Our minds should not be set on the things of this world but, rather, on the things above (Matthew 6:33; Colossians 3:1-2) . Perhaps the gist of what Paul is saying is this: ‘We are entering into a time of distress and so, more than ever, we must learn to live in such a way that shows our true interests are set on the things above rather than the temporal things of this life. For we all know that even the world itself is not permanent and will eventually pass away. The present distress will be a trying time but you must not let any of the things of this life distract you from your devotion and allegiance to the Lord.’ Here are some other useful comments…
“This revelation of God not only urges us not to attach ourselves too closely to the temporal things of life but also serves as an encouragement to endure the temporary persecutions and problems of this life, since the present order of things will not continue forever” (Willis) .
“Difficult circumstances are at hand and now is the time to focus on what is really important” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
B. Paul’s motive in giving these instructions are so that they may be free of concern (7:32-35) .
1. During a time of persecution one’s faithfulness is inevitably tried and tested. An unmarried man or woman has an advantage over a married man or woman because their devotion to the Lord is not distracted by the things of this world. Paul speaks in general of how a married man or woman is distracted and how the unmarried man or woman is undistracted (7:32-34) :
a. The advantage of the unmarried over the married:
1) A married man is concerned about how he may please his wife and, likewise, a married woman is concerned about how she may please her husband. Of course, there is nothing wrong in having this divided allegiance (See 1 Timothy 5:8; 1 Corinthians 7:3; Ephesians 5:25-33; 1 Peter 3:7) but it would be more of a problem than normal during a time of persecution.
“Not a few succumb to forgetting about God in trying to please the wife when no persecution exists (e.g., through involvements in sinful activities, joining one’s mate in sinful religious practices by attending a denomination instead of the Lord’s church, involvements in activities which are not sinful within themselves but which take one away from service to God). How much more would this be likely to occur in days of tribulation! Paul’s comments regarding marriage were designed to keep the Christian from facing these types of problems” (Willis) .
2) An unmarried man is able to focus all of his concerns on how he may please the Lord and, likewise, an unmarried woman is able to focus all of her concerns on how she may please the Lord and give herself wholly to the Lord.
b. Paul wants to make three things very clear…
1) “This I say for your benefit” (7:35a) . Paul’s instructions were intended purely for their benefit; he only had their best interests at heart.
2) “Not to put a constraint on you” (7:35b) . Paul was not trying to impose his own personal convictions on them to live a celibate life. That this was far from his mind is seen in the fact that he told Timothy that forbidding to marry was a doctrine of the Devil (1 Timothy 4:1-3) .
68 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3) “But to promote what is appropriate…” (7:35c) . Advising one to remain celibate during the present distress is promoting what is appropriate because to marry and bear children during such a time, when you know it will expose them to tribulation, is, surely, not very good judgment. “…and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord” (7:35d) . By encouraging celibacy during the present distress it would ensure that one could serve the Lord without the distractions of the things of this world.
C. What is a father to do? (7:36-38) . It should be noted that, according to the custom of the day, the father had complete control over the child, and that the giving of a daughter in marriage was his prerogative. It seems that fathers had asked Paul what was expected of them in regards to giving their virgin daughters in marriage.
1. In those days an unmarried person was looked down upon and it was considered a disgraceful thing for a father to have not given her away in marriage before she had passed the “flower of her age 24 .” A father who is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter is a father who is keeping her at home and not allowing her to marry. Paul’s instruction to fathers is to let their daughters marry. In so doing he is not sinning in any way (7:36) . But note the three ifs…
a. If he realizes that he is acting disgracefully.
b. If she has passed marriageable age.
c. If it must be so. We noted earlier that God has given each one a gift in respect to their passions (7:7) and if she herself feels the necessity to marry then, as Paul said, “But because of immoralities…each woman is to have her own husband” (7:2) . It would be wrong to forbid one’s daughter to marry and leave them in a situation where they are burning with passion.
2. A father may also decide not give his daughter in marriage, and in doing so, he does well (7:37) . But note the four conditions… The objection that the daughter’s will is left entirely out of a. “But if he stands firm in his heart.” This refers to a decision that was consideration is not in accord made in the past to keep his daughter. This is not a father who keeps with the fact. For in each case the father considers the physical changing his mind but refers to a decision that is firm, settled, and make-up of his daughter, and that fixed. means her desires and wishes as well. Thus the fact is, that what b. “Being under no constraint.” This refers to the daughter whom God eventually influences the father to has given that “gift of celibacy;” she has no desire to marry and the decide one way or another is not possibility of fornication is not an issue with her. This shows that simply his own will but the daughter’s. the father is not to make decisions without taking into account his daughter’s desires.
c. “But has authority over his own will.” He has the right and the power to make his own decisions, especially in regards to the keeping or giving away of his daughter. This can only be understood when we understand that not everyone did have the right and power to make such decisions, e.g., slaves.
d. “And has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well.” Willis says that he has decided to keep his daughter for the service of God. This may be true because Paul says that the virgin is “concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit” (7:34) . See also Acts 21:8-9.
3. Paul does not lay down any law, he does not compel the father to act contrary to his desires; he is free to do as he wishes. If he gives her in marriage, he does well, and if he keeps her, he does better (7:38) . Verses 25-35 explain why this is better.
24 To attain the age past one’s prime, past the bloom of youth, or past marriageable age. This was considered to be about 20 years of age.
69 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
D. To bring the subject to a conclusion, having already covered many aspects of marriage, Paul adds a final word about widows and remarriage (7:39-40) .
1. Marriage is indissoluble. As long as the wife’s husband lives she is bound to him, but if her husband dies then she is free to remarry (7:39a) . This is the only reason Paul allows for a widow to remarry.
a. Paul lays down this condition, “Only in the Lord” (7:39) . “En kurio is generally used to refer to the spiritual union in Christ. Hence, the limitation put upon the widow in remarrying is that she marry one who is in Christ, i.e., another Christian” (Willis) .
b. Willis says that this limitation is only in view of the present distress. He argues that it would be foolish to marry a non-Christian during a time of persecution. He also observes…
“The problem of treating this as a universal law upon all Christians – that a person must marry a Christian – is in determining how one repents of the ‘sin’ once it is committed. Does he divorce the non-Christian? Obviously not, this passage forbids that. Does he separate from her? Again, the answer is no. What can he do to repent of his ‘sin’? Hence, I am inclined to treat this as the ‘better’ way revealed by Paul for Christians to follow during the present distress” (Willis) . Paul says to widows that 2. Paul’s opinion, though, is that she will be happier is she remains single remaining single is the happier (7:40a) . option (1 Corinthians 7:39- 40), but in a letter to Timothy a. The word “opinion” in the NASB conveys the wrong idea. Many he desires widows to marry, understand an opinion to be ‘a view about something that is arrived at bear children, and keep house (1 Timothy 5:14). It was the subjectively rather than objectively.’ But Paul is not giving an opinion circumstances (the ‘present but a judgment , which is in accordance with the will of God. Paul distress’ – 1 Corinthians 7:26) arrived at this judgment by a consideration of the circumstances and that caused Paul to give these what would be best. differing judgments.
b. The reasons why he judged she would be happier if she remained single are the same as for virgins (See 7:26-35) .
3. Paul ends this discussion by asserting that all his judgments are inspired by the Spirit of God (7:40b) . The words “I think…” give the wrong impression as if he is expressing doubt. But note the following comment:
“I think - I have the Spirit of God - ∆οκω δε κα γω Πνευµα Θεου εχειν might be translated, I am Certain that I have the Spirit of God. This sense of δοκειν (which we translate to seem, to think, to appear, etc.) I have noticed in another part of this work. Ulpian, on Demosthen. Olynth. 1, says, Το δοκειν ου παντως επι αµφιβολου ταττουσιν οι παλαιοι αλλα πολλακις και επι του αληθευειν· The word δοκειν is used by the ancients, not always to express what is Doubtful, but often to express what is True and Certain. - See Bp. Pearce. The apostle cannot be understood as expressing any doubt of his being under the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, as this would have defeated his object in giving the above advices; for if they were not dictated by the Spirit of God, can it be supposed that, in the face of apparent self-interest, and the prevalence of strong passions, they could have been expected to have become rules of conduct to this people? They must have understood him as asserting that he had the direction of the Spirit of God in giving those opinions, else they could not be expected to obey” (Clarke) .
Summary (i) Paul’s advice to the unmarried is to remain in that state in which God called them. (ii) The motive for Paul’s advice was that they might be free of concern during the present distress. A single person can devote themselves fully to the Lord but a married person might allow his devotion to the Lord to waver in consideration of his family. (iii) In view of the present distress, it is better to keep one’s daughter but it is not a sin to let her marry. However, in making such a decision, the father must take into consideration his daughter’s desires. (iv) Paul says that marriage is for life. The only circumstance in which one can remarry is if one’s spouse dies. But he insists that they can only marry another Christian, but this also may be in consideration of the present distress.
70 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Summary & Application
1. Marital Obligations:
a. Summary. (i) It is not a sin to remain single but because of the prevalence of fornication the temptations for a Christian are great. One safeguard against fornication is to get married. (ii) In entering into marriage we forego certain liberties that we enjoyed when we were single. One of the obligations we now have is to gratify the sexual desires of our spouse; we no longer have complete power over our bodies but our partner shares in that power. It is a sin to deny one another those relations because it exposes both our partner and us to temptation. However, Paul does allow sexual abstinence for special periods of devotion to God but only by agreement and only for a specified period of time, which, when completed, normal relations are to resume. Paul makes it clear that he is not commanding such devotions but allowing them under the right terms. (iii) Paul wished that everyone, like himself, did not feel the necessity to marry but only because married couples would experience a greater trial under the present distress, and he would spare them this. But he recognizes that this is unrealistic because each person has their own gift from God that determines whether celibacy or marriage is right for them.
b. Application. (i) A Christian can choose to remain single in order to devote himself to the service of God (Matthew 19:12) or get married and raise a family. There is no sin in choosing to remain single or getting married. However, the choice we make must be determined by the gift that God has given us. A person should not choose to remain single if he has no control over his libido, he should get married to avoid fornication. This shows that sex before marriage is a sin. (ii) Married couples need to realize that they do not have the same authority over their bodies as when they were single; each spouse may legitimately make demands of the other in order to gratify their sexual needs. A partner who fails to fulfill these obligations not only commits sin but also exposes their partner to temptation. The breakdown of many marriages is often attributed to unfulfilled sexual desires. Paul does, however, allow for couples to abstain from relations for special periods of devotion to God but only by agreement and for a specified period of time. Is this something you practice?
2. Advice to Special Groups:
a. Summary. (i) To the unmarried and widows, Paul says it is good (maybe in view of the present distress) to remain single. But they should marry if they do not have control over their passions because it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (ii) The command of the Lord to married couples is clear: there can be no divorce. Paul, though, does recognize that a couple might separate and, in such a case, they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled. (iii) A Christian who is married to unbeliever should not seek a divorce if that unbeliever is happy to live with them. The unbelieving spouse, as well as the children, is not in any way defiled by the unbelieving spouse. However, if the unbelieving spouse departs then you cannot really do anything and you have to let them depart. One reason for remaining together is that the unbelieving spouse might come to be saved through the influence of the believing spouse.
b. Application. (i) In any time of tribulation or stress it is good not to marry so that one’s interests may be wholly given to the service of the Lord. But this is only good if we have control over our passions, and if we do not, then we should marry to avoid fornication. It is better to marry than to burn with passion. (ii) Getting married is the most natural thing in the world and everyone does it! But just because a thing is common-place doesn’t mean it is not a serious matter. Marriage is a life-long commitment and you have to work hard to keep a marriage together because if the going gets tough, divorce is not an option. Even if there is a separation, Paul says you must remain unmarried or be reconciled. It really is “till death do us part.” Those planning to marry should really think long and hard before doing so. Those having problems in their marriage need make every effort to be reconciled. (iii) Being married to a non-Christian will certainly present difficulties but a Christian is not to seek a divorce from their unbelieving spouse. However, if the unbelieving spouse wants to go, then let them go, there’s not much else you can do. If you decide to stay together, then you have an opportunity to influence your unbelieving spouse that may lead to their salvation. It is even more crucial, then, that you live a life devoted to the Lord without hypocrisy.
71 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3. One’s Calling and Station in Life:
a. Summary. (i) To underline his point that becoming a Christian does not require a change in marital status, Paul discusses the general principle further. It is God that appoints our lot and orders our circumstances, and they are commanded to remain in that circumstance in which God called them. Thus, a person should not seek to divorce a spouse because they have become a Christian. Christianity does not create social upheavals. (ii) What Paul commands the Corinthians is what he teaches in all the churches. This reminds them of Paul’s authority, it shows his teaching is not improvised, and that it is actually them that are deviating from the norm. (iii) One’s national distinction and one’s social distinction has nothing to do with one’s standing before God and one should remain in that state in which he was called.
b. Application. (i) Our standing before God is not affected by our nationality, color, social standing, marital status, etc. Christianity is not a movement to effect social change, at least, not by force. If we want to change society then we must focus on changing the hearts of men. Our lot in life is appointed by God and so we must learn to be content and use our station in life to influence as many people as possible. (ii) Paul taught the same thing in all the churches. Many, even today, challenge the authority of Paul but we are here reminded of his apostolic authority. (iii) We must remain in that station in which God called us but that does mean we cannot seek to improve our circumstances. We can seek further education, a better job, a wife, our freedom, British citizenship, etc. but not because becoming a Christian demands it. What really matters is keeping the commandments of God. Paul says that “circumcision is nothing” and shows that the Old Law has been abrogated.
4. Regarding Virgins and Widows:
a. Summary. (i) Paul advises virgins and widows to remain unmarried but only in view of the present distress, which could refer to a general or local persecution. But, in case people think he is advocating celibacy as a way of life for Christians in general, he says that even if they do marry, they do not sin. (ii) Paul’s advice is for their benefit; he knows that it will be particularly difficult for a married person to give their undivided devotion to the Lord during the present distress. (iii) It was the custom in those days for the father to give away his daughter. Paul says he can do what he wants. If, however, he has decided to keep her, then it must be in consideration of his daughter’s desires. (iv) Paul makes it clear to wives that marriage is indissoluble; divorce is not an option. However, if her husband dies, then she is free to remarry but only to a Christian. This rule is given in view of the present distress. All of Paul’s writing is under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
b. Application. (i) In times of tribulation, single Christians should follow Paul’s advice and remain single. But even if you do marry, then you have not sinned. This world is passing away and we should, therefore, keep our minds focused on the things that are above and not let ourselves become distracted from our devotion to the Lord. (ii) In times of tribulations the single person has an advantage over the married person because the married person’s interests are divided between the Lord and family, but a single person can give his undivided attention to the Lord. But even in times of peace we can let things like relationships, work, hobbies, etc. distract our attention from serving the Lord. Let us resolve to always serve the Lord with all our being, whether in times of peace or tribulation. (iii) If there are any big decisions that need to be made regarding our children, then we need to take our children’s desires and abilities into consideration. (iv) Marriage is for life and should not be entered into lightly. It is always a good idea for a Christian to marry another Christian, even in times of peace. There are many disadvantages in marrying a non-Christian. All of Paul’s instructions are under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; we cannot pick and choose what teaching we want to follow and reject what we don’t like.
72 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
CHRISTIAN LIBERTIES
This section covers 8:1-11:1
73 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
74 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Christian Liberties (8:1-11:1)
"Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him. Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so- called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble" (1 Corinthians 8:1-13 NASBR)
"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock? I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? For it is written in the Law of Moses, YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING. God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the ploughman ought to plough in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case; for it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one. For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under
75 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it. Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified" (1 Corinthians 9:1-27 NASBR)
"For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved. Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK, AND STOOD UP TO PLAY. Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall. No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we? All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience' sake; FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience' sake. But if anyone says to you, This is meat sacrificed to idols, do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience' sake; I mean not your own conscience, but the other man's; for why is my freedom judged by another's conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved" (1 Corinthians 10:1-33 NASBR)
"Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:1 NASBR)
76 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Introduction
1. The Corinthians had several questions (which we can reconstruct from Paul’s answers) regarding meat sacrificed to idols: can a Christian attend a banquet in an idol’s temple? Can a Christian eat meat sacrificed to an idol in the home of an unbelieving friend? Can a Christian eat meat sacrificed to an idol that had been purchased inadvertently at the meat market? They were asking these questions because they were divided over these things.
2. A little background information will help us to understand the situation.
a. The sacrifices offered to pagan gods were not totally consumed on the altar; it was mostly just hair and entrails; most of the animal was left over. The priest would take his share and the worshipper was given the rest. The worshipper would then hold a feast in his home or in the temple in honor of his god.
b. Practically every social function involved the use of meat sacrificed to an idol.
c. The huge number of daily sacrifices meant that the priests usually had far more meat than they needed and the surplus was sold in the market place.
3. This, of course, is not a problem in 21 st Century London but, nevertheless, there are some very important principles of conduct that we can apply to ourselves.
I. Meat Sacrificed To Idols (8:1-13) One’s conduct cannot be determined on knowledge alone; it must be governed by love to ensure that one is not causing a brother to fall.
A. Knowledge puffs up but love edifies (8:1-3) . Paul highlights the deficiency in their knowledge:
1. The subject under discussion is things offered to idols 25 . As far as the Corinthians were concerned, it was what one knew that determined one’s course of conduct: Knowledge alone does not dictate a. Some were saying that since everyone knows an idol is nothing, then one’s conduct in regard to eating it is perfectly alright to eat meat that was used as a sacrifice to these meat sacrificed to idols. ‘nothings,’ regardless of what others might think . It seems as if these brethren were asking, “What should we do about those brethren who object to us eating meat offered to idols?”
b. Others, though, were saying that to eat meat sacrificed to an idol was an act of worship (This will be discussed more fully below) and were saying that it should not be eaten.
2. Certainly, they all had knowledge and yet they were actually deficient in knowledge!
a. They may have had knowledge (8:1a) but what was this knowledge doing to them? It was puffing them up and making them arrogant (8:1b) .
b. Love (agape), however, edifies or builds up (8:1c) . Paul is saying that knowledge alone does not determine one’s conduct; one must also be operating on the basis of love (agape). In other words, your conduct must take into consideration what is best for others . This was the vital piece of knowledge in which they were deficient.
3. Anyone with a ‘I know it all’ attitude is actually lacking in knowledge (8:2) . One who boasts about his knowledge is actually proclaiming his ignorance. The truth is, there is no true knowledge that is not connected with love to God (8:3a) . “The sense is, ‘If any man acts under the influence of sacred charity, or 26 love to God, and consequent love to man, he will meet with the approbation of God’” (Barnes) .
B. What we know about idols (8:4-6) . In connection with eating meats sacrificed to idols…
1. Paul says, “We know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world” (8:4a). Paul is not saying that there are no images of idols in the world because it is obvious that there are. The word idol is being used in a sense that refers, not to the idol, but to the deity represented by the image . Paul, then, is denying the existence of the deities represented by the images.
25 Paul uses a derogatory term eidolothuton (things offered to idols). The pagans used the word hierothuton (sacrificed to a divinity). 26 Approval.
77 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2. We also know that, “There is no God but one” (8:4b) . This reminds us of the creed of Israel, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4) . The pagans might believe in many gods and lords but for us Christians, “There is but one God, the Father, from whom are things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him” (8:6).
a. The distinction between the roles of the Father and Son:
“This verse is of particular interest because of the light it throws on Paul’s Christology. By his choice of prepositions, ‘from’ and ‘for’ being applied to the Father, ‘through’ being reserved for Christ, he makes a clear distinction between the roles of the Father and Son. Indeed, he refrains from calling Christ God, and yet clearly places Christ on the other side of the dividing line between God and humanity. Thus he ascribes to Christ the role of mediator in both creation and redemption, yet without any sense of incompatibility between such a belief and the affirmation of one God” (Nigel Watson) .
b. Paul says there is One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Those who deny the Deity of Christ use this verse to support their doctrine. For them, the text is saying that God and Christ cannot both be God because Paul says that the Father is God and that Jesus is Lord (not God). The following comment is helpful on this point:
“The Scriptures do not contradict. John, in his gospel, says, ‘The Word was God’ (John 1:1) and Paul, in another place, says of Christ, ‘This is the true God and eternal life’ (1 John 5:20) . In the first place, Paul is contrasting the many gods and lords with the one God and one Lord. In the second place, Paul simply indicates the respective roles that the Father and Son fulfilled in creation and redemption: the Father is the ultimate source of all things that exist and we go toward the Father. The Son is the agent through whom all things were created and it is through Him that we go toward the Father. It has also been suggested that this verse was a slogan that was resounded by the Corinthians to support their view that an idol was nothing and that, therefore, one could eat meats that had been sacrificed to them. The idea, then, would be that Paul is simply building his point on their knowledge” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
C. Not all men have knowledge (8:7-12) .
1. Paul said that we all know there is only one God and one Lord and that the pagan deities do not really exist and, indeed, they did all know this because God has revealed Himself to Christians as one God. It is impossible to believe that anyone could become a Christian and not know this fundamental truth (Cp. 1 Thessalonians 1:9) . So what does Paul now mean when he says, “However not all men have this knowledge” (8:7a)? The following comment captures the meaning:
“Though the Corinthians claimed that ‘we have all knowledge,’ the fact that they were having problems proved that they did not all know what they needed to know. Indeed, the latter part of this verse (‘but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled’) indicates the deficiency of the knowledge of some. No doubt, all Christians would admit that there is only one God and that idols have no real existence. But this monotheistic knowledge possessed by all had not yet unfolded its full consequences in the consciousness of all. The Corinthians were like the superstitious among Christians today who shun the number 13, read their astrology charts, etc, while disclaiming belief in any supernatural power other than Jehovah” (Willis) .
a. Despite knowing there was only one God and one Lord, some of the Gentile converts were so accustomed to eating meat sacrificed to idols that they still ate such meat as an act of worship, and they considered others who ate such meat as doing the same (8:7b) .
b. Those that ate such meat were condemned by their conscience. To go ahead and do something that your conscience condemns, even if it is not wrong, is sinful (8:7c; cp. Romans 14:23) .
78 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2. Having explained the thinking of both parties, here is Paul’s judgment: food 27 does not present 28 us to God for commendation or condemnation. What we eat or do not eat does not affect our standing before God (8:8) . “For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking” (Romans 14:17) .
a. But we need to reconcile Paul’s statement here with the instructions given to Christians by the church at Jerusalem…
"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell" (Acts 15:28-29 NASBR)
b. Commenting on this, Stringer says that the reference here is to participating in idolatrous feasts. Coffman concurs: “The principal barrier to social and religious unity among the Jewish and Gentile Christians was the low standard of behavior so common among the latter. Idol feasts were shameful debaucheries, marked by the most vulgar and immoral behavior, the prohibitions against pollution of idols and fornication being almost, in fact, one prohibition. In fact, it is possible that all four of these restrictions relate to idol worship.”
3. It may seem that Paul is siding with the all knowing party and sanctioning their behavior. But he has a word for these brethren: there may be nothing wrong with eating meats sacrificed to idols but having the right knowledge and the right to do something are not the only things that govern behavior (this is where they were deficient in their knowledge)…one’s behavior must also be governed by love (agape) (8:9-12) .
a. I will never eat meat again:
1) A weak brother who sees you dinning in the temple of an idol may be encouraged himself to dine in the temple, even though his conscience is all the while bothering him while he does so . Now it is a sin to go against one’s conscience (Romans 14:23) and so your brother will perish (8:10-11) . The word “perish” or “ruined” describes the condition of one who was saved but who has fallen from grace. This is the brother for whose sake Christ died (8:11) and shows that it is possible for a child of God to fall from grace and be lost.
2) Whose fault is it that this brother is lost? While it is true that we are all responsible for our own sin, it is also true that those who cause another to stumble also sin: “And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ” (8:12) .
3) Love, then, must also be a factor that governs our conduct. There may be many matters of indifference in which I may either do or not do something but if by exercising my freedom, I cause a brother to stumble, then I will refrain myself from that thing (8:13) .
b. Does Paul really endorse partaking in idolatrous feasts (8:10) ? Later, he clearly condemns this practice!
"Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?" (1 Corinthians 10:14-22 NASBR)
27 Paul uses a Greek word that means food in general. 28 Based on his study of the Greek, Willis says, “The idea of ‘commend’ is a little definite; ‘present’ is better because it would include both presenting for commendation and condemnation.
79 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
1) For the moment, Paul is not considering whether they had the right to go to these temple feasts because it is irrelevant to his argument.
2) Rather, he is explaining and making clear how love must govern the conduct of the knowledgeable brethren in order to prevent the weak from stumbling. “In effect, Paul is granting for the time being that the strong had the right to eat meat sacrificed to idols in a pagan temple in order that he might demonstrate the demands of love on the conduct of the Christian” (Willis) .
Summary (i) Some of the Corinthians understood that an idol was nothing and that it was, then, alright to eat meat sacrificed to idols. But Paul reminds these brethren that knowledge alone is not the only basis on which one governs one’s behavior; knowledge that is not connected with love to God is deficient. Knowledge alone tends to puff up and causes one to behave arrogantly. Rather, one’s conduct must be governed by wisdom and love to God. (ii) Paul acknowledges that their knowledge is correct: there is no such thing as a idol, i.e., those idols do not represent gods or lords; they are non-existent. There is only one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. (iii) But not everyone has this knowledge, i.e., “This monotheistic knowledge possessed by all had not yet unfolded its full consequences in the consciousness of all” (Willis). This means that there were some who could not eat meats sacrificed to idols without considering it as an act of worship. Therefore, the knowledgeable brother, by continuing to eat such meat, may embolden his brother to eat such meat in violation of his conscience. Doing anything in violation of one’s conscience is a sin and causing another to sin is also a sin.
II. Paul’s Use Of Liberty (9:1-23) Paul shows that the principle of foregoing one’s rights to avoid offence was a rule by which he lived in his own life.
A. Paul’s rights (9:1a, b).
1. As a free man in Christ, Paul had the same rights as any other Christian. As an apostle he was in a position to assert his rights. But, as we shall see, he waived many of his rights for the progress of the gospel.
2. But there were some who would question whether he was an apostle! This is evident because from here until verse three he defends his apostleship. The third question marks the beginning of his defense.
a. Paul claims to have seen the Lord (9:1c) . Perhaps this could not be proved but the claim is relevant because having seen the Lord was one of the qualifications in being chosen and appointed to this office (Acts 1:22) .
b. Paul appeals to the church itself as a witness of his apostleship (9:1d) . There might be Christians who, not being acquainted with him, might deny his office but, surely, to the Corinthians he was. Indeed, they were the seal of his apostleship in the Lord (9:2) .
1) But how would Paul’s success in Corinth be proof of his apostleship? There are many men in our day who are very successful who do not have the approval of God aren’t there? Since his success in Corinth is supposed to validate his office, we conclude, then, that there is a connection to be made to the signs of his office that were wrought among them (2 Corinthians 12:12) .
2) The Corinthians faith in Christ was founded on the witness of the Spirit, who confirmed Paul’s word by the miracles that followed. Thus their very existence was living proof of his apostleship; the seal of his apostleship (9:2) .
3. Verse 3 has been badly translated. Many Bible versions translate the verse in this way, “My defense to those who examine me is this:” This gives the impression that what follows is Paul’s defense of his apostleship. The correct rendering is, “This is my defense to those who examine me.” In this rendering the word “this” is placed at the beginning of the sentence. The word “this” can refer to what follows or to what has gone before.
a. So, why do we challenge the traditional rendering?
1) Paul’s purpose in the text following verse 3 is to demonstrate how he himself lived by the principle given in 8:13.
2) What follows verse 3 “is not a defense of Paul’s apostleship by any stretch of one’s imagination” (Willis) .
80 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3) Several translations do have the better rendering – AMP, ESV, LB, NET, NIV, NLT.
4) Several commentators (including Willis) agree with the better rendering:
“The words are forensic; and the apostle considers himself as brought before a legal tribunal, and questioned so as to be obliged to answer as upon oath. His defence therefore was this, that they were converted to God by his means. This verse belongs to the two preceding verses” (Clarke) .
“These words are referred by some to the following, as if the apostle's answer lay in putting the questions he does in the next verses; but they rather seem to belong to the preceding…” (Gill) .
b. So verse 3 is Paul’s closing statement. He is saying, “So, that is my defence to those who examine me.”
B. Paul now shows how he himself was willing to forego certain rights for the sake of the gospel (9:4-23) .
1. Waiving the right to support (9:4-14) : Paul Argues that Preachers have the Right to be Supported 1. Supporting evangelists was already a common practice (9:4-6). a. Those who preach the gospel have 2. The laborer is worthy of his hire (9:7). the right to be supported by the 3. It is a Scriptural principle (9:8-10). churches. This was already an 4. What is earthly support in comparison to the riches of the gospel? (9:11). accepted practice and it was well 5. If others have the right of support then we do also (9:12). 6. Those who serve at the altar share in the offerings (9:13). known that the apostles, the 7. The Lord has ordained that preachers be supported (9:14). brothers of the Lord, and Peter were supported by the churches (and their believing wives also). If they had the right to be supported then didn’t Paul and Barnabas have the same right? (9:4-6) .
b. Paul gives three illustrations that make the point that the laborer is worthy of his hire – soldier, vinedresser, shepherd (9:7; cp. Luke 10:7).
c. Paul also shows that the Scriptures teach this principle (9:8) . The Scripture he now cites authorizes the support of preachers under the general principle that the laborer is worthy of his hire . The Scripture cited is Deuteronomy 25:4 "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing." Paul says that the Law was written for man’s sake and he shows the application to be made of this verse, which is to teach that the laborer is worthy of his hire (9:9-10) .
d. To reap material things (financial support) is not too much to expect after sowing spiritual things (9:11) . “The word megas (a great thing) emphasizes just how disproportionate the work of sowing (what is given: the gospel) is to that which is reaped (what is received: financial support). There is really, therefore, no just compensation for the communication of the gospel to someone” (Willis) .
e. The Corinthians were, in fact, supporting preachers (9:12a) . Paul’s Policy Regarding Support Who the “others” were is not stated. But Paul’s point is While Paul did receive support from churches that if these “others” had the right to be supported, then (2 Corinthians 11:9), it was his practice not to surely he who had founded the church there had the right receive support from those churches at which he was working . David E. Garland suggests five (9:12b) of support also . reasons why this might be the case, e.g., “He
may have assumed that potential converts might 1) The Corinthians would surely agree with all that Paul balk at accepting a gospel that came with has said on this matter. Having established his right strings attached. Now they must provide to be supported, he now shows how he lived by the financial support to their missionary.” principle whereby one should be willing to waive one’s rights for a greater cause. Paul and Barnabas had the right to be supported by the Corinthians but had waived their right and endured all things in order that the gospel would not be hindered (9:12b) . The application for the Corinthians is that they also should be willing to waive their rights in consideration of those brethren who were offended at them eating meats sacrificed to idols .
81 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2) What things did Paul endure? This probably refers to deprivations (See 4:12; 2 Corinthians 11:9). How would accepting support hinder the gospel? One commentator suggests that some of the Corinthians may have suspected that Paul preached the gospel merely for financial advantage. People will often refuse to listen to those whom they suspect are just preaching for financial reward. Thus, in waiving their rights, Paul and Barnabas showed that they had higher motives in preaching the gospel.
f. Paul now argues from something they knew, that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar (9:13; cp. Numbers 18:8- 20) .
1) Since Paul says, “Do you not know…,” he assumes that anyone who was familiar with Jewish or pagan worship understand this point.
2) Is Paul piling up the proofs unnecessarily?
“It may seem that Paul is piling up the proofs Paul “piles up the arguments” to draw out unnecessarily, 9:13-14 appears to be affixed to the the theological implications that his policy has for the issue at hand: the question of idol conclusion as an afterthought. But he may be shifting meat. He surrenders an irrefutable right so the argument to another level from compensation for that he can better win others to Christ. He secular work to compensation for religious service enslaved himself to all (9:19; cp. 2 Cor. 11:7, (Nasuti 1988: 251) . The cultic motif, with the mention of the he humbled himself) to fulfil his commission more effectively. He follows the paradigm altar and the administrants sharing from the offerings, set by Christ in his self-giving, self- ties back into the central issue, food offered to idols. It emptying, and self-sacrifice (11:1). In this also connects with the idea that those who eat the section Paul has gone to great lengths to sacrifices are sharers in the altar – an idea he will establish his rights as an apostle to receive community support in order for his develop in 10:18” (David E. Garland) . renunciation of those rights to have greater effect. Benefiting the spiritual good of others g. Finally, Paul raises the level of authority for this practice overrides insisting on divinely authorized another notch from the law and common sacerdotal prerogatives that he has from his service in practice to the command of Jesus (Matthew 10:8-10; Luke 10:7) . the gospel – David E. Garland Paul does not quote directly from Jesus’ teaching but summarizes it: “So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel” (9:14) . This simply means that one who preaches the gospel should receive support for the work they are doing. This support may come from churches or individuals.
2. Becoming all things to all men: waiving of other rights to save souls (9:15-26) .
a. Paul had not exercised his rights (9:15-18) :
1) Despite having the right to be supported and lead about a wife, Paul waived those rights in order to bear more effective witness to the gospel of Christ. In saying all this, he is not now trying to solicit support. He underscores this denial by saying that he would rather die? (9:15) .
a) “For it would be better for me to die than to have any man make my boast an empty one.” Commentators agree that this part of the verse has been poorly translated. The sentence actually breaks off in the middle and starts anew. It is better translated, “For it would be better for me to die than – No one will destroy my grounds for boasting!” Willis says this is characteristic of the speech of one who is emotionally charged.
b) The completed thought is, “For it would be better for me to die than to be accused of preaching for financial gain; for my ground of boasting is that I preach the gospel free of charge and I will not allow anyone to make the ground of my boasting void.”
2) But Paul had no ground for boasting in the fact that he preached the gospel because he was called and compelled to do so by Jesus Christ (9:16a) . The interjection, “For woe is me if I do not preach the gospel,” shows the strength of this compulsion.
82 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
a) Paul had been chosen by the Lord to preach the gospel even before he became a Christian (Acts 9:15; cp. Jeremiah 1:5) .
b) The compulsion he was under to preach reminds us of Jeremiah’s words, "But if I say, I will not remember Him Or speak anymore in His name, Then in my heart it becomes like a burning fire Shut up in my bones; And I am weary of holding it in, And I cannot endure it" (Jeremiah 20:9) .
3) If Paul had entered into the ministry voluntarily, then he would expect a reward 29 . But he did not enter the ministry voluntarily but was called and compelled to preach and, therefore, it was as a slave who had been entrusted with a stewardship. Paul is saying, “I discharge my duty as a slave and nothing more.” The idea is seen in Jesus’ conclusion in the parable of the slave…
"Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come immediately and sit down to eat'? But will he not say to him, 'Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink'? He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done .'" (Luke 17:7-10 NASBR)
4) Paul’s reward (in this life) for preaching the gospel was the feeling of satisfaction he received from preaching the gospel without charge so that he did not have to make full use of his rights (9:18) .
a) Paul would have been well within his rights to have chosen to receive financial support from the church at Corinth, but he chose not to make use of this right in order to further the gospel.
b) Thus, when he called on the brethren to waive their right to eat idol meat in order not to cause any to stumble, he could point to an example of following this principle in his own life. “Rather than demanding financial support from the Corinthians at the expense of possibly being charged with preaching for money, Paul decided to forego that right. He did not exercise every personal liberty he had in Christ lest, by so doing, he hamper the spread of the gospel” (Willis) .
b. Paul made himself a slave to all (9:19-23; see 9:1) . Paul, like every other Christian, was free to exercise his rights but chose not to do so in order not to hamper the spread of the gospel. It is this theme he elaborates on now by showing that this principle was a general practice wherever he preached. The reason he lived by this principle was, “So that I may win more” (9:19) .
1) When he was preaching among the Jews and those under the Law of Moses, Paul accommodated himself to their customs and practices as far as he could do so without compromising the truth (9:20) . So, for example, he would observe the customary feasts, Sabbath days, and dietary laws.
a) He did this in order to increase the chances of winning them to Christ (9:20) .
b) Paul is careful to add, “Though not being myself under the Law” (9:20) . He wanted to make it clear that he was only accommodating himself to the Jews and that he did not believe that Christians were obliged to keep the Law of Moses.
2) When he was preaching among the Gentiles, Paul accommodated himself to their customs and practices as far as he could do so without compromising the truth (9:21) . So, for example, he would not observe Jewish feasts, Sabbath days, and dietary laws. There were probably some pagan customs he could have observed without compromising the truth.
a) He accommodated himself in order to win as many of the Gentiles to Christ as possible.
29 The reward he speaks of is not salvation but the reward that God gives in addition to salvation.
83 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
b) Paul is careful to make it clear that he was only accommodating himself as far as was possible without compromising the truth; he would never go as far as to behave as if he were not under any law but was “under the law of Christ” (9:21) .
3) When he was among weak Christians, Paul also became weak in that he refrained, for example, from eating meats sacrificed to idols (9:22) .
a) The “weak” here are already Christians and do not need winning to Christ in the sense that they need to be saved. Rather, the “gaining” here probably refers to gaining for greater strength, for an advance in knowledge and in faith (See Lenski).
b) We notice that Paul has completed his argument about foregoing one’s rights in order to help those who are weak and has returned to the point from which he departed.
4) Why did Paul enslave himself to all men?
a) He did so for the sake of the gospel and to ensure that he shares in the blessings that are revealed in the gospel (9:23) . Please note how Paul’s conduct in becoming all things to all men was not only the charitable concessions of a benevolent man; his conduct also showed his own attempt to work out his own salvation . The following comment shows how cleverly Paul links what he says here with what he will discuss in the next section:
“Here a new thought is introduced. Up to this point he has been speaking of his self- denial for the sake of others; here he begins to speak of it as for his own sake. It is no longer ‘that I may save some,’ but ‘that I may be partaker of the gospel with you.’ ‘Do not think that I do not require this for myself. In order to do good we must be good. To extend our Christian liberty to the utmost verge, is dangerous not only for others, but for ourselves also.’ This argument he proceeds to support from his own example and secondly by the warning of Israelite history” (This is quoted in Willis’ commentary and is itself a quote: Stanley as quoted in Lange’s Commentary) .
b) The warning to the “strong” brethren is that they should not insist on their exercise of their liberties if it means a brother is offended.
Summary (i) Paul begins his argumentation by stating that, as a free man in Christ, he had the same rights as any other Christian and, as an apostle, he was in a position to assert those rights. But before continuing it was necessary to answer those who challenged his claim to be called an apostle. First, he claims to have seen the Lord; a qualification of an apostle. Second, he appeals to the church itself as a witness of his apostleship; for, while he was with them, he demonstrated the signs of an apostle. This, then, was his defense to those who questioned his authority and office. (ii) Paul was willing to forego certain rights in order not to hinder the gospel of Christ: one of which was to forego any support from the churches at which he preached. But first, by the presentation of several arguments, he demonstrates that preachers are entitled to support. If Paul was willing to forego his right to be supported in order not to hinder the gospel, then the Corinthians should be willing to waive their rights in order to prevent a weak brother from falling. Is Paul now saying all this to solicit support? He strenuously denies it and says he would rather die than accept support and so make his boast void. But, certainly, he had no ground for boasting in regards to preaching the gospel because he did not enter the ministry voluntarily but was called and compelled by Jesus Christ to preach the gospel. His only reward was the satisfaction he received in preaching the gospel free of charge. Further, he shows how this principle of self-denial was a general practice wherever he labored: to the Jew he became a Jew, to the Gentile he became a Gentile, and to weak brethren as weak. All this for two reasons: so as not to hinder the gospel of Christ and save as many as possible, and that he also might share in the blessings of the gospel. If Paul was willing to forego his rights to this extent, then they also should be willing to do the same in order to save as many people as possible, and they certainly should be willing to forego their right to eat idol meat for the sake of a weak brother.
III. The Peril Of The Strong (9:24-10:22) A Christian must not only waive his rights to prevent the weak from stumbling but also to save his own soul.
A. Self-denial as a condition for salvation (9:24-27) .
1. The Christian life is one of servitude and self-denial and Paul has shown just how far he was willing to go in the interests of furthering the gospel. He has shown how he was willing to waive his right to support and suffer deprivation that the gospel might not be hindered, and he has shown how this principle has been the general practice wherever he labored.
84 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
a. Paul became all things to all men that he might win as many as possible to Christ and that he might also share in the blessings of the gospel – eternal life (9:22-23) .
b. Paul now shows that a Christian must not only waive his rights to prevent the weak from falling but also to save his own soul. A Christian must not only be willing to forego all his rights, where necessary, for the sake of his brethren, and become all things to all men for the furtherance of the gospel and the salvation of as many souls as possible, but also to share in the blessings of the gospel - eternal life.
2. To emphasize the effort it takes to ensure that one is a partaker of the blessings of the gospel – eternal life – Paul compares such an effort with those who train to compete in the Isthmian games 30 .
a. One event in the games was track racing. There were many competitors but, of course, there could be only one winner who received the prize. Paul urges every Christian to run (live the Christian life) in such a way as if only one person were able to receive the prize (the crown of life) (9:24) . It is not enough to have entered the race and it is not enough to have run the race…one must win the race. You must run as if your life depended on it; and it does!
b. Strict training was required before entering the games (9:25a). The best translation of this verse is given by the NIV: “Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training.” The following gives just a brief glimpse of the gruelling training that athletes had to endure:
“Athletes are set apart for more rigid training to apply themselves to the building up of their physical strength. They are kept from lavish living, from tempting dishes, from more pleasurable drinks. They are urged on, they are subjected to tortuous toils, they are worn out. The more strenuously they have exerted themselves, the greater is their hope for victory” (A quote from Tertullian’s ‘To the Matyrs’ quoted by David E. Garland) .
1) Athletes had to go through ten months of rigorous training in order to compete in the contests and they regarded no sacrifice too great if it gave them some advantage over the other competitors.
2) The attitude of the athlete in training was that he was willing to sacrifice any and every right if it would gain him some advantage in winning the race. He may indeed have the right to eat and drink whatever he desired, train whenever he felt like it, etc. but willingly waived all these rights in order to ensure he had the best chance of winning the race. No athlete ever trained to come second!
c. Paul now compares the prize for which an athlete strives with the prize for which a Christian strives (9:25b) :
1) Athletes strive for a wreath of olive leaves that lasted just for a day. True, the main thing was the prestige of winning but even that, generally, lasted for only a short time. Yet he would return two years later to try and win again!
2) But the prize for which a Christian is striving is of immeasurable value…a crown of life (James 1:12; Revelation 2:10) , a crown of righteousness (2 Timothy 4:8) , a crown of glory that does not fade away (1 Peter 5:4) . How much more should a Christian be willing to forego his rights to obtain a prize of such immeasurable glory!
d. Therefore, like Paul, a Christian does not run like someone who doesn’t know in what direction to run or fight like a person whose punches are always missing the mark (this describes someone who is obviously undisciplined); but as one who is disciplined; one who brings his body into complete subjection (9:26-27a) . This self-denial and self-discipline was essential in order to win the prize (9:27b) . Paul did not want to spend his entire life preaching to others and then find he had himself been disqualified.
30 The Isthmian festival was held every two years at Isthmus, about 8 miles, and in full view of, the city of Corinth.
85 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
B. Paul had shown that self-denial was essential to obtain the crown of life (9:24-27) and he warned them about the possibility of being disqualified: "But I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified" (1 Corinthians 9:27) . Paul now gives the grounds for this warning (10:1-13) .
1. The Israelites experienced great privileges (10:1-4) :
a. The Israelites baptism (10:1-2) :
1) The cloud and the sea:
a) All were under the cloud. The cloud to which he refers performed three functions:
(i) It led them on their journey through the wilderness by day and night (Exodus 13:21-22) .
(ii) It served as a defense between Israel and Egypt (Exodus 14:20) .
(iii) It served to shelter them from the heat of the sun. “In the wilderness, when travelling through the burning desert, it seems to have been expanded over the camp as a covering, and a defence from the intense rays of a burning sun; Numbers 10:34, ‘And the cloud of Jehovah was upon them by day;’ Numbers 14:14, ‘Thy cloud standeth over them’” (Barnes) . It is probably this to which Paul refers. The cloud was a symbol of God’s divine favor and protection .
b) All passed through the sea. This is when God parted the Red Sea and allowed the Israelites to pass through on dry land to safety (Exodus 14:21-30) . This was proof of God’s divine favor and protection .
2) The significance of these things is that their following the cloud and passing through the sea made them disciples of Moses (10:2) . “The cloud and the sea did for them, in reference to Moses, what baptism does for us in The Relevancy to the Corinthians reference to Christ. It placed them under obligation to Did the Corinthians believe themselves to be secure because recognize his divine commission and submit to his authority. they were baptised into Christ? The This Israelite ‘baptism’ separated the Israelites from the Israelites, too, were baptised into bondage of Egypt just as Christian baptism separates one from Moses but, as we shall see, many of sin and brings one under the authority of Jesus Christ” (Willis) . them perished in the wilderness (Willis ). b. The Israelites food and drink (10:3-4) :
1) The manna and the water:
a) All ate the same spiritual 31 meat. This is a reference to the manna they ate in the wilderness (Exodus 16:13-15) .
b) All drank the same spiritual drink. This refers to those occasions when the Lord supplied water for the Israelites from a rock (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13) . The additional clause is difficult to understand: “For they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ” (10:4b) .
(i) Paul may have added this to debunk a Jewish legend that was connected with the rock through which water had been miraculously provided. The legend basically says that the rock which Moses struck and brought forth water literally followed the Israelites on their journey and provided them with water when it was required.
(ii) I understand Paul to be saying, ‘I know you are aware of the legend that says there was an actual rock that followed the Israelites but that is not true. However, there was a spiritual Rock that accompanied the Israelites on their journey and that Rock was Christ. Behind that manna and that water were the power and presence of Christ as He was in the pillar at the sea and in the dry road through the sea. Never once did He leave His people’ (This is a combination of my own understanding and a quote from Lenski) .
31 The word ‘spiritual’ denotes ‘supernatural’ as it refers to the miraculous origin of the food.
86 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
(iii) Why is Christ referred to as “a Rock” ? Some believe that Paul employed the Jewish legend to teach that Israel was sustained by the ever-present God. In the Old Testament, the figure of a rock was a description of God – See 2 Samuel 22:2; Psalms 18:2; 31:3; 42:9 and note especially Deuteronomy 32:4ff where God is called “The Rock” . This passage shows how God, “The Rock,” was with His people and watching over them from the time He found them in the desert and made them into a great nation. “Most probably what has happened in this context is this: the reference to The Relevancy to the Corinthians the time when Jehovah made water come out of The reference to the food and drink which the a physical rock to give the Israelites Israelites received was not chosen arbitrarily. Paul intentionally chose them to compare them to the nourishment reminded Paul of the passage in elements of the Lord’s Supper of which the Deuteronomy 32 where God is called ‘The Corinthians partook. Apparently, the Corinthians Rock.’ He realized that the incidents pertaining thought themselves eternally secure because they had been baptised and had shared in the Lord’s to the miraculous water supply occurred Table. Paul is reminding them that the greater part of because of God’s superintendence. the Israelites fell in the wilderness even though they shared in equally as great blessings (Willis). Consequently, he said that Israel partook of God’s superintending care during this period” (Willis) .
2) The significance of these things is that in eating and drinking they were continually reminded of God’s constant blessings, presence, and care for them.
2. Despite all these great privileges, many of Have You Lost The Plot? the Israelites died in the wilderness (10:5) . I confess that things have been getting a little complex and so, in case we have In fact, only two people entered the ‘lost the plot’, let us just remind ourselves of the point Paul is making:
Promised Land – Joshua and Caleb 1. The Corinthians had raised the question of whether it is right or wrong to eat (Numbers 14:30; 26:64-65) . The point the meats sacrificed to idols. The Corinthians believed that, since an idol was nothing, they were perfectly within their rights to eat meats sacrificed to idols, Corinthians need to grasp is that it is and even to participate in such feasts in the temples of the idols. possible for a Christian to lose his 2. Paul concedes that they are correct in saying that an idol is nothing and, therefore, that eating such meat is within their rights. But their conduct was not salvation. The blessings that Israel in accordance with the principle of love because certain of the brethren who did enjoyed and their falling away were not posses the knowledge they did had become emboldened to also eat such recorded that we might learn not to make meats against their better judgment and so violated their consciences. To go ahead and do something against one’s conscience, though it is lawful, is a sin. the same mistakes as they did (10:6a). But 3. It would seem that they were unconcerned about what they were doing to their what were the mistakes they made? brethren. So Paul tells them plainly that in causing a brother to fall, for whom Christ died, they also sinned against Christ. Paul’s conclusion is: if eating meat a. Lusting after evil things (10:6b) . Paul causes my brother to fall, then I will never eat meat again. These brethren, then, should be willing to waive their right in this matter to prevent a brother from does tell us what the “evil things” are falling and that they also not sin. that they lusted after but many 4. This is a principle by which Paul himself lived. After going to great lengths to demonstrate that a preacher had the right to be supported by the church, he believe that the event in Numbers 11 presented them with the fact that he had waived his right to support from them is a possible contender. In that place that the gospel might not be hindered. the children of Israel lusted after meat 5. Paul then goes on to show them how the waiving of his rights was a principle he practiced in general wherever he labored: he became all things to all men and many of them were put to death that he might not hinder the gospel and save as many people as possible, and he as a result (Numbers 11:1, 33) . There was considered it necessary to do so to ensure he would share in the blessings of the gospel. nothing evil about the meat they 6. That’s right! Living by this principle – waiving one’s rights for the sake of lusted after but, rather, it was the fact others – was necessary if he hoped to share in the blessings of the gospel – eternal life. For what if he should exercise his rights and cause a brother to fall that they lusted after things over and or cause the gospel to be hindered…has he not sinned against Christ? It would above what God had provided for be a sad thing to have preached the gospel to others and yet end up lost them. They were not content with wouldn’t it? 7. But did these brethren really believe they could be lost? It seems not! They had God’s provision for them. been baptised into Christ, they communed with the Lord in the communion, and Jesus was ever present among them. If they enjoyed all these privileges, then b. Idolatry (10:7) . The incident to which how could they be lost? This is the design of chapter 10. The Israelites were all Paul refers is recoded in Exodus 32:1- baptised into Moses, they ate and drank, and Jesus was present among them but, despite these privileges, the Lord was not pleased with most of them and 6. The people grew impatient waiting they died in the wilderness. Only Joshua and Caleb entered the Promised Land. for Moses to come down from the Are the Corinthians still so confident of their salvation? mountain and made a golden calf. They worshipped the calf and held a feast. Israel committed idolatry and 3000 of them were put to death as a result (Exodus 32:28) .
87 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
c. Fornication (10:8) . This event can be found in Numbers 25:1-9. The Midainites caused Israel to worship idols through the use of Moabite whores. Israel committed fornication and 2300 32 were put to death as a result (Numbers 25:9) .
d. Tempting the Lord (10:9) . This refers to the account in Numbers 21:4-6. Israel complained to Moses about the lack of water and miserable food. Israel tried the patience of God and many were put to death as a result (Numbers 21:6) .
e. Murmuring (10:10) . This probably refers to the event Special Privileges are no Guarantee of Salvation in Numbers 16:41-50. The people murmured against “By recalling the example of Israel, Paul showed Moses after the Lord had killed Korah and his 250 that being recipients of special privileges did not guarantee one’s salvation. He argued that Israel had followers. Israel murmured against Moses and received a ‘baptism’ and a ‘supper’ just the same as 14700 of them were put to death as a result (Numbers the Corinthians had; nevertheless, the greater 16:49) . portion of them were lost. Hence, the fact that one is a recipient of special favors from God is no 3. Paul says that these incidents were intended to serve as guarantee that he will be saved” (Willis). examples and admonitions for us who live in the 33 Christian era (10:11) . Let us now note how these examples were relevant to the Corinthians:
a. Lusting. Just as the Israelites were lusting after evil things (10:6) , so the Corinthians were guilty of the same; they lusted after the meat sacrificed to idols. As we noted in the introduction, practically every social function involved the use of meat sacrificed to an idol. We might conclude that they were, therefore, lusting after this social fellowship even though they were jeopardizing their souls.
b. Idolatry. Just as the Israelites were guilty of idolatry (10:7) , so the Corinthians were guilty of the same when they ate meat sacrificed to idols in the temple of the idol. Neither the Israelites nor the Corinthians considered their conduct to be idolatrous but it was nonetheless 34 .
c. Fornication. Just as the Israelites were drawn into idolatry through fornication (10:8) , so the Corinthians could be drawn into fornication through idolatry. At the idol temples the “strong” Corinthians were frequenting, idolatry and fornication were commonplace. The presence of the temple prostitutes was an ever present temptation.
d. Tempting Christ. Just as the Israelites tried the patients of God when they complained about the lack of water and miserable food (10:9) , so the Corinthians would try the patience of Christ if they complained about Paul’s prohibition on eating meats sacrificed to idols in the pagan temples.
e. Murmur. Just as the Israelites murmured against Moses (10:10) , so the Corinthians were likely to murmur against Paul if he, as they might see it, restricted their social life.
4. The conclusion of the matter (10:12-13) :
a. Watch that you don’t lose your salvation (10:12) . Despite all the privileges that Israel enjoyed, the majority died in the wildness and did not enter the Promised Land (only Joshua and Caleb entered Canaan). The reason they died was because of sin: lusting, idolatry, fornication, tempting God, and murmuring. Paul has shattered the Corinthians’ over-confidence. The Corinthians thought they were standing in the faith (Cp. 1 Corinthians 16:13) but were in great danger of falling or losing their salvation (10:12) .
b. God’s faithfulness (10:14) . The temptations that come to us are only those that everyone experiences. But whatever temptations seize us, God has promised that He will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear and that He will also show us a way of escape. But, in the context, how does this verse fit the thrust of Paul’s argument?
32 It is not within the scope of this lesson to discuss the numerical discrepancy. 33 This is the meaning of the phrase, “Upon whom the end of the ages have come”. 34 The sin of the Israelites was not in their adopting another god, but in their pretending to worship a visible symbol of Him.
88 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
1) The testing (tempted) probably has reference to the allurements held out by idolatry and the persecution that resulted when one renounced it. “Becoming a Christian inevitable led to personal difficulties, social estrangement, and persecution. Peter describes these social problems, ‘For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you (1 Peter 4:3-4) ’” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
2) “The pressure to compromise and join may be greater than we can imagine but God promised that he would not allow them to be tested beyond what they were capable of enduring and would also provide a way of escape. “In the Corinthian situation, a refusal to participate in idol feasts will not result in any trauma that God’s power cannot help them endure. Consequently, there is no excuse for any compromising involvement in idolatry” (D. Garland) .
35 C. Paul now speaks in clear unmistakable terms in commanding the Corinthians to flee idolatry (10:14-22) . Their participation in the feasts at an idol’s temple (drinking the wine that had been poured out as a libation to a pagan deity and eating meats sacrificed to an idol) is idolatry. Paul calls upon the Corinthians to use their wisdom and powers of reasoning to The Cup of Blessing The cup is called here “the cup of judge what he says (10:14-15) . blessing” not because it produces blessings but, rather, it may refer to 1. Concerning the Lord’s Supper (10:16-17) . Paul’s point here is that all either to the cup that Jesus blessed at the participants in the Lord's Supper were unified and bound the Last Supper (Matthew 26:27) or together in one spirit. Their sharing of the Supper is a declaration to the practice of saying a blessing that they worshipped the same divine being, shared the same over the cup before it is distributed. Interestingly, during the annual precious faith, and had the same glorious hopes as each other . There Passover meal, three cups were are three things here that directly apply to the issue of participation passed around and the family head in idolatrous feasts: would bless the third cup of wine before passing it around (Willis). a. First, in partaking of the Lord’s Supper we are fellowshipping with Christ (10:16) . Paul is saying that the same is true of idol feasts…a fellowship is created between the participants and the god. Just as they cannot partake of the Lord’s Supper as detached observers, so they cannot partake Social Assumptions Connected to Meals in the idol feasts as detached observers. In the ancient world, people understood
that meals incurred obligations. Given the b. Second, in partaking of the Lord’s Supper we are ubiquitous [i.e., widespread or prevalent] fellowshipping with one another. For since there is one bread, patronage system, they also understood we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one that one could not accept an invitation to bread (10:17) . eat with one’s patron [a customer or supporter] and also accept an invitation c. Third, “the emphasis on the blood of Christ sharpens the from that one’s bitter rivals without basically switching patrons. Participating seriousness of the covenantal relationship to Christ. Blood in a patron’s meal displays one’s seals a covenant…The ‘fellowship of His blood’ (1 Corinthians solidarity with that patron. The unity with 10:16) parallels the explanation of the cup in 11:25 as the new Christ and with one another in the meal covenant in His blood” (David E. Garland) . Breaching this has consequences for participation in any other meals that also create bonds and covenant can only result in serious consequences for the signal alliances. If meals embody the believer. community, then one cannot embody community with Christ and with demons. 2. Paul now reminds them of how the worshippers who offered their One cannot be aligned with Christ and sacrifices on the altar under the old covenant shared in the altar aligned with demons (David E. Garland). (10:18) . The worshipper brought his sacrifice to the priest and he offered some of it as an offering on the altar. The remainder was shared between the priest and the worshipper (Leviticus 8; Deuteronomy 12) .
35 Fleeing idolatry is God’s way of escape in connection with this particular sin (10:13). The same is true for many sins.
89 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
a. The worshippers, then, shared with the altar in the thing sacrificed to God. THE POWER BEHIND THE IDOL If Paul says that an idol is nothing (1Corinthians 8:4), and b. If the Corinthians could see that those who shared the Old Testament says the idol can't hear or see, then the Lord’s Supper were one body and those who why is the Lord concerned about idolatry? Why does the Lord relate idolatry with spiritual adultery? The answer is sacrificed at the altar were fellow participants quite simple. When anything that is compared with God, with the altar in the sacrifice to God, then, surely, it is nothing in comparison, absolutely nothing so an idol they could understand that participating in idol is nothing in comparison. However, there is a power feasts made them idolaters! behind the idol that will affect the relationship one has with God, a power that is seducing, destructive, and very 3. Is Paul now saying that the deity represented by idol deceptive. It is this break in relationship, the continual demonic hold that idolatry has that becomes spiritual (10:19; cp. 8:4-6) really does exist? . How can Paul adultery and just like Israel and just like Judah, it will continue to say that idols have no existence and still cause the Lord to divorce Himself from us (Author unknown. argue that eating meats sacrificed to idols will result www.tpwmi.com/adultery2.html). Anything that separates us in condemnation? How can fellowship exist with a from God and has control over us is an idol. god who does not exist?
a. While it is true that the idols do not represent any real gods, it is also true that they do “represent a reality, if only a value system, that directly competes with God” (David E. Garland) . The idols actually represent something demonic and so, in sacrificing to an idol, one is sacrificing to a demon. Satan, through the use of demons, has used idolatry to draw men away from God. Therefore, although the pagan deities have no real existence, there is a real spiritual significance in following idolatry because the worshipper is worshipping Satan rather than God. This is confirmed in the next verse.
b. In sacrificing things to idols the worshipper is sacrificing things to demons and is, therefore, fellowshipping with demons (10:20) . Note carefully Paul’s words, “And I do not want you to become sharers with demons.” The Corinthians, in participating in the idol feasts, did not believe for one minute that they were fellowshipping with demons but Paul implies that, actually, they were fellowshipping with demons, whether they believe it or not or whether intentional or not.
1) Paul’s language, “They sacrifice to demons” and “Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy?” may be an allusion to Deuteronomy 32:16-17.
2) The incident in the wilderness when Israel made and worshipped the golden calf (Exodus 32:1-6) was idolatry and they were actually sacrificing to demons; even though they believed they were worshipping Jehovah!
4. It is morally impossible to have fellowship with the Lord and with demons (10:21) . To continue in this course would provoke the Lord to anger and, unless we think we are stronger than He and able to prevent Him from executing His wrath upon us, it is foolish to provoke Him (10:22) .
Summary (i) The Christian life is one of servitude and self-denial and Paul demonstrated how he himself lived a life consistent with this teaching. He willingly waived his rights, where necessary, and became all things to all men as far as he could without compromising the truth; for the sake of the gospel and that he might share in the blessings of the gospel – eternal life. The Corinthians, too, must adopt the same attitude if they hoped to share in the blessings of the gospel. To emphasize how far they must be willing to go and how much they must strive, Paul uses an illustration from the Isthmian games: every athlete puts himself through ten months of vigorous training and self- denial to obtain the prize. Likewise, Christians must strive to obtain the prize – eternal life. (ii) The Corinthians had a false sense of security, based on their spiritual blessings, which gave rise to complacency. To rout this complacency, Paul reminds them of the blessings that Israel enjoyed during their forty years of wandering through the wilderness: they were under the Lord’s divine favor and protection, they were all baptized into Moses, and they all partook of the Lord’s meal. Yet thousands were put to death for their lusting, idolatry, fornication, tempting the Lord, and murmuring. The Corinthians were not, then, as secure as they supposed. One is only secure in the Lord through continued faithfulness and obedience. (iii) In clear terms, Paul commands the Corinthians to flee idolatry. In partaking of the Lord’s Supper they were fellowshipping with the Lord and with one another, and in participating in the idol feasts they were committing idolatry. It might be objected that this cannot be so because there is no such thing as an idol. True, but they do represent something and that something is demonic. Satan uses idolatry to draw men away from God, and so they were actually fellowshipping with demons. It is a moral impossibility to have fellowship with God and with demons.
90 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
IV. Final Statement Of Principles (10:23-11:1) In this final section Paul discusses the application of the principles he has set forth to different situations that would arise in private households.
A. All things are lawful (10:23) . Here is a resounding of the statement made earlier but the two statements are not exactly the same (see quotes). This is mentioned again to explain the bases of the conduct he insists upon in the following verses.
"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything" (1 Corinthians 6:12 NASBR)
"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify" (1 Corinthians 10:23 NASBR)
1. This passage is often abused and so it is worth stating once more that “all things are lawful” only applies to things that are morally indifferent. We certainly have a right to exercise our liberties but we must restrict the use of such to that which builds up the body of Christ. Rather than authorizing “all things” this verse is forbidding some things that are lawful. In the context, this verse applies to the eating of meats sacrificed to idols. A Christian has the right to eat any meat he desires, even meat sacrificed to idols. But under certain circumstances this right must be waived.
2. Christians are not to be self-seeking but other-seeking (10:24) . In our thoughts, speech, and conduct, we must ever be sure that we have the spiritual good of others at heart. Those who continue eating meat sacrificed to idols and cause a brother to fall is one who is only seeking his own interests.
B. Purchasing meat at the market (10:25-26) .
1. Christians should not begin making inquiries about the meat they are going to purchase, i.e., asking whether a particular piece of meat was used in a sacrifice to an idol. This is because the act of offering the meat to an idol does not change the meat in any way.
a. Outside of its idolatrous context, meat sacrificed to idols becomes simply food. The implication here is that it was perfectly ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols in one’s own home.
b. “For conscience sake.” It is difficult to determine whose conscience Paul has in mind, the market trader’s or the buyer’s? I am inclined to think it is probably the buyer’s but Willis says it is the market trader’s.
2. The quote in verse 26 is from Psalms 24:1. This is given as a reason why one should not ask questions about the origin of meat: it is because meat is a part of the “fullness” of the earth. All things, even the meat in the market, belongs to God and just because it had been offered in sacrifice to an idol did not in any way change its intrinsic nature.
C. Eating meat over at a friend’s house (10:27-30) .
1. It may be that a non-Christian friend invites you over for dinner and Paul’s instruction, assuming you want to go, is to eat whatever is set before you without, as with the market trader, making enquiries about whether the meat was used in a sacrifice to idols for conscience sake (10:27) . The conscience of the host is probably in mind here. In a social setting like this there was no danger that such a meal would be considered as idolatry.
2. However, if the host happens to mention that the meat was offered to an idol then one must refrain from eating it for the sake of the host’s conscience (10:28) . Why? Before we answer this we might ask, “To whom does the ‘anyone’ refer?” It could be the host (who is not a Christian) or it might be a weak brother who has also been invited and knows the background of the meat in question.
a. If the comment comes from the host, then one should refrain from eating so as not to seem to be endorsing idolatry. If the comment comes from a weak brother, then one should refrain from eating so as not to lay a stumbling block before him.
b. The sense of verses 29b-30 is this: why should I go ahead and eat if all it is likely to bring upon me is judgement and blasphemy?
91 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
D. Paul summarizes his two main principles (10:31-32) :
1. In regards to God. Whatever we do we must do all to the glory of God (10:31) . If the “strong” brother were to ask, “Is my conduct bringing glory to God?” before he acted, then maybe he would have thought twice about causing his weak brother to stumble.
2. In regards to other people. We must ever have an attitude of not wishing to offend anyone: whether Jew, Gentile, or the church of God. Paul is here referring to becoming all things to all men and being willing to waive our rights that we do not hinder the gospel of Christ.
E. Paul’s final words (10:33-11:1) :
1. Paul reminds the brethren that he himself lives by the same principles in order to save as many as possible.
2. He then urges the Corinthians to be a follower or imitator of him who is also an imitator of Christ. Perhaps the implication here is that they only imitate him as far as he imitates Christ. Jesus is the supreme example of one who gave up His rights for the sake of others…
"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Philippians 2:5-8 NASBR)
"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich" (2 Corinthians 8:9 NASBR)
Summary (i) Paul restates the principle he made in 6:12 and states an attitude of mind that will determine their conduct when they go shopping for meat and accept invitations to social meals. The question, then, he expected them to ask is, “Will my conduct build up the other person, and is it in their best interest?” (ii) When they were buying meat at the market, they should not start making enquiries as to the origin of the meat for conscience sake. Regardless of whose conscience Paul has in mind, they should just buy the meat, go home and eat with thanksgiving. The earth and everything in it belongs to the Lord, including the meat at the market; and meat does not undergo any changes just because it has been offered to an idol. (iii) There may be occasions when a non-Christian friend invites one of them over for a meal. Paul’s instruction is to eat whatever is on the plate without asking questions about the meat. Should anyone else happen to make an issue of the meat’s origin, then one is to refrain from eating it. To go ahead and eat in this case would just bring unnecessary judgment and blasphemy upon one’s self and it’s just not worth it. In other words, waive your right to eat to avoid such unnecessary behavior. (iv) Paul reminds the brethren of the two great principles on which he has been elaborating: do everything to the glory of God and become all things to all men. (v) Paul lived by these very principles and, therefore, urged them to imitate him. Paul himself imitated Christ and he would not want the brethren to imitate him in anything that was not an imitation of Christ.
Summary & Application
1. Meat sacrificed to idols:
a. Summary. (i) Some of the brethren at Corinth believed that it was wrong to eat meat sacrificed to idols but others argued that since an idol was nothing, then there was nothing wrong in eating such meat. This knowledge was puffing them up and causing strife among them. (ii) Paul concedes that it is alright to eat meat sacrificed to idols but shows them that a person’s conduct must be governed by love. They were deficient in knowledge if they did not realize this. (iii) While it is true that we all know that an idol is nothing and we all know that there is only one God and one Lord, not everyone has this knowledge, it had not yet unfolded its full consequences in the consciousness of everyone because some were still unable to disassociate the eating of such meat from an act of worship. It was quite possible that in continuing to eat such meat, a weak brother might be strengthened to eat such meat himself in violation of his conscience. It is a sin to encourage people to violate their consciences and it is a sin to go against one’s conscience.
92 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
b. Application. (i) You might have more knowledge than some people but if that knowledge makes you feel proud and you look down on others because they don’t have as much knowledge as you, then you do not know as you ought to know. (ii) All the knowledge that we gain through our study of the Scriptures must be in connection with our love for God. Conduct that is governed by knowledge alone will lead to pride, arrogance, strife, and become an occasion for stumbling for our brethren. (iii) There may be many things that, as a Christian, I am free to do, things that are matters of indifference to God. But my love for God and my brethren must be the guiding principle that governs my conduct. I may be free to eat all kinds of meat but if by eating certain foods I would cause a brother to do the same in violation of his conscience, then I will not eat that food. But let us be sure we do not abuse this principle to exercise lordship over our brethren. The following comment explains:
“This passage of Scripture has been much abused by brethren in effort to make everyone conform to their conscience. If there is something a brother is doing or not doing that is not according to their liking then they will say that they are offended and appeal to this passage to effect a change in their brother’s behavior that conforms to their views. The English word ‘offend’ has these meanings: ‘to injure another’s feelings, to displease, to make angry, to embarrass.’ The Greek word skandalizo means ‘to cause to fall.’ As used in this context, it means that one is offended when he is influenced by the conduct of another to do something he believes is wrong and so violates his conscience.’ If one is not offended in this way then there is no offense” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary )
2. Paul’s use of liberty:
a. Summary. (i) As a free man in Christ, Paul had the same rights as every Christian and, as an apostle, was in a position to assert those rights. To those that challenged his apostleship, Paul reminds them of the fact that he was a witness of the resurrection and had performed the signs of an apostle while among them. (ii) Paul had rights but he was willing to forego those rights if it meant the gospel would be hindered in some way; which is why he refused support from the Corinthians. Paul demonstrated that a preacher has a right to be supported: the Scriptures support this view in principle and Jesus ordained it be so. But Paul waived this right and so he expected the Corinthians to be willing to waive their rights to avoid offending their weak brethren. There might be those who think he is soliciting support but he denies this and says it would be better to die than that any man makes his glorying void. In this he might boast but he had no ground for boasting in preaching the gospel because he did not enter the ministry voluntarily but was called and compelled to preach by Jesus Christ. He had no choice! He was like a slave who had been entrusted with a stewardship and could expect no reward. His only reward in this life was the satisfaction he received in preaching the gospel free of charge. Now he shows how this principle – waving one’s rights in consideration of others – was a general practice wherever he preached. He became all things to all men: to the Jew a Jew, to the Gentile a Gentile, to weak as though weak. But he did so without ever compromising the truth. Why? In order not to hinder the gospel and to save as many people as possible, and to ensure that he shared in the blessings of the gospel. If Paul was willing to forego his rights to this extent, then they also should be willing to do the same in order to save as many people as possible, and they certainly should be willing to forego their right to eat idol meat for the sake of a weak brother.
b. Application. Other people can inspire us can’t they? Paul was undoubtedly a great man and we stand in awe of his zeal and dedication to the preaching of the gospel, even in the face of the fiercest trials and persecutions; he endured everything for the sake of the gospel and rejoiced in his weakness. In view of the greatness of this man, we should all be ready to listen and learn from the example of his life of self-denial in the service of others. “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1) . (ii) Paul had the same rights as every Christian and was in a position to assert those rights. Yet he lived his life by the same principle he resounded in 8:13. Certainly we should be willing to waive our rights in order to prevent a brother from falling. Is there really anyone amongst us willing to assert their rights to the point that it causes a brother to fall? But how far are you willing to go? We must be willing to go as far as Paul and become a 36 slave to all men. You must be willing to go “the whole nine yards. ”
36 An American expression of unknown origin that means ‘all the way’ or ‘everything’.
93 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3. The peril of the strong:
a. Summary: (i) The Christian life is one of servitude and self-denial that Paul demonstrated in his life. He willingly waived his rights and became all things to all men for the sake of the gospel, to save as many souls as possible, and that he might share in the blessing of the gospel – eternal life. Paul strove with all his might to obtain the prize for fear that, after preaching to others, he himself became disqualified. Likewise, the Corinthians must strive to obtain the prize. This relates to the question of eating meats sacrificed to idols in chapter 8. Paul is saying they must not only waive their right for the sake of the weak brethren, but also to save their own souls. For if they caused a weak brother to fall, then that would be a sin against Christ. (ii) The Corinthians supposed they were eternally secure because Christ was with them, they had been baptised into Christ, and they communed with Him in the Lord’s Supper; this was the root of their complacency. But Paul reminds them of the fact that Israel, too, enjoyed great privileges: Christ was their provider and protector, they were all baptised into Moses, and they all partook of the divine food and drink. Yet many thousands were put to death because of their lusting, idolatry, fornication, tempting the Lord, and murmuring; the very sins the Corinthians were committing or in danger of committing. Paul, then, demolished their sense of false security. (iii) In partaking of the Lord’s Supper, Paul reminded them that they were fellowshipping with the Lord and with each other and, this being so, it would also be true of those who participated in the feasts in the pagan temples. They needed to realize that behind the idol lay a demonic influence and that they were actually having fellowship with demons!
b. Application. (i) For the sake of the gospel, in order to save as many souls as possible, and to ensure our own salvation, we must be willing to waive our rights, where necessary, and become all things to all men as far as possible without compromising the truth. (ii) Like the Corinthians, we must not allow ourselves to be led into a false sense of security concerning our salvation. Yes, we have been baptised, we have fellowship with Christ through the Lord’s Supper, and we are under the providential care of God but, whatever our blessings, these are not a guarantee of salvation; we cannot afford to become complacent. We are secure in our salvation only as we continue in our faithfulness to God, obedience to Christ, bearing the fruit of the Spirit, and our love for the brethren. (iii) A common understanding of idolatry is that of bowing down and worshipping the image of some supposed deity. But idolatry is anything to which we are devoted that draws us away from God. Behind any kind of idolatry there is a demonic influence and Paul says “flee from idolatry.” Many people, even Christians, read their daily horoscopes. Many people take astrology very seriously and others see it as “just a bit of fun.” People turn to astrology because they are seeking advice and guidance. Astrology is idolatry because it involves honoring the stars and planets and allowing them to rule our lives. God is the only one we must honor and let rule our lives. Just as there is a demonic reality behind the idols crafted by men’s hands, there is a demonic reality behind astrology.
4. Final statement of principles:
a. Summary. (i) Although a Christian has every right to eat meats sacrificed to idols, Paul has shown that there are two circumstances in which a Christian ought to waive this right: if doing so causes a brother to fall and if it involves one in idol worship. Paul’s aim now is to deal with two other circumstances: purchasing meat at the market and going to a friend’s house for dinner. Before giving his instruction, Paul reminds them of the principles upon which he has based his whole discussion. These can be combined into a question: “Will my conduct build up the other person, is it in their best interest?” (ii) The Corinthians know that the majority of the meat that they purchase at the market is likely to have been used in a sacrifice to an idol. Paul’s instruction is not to make a fuss; don’t start interrogating the seller about the origin of the meat as though it is a matter of conscience or as if you are trying to make the seller feel guilty. Just buy it, take it home and eat it. (iii) Likewise, if a friend asks you over for dinner, just sit and eat whatever is set before you without asking questions about the origin of the meat. However, if anyone starts to make an issue of it, then do not eat it because this will just lead to harsh judgments and blasphemy. (iv) Paul resounds again what characterizes the Christian life: doing everything to the glory of God and living a life of self-denial in the interests of others. (v) Paul lived this way and he exhorts the brethren to imitate him as he also imitates Christ.
94 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge b. Application. (i) We have many freedoms in Christ but in the exercise of those liberties we have to consider whether our conduct is profitable and edifying for all concerned. We also have to consider whether we are motivated by self-interest or the good of our neighbor. These considerations must be our guide in deciding whether we need to waive our rights in any given circumstance. There is an old adage that says, “God first, others second, me last.” (ii) Is it likely that any of the meat in our supermarkets today has been sacrificed to idols? I really don’t know. What about when we travel abroad, is there a greater chance of buying meat sacrificed to idols? Again, I don’t know. But it really shouldn’t worry us anyway. A Christian is not to ask questions about the origin of food. (iii) The same is true of social occasions; it is unlikely that the host will be serving food that has been offered to idols. But, just the same, we shouldn’t ask questions. However, some people still make distinctions between clean and unclean foods and we should be willing to waive our rights should an issue arise in connection with such. (iv) The biggest challenge we face is living a life of self-denial. Our lives, all too often, center around our own desires; we live to please ourselves. But, in fact, our lives must be characterized by a desire to glorify God and a desire for the good of those around us. If we truly lived according to these principles, then we would be a lot happier – do you believe it? Many of the problems that plagued the church at Corinth in that day, and the churches of Christ today, are because Christians are not living by these principles. (v) Paul is an example of one who done all things to the glory of God and became all things to all men, and his life is one we can imitate. Paul himself was imitating Christ who gave up His rights to bring glory to God and had our best interests at heart. If there are men and women you know living exemplary lives, then imitate them as they imitate Christ.
95 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
96 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
CONDUCT IN THE ASSEMBLY
This section covers 11:2-14:40
97 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
98 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Conduct in the Assembly (11:2-14:40)
"Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me. In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come" (1 Corinthians 11:2-34 NASBR)
"Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware. You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, Jesus is accursed; and no one can say, Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit. Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body, it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body, it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you ; or again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then
99 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way" (1 Corinthians 12:1-31 NASBR)
"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love" (1 Corinthians 13:1-13 NASBR)
"Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying. But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me. So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church. Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the Amen at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. In the Law it is written, BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME, says the Lord. So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you. What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner" (1 Corinthians 14:1-40 NASBR)
100 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Introduction
1. This section (11:2-14:40) deals with problems related to conduct in the public assembly:
a. The head covering (11:2-16) .
b. The Lord’s Supper (11:17-34) .
c. The exercise of spiritual gifts (12:1-14:40) .
2. There are two very difficult passages that I have struggled with in these chapters: (i) relating to the head covering (11:2-16) and (ii) relating to the cessation of spiritual gifts (13:8-13).
a. A brief synopsis:
1) The head covering. The problem is not in determining whether or not Paul was telling women to wear a covering because it is clear that he is; he presents six arguments for the woman to don a veil. The problem is in determining whether Paul was establishing a positive law or whether he was commanding Christians to avoid any action that would violate an established custom.
2) The perfect. The difficulty here is in determining what Paul had in mind by “that which is perfect.” One view supposes it refers to the perfect government that Christ will establish upon His return and another supposes it refers to the completed cannon of Scripture. Both views have their difficulties.
b. Brethren of intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, and integrity have, in every generation, held differing views in connection with these things and I do not claim to have any greater wisdom or insight than they.
I. The Head Covering (11:2-16) Women were removing their veils when praying and prophesying and Paul presents several arguments to show that they ought to keep their heads covered.
A. Paul begins this section by praising the brethren for remembering him in all things and holding fast to the teachings he delivered to them (11:2). The issue of women veiling is now addressed. Paul says, “But I want you to understand….” The Corinthians did not understand why the wearing of a veil was necessary. Paul presents six arguments that explain why women should continue to wear a veil.
1. First argument: Everyone has a head (11:3) .
a. You will notice that Paul is not outlining a chain of command because the references to Christ frame the statements about man and woman (see chart). Paul is establishing the premise that everyone has a head so that he can argue that violating established customs reflects a disregard for authority and, therefore, brings shame upon the one violating custom. His purpose is not to write a theology of gender but to correct an unbefitting practice in worship that could tarnish the church’s reputation.
The references to Christ frame the statements about the man and the woman The head of every man is Christ The head of every woman is the man The head of Christ is God
b. The word head is used in two senses: to refer to that part of the body and to refer to superior rank. In verse 3 it is used in the latter sense. Christ is subject to God because God is superior in rank, Man is subject to Christ because Christ is superior in rank, and woman is subject to man because man is superior in rank.
c. Paul mentions the divine order, not because they were unaware of it, but because he is acknowledging that the woman’s relationship to man is not changed or altered by the gospel .
101 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
1) This would explain what the Corinthians did not understand. Paul had taught "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28) . A misunderstanding of Paul’s words led them to suppose that the gospel had altered the relationship of the sexes and that women were no longer subject to men. Thus, not being in subjection to men, they could remove their veils, which were a symbol of their subjection, couldn’t they?
2) Paul, however, is showing that this is not the case; the gospel has not altered the relationship between the sexes and, therefore, they must continue wearing a veil in accordance with the traditional custom of their time and culture.
2. Second argument: You’re dishonoring your head (11:4-6) .
a. Paul’s instructions pertain only to praying and prophesying (11:4) . This reveals that the Corinthians thought that there was no need for women to wear a veil when praying or prophesying.
1) Concerning the distributive usage of the word every .
a) It is important to notice the distributive usage of the word “every” in verses 4 and 5. To see the point I am making, consider this statement: “Every man having flu or measles…” Would we understand that the same man has both flu and measles?
b) In the Greek, there is no grammatical reason for supposing that the one praying is the same person as the one prophesying. It is important to recognize the distributive usage of the word every because some commentators say that the praying to which Paul refers is limited to inspired prayer. But this is because they assume that the same man or woman is both praying and prophesying; not having taken into account the distributive usage of the word every .
2) Concerning when and where:
a) One commentator says, “It is quite essential to note that no modifier is attached to the participles to denote a place where these activities were exercised. So we on our part should not introduce one, either the same for both the man and the woman, for instance, ‘worshipping or prophesying in church,’ or different ones, for the man ‘in church’ and for the woman ‘at home.’ By omitting reference to a place Paul says this: ‘Wherever and whenever it is proper and right for a man or for a woman to pray or to prophesy, the difference of sex should be marked as I indicate” (Lenski) .
b) This makes sense because Paul elsewhere forbids women to teach or have authority over the man (1 Timothy 2:11-12) and to remain silent in the assembly (14:34-35) . Note: what is done in the assembly is introduced in verses 17 and 18.
b. A man who wears a veil while praying or prophesying dishonors his head (11:4) . This is not said because any man would wear a veil but to bring out the contrast with the woman.
1) The word head here is used figuratively to stand for the whole person 37 . Paul is saying that he brings dishonor or shame upon himself by wearing a token of subjection.
2) The shame is upon the man himself for recognizing someone of superior rank in addition to Christ. Lenski says, “By covering his head he makes a woman of himself. He acts as though he has a human head over him besides the divine head Christ, like the woman – which is not true….We may, of course, also say that this act of his reflects on Christ, but Paul does not follow out this thought.”
37 This is a figure of speech called synecdoche where a part stands for the whole.
102 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
c. A woman who leaves off her veil while praying or prophesying dishonors her head (11:5) .
1) The word head here is used figuratively to stand for the whole person. Paul is saying that she brings dishonor or shame upon herself by leaving off the veil, which is a token of subjection.
2) The shame is upon the woman herself for not recognizing the authority of men over her. She is acting as though she is a man and takes to herself an honor that is not hers; that is shameful (11:5a) .
3) To emphasize how shameful it is to leave off the veil (even if she does not feel that shame) Paul equates it with the shame of having her head shaven (11:5b) . It is unclear to me in what way a shaven head was a shame in those days but the women of that day knew and that’s all that matters.
4) Paul further argues from consistency. ‘If you will not wear a veil, then shave your hair off as well.’ But Paul knows she is not willing to be so consistent because that would be a great shame for her, which, of course, is the point. Thus, if it is a shame for her to be shaven then she should cover her head when praying and prophesying (11:6) . “This matter of being merely uncovered is in reality only an inconsistency. She stops halfway. She only compromises. Halfway positions and 38 compromises are untenable ” (Lenski) .
3. Third argument: The order of creation (11:7-9) . Paul now explains the basis of the assertions he made in verses 4-5.
a. A man ought (this word indicates moral responsibility) not to wear a covering because he is the image and glory of God (11:7a) .
b. The woman, though, is the glory of man (11:7b) for two reasons: (i) because she was created out of man; her existence was dependant upon him (11:8) , and (ii) because she was created to be man’s helper. The woman was not made for an existence independent of man (11:9) .
4. Fourth argument: Because of the angels (11:10) .
a. For the reasons stated above, a woman ought to have “authority” on her head. Most translations understand this to mean ‘a symbol of authority.’
b. The words “because of the angels” have baffled commentators of all generations and there are numerous theories as to its meaning. Of all the interpretations there are two that seem the most plausible to me, the latter being the one I prefer:
1) “The most common explanation is the one which says that the angels are present at the Christian assembly watching what transpires there. Elsewhere the Scriptures teach that angels are witnesses to what transpires on this earth (cf. Lk. 15:7, 10; 1 Cor. 4:9) . The angels would recognize a violation of God’s revealed order when the woman refused to be subordinate to the man” (Willis) . Although plausible, it is supposed that this takes place in the assembly but we noted what Lenski said earlier, “By omitting reference to a place Paul says this: ‘Wherever and whenever it is proper and right for a man or for a woman to pray or to prophesy, the difference of sex should be marked as I indicate.’”
2) “The simplest explanation (since Paul was speaking of the proper subordination of woman) is that this is a reminder that the "angels who kept not their first estate" lost heaven; and it is not far- fetched to draw the analogy that those precious angels called women should not go beyond the limitations imposed upon them by their creation” (Coffman) .
5. You can’t have one without the other (11:11-12) . Paul departs from his argumentation for a moment to offset any tendency of man to think of himself as being independent or superior to the women.
38 Incapable of being defended.
103 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
a. While it is true that the first woman was of the man (referring back to the creation), it also true that every man born ever since has been born of the woman. Neither man nor woman is independent of the other “in the Lord” or in God’s divine arrangement (11:11-12a) .
b. Man also needs to remember that “all things are of God” (11:12b) . The woman may have come from the man but God is the one who created both man and woman. Man, then, cannot consider women as inferior. Subjection to another does not mean inferiority. Jesus is in subjection the Father but He is not inferior is He?
6. Fifth argument: A lesson from nature (11:13-15) .
a. Paul calls upon the Corinthians to “judge for themselves” whether it was proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled. They could do this by learning a lesson from what nature teaches (11:13-14) .
b. “Does not even nature itself teach you…” (11:14) . What does the word “nature” signify? It could mean either “the regular law or order of nature” (Vine’s) or “…the word nature (phusei) refers to one’s acquired nature through habitual, regular practice” (Caldwell, Ephesians ).
1) In the former sense of “the regular law or order of nature” we do not learn anything that contributes toward our understanding that long hair is a shame to a man but a glory to a woman.
2) In the latter sense of “one’s acquired nature through habitual, regular practice” we can learn lessons but it depends on the culture in which one lives. For example, long hair on men in Jamaica is not shameful but in some western countries it is frowned upon and seen as feminine. So, what a person learns from “nature” depends on where he lives. I believe the word “nature” is used in this sense here.
“When Paul speaks of ‘nature’ ( he physis ), he means what his society understands to be natural. Since male hair grows the same way as female hair does, he must be referring to hair that conforms to societal expectations concerning male and female hairdos” (David E. Garland) .
3) So what did nature teach the Corinthians? The following quote explains…
“The problem in Corinth is not hair length or its dressing. If the Corinthians, for whatever reason, deliberately rejected these conventions, calling their attention to them would hardly be a forceful argument to correct this behavior. Instead, Paul is interested in what ‘nature teaches’ and brings up hair only by way of analogy. It serves as a type of cover. Nature has given women hair as a glorious, natural cover. Therefore, women should follow the lead of nature, as defined by social decorum, and cover their heads. The peribolaion is ‘an article of apparel that covers much of the body’ (BDAG 800), such as a cloak or a mantle (see Heb. 1:12). Men, on the other hand, do not use hair as a cover, since it is dishonorable for them to have long hair. Taking this cue from nature, men do not need a cover; women do” (David E. Garland) .
7. Sixth argument: The custom among the churches (11:16) .
a. Paul has presented arguments to show that a man ought not to pray or prophesy with his head covered and that a woman ought to cover her head when she prays or prophesies. But there might be some who are inclined to be contentious and continue arguing that a woman did not have to wear a covering. There is nothing wrong with honest study and debate but we must remember that Paul is an inspired apostle; what justification is there to contend the word of an apostle? (11:16a) .
b. Paul responds to the contentious by saying that the custom that some are trying to introduce (that of women removing the veil to pray or prophesy) is not an apostolic tradition (11:16b) .
c. Also, there is no such custom (that of women removing their veil to pray or prophesy) among the churches of God (11:16c) . This means, of course, the opposite was true: it was customary for women to keep the veil on when praying or prophesying. But it was only a custom.
104 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
B. Conclusions from the exegesis:
1. Whether or not you agree with all the exegetical points that I have presented, it is clear that Paul is arguing that women wear a veil when praying or prophesying 39 .
2. If my particular exegesis is correct then the wearing of the veil when praying or prophesying was a custom in that particular time and culture. The application for today is that Christians ought not to disregard traditions and customs that would bring shame on us, as Christians, or the church of Christ. The same rule would apply if you traveled abroad. For example, if you traveled to a place where it was considered immoral for women to expose their arms and shoulders, especially in the assembly, then you should cover your arms and shoulders. This is the principle taught earlier: we must be willing to waive our rights and become all things to all men.
Summary (i) A misunderstanding of their status in Christ led some women to suppose they could disregard long standing customs, at least to some extent, and remove their veils when praying or prophesying. Paul responded by presenting several arguments for women to keep on their veils: everyone has a head; the veil is a sign of submission and to leave it off brings disgrace upon one’s self; the woman being made out of man for man and she is subject to man. If woman do not want to keep their proper estate then they should remember those angels who thought likewise; they can learn from long established custom that wearing a covering is appropriate for women; and the custom among the churches is to wear a veil. (ii) Paul argues that women should continue to wear their veils when praying and prophesying. It should be remembered that Paul had earlier spoken about the attitude of mind we are to have as Christians: always being willing to waive one’s rights and become all things to all men, that the gospel of Christ is not hindered in any way.
II. The Lord’s Supper (11:17-34) The Lord’s Supper had been turned into a common meal and there were social divisions among the brethren with which Paul now concerns himself.
A. Coming together for the worse (11:17-22) .
1. The purposes for coming together (whether on Sunday or any other day) are to edify, encourage, strengthen, discipline, etc. But when the brethren at Corinth were coming together it was, Paul says, “for the worse” (11:17b); the assemblies were doing more harm than good. This, obviously, was not something for which he could praise them (11:17a) .
2. So, what was going on?
a. The brethren were coming together for a common meal or feast (11:21-22) , during which they partook of the Lord’s Supper. This may have been influenced by the fact that Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper during the Passover meal (Matthew 26:26-28 40 ; Luke 22:14-20 41 ) or by pagan worship in which religious feasts were commonplace (8:10) .
b. Although the church came together in one place, there was a salient division between the rich and the poor. The rich, having more leisure time at their disposal, arrived first, but the poor, having to work longer hours, arrived later. But rather than waiting for everyone to be present, the rich families began feasting and partaking of the Lord’s Supper ahead of the poorer brethren. The rich, then, had their fill but the poor went hungry (11:18, 20, 21) . The division, then, was social rather than theological.
1) The Greek word hairesis (translated as heresies, factions, divisions) can refer to divisions that are doctrinal and non-doctrinal in nature. It is clear from this context that the hairesis here were social in nature. Paul is speaking about the class divisions between the rich and the poor.
2) We might find Paul’s statement about such factions rather surprising: “For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you” (11:19) . One commentator views this statement as an expression of bitter irony about these factions. It is as if Paul were censuring the rich, saying, “You are approved of God so, of course, you must separate yourselves from the poor or you will not stand out.” But I prefer the following interpretation:
39 For an alternative view, see Hugo Hutto’s article at the end of this booklet. 40 Matthew 26:26 says that Jesus took the bread while they were eating. 41 Luke 22:20 says that Jesus took the cup after they had eaten.
105 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
“Some Christians have a utopian vision of the church wherein there are no serpents to deceive and no ragged rocks against which to dash one’s foot. At the first sign of trouble, therefore, they become very upset and discouraged and move to another congregation where they suppose there is peace and harmony. I once knew a couple with this attitude who had switched congregations eight times. Finally, they stopped going to worship altogether; their utopian vision shattered and their faith shipwrecked. Those of us that are mature in our thinking will at once see their folly and realize that the church is made up of men and women from a great diversity of backgrounds and levels of maturity, and problems are inevitable. The day before I got married, a good friend of mine, who had himself been married for 30 years, and sensing that I viewed marriage as a lifetime of pure bliss and trouble-free years, said to me, ‘Marriage is a wonderful thing and I am sure you will have many, many years of happiness together. But let me assure you that disagreements and problems will arise and you must decide, now, how you’re going to handle them. A marriage doesn’t fail because of problems; it fails because of the way in which you deal with those problems.’ Satan cannot destroy God’s kingdom but he is seeking to cause chaos, division, disorder, strife, and whatever else may be sown among the churches in order to make havoc of them. It is a mistake to become upset and discouraged when difficulties arise because such things, although tragic, provide us with an opportunity to demonstrate that we are genuine believers, that our faith is of pure gold, and that we are approved of by the Lord. Those who cause divisions are not approved of God but those who exhibit love, pursue peace, and seek to maintain the unity of the Spirit are the ones approved of God” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
3. This behavior was wrong on a number of levels:
a. Paul had earlier said, “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (10:16-17) .
1) In partaking of the Lord’s Supper, we are fellowshipping with Christ and we are fellowshipping with one another . Brotherhood and unity are key thoughts that the Corinthians seem not to have understood because, “divisions exist among you” (11:18) .
2) Paul mentions “coming together” twice (11:17, 18) and “meet together” once (11:20) . The implication of verse 20 is that they meet together to eat the Lord’s Supper (Cp. Acts 20:7) . These brethren should have known better than to divide into groups and eat ahead of one another when the Lord’s Supper is meant to be shared together in unity.
b. Paul founded the church at Corinth and it is unlikely that he would have taught the Corinthians to observe the Lord’s Supper without teaching them its significance. It is also unlikely that he taught them to observe it after the manner of the Passover or as part of a common meal.
1) The Corinthians themselves had perverted the Lord’s Supper. Paul asks, “What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?” (11:22) . Willis says, “Paul, by this rhetorical question, commanded the Corinthians to eat at home….This verse prohibits the perverting of the congregational assembly into an occasion for a common meal.”
2) Paul’s obvious disappointment with the brethren also indicates they should have known better and the common meal was their own innovation (11:22) .
B. The nature of the Lord’s Supper: a feast or a memorial? (11:23-26).
1. Paul’s purpose is to remind the brethren of the proper method for observing the Lord’s Supper and to reinforce his point: “You come together not for the better but for the worse” (11:17) .
106 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
a. As mentioned above, Paul founded the church at Corinth and very likely taught the proper method of observance of the Lord’s Supper, so what is Paul’s intention here? I believe Garland gives a partial answer:
“He does not intend to teach the Corinthians something new about the Lord’s Supper or to correct their theology of the Lord's Supper. He cites it only to contrast what Jesus did at the Supper with what they are doing at their supper ” (David E. Garland) .
b. It should be noted that Paul received this instruction directly from the Lord (11:23) .
2. Contrasts:
a. The Supper was instituted by Jesus himself during the evening Passover meal, the same night in which “he was being betrayed” (This, according to Willis, is how the imperfect verb should be translated ). Paul may have mentioned this fact for two reasons:
1) To emphasize the deeply solemn nature of the Lord’s Supper. Jesus instituted it on the night of His “handing over.” Nearly all Bible versions translate paredideto as “betrayed” as referring to Judas’ betrayal of Jesus. The New American Bible translates it “handing over.” The ambiguity allows it to point to something other than human treachery. “It can be a divine passive that refers to God’s plan of handing Jesus over for our salvation” (David E. Garland) .
"He who did not spare His own Son, but handed Him over for us all, how will He not also give us everything else along with Him?" (Romans 8:32 NAB)
2) To contrast this solemn occasion with frivolity with which the Corinthians partook of it. Their observance of the Lord's Supper did not resemble the meal that Jesus instituted.
b. The words, “in remembrance of Me” Contrasts make it clear that the Lord's Supper is a memorial (11:24, 25) . It is a memorial of The Lord’s Supper Corinthians It was a solemn occasion Frivolously observed Jesus’ suffering and death for our sins. Jesus’ self-sacrifice Corinthians’ selfishness Jesus was “handed over” but it is Jesus’ shameful death Corinthians’ shameful overindulgence important to remember that Jesus and treatment of others. willingly and selflessly handed Himself over to be condemned in our stead (John 10:17-18; Ephesians 5:2, 25) . “…it is clear that Paul contrasts Jesus’ self-sacrifice at the Last Supper with the Corinthians’ selfishness at their supper” (David E. Garland) .
c. Paul says, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He 42 comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26) . Is this proclamation in the action of partaking or by homily ? I believe it is probably both but Paul seems to be concerned here with what is said in the action of eating and drinking. In verses 26-29 he mentions eating and drinking five times. Paul is saying that their actions in their meal do not proclaim the Lord’s death , which is why he says that their meal is not the Lord's Supper (11:20) .
1) In eating and drinking, the Lord’s death is proclaimed. “For Paul, the Lord's Supper should evoke Christ’s obedience unto death, the humiliating death on a cross (Philippians 2:8) . It should preach Christ crucified” (David E. Garland) .
2) Jesus’ shameful death stands diametrically opposed to the claims of social status that were at work in the Corinthian church. If they were really proclaiming the Lord’s death when they partook of the bread and the wine, they would not be overindulging, despising others, shaming the poor, or allowing them to go hungry.
42 A talk.
107 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
C. Partaking of the Lord's Supper in a worthy manner (11:27-34) .
1. It was because of the manner in which the brethren had been partaking of the Lord's Supper that Paul could say they were not eating the Supper (11:20) . Paul now shows the proper manner in which to eat and drink. He also shows that there are serious consequences for those who do not observe it in the proper manner.
a. Eating and drinking in an unworthy 43 manner goes against the purpose of the Lord’s Supper, which is to proclaim the Lord’s death, and it makes one liable (guilty, enochos ) for the death of the Lord (11:27).
1) The word enochos is a judicial term, so it means the individuals involved are answerable to God for their abuse of the Lord’s Supper. They become responsible for His body and blood; they are chargeable for Christ’s death.
2) The idea is that those who partake of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner have switched sides. They have left the Lord’s side and aligned themselves with those who put Jesus to death. This is why Paul says they are subject to God’s judgment (11:29) .
b. A person, then, must ensure that he is partaking of the Lord's Supper in the proper manner (11:28) . The proper manner is discerned by considering the design of the Lord’s Supper: it was instituted on the night Jesus was being handed over, it speaks of Jesus self-sacrifice, and it proclaims His death for our sins. If we are seriously considering these things, then it becomes impossible to observe it in a frivolous manner, act selfishly, and treat it as a common meal. Partaking Worthily 2. The judgment upon the one who partakes of the Lord's Supper unworthily Some people think this means we (11:29-32) . must consider whether we are worthy to partake of the Lord’s a. Whoever eats and drinks unworthily brings upon himself the Supper. So, some will say to themselves, “I have not lived a condemnation of God (11:29a; cp. Ephesians 2:3) because he is not very pure life this week and so I discerning the Lord’s body (11:29b) . am unworthy to partake of the Lord’s Supper.” In that case no b. If a person is not discerning the Lord’s body, then the result is a one would partake of it because decline into spiritual death (Isaiah 59:1-2; Ephesians 2:1) . Some were in we all feel that way. So it doesn’t this spiritual decline (“weak and sick”) and some were already mean that. Rather, it means we spiritually dead. Is it possible for them to recover or had they crossed must make sure we are partaking in the right frame of mind. If you the point of no return (Cp. Hebrews 6:6) ? In Revelation 3:1-2, many are focusing on the meaning of supposed they were alive but they were dead (cp. Revelation 3:17) . But the Lord’s Supper, then you are Jesus calls on them to repent. So I think it is possible for them to partaking in a worthy manner. recover if they repent.
c. If, however, a person would examine himself and be sure he is in the right frame of mind and discerning the Lord’s body, then he would not be under the condemnation of God (11:31) .
d. “But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord” (11:32a) .
1) The judgment and chastening had come through Paul’s letter . Remember, the Corinthians didn’t seem to realize they were under condemnation or that some of them were sick and some dead. Paul has only just told them! Consider: the church in Laodicea supposed it was rich and wealthy and in need of nothing (Revelation 3:17a) . But Jesus reproved them (Revelation 3:15, 17b) and then says, “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline…” (Revelation 3:19) . The reproof and discipline came through the letter sent to the church.
2) The reason for this judgment and chastening upon the Corinthians was for the same reason Jesus rebuked the church at Laodicea, which was to bring about repentance that they should not be condemned with the world (11:32) .
43 This refers to doing something that does not match up with character or nature of something.
108 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
e. The brethren were to “come together” to partake of the Lord's Supper (11:33a) . The Corinthians were coming together to partake of the Lord’s Supper but eating at different times. If they came together to break bread (cp. Acts 20:7) , then it seems ridiculous to go ahead and eat before everyone arrives. Nevertheless, Paul adds, “wait for one another” (11:33b) . The Lord’s Supper is a communion with Christ and a sharing with one another.
f. Paul’s restatement of verse 22 confirms that the assembling of the saints is not an occasion for so called ‘fellowship dinners.’ “What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?” (11:22) . “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home” (11:33) . The Lord’s Supper is not designed to satisfy our hunger.
Summary (i) The Corinthians were still partaking of the Lord’s Supper but in the context of a common meal. One possibility is that they were influenced by the pagan feasts that were held in honor of their god. The real significance of the bread and wine had been forgotten and they were taking pleasure in overindulgence. There were also social factions among them; the rich arrived first and began feasting and the poor arrived later and went hungry. This is the inexcusable conduct that Paul addresses in this section. (ii) The Lord’s Supper is meant to be partaken of together; it is a communion with Christ and a sharing with one another. How ridiculous to come together to communion with the Lord and share together and then do neither! (iii) Paul now highlights their shameful behavior by reminding them of the circumstances in which Jesus instituted the Supper and the significance of the elements. The Supper was instituted on the night that Jesus was being handed over as a sacrifice for our sins; it was a solemn occasion. But the Corinthians observed it in a frivolous manner. The Supper is a memorial of Jesus self-sacrifice. But the Corinthians were overeating and getting drunk. The Supper is a reminder of Jesus’ shameful death on the cross. But the Corinthians were behaving inconsiderately and selfishly toward their poor brethren. (iv) The Corinthians were partaking of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner, which had far more serious consequences than they might had supposed! It made them guilty or chargeable for Christ’s death, they were under the condemnation of God, and this is why many were sick and some slept among them. The Corinthians should consider what he says as a judgment and rebuke from the Lord and repent. While no discipline seems good at the time, they should realize that the Lord only disciplines those that He loves.
III. Spiritual Distinctions (12:1-14:40) Various problems had arisen in connection with spiritual gifts that Paul deals with in this section. The three basic problems seem to be pride, a lack of love, and self-promotion. In the pagan religions there were those who experienced ecstatic utterances and other phenomena. It is suggested that the Corinthians were viewing the spiritual gifts of the Spirit in the same way and they “probably did not think that it made any difference whether or not what one said was understood by the congregation, that the spirit of the prophets was subject to the prophet, or that the purpose of the gifts was edification” (Willis).
A. The variety of spiritual gifts (12:1-11) . The first three verses are difficult to interpret and flaws might be found in any interpretation. What are the difficulties? First, the word pneumatikon (spiritual) can be treated as a neuter or masculine noun. If the noun is masculine then pneumatikon should be translated “spiritual ones.” If the noun is neuter then pneumatikon should be translated “spiritual gifts.” Second, most commentators view verse three as criterion for discerning authentic inspiration. The problem with this is that “Jesus is Lord” is not a prophetic utterance but the basic confession made by every Christian (Cp. Romans 10:9; Acts 16:31) . “The confession is a validating sign that one is a Christian inspired by the Spirit44 , not a touchstone to gauge authentic prophetic speech” (David E. Garland) . The arguments and explanations are too numerous to include here, so I will just present what I believe is true in keeping with the context.
1. Introductory remarks (12:1-3) .
a. I believe that verse 1 is better interpreted, “Now concerning spiritual persons…” . The masculine usage is seen in 2:15; 3:1; and 14:37. It seems that the question regarding who is spiritual is a live issue. In the immediate context, Paul refers only to persons: “you were” (12:2) , “no one” (12:3) , “each one” (12:7) , and at the end of this discussion, he speaks to those “who think they are spiritual” (14:37) .
b. In verses 2-3, Paul expands on the question concerning who is spiritual . He describes three religious experiences:
1) The pagan or Gentile experience: they were led astray to dumb idols. The focus here is on the destination of the leading- to dumb idols 45 . Paul’s purpose is to contrast their former pagan life with their current life being led by the Spirit. Paul is seeking to establish that all Christians are spiritual . “The contrast is between then, when they were pagans and led to dumb idols, and now, when they confess that Jesus is Lord” (David E. Garland) .
44 The phrase “inspired by the Spirit” is used here to mean that one became a Christian through the influence of the Spirit. 45 This connotes lifelessness and an inability to help.
109 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2) The Jewish experience: they declared that “Jesus is accursed” . This statement fits the assessment of Jesus found in Jewish circles. “Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Rabbi Trypho specifically mentions Jews anathematizing Christ in their The term “spiritual” does not apply exclusively synagogues and cursing Christians. Since the to those who, according to the Corinthians’ evidence reveals that this cursing of Jesus actually yardstick, had this or that conspicuous speech occurred in the synagogues, it is the most likely gift, but to all Christians. This point serves to background” (David E. Garland) . relativize “all claims to greater or lesser spiritual attainment” because a person demonstrates or 3) The Christian experience: they confess that Jesus is lacks certain gifts (M. Mitchell 1993: 267-68) . In this Lord. It is by the Spirit that one is able to say that introduction, Paul sets the stage for his argument that “each person has his or her own individual “Jesus is Lord.” One is led to this conviction by the gifts and roles to play, each of which in its own Spirit when one believes the testimony of the Spirit way benefits the community” (M. Mitchell 1993: 268). (The concept here is similar to Paul’s statement, He seeks to correct those in the church who see “For by one Spirit we were all baptised into one themselves as a Spirit-bearing elite to be set apart from the rest of the congregation (David E. Garland). body” - 12:13. See the reasoning below where this verse is discussed and you will see the point more clearly). “For Paul, the Spirit of God ‘helps us to understand the thoughts of God and His gracious acts toward us’ (2:12) and results in this confession” (David E. Garland) . This chapter discusses the distribution of spiritual gifts among Christians by the Holy Spirit for the common good. In his opening, Paul makes it clear that all who confess that Jesus is Lord (Romans 10:9) qualify as spiritual persons . Having a particular gift does not make one more spiritual than anyone else.
2. A variety of gifts but one Spirit (12:4-11) .
a. Paul’s objective now is to demonstrate (i) that there should no divisions among them in regards to spiritual gifts. (ii) the true purpose of spiritual gifts. (iii) that no gift should be depreciated and that there is no cause for one being arrogant against another.
1) There are a variety of gifts but all the gifts are given by the Holy Spirit (12:4) . Paul is not emphasizing that there are different kinds of gifts but that all the gifts come from the same source . It should also be noted that the word “gifts” is translated from the Greek word charisma and emphasizes the fact that the gifts are given by grace; the recipient did not earn or merit such a gift.
2) There are a variety of ministries but all are used in the service of the same Lord (12:5) . All of the gifts that are given by the The three persons of the Spirit are all used in the service of the same Lord. Godhead are seen to be working together here: the Three Things To Note 3) There are a variety of effects but the 1. No one person is given Spirit distributes the gifts, the anything that is not given to ….. same God who causes these effects Lord is served by the gifts, and the whole body; gifts are to be ….. (12:6) . The gifts of the Spirit produce the Father is the one who exercised for the well-being of ….. different effects but it is God who produces the miraculous effect. the body. 2. An individual’s ….. actually brings about those effects. gift is not given to promote his own personal status. 3. The …..a. The purpose of spiritual gifts is not related to the benefit of the term “common good” should not be thought of in such a ….…. individual but to the benefit of whole body (12:7) . The benefit Paul way that it is assumed to be space has in mind is edification (14:3, 4, 5, 12) . It is selfish to view a gift of superior to the good of an space the Spirit as means of promoting oneself as spiritual, and it is sinful individual. The mutual benefit space to promote divisions based on the value of the gifts. Paul develops represents “the success of each member” . space the statement “to each one is .given” in 12:8-10, and “for mutual space benefit” in 12:12-26.
110 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
b. Paul enumerates some of the gifts of the Spirit (12:8-10) . The purpose here is show that each person has been given a gift for the benefit of the body and that all the gifts come from the same source (12:11) . We will not comment extensively on these gifts for fear of losing sight of the purpose.
1) The word of wisdom. This is a message that was characterized by its obvious wisdom. Soards says, it is the “God-given insight into the mysteries purposes and workings of God in and through Jesus Christ.”
2) The word of knowledge. “The message of knowledge may comprise such things as the affirmation that idols have no existence (8:4) . It also comprises insight into what God is doing in the world (2:12-16) ” (David E. Garland) .
3) Faith. This was obviously a miraculous faith but it is difficult to determine its exact nature. Garland says, “In the immediate context, it appears to be related to miracles – for example, the faith to move mountains (13:2) .” Another commentator considers it to be “a mysterious surge of confidence which gives him an otherly certainty and assurance that God is about to act through the word or through an action (such as laying hands on someone sick)” (Dunn) .
4) Healing. This is the miracle-working power to restore health to a sick person. Dunn suggests that it does not refer to the ability to heal all diseases but to instances of actual healing. “At various times, individuals become agents of God’s healing power in another’s life” (David E. Garland) .
5) Effecting of miracles. “Most probably it referred to the producing of wonders such as the expulsion of demons, infliction of divine judgments (cp. Acts 5:1-11; 13:4-12) , or raising the dead” (Willis) .
6) Prophecy. Many limit prophecy to the ability to foretell the future. Indeed, it does include such an ability but is not limited to foretelling future events. The prophet was a spokesman of God who spoke of the past, present, and future. The prophet revealed and expounded the will of God.
7) The distinguishing of spirits. This was the miraculous ability to distinguish between an inspired prophet and an uninspired pretender. Note: since a true or false prophet was determined in this way, it is unlikely that 12:3 is another method of distinguishing between them.
8) Speaking in tongues. This was the miraculous ability to speak in a foreign language that one had not learnt. This was the gift that seems to have been so highly prized above all others by the Corinthians. “The Corinthians were proud, self-seeking, and self-centered. They were spiritual show-offs--desiring to be in an up-front position. So to them, the gifts were a big deal. They showed off their spirituality by demonstrating their gift” (John MacArthur) .
9) Interpretation of tongues. This was the miraculous ability to translate from one language into another. The tongue speaker himself might be able to translate what he says to some extent but not with the same degree of accuracy as the one endowed with the gift of interpretation.
c. All these gifts were distributed to each individual by the Spirit according to His own will (12:11) . No one had the right to think of himself more highly than one who had another gift because all the gifts originated from the same source .
B. Unity in diversity (12:12-31) . The church is not made up of members who are competing against one another but a body whose members are interdependent upon one another and who work together for the good of each member and the body as a whole. The body has many members, each performing a different function, but the members are united as a body. It is important to note that the diversity here is functional not doctrinal.
1. The opening verse is related to what Paul said about members of the church having different gifts of the Spirit. Paul, by means of this illustration, is showing the Corinthians how each member with their different gift of the Spirit should be working together for the good of the body (12:12) .
111 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge a. All individual members make up the one body (12:12) :
1) The human body has many different members – head, eyes, ears, nose, mouth; chest, stomach; arms, hands, fingers; legs, feet, toes, and many other external members and internal parts – and each member of the body does something different. But, despite there being many members, all the members together make up the one body .
2) The spiritual body – the church – is also composed of many individuals and each person does something different (referring to the gift of the Spirit that each one has). But, despite their being many individuals, all individual Christians make up the one spiritual body – the church. b. How is it that we are all members of the spiritual body of Christ? (12:13) :
1) “For by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body” (12:13a) . As in 12:3, the idea is that each person is baptised (water baptism) under the influence of the Spirit . The Spirit revealed the word of God, and in particular the conditions of salvation, to all men through the agency of men that led to their belief and obedience to the gospel. “The Corinthians were all led to be baptized into one body under the influence of the Holy Spirit. The influence of the Holy Spirit was manifest in the proclamation of God’s word. Therefore, the word of the Spirit led them to be baptized into one body” (Willis) .
a) You will recall that on the day of Pentecost, the crowds, hearing Peter’s sermon, asked what they should do (Acts 2:37) . Peter told them to be baptised for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) , and those that were baptised saved themselves from that wicked and perverse generation (Acts 2:40- 41) . People continued to be saved on a daily basis in the same way and the Lord added these saved ones to the church (Acts 2:47) .
b) Regardless of a person’s background, all have been added to the same body (12:13b) . As Garland says, “Baptism washes away the ethnic and sociological barricades that previously separated and alienated them.”
2) “And we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (12:13c) . This is difficult to understand and commentators have varying views. I would think that this is in connection with a person’s baptism; the idea being that when a person is baptised he was made to drink of one Spirit. It is something that happened at baptism. One commentator puts forward two suggestions: “The meaning could be that each one partakes of the all the spiritual blessings that result from a person’s obedience. Or it could mean that each person from that moment is nourished by the word of God. This would mean understanding the word ‘Spirit’ to be ‘spirit’ or mind” (Claude Devereux) . But, nevertheless, Paul’s point is that every member participated in the same Spirit or mind. This being true, there is no reason for disunity or rivalry to arise in connection with the gifts of the Spirit. c. Paul now addresses the disdain and envy that one member of the body might have for another by continuing with his analogy (12:14-24a):
1) Paul addresses those who are discontent with their “inferior” gifts (12:14-20):
a) The body is not composed of one member but many members (12:14) . This, of course, is obvious but highlights the fact that a body, by necessity, must have different members working together to function . Can the church function as a body if all spoke in tongues? He will return to this thought later.
b) Allowing different parts of the human body the power of speech, there might be some members that feel they are not really a part of the body because they are not performing such an important function as another part of the body (12:15-16) . The idea is, of course, absurd and we all recognize that every member of the body is necessary and a part of the body regardless of its function .
112 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
(i) This, then, is addressed to those in the church that had gifts that were not as highly regarded as others and felt they were dead limbs.
(ii) Paul reassures them that they are as necessary to the body as the other members. They should not aspire to be what they are not but, rather, be content with the endowments of the Spirit and function in the realm in which God has placed them.
c) If the human body was composed of only one member (like an eye) then the body could not function (12:17) . This is obvious but Paul wants to emphasize the fact that every member of the body performs a function and serves the body in a distinctive way.
(i) The same, of course, is true in reference to the spiritual body; every member has a function to perform that is for the common good of the whole body .
(ii) If any are still of a discontented mind, then they should remember that it is God that created the body and set all the members in their place to perform their function. To complain that one does not posses a more desired gift not only shows one’s ingratitude but is actually rebelling against God (12:18) . Further, if the body were just one member, then there would, in fact, be no body (12:19) . But there are many members that all perform their function that make up the one body (12:20).
2) Paul addresses the arrogant members who think they are superior to everyone else because they have, in their minds, the better gifts of the Spirit (12:21-24a).
a) Allowing that the physical members of the body could speak, it would be ridiculous for one member to consider itself so important that it could say to another member, “I have no need of you” (12:21) . This verbalizes the actual attitude that some of the Corinthians had toward their brethren that Paul seeks to correct. One commentator says that the eye and head are “transparent metaphors for those in leadership roles” and the hands and feet “represent the laboring class or slaves” and says, “’Eyes’ and ‘heads’ in the church always get special treatment and then begin to think that they are special. A sense of superiority can breed notions of self-sufficiency, since those who think that they are all-important can imagine that the minor players are superfluous and dispensable” (David E. Garland) .
b) However, God has so arranged the human body that no part is autonomous. The parts that might be considered feeble are necessary, and those parts we consider less honorable we bestow greater honor upon them (12:22-23) .
(i) These parts of the body do not perform their function publicly and they are kept undercover, but they are essential to the body’s survival. To these parts of the body we give special attention, which demonstrates that they are actually the most necessary members of the body.
(ii) Likewise, there are members of the church that have seemingly ordinary and unprestigious gifts but are necessary for the proper functioning of the body. Paul will show in chapter fourteen that (i) those who speak in tongues are not independent of those who interpret tongues and (ii) speaking in tongues is not the most desirable of gifts.
d. God’s arrangement of the body (12:24b-30).
1) God has composed the body in such a way so that those parts that come behind in rank 46 receive the greater honor (12:24b) . Those in the church that have seemingly less important gifts are actually of the greatest importance.
46 This is the meaning of the Greek word husteroumeno that is translated “that member which lacked”.
113 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2) God composed the body in this way so that there would be no division in the body (12:25a). All the parts of the body are vital and all are interdependent upon the others. For example, the tongue speaker is dependant upon the one who interprets tongues (We will see in chapter fourteen what happens when the tongue speaker acts autonomously) .
3) Rather than divisions, each member should care or be anxious for one another. The body of Christ is not a group of people who are engaged in rivalry and envy but a group of people who genuinely care for the welfare of one another (12:25b) . Being one body, when one part suffers, all suffer, and when one part rejoices, all rejoice (12:26) .
4) Although we have been making applications as we go along, Paul says here that everything he has said concerning the physical body is to be applied to the spiritual body – the church (12:27) . He then goes on to emphasize that God is the one who has ordained that the spiritual body functions in the same manner as the physical body; in which all the members are dependant upon each other (12:28- 30) . Let each one be content with the endowment of the Spirit he has been given and let each one use that gift for the good of the body. The gifts are for the building up of the body but pride and discontentment can only result in the destruction of the body.
5) This is Paul’s listing found in verse 28 with a brief explanation. The ordinal series (“First…Second…third”) suggests that Paul ranks these in order of importance. It is interesting that Paul lists tongues last! One commentator notes that “Paul lists functions, not supergifted persons, that God has appointed to build up the body and that it makes no difference who serves in these roles” (Chevallier) .
a) Apostles. This refers to the men that Jesus called and appointed. The original twelve are listed in Luke 6:13-16. After Jesus’ ascension, Matthias was chosen to replace Judas (Acts 1:15-26) . Later, Jesus called Saul to be an apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 9:1-20) .
b) Prophets. The prophet was a spokesman of God who, by the inspiration of the Spirit, was able to accurately recall past events, reveal the meaning of present events, and make known future events. The prophet also taught and expounded on the word of God.
c) Teachers. It is unclear whether these teachers were inspired or uninspired but, nevertheless, their role was to teach the word of God.
d) Miracles. This probably referred to the producing of wonders such as casting out demons, inflicting divine punishments (whether temporal or permanent), and raising the dead.
e) Healings. This refers to the healing of bodily ailments and diseases.
f) Helps. Willis suggests that since the office of a deacon was mainly that of service, this could be a reference to deacons.
g) Administrations. This word is translated from the Greek word kubernesis and means “to steer a ship.” This, according to Willis, is a reference to the specific gifts that qualify a Christian to be a helmsman to his congregation, i.e., a true director of its order and therewith of its life. He then cites Kittel who says, “The combination of antilempseis and kubernesis makes it certain that the episkopio [bishops]…are to be regarded as the bearers of this gift.”
h) Tongues. This is the gift of being able to speak in a language that one has not previously learnt. e. In closing, Paul exhorts the Corinthians to desire the greater gifts (12:31a) . Willis says the greater gifts are the apostleship, prophecy, and teaching because they serve to instruct people more perfectly in the word of God. “Rather than aspiring to gifts that produce amazement, the Christian should aspire to gifts that produce more permanent effects” (Willis) . Paul says he will now show them “a still more excellent way” (12:31b) . This is discussed in the next section.
114 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
C. Love and spiritual gifts (13:1-13) . The Corinthians apparently exalted flamboyant 47 gifts, such as tongue-speaking, above other gifts. Hence, those with less flamboyant gifts tended to feel useless, and those with gifts improperly evaluated as greater gifts tended toward arrogance and haughtiness. We can only imagine what personal interactions occurred between those with various gifts; however, it is not hard to imagine that some were impatient, rude, jealous, braggadocios 48 , arrogant, etc. Therefore, this treatise on love was written to correct the existing problem in Corinth. It is not an interruption in the theme of spiritual gifts and certainly is not an example of an editor reworking the text, as Hering suggested (First Corinthians 134). Rather, this chapter is an important part of the entire treatment of the subject of miraculous spiritual gifts (Willis).
1. Without love I am nothing (13:1-3) . It is important to realize that Paul is here Paul’s strategy is to place in using a figure of speech called hyperbole (extravagant exaggeration). These center stage the gift that the are easy to identify: “If I speak with the tongues…of Corinthians prized the most and that was causing the angels ,” “If I… know all mysteries and all knowledge ,” greatest disruption in their “If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains ,” and “If I assembly and then to bring surrender my body to be burned .” Since they are just it down several notches by hyperbole, we will not spend our time trying to figure out showing its emptiness without love. It becomes a whether or not they are founded on actual events or hollow performance that 49 possibilities . falls flat (David E Garland)
a. What if I could speak in the tongues of men and angels? Without love it means nothing (13:1) .
1) There are four Greek words that we translate as “love” . The word eros (not found in the New Testament) is passion and refers to a passion that selfishly seeks its own satisfaction. It is sexual love. The word stergos is natural affection ; it is that love that a parent has for child. The word philos is the love we have for friends. One person describes this love of friends in this way: “My neural pathways have become accustomed to your sensory input patterns” (Data, Star Trex – The Next Generation ). The word agape denotes an act of will that benefits another regardless of our feelings, their deservedness, and the self-sacrifice involved on our part. This kind of love is best understood by considering God’s demonstration of love for man (John 3:16; Romans 5:8) .
2) The gift of tongues was meant for the benefit of the body…for its edification. Some, though, were speaking in tongues before the assembly merely to flaunt their gift and to be admired; their motives were selfish not selfless. This is obvious from their behavior: they were all trying to speak at once and they did not seem to care about having their words interpreted (14:27-28) .
b. What if I had the gift of prophecy and knew all the mysteries and knew all things? And what if I had such a faith as to move mountains? Without love I am nothing (13:2a) .
1) If the motives behind our actions are selfish then “I am nothing,” which means to be “without any significance or value.”
2) Balaam is an example of one who had the gift of prophecy but was nothing.
“Balaam is one of the strangest characters in the Bible. On one hand, he is deceitful, greedy, disobedient and works against God and His people, Israel. Yet, on the other hand, God speaks through him as a true prophet and he gives some wonderful prophecies concerning the coming of Christ (see Num. 24:17) . In the end, he is killed after using Moabite women to seduce the Israelites (Num. 31:16-17; Josh. 13:22) and is mentioned only in evil terms in the New Testament (2 Pet. 2:15; Jude 11; Rev. 2:14) . In the final analysis, Balaam is a false prophet whom God chose to use for His glory. In this story, we are reminded again that God uses who He pleases to use” (Author unknown. www.learnthebible.org/L- 064_balaams_call.htm ).
47 Showy. 48 Vain and empty boasting. 49 Becky might exclaim, “I saw a rat the size of a dog!” We interpret this to mean that Becky saw a big rat. But we would not go on to discuss the reason she said “the size of a rat” or discuss the possibility of rats being the size of a dog. We understand that it is simply an exaggeration (hyperbole) to emphasize that the rat was big.
115 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
c. What if I gave away all my possessions to the poor and surrendered my body to be burned? Without love it profits me nothing (13:3) .
1) Whatever mighty deeds one does and whatever great sacrifices one might make, they will be of no profit without love as the motivating force. While it true that we show our faith by our works, it is also true that God considers the thoughts, intentions, and motives of the heart.
2) Barnabas sold some land and contributed the proceeds toward the needy saints (Acts 4:36-37) . Ananias and Sapphira did the same but were put to death (Acts 5:1-10) . While it is true that their money helped to relieve needy saints, it is also true that their motives determined the acceptability of their sacrifice in the eyes of God.
2. The behavior of love (13:4-7) .
a. Love from a positive perspective:
1) Love is patient.
a) Definition. The word “long-suffering” is translated from the Greek word makrothuméo (3114). It is a compound of two words: makrós (3117), meaning “long,” and thumós (2372), meaning “anger.” Literally, then, it means “long-anger” . The idea is that one takes a long time to become angry. Hence, it is translated “patience” or “long suffering” but the latter is the preferred rendering.
“The word also describes the man who has the power to avenge himself, but refrains from the exercise of this power. It is that self-restraint which does not hastily retaliate a wrong; it endures injuries and evil deeds without being provoked to anger or revenge” (Mike Willis, Truth Commentaries, 1 Corinthians ).
b) As it related to the Corinthians.
(i) There were those who were unprepared to wait for their brethren before partaking of the Lord’s Supper and this may have given rise to anger on the part of those who arrived and found their brethren had not waited for them (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) .
(ii) Wherever disputes arose between members the response was, “I’ll see you in court!” (1 Corinthians 6:1-8) . It is easy to picture outbursts of anger in such circumstances.
(iii) In the exercise of spiritual gifts:
“The gifts of the Holy Spirit were intended for the edification of the church (1 Corinthians 14:26) . Instead, they had been turned into an occasion for pride, jealousy, envy, arguing, and impatience as they competed for preeminence. One can only imagine what a visitor must have thought when he witnessed such mayhem!” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
“To imagine circumstances in the church at Corinth relative to the problem of spiritual gifts in which tempers flared and harsh things were spoken is not difficult in light of the comments that are made in chapter 14. No doubt, some who possessed one gift had little patience while another exercised his gift; the interruptions that resulted were sometimes caused by a lack of this virtue” (Mike Willis, Truth Commentaries, 1 Corinthians ).
2) Love is kind.
a) Definition. The word “kind” is translated from the Greek word chre steúomai (5541). It is from chre stós (5543) and means “to be useful,” and signifies a person who is “obliging and gracious” and one who is “willing to help” (See Vine’s Dictionary) .
116 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
“Kindness is expressed through both words and deeds. The Greek word chretos means ‘useful, helpful’ and, therefore, our words and deeds should be useful and helpful to others” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
b) As it related to the Corinthians.
(i) Paul says there was “envy, strife, and divisions” among them (1 Corinthians 3:3) . It is not hard to imagine the unkind speech and behavior where such worldliness exists (James 3:16) .
(ii) There were certain disputes that arose between brethren that ended up in court (1 Corinthians 6:18) . I think we all know how unkindness can arise during disputes!
(iii) Paul was also concerned about their attitudes and behavior in reference to one another’s consciences over meat offered to idols. The brethren with knowledge had become puffed up and showed little respect for their weak brethren (1 Corinthians 8:1-13) .
3) Love bears all things.
a) Definition. The word “bear” is translated from the Greek word stégo (4722). The primary meaning of stégo is “to protect or preserve by covering” (Vine) . Clarke says, “A person under the influence of this love never makes the sins, follies, faults, or imperfections of any man, the subject either of censure or conversation. He covers them as far as he can; and if alone privy to them, he retains the knowledge of them in his own bosom as far as he ought.” Barnes says, “It means, that in regard to the errors and faults of others, there is a disposition ‘not’ to notice or to revenge them. There is a willingness to conceal, or to bear with them patiently.”
b) As it related to the Corinthians.
(i) Reading through this epistle, it is evident that the Corinthians were not bearing all things: they were not overlooking one another’s faults and patiently enduring wrongs. The fact they were taking one another to court is sufficient to prove the point (1 Corinthians 6:1-8) .
(ii) The Corinthians, then, needed to learn that love bears all things , and it is only when they learnt to do this that the problems in the church would begin to be resolved.
4) Love believes all things.
a) Definition. The word “believes” is translated from the Greek word pisteúo (4100). The most basic meaning is “to believe” (Vine) . Barnes has the best explanation of its meaning in this place: “The whole scope of the connection and the argument here requires us to understand this of the conduct of others. It cannot mean, that the man who is under the influence of love is a man of ‘universal credulity;’ that he makes no discrimination in regard to things to be believed; and is as prone to believe a falsehood as the truth; or that he is at no pains to inquire what is true and what is false, what is right and what is wrong. But it must mean, that in regard to the conduct of others, there is a disposition to put the best construction on it; to believe that they may be actuated by good motives, and that they intend no injury; and that there is a willingness to suppose, as far as can be, that what is done is done consistently with friendship, good feeling, and virtue. Love produces this, because it rejoices in the happiness and virtue of others, and will not believe the contrary except on irrefragable evidence.”
b) As it related to the Corinthians. While it is true that we should believe all things in the Scriptures, it here refers to our believing the best of our brethren. This is because of its connection to love. In this context, Paul is dealing with how we express our love toward one another.
117 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
(i) Paul had said of his visit to Corinth, “ And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to carnal men, as to infants in Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:1) . Had they grown since his departure? Evidently not, for he says, “ For you are still carnal. For since there is envying and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?" (1 Corinthians 3:3) . James says, "For where envy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing " (James 3:16) .
(ii) Is it possible, then, that the Corinthians were attributing the worst motives to one another? Our studies so far would suggest so. Hence, Paul says, “Love believes all things.” Paul is saying that a true love for one another means believing the best of others.
5) Love hopes all things.
a) Definition. The word “hopes” is translated from the Greek word elpízo (1679). The basic meaning is “to expect with desire” (CWSD). In respect to others who are behaving like mere men, we always have an expectant desire for their reform and growth.
b) As it related to the Corinthians. Certainly, we should all have hope in the things unseen but the context suggests that Paul means to ‘hope all things in connection with our brethren.’
(i) Those who look for faults in their brethren and reasons to doubt another’s motives will surely take great pleasure when evidence appears that seems to support their suspicions. They hope that this will lead to their exposure, censure, and ruin. Some, no doubt, harboured such evil beliefs and hopes.
(ii) Paul had said that love believes all things but sometimes the evidence may weigh heavily against doing so, and it is in such cases that we exercise hope. Note the following comment…
“This must also refer to the conduct of others; and it means, that however dark may be appearances; how much soever there may be to produce the fear that others are actuated by improper motives or are bad people, yet that there is a ‘hope’ that matters may be explained and made clear; that the difficulties may he made to vanish; and that the conduct of others may be made to ‘appear’ to be fair and pure. Love will ‘hold on to this hope’ until all possibility of such a result has vanished and it is compelled to believe that the conduct is not susceptible of a fair explanation. This hope will extend to ‘all things’ - to words and actions, and plans; to public and to private contact; to what is said and done in our own presence, and to what is said and done in our absence. Love will do this, because it delights in the virtue and happiness of others, and will not credit anything to the contrary unless compelled to do so” (Barnes) .
6) Love endures all things.
a) Definition. The word “endures” is translated from the Greek word hupoméno (5278) and means “to bear under” (Vine) . Clarke says, “Bears up under all persecutions and mal-treatment from open enemies and professed friends; bears adversities with an even mind, as it submits with perfect resignation to every dispensation of the providence of God; and never says of any trial, affliction, or insult, this cannot be endured.”
b) The difference between long-suffering and patience is this…
“Longsuffering is that quality of self-restraint in the face of provocation which does not hastily retaliate or promptly punish; it is the opposite of anger, and is associated with mercy, and is used of God, Ex. 34:6 (Sept.); Rom. 2:4; 1 Pet. 3:20. Patience is the quality that does not surrender to circumstances or succumb under trial; it is the opposite of despondency and is associated with hope, 1 Thessalonians 1:3; it is not used of God” (Vine’s) .
118 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
“We express patience toward people but we endure the things of this life. A rude and obnoxious brother may only be one of many things we bear up under ; for one may also have to endure persecutions and trials of many kinds; in all these things we patiently endure” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
c) As it related to the Corinthians:
(i) There were many circumstances at Corinth that would have caused some brethren to become impatient and angry but Paul urges them not to retaliate but to be patient. But love not only suffers long, it endures. Some might ask, “How long do I have to put up with this?” To endure a thing means to bear up under it for as long as is necessary . Love does not put a time limit on patience.
(ii) The Corinthians needed to exercise patience and they needed to endure or persevere in patience so that the healing could begin. In other words, the problems that existed in the church would not disappear over night; it would take time for attitudes to change and time for brethren to mature. Love is the penicillin that would cure all their ills but love doesn’t just happen, it has to be “put on” or exercised (Colossians 3:14) .
7) Love rejoices with the truth.
a) Definition. The word “truth” is translated from the Greek word ale Ọtheia (225) and has a variety of meanings. In this place it stands opposed to iniquity and refers to anything good or virtuous in others.
“We should note that the Greek word chaíro (rejoice) here is prefixed with sug , which means ‘rejoices with.’ Willis says, ‘Paul personified both love and truth and describes them as acting in concert. When truth is rejoicing, love is right there rejoicing with it’” (Truth Commentaries, 1 Corinthians ).
b) You might think that Paul would contrast unrighteousness with righteousness but, instead, he contrasts unrighteousness with truth , why is this? The following quote is helpful…
“Paul uses the term truth (ale Ọtheia) in reference to the content of Christianity as the absolute truth (i.e., the gospel as the truth). Because the gospel has such a strong practical side (the ethical commandments), which demands righteousness and holiness, ale Ọtheia can properly be contrasted with adikia (iniquity)” (Mike Willis, Truth Commentaries, 1 Corinthians ).
c) As it related to the Corinthians:
(i) Rejoicing in unrighteousness was a problem at Corinth: they rejoiced in the various parties that had formed around certain individuals (1 Corinthians 1:10-13) , they rejoiced in taking one another to court (1 Corinthians 6:1-8) , they rejoiced in using their liberty in Christ to offend one another (1 Corinthians 8:1-13) , and some rejoiced in boasting of their superior endowments, talents, and gifts (1 Corinthians 12:1-31) .
(ii) It is very difficult to detect any of the Corinthians rejoicing with the truth! This, then, was something that was seriously lacking and something that was essential. b. Love from a negative perspective:
1) Love is not jealous.
a) Definition. The word “jealous” is translated from the Greek word ze lóo (2206). It means “zeal” or “a feeling of great enthusiasm, a strong feeling about something” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Definitions ). How this word is translated is determined by the context…
119 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
(i) "The patriarchs became ze lóo of Joseph and sold him into Egypt. Yet God was with him" (Acts 7:9) . A consideration of the context has led translators to translate ze lóo as “jealous.”
(ii) "Pursue love, yet ze lóo spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy" (1 Corinthians 14:1) . A consideration of the context has led translators to translate ze lóo as “desire earnestly.”
b) As it related to the Corinthians:
(i) Many brethren were blessed with spiritual gifts and some may have become jealous of those who had those gifts that were more highly prized among them (1 Corinthians 12:4-31) .
(ii) There seems to have been a rich-poor division in the church in which jealousies may have arisen (1 Corinthians 11:20-22) .
(iii) We are not able to determine what disputes among the brethren led to taking each other to court, but could jealousy have been involved? (1 Corinthians 6:1-8) .
2) Love does not brag.
a) Definition. The word “brag” is translated from the Greek word perpereuomai (4068) and it means “to brag or boast.” In common terminology, to “big yourself up.” Barnes comments “…most expositors suppose that it has the notion of boasting, or vaunting of one’s own excellencies or endowments. This spirit proceeds from the idea of ‘superiority’ over others; and is connected with a feeling of contempt or disregard for them” (Vine’s).
b) As it related to the Corinthians:
(i) The Corinthians were forming into little cliques around certain teachers and boasting, “I am of Paul” and, “I am of Apollos” (1 Corinthians 1:10-13) . The teachers also may have been bragging.
(ii) Evidently, some were bragging about their spiritual gifts and considered themselves better than others (See 1 Corinthians 12:21-25) .
(iii) Others were boasting of their knowledge (1 Corinthians 8:1) .
3) Love is not arrogant.
a) Definition. The word “proud” is translated from the Greek word phusióo (5448). It literally means “to puff up, inflate” and denotes “one who is full of pride” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Definitions ). This word differs from brag in this: brag denotes the expression of the feelings of pride or arrogance, and pride the feeling itself. Pride is the feeling and bragging is the expression of pride.
b) As it related to the Corinthians:
(i) Some were promoting themselves as the head of parties within the church (1 Corinthians 1:10- 13) which gave rise to pride (1 Corinthians 4:6).
(ii) Some were proud of the knowledge they possessed (1 Corinthians 8:1) .
(iii) Others were proud of the spiritual gifts they possessed (1 Corinthians 4:7) .
4) Love does not act unbecomingly.
a) Definition. The phrase “act unbecomingly” is translated from the Greek word aschemoneo (807). The idea is that one never behaves in a way that is unseemly or inappropriate as to deserve reproach. One conducts himself as not to violate a sense of decency or delicacy, and shows respect for the prevailing customs of politeness.
120 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
b) As it related to the Corinthians:
(i) As we think about the lack of love already being exhibited among the Corinthians – impatience, unkindness, jealousy, pride, and arrogance – it is not difficult to see that unseemly behavior was probably prevalent among them.
(ii) It was a lack of love that was the root of their divisions (1 Corinthians 1:10-13) , failure to discipline (1 Corinthians 5:1-2) , taking one another to court (1 Corinthians 6:1-8) , participation in idol worship feasts (1 Corinthians 10:21) , and not waiting for one another at the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20-21) . Their meetings were a scene of confusion and disorder (1 Corinthians 14:1-40) ; it is such behavior as this that is unbecoming.
5) Love does not seek its own.
a) Definition. The phrase “is not selfish” is translated from the Greek words ou zhtei ta eauthv (2212, 1438). The idea is that one does not seek those things that are exclusively for his own happiness. It describes someone who is unselfish. Barclay rendered this, "Love does not insist upon its rights."
b) As it related to the Corinthians: in view of all that we have discussed so far, it is not hard to see how selfish these brethren had become.
(i) Their selfishness was obvious in their seeking preeminence and vaunting themselves (1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 14:1-40) .
(ii) Their selfishness was manifest in their treatment of others – suing one another (1 Corinthians 6:1-8) , and having no consideration for one another’s conscience (1 Corinthians 8:1-13) .
6) Love is not provoked.
a) Definition. The phrase “not provoked” is translated from the Greek word paroxúno (3947). It literally means to “sharpen alongside.” The idea is that of something that excites or agitates the mind; either for good or bad. In this place it means to be irritated or stirred to anger.
“Here in 1 Corinthians, Paul uses the term to describe a short-fused person who is easily and quickly provoked to take action which is not edifying to either party. Love does not ‘blow its cork,’ ‘lose its cool,’ or ‘blow a fuse.’ Love does not have a chip on its shoulder, looking for some tiny straw of offense so it can ventilate all its anger and hostility” (Bob Deffinbaugh www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=807 ).
b) As it related to the Corinthians:
(i) Some were provoked enough to take their fellow brethren to court (1 Corinthians 6:1-8) .
(ii) Willis suggests, “…the manner in which the tongue-speakers were abusing their gifts no doubt made other members of the church angry” (Mike Willis, Truth Commentaries, 1 Corinthians) .
(iii) Others were provoked, by their impatience, to go ahead and partake of the Lord’s Supper without waiting for others to arrive (1 Corinthians 11:20-21, 33) .
7) Love does not take into account a wrong suffered.
a) Definition. This is translated from three Greek words: logízomai ou kakós (3049, 3756, 2556) . The words ou kakós are translated “wrongs suffered” and need no comment. The word logízomai (3049) means ‘take an inventory’ or ‘estimate’ or ‘count’ . The idea is that I do not keep an account of wrongs done against me.
121 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
b) As it related to the Corinthians:
(i) Those that had been taken to court may have borne a grudge (1 Corinthians 6:1-8) .
(ii) There may have been those who had been made to feel inadequate or inferior because of their lesser endowments and talents (1 Corinthians 12:7-31) .
(iii) Perhaps some resented the brethren who had gone ahead with the Lord’s Supper without them (1 Corinthians 11:20-21, 33) .
8) Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness.
a) Definition. This is translated from four Greek words: chaíro ou epí adikía (5463, 3756, 1909, 93). The general meaning is that we should not rejoice in any kind of evil. One might rejoice in the evil that one is doing or rejoice in the evil that others are doing. Barnes says, “Does not rejoice over the ‘vices’ of other people; does not take delight when they are guilty of crime, or when, in any manner, they fall into sin. It does not find pleasure in hearing others accused of sin, and in having it proved that they committed it. It does not find a malicious pleasure in the ‘report’ that they have done wrong; or in following up that report, and finding it established.”
b) As it related to the Corinthians: could it be that there were those rejoicing in unrighteousness? (Cp. 2 Corinthians 12:20-21) .
(i) Within the congregation there was certainly much unrighteousness taking place: divisions (1 Corinthians 1:10-13) , law-suits (1 Corinthians 6:1-8) , offending brethren (1 Corinthians 8:1-13) , and fornication (1 Corinthians 5:1-2) . Perhaps there were some who took pleasure in these things?
(ii) The troubles in the church had been reported to Paul by those of Chloe’s household (1 Corinthians 1:11) , and it is possible that some were rubbing their hands together with glee knowing that he had received such a bad report.
“Love finds no pleasure in evil-doing. It might be better to translate this that love finds no pleasure in anything that is wrong. It is not so much delight in doing the wrong thing that is meant, as the malicious pleasure which comes to most of us when we hear something derogatory about someone else. It is one of the queer traits of human nature that very often we prefer to hear of the misfortune of others rather than of their good fortunes. It is much easier to weep with them that weep than to rejoice with those who rejoice. We are much more interested in hearing a spicy story to someone's discredit than a story to someone's praise. Christian love has none of that human malice which finds pleasure in ill reports” (William Barclay).
“(Love) does not rejoice over unrighteousness. Jealousy or envy may be involved here. If someone dislikes another and that person falls into trouble, or misfortune visits, the jealous person may rejoice inwardly over this bad turn of events. For example, a wealthy person is the object of envy but one day this person loses all their riches. Love will not motivate a person to say to others, ‘Well, so-and-so got what’s coming to him.’ This kind of attitude takes many forms. If we find ourselves to be somewhat happy when evil befalls another, we must look inside and see why we feel this way” (Mark Heber Miller).
This discussion of love is not meant to persuade the Corinthian s to abandon the use of spiritual gifts but to show them that there use must be underpinned and motivated by love.
122 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3. The superiority of love over spiritual gifts (13:8-13) . There are aspects of this passage that are not easy to interpret, which is evident when one consults the commentators. How we answer the following questions will determine how we interpret Four Typical Views of 1 Corinthians 13:9-10 this passage: (i) Paul says, “For we know in part” (13:9) . What is 1. The knowledge in 13:9 refers to knowledge in general and “that which is perfect” (13:10) refers to Jesus. the knowledge to which he refers? (ii) Paul says, “But when 2. The knowledge in 13:9 refers to knowledge of divine the perfect comes” (13:10) . What things and “that which is perfect” (13:10) refers to God’s complete rule when the kingdom shall be is “the perfect” to which he delivered up to the Father and He becomes all in all. refers? I have simply presented what I believe to be the correct 3. To “know in part” (13:9) refers to their immaturity and “that which is perfect” (13:10) to their maturity. understanding. While I encourage comments and discussion, we need to be 4. The Corinthians impartial knowledge (13:9) refers to God’s will being revealed in piece-meal fashion, and careful of getting so sidetracked that we lose the “that which is perfect” refers to the completed focus of Paul’s overall point. revelation of God.
a. The superiority of love over spiritual gifts is seen in the fact that love endures in every age but spiritual gifts have an expiry date (1 Corinthians 13:8) . “In contrast to love, the spiritual gifts have a built-in obsolescence. They are not permanent and do not get perfected. Prophecy and knowledge will be brought to an end. These gifts are only partial and must give way to something beyond themselves” (David E. Garland) .
1) The three gifts listed here are representative of all miraculous gifts. Paul chooses prophecy, tongues, and knowledge to contrast with love because they are directly relevant to their situation; tongues and knowledge were highly valued by the Corinthians and prophecy is added by Paul because he considers it the most beneficial for the church.
2) The emphasis here is not on what the gifts produce but on the gifts themselves. The Corinthians were proud of their gifts and speaking in tongues was particularly prized, but Paul says it is these gifts that would cease.
b. Paul now gives the reason why these gifts would cease, “For we Don’t Go Astray know in part and we prophecy in part” (13:9) . At this point, most commentaries 1) The reason “we know in part” is the same reason we begin to go astray on their exegesis. “prophecy in part” . The commentators understand the imperfect knowledge to be caused by a) The knowledge spoken of here is the knowledge that the humanity of man; if that is the comes through the exercise of the gift of the Spirit . case, the imperfect prophecy must have occurred for the same reason. Garland says, “The message of knowledge may comprise Although it is true that man can never such things as the affirmation that idols have no know everything perfectly, this is not existence (8:4) . It also comprises insight into what God is the point that Paul is making. He is trying to show the superiority of the doing in the world (2:12-16) ” Willis says this was, “the way of love to the way of spiritual oral proclamation of a message which had wisdom for its gifts. To do this, he is showing the content” . This knowledge was not revealed to all limitations of the way of gifts (Willis). Christians everywhere in its entirety but partially revealed to Christians in various places at various times. This is easy to understand when you consider how the gifts of the Spirit were given.
b) The prophet imparted divine revelation but this was also “in part” in various places at various times. c. The will of God was being revealed in piece-meal fashion through men that were endowed with the
123 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
gifts of the Spirit. However, when the complete will of God was revealed, what more could be said? If there is no more to say, then what need would there be for the gifts by which God’s will was revealed? This is the point: when the complete will of God is revealed, then the means by which the revelations came would become redundant; they would cease (13:10) .
1) One commentator says, “One of the purposes of the miraculous gifts was to confirm the word and Mark reports that this is what happened (Mark 16:20) . For many years the word was being preached and the Lord was confirming it through the miracles that followed the preaching (Acts 8:6; 14:3; 1 Corinthians 2:4-5) . But the time came when the Hebrew writer could speak of the word having been confirmed (Hebrews 2:3-4) ; this assumes delivery of the word, which Jude confirms, ‘…contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints’ (Jude 1:3) . The word was delivered and authenticated and, therefore, the means by which it was revealed and authenticated became obsolete. There are no further revelations needed and no continual authentication required because the Scriptures contain the complete will of God and the record of how it was authenticated” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
2) Paul has shown that the way of love is superior to the way of spiritual gifts because love will not cease or vanish away but the spiritual gifts would cease. If they had given it some thought, then they would have been able to discern this for themselves: if by the gifts the will of God is revealed, then what becomes of the gifts when the will of God is fully revealed? This revelation should force the brethren to reevaluate their attitudes. I find it interesting that Paul carefully avoids specifying the time when the perfect would come and the gifts cease. Perhaps the reason for this (of course, he may not have known himself) was because the impact of this revelation would then have been lessened in some way. The Age of Revelation d. Paul now gives two illustrations to further make the The Corinthians were living during a time when the point (13:11-12) : full revelation of God was being made known. It had been made known to the apostles and prophets 1) The first is a contrast between childhood and who were in the process of revealing it to all men. adulthood (13:11) . Paul’s point is this: there is an "For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of age during which certain activities are appropriate Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- if but the time comes when those activities are no indeed you have heard of the stewardship of longer appropriate. The miraculous gifts of the God's grace which was given to me for you; Spirit are appropriate during the period when the that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. will of God is being revealed, but they are no By referring to this, when you read you can longer appropriate when the complete will of God understand my insight into the mystery of has been revealed. Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has 2) The second has two contrasts (13:12) : (i) seeing now been revealed to His holy apostles and unclearly with seeing clearly . (ii) knowing in part prophets in the Spirit" (Ephesians 3:1-5)
with knowing fully .
a) In reference to God’s revelation, what was seen now was unclear (because only partial revelation was given) but then we will see clearly (because God’s revelation would be complete).
b) In reference to God’s revelation, what was known now was partial (because God’s will was still being revealed) but then I will know fully (because God’s will would have been completely revealed).
(i) On the words “face to face,” Willis says, “Prosopon pros prosopon (face to face) seems to be a standard way of saying ‘to see clearly.’ This is not to saying that we shall see God face to face; the object of sight is not stated nor is it needed. The point is not what we shall see but how we shall see.”
(ii) On the words “I will know fully just as I also have been fully known,” Willis says it,
124 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
“…refers to the knowledge that characterizes the era when God’s revelation was completed. This does not mean we shall be omniscient as God is; rather, it means that we shall have His full revelation.”
e. The words “But now…” present some difficulty for interpreters and some of the explanations are beyond my comprehension. However, I believe the sense is this: “In contrast to the spiritual gifts that will pass away when the completed revelation of God is come, faith, hope, and love will endure until the end of the age.” The greatest of these is love; either because it will continue to exist even in eternity or because faith and hope spring from love. Perhaps Paul has both in mind.
D. The regulation of the usage of spiritual gifts (14:1-40) . Keeping on Track The theme of spiritual gifts continues through chapter 14. Having shown the superiority The theme of spiritual gifts began in chapter of the way of love over the way of spiritual gifts, the Corinthians are ready to receive 12 and ends here in chapter 14. instructions in regards to their proper use in the assembly. In chapter 12, Paul listed the various 1. The superiority of prophecy over speaking in tongues (14:1-25) . miraculous gifts and emphasized that they The Corinthians valued this gift over all the other gifts of the all originated from the Spirit and were Spirit but Paul shows them that the gift of prophecy is greater necessary for the proper functioning of the body. than speaking in tongues. In chapter 13, Paul showed the Corinthians a. Prophecy is greater than uninterpreted tongues (14:1-5) . the more excellent way of love over the way of spiritual gifts. The miraculous gifts 1) In view of what Paul had said about the way of love were destined to cease but love would continue in this age and the next. being superior to the way of spiritual gifts, and the fact that the gifts were temporary in nature, there might be In chapter 14, Paul gives instructions some that supposed he was discouraging the desire and regarding the regulation of the gifts. use of spiritual gifts. This, however, is not the case; love is, certainly, to be pursued but spiritual gifts were also to be desired, especially prophecy (14:1) .
2) Prophecy is to be desired over tongues because the tongue speaker would often exercise this gift when there was no interpreter present. This meant that while the tongue speaker might well be edified, the church was not. But the person who prophesied edified, exhorted, and consoled all who were present (14:2-4) .
3) Paul certainly doesn’t object to the gift of tongues and, in fact, he wishes they all spoke in tongues (14:5a) but even more that they could all prophesy (14:5b; cp. Numbers 11:29). Prophecy is greater than speaking in tongues because by prophecy the whole church is edified. If there were interpreters present, then speaking in tongues would be of the same benefit (14:5) .
b. Uninterpreted tongues are useless (14:6-12) .
1) If Paul had originally come to Corinth speaking to them in tongues, what benefit would have been derived by them? The answer is obvious, none, and this, of course, is his point. Only by speaking to them in a language that was understood would they profit by it (14:6) .
2) To further illustrate his point, Paul highlights what is obvious in regard to musical instruments: if an instrument just plays a series of indistinct notes, then who will know the melody? (14:7) . Further, what if an uncertain sound were given on the trumpet to prepare for war, who would understand it and prepare themselves? (14:8) .
3) The point is clear: if they spoke in an unknown tongue with no one to interpret, then who would understand what is said? (14:9) .
4) Paul’s final point is made from the use of tongues in general (not miraculous). There are many languages in the world but they all communicate thoughts. But if the language is not known by others, then how will they gain any understanding or benefit? (14:10-11) . This paralleled the situation in Corinth, there were those speaking in tongues but, without an interpreter, no one could understand. 5) The question that arises is, why were they speaking in tongues if no one could understand? It seems
125 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
ridiculous! The answer is connected with their motives. Those that had this gift bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit supposed it somehow singled them out as being more spiritual than everyone else (Cp. 14:37) ; they became proud and flaunted their gift before the assembly as a means to exalt themselves. Such was the deplorable situation. If they had learnt anything at all from what Paul had said in chapter 13, then they should have learnt that the exercise of this gift must be motivated by love and a desire to edify the church (14:12) .
“What Paul is urging in this verse is that one’s motive be right in seeking the gifts. Because the Corinthians were zealous of spiritual gifts, they should be sure that their main reason for wanting the gifts was for the edification of the church. Some were seeking the gifts as a means to exalt themselves. This is the evil that Paul is seeking to correct; the motive behind a Christian’s desire to have spiritual gifts should be the more basic desire to promote spiritual growth through the exercise of that gift (cf. Romans 1:11) and not to glorify oneself” (Willis) . c. Exercising spiritual gifts with the spirit and with the understanding (14:13-19) . The difficulty in this passage is in determining what Paul means by “with the spirit” commentators offer these suggestions (i) the non-rational part of a person’s psychological makeup that serves as the counterpart of the mind. (ii) the spiritual gift of which one has been entrusted. (iii) the Holy Spirit. (iv) the innermost deepest depths. Personally, I think it most likely refers to the feelings (see below).
1) Since the motivation to exercise the gift of tongues is for the edification of the church, Paul urges the tongue speaker to pray that he may interpret (14:13) . All our worship must be heart-felt or “with the spirit” but it must also be “with the understanding.” All worship must be with the understanding but it must also be heart-felt. You cannot have one without the other. The one that prayed in an unknown tongue may well be offering heart-felt worship and he may well understand what he is saying, but his understanding is unfruitful; i.e., it does not edify others (14:14) .
2) What is the conclusion to all that Paul says? Is he saying that no one should speak in tongues? Paul is simply saying that whether one prays or sings, it should be heart-felt and understandable to everyone present in the assembly (14:15) . Speaking in a tongue without an interpreter not only deprives brethren of edification, it also prevents them from offering prayers because they cannot say “Amen” to a prayer they do not understand. “The one who utters ‘Amen’ expresses his agreement with what has been said in the prayer and makes the prayer his own” (Willis) .
3) “I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all” (14:18) . Paul’s genuine thanks for being able to speak in tongues more than them all shows that his criticism of the use of tongues is not rooted in any lack of understanding or appreciation for this gift. He himself speaks in tongues more than them all but would still rather speak in a few words that everyone could understand (and thereby be edified) rather than many words that none could comprehend (which would not edify anyone) (14:19) . d. The purpose of the gift of tongues (14:20-25) . The Corinthians were immature in their thinking: they had an unreasoning attraction to things that amused rather than by what was useful. To the Corinthians, speaking in tongues was an amusement, speaking in tongues was showy, speaking in tongues made them feel special, etc. But the gift of prophecy was not so attractive to them, even though it was useful. Too, they had not really given much thought to how or when the gift of tongues should be exercised. Such immaturity led to pride, rivalry, divisions, jealousy, envy, disorder, and, as we shall see, unbelievers were not impressed by what they saw and heard. Hence the admonition (14:20) :
1) Paul does not say, “You are immature,” he just implies it, “Do not be children in your thinking.” (14:20a) . If they are to think as children, then it should be in regards to evil (14:20b) . This may be an allusion to the ethical lapses in the church (see 5:8) and to the evil attitudes that create division.
126 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2) After all that Paul has said there is yet something else they need to understand about the gift of tongues; something that should cause them to think about how and when this gift ought to be exercised: tongues are for a sign to unbelievers (14:22) . Isaiah 28:11-12 in its Context
3) To show that speaking in tongues are meant for a sign to Isaiah had prophesied the word of God to a nation unbelievers, Paul quotes from Isaiah 28:12. However, of Israelites who refused to listen to him. The his quote differs in several respects. Here are the two priest and the prophet were drunkards who reeled with strong drink; hence, they totally dismissed quotes for comparison: Isaiah’s words with the drunken mock that all he said was, “Precept upon precept, precept upon "For with stammering lips and another tongue will precept, line upon line, line upon line; here a little, he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the and there a little” (v. 11). Because the Jews refused to listen to God’s revelation through Isaiah, God rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and promised to speak to them through a people with this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear" stammering lips (i.e., a foreign tongue), namely, the Assyrians. Hence, when Assyria smote the (Isaiah 28:11-12 KJV ) Israelites, the passage was fulfilled. At that time, the Israelites knew that what Isaiah had said was "With men of other tongues and other lips will I the word of the Lord instead of what their drunken priests and prophets had said. speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14:21 Though it is true that the Isaiah passage refers to a judgment on Israel whereby God would speak to KJV ) the Israelites through strange tongues (i.e., a foreign language), that is not the point emphasized a) Garland lists nine differences in Paul’s quotation (you by Paul…Paul’s usage is this: the tongues are can study these at your own leisure) : for a sign. The coming of the Assyrians was a sign that what had been spoken by Isaiah was true. (i) Paul reverses the order of “other tongues” and Even though Israel refused to believe him, what Isaiah said was true. Therefore, the coming of the “stammering lips” so that “other tongues” Assyrians confirmed his word. comes first. (Willis)
(ii) Paul substitutes “other lips” for “stammering lips” with the result that it is synonymous with “other tongues” and correlates more closely to the Corinthians’ situation.
(iii) Paul uses the first person, “I will speak,” which is closer to the MT, where the Lord is the speaker, than the LXX, “for they will speak to this people.”
(iv) Paul omits “To whom he said, ‘This is rest, give rest to the weary, and this repose,’” which does not apply to the Corinthian situation. The result is that the quotation is no longer a reference to past stubbornness but to a future refusal to hear speech in foreign tongues.
(v) Paul has oud’ houtos (not even thus) instead of ouk (not). This substitution bridges the gap created by the previous omission and makes the text more pointed. Not even when God’s communication takes this unusual form of expression will they listen.
(vi) Paul uses the compound verb eisakouein , which implies giving and giving heed, instead of akouein , which need only imply hearing.
(vii) Paul has the future tense, “they will not hear and respond,” instead of the infinitive and omits the idea that they will not want to hear. The future tense lays out the consequences if they persist in not responding. The result is that the judgment theme is altered. Johanson comments, “The MT would indicate that since the people refuse to listen to God’s intelligible message previously given, they will now be spoken to by men of ‘strange tongues.’” In Paul’s version, they are not blamed for their refusal to believe when they hear these other tongues; they simply cannot understand. This change makes sense in the context, since Paul is urging the Corinthians to address outsiders in understandable language. In Isaiah, God speaks to Israel through a foreign tongue as retribution, and the consequence is that they will not understand. The Corinthians are speaking in tongues to outsiders who cannot understand, not who refuse to understand. The results are the same, however. Both Israel and the outsider fail to obey the message, which leads to judgment.
127 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
(viii) Paul adds oud houtos , which means “not even thus” or “not even then” will they hear and respond. In Paul’s context, this means that “other tongues” will be useless in causing them to hear and respond to the Lord.
(ix) Paul adds the phrase “says the Lord” to add punch to the quotation.
b) The differences fit Paul’s purposes so well that it is likely that what he has written represents an interpretive paraphrase that he adapts to the Corinthians’ situation.
c) That tongues are for a sign for unbelievers can be seen throughout the New Testament:
(i) Tongues were employed to confirm the word (Mark 16:17-20) .
(ii) The apostles were baptized in the Spirit and spoke in tongues (Acts 2:1-4) . Later, Peter appealed to this phenomenon as confirmation of what he had spoken (Acts 2:33) .
(iii) Cornelius and his household spoke in tongues as a sign to the Jews that God had accepted Gentiles into the kingdom by faith (Acts 10:46-48) . A Sign for Unbelievers
4) Whereas tongues are a sign for unbelievers, prophecy is a A Sign sign for believers (14:22) . An “indication,” an evidence, or a proof that God has imparted this power, and a) Tongues are designed as a sign for unbelievers. On the that he attends the preaching of the Day of Pentecost, the apostles were baptised in the gospel with his approbation. It is a “sign,” or a “miracle,” which, like all Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues, what was the other miracles, may be designed to reaction of the foreign Jews? They were amazed to hear convince the unbelieving world that the them speaking “the mighty deeds of God” in their own religion is from God.
tongue. They were amazed because they recognized For Unbelievers them as being Galileans (Acts 2:1-12) . But why would It is a miracle designed to convince them this amaze them? Barnes explains what was generally of the truth of the Christian religion. God thought of Galileans: “They were ignorant, rude, and alone could confer the power of thus speaking; and as it was conferred uncivilized, John 1:46. Hence, the term Galilean was expressly to aid in the propagation of the used as an expression of the deepest reproach and gospel, it proved that it was from God. contempt, Mark 14:70; John 7:52. Their dialect was (Barnes) proverbially barbarous and corrupt, Mark 14:70; Matthew 26:73. They were regarded as an outlandish people, unacquainted with other nations and languages, and hence, the amazement that they could address them in the refined language of other people. Their native ignorance was the occasion of making the miracle more striking.” It seems to me, then, that, in order for speaking in tongues to have the same effect, the unbelieving that are present in the assembly should have the same opinion of the speakers.
b) Prophecy is a sign for believers. Prophecy “is not particularly intended for them; but is intended mainly for the edifying of the church. It is not so striking, so replete with proofs of the divine presence and power as the gift of tongues. Though it may be really under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and may be really by inspiration, yet it is not so evidently such as is the power of speaking foreign languages. It was, therefore, better adapted to edify the church than to convince gainsayers. At the same time the ‘truths’ conveyed by it, and the consolations administered by it, might be as clear evidence to the church of the attending power, and presence, and goodness of God, as the power of speaking foreign languages might be to infidels ” (Barnes) .
5) Paul now illustrates the superiority of prophecy over tongues as they pertain to the effect on unbelievers (14:23-25) . It is important to note that he has in mind tongues without an interpreter . As Willis says, “The emphasis seems to fall on the fact that these tongues are uninterpreted (otherwise edification would be possible cf. v.5)”
128 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
a) If an unbeliever came into the assembly and everyone spoke in tongues without an interpreter, what would be the effect? They would say, “You are mad” (14:23) . Even today, imagine an unbeliever walking into an English speaking assembly and, one by one, a speaker stood up and spoke for a few minutes in a foreign language that no one understood and no one was able to interpret . Wouldn’t they think that was very strange? Wouldn’t they think, “Boy! You lot are crazy” ?
b) However, if everyone spoke, under the Reflecting on the use of Tongues
inspiration of the Spirit, he may well be 1. Having the gift of tongues does not make a person more convinced 50 (i.e., to point away from sin spiritual than others who do not have this gift of the Spirit. to repentance) by all that is said, and All those who have made the good confession, “Jesus is Lord,” qualify as spiritual persons. called to account (the idea is that his whole inner man is searched by the 2. Having the gift of tongues does not make one distinguished from others who posses a different gift. All the words of the prophet) by all that is said gifts have been distributed by the same Spirit, all the gifts (14:24) . The results… are to be used in the service of the same Lord, and all the effects are caused by the same God. All the people in the (i) The secrets of his heart are disclosed church are one body and each person is a member of that (14:25a) . “The hidden things that he one body, and each member of the body needs the other has committed in secret are openly members and is mutually dependant upon the other members. There can no divisions and no one member can do condemned (not, perhaps, his without the others. This is God’s arrangement of the body. personal faults so much as the 3. Having the attitudes they had led to all kinds of sinful general condemnation of the sins in passions and ungodly behavior; their motives in the exercise which he has been involved). The of these gifts were sinful. Thus, Paul shows a way that is inner thoughts and impulses of his superior to the way of spiritual gifts – the way of love. heart, known to no one other than Without love the exercise of spiritual gifts means nothing, it makes the person nothing, and it profits the person nothing. himself, are brought to light, Love must be the underlying motive in the exercise of inasmuch as the prophets depict the spiritual gifts. The superiority of love is also seen in the fact hidden thoughts and strivings of the that spiritual gifts would, eventually, cease but love would never fail. human spirit with such divinely given insight that the listener sees 4. The Corinthians prized tongues so highly and yet the gift the secrets of his own heart laid of prophecy was greater. This is seen when one considers their purpose: all the gifts of the Spirit were given for the bare before all who are present (cf. profit of the whole body but of what profit were tongues if Hebrews 4:12-13)” (Willis) . there were no interpreter? Who is edified? What effect does speaking in tongues without an interpreter have on an (ii) Having these things disclosed unbeliever? By the exercise of the gift of prophecy, though, causes him to worship God and the church and unbelievers profit thereby.
declare that God is among them All this should cause the Corinthians to think about how and (14:25b) . This, of course, may not be when they exercise this gift. If tongues are a sign for the effect in every instance as it unbelievers, should it be exercised when unbelievers are not present? If tongues are for the edification of the church, depends on the heart of the should it be exercised when no interpreter is present? individual.
2. Regulations pertaining to the use of spiritual gifts in the public assembly (14:26-40) .
a. Instructions pertaining to the use of spiritual gifts in the assembly (14:26-33a). Paul’s opening question means, “What course should be pursued in the public assemblies of the church?” (14:26a) . The church consisted of many people with various talents, abilities, and gifts: a psalm, a teaching, a tongue, a revelation, an interpretation (14:26b) . But the general rule that governs all these activities is that all things are done for the purpose of edification (14:26c) . Paul has already shown how speaking in tongues were not so used and it is possible that other gifts were likewise being exercised in such a way as to be of no profit to the church.
50 Jesus told His disciples that the Spirit would convict the world of sin (John 16:7-8). This is accomplished through the preaching of the word.
129 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
1) Concerning speaking in tongues, Paul says the number of speakers should, at the most, be three (14:27a) . The limitation may have been imposed because tongue speakers were dominating the service and not allowing time for other activities. Paul also says that they are to speak “in turn” (14:27b) . There might be a hint here of the tongue speaker’s competitive frame of mind and egotism. If so, the services must have been chaotic. Further, “one must interpret” (14:27c) and if there is no interpreter, then the tongue speaker “…must keep silent in the church” (14:28a). Without an interpreter, speaking in tongues was useless because no one would be edified by it. But Paul says he can still speak to himself and God (14:28b) . Note the following comment…
“Some have misunderstood this verse to teach that the man should go ahead and exercise his gift in silence during the worship service (i.e., he should speak silently to God while the rest of the service is going on). However, the word speak (laleo) means ‘to give forth a sound.’ Hence, Paul is not discussing silent conversation with God. Rather, he is advocating that the glossolalist wait until he is alone and then, in private, exercise his gift to his heart’s content” (Willis) .
2) Concerning prophesying, the same limitation is put upon the number of prophets who could speak in any one service as tongue speakers – three (14:29a) . The listeners were to carefully weigh up what the prophets said and not just blindly accept what was taught (14:29b) . This is a principle taught elsewhere in the Scriptures (1 John 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21; Acts 17:11) .
a) It was possible that while one was speaking that a revelation came to one who was seated. In such a case the speaker must now give room to the one who has received the revelation (14:30) . It is difficult to understand what, exactly, was going here. Some of the suggestions are: (i) The speaking prophet had spoken by inspiration and had now entered into commenting on what had been revealed but is now interrupted by one who has another inspired message. (ii) It may be that the one who receives the revelation has some point of clarification on what the first speaker has said and must be allowed to communicate it. (iii) The seated prophet may have a more urgent revelation to declare. Whatever the case, the prophet speaking at the time must sit down and allow that person to speak.
b) These instructions go some way to allowing everyone to speak, and again, “one by one” (14:31a) ; not necessarily in the one service but in subsequent services. Remember, they used to meet more frequently than we generally do today (Acts 2:46; 5:42) . Paul also mentions here the purpose of prophecy, “So that all may learn and all may be exhorted” (14:31b) .
c) Paul’s final word concerning prophets is Modern Tongue Speaking
interesting; he is basically saying that There are many assemblies in which tongue speaking is the prophets had complete control over practised (I know it’s not tongues in the Biblical sense) and I their words and actions. The Spirit find it interesting that they are behaving in a similar way to the Corinthians that prompted these regulations from Paul. might prompt one to speak but the prophet had the choice, he was not In several assemblies I visited there were hundreds of people speaking in tongues and not one person offered an compelled to do so against his will interpretation, and, therefore, no one was edified. (14:32) . Paul probably said this to Paul’s regulations are quite clear: "If any man speak in an counter any claims by some that they unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and were unable to help themselves while that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no under the influence of the Spirit, which interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him they may have used as an excuse to speak to himself, and to God" (1 Corinthians 14:27-28)
ignore the one who had received a revelation.
3) The reason for all Paul’s instruction is that God is a God of order and peace and the assemblies of the saints should reflect this (14:33a) . Without order and peace there is confusion and strife.
130 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
b. Women in the church (14:33b-36) . This passage has been, and still is, a controversial subject among the churches of Christ. There are several views but I have just mentioned three of the most prominent.
1) Paul’s instructions are very clear: women are to “keep silent in the churches” (14:34a) . The reason is that, “They are not permitted to speak , but are to subject themselves, just as the law also says” (14:34b). Paul does not actually cite a passage but he may be referring to Genesis 3:16 or, as Garland says, “Perhaps he refers to a general assumption that the law calls for the wife’s submission to her husband.” Also, women were not even permitted to ask question because, “It is improper for a woman to speak in church” (14:35) . This rule is positive, explicit, and universal (Barnes). The instruction regarding women to keep silent was not a unique limitation made necessary by circumstances peculiar to Corinth. All the churches were already observing this practice; it was the Corinthians who were out of step (14:33b) .
2) The instructions are clear but there are a variety of interpretations and applications:
a) Willis understands “keep silent” to be “a prohibition of her publicly addressing the assembly (i.e., as in to preach to the assembly) rather than a prohibition of her uttering a single word.” He understands “they are not permitted to speak” to refer to publicly addressing the assembly as a prophetess or tongue speaker. He understands the prohibition “And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home” to refer only to those questions that are disruptive. He understands the statement, “For it is improper for a woman to speak in church,” to refer to the opening statement (as in all the churches of the saints) and says, “The general practice dictated that it was shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly of the saints.” So, he says that women or forbidden to take a leading role or ask disruptive questions.
b) Smelser says 51 …
(The bolding is mine)
“If the context of the whole chapter is considered, we recall that Paul was not saying the tongue speaker could speak in a non-authoritative manner in the absence of an interpreter, nor was Paul saying the first prophet could continue speaking if he did so in a non-authoritative manner when one sitting by received a revelation.”
“In the immediate context, notice that the women were not even to ask questions: ‘If they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home.’ Nothing in the context suggests that Paul's command to be silent only had reference to speaking in an authoritative manner.”
“Do notice that in the context, Paul does have reference to speaking out in the assembly, to ‘taking the floor,’ to speaking out so to have the attention of the assembled brethren. That's what he was talking about in verses 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 16, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, and really, throughout the whole chapter. The instruction regarding the women is in this vein. Therefore, this passage does not prohibit the woman from whispering to her child that he needs to sit still. Nor does this passage prohibit the woman from adding her voice to the chorus of voices that offer praise to God and edification to one another. But with reference to speaking out in the assembly, she is to be silent, absolutely silent. She is not even to ask a question .”
“Given the context, it appears Paul has in view first of all silence with regard to prophesying and speaking in tongues. That is to say, the context suggests that ‘let the women keep silence’ means that the women are not to prophesy, or speak out in a tongue in the assembly. Nonetheless, Paul gives the reason: ‘for it is not permitted unto them to speak.’ Paul's admonition that the women keep silence is based on the general principle that the women are not permitted to speak .”
51 Jeff Smelser’s complete article is included at the end of this booklet.
131 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
“This prohibition against speaking cannot be limited to the exercise of spiritual gifts, for it even precluded asking a question. Paul writes, ‘And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.’ Some stumble over this sentence, noting that not all women have husbands, and miss the point. Paul is talking about asking questions, and forbids women to do this in the assembly! How can it be construed that Paul is only speaking of the exercise of spiritual gifts when he speaks of seeking information?”
c) There are an increasing number of scholars who are suggesting that these verses (14:34-35) were inserted by someone who wanted to impose the views expressed in 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Many modernists who find these verses distasteful welcome such a view.
3) Having considered what the Scriptures have to say, overall, and having considered the views of various men, I believe that Paul is concerned primarily in restoring order in the assemblies. The disorder that existed had come about through a misunderstanding of their standing in Christ:
a) God has assigned men and women their roles and Christians must be sure to maintain these roles in the home, at work, and in the church.
b) It seems there were some men and women who misinterpreted Paul’s teaching (see Galatians 3:28) that led to some of the women to believe that gender roles were now abolished in Christ. This misunderstanding led to a disregard of social customs and participation in authorative roles in the public assemblies.
c) Paul’s aim is to restore order. He began by correcting their misunderstanding in chapter 11 and, now that this foundation had been re-laid, he reminds women of their submissive role in the assemblies.
d) So, as in all the assemblies of the saints, women are not permitted to take on any role that involves addressing or leading the assembly, or having authority over the man; such as, speaking in tongues, prophesying, preaching, teaching, leading in prayer, etc. While I believe that women may ask and answer questions where permitted to do so, she must be extremely careful not to do so in such a way that might be construed as an address to the assembly. I remember in Bible class one time, a lady raised her hand to answer a question and she spoke in such a manner that made many feel like she had overstepped her bounds: (i) her voice was very loud, (ii) she spoke for several minutes, (iii) and the content was instructive. The only thing she wasn’t doing The Corinthians presumed themselves was standing at the pulpit. to be wise, knowing, and spiritual. This is inferred from Paul’s comments in c. The spiritual person recognizes the truth and obeys it (14:37-38) . each of the major sections of 1 Corinthians. 1) In the three major sections of 1 Corinthians we find the Chapters 1-4. In this section, which phrase, “If any man thinks…” . The Corinthians had a concerns wisdom, Paul says, “If any perception of themselves as being wise , knowing , and man among you thinks he is wise…” spiritual . Here, Paul says that a spiritual person is not one (3:18).
who prophecies but also recognizes that what he (Paul) Chapters 8-10. In this section, which writes is the Lord’s commandment (14:37) . One’s concerns knowledge, Paul says, “If any spirituality cannot be judged subjectively but man supposes that he knows anything…” (8:2). objectively: obedience to the Lord and an acknowledgment of the truth . Chapters 12-14. In this section, which concerns spirituality, Paul says, “If any 2) There now follows a serious warning: if they do not one thinks he is a prophet or spiritual…” (14:37). recognize his instructions as valid, then they also are 52 invalidated as prophets and spiritual persons by God (14:38; cp. Matthew 7:21-23) .
52 The implication of the passive voice is that such a person will not be acknowledged by God.
132 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
d. Concluding remarks (14:39-40) .
1) Having shown the superiority of prophecy over speaking in tongues, Paul says they should “desire earnestly to prophecy” (14:39a) . This is because the whole church is edified by it (14:3) . Perhaps, after reading what Paul had said about speaking in tongues, some might conclude that it should not be exercised in the assembly. But he says that no one should be forbidden to exercise their gift (14:39b) .
2) Finally, Paul states the overarching principle that must govern all that is done in their assemblies: all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner (14:40) .
“The Spirit of ardor is also the Spirit of order. It expresses Paul’s concern that their ardor 53 for spiritual manifestations has destroyed the order of their assembly. Order alone, however, does not build up the body either. Hays’s comment is apt: “‘Order is necessary only to constrain self-indulgent abuses and to create an atmosphere in which the gifts of all can work together to build up the community in love.’ Carson concludes that ‘wise and biblically informed Christian worship’ will not pursue ‘freedom at the expense of order, or unrestrained spontaneity at the expense of reverence” (David E. Garland) .
a) The adverb properly means ‘of good external appearance.’ “Hence, what Paul is saying is that the congregational assembly should not be offensive to those who are unbelievers. Therefore, the assembly should be conducted in a decent manner” (Willis) .
b) The phrase in order means ‘in an orderly manner.’ “Hence, Paul demands that the congregational assembly be conducted in such a manner that confusion and disorder are absent” (Willis) .
Summary (i) The Corinthians thought that the possession of spiritual gifts made one a spiritual person. In fact, the greater the gift, the more spiritual you were. The gift of tongues was the most highly prized gift and, therefore, those who possessed this gift were the most spiritual. Paul says they are wrong in their presumption. It is not the gift one has that determines if one is spiritual but, rather, whether one has confessed that Jesus is Lord (a reference to a person’s confession prior to or at one’s immersion into Christ). Their attitude led to pride, arrogance, strife, and divisions, and so Paul demonstrates why this cannot be tolerated. First, he shows that all the gifts came from the same source – the Holy Spirit . The recipients did not merit their gifts; there is no cause, therefore, for the recipient to feel proud, etc. Second, there are a variety of ministries but all are used in the service of the same Lord . Third, there are a variety of effects but it is the same God who causes them. Each person is given a gift of the Spirit for the common good. All the gifts are distributed by the Spirit as He wills. There is no reason for anyone to be proud in regards to a particular gift they posses and there is no excuse for divisions based on the value of certain gifts. (ii) A diversity of spiritual gifts was not to be seen as justification for divisions in the church. Using the human body as an illustration, Paul shows that each member performs a different task and each member is interdependent upon the other for the proper functioning of the body. No member can say that another member is inferior or not needed. In fact, the very members that might be viewed in this way actually turn out to be the most important members! All are members of one body because all were baptized by the one Spirit into one body and all were made to drink of the one Spirit. There is, then, no excuse for disunity and rivalry to arise in connection with spiritual gifts. No member of the body has any cause to think he is not needed because he has an inferior gift (inferior in his view) and no member has cause to suppose that he can do without the other members of the body because his gift is superior (superior in his view). All the members of the body are necessary and interdependent. This is how God has composed the body and each member should be concerned for the welfare of the other. The body is made up of many members that perform different functions but all are for the common good of the body. Paul closes by exhorting them to seek the greater gifts; not greater according to the Corinthians’ criteria but greater according to a criteria that he will discuss shortly. But there is yet a more excellent way that he wants to show the brethren. (iii) The more excellent way is the way of love; it is a way that is superior to the way of spiritual gifts. If the Corinthians follow the way of love, then all their difficulties will vanish. All the characteristics of love (positive and negative) listed here somehow relate to the situation in Corinth. Paul’s basic point is this: all that we do and in whatever capacity we serve or function must be underpinned and motivated by love. Without love our actions mean nothing; without love we are of no value; and without love I will gain nothing. Thus, love is superior. Love is also superior in respect of the fact of its permanence; whereas spiritual gifts would eventually pass away, love would never fail. (iv) Having explained these things, they are now ready to hear Paul’s instructions concerning how and when spiritual gifts are to be exercised for the edification of the whole church. The Corinthians judged speaking in tongues to be the most desirable and greatest of the gifts but Paul shows that prophecy is greater. Through their misuse of tongues, no one was edified, but by prophecy everyone was edified. Paul then instructs them regarding the exercise of spiritual gifts. The basic guidelines they must follow are: all things must be done for the edification of the church, and all things must be done properly and in order. In accordance with these principles, women are not permitted to address the congregation or become involved in public discussions; they are to remain silent and submissive. The Corinthians judged spirituality by the gifts they possessed but a truly spiritual person is one who confesses that Jesus is Lord and continues to walk in obedience to the Lord’s commandments and acknowledgement of the truth.
53 Eagerness.
133 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Summary & Application
1. The head covering:
a. Summary. (i) The women in Corinth were removing their veils when praying and prophesying because they supposed that male and female distinctions were no longer applicable in Christ. Paul sets forth several arguments to show that we are all subject to someone and that women should continue to wear their veils as a sign of their subjection to men when praying and prophesying. (ii) Paul had earlier set forth the principles of waiving our rights and becoming all things to all men so as not to cause a brother to fall, and to promote the gospel. Such principles could be applied in the present circumstances.
b. Application. (i) Becoming a Christian does not mean that the various roles assigned to us by God or those we play in society are abolished. Women are still subject to men even as men are subject to Christ and Christ is subject to God. The culture and society in which we live may have certain traditions and customs that distinguish those roles, and Christians must regard such; especially those that have religious implications. Thus, if wearing a veil is a symbol of subjection to men and a sign of modesty, then one should comply so as not to bring shame on one’s self or cause the religion of God to be ill spoken of. (ii) The principles that Paul laid down earlier lead us to believe that Christians ought to be careful to observe all local customs of decency and propriety in whatever circumstances they find themselves, whether at home or abroad.
2. The Lord’s Supper:
a. Summary . (i) The Corinthians, it seems, had imitated the pagans around them by holding a feast on the Lord’s Day. They were overindulging, behaving selfishly, and treating their brethren shamefully. In all this, the Lord’s Supper had lost its meaning so that they were partaking of it in an unworthy manner. (ii) Brethren are supposed to come together to remember the Lord in the partaking of the Lord's Supper, and share in it together . It is inconceivable that they would come together and then split into factions and partake of it at different times. No wonder Paul said that they did not have the Lord's Supper. (iii) Looking back to the institution of the Lord's Supper, Paul was able to highlight their errors. Jesus instituted the Supper on the night He was being handed over, a reminder of His self-sacrifice, and a reminder of His shameless death. By contrast, the Corinthians were frivolous in their observance of the Supper, overindulging in food and drink, and their behavior towards their brethren was shameless and inexcusable. (iv) Partaking of the Lord's Supper in such an unworthy manner had serious consequences: they were under the condemnation of God and many were sick and some slept. This rebuke by Paul was for their own good to lead them to repentance so that they would not be condemned with the world. Paul ends by urging them to wait for one another and repeats again that the proper place to satisfy one’s hunger is at home.
b. Application . (i) The Lord’s Supper is a simple memorial of Jesus’ death and we must be careful to follow the pattern handed down to us and not introduce things that would distract us from its significance. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for their innovation and this is a general principle we can apply. The Lord has told us how we should worship when we come together and we are not at liberty to innovate. (ii) The church comes together to worship as one body and it is sinful to form cliques within the church of any kind; whether according to social status, economic status, race, etc. (iii) The Lord’s Supper should be partaken of together and each one must be in the right frame of mind and focusing on the significance of the emblems. As we consider all that Jesus has done for us, we should be humbled and motivated to imitate our Lord’s attitude and behavior toward our brethren. (iv) There are serious consequences in failing to partake of the Lord’s Supper in the proper manner. God is omniscient, He can see into your heart, and He is watching you, and if you are partaking of the Lord's Supper in a frivolous manner, then you are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, you are under the condemnation of God, and you will become spiritually sick and possibly die. This is why Paul exhorts each person to examine themselves. This can be applied to all our Christian life; if we are not serving God with all our heart, soul, and mind, then our worship is in vain.
134 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3. Spiritual distinctions:
a. Summary . (i) The Corinthians supposed that the possession of spiritual gifts defined a person as spiritual. The gift of tongues was greatly valued and those possessing this gift judged themselves as especially distinguished and spiritual. Such attitudes led to sinful passions, strife, divisions, confusion, and disorder within the church. Paul says that one’s confession of Jesus is what qualifies one as spiritual. All the gifts come from the same Spirit , all are used in the service of the Lord , and all the effects are caused by God . There is no reason, therefore, for pride, jealousy, strife, rivalry, and divisions. (ii) Far from being given for the benefit of the recipient, the gifts are given for the benefit of the whole body. In his illustration, Paul demonstrates how each member is mutually dependant upon the others. Further, he demonstrates that the gifts considered to be of least value are actually of the greatest value. For example, speaking in tongues was considered the greatest of the gifts but the gift of interpretation of little value. But, in fact, he shows that speaking in tongues is useless without an interpreter. (iii) Paul shows that there is a superior way to the way of spiritual gifts – the way of love. It is superior in these respects: love is superior because it gives meaning to what I do, it places a value on my head, and it profits my soul. Love is superior because when everything else has vanished away, love will remain. (iv) The Corinthians had judged speaking in tongues to be the greatest of the gifts but Paul shows that the true value of a gift is determined by whether the church is edified by it or not. From this standpoint, prophecy is actually the greater gift because by it the whole church is exhorted, edified, and comforted. By contrast, speaking in an unknown tongue edifies no one (unless there is an interpreter). Paul then lays down regulations as to the exercise of spiritual gifts that there might be peace and order within the church. Although women were as equally gifted as men, they were not to exercise their gifts in the assembly. Who is spiritual? It is the person who confesses that Jesus is Lord and walks in obedience to the commandments of the Lord.
b. Application . (i) A spiritual person is not one who has the greatest talents and abilities but the one who confesses that Jesus is Lord. To believe otherwise will lead to pride, strife, and division, which is proof of worldliness. Everyone has different talents and abilities and, whatever gifts we have, we must acknowledge that they are gifts of the Spirit to be used in the service of the Lord. (ii) The church is the body of Christ and we all need to recognize our interdependency on one another, and we must actively seek the welfare of one another. (iii) We should certainly seek to develop our talents and abilities for the common good of the body, but it is essential that love is the motivation for all that we do. (iv) Even today we have a tendency to judge the greatness of a talent and ability by worldly standards: surely the man who preaches and attracts great crowds has a greater gift than the one who prepares the Lord’s Supper each week? But what would we do if everyone preached and no one prepared the Lord’s Supper? Let us remember that all the members of the body are essential for the proper functioning of the body. Whatever we do, let us ask ourselves, “Will this edify the church?” If it doesn’t then we must question why we are doing it. In the exercise of our talents and abilities, it is essential that we do so in a manner so as not to cause confusion and disorder. A confused and disorderly service can have a negative effect on visitors but a service that is conducted properly and in order will edify members and visitors alike. Women have just as much talent and ability as men but God has ordained that women exercise them in a way that does not involve occupying a position of leadership or authority over men. The proof of your spirituality is not in the talents and abilities you have and the exercising of them, but in your confession of Jesus as Lord and your walk of obedience in His commandments.
135 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
136 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
THE RESURRECTION
This section covers 15:1-58
137 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
138 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
The Resurrection (15:1-58)
"Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. Otherwise, what will those do who are immersed for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they immersed for them? Why are we also in danger every hour? I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE. Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals. Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame. But someone will say, How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come? You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 15:1-58 NASBR)
Introduction
1. It seems strange to us that the Corinthians could believe that Jesus was raised from the dead but disbelieve that there would be a general resurrection at the end of the age. This, though, is what they believed and it is to this error that Paul now turns his attention.
2. Some have suggested that the Corinthians came to believe this teaching through the influence of the Sadducees (Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8) but since the Corinthians believed Jesus rose from the dead, this is unlikely. It is more likely that this doctrine was due to the influence of the Greek converts. The Greeks, following the teachings of the Greek philosopher, Plato, believed that the soul was immortal and continued to exist after death. The body was considered evil (as was all matter) and the idea of soul and body being reunited was absurd and undesirable (See Acts 17:32) . However, they did admit that isolated incidents of a resurrection might occur. With this in mind, it is easy to understand how, under the influence of Greek thought, the Corinthians could believe in the resurrection of Christ but disbelieve in the general resurrection at the end of the age.
139 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3. Paul, then, presents a defense for the general resurrection and answers several objections. This chapter may be divided as follows:
a. The resurrection is an essential element of the gospel (15:1-11) .
b. The consequences of denying the resurrection of the dead (15:12-34) .
c. Answering objections (15:35-57) .
d. Your labor is not in vain (15:58) .
I. The Resurrection Is An Essential Element Of The Gospel (15:1-11) The resurrection is an essential element of the gospel that was preached to them by Paul, which they had received. It is an historical fact attested by many witnesses; many of whom were still alive.
A. Paul resounds the gospel (15:1-2) .
1. Paul was the one who had founded the church at Corinth through the preaching of the gospel (2:1-2; 3:5-6) ; the same gospel he resounded now (15:1a) . There is only one gospel and it is unalterable (Galatians 1:6-9) .
2. The Corinthians had received and accepted the gospel that he preached (15:1b) . This, of course, would have included his testimony of the resurrection of Christ (Cp. Acts 22:1-10; 23:6; 26:23; Romans 1:4) .
3. The Corinthians, from that day until the present, had continued to stand in the gospel (15:1c) . The idea is, they were well established in their faith. This shows that they did not deny the resurrection of Christ.
4. It is by the gospel they are saved (15:2) . Salvation can be viewed from three different perspectives: as a past event (Mark 16:16) , a future event (Romans 8:24) , and a present process. In this instance, he says, “you are saved, if…” a present process; they are working out their own salvation (Cp. Philippians 2:12) . But this was conditional: “If you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain” (15:2b) . One commentator says, “In 15:3-5, he reminds them of the gospel’s basic content he preached to them but introduces the possibility that they could have believed the gospel in vain if they fail to hold it fast (cf. 11:2). According to S. Lewis, this tactic subtly appeals to the audience’s emotions ‘by provoking doubt and anxiety about their existential54 condition.’ The implication is that they may be departing from it, whether they accepted it in a hasty fashion without due deliberation of the facts or now decide to question it” (David E. Garland) . Based on the definition of the word vain , there are two possible meanings of the phrase “unless you believed in vain” :
a. The word vain could mean ‘without basis,’ and so Paul would be saying, ‘You are saved by the gospel, unless you believed the gospel without any basis (without any evidence) for doing so.’
b. The word vain could mean ‘without result,’ and so Paul would be saying ‘ You are saved by the gospel, unless your faith is dead (a faith without works).’ If their faith was a dead faith, then they would not be standing or holding fast to the gospel.
B. The gospel and the resurrection (15:3-11) .
1. The gospel that Paul delivered to them was the gospel he had received (15:3a) . Paul does not say how he received the gospel, because the Corinthians already knew, but we know that Paul received the gospel by a direct revelation from the risen Jesus Himself (Galatians 1:11-12) .
2. Paul now explains in more detail the gospel he had preached to them (15:3b-4) .
a. “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (153b) . The Jews were, to be sure, expecting a Messiah, a deliverer, but a Messiah who would set up an earthly kingdom and deliver them from their enemies. However, the Scriptures did not teach this. The Scriptures taught that the Messiah would be a suffering savior (Acts 3:18) . The Scriptures foretold the death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah (Isaiah 53:1-12; Psalm 22:1-31; cp. 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 1:19; Luke 24:44-46).
54 Based on experience; empirical (AHD)
140 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
b. “And that he was buried” (15:4a) . This DID JESUS DIE ON THE CROSS OR DID HE JUST SWOON? confirms that Jesus really did die on the This is an extract from an article by Joseph Reinckens. cross . There are those that challenge the www.godonthe.net/evidence/swoon.htm reality of Jesus’ death and claim that He The swoon theory merely passed out and later revived in "Jesus didn't die, He just passed out from stress, fatigue, shock, or the tomb. This is sometimes referred to exhaustion."
as ‘The Swoon Theory’ (See the article The problems ‘Did Jesus Die on the Cross or did He Just Problem: Once Jesus passed out, He would have hung in a "Y" Swoon?’) . position, with knees bent. Experiments with volunteers have proved that in that position lung muscles become paralyzed from strain in c. “And that He was raised on the third day just a few minutes. Within 6-12 minutes a person stops breathing according to the Scriptures” (14:4b) . The and will die of asphyxiation if the strain is not removed. This isn't speculation, it's scientific fact established by direct observation. phrase, “According to the Scriptures” does refer to a prediction that Jesus Problem: With the blood loss from the flogging and the further loss would be raised on the third day (the Old from the stab wound, Jesus would have gone into hypovolemic shock Testament does not contain a reference to this (shock from extremely low blood pressure caused by bleeding). Without a transfusion and with nothing to stop the internal fact) but to the fact that He would be haemorrhaging He would have died, probably within hours. raised (Isaiah 53:10) . However, Jesus Problem: With the internal bleeding and build-up of fluids Jesus Himself predicted that He would be would have died from congestive heart failure . Pathologists raised on the third day (Matthew 16:21; generally agree that this was a contributing cause of Jesus' death. John 2:19) . Problem: The Gospel of John says that when Jesus was stabbed d. The phrase “according to the blood and water came out of His side. A number of forensic pathologists have examined the descriptions (and, in some cases, Scriptures” affirms in shorthand that information on the Shroud of Turin). They all agree that there is no Christ’s death was “according to the way water could have come out. But , they agree that the heart is definite plan and foreknowledge of surrounded by the pericardium , which contains a watery fluid and a God” (Acts 2:23) (David E. Garland) . lance thrust would have extracted this fluid, which would look like water. The thrust would also have pierced the heart, drawing 3. The resurrection of Jesus was not a carefully accumulated blood.
conceived tale (2 Peter 1:16) ; Jesus did not Problem: Even if Jesus didn't die of asphyxiation and even if He return as a ghost (Luke 24:36-43) ; and the didn't die of congestive heart failure and even if He didn't die of witnesses were not hallucinating, which is hypovolemic shock and even if He didn't die from the internal haemorrhaging itself, He had a large, deep, open chest wound evidenced by the groups of people who saw through at least one lung and probably the heart, with internal Jesus. Paul now cites objective evidence of bleeding . This would have caused internal infection and in a few days the resurrection appearances of Jesus. He would have died of sepsis , i.e., infection. The Bible says Jesus appeared to hundreds over a period of forty days after the a. Although Paul is listing the appearances Crucifixion. of Jesus in chronological order (as seen in the word “then” ), it is by no means a complete listing (note, for example, the omission of the women who saw Jesus at the tomb and the two men on the road to Emmaus) but “he is simply citing the ones that would be most convincing to the Corinthians” (Willis) .
1) Cephas (15:5a) or the apostle Peter. The only reference to an appearance to Peter is in Luke 24:23.
2) The twelve (15:5b) . This is the twelve apostles. This appearance is recorded in John 20:19-23 and Luke 24:34-43. Both Judas and Thomas were absent on this occasion and shows that the term ‘The Twelve’ was a formal name applied to them. Imagine a church with 10 elders and they called you to a meeting and one of them was absent. Now what if you were asked where you had been, wouldn’t you say “I’ve been in a meeting with the elders,” even though one of them was absent?
3) More than five hundred brethren at one time (15:6a) . Jesus had prearranged to appear to His disciples in Galilee before His death (Matthew 26:32) . After His resurrection, Jesus told some women, "Then Jesus said to them, Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me" (Matthew 28:10) . So, this may have been the occasion to which he refers. Notice that Paul says Jesus appeared to these brethren “at one time” . This certainly rules out the hallucination theory.
141 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
a) Paul adds that most of the brethren to whom the Lord appeared were still alive (15:6b) . I don’t think Paul is saying to the Corinthians, “If you don’t believe Jesus is raised from the dead, then go and talk to these eye-witnesses.” The Corinthians already believed Jesus had risen from the dead. He may just be demonstrating that the resurrection is a proven fact.
b) He also mentions that some of the eye-witnesses had “fallen asleep” (a euphemism 55 for death). Using this expression also hints at the fact that there will be a resurrection of the dead. After all, if they are just asleep, then they will wake up won’t they? (Cp. John 11:1-45) .
4) James (15:7a) . Coffman expresses uncertainty regarding to whom Paul is referring, whether James, the Lord’s brother, or someone else. Willis, though, has no doubts, “The James referred to by Paul is unquestionably the Lord’s brother.” However, he then admits that this appearance is not recorded in the New Testament and offers a quote from ‘The Gospel According to the Hebrews 56 ’. The quote reads, “Also the gospel which is named according to the Hebrews, and which was recently translated by me into Greek and Latin, which also Origen often used, refers after the resurrection of the savior: But the Lord, when he had given the shroud to the servant of the priest, went to James and appeared to him. James indeed had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour when he had drunk the chalice of the Lord until he saw him risen from among those who sleep. And again after a little bit: Bear forth, said the Lord, a table and bread. And immediately is added: He bore bread and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to James the just 57 , and said to him: My brother , eat your bread, because the son of man has resurrected from among those who sleep” (Jerome, ON FAMOUS MEN 2; de Santos 17 ).
5) All the apostles (15:7b) . The appearance to “the twelve” has already been mentioned but, as we noted, Thomas was absent on that occasion. On this separate occasion, however, “all the apostles” were present (all eleven. Judas had betrayed Jesus and hung himself). This appearance to all the apostles is not recorded in the New Testament.
6) Paul (15:8a) . This concludes the list of those who were to bear witness to Christ’s resurrection. Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord is recorded in three places – Acts 9:1-9; 22:1-11; 26:1-20.
a) Paul describes himself as “one untimely born” (15:8b) . This is a reference to his call to be an apostle. The original twelve apostles were called by Jesus (Luke 6:12-13) . These men were chosen because they had been companions of Jesus from the baptism of John and would later see Him ascend into heaven. They were also chosen to be witnesses of His resurrection. Later, when the brethren sought to replace Judas, Peter listed the necessary requirements to fill the vacant office (Acts 1:21-22) . Paul met none of these requirements! The following quote offers the best explanation of Paul’s untimely birth:
“Paul is one who from the spiritual point of view was not born at the right time because he had not been a disciple during the lifetime of Jesus. His calling to the apostolic office, which presupposed having seen Christ, could not take place in the normal, orderly, organic sequence. Moreover, his calling is forced as well as abnormal and extraordinary. He is torn from his previous course of life by the powerful intervention of the exalted Christ and set in the kingdom of Christ. He is thus brought to see Christ and to his apostolic calling by a very different route from that of the other apostles. The main emphasis is on the abnormality of the process, which took place when the risen Lord had ceased to manifest Himself to the disciples” (Willis) .
55 An inoffensive expression that is substituted for one that is considered offensive. 56 The Gospel According to the Hebrews was a work of early Christian literature, already known by the mid 2nd century AD, to which reference is frequently made by the church fathers during the first five centuries of the Christian era, and of which some twenty or more fragments, have been preserved by quotations in their writings. The book itself has completely disappeared. All that survives to us from the 'Gospel of the Hebrews' are the quotations, made by Clement, Origen, Jerome, and Cyril of Jerusalem (Wikipedia). 57 Saint James the Just , also called James Adelphos and James the Brother of Our Lord - died AD 62 (Orthodox Wiki).
142 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
b) Compared to the other apostles who had spent three years in the company of Jesus being trained and prepared for His resurrection appearances, “Paul, later in time, had been unceremoniously thrust into witness to the resurrection and into apostolic ministry without any positive preparation. His record was a disqualification, rather than the reverse” (J. I. H. McDonald) . Those apostles were fit to be called apostles but Paul’s background made him one who was unfit to be called an apostle (15:9) . “Because I persecuted the church of God” (15:9c; cp. Acts 8:3). I think the following comment gives the best insight into how Paul felt: “What he once did still haunts him…as a depressing memory that is still active in his own heart. Others may or may not recall, he himself ever will. The crime is too great: ‘because I persecuted the church of God.’ That final genitive ‘of God’ weighs so heavily upon his soul” (Lenski) .
c) Considering his background, it is no wonder Paul says, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (15:10a) . Paul was totally undeserving and yet the Lord appeared to him, saved him, and appointed him an apostle to the Gentiles. No one understood what it meant to be saved by grace better than Paul.
(i) The experience of God’s grace motivated Paul to labor more than all the apostles (15:10c) . This was the Lord’s plan for him (Acts 26:16-17) . Thus God did not bestow His grace without result or in vain (15:10b) .
(ii) Yes, Paul labored more than them all but adds, “Yet not I, but the grace of God with me” (15:10d) . It was God’s Spirit who directed him (Acts 16:7; 21:4) , it was the Lord who stood by him (Acts 18:9; 23:11) , and it was God who gave the increase (1 Corinthians 3:6-7; 2 Corinthians 3:5; cp. Isaiah 61:11; Acts 16:14; 21:19) .
"I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5 NASBR)
b. The bodily resurrection of Christ is an essential element of the gospel, whether it was preached by Paul or the other apostles (15:11) , and they had believed it and held fast to it. Summary (i) Paul had founded the church at Corinth through the preaching of the gospel. It was this gospel they had believed and to which they held fast. It was this gospel that brings salvation, unless they believed in vain. (ii) The gospel he preached was that which they had received: the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. All of which was foretold in the Scriptures. This had been fulfilled and there were hundreds of saints who saw Jesus after His resurrection, many of whom were still alive. Paul himself, though one born out of time and unworthy to be called an apostle, saw Jesus and became a witness to the resurrection.
II. The Consequences Of Denying The Resurrection Of The Dead (15:12-34) Denying the resurrection of the dead is not just an inconsequential difference of opinion, it has serious consequences and they must cease their association with those who teach this heresy.
A. If there is no resurrection of the dead (15:12-19) . Paul expresses some surprise that the Corinthians could believe in the specific instance of Christ’s resurrection and yet deny a future general resurrection (15:12) . Paul now highlights several consequences in denying the future resurrection:
1. If you believe that the dead cannot be raised, then, logically, Christ is not raised (15:13) . The argument is simple: the statement, “There is no resurrection of the dead,” cannot be true if someone has been raised from the dead. We can only marvel with Paul at the Corinthians holding to such a belief because Jesus Himself taught that there would be a future resurrection (Matthew 22:30-32; John 5:28; 6:39-40; 11:25) and even raised people from the dead (Matthew 5:21-24 > 35-43; John 11:1-45. Note John 11:24; it seems a belief in a future resurrection was a quite common). Saints were also raised at Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:52) .
2. If you believe the dead are not raised, then preaching the gospel is done in vain and even your faith is vain (15:14) . The resurrection of Christ is an essential element of the gospel (Acts 2:32; 3:15; 4:33) but, if the dead are not raised, then their preaching was vain or without any basis. Further, it means that their faith is worthless. As Garland says, “If this core belief proves to be a delusion, then everything else they believed from this preaching of the gospel is discredited. The gospel is not good news but a hoax that has no real power to change lives or to do anything else except to deceive.”
143 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3. If you say there is no resurrection, then we are discovered to be false witnesses against God (15:15) . Paul, the rest of the apostles, and all that witness to the resurrection of Christ (the 500 brethren who saw Jesus) are exposed as false witnesses; they are deceivers and liars if the dead are not raised. If it were a sin to bear false witness against one’s neighbor (Exodus 20:16) , then how much worse is the offense to bear false witness against God?
“Repeatedly, Paul has pressed the argument to its logical consequences in order to show that the Corinthians’ denial of the general resurrection was not an innocuous 58 deviation from the revealed faith. Rather, it was a pernicious 59 , damnable heresy that denied the very foundation facts on which the gospel rested” (Willis) .
4. If the dead are not raised, then Christ is not raised. If Christ is not raised, then your faith is worthless 60 ; you are still in your sins (15:16-17) . Verse 16 is a repetition of verse 13 and here serves as a conclusion to verses 13-16 and the premise for the following conclusions. Here, the phrase, “Your faith is worthless,” means, “Your faith is void of result.” Lenski explains how faith is made void if Christ is not risen:
“Make the Savior what you please, if He failed to rise from the dead He is useless, for He cannot free us from our sin, the one thing for which we need a Savior. If there is no resurrection, there is also no redemption, no reconciliation with God, no justification, no life and salvation. If Christ is still dead, then every believer is still dead in trespasses and sins. As long as Christ, our surety, is not released, it is certain that our debt is not paid, we are still liable, no matter how much we may trust in some supposed payment or in some release without payment. Christ’s resurrection is the positive proof that His sacrifice was, indeed, sufficient and fully accepted by God. Therefore, Christ was raised for our justification, Romans 4:25. To reject His resurrection is to reject the efficacy of His sacrifice, and the death which He died is just as useless as our faith in such a dead Christ” (Lenski) .
5. If the dead are not raised, then those who have fallen asleep in Christ are Paul has set forth the logical perished (15:18) . “This statement packs a punch because, as Goulder consequences of denying the trenchantly states it, ‘No one wants to think that their relatives have resurrection of the dead. Such a denial is not a harmless kidded themselves in this life and are now rotting or, worse, frying’” (David opinion but, rather, a E. Garland) . damnable heresy. We are reminded of Hymenaeus and 6. If there is no hope of a future resurrection, if we have hoped in Christ in Philetus who were teaching this life only, then we are to be pitied (15:19) . Christ’s resurrection from that the resurrection has the dead is our guarantee that we also will be raised from the dead to already taken place (2 Timothy 2:16-19). Notice a new life. But if the dead are not raised, then all such hopes are dashed on how Paul describes this the rocks and shipwrecked. Imagine, to live a life of self-denial and doctrine and its effects: (i) it suffering in the service of the Lord, which also, paradoxically, is a life of is worldly and empty chatter, blessing and joy, and yet it all ends in disappointment. If there is no (ii) it leads to further resurrection of the dead, then we are to be pitied. ungodliness, (iii) it is like gangrene that eats away the B. All things are to be brought to a consummation 61 . God has had an ultimate flesh, (iv) it overthrows people’s faith. purpose and goal, a purpose and goal that originated in the mind of God from all eternity. The resurrection of Christ and the resurrection of the dead are absolutely essential to the consummation of all things (15:20-28) .
1. What does Christ’s resurrection mean? Having shown the necessity of the resurrection, Paul can now affirm that Christ is risen from the dead – but the following is the real point he wants to emphasize – who is “the first fruits of those who are asleep” (15:20) . But what does he mean?
"Honor the LORD from your wealth And from the first of all your produce; So your barns will be filled with plenty And your vats will overflow with new wine" (Proverbs 3:9-10 NASBR)
58 Having no adverse effect; harmless (AHD) 59 Tending to cause death or serious injury; deadly (AHD) 60 Please consider the following passages: Romans 1:4; 4:24-25; 6:4-5; 7:4; 8:11, 34; 1 Peter 1:3; 3:21. 61 A fulfillment.
144 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
a. The term firstfruits refers to the first products of the harvest, e.g., the first sheaf of the grain harvest (Leviticus 23:10-11) , the first fruit of the vintage (Exodus 22:29) . “Whenever the firstfruits were offered, they guaranteed that the rest of the crop would follow ” (Willis) . The resurrection of Christ is the guarantee that everyone will be resurrected.
b. Jesus is the firstfruits, not just first chronologically to be raised from the dead, but also that His resurrection is the “first of a kind, involving the rest in its character or destiny” (Parry) .
2. How is it that the resurrection of one man, Christ’s, guarantee’s everyone else’s resurrection? Paul explains that just as death came to all through the disobedience of one man, the resurrection from the dead also came by the obedience of one man (15:21) . “The analogy pointed out in this verse is that, in view of death's having resulted from one man's sin, it is not unreasonable that the resurrection of all people should come about through one man's resurrection…” (Coffman) . This is explained further…
62 a. All continue to die in the Adam (15:22a) . The man through whom death came to all men is Adam, the first man created by God (Genesis 2:7 > 20 which identifies the man as Adam). It is because of Adam’s sin that all human beings suffer physical death.
b. All are made alive in Christ (15:22b) . The man through whom all will be made alive is the Christ. Jesus, in becoming a man, suffering death on the cross, and having been raised from the dead, has secured the victory over sin and death for all men.
3. When will the resurrection take place? We see at harvest time a sequence: first the firstfruits and then the harvest. The resurrection also occurs sequentially: first, Christ, the firstfruits, and then those who belong to Christ at His return (15:23) . Christ, of course, has already been resurrected but those in Christ will be raised at His second coming. We have already seen that both the righteous and the wicked will be raised from the dead, so why does Paul only mention “those who belong to Christ” being raised here? The following comment gives the best answer, “The apostle, though in 1 Corinthians 15:22 he had stated the truth that ‘all’ the dead would rise, yet here only mentions Christians, because to them only would the doctrine be of any consolation, and because it was to them particularly that this whole argument was directed” (Barnes) .
4. What happens following the resurrection? Some people believe that Christ will establish His kingdom on earth and reign for one thousand years. Paul, however, says, “Then comes the end” (15:24a) . This day is called the Day of the Lord and Peter also describes what will happen on that Day:
"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up" (2 Peter 3:10 NASBR)
a. It is on that last day that Christ will hand over the kingdom to God (15:24b) . If Christ is to hand over the kingdom at this time, then it implies, of course, that there must have been a kingdom in existence for Him to hand over! “The idea of presenting the kingdom to God is that of presenting the resurrected saints to God” (Willis).
b. It is on that last day that all rule, authority, and power will be abolished (15:24c). This refers to every force that is antagonistic and hostile toward God; whether human, demonic, or otherwise.
1) In God’s plan, Christ’s reign is to come to an end when all His enemies have been rendered powerless and ineffective (15:25) . Christ began His reign on Pentecost and will continue to do so until all His foes are defeated. The last enemy that will be abolished is death (15:26) . This enemy is defeated when all the dead are raised and clothed with immortality at Christ’s second coming.
62 Lenski says that the verb is a frequentative present that should be translated ‘they go on dying.’
145 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2) The Scriptures also testify that Christ must reign until His enemies are defeated (15:27) :
"You make him to rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet" (Psalms 8:6 NASBR)
a) This Psalm is speaking of man in general but Paul, by the Spirit, applies it to Christ.
b) Paul’s focus here is on all things . God has put all things under or made all things subject to Christ. For Paul, all things includes death. But all things does not Summary mean that God will become subject to Christ. On the contrary, when Paul’s argument is all things have become subject to Christ and the kingdom handed over, clear: the denial of the then Christ will also become subject to God, “so that God may be all general resurrection of in all” (15:27-28) . The following comment explains what it means for all men is an assault on God’s final purpose God to become all in all: for the universe. He
“Paul is not saying that the whole world will be merged into God – who denies the resurrection denies i.e., God will be all and all will be God. Rather, this passage is to that the last enemy be interpreted according to its context. The Apostle has already will ever be made said that God subjected all things, except himself, to Christ. Then, subject to Christ, and he moved on to discuss the final consummation of all things when therefore, denies that the kingdom can ever Christ would give that dominion back to the Father. When the be handed over to the dominion reverts to the Father, He will be recognized as the only Father that He may sovereign over all the universe. He will reign supreme over the reign supreme. universe” (Willis) .
C. If all what Paul has said is not true, then baptism for the dead and our (the apostles) suffering are all for nothing (15:29-34) .
1. The word otherwise (NASB) means, “If all that I have said on this subject is not fact…” . So, if all that Paul has said concerning the resurrection is not true, then “what will those do who are baptized for the dead” (15:29a) . What does this mean? Willis says, “I read forty different positions.” I have not read through all these and I am not going to list them here. Instead, I will simply present my own thoughts:
a. This is my paraphrase of these verses…
“If all I have said in affirming that there will be a resurrection of the dead is not true, then what of all those who were baptized to take the place, as it were, of those who died as martyrs before them? If the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized to take the place of those who were faithful unto death before them and place themselves in danger?”
b. This is how I arrived at this paraphrase:
1) Taking into consideration what Paul has previously said, he is saying, “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then what is the point of being baptized.” This is the point of what Paul is saying.
2) Now consider what Paul says in the following verses, “Why are we also in danger every hour?” (15:30) . Paul speaks of being “in danger” but the words “we also” links the thought of being in danger with what he says about being baptized for the dead. Just as the apostles were in danger every hour, so the decision to be baptized put one in danger.
3) In view of the persecution that many Christians suffered, deciding to become a Christian was a very courageous decision. Many Christians were actually put to death for their faith and yet others would courageously take their place; they were baptized in place of those who died. This is what Paul means by “baptized for the dead.”
4) To say there is no resurrection is to dash all the hopes of those who had courageously taken the place of those who had been martyred. You have dashed all their hopes of a future resurrection, so now what could they do? This is what Paul meant by “What will those do…”
146 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
c. So Paul is saying that, it just doesn’t make sense for people to be baptised, knowing they put their very lives in danger, if there is no hope of a future resurrection.
2. Continuing, Paul says, “Why are we also in danger every hour?” (15:30) . It certainly doesn’t make sense for people to be baptised and put themselves in danger of persecution and death if there is no hope of a future resurrection, and neither does it make sense for the apostles to put their lives in jeopardy by preaching the gospel if there is no hope of a resurrection, does it? Paul then adds, “You Corinthian Christians are the fruit of my apostolic labor which has been at a daily risk to life; and as truly as I can point to you as such fruit, so truly can I say, 'I die daily’” (VWS) .
a. The sufferings that Paul endured as a preacher of the gospel were sleepless nights, hunger and thirst, ceaseless labor, insufficient clothing, beatings, imprisoned, etc. (1 Corinthians 4:8-13) . The mention here of fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus (15:32a whether figuratively or literally) likely stands for all his suffering and deprivation. If Paul suffers all these things from human motives, then what does he gain from it? (15:32b) . If there is no resurrection of the dead, then one might as well enjoy life to the full while one is alive (15:32c) . We can clearly see how a denial of the resurrection inevitably leads to loose living . We can also see how a belief in the resurrection has moral safeguards . This demonstrates once again that a denial of the resurrection is not a benign opinion…it is an essential aspect of the gospel and a denial of it has serious implications.
b. This section ends with a stern warning and admonition: you are deceived (Cp. 3:18; 6:9) if you think that evil associations (those who were denying the resurrection) will have no influence on your morals (15:33) . “Paul is telling the Corinthians to cease associating with those among them who denied the 63 resurrection of the dead” (Willis) . The Corinthians were in a stupor or drunken, “a benighted worldliness and lack of spiritual awareness” (David E. Garland). They needed to become sober-minded as they ought and stop sinning. They had no knowledge of God and they ought to be ashamed (15:34) .
Summary (i) Paul is somewhat surprised that some of the Corinthians are denying that there will be a resurrection of the dead. Such a denial has serious consequences: it means that Christ is not raised, preaching the gospel (which includes the resurrection) is in vain, their faith is vain, the apostles are false witnesses because they testify that God raised Christ from the dead, their faith is worthless and they are still in their sins, and all those who have died are perished. We are, indeed, to be pitied if there is no resurrection. (ii) God has an eternal plan to bring all things to a fulfilment and the resurrection of the dead is absolutely essential to this goal. In rising from the dead, Christ is the firstfruits and this guarantees that the harvest will follow; all men will be raised from the dead. For just as death came to all men by one man, so the resurrection will come to all men through Christ. All die in Adam and all will be made alive in Christ. The resurrection will take place at Christ’s coming, He will hand the kingdom over to God, and that will be the end. Until that day comes, Christ will reign over His kingdom until all His enemies have been defeated. The last enemy to be defeated will be death. Once all things have been subjected to Him, then He Himself will be subject to God. (iii) Paul then argues that, if there is no resurrection of the dead, then what of those who are baptised in place of the dead and face persecution and death? What of the apostles who face death every day? It doesn’t make sense to do that; one may as well enjoy this life to the full if there is no hope of a resurrection.
III. Answering Objections (15:35-57) Not knowing the power of God, the Corinthians had raised objections to the idea of a resurrection, which Paul now answers.
A. The sense of the two questions could be put like this: “How can a body that has rotted in the grave or been eaten by wild beasts possibly be resurrected? I mean, what kind of a body will they have, not a fleshy one that’s for sure!” (15:35) . This may be a real question posed by the Corinthians or Paul may be taking the objection “There is no resurrection of the dead” and turning it into a leading question to teach. Anyway, here is Paul’s answer:
1. The point of the following illustration is to show that God is capable of providing us with a body at our resurrection that is perfectly suited to our needs and the domain in which we shall dwell for eternity. This illustration also highlights the power of God; nothing is impossible for God.
63 Moral or intellectual darkness (AHD).
147 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
a. “You fool!” Paul exclaims (15:36a) . The objector is dull-witted and undiscerning. This is not a person who simply suffers some intellectual deficiency but fails to take God into account. If only one person would have taken God into account, would he not have said, “Is anything too hard for the Lord” ? (Cp. Genesis 18:14) . They only had to consider what occurred in nature: the sower sows seed in the ground, it decomposes or dies, and then, from death, new life appears; a plant grows up (15:36b) . Not only so, but the body or seed that is sown bears no resemblance to the new plant that grows up (15:37) . God has given to each seed a body that is suited to its purpose (15:38) . The implication is that God can surely cause the same to happen with man, can’t He? Our resurrected bodies will be different to the body that dies and decomposes in the grave.
b. Another salient fact of nature is that the species differ in regards to their flesh; men and beasts whose bodies are suited to the domain of the earth in which they live; birds whose bodies are suited to the domain of the sky in which they live, and fish whose bodies are suited to the domain of the sea in which they live (15:39) . The point is that, God has given to each of His creations a body that is adapted to the needs of that creature. Our resurrected body will be perfectly adapted to our needs and the domain in which we shall be living in eternity.
c. There are also different celestial bodies (the sun, the moon, the stars, and the planets) and terrestrial bodies (anything on earth that has a body). All these bodies differ in glory or radiance. The oceans are glorious but they differ from the glory of the sun and the moon. The heavenly bodies also differ in glory; even stars differ in glory (15:40-41) . Our resurrected bodies will also have the right proportion of glory for the realm in which we will exist.
2. What we see to be true in nature is true in reference to the resurrection of the dead (15:42-44).
a. Our perishable bodies are buried in the ground and return to dust, but they will be raised imperishable . 64 It will not be possible for our bodies to decay (15:42b) .
b. Our dead bodies are buried in dishonor or shame. Nobody wants to look at a dead body and no body wants a dead body around for too long (for obvious reasons), so they are buried in the ground in humiliation. In contrast to our humiliating burial, we shall be raised in glory (15:43a) . “The word ‘glory’ (doxa) means dignity, splendor, honor, excellence, perfection; and is used here as denoting the combination of all those things which shall rescue it from ignominy and disgrace” (Barnes) .
c. Our bodies are buried in weakness. The human body is weak even while we live (Psalms 78:39; 103:14-16) and becomes all the more evident as a corpse. But we shall be raised in power ; full of strength and vitality (15:43b) .
d. Our bodies are made of dust and we are buried and return to dust, but we shall be raised a spiritual body . If we have now a natural body adapted to this life, then it is certain that there is a spiritual body that is suited for life in the spiritual realm (15:44) .
3. Our resurrection body is not merely a reconstructed and spruced-up version of the old body, it is totally different (15:45-49) .
a. The Scriptures say, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul” Objections Silenced Paul has now answered several (Genesis 2:7) . The first man was created with a natural or physical objections. He has shown that God is body and all the children of Adam, likewise, have become living able to raise the dead and give souls. We have bodies fitted for life in this world (15:45a) . The everyone a body that will be suited to last Adam, Christ, became “a life-giving spirit.” We will have its new environment. bodies fitted for life in the world to come (15:45b) .
64 If the body is not subject to decay then this implies that disease and death have been abolished.
148 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
b. We do not have these new spiritual bodies now because there is an order: first the physical then the 65 spiritual (15:46) . The first man’s origin is the earth. He was made from the dust of the ground and had a physical body suited to his environment. The second man’s origin is heaven and, being from heaven, has a spiritual body suited to that environment (15:47) . Adam is earthy, so all those in this world are earthy; they have physical bodies. Christ is heavenly, so all those in heaven are spiritual; they have spiritual bodies (15:48) . We can be certain, therefore, that just as we have borne the image of Adam and had an earthly body, we shall also, at the resurrection, bear the image of the resurrected Christ (15:49) .
B. When Jesus returns, He will call all men from their graves and all will be given a new spiritual body. But what of those who are still alive when Jesus returns?
1. Concerning those who are still alive at Christ’s coming, something has to occur in respect to their bodies because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and a body that is subject to corruption cannot inherit incorruption (15:50) . The heavenly realm is totally different to the physical realm and a body made of dust is just not suited to life in that heavenly realm.
2. But God has taken this into account (15:51-57) .
a. When Christ returns, the sound of a trumpet will be heard, which signals the end of the age, and then, instantaneously (15:51-52) …
1) The dead will be raised in their spiritual bodies.
2) Those still living will have their bodies transformed into spiritual bodies.
b. This is something that is absolutely necessary because we cannot exist in the heavenly realm without incorruptible and immortal bodies (15:53) .
3. The completion of the events of that day will also fulfil one final prophecy: “Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” (15:54-55) . Paul takes this prophecy from Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 and applies it to the resurrection day. You can see from the language that Paul is talking to death as though it were a person.
a. On the day of our resurrection we can all exclaim with joy, “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” For our resurrection marks the abolishment of death forever. As a scorpion uses its stinger to inflict pain, so death uses sin as its stinger to kill man (15:56a) . If there were no law, then there would be no sin (Romans 4:15) . But the law has been given and man always violates that law, which demands death. Thus the power of sin is the law (15:56b) .
b. But God sent His Son (John 3:16) to redeem men from sin and death (2 Corinthians 5:15; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 3:18) . But only those who have been untied with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection will share in that victory (Romans 6:5) .
Summary (i) Paul answers the question as to how a corpse can be resurrected. In their reasoning they had not taken God into account, it seems. Is anything impossible for God? Anyway, Paul gives several examples that demonstrate God’s ability to provide us with the type of body that will be required to exist in the world to come. (ii) Paul also answers what will happen to those who remain alive when Christ returns. Whether dead or alive, all will be given a new spiritual body. At that time death will finally be abolished. All this has been achieved through the death and resurrection of Christ. If any man would share in that victory, then he needs to ensure that he is in Christ.
65 There are those who teach that we previously existed as spirits and then chose to come to earth. According to what Paul says here, this cannot be true.
149 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
IV. Your Labor Is Not In Vain (15:58) Having demonstrated how essential Christ’s resurrection is and how this is intrinsically tied to our salvation, highlighted the serious consequences of denying the resurrection, and answered their objections, Paul exhorts the brethren to continue in faith and the work of the Lord.
A. The first admonition to be steadfast and immovable (15:58a) reminds us of the opening admonition: "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand , by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain" (1 Corinthians 15:1-2) . The Corinthians should not allow anything to lure them away from the truths revealed in the gospel that had been established in them. If they stray from the fundamental truth of the resurrection, then their faith will have been in vain.
B. The second admonition is to always be abounding in the work of the Lord (15:58b) . This seems a little ambiguous but the work of the Lord would include preaching the gospel, building up the church, aiding the poor and afflicted, and, in general, good works.
1. The word always means “at all times” (Strong’s) . Just as we are to pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17) , we are to be doing the work of the Lord at all times.
2. The word abounding means “to go to an excess” (Strong’s) . Just as we are to abound in love toward one another (1 Thessalonians 3:12) , we are to go to excess in doing the work of the Lord.
3. There are many things in which we might always be abounding – secular work, hobbies, sport, gossip, etc. But what God wants us to abound in is the work of the Lord .
C. Paul had said earlier, "And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14) . If the Corinthians are convinced that the dead will be resurrected at Christ’s return, then they know that their labor is not without result (15:58c) ; God will use their labor to give growth and will reward them at the end.
Summary (i) Paul ends this section with two admonitions. The first is to remain steadfast and immovable. They had already drifted away from one of the most fundamental truths of the gospel in denying the resurrection, but Paul had brought them back to shore. (ii) The second admonition is to always abound in the work of the Lord. This would include preaching the gospel, building up the church, and caring for the needy saints. (iii) The motive Paul introduces is that their labor in the Lord is not in vain. If there were no resurrection of the dead, then there would be little point in their labors, especially if it led to persecution and putting their lives in danger. But there is a resurrection of the dead and their labor is not without result; God will use their labor to give growth and will reward them on that day.
Summary & Application
1. The resurrection is an essential element of the gospel:
a. Summary. (i) The Corinthians had held fast to the gospel that Paul preached to them. However, under the influence of false teachers, some were denying that there would be a resurrection of the dead. Although they did not deny that Christ had risen from the grave. The gospel can only save them if they hold fast to it, but they had strayed. (ii) The gospel Paul preached was that which he had received, which he then spells out to them; an essential element being the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection was not a carefully crafted tale but that which was witnessed by hundreds of disciples. Do the Corinthians now discount their testimony?
b. Application. (i) The gospel is that which saved us but there is yet that salvation to be ultimately realized when Jesus returns. Our salvation is only guaranteed if we hold fast to that which we believed. Anyone who tries to draw us away from the fundamental facts of the gospel, no matter how plausible they sound, is a false teacher. (ii) The resurrection is a historical fact and we would do well to acquaint ourselves with the evidence.
150 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2. The consequences of denying the resurrection of the dead:
a. Summary . (i) Denying the resurrection of the dead has serious consequences: it means that Christ could not have risen, the gospel is preached without any basis, the apostles are false witnesses, faith produces no results and all are still in their sins, and those who have died have perished. It means we are to be pitied. (ii) The resurrection is essential in God’s eternal plan in bringing all things to a consummation. Jesus’ resurrection means that He is the firstfruits and the guarantee of the harvest that will follow. Jesus’ resurrection is the guarantee that all men will be raised from the dead. For just as all died through the man, Adam, all will be made alive through the man, Jesus. This resurrection will take place when Jesus returns. Following the resurrection, Jesus will hand over the kingdom to God and even Jesus Himself will be subject to God that He might be all in all. (iii) If there is no resurrection, then all the suffering that the saints endure for the sake of the gospel is all for nothing. It doesn’t make sense to suffer in this life if there is no hope of a resurrection to a better life. We might just as well “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.” The Corinthians were deceived and he warns them not to keep company with those who teach this false doctrine.
b. Application . (i) We have seen that denying the resurrection of dead is not just an alternative viewpoint, it is a denial of one of the fundamental facts of the gospel that has serious, even fatal, consequences. But this is true of any Bible doctrine. We need to get our facts straight and hold fast to the truth. (ii) We have seen that the resurrection is essential in God’s consummation of all things. Let us all examine our beliefs and think through the consequences before we affirm or deny a doctrine. (iii) If there is anything we believe that leads to an apathy and disregard of sin, then we can be sure that what we believe is wrong. There is no teaching in the Bible that encourages us to sin.
3. Answering objections:
a. Summary . (i) Some of the Corinthians, it seems, denied the resurrection of the dead on the basis that it was an absurdity to believe that a decomposed corpse could be raised from the dead. But, through a series of illustrations, Paul shows from the natural world that death and decay are necessary in order for new life to appear, and it is God who arranged things in this way. Not only so, but God has ensured that each one has a body that is perfectly adapted to its needs and environment. Cannot the God who so arranged and ordered all things also give an appropriate body to those who are resurrected? It seems the Corinthians arrived at their conclusions based on human reasoning alone and left God out of the picture. (ii) Another question that arises concerns those who are alive when Jesus returns, what of them? Quite simply, their bodies will need to be changed and God has the power to do that, too. It is on that same day that Jesus will hand over the kingdom to God and even subject Himself to God that God may be all in all. That will be the end of this age.
b. Application . (i) Perhaps there are some teachings of the Bible that we find hard to understand or that even seem a little absurd. First, we should not abandon the teaching of the Scriptures and accept false teaching. Second, we need to patiently endure in our personal studies and, eventually, we will discover the truth. (ii) We do not know when the Lord will return; we may die and be called from the grave on that day or He may return before we die. That day will be a day of rejoicing for the righteous but a day of great fear for the ungodly. Are you ready for that day to come?
"Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure" (1 John 3:2-3 NASBR)
4. Your labor is not in vain:
a. Summary . (i) Some of the Corinthians had gone astray concerning one of the fundamental facts of the gospel but Paul’s teaching has exposed this false teaching. He admonishes them to remain steadfast and immovable in the faith. (ii) This particular false teaching naturally leads to apathy and immorality, and it may be that they had already begun to neglect the work of the Lord. However, now that Paul has restored their faith, they have the motivation they need to abound in the work of the Lord. (iii) They also needed to know that their labor in the Lord is not in vain or without result. If they continue in patient labor then God will cause the increase and, on the resurrection day, they will receive an eternal reward.
151 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge b. Application . (i) We need to constantly remind ourselves of the fundamental facts of the gospel and consider once again why we believe them. This will help us to remain steadfast and immovable in our faith. (ii) Why is it that some brethren are apathetic concerning the work of the church? Perhaps they hold to a belief that encourages apathy (a denial of the resurrection and judgment, a belief in universalism, a belief in the ‘once saved always saved’ doctrine). Maybe you need motivating. We must overcome any hindrance and fulfill our obligation to abound in the work of the Lord. (iii) Whatever labor we expend in His service is never without result; God Himself causes growth and will also reward us in the day that Christ returns.
152 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
SECTION THREE Final Instructions and Comments
153 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
154 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
The Collection
This section covers 16:1-4
155 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
156 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
The Collection (16:1-4)
"1Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2On the first day [Sunday] of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come. 3 When I arrive, whoever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem; 4 and if it is fitting for me to go also, they will go with me" (1 Corinthians 16:1-4 NASBR)
Introduction
1. Having just exhorted the brethren to be “always abounding in the work of the Lord” and reminding them that their “labor is not in vain in the Lord,” Paul now gives instructions regarding the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem.
2. This short passage is important and worthy of close study because it teaches us how and when the collection is to be taken up.
I. Paul’s Order To The Churches (16:1-2) Paul gives instructions concerning the contribution for the needy saints in Jerusalem.
A. The phrase “now concerning” is Paul’s usual way of answering a question put to him by the Corinthians (Cp. 7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 16:12) . So it is likely that they had written to Paul and asked him how to handle the collection or maybe how it was to be taken to Jerusalem. This shows that they knew there was a need and sought to help their brethren.
B. Comments on Paul’s instructions:
1. “Now concerning the collection.” It is very important to consider the word collection because it’s meaning will determine whether Paul is instructing the church to take up a formal collection during the worship service or whether he is instructing each member to save up some money at home.
a. Why would anyone think that Paul is instructing them to save up money at home? Paul says, “…let everyone of you lay by him in store…” (16:2) . The words “by him” are interpreted to mean “at home.” Thus, they say that Paul is instructing them to save up their money for the needy saints at home. This, of course, would mean that there was not a formal collection taken up during the worship and no church treasury.
b. But before we consider the meaning of “by him,” we need to look at the word “collection.”
1) This is a quote from The Searcher (The full article can be read in the articles section at the end of this booklet) .
“We first consider the word ‘collection.’ That word is ‘logeia’ and was thought to have been derived from ‘lego’ and to be a word distinctive to the New Testament. This is a point made in Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon. However, additional work by archaeologists, particularly Adolf Deissmann, has produced papyri that tell a different story. We now know that the word ‘logeia’ was derived from the word ‘logeuo’ (I collect) and was commonly used in Paul’s day. Deissmann wrote, ‘We find it used chiefly of religious collections for a god, a temple, etc., just as St. Paul uses it of his collection of money for the ‘saints’ at Jerusalem” (Adolf Deissmann, Light From the Ancient East. Quoted by Greg Litmer).
2) What does all this mean? “The importance of this discovery is to prove that Paul used the word just as his contemporaries used it. The normal usage of the word was that of a collection in the ‘formal’ sense. He wasn’t telling the Corinthians to put a little money away every week in a jar at home. Rather, just as faithful Christian scholars had asserted all along, he was instructing them to take a formal collection on the first day of every week ” (Greg Litmer) .
157 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
2. “For the saints.” There are always suffering and deprived people, whether near or far. This collection is not for the poor in the local community but for the saints in Jerusalem.
a. Corporately, the church is only authorized to help needy saints (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 11:28-30; Romans 15:25- 26; 2 Corinthians 9:12) . Individually, we are expected to help all the needy (James 1:27) . Many religious bodies use benevolence as an evangelistic tool to convert people but there is no authority to do this. As Willis says, “Instead, benevolence was used to relieve the suffering of those who had already been won to Christ.”
b. We can see that this collection was for needy saints, so why do we have a collection every week and use the money for other things? This passage is used to show how funds were raised but it does show us all the Scriptural uses of the money. The following examples show what the church did and imply a common treasury:
1) Supporting preachers - 2 Corinthians 11:8. Paul says he received support from a number of churches. It is important to note that this support was not sent by individual persons (although there’s nothing wrong with that) but by individual churches; it was a corporate action, which, of course, implies a corporate treasury. See also Philippians 4:14-16.
2) Supporting widows - 1 Timothy 5:3-16. If a widow had no relatives to relieve her, then the church would support her. A corporate treasury is implied here.
3. “As I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.” The word directed is from diatasso and means “to set in order, appoint, command” (Vines). Only the apostles had the authority to command the churches of Christ (Matthew 18:18) .
a. As Paul had commanded the churches of Galatia, so he commanded the church at Corinth. This shows there was a certain degree of uniformity in all the churches. A complete study will reveal uniformity in organization, worship, and work. “What one church practiced, all were expected to practice because all were equally under the authority of the Lord and, therefore, responsible for obeying the same commandments” (Willis) .
b. Likewise, we are expected to follow the same commands. “Paul proposes the Galatians as an example to the Corinthians, the Corinthians to the Macedonians, the Corinthians and the Macedonians to the Romans; 2 Corinthians 10:2, Romans 15:26. There is great force in examples” (Bengal, Word Studies ).
4. “On the first day of every week.” We can see in the Scriptures that the first Christians met on a daily basis (Acts 2:46) . But whether every church in every place met on a daily basis is not said. However, there is strong evidence that every church did, at least, meet every Sunday.
a. The disciples in Troas met every Sunday (Acts 20:7) .
b. The Corinthians met every Sunday (16:2) . This is evidenced by the fact (as we have shown) that they took up a formal collection every Sunday.
c. We know that the churches of Galatia were meeting on the first day of the week because Paul had commanded them to take up a collection on this day, too (16:1-2) .
d. John says that he was in the Spirit on “The Lord’s Day” (Revelation 1:10) . The word Lord’s is from the word kuriakos .
“The following use of kuriakos may help to explain John’s point: kuriakos, ‘belonging to the Lord, the Lord’s’ (A. & G.), is used only here, kuriakon hemera, ‘Lord’s day,’ and in 1 Corinthians 11:20, kuriakon deipnon, ‘Lord’s Supper.’ The day was the Lord’s day, the supper was the Lord’s supper. The Lord’s supper was observed on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Surely the Lord’s supper was observed on the Lord’s day, and if so, it must follow that the Lord’s day was the first day of the week. The Lord provided this new name for a new day on which new religious service was observed” (Homer Hailey, Revealtion, An Introduction and Commentary ).
158 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
5. “Each one of you is to put aside and save.” The words “each one” stresses personal, individual responsibility to set aside a portion of income to contribute into the treasury. A husband should make a contribution out of his income, a wife should contribute out of her income (whether from secular work or housekeeping money given to her by her husband), and a Christian son or daughter should contribute out of their monthly allowance.
a. Many commentators believe that the words “put aside” (NASB) or “by him” (KJV) mean “at home” (e.g., Thayer). It is based on this that many deny there is such thing as a church treasury. B.R. Young, for example, commenting on 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 and 2 Corinthians 9:7, says, “There is not one reference here of giving to a ‘church treasury.’ Even a great stretch of the imagination couldn't get you a ‘church treasury’ out of these verses” (You can see the complete article here: www.preterism- eschatology.com/Church%20Treasury.htm ). But we have already shown that, “The normal usage of the word was that of a collection in the ‘formal’ sense. He wasn’t telling the Corinthians to put a little money away every week in a jar at home. Rather, just as faithful Christian scholars had asserted all along, he was instructing them to take a formal collection on the first day of every week ” (Greg Litmer) .
b. So what does by him mean? Here is the best interpretation, “Every one was to lay by himself , i.e., most modern commentators say, at home , par’ heauto. Compare pros heauton, in Luke 24:12; see also John 20:10. The direction then is that every one should, on the first day of the week, lay aside at home whatever he was able to give, thus treasuring up his contribution. To this interpretation it may be objected that the whole expression is thus obscure and awkward. ‘let every one at home place, treasuring up what he has to give.’ The words do not mean to lay by at home , but to lay by himself , i.e., let him take to himself what he means to give” (Hodges) . The word collection refers to a formal collection; to lay by at home is not a formal collection. We conclude that Hodges is correct and that each one was to take to himself what he purposes to contribute into the collection.
6. “As He may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.” The Old Testament practice of tithing passed away with the abolishment of the Law. Today, Christians determine how they will give based on how much God has prospered them.
a. It is possible to use this passage as an excuse to give very sparingly. One might sit down and very easily justify giving very little; claiming that £2 or $2 is all they have left over after paying the household expenses.
b. The Scriptures teach we are to give sacrificially, generously, purposefully, and cheerfully (2 Corinthians 8:1-5 > 9:6-7) .
“One of the reasons people are not giving as they ought is due to selfishness. We pay for television rental, cable rental, internet rental, DVD rental, cell phone rental; those candy, chip, and cookie treats, movie and theatre going, fast foods, etc. all for our own pleasure. But are we willing to sacrifice any of these things that we might have more to give to the Lord? We cannot claim to be giving as the Scriptures direct when such selfishness is evident” (D. Collins, Quotes & Things, Commentary ).
Summary (i) It would seem from Paul’s words, “now concerning,” that the Corinthians knew they had to relieve their brethren in Jerusalem but needed instruction on the best way to handle it. (ii) Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians were the same instructions he gave to the churches of Galatia: they were to take up their collection when they assembled on the first day of the week. Each person was to set aside an amount according to how the Lord had prospered him.
II. Arrangements For Transferring The Contribution (16:3-4) The arrangements for the transfer of funds to the needy brethren in Jerusalem.
A. Paul was planning to be in Corinth and the arrangements were simple (16:3) :
1. They should select some from among them whom they approved. I see no reason why those approved could not be women as well as men.
159 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
“Paul did not propose to take charge of the contribution himself, suggesting here that men duly appointed by the congregations should with proper screening and recommendation be dispatched with the money to its destination. The care of the apostle to avoid all appearance of improper conduct in such a thing should be noted. He avoided all such suspicion of misappropriation of the funds” (Coffman) .
2. Paul would then send them to Jerusalem with letters to take their contribution to Jerusalem.
B. There was, however, always the possibility that circumstances might change and Paul may himself have to go to Jerusalem. If such was the case, then those brethren could go with him (16:4) .
Summary (i) The arrangements for the transfer of funds from Corinth to Jerusalem were simple: Paul would come to Corinth and send letters with the brethren whom they approved to Jerusalem to present the contribution to them. (ii) Depending on the circumstances, he may himself end up going to Jerusalem and, if so, the brethren could accompany him.
Summary & Application
1. Paul’s order to the churches:
a. Summary . (i) The Corinthians were aware of the needs of their brethren in Jerusalem but sought Paul’s instruction on the best way to handle the collection. (ii) Paul’s instructions are simple: each one was to set aside some money, as the Lord had prospered him, and put the money into the common treasury on the first day of the week.
b. Application . (i) When the Corinthians wanted to know the best way to handle the collection for their needy brethren, they asked Paul. This is an attitude we would do well to emulate: if we have a question relating to anything to do with our worship (or anything come to that), then, rather than devising our own way, we should go to the Scriptures for the answer. (ii) There can be no doubt that there was a collection on the first day of the week (also called ‘The Lord’s Day’) and we each have a responsibility to contribute a generous portion of our income. A study of the Scriptures reveals that the money may be used for a variety of things connected with the work of the church.
2. Arrangements for transferring the contribution:
a. Summary . (i) Paul gave simple instructions for transferring the contribution to Jerusalem. They were to select whoever they approved and Paul would send them with letters to Jerusalem. (ii) Depending on the circumstances, he might also accompany them.
b. Application . (i) In a previous lesson, we learnt that God wants our worship to be conducted decently and in order. This general principle applies to all matters concerning the church. As in the case with the transfer of funds from Corinth to Jerusalem, simple arrangements need to be made. It is appropriate, too, to ensure that we choose people who are fit for the chosen task. Also, it is right to ensure that all things are open and above board, leaving no occasion for doubt or suspicion in anyone’s mind. (ii) People make plans with every intention of following through but sometimes there are unforeseeable circumstances that arise that force a change of plan. It happens to us and it happens to others. We need to be understanding when this happens. The Corinthians were not so understanding when Paul’s circumstances changed (2 Corinthians 1:13ff) .
160 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
CLOSING COMMENTS AND GREETINGS
This section covers 16:5-24
161 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
162 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Closing Comments and Greetings (16:5-24)
"5But I will come to you after I go through Macedonia, for I am going through Macedonia; 6 and perhaps I will stay with you, or even spend the winter, so that you may send me on my way wherever I may go. 7 For I do not wish to see you now just in passing; for I hope to remain with you for some time, if the Lord permits. 8 But I will remain in Ephesus until Pentecost; 9 for a wide door for effective service has opened to me, and there are many adversaries. 10 Now if Timothy comes, see that he is with you without cause to be afraid, for he is doing the Lord's work, as I also am. 11 So let no one despise him. But send him on his way in peace, so that he may come to me; for I expect him with the brethren. 12 But concerning Apollos our brother, I encouraged him greatly to come to you with the brethren; and it was not at all his desire to come now, but he will come when he has opportunity. 13 Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. 14 Let all that you do be done in love. 15 Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints), 16 that you also be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps in the work and labors. 17 I rejoice over the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have supplied what was lacking on your part. 18 For they have refreshed my spirit and yours. Therefore acknowledge such men. 19 The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Prisca greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. 20 All the brethren greet you. Greet one another with a holy kiss. 21 The greeting is in my own hand--Paul. 22 If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Maranatha. 23 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. 24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen" (1 Corinthians 16:5-24 NASBR)
Introduction
1. This is the final section of the book in which Paul talks of his and others travel plans, exhortations, and greetings. There is also a surprising and almost scary warning in verse 23.
2. This section may be divided as follows:
a. Paul’s travel plans (16:5-12) .
b. Timothy’s and Apollos’ planned visits to Corinth (16:10-12) .
b. Exhortations designed to encourage allegiance to Christ (16:13-14) .
c. Directions concerning Stephanas (16:15-18) .
d. Greetings and a final warning (16:19-24) .
I. Paul’s Travel Plans (16:5-12) Paul outlines his travel plans but nothing is certain because of the continual changing circumstances.
A. Paul had originally made plans to visit the brethren but his plans had changed (16:5) . On hearing this, the brethren had accused him of being fickle (see 2 Corinthians 1:17) .
1. From 2 Corinthians 1:15-16, we know Paul’s original plans were to visit Corinth for a short stay, go to Macedonia, return to Corinth and then sail to Jerusalem.
2. These plans would have only allowed for a brief visit and he desired to stay longer. Paul may have stuck to these plans but he then tells them why he changed his plans: "But I call God as witness to my soul, that to spare you I did not come again to Corinth" (2 Corinthians 1:23) . Note the following comment…
“To avoid the necessity of inflicting punishment on you; of exercising severe and painful discipline. If he went among them in the state of irregularity and disorder which prevailed there, he would feel it to be necessary to exert his authority as an apostle, and remove at once the offending members from the church. He expected to avoid the necessity of these painful acts of discipline, by sending to them a faithful and affectionate epistle, and thus inducing them to reform, and to avoid the necessity of a resort to that which would have been so trying to him and to them. It was not, then, a disregard for them, or a lack of attachment to them, which had led him to change his purpose, but it was the result of tender affection. This cause of the change of his propose, of course, he would not make known to them in his First Epistle, but now that that letter had accomplished all he had desired, it was proper that they should be apprized of the reason why he had resorted to this instead of visiting them personally” (Barnes) .
163 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3. Paul’s plans were still uncertain but his desire was to avoid a passing visit and spend some considerable time with them. He also requests help from them as he continues travelling. All his travel plans were contingent upon the Lord’s will (16:6-7) . This reminds us of the passage in James:
"Come now, you who say, Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit. Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away" (James 4:13-14 NASBR)
B. For the time being, Paul planned to remain in Ephesus because of the tremendous response to the preaching of the gospel (16:8-9) .
1. The words, “I will remain in Ephesus…” (16:8) , suggest that 1 Corinthians was written from Ephesus.
2. The success of the gospel must have been great because Paul spent three years there (Acts 20:31) .
3. This success was not without problems. Paul says, “and there are many adversaries” (16:9) . An example of one adversary is Demetrius (Acts 19:23-41) . Note what Paul says of his time in Asia…
"For we do not want you to be unaware, brethren, of our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life" (2 Corinthians 1:8 NASBR)
Summary (i) Paul outlines his travel plans and his intention to visit with the brethren. His hope was that he could spend the whole winter with them but this just depended on the circumstances. Paul’s work made it difficult to make any definite plans. A point the Corinthians didn’t seem to appreciate. (ii) But for now, Paul had to remain in Ephesus because the opportunity for teaching was great and the gospel was yielding much fruit, not only in Ephesus but in all of Asia. But Satan was also actively opposing the spread of the gospel and Paul had to face many adversaries and hardships.
II. Timothy’s And Apollos’ Visits To Corinth (16:10-12) Paul gives instructions regarding Timothy’s immanent visit and explains why Apollos is not able to come to them at this time.
A. There was a possibility that Timothy would be with them soon and they were to see to it that he did so without any fear, and they were not to despise him (16:9-10) .
1. Why would Paul think that Timothy might be among them in fear and even despise him? He was young and those older than him might resent a youth teaching and rebuking them, which he may have to do (See 1 Timothy 4:11-12 > 1 Corinthians 4:16-17) .
2. The reason they were to treat Timothy with respect was because “he is doing the work of the Lord” (16:10c) , the same as Paul (16:10d) . The basis of their respect was not so much for his person as it was for the work he was doing. “So let no one despise (to treat with contempt or scorn) him” is a command to treat him kindly and with respect (16:11a) . We can see that Paul was concerned about Timothy’s treatment while he was at Corinth and the feeling one gets from these verses is, “If you mistreat this young man in any way then you’ll have to answer to me.”
B. The words “But concerning our brother Apollos” (16:12a) seems to suggest that the Corinthians had a wish for Apollos to come to Corinth. Paul also wanted him to go to Corinth and greatly encouraged him to do so (16:12b) . But Apollos did not desire to do so at that time but promised to go when it was convenient (16:12c) .
1. The fact that Apollos decided not to go to Corinth at Paul’s urging shows that Apollos, to some degree, was working independently and was not subject to Paul in his work.
2. The likelihood is that, Apollos’ work (perhaps like Paul’s in Asia) was going so well that he could not afford to leave it at that time.
164 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Summary (i) Paul expected Timothy to be with the brethren soon but was concerned about how they would receive and treat him while among them. Timothy was a youth and was on a mission to remind the Corinthians of Paul’s ways in Christ; and that amidst all the problems they were having; a daunting task! Paul, therefore, admonishes the brethren to treat him with the utmost respect because he does the same work as him. (ii) It seems the Corinthians had desired that Apollos come and work with them. Paul also had urged Apollos to go to Corinth, but Apollos said that it was not a convenient time. He was probably, like Paul, compelled to remain where he was due to the success of the gospel.
III. Exhortations Designed To Encourage Allegiance To Christ (16:13-14) Reaching the end of his letter, Paul exhorts the brethren to maintain their allegiance to Christ.
A. “Be on the alert.” The tense of the verb means they were to always be on the alert and not become indifferent. Paul does not specify in regards for what they are to be on the alert, but Christians are always to be on the alert for false teachers (from within and without), worldliness (immorality in particular), and Christ’s unexpected return.
B. “Stand firm in the faith.” The idea here is, that when being a Christian becomes difficult, then you must ‘stand your ground.’ You must not let anything make you retreat back into the world of unbelief.
C. “Act like men.” This is not directed at men only but men and women. All Christians are to act like men . He is here pointing to such characteristics as courage and heroic conduct that are associated with men in war. Christians are in a spiritual war (Ephesians 6:12) and need to face the foe with courage and heroic conduct.
D. “Be strong.” The strong are those who fight and win. We have to endure many temptations but we must fight and overcome them.
"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, HAVING GIRDED YOUR LOINS WITH TRUTH, and HAVING PUT ON THE BREASTPLATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, and having shod YOUR FEET WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE GOSPEL OF PEACE; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take THE HELMET OF SALVATION, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:10-17 NASBR)
E. “Let all that you do be done in love.” This, of course, is the great underlying principle in all that we think, say, and do. Love must be the motive in everything, and love covers a multitude of sins.
Summary (i) They were to always be on the alert against false teachers, worldliness, and be conducting their lives so as not to be caught out by Jesus’ unexpected return. (ii) All those who live godly will suffer temptations and persecutions and you need to stand your ground and fight and not let the enemy overcome you. (iii) As in any war, great courage and heroism is essential. (iv) It is also necessary to be strong, you must fight if you expect to win.
IV. Directions Concerning Stephanas (16:15-18) Paul instructs the brethren to be subject to all those who have dedicated themselves to the ministry of the saints, Stephanas being an example. Paul also expresses his gratitude for the Corinthian delegation that had refreshed his spirit.
A. The household of Stephanas (see 1:16) had devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints. It is for this reason that Paul urges the Corinthians to be subject to them, and to all who help and labor in the preaching of the gospel. In what sense were they to be in subjection to such people? The following comment explains:
“When Paul writes ‘range yourselves under such persons’ he wants the Corinthians to look up to people of this kind, i.e., to respect them, to heed their counsel, advice, and admonition” (Lenski) .
165 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
B. It would seem that the three men mentioned here (Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus) had taken the letter from the Corinthians to Paul and had returned with Paul’s reply. For Paul, their arrival was a refreshment to his spirit and theirs. This has nothing to do with money or supplies. Note the following comment:
“Paul was far removed from those whom he dearly loved. The arrival in Ephesus of these three representatives from Corinth supplied or filled the void that he felt because of his absence from them…Their presence refreshed Paul’s spirit. The mere fact that the church still thought highly enough of Paul to write to him for his advice and to send three messengers to him proved that they still loved and respected him. But how did their coming refresh the Corinthians’ spirit? Although he speaks in the past tense, Paul anticipated the time when the Corinthian delegates would have returned with the good news of his love for them and with his letter. Their hearts would be cheered by these things” (Willis) .
Summary (i) The household of Stephanas had devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints, and it is because of this that the Corinthians should be subject to them and all those who do likewise. The idea is that they should respect them and heed their counsel, advice, and admonition. (ii) Paul loved the brethren at Corinth and his separation from them was painful. But the arrival of the three men they sent was a refreshment to his spirit. When the three returned to Corinth, they were a refreshment to the spirits of the brethren there also. When a go-between affirms their mutual love, then both parties have their spirits refreshed.
V. Greetings And A Final Warning (16:19-24) This section contains greetings from churches, individuals, and Paul himself. There is also warning against those who do not love the Lord.
A. Greetings (16:19-20a):
1. The churches in Asia send their greetings to the church in Corinth (16:19a) . How many churches from how many cities is unknown. But this global greeting serves as a reminder to Corinthians that they are part of a much larger family of Christians.
2. Aquila and Priscilla and the church meeting in their house send their greetings (16:19b) .
a. This couple were living in Rome but were forced to leave on account of the decree by Claudius. So they came to Corinth where they first met Paul (Acts 18:1ff) . When Paul left Corinth they accompanied him to Ephesus (Acts 18:18) . Later, they returned to Rome (Romans 16:3-4) .
b. The church that met in their house also sent their greetings. The churches in that day did not own their own buildings but tended to assemble wherever was convenient. Christians opening their homes for a place of worship was quite common (See Romans 16:5; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2) .
3. The greeting from “all the brethren” (16:20a) probably refers specifically to those with Paul in Ephesus. They would have been included in the first group but wanted to send their own specific greeting.
B. Final words (16:20a-24) :
1. The custom of that time was to greet one another with a kiss. The kiss was exchanged between men and women, women and women, and men and men (Cp. Luke 22:47-48) . Paul says they were to greet one another with a “holy” kiss (16:20b) . “The use of the word ‘holy’ here serves to denote that Paul intended it as an expression of ‘Christian’ affection; and to guard against all improper familiarity and scandal” (Barnes) .
2. Up until this point, Paul had dictated this letter but insisted on adding his own greeting by his own hand (16:21) . This became necessary because there were forged letters in circulation (2 Thessalonians 2:2) . So Paul signed his letters to authenticate them (2 Thessalonians 3:17) .
3. “If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be accursed. Marantha” (16:22) .
a. The word love here is not from agapao as we might expect. Paul uses the word phileo . The word phileo “is to be distinguished from agapao in this, that phileo more nearly represents ‘tender affection’” (Vine’s) . The one who has no tender affection for the Lord is to be accursed.
b. Marantha is an Aramaic word and could mean “Our Lord has come,” “Our Lord is coming,” or “Our Lord, come.”
166 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
4. Paul desires the grace of God to remain with them (16:23) . This grace or unmerited favor was first made known to them in the preaching of the gospel and comes to them every day in the forgiveness of their sins. God’s grace is also seen in the great and precious promises of the coming resurrection and eternal reward for faithful service to the Lord.
5. “My love is with you all in Christ Jesus” (16:24) . Paul ends this letter by affirming his love (agapao) for the brethren (16:24) . It is a love that is “in Christ Jesus.” As Lenski says, “The last word is and must be ‘Christ Jesus.’ He and He alone is the sphere in which Paul’s love lives, moves, and has its being. Into that sphere of love Paul, like a magnet, draws all who come into contact with him.”
Summary (i) Paul passes on greetings from the churches in Asia, Aquila and Priscilla, and the brethren at Ephesus. (ii) The brethren are exhorted to greet one another with a holy kiss. He is encouraging genuine love and affection for one another. But we must also have a genuine affection for the Lord and those who do not are accursed.
Summary & Application
1. Paul’s travel plans:
a. Summary . (i) The nature of Paul’s work meant that circumstances were continually changing, which made it difficult to make any firm plans. But, certainly, he greatly desired to spend some time with the brethren at Corinth, and even spend the winter with them. But it was all in the Lord’s hands as far as Paul was concerned. (ii) For the moment, though, he had to remain in Ephesus because of the preaching opportunities that the Lord had opened for him. In fact, he spent three years there, not in Ephesus alone, but in the region of Asia preaching the gospel of Christ. On the one hand, Paul had great success but, on the other hand, Satan was doing everything to oppose him. Paul met with many adversaries and suffered much persecution.
b. Application . (i) It might be that preachers have made arrangements to hold a gospel meeting for the church but then, at the last minute, postponed or even cancelled the whole thing. We need to be mindful of the fact that preachers are often at the mercy of unforeseeable circumstances and that the Lord Himself is providentially leading and guiding. Let us be patient and understanding lest we find ourselves complaining against the Lord. (ii) Paul desired greatly to be with the Corinthians but it was more needful for him to remain in Asia and take advantage of the opportunities the Lord was presenting. Likewise, we need to make sure our priorities are in accordance with the Lord’s will and not our own. If the Lord presents opportunities, then we must ensure that we take full advantage of them.
2. Timothy’s and Apollos’ Visits to Corinth:
a. Summary . (i) Paul had sent Timothy to Corinth to remind them of his ways in Christ. In view of all the problems at Corinth and the attitudes of some of the brethren, it might seem like Paul was throwing Timothy into the lions den! Aware of the potential for Timothy to be despised and badly treated, Paul warned them to treat him with the greatest respect for the sake of the work he was doing. He demanded that the Corinthians made sure that Timothy’s stay with them was without fear and that when he left he did so in peace. (ii) The Corinthians were longing for Apollos to work with them and even Paul had strongly urged Apollos to go to Corinth. But Apollos did not desire to go to Corinth at that time. The reason was only because it was not convenient at that time. Perhaps, like Paul, he was needed more where he was than at Corinth.
b. Application . (i) I believe we all need to be reminded of Paul’s ways in Christ. We need to ensure that we constantly resound the foundation of our faith and the will of God concerning the worship and work of the church; but especially the need to do all things from love. Generally speaking, we need to ensure that visitors are always made to feel welcome among us and give no cause for any brother or sister to feel uncomfortable. (ii) We need to guard against selfishness. Perhaps there are certain preachers we desire to have work with us, but we need to realize that a preacher’s priority is to work where he is most needed.
167 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
3. Exhortations designed to encourage allegiance to Christ:
a. Summary . (i) Paul exhorts the Corinthians to be alert because the devil is always on the prowl seeking whom he may devour. They need to watch out for false teachers who would lead them astray through philosophy, the deceit of riches that ensnare them and lead them into unbelief, and always conducting their lives in the fear of God lest the Lord suddenly return and find them unprepared. (ii) They need to stand their ground when tried and tempted and not turn back in disgrace. (iii) Taking a stand against such a mighty foe as Satan takes courage and heroism. (iv) Victory over the spiritual forces of wickedness is only possible through Christ and if you stand your ground and fight, then the Lord will give the victory.
b. Application . (i) We need to be alert because there are many false teachers in the world and millions of people have been led astray by destructive heresies. (ii) We need to stand our ground and not be moved away from the hope that we have. Trails and temptations will come but the Lord has promised that we cannot be tempted above that which we are able to bear. (iii) All of us need to be strong in the Lord as we face the fierce onslaught of our mighty foe. (iv) Are we strong enough to overcome and be victorious? No! Well, not by our own strength. But if we put our hope and trust in the Lord, then we are guaranteed to be victorious. If God is for us, then who shall be against us? We are more than conquerors through Him who loved us and gave Himself for us.
4. Directions concerning Stephanas:
a. Summary . (i) The household of Stephanas devoted themselves to the service of the saints. One can only guess in what ways because Paul does not give us any further details. It was because of their service to the saints that Paul directed the Corinthians to be in subjection to them and to all who do likewise. (ii) The Corinthians had sent three men, including Stephanas, to Paul in Ephesus and their arrival refreshed Paul’s spirit because the delegation assured Paul of the Corinthians’ love and respect for Paul. Likewise, the three men returned to Corinth with the assurance of Paul’s love and concern for them. In this way their spirits were refreshed.
b. Application . (i) Perhaps we know of brethren or perhaps there are brethren amongst us who have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. If so, we must ensure we show them the proper honor and respect, and submit ourselves to such; not because of their person but because of their devotion to the Lord. Such are people we must look up to. (ii) We can be refreshed by others and we ourselves can refresh others. This is only possible if we have established ties with brethren in the love of Christ.
5. Greetings and a final warning:
a. Summary . (i) In many of his letters, Paul passed on the greetings of the brethren. How their hearts must have been cheered to have received a greeting from Aquila and Priscilla, and what an encouragement to receive greetings from brethren in Asia, brethren whom they had never met. (ii) Paul encourages the brethren to show genuine love and affection for each other in their greetings. In that day and culture, the kiss was the customary greeting. Paul adds the word holy “to guard against all improper familiarity and scandal” (Barnes) . One must also have affection for Christ and those who do not are accursed.
b. Application . (i) Greetings from others can encourage and cheer the heart. Let us be sure to pass on the greetings when requested to do so. If the great apostle Paul did not forget to do this, even in an inspired letter, then neither should we “forget” to do so. (ii) Love and affection is shown in many ways and it should first be shown in our greetings. Regardless of whether we hug, kiss, or shake hands, it must be genuine, warm, and holy.
168 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge Articles
169 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
170 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge Command or Custom An exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 By H. O. Hutto TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1--COMMENTS ON TEXT PART 2—OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 1. The covering already signified subjection by custom, not by God’s law. a. Covering (hats) do not mean NOW what they meant THEN. 2. SCHOLARS say it was the custom of that day. a. The covering is just like FOOTWASHING AND THE HOLY KISS. 3. The covering was LIMITED TO INSPIRED PEOPLE a. INSPIRED PRAYERS? b. PROPHECY means INSPIRED SPEECH? 4. The ASSEMBLY is not mentioned in the passage. 5. SUBJECTION was required in the OT and from CREATION; the covering was required only at Corinth, so only a CUSTOM. 6. The COVERING MUST HANG DOWN FROM—hats, kerchiefs, etc. are substitutes like sprinkling for baptism. 7. LONG HAIR is the ONLY COVERING needed. 8. JUDGE IN YOURSELVES (vs. 13) appeals to CUSTOM. 9. COMELY (vs. 13) mean GOOD TASTE or CUSTOM. a. “COMELY” changes with custom? b. What is comely today, may not have been comely in grandfather’s day. 10. NATURE (vs. 14) means CUSTOM or CURRENT PRACTICE. a. Robinson and Thayer on NATURE b. Long hair not a shame everywhere (Chinese) 11. CUSTOM (vs. 16) shows it was just a custom. a. Paul did not say anyone WAS CONTENTIOUS, only that someone might SEEM TO BE CONTENTIOUS. b. Paul might SEEM TO BE CONTENTIOUS by binding something (the covering) on the Corinthians that he did not bind on others. c. “We have no such custom” (vs. 16) shows CORINTH DID have such a custom, but Paul and the rest (we) had no such custom: thus, just a CORINTHIAN CUSTOM.
PART 1—COMMENTS ON THE TEXT The first sixteen verses of the eleventh chapter of Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth have been the subject of much controversy. Some say the passage has to do with customs and/or circumstances of a people long since dead and is not binding today. Still others insist the passage does not deal simply with customs and circumstances of days gone by, but rather constitute a command to be observed throughout this dispensation. Since this is in the word of God, it cannot teach both. Let our study always be to let God be true no matter what man may say. As we study the passage, let us keep some things clearly in mind.
1. This is a discussion concerning men and women as they pray or prophesy. The discussion does not concern men and women in their everyday activities nor how they ordinarily appear in public, but how they appear when they pray or prophesy. It may be, as some contend, that women of Paul's day when appearing in public always wore a veil, [though Smith Bible dictionary says "Much of the scrupulousness in respect of the use of the veil dates from the promulgation of the Koran", and that was not in the 1st century but in the 7th. HOH] still this is not the subject the apostle discusses in these verses. His discussion concerns praying or prophesying. Hence any reference to what men and women did or did not in their ordinary activities of life is completely beside the point and a reference to such is not pertinent to the issue. This passage discusses worship-life, not everyday life.
2. All we know about the subject of covered and uncovered heads while praying or prophesying is found in these sixteen verses. It may be that other passages deal with the headship of Christ, the relationship of man and woman, the wearing of veils, and numerous other things, but no other passage in the Bible deals with the subject of covered and uncovered heads while praying or prophesying except 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Hence to this passage we must go to find the truth on the subject.
171 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
With this brief introduction in mind, please read 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 in your Bible
VERSE ONE "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." In all probability this verse belongs as the last verse of the argument in chapter 10, and the American Standard Version (ASV) so places it.
VERSE TWO "Now I praise you, brethren that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." The ordinances here spoken of are "the particular injunctions of Paul's instructions" (Thayer), hence the will of God as expressed through the inspired apostle. Certainly those who keep such should be "praised".
VERSE THREE "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." The relationships here described are as unchangeable as God himself. They are not based on "custom" nor upon anything else except the word of God Almighty. Christ is not man's head because custom made it so, but because God made it so. Man is not woman's head because custom so ordered, but because God so ordered. This is the divine order and has nothing to do with custom. Custom did not make these relationships, and custom cannot change them with God. Yet it is upon the high doctrine here asserted that the rest of the argument is based. This is the very foundation of the apostle's argument and without it the rest is meaningless. Since then the very foundation transcends custom, would it not be passing strange if all the rest is completely custom?
VERSE FOUR “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head”. This verse grows out of and is based upon the relationship laid down in verse 3, viz. "Christ is the head of man". But verse three is not founded on custom, and therefore neither is this verse. Just as long as Christ remains the head of man, just that long will man dishonor Christ by praying with his head covered. Since man has no head between himself and Christ, for a man to cover his physical head while praying or prophesying would be to dishonor his spiritual head, Christ. As will be seen in subsequent verses, the covering under consideration is an artificial one, such as a veil, a turban, a shawl, a hat, etc. Man may not cover his head with any of these when he prays to God. He may have it covered at other times, but not when he prays or prophesies. This in itself suggests a covering that is to be "on" at certain times (when praying or prophesying), but may be "off" at other times.
Just why the covering is required at these two specific times but not at other times, the passage does not say. A number of possibilities suggest themselves: A. It may be that prayer and prophecy are elliptical expressions for the whole of public worship, in which case only two acts are mentioned but all acts are included (as in Acts 20:7 only one, the breaking of bread, is mentioned by synecdoche and includes the cup; or as in 1 Cor. 13:8-10 only three spiritual gifts are said to cease, yet all are meant). When Jesus cast those out of the temple who were selling, he said, "My house shall be called a house of prayer" (Matt. 21:13). Isn't prayer here simply an elliptical expression for worship? Would Jesus have driven them out if they had been studying God's word or singing his praise? Also, the Pulpit Comm. Vol. 6 page 399 says of prophesy, "sometimes, it seems to stand, in a very general way, for sharing in religious worship". B. If it is assumed that prophecy always means inspired speech, another possibility is that in prayer and prophecy, a person is in direct communication with God (in prophecy, God speaks to man; in prayer man speaks to God), hence the special need for significance during such. C. If prophecy always means inspired speech, another possibility would be: the covering applies whether in inspired activity (prophecy) or uninspired (prayer). D. Still another: some are of the opinion that the women, thinking that since they are one in Christ with the man are not therefore in subjection to him, were removing the covering at these specific times. All of these are interesting, but the fact is: we are not told why at these times but not at other times.
It is important to note that the injunctions of the passage do not deal with women only but include men as well. As can be seen from the next verse, whatever covering that this verse forbids a man's wearing, verse five commands a woman to wear. Whatever covering a man must leave off, a woman must put on.
[For a discussion of whether or not the word "prophesy" limits the application to people with inspired gifts, see Objection No. 3.]
172 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
VERSE FIVE "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is all one as if she were shaven" . Again, we make the observation: This verse grows out of and is based upon verse three, and since the relationship described there is not custom, neither is the statement made here. And as long as man remains the "head of woman" just that long will woman dishonor man when she prays with her head uncovered! And not only so, but in dishonoring her "head" (man), woman dishonors herself and God who made man the head of woman. So the woman who "prays or prophesies with her head uncovered" dishonors herself, man, and God. It is as much a shame for her to pray uncovered as it would be for her head to be shaved. So says the word of God in this verse, Women, think it over. If you would be ashamed to have your head shaved, God says in this verse, you ought to be ashamed to pray uncovered. Please read the verse again.
VERSE SIX "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered". In other words, if a woman will not cover her head, she might as well get her hair cut off, for to be uncovered is just as much a shame as to be shorn. Paul is not actually urging these women to get their hair cut off. He is saying that logically they might as well do that. He knew that they would not think of doing the latter (cutting off their hair), so they ought not to think of doing the former (being uncovered), Why? Because one is as much a shame as the other.
Let us pause here for a moment. God is saying that a woman who is not covered might as well get her hair cut off or get her head shaved. He also says, though, that if a woman would be ashamed to be shorn or shaven she ought to be covered. Now women, ask yourselves this question: "Would you be ashamed to appear with your head shaved?" Be honest, now. Would you be ashamed to appear with all your hair cut off or shaved? A bald-headed woman! If you would be ashamed, God says you ought to be just as ashamed to pray with your head uncovered. Think it over and I am sure you will know what to do.
Again, the passage deals with men and women when they pray or prophesy. Women must not be uncovered then. They may be uncovered at other times, but not when praying or prophesying. The covering under consideration therefore is "put-on-able" and "take-off-able". It is removable or an artificial one.
[For a discussion of what is meant by "cover" and whether the covering must be a veil or something that hangs down from the head, see Objection No ,6.]
The word shear means "cut short" (Thayer), or "crop" (Expositors' Greek Testament).
VERSE SEVEN "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man". Please observe the God-given reason for a man not to cover his head: "he is the image and glory of God". Paul does not say nor even hint that a man ought not to cover his head because of some custom of the day. Note this contrast between what man says and what God says.
WHY SHOULD A MAN NOT COVER HIS HEAD? Man: Forasmuch as it is a custom. God: Forasmuch as man is the image and glory of God.
See the difference between those two statements? Which will you accept? Which will you believe? One is in the Bible, the other is not. Since Paul did not base his statement on "custom", why would men today do what Paul did not, and say what Paul said not? Was man's being in the image and glory of God a custom? Is not man still TODAY in the "image and glory of God"? If he is, God says he ought not to cover his head because of it.
VERSES EIGHT, NINE, AND TEN "For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels". In the creation, God made woman from man's rib. She was made for him, and Paul uses this as "cause" for the woman to be covered. For what cause? Does Paul say, "Because of custom"? He does notl He says because of the situation that existed when God created woman she ought to have "power on her head" or "a sign of authority on her head" (ASV). Again, notice the contrast between what man says and what God says:
173 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
WHY SHOULD A WOMAN BE COVERED? Man: Because of custom God: Because woman was created for man .
See the difference between these two statements? One of them is based on the authority of man; the other is based on a plain, positive statement in the word of God. Which will you accept? Which will you believe? Why should a woman be covered? Not simply because a covering may be pretty, but because of her God-ordained station in creation — "for man". Such is an expression of her very woman-hood, and she should understand that to the extent that she fulfills her role as a woman, she is honored. There is nothing degrading about being subjected to someone. Christ is subject to God. Man is subject to Christ. A woman may rule the home (1 Tim. 5:14). And all of us are to be subject to the powers that be (Rom. 13:1). There is nothing belittling about being subject. She best serves herself and God (and so does man) by delighting in the proper role that God has assigned. After all, it is He that made both, and knows what each is best suited for. A proper appreciation of this will surely make happier people. On the other hand, for either to despise his or her proper sphere and seek to nullify it is an effort, however unwitting it may be, to frustrate the will of God. And this may well serve to introduce the next phrase.
Because of the angels. While one may not know everything connected with this statement, it is given nonetheless as an inducement for a woman to cover her head when "praying or prophesying". One explanation that seems plausible is this. Paul has been urging man to respect his proper sphere and for woman to respect hers. And in connection with people keeping their proper roles, notice Jude 6. "And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgement of the great day". When the angels left their proper place they got into trouble, and when man or woman leaves his or her proper place, they too will get into trouble. A woman leaves her place when she is not in subjection to man. A sign that she is in subjection is for her to be covered. If this is not what "because of the angels" means, this explanation certainly does no violence to the context.
Another explanation that his been given is this: Angels, who "minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Heb. 1:14), are interested in the affairs of this life and are offended at any breach of the ordinances.
In any case, Paul said that a woman ought to be covered "because of the angels". This certainly was not a. custom. Angels existed then, and angels exist now. Luke 20:36 shows that angels cannot die. Whatever the expression "because of the angels" means, it meant for a woman to cover her head, and since angels exist today it should compel women now to cover their heads. If not, why not?
VERSES ELEVEN AND TWELVE "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord, for as the woman is of the man, even so is the man by the woman; but all things of God". Some men get the idea that they are more important than women; that she is some kind of second-class citizen. This verse shows that neither man nor woman should think of themselves too highly nor become egotistical. God deems one just as important as the other, and they are mutually dependent on each other for existence and sustenance. There is neither male nor female in Christ (Gal. 3:28). God took a rib from man and with it he made woman (Gen. 2:21-22), hence woman is "of the man", but now in the natural order of things, man is "born of woman" (Job 14:1), hence he is "by the woman". But "all things are of God".
VERSE THIRTEEN "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Having established positively what God's will is in this matter, he now appeals to them to corroborate that revelation by their judgment of what is comely. Later (pages 24-26) it will be shown that the word here translated “comely” is not dealing with custom or good taste. Rather, the word has to do with what is appropriate and fitting depending on the nature and character of the person or thing involved. Notice, Paul does not say it is uncomely to pray uncovered. In fact, he requires some to pray uncovered—the men. What he does say is: It is uncomely that a woman pray uncovered. What is there about the nature and character of a woman that makes her praying uncovered uncomely? She was created for man (vs. 9); she is of man (vs. 8); she is the glory of man (vs. 7); man is her head (vs. 3). The covering of her head in prayer is an expression of that relationship , an expression of her very womanhood . With that impression having been made on their minds, they could be expected to "judge" her praying uncovered to be an uncomely act. But if God expected
174 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge them to judge such to be uncomely—and surely he did; since women today have the same fundamental nature and character and relationship to man (man is still her head, etc.), does he not expect us to make the same judgment today: It is uncomely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
[For an extended discussion of whether their being called upon to "judge the comeliness of the covering" was based upon custom, see Objections Nos. 8 & 9.]
VERSES FOURTEEN AND FIFTEEN "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering". First of all, it should be noted that "nature" is not introduced to establish the practice of covering the head when praying or prophesying. Revelation has already done that in verses 5-12. Rather, nature is called upon to confirm what revelation is saying; namely, that it is a glory for a woman to be covered, and a shame for her to be uncovered. Nature confirms revelation's teaching about the glory of a covered woman. And how does nature do that? By giving to woman a glory, which is long hair. And why is long hair a glory? Because it is a covering. Note: if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her; for (because, Gk. hoti ) it is a covering. Since her hair is a glory because it is a covering, it follows necessarily that it is a glory for her to be covered. And that is what both nature and revelation teach. They teach it, however, with two different coverings: Revelation's covering to be "on" when praying or prophesying; and nature's covering (her hair) to be "on" all the time.
Sometimes it is thought that the statement "her hair is given her for a covering" means that her hair is the only covering that is required or that is being discussed in this passage. It might be well to point out that the word in this verse that is translated "covering" is a completely different word from the word that is translated "cover" in the rest of the passage. This suggests that there are two coverings being discussed, does it not? Although the subject of length of hair is brought up as a matter of confirmation of the glory of a covered woman, nonetheless the passage shows plainly that there should be a distinction made in the length of hair for men and women. A person ought to be able to look at the hair of another person and tell whether he is looking at a man or woman. The practice of long hair on men and short hair on women is not approved by God. It ought also to be apparent that the pictures so often seen in which Jesus is portrayed with long hair are certainly in error. Would he do that which was said here to be "a shame"? Of course, not.
[For further discussion of whether the hair is the only covering that is needed to carry out the requirements of the passage, see Objection No. 7].
VERSE SIXTEEN "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" . Consider the word "contentious". [The word that is here translated "contentious" appears in Ezek. 3:7 where it is translated "stubborn" in Bagster's Sept.] Suppose someone at Corinth had insisted, in agreement with Paul, that women were to be covered and men uncovered. Would this person have been contentious? Of course not. On the other hand, suppose someone had insisted, in opposition to Paul, that it was right for women to pray uncovered and men to pray covered. Would not this person have been contentious and caused contention? Of course he would? So Paul is saying: If any man seem to be contentious (by contending for uncovered women and covered men), we have no such custom as the one he is contending for. Neither do the churches of God have his custom of uncovered women and covered men. He has no apostolic precedent, nor do any of the churches of God condone his custom. He is alone in his contention.
Since Paul has shown that none of his associates nor any church of God would agree with the man who contended for uncovered women and covered men, should we not still today say of that man's contention (bareheaded women and covered men), "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God"?
[For a consideration of the argument that "we have no such custom" means that the whole discussion is merely about matters of custom, see OBJECTION 11].
175 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
SUMMARY The doctrine of the passage is clear. In the divine arrangement, there are different levels of service and authority. This is true both in Deity ( God is the head of Christ ) and in humanity ( Christ is the head of man; man is the head of woman ). In humanity, these different levels are to be appropriately designated when engaged in certain activities; namely, while praying or prophesying. For man, he is to pray or prophesy with his head uncovered. The woman, on the other hand, is to be covered. For either to do otherwise is to dishonor their respective heads. While there is no particular shape or size of covering specified, as long as it covers, it is one that may be put on at times (while praying or prophesying), but is not required to be on all the time. Hence, not just the hair nor even long hair. There are many articles that will cover.
The text not only inculcates this practice and attaches this stigma to those who violate it, it also gives a number of reasons underlying the whole. In the case of man: (1) He is the image and glory of God. (2) He was first in creation; she was created for him. In the case of woman: (3) She is the glory of the man. (4) She was created for him. [Both of these are aspects of her relationship to man, of her very womanhood]. (5) Because of the angels. The Corinthians are called upon to confirm this teaching in that they would (6) judge a praying woman to be uncomely if uncovered. (7) Nature itself confirms the correctness of the requirement. Finally, (8) there is no sanction for the contrary practice, either from an apostle or any congregation of God's people.
Perhaps it should be noted that Paul did not give these reasons to establish the principle of headship and subjection. No, he gave these reasons to prompt an action, and that action was the covering and the uncovering of the head. It should be further noted that in obtaining this action. Paul had made no appeal to transitory custom. Instead he appealed to such basic and fundamental things as the very constitution of manhood and womanhood. Men are to be uncovered because of the very nature of man. Women are to be covered because of their very nature as woman. Paul could have said: Corinth has a custom about the covering of the head, and we don't want to offend their custom. Instead, he said: Man ought not to be covered because he is the image and glory of God. Woman ought to be covered because of the nature of her creation; because of the angels. It cannot be proved that he based a single argument on custom.
PART 2—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED Objections have been made against almost every Bible teaching, and this one is no exception. We notice some of the ones we have most often heard.
OBJECTION NO. 1: God chose the covering to show subjection—NOT because of His universal law, but because by local usage and custom the covered head already signified subjection, and the lack of it was a shame. Today, an uncovered woman is not considered shameful nor out of subjection. A hat today just does not mean to a woman what a veil meant when Paul wrote these lines .
ANSWER: It is purely an assertion that by local usage and custom the covered head already signified subjection. (See the next section). Second, it is not being taught that a woman must wear a hat. The Bible says "cover", and there are many articles that will do that. Third, perhaps a covering does not mean to some people what it did when Paul wrote, but the reason it does not is because people have failed to teach what a covering should mean. The fault does not lie in changing times and customs, but in the failure to teach faithfully God's Word on the subject.
But on the basis that a covering does not mean today what it meant in Paul's day, most every Bible doctrine could be set aside. For example, a Methodist Bishop has endorsed the use of a hamburger and Coca-Cola in the Lord's Supper because he says that the unleavened bread and fruit of he vine had significance then, but not now. Who believes that? None of my brethren. Yet it is the same argument. And marriage does not mean today, to some people, what it meant then, nor does baptism, nor 100 other things that might be mentioned. Shall we discontinue these because "they had meaning then that they do not have to many people today"? No! What we should do is teach the truth on these and the covered head as well. To the properly informed person today, the covered head of a woman as in 1 Cor. 11 still means today what it meant then, assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
OBJECTION NO. 2: Most scholars say that the instructions here are simply the customs of that day and are not binding on us today since we do not have that custom.
176 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
ANSWER: No doubt there are some scholars who say that Paul is simply teaching the customs of the day, and that women always appeared in public with heads covered. On the other hand, there are other scholars just as weighty, if not more so, who definitely do not say this. In fact, I am convinced that the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. Consider these quotations:
Cambridge Bible for Schools and College: "N. the remarkable fact that the practice here enjoined is neither Jewish, which required men to be veiled in prayer, nor Greek which required both men and women to be unveiled, but peculiar to Christians."
Morris in Tyndale Series: "Jewish men always prayed with their heads covered (as they still do). Greek women, as well as their menfolk, prayed with head uncovered."
Expositor's Greek Testament: "Paul's directions do not agree precisely with current practice. Jewish men covered their heads at prayers with the Tattith . , . Amongst the Greeks both sexes worshipped with uncovered head.
Vincent's Word Studies: "The Romans, like the Jews, prayed with the head veiled . . . (Vincent is speaking of men.)
Pulpit Commentary : "Having his head covered . . . The Jewish worshipper in praying always covers his head with his Tattith".
Moffat Series: "Men and Women worshipped bareheaded in Greek rites".
Robertson in Word Pictures: "The Greeks (both men and women) remained bareheaded in public prayer".
W. E. Vine, Commentary on 1 Corinthians: "Among the Jews the heads of the men were covered in the synagogue. Among the Greeks both men and women were uncovered".
Others, like Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, could be quoted to the same effect. From this information, please note the following chart:
CHURCH AT CORINTH
JEWS “CUSTOM” 1 Cor. 11:1-16 CONCLUSION Acts 18:8 Men - covered Men – Uncovered CONTRARY TO 1 Cor. 10:1 Women – covered Women – covered CUSTOM OF JEWS GREEKS Acts 18:8 Men – uncovered Men – uncovered CONTRARY TO Rom. 15:26-27 Women – Uncovered Women – covered CUSTOM OF GREEKS
What shall we say to these things? According to these scholars, the chart shows clearly that even though there were both Jews and Greeks in the church at Corinth, Paul's instructions were contrary to the custom of both: contrary to the Greeks, in that he required women to pray with covered heads, whereas they "customarily" prayed with uncovered heads; and contrary to the Jews, in that he required the men to pray with uncovered heads, whereas they "customarily" prayed with covered heads. Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 is definitely not the customs of the day but is contrary to it, if these scholars are correct. It will take more than just an assertion that Paul is appealing to a local custom which exemplifies the principle of subjection, or an assertion that all scholars agree that the practice here enjoined was in keeping with the customs of Paul's day. Again, I am not saying that NO scholar says these were just the customs of that day. What is being said is that there are many, and just as important as the others, who do not so state. And I am made to wonder why it is that people who often make such an appeal to scholars on this point never appeal to the scholars here quoted. Why not quote them? In this connection, we could be content to stay with the Bible text, and it does not base a single argument on custom. He who teaches that it does deal with custom will have to get that idea from somewhere other than the text. And he won't get it from scholars, if he will take all of them.
It is often claimed that the "custom" of covering the head was just like that of foot-washing and greeting with a holy kiss: the kiss was a custom to show cordiality, and foot-washing was a custom to show hospitality, and covering the head was a custom to show subjection. I raise this question: "Who said covering the head was a custom, just like foot-washing and the holy kiss?" Did God say so? If so where? There is no such scripture. But what about foot- washing and the holy kiss. From the following scriptures (Gen. 27:26-27; 45:15; Ex. 4:27; 18:7; 2 Sam. 14:33; 20:9; Luke 7:45; 15:20) it can be seen that "kissing" had been a practice for thousands of years before New Testament
177 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge times. And from these scriptures (Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; Judges 19:21; 1 Sam. 25:41; 2 Sam. 11:8; Luke 7:36-44), it can be shown that "foot-washing" was practiced (a "custom") for thousands of years before Paul said "Salute one another with a holy kiss" (Rom. 16:16). Yet no man can take the scriptures and show that the matter of covering the head was a practice (a "custom") when praying or prophesying for any years before Paul wrote 1 Cor. 11:1-16. Therefore, they are not just alike.
OBJECTION NO. 3: The passage did not require ALL women to cover their heads THEN, only those who were inspired (pray or prophesy), and it does not require ANY woman to cover her head now, for none are inspired today-and that is what the word prophesy means. The passage is limited to inspired people.
ANSWER: The passage does include all women and all men, for it says, "every man . . . every woman". Also, the passage does not say pray AND prophesy, but pray OR prophesy, that is, a person who does either one, not a person who does both. Look at this comparison:
1. Every person riding in or driving a car with seat-belt unbuckled breaketh the law. 2. Every woman praying or prophesying with head uncovered dishonoreth her head.
Sentence 1 applies to a person even if he is unable to drive. He need not be able to do both. If he does either one, he must be buckled.
Sentence 2 applies to a woman (and conversely to a man) who prays even if she is unable to prophesy. If she does either one, she must be covered. And surely ALL WOMEN and ALL MEN prayed whether they were inspired or not. If women did not pray because they did not lead the prayers, then no man prayed unless he led the prayer. No; all prayed, both men and women, inspired or uninspired, leaders and followers. If all do not pray, we should quit saying "Let US ALL pray". Furthermore, if the passage had no application to uninspired persons, then a man at Corinth could have preached (uninspired) and prayed (uninspired) with his head covered! and the women could have attended bareheaded, just as long as they did not pray or prophesy! Who believes that?
INSPIRED PRAYERS; Sometimes it is claimed that since praying and prophesying are here mentioned together, then both of them must be inspired because prophecy was. Not so. In Rom. 12:6-8 prophecy is mentioned in connection with "giving, ruling, exhorting, and ministry". Are we to conclude that all these were inspired just because prophecy may have been? Inspired giving? Inspired ruling? Certainly not. There are other passages where prophesy is mentioned in the same verse with other acts that are clearly uninspired; e.g. Amos 7:12 "go . . . into . . . Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy". Was this an inspired "bread-eating"? Surely not. Just because the two are mentioned together does not mean that both are inspired or uninspired.
1 Cor. 14:13-17 is often cited as an example of inspired prayer, but in that passage was not the prayer-content furnished by the man doing the praying ("my spirit prayeth" vs. 14), and only the "tongue" provided by God, so that this passage would not speak of an inspired prayer, but of an example of God furnishing the tongue in which to pray? Even so, it could be granted that "inspired praying" might take place, and it still would not mean that inspired praying is what is discussed in 1 Cor. 11. There is not one word or hint in 1 Cor. 11 about inspired prayers or praying in the Spirit! It says "pray" but says nothing about "inspired praying". It says "every man praying . . . every woman praying". It includes all people who pray, and praying was not limited then to inspired people. Since both men and women still pray today (though only one man leads in the assembly) the passage applies to both today.
PROPHESY ALWAYS MEANS INSPIRED SPEECH. Again, this could be granted and still not mean the passage does not apply today as has just been shown, for praying is mentioned, too. But is it true that prophesy always means inspired speech. No doubt it does practically every time it is used in the Bible. However, there are some places that make me reluctant to say it always means inspired speech (I Kgs. 18:29; Jer. 23:21; Is. 30:10, and Titus 1:12 to mention a few.). Also there are scholars who do not define prophesy as always meaning inspired speech (See Lenski on 1 Cor. 12:10; Willis Beecher in the Prophets and the Promise, page 103; Pulpit Commentary Vol. 6, page 399.). [For a thorough treatment of this question write for a free copy of Windell Wiser's booklet, "A Reply To Bill Cavender's 'THE WOMAN AND HER COVERING". Rt, 2, Box 417, Athens, Al. 35611]. Remember, even if prophesy always means inspired speech, it is clear that prayer is not so limited, and the passage deals with men and women who may do either. So the passage is not limited to inspired people.
178 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
OBJECTION NO. 4: Since the passage discusses women who prophesy, and such could not be done by them in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:34-35), then the passage is not discussing what takes place in the assembly.
ANSWER: In the first place, the passage discusses both men and women. Since men could pray or prophesy in the assembly, it will not do to say that the assembly is excluded from the discussion. Also, both men and women pray. Prayer takes place in the assembly. Hence the assembly is included in the passage. Again, we say if women do not pray because they do not lead the prayers (and the passage says nothing about "leading prayers") then men do not pray either, unless they are the one leading the prayers and we should quit saying, "Let US ALL pray" in the assembly, if only the speaker is praying, and the women and other men do not pray. Who believes it?
Also, if the passage is not dealing with the assembly, then it requires women to cover their heads when praying in private, but allows them to be uncovered when praying in the assembly! Imagine, she must be covered when praying in her closet, but may be bareheaded when praying in the assembly! Who believes it?
Is there any possibility that a woman could have prophesied (in the sense of inspired speech) in the assembly? According to 1 Chronicles 25:1-7, prophesying could be done by singing, and according to 1 Sam. 10:5-6; 9:13; 19:18-24, an entire group could prophesy simultaneously, perhaps even a whole church (1 Cor. 14:23-24). It is not being claimed they did, only that it was possible. If it ever happened, Paul said "let her be covered".
OBJECTION NO. 5: Women have always been in subjection to man; not only in the New Testament (1 Pet. 3:1-6; Tit. 2:3-5; 1 Tim. 2:12-15; Eph. 5:22-23), but also in the Old Testament (Gen. 3:15) and even at creation, yet nothing is said in any of these passages about her wearing a covering on her head to show this subjection, except 1 Cor. 11:1-16. This shows that the covering was for a limited people (prophetesses) and/or for a limited situation (where her covered head was the customary sign of subjection).
ANSWER: It is true that the woman has been subjected to man in all ages, and there is no scripture that says her head was to be covered in prayer under the Old Testament. However, it does not follow from this that the covered head was limited to prophetesses, for there were prophetesses (Miriam Ex. 15:20; Deborah Jdg. 4:4) under the Old Testament but these prophetesses were not required to cover their heads. Hence, the claim that this requirement is limited to prophetesses is not so. There must be another explanation.
There are many things that God requires under the New Testament that he did not require under the Old Testament. The covered head is one of them. God did not allow the Jews to eat all kinds of meat, yet they were created to be eaten (hence, from creation) (1 Tim. 4:3). God allowed the Jews to divorce and remarry but "from the beginning" (creation), it was not so (Matt. 19:8). Just because a thing (the covering) may be required now, but was not required under previous dispensations, does not mean that such is a custom. If it does, then the eating or not eating meats was just a custom for the Jew, and marriage and divorce is just a custom. This should show that though God required woman's subjection to man in all ages, while not requiring her covered head to show this as He does under the New Testament, such a matter is not just a matter of custom. If it is, so is it with marriage, the eating of meats and many other things.
OBJECTION NO. 6: The word for cover (katakalupto) in 1 Cor. 11 requires a specific type head-covering, name- ly, a veil. It must cover the entire head including the face, and it must hang down from the head. Anything less than that, such as hats, turbans, kerchiefs, mantillas, do not cover and are substitutions, as much as sprinkling is a substitute for baptism.
ANSWER: First of all, let it be noted that even if such a covering is intended, this does not nullify what Paul says. It would simply require such a covering. What is often done is to argue as though this is the kind of covering required, and since nobody does that today, then the rest of the passage is not binding either. No, if the passage means a “veil that covers the head and hangs down from it” that is what woman ought to wear. And in spite of the assertion to the contrary, there are many articles which will do this: scarves, shawls, mantillas, and even some hats.
The idea that the word katakalupto requires (to hand down from” is theoretically derived from the etymology of the word: “ kata” meaning “down” hence “hang down from”, and “kalupto” meaning “to cover”; thus to cover by hanging down from. If we are going to insist on etymology, the word translated cover in 11:15 is from the Greek word periballo , which etymologically means to throw or cast (ballo) around (peri) hence “to wrap”. This is just as specific as katakalupto. To be consistent, he who would argue that a woman’s covering must specifically be a veil
179 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge that covers and hangs down from the head, that man ought also to argue that her hair just as specifically must cover her head by being thrown or cast ( wrapped ) around it. Who believes it? Strangely, even those who argue that the covering of vss. 5-6 must hang down from, will not say that her hair must be wrapped around her head. No! They will let her hair hang down!! If they are going to let that which should be wrapped around hang down from, why do they object when others want to let that which they say should hang down from be wrapped around?
While 1 Cor. 11 is the only NT passage where katakalupto is used, it occurs at least 22 times in the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint). In Num. 22:5 Balak sent for Balaam to curse the Israelites and said, “they cover the face of the earth”. Did they “hang down from” it? And did they completely cover it so that none of it could be seen? No. In Ezek. 38:9 a cloud is said to cover the land. Did it hang down from it? In 38:16 the same expression “cover the land” is found, but here the word is kalupto without the kata prefix. If it be argued that the preposition kata requires the meaning “hang down from”, how can it be explained that in these two verses the two words ( kalupto and katakalupto ) are used interchangeably? A number of other passages could be given both in the Septuagint and in classical authors, but these should suffice to show that katakalupto does not necessarily mean “cover so as to hang down from”. However, I surely agree that the import of the word is “to cover”, but even the English says that. Bobby pins do not cover; a one inch strip of ribbon does not cover, unless it is an unusual head! Yes, it should cover, but the passage does not specify with what. There are many articles that will do that: shawls, scarves, mantillas, veils, and even some hats. And the passage does not simply say “a sign”. Rather it teaches a covering for a sign, but it is a covering, not just a sign. The passage says nothing about the face being covered. After all, her hair is given for a covering, but it does not cover her face, does it (vs. 15)?
If as some claim, the covering here discussed is to specific that it must be a veil and nothing but a veil, why do translations vary: KJ “covered”; ASV “veiled”; Berkley “veiled” and “headcovering”; Wuest: “shawl”? I have seen the noun form of the word translated variously, “turban”, “mitre”, “snood”. It must not be quite as specific as some claim. It says cover. It does not specify with what. Neither should we.
OBJECTION NO. 7: 1 Corinthians 11:15 says a woman’s hair is given her “for a covering”, so if a woman has long hair, it is the only covering she needs.
ANSWER: There can be no question that a woman's hair is a covering. The text says that. But that the hair is the only covering discussed in these verses is another matter. For example, in this verse which says "her hair is given her for a covering", the word translated "covering" is a completely different word from the one that is used in the rest of the passage. This in itself suggests that there are two coverings involved: one needed when praying or prophesying; the other is the hair mentioned in verse 15 which is "on" all the time.
In this latter regard, please notice that the passage requires a covering for a woman when she prays or prophesies . The passage does not concern itself with how they appear when they go to town ,or how they appear when they plow in the field. As far as the Bible is concerned, a man may cover his head when he plows but he may not cover his head when he prays. As far as the Bible is concerned, a woman may go to the store with her head uncovered, but she may not pray uncovered. The covering, then is one that must be "on" at certain times, and may be "off" at other times. The covering under consideration, then, is "put-on-able" and "take-off-able"; it is removable. This cannot be said of a person's hair. Man cannot cut his hair off when he prays, and then quickly grow him some more when he goes to plow. A woman cannot cut her hair off when she goes to the store, and then quickly grow herself some more when she gets ready to pray. Thus it can be seen that the covering discussed when praying or prophesying is a removable one; or as it is sometimes called, an artificial one, such as a veil, a scarf, a bonnet, even some hats, etc. It is not the hair, nor even long hair. If it were, then the covering would be on all the time, and there would have been no need for Paul to have limited it to the time when "praying or prophesying". But that is the very thing he does. The hair, therefore is a covering, but it is not the only covering discussed in this passage.
Also according to this passage, a woman's hair may be long (vs. 15); it may be shorn (vs. 6); or it may be shaven. (vs. 5). When her hair is grown long, it is a covering (15), and when it is shorn or shaven it is a shame (5-6). Paul says for her to be uncovered is the same as for her to be shorn or shaven. This certainly does not mean "to be uncovered" is the same action as to be "shorn or shaven", for he says it is the same as if she were shaven. Therefore to be uncovered is not the same act as being shorn or shaven (which takes the hair off), then covering the head (vs. 5-6) is not the same act as letting the hair grow long (vs. 15). But if covering the head (vs. 5-6) is not the same act as
180 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge letting her hair grow long (vs. 15), then the head is not covered as required in vss. 5-6, when the hair is grown long. This being true, letting the hair grow long (long hair) does not do the covering required in verses 5 and 6. Long hair signifies to a woman what the covering of verses 5 and 6 signifies (it is her glory), but it is not the same act . Therefore, the covering of vss. 5-6 is one act, and letting the hair grow long is a different act. Both signify the same thing, but they are not the same action. Long hair is one covering, and verses 5 and 6 another covering.
But someone might say, "If the hair is not the covering that is required, why did Paul say her hair was a covering"? The fact is: the matter of long hair was not brought up to establish the practice of covering the head when praying or prophesying. Revelation had already done that in verses 5-12. Instead, nature's teaching about long hair is introduced to confirm what revelation had been saying in verses 5-12; namely, it is a glory for a woman to be covered . How did nature say it was a glory for a woman to be covered? Why, nature gave her long hair, and that is a glory. Why is her hair a glory? Her hair is a glory because (Gk. hoti for) it is a covering (vs. 15). A covered woman is a glory. Who said so? Nature did (vs. 15), and so did revelation (vss. 5-13). But they said so with two different coverings. Nature's covering (her hair) "on" her head all the time, and revelation's covering required to be "on" only when "praying or prophesying”. The hair is a covering, but it is not the only covering required. Two are required.
OBJECTION NO. 8 : In verse 13 Paul's appeal to JUDGEMENT shows that he is discussing custom. He did not say, This is something you learned from the gospel. He said, This is something you can judge in yourselves. He left it up to their judgement. This appeal to judgement proves that this is a matter of custom for we do not judge matters of Divine law or matters of sin, but we can judge in ourselves about the comeliness of customs.
ANSWER: It is true that Paul appealed to the Corinthians to judge in themselves, but it is NOT true that he "left" it up to their judgement. And it is NOT true that we do not judge in matters of Divine Law or sin. In Acts 4:19 Peter and John told the council, "whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye". They called on the council to "judge" in a matter of "right in the sight of God". But, did they "leave" this up to the council's judgement just because they said, "judge ye"? If the council had judged that it was "right" to hearken unto them rather than unto God, would it have been right, and would Peter and John have 'left" the matter there? Of course not. And by appealing to them to do the judging, Peter and John did not put the matter in the realm of custom either, did they? Also, these same Corinthians were called upon to "judge" about a matter (the Lord's Supper) which surely is not a custom but a "thus saith the Lord"— Divine Law. They were told, "judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ" (1 Cor. 10:16). Did this mean Paul "left" it up to their judgement, or that the Lord's Supper was a matter of custom? Certainly not. But they were called upon to "judge". This shows that an appeal to "judgement" is not an appeal to custom, and such an appeal to judgement does not mean that Paul is "leaving" it up to their judgment. We do "judge" some things that have to do with Divine Law.
OBJECTION NO. 9: In verse 13 Paul urged them to judge the COMELINESS of a practice. He said, Is this comely to you. The standard of judgement was to be what the people considered to be comely, and the word comely has to do with what is proper; what is in good or poor taste, with what is the custom. Comeliness varies as the customs vary. There are things that I judge to be comely, that my grandfather would not judge to be comely, because the custom of what is comely has changed. So again, this word COMELY shows that he is dealing with custom. Look at it this way:
A B “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered" (vs. 13) So.
A. The locale's judgement of a practice is the determining factor, if B. The practice is a matter of what is comely.
So that if in a given locale (Corinth), an uncovered woman is judged by the people of that locale (Corinth) to be uncomely, she must not be uncovered. If, however, in that locale, such is not so judged by them, she is not required to be covered. He leaves it up to the locale's judgement of what is comely—which means custom or good taste.
ANSWER: There are many things that should be said about this, but one of the first ones is: What should she do in a locale where their judgement of what is comely is not uniform: that is. some judge it uncomely, and others judge it comely. What should she do there? If she does not wear one, she will be comely to some, but uncomely to others.
181 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
COMELY: The claim that this word means custom, or simply what is in good or proper taste, simply is not so. The word that is here translated comely appears seven times in the New Testament (Mt. 3:15; 1 Cor. 11:13; Eph. 5:3; 1 Tim. 2:10; Tit. 2:1; Heb. 2:10; 7:26), but it NEVER means custom or good taste in any of them. It deals with what is appropriate or fitting based upon the nature and character of the person or thing involved. For example, Heb. 2:10 says that it "became" (the word translated "comely" in 1 Cor. 11:13. It was comely) for God to make Christ perfect through sufferings. Good taste for God to do that! Preposterous. But it was comely—appropriate or fitting for God to do that because of the very nature and character of God. Matt 3:15 says that it "became" (the same word as translated comely in 1 Cor. 11:13. It was comely for) Christ to fulfill all righteousness and be baptized. Good taste or custom?! Absurd. But it was appropriate for Him because of the very nature and character of Christ. And look at Eph. 5:3 where fornication, uncleanness, and covetousness are said to be things that are not "befitting" (same word as translated comely in 1 Cor. 11:13). Are fornication and covetousness merely poor taste or custom?! Ridiculous. Hence, the claim that the word "comely" shows the passage is dealing with good or poor taste or custom is a false claim. Comeliness has to do with what is appropriate based upon the nature and character of the person or thing involved. Since woman is created for man, is the glory of man, and man is her head, the covering of her head in prayer is an expression of her relationship to man, her very womanhood, and it is not comely for one of that nature and character to pray otherwise. To do so is to reject her very womanhood, and not just a custom.
The idea that comeliness changes as custom changes—that what is comely in one time and locale may not be comely in a different time and locale—that idea has some grave consequences. Comeliness is not just a matter of taste, as some places think a woman is comely if she is plump while other places think she is comely if she is thin, for there are places that think she is comely if she is bare from the waist up ! What should a woman who is a Christian do in that locale to be comely? Shall she be bare from the waist up? According to the argument we are considering she should. This shows the argument is not true. Some argue that the modern swim-suit is not uncomely on the beach, while it might be in town. Do you really believe that whatever a locale judges to be comely will be all right for the Christian? Or do you just believe that in relation to the covering? If you say, the scriptures say more about dress than just its comeliness, to this I reply, "True, and the scriptures say more about the covering than just its comeliness. They also mention headship, creation, the glory of God, and angels”. Just as we are not to be governed solely by what some people might judge to be comely about women's dress, so we are not to be governed solely by what some people might judge to be comely about her being covered.
Sometimes it is claimed that Paul expected the Corinthians to judge her uncomely if uncovered because they were in the habit of seeing her no other way, hence this was a custom. This is purely an assertion, but not proof. For example, I am in the habit of seeing churches of Christ eat the Lord's Supper every Sunday, and I have never seen them do it any other way. Does that mean that such is a custom? Of course not. Paul might well have expected them to judge her uncomely, but that does not mean that he expected it on the basis of their customs. I can think of several reasons other than custom, why he might have thus expected. Again, this is just an assertion but no proof whatsoever. It might prove what they did, but it does not prove why they did it. But when we have positive instructions that such had to do with creation, the relationship between man and woman, angels; we can know why it ought to be done today; viz., the same reasons that Paul gave, and none of them was "custom".
OBJECTION NO. 10: Paul's use of the word NATURE (11:14) shows that he is appealing to custom, for nature means custom in this passage.
ANSWER: This is often asserted but not yet proved. The fact is, the word here translated nature is not easily defined and limited, and contextually it has different shades of meaning. In proof of this, just look at the following ideas on the word in this passage. Adam Clarke says it refers to woman's natural ability to grow more hair than a man. Arndt and Gingrich say that it " may mean instinctively "; McKnight, " reason and experience ", Vine, " the regular law and order of nature "; Thayer and Edward Robinson both say, " native sense of propriety [for a further discussion of these two, see below]. In view of such diversity, it seems somewhat arbitrary and prejudiced to select just one definition (often it is the one that is thought to say "custom") and act as though no other is even suggested. Is that really being fair? Most say the verse is saying something like: "It's just natural that long hair is a glory to a woman, but a shame to a man". So much so that it is virtually universal for women to have longer hair than men. The passage calls this fact, of longer hair for women, "nature", and says that such teaches that a woman with it is a glory because she is covered. Remember, nature's teaching about hair was not introduced to establish the practice of
182 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge a woman's praying with her head covered. Revelation had done that in verso 4-12. Nature's teaching about hair (one covering) was then introduced in verse 14 to confirm and illustrate revelation's teaching about the other covering. What is it that prompts so many people in so many places to have women with longer hair than men? Whatever its exact definition may be, the Bible calls it "nature", and shows that it confirms the requirement for her to be covered in prayer as a right requirement.
Sometimes a part of Edward Robinson's comments on this passage is noted in an effort to prove the word translated nature means custom. I am convinced that, taking all he says on the passage, he neither defines the word for nature to mean custom nor does he use custom as a synonym. Here is that portion of his Lexicon that deals with 1 Cor. 11:14, (the italics are his): " the nature of any person or thing, the natural constitution, the innate disposition and qualities, a of persons, in a moral sense, the native mode of thinking, feeling, acting, as unenlightened by the influence of divine truth . . . Spec. a natural feeling of decorum, a native sense of propriety, e.g. in respect to national customs in which one is born and brought up; 1 Cor. 11, 14; oude aute he phusis didaskei humas hoti aner men ean koma atimia auto esti : doth not your own natural feelings teach you? It was the national customs among the Hebrews and Greeks, for men to wear the hair short, and women to wear it long", and then he cites the passages for his comments about hair. Please note the following points: 1. His general definition of the word is "nature" in the sense of what is "natural" or "innate" (and innate means inborn). 2. Specifically of 1 Cor. 11, he says, "Spec, (that is, specially in a special and particular sense. HOH) a natural feeling of decorum, a native sense of propriety" Note: "natural" and "native" (Webster says native means inborn). 3. Robinson also gives us his translation of verse 14, "doth not your own natural feeling teach you?" Especially notice that Robinson's translation does NOT say, "doth not your CUSTOM teach you". Instead it says, "doth not your own NATURAL FEELING teach you". If he thought our word for "nature" means "custom", why did he not translate it "custom". Why did he translate it "natural feeling" . Clearly, he does not think the word translated "nature" means "custom". He plainly says it means natural feeling and translated it natural feeling. He does say, "in respect to national cusoms in which one is born and brought up" but he must not mean that these customs would be the correct meaning of the word translated nature or he would have translated it "custom". But he did not; he translated it "natural feeling". What then does he mean by the reference to "customs". His reference to customs is probably in the same vein as A. Barnes who, having said of "nature": "That sense of propriety which all men have and is expressed in any prevailing or universal custom", goes on to add later that nature "refers to a deep internal sense of what is proper and right". In other words, certain customs exist, but the reason they exist is because there is a deep internal sense ( nature, natural feeling of decorum) of what is right. Custom is one thing, and nature (that deep internal sense; that natural feeling of decorum) that produced the custom is something else. Nature is not custom. Nature produced custom. Thus Robinson would be saying, "Doth not even nature (that is, your own natural feeling) teach you in respect to your national customs". So that with Robinson, as with Barnes, certain national customs sprang from the teaching of nature (their own natural feeling of decorum). Not that the customs were the natural feeling, but the natural feeling (nature) caused the custom to come to be. Just like godly sorrow is not repentance, but godly sorrow produces repentance (2 Cor. 7:10). On this basis, not even Robinson says "nature" means "custom". With him "nature" means "natural feeling" and certain national customs are an effort to express this natural feeling of decorum, or nature.
Thayer and Robinson both use the phrase "native sense of propriety", and Barnes' wording is virtually the same. What does "native sense of propriety" mean? Webster says that native "commonly heightens the implied contrast with what is acquired and/or artificial, and often denotes, esp. in the case of qualities, that which is inborn and inherent". Thayer says of the word for nature (italics are his), " nature , i.e. natural sense, native conviction or knowledge, as opp to what is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law . . . the native sense of propriety . . . 1 Cor. xi. 14". Note this comparison: Webster says that native means inborn as contrasted with what is acquired. Thayer says nature means native as opposed to what is learned etc. Aren't they both saying the same thing? Native (nature) means inborn as contrasted with what is acquired through learning and training. So Thayer does not say the word for nature means custom, and most assuredly he does not give custom as the definition of the word for nature.
It is not being claimed that none gives custom as a meaning of the word for nature. I am not even saying that inborn is necessarily the meaning of the word for nature here. It is a possible meaning. I am saying that neither Thayer nor Robinson define the word for nature to mean custom here.
183 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Sometimes it is urged that nature in this passage could not mean inborn or instinct, because it says nature teaches long hair is a shame to a man, yet there were some cultures where men had long hair, but it was not a shame to them. They wore their hair long by nature, custom, or current practice, but nature (in the sense of instinct or inborn) did not teach them that long hair was a shame, for they were not ashamed of it. In fact, they were quite proud of it. Well, some homosexuals say that they are that way "by nature", and that there is nothing wrong with them. They not only are not ashamed of it but quite forward about it. Is that just custom, too? That's their "practice". The fact is, the Bible says that people can change the natural . . . into that which is against nature" (Rom. 1:26). This could be true whether in nature's teaching about hair, or in nature's teaching about the sexes. And when such has been practiced by them long enough, it could be said to be their "nature". But it would not be endorsed by God. [Please do not accuse me of saying that people who wear or teach long hair are no better than homosexuals. I say no such thing. I am simply trying to show that people can change what is nature in one area (sex), and people can change what is nature in another area (hair). But neither has God's approval]. Stealing is "natural" in some cultures, but it isn't right. There have been cultures where women rule the men. Such would be their "nature", in that sense, but that doesn't mean that God approves. It just shows how far some people can go from God. Long hair may be "natural" for men in some cultures—just as ruling women—but neither is right with God, nor is either one just a custom or current practice.
We ask again, What is it that prompts so many people in so many places to have women with longer hair than men? Whatever its exact definition may be, the Bible calls it "nature" and uses it to argue that the requirement for her to be covered in prayer is a right requirement.
OBJECTION NO. 12: The word custom in verse 16 shows the passage is dealing with customs. The word translated custom in 11:16 does not mean practice or usage prescribed by law. There is a word (ethos) that means that, and it is translated custom, too. If the passage were discussing a divine law it would have used this word (ethos).
ANSWER: It is true that there are two words translated custom in the NT. However, according to W. E. Vine's Dictionary, the word translated custom in 1 Cor. 11 is basically the same word as the other one, except in 1 Cor. 11:16 the word has a prepositional prefix " sun ". Also in Matt 27:15 we are told that Pilate was "wont"' to release the prisoner. The word here translated "wont" is etho , a verb that is akin to the noun ethos translated custom in Acts 15:1 where the Jewish law of circumcision is discussed. Yet in John 18:39 we have the same event as discussed in Matt. 27:15, but in John it is said to be a "sunetheia" (the same word as in 1 Cor. 11:16). In Matt. 27:15 it was Pilate's "wont" ( etho ). but the same event (John 18:39) uses the other word ( sunetheia ). So you might say there is something of an interchangeable use of the words. There must not be all that much difference between them. Also in Josephus' Antiquities (Book, X Chapter IV, Section 5) he says of the Passover observed during the days of Josiah "all things were performed according to the laws, and according to the custom of the forefathers" , which looks considerably like such expressions as Lk. 2:42, Acts 15:1 etc. where the word is ( ethos ), but in Josephus it is "sunetheia" (the word in 1 Corinthians 11:16). There just doesn't seem to be all that radical a difference between the two words.
Neither will it do to say that this word puts it all in the realm of custom, as some had a custom of covering and some didn't. It was all a custom. On that basis, assembling ourselves together is all a custom (Heb. 10:25) "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the custom (ASV) of some is". Some had a "custom" of assembling, and some had a "custom" of not assembling! Is assembling just a matter of custom? If it is in 1 Cor. 11:16, why isn’t it in Heb. 10:25? Vine shows that the word in Heb. 10:25 is the same word as 1 Cor. 11:16 except in 1 Cor. 11:16, the word has a prepositional ( sun ) prefix. This should show the fallacy of claiming that the matter of the covering is a matter of custom. Look at the comments already given under verse 16 for a discussion of just what that custom there is.
Recently I heard it asserted that in verse 16 ( if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God ), Paul was not saying that anyone WAS contentious, only that someone might SEEM TO BE contentious, though he really wasn't contentious; the reason that this "any man" might seem to be contentious (but wasn't) was that he required something (the covering) of the Corinthians that was not required of anyone else; the reason it was required of the Corinthians and not of others was the Corinthians had the covering as their custom, but no one else did; and finally, the "any man" who might SEEM TO BE CONTENTIOUS (but wasn't) was none other than — mirabile dictu — the apostle Paul himself!! This incredible exegesis has the following false assumptions:
184 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
1. It ASSUMES the "any man" of verse 16 is the apostle Paul. 2. It ASSUMES the word translated "seem" means "appears to be but really isn't". 3. It ASSUMES the expression "we have no such custom" means that "none of the apostles or their associates or any church of God had such a custom as the ones the Corinthians had." 4. It ASSUMES that the reason Paul might "seem to be contentious" but really wasn't, was that he bound something on the Corinthians that was not bound on Paul, nor on his associates, nor on any other church of Cod except the one at Corinth.
Let me say first of all that in investigating this particular claim, I have consulted literally dozens of lexicons, grammars, commentaries, and translations. In all this, I have not found even one that agrees with a single one of these assumptions. Yet each one of these assumptions is a crucial one if this explanation is to be valid. No lexicon, no grammar, no commentary, no translation known to me agrees with any of these assertions. This does not prove nor disprove it, but to take a position for which not one grammar, not one lexicon, not even one commentary will substantiate a single part of it, surely makes the whole thing look forced and suspect. Let's consider each of these assumptions.
1. The same construction for "if any man seem to be" appears at least 4 times in 1 Corinthians 3:18; 8:2; 11:16; 14:37). Not one time is the "any man" referring to Paul. 2. I do not know of a lexicon, grammar, commentary or translation that says the expression "seem to be" in this verse means "appears to be but really isn't". Every one of them says the man really was contentious , or was disposed to be contentious, or some expression that denoted certainty. None of these even suggests that he might only appear to be contentious but really wasn't, 3. If the expression "we have no such custom, neither the churches of God" means that neither Paul, nor his associates, nor any church except the one at Corinth practiced what is here inculcated, we have some serious difficulties. Paul and his associates let their hair grow long and covered their heads when they prayed or prophesied!! Furthermore, the women in all the churches except Corinth prayed or prophesied bareheaded; in fact they could be shorn or even get their head shaved, because it was to Corinth (not to the other churches) that Paul said, Women must be covered, must not be shaven nor shorn! Who really believes that Paul and other men actually let their hair grow long, prayed or prophesied with their heads covered, except when they were at Corinth? Who really believes that the women in places other than Corinth went bareheaded and with their hair shorn or their heads shaven. Yet the argument says, We have no such custom about the covering or the hair, but you Corinthians do. Therefore your men must be uncovered, but we (Paul and his associates) and other churches of God cover our heads in prayer and let our hair grow long. You Corinthian women must pray covered and have long hair, but women in other churches may pray uncovered and have their hair shorn or get their heads shaved because they do not have the custom that you do. Is that what "we have no such custom" means? That's what the argument says, but who really believes these consequences? 4. It is a false assumption that if Paul bound something on the Corinthians that he did not bind on others, that he would thereby "seem to be contentious". He refused to circumcise Titus (Gal. 2:1-5), but he did circumcise Timothy (Acts 16:1-3). Yet he was not "contentious" in so doing, nor did he "seem to be contentious" by so doing. Assumption No. 4, like all the others, is not so.
As already noted: How would a person at Corinth be contentious? If he insisted in agreement with Paul that women are to he covered and men uncovered, would he be contentious? No. If he insisted contrary to Paul that women could be uncovered and men covered, would not that man have been contentious? Certainly. Paul says, If any seem to be contentious (by contending for uncovered women and covered men), we have no such custom as the one that man is contending for.
CONCLUSION It has been our aim to show that the teaching of this passage is still in effect today. The reason for our believing this is that Paul did not base the requirement on custom. Instead he based it upon things that were true then (headship of Christ to man, man to woman; man the glory of God, angels, and the like) and just as true today. All of the reasons he gave then that should have compelled the action are still valid today. If the reasons he gave at that time compelled the action, then, since the same reasons exist today, they ought to compel the same action today. If not, why not? This same conclusion has been well stated by Godet: "Was this conviction solely a matter of time and place, so that
185 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge it is possible to suppose, that if he (Paul) lived now, and in the West, the apostle would express himself differently? This supposition is not admissible. For the reasons he alleges are taken, not from contemporary usages, but from permanent facts, which will last as long as the present earthly economy. The physical constitution of woman (vs. 13- 15) is still the same as it was when Paul wrote, and will continue so till the renewing of all things. The history of creation, to which he appeals (vs. 8-12), remains the principle of the social state now as in the time of the apostle; and the sublime analogies between the regulations of God to Christ, Christ to man, and man to woman, have not changed to this hour, so that it must be said, either the apostle was wholly wrong in his reasoning, or that his reasons, if they were true for his time, are still so for ours, and will be so to the end". www.biblemirror.com.84.seekdotnet.com/Tracts/CommandorCustom/tabid/144/Default.aspx
186 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Women and "Whole Church Meetings" Jeff Smelser Bristow, VA (Revised March, 2006)
INTRODUCTION Among those congregations called churches of Christ, twentieth century attitudes concerning the role of women in the church illustrate two contrasting and competing tendencies of religious movements. On the one hand, there is a tendency for a movement which begins among people whose convictions are derived from open minded study to evolve, or devolve, into a movement characterized by people whose convictions are tradition bound. On the other hand, with the passing of a generation or two, there is a tendency for such a movement to adapt itself to the changing mindset and mores of society. The latter tendency is driven by a desire to be respectable, normal. It is simply another case of peer pressure, where the peers are society at large. The former tendency is driven by a desire to maintain identity. Again, it is a case of peer pressure, but in this case, the peers are the members of the movement itself, and particularly, those viewed as standards of orthodoxy within the movement.
In particular, during the twentieth century, American society has seen the women's suffrage movement, the influx of women into the workplace, the feminist movement, unisex trends, the indictment of masculinity, the advancement of women to places of leadership and power in the corporate, academic, and political world, and the departure of women from the home. As might be expected, among a people who still adamantly claim to follow the Bible as the word of God, corresponding changes have not taken place to the same degree, and where they have occurred, they have lagged behind the pace of American society in general. Nonetheless, among these Bible professing people, we hear of many who put their children in day care so that the mother can work, and of many women who fondly relate their accomplishments in the business world as if such were the noble work God had planned for woman.
More to the point of the present writing, we hear of many congregations where women feel free to speak up in the assembly, although not many years ago, such would have been recognized as a violation of 1 Corinthians 14:34 in those very same congregations. Now, it is argued by preachers that 1 Corinthians 14:34 is really just instruction for first century wives of prophets, or that the passage doesn't really mean a woman can't speak, but merely that when she does so, she must not "usurp authority." Accordingly, women speak up to offer information, to correct announcements, to request that certain songs be led, and so on. And this is happening even among many of those congregations that have shown the greatest resistance to societal changes.
But at the same time, we see quite a different phenomenon occurring. While women are speaking up more, there is a domain which has been secured as a male bastion. Although unknown in scripture, The Men's Business Meeting is viewed as the arena where no woman has a place. I do not have reference to any and every occasion when the men in the congregation may meet to discuss various topics of concern to the church. Rather I have in mind specifically that entity which in numerous congregations functions as a governing body in lieu of elders. It is here, with respect to this entity unknown in scripture, that 1 Timothy 2, if not 1 Corinthians 14, is adamantly cited as the basis for excluding women. And when this resistance is questioned, some of the very people who now permit the woman to speak in the assembly, cry out against those who would follow after the ways of the world. This rallying cry for orthodoxy does not reflect true allegiance to God's word, but rather allegiance to a movement, a snapshot in history.
It is not my desire to defend or indict a religious movement's character, whether it be of the twentieth century, or the nineteenth, nor even to claim identity with a particular movement as a historian might define such. It is my desire to call attention to the teaching of scripture, and to exhort all to be willing to stand for what God's word teaches without prejudice, and without moderation due to society's influence or modification due to a misguided sense of heritage.
This material grew out of a discussion that took place in an electronic forum, an e-mail list called "Markslist". Another participant in that forum submitted the following request:
I have an immediate need for comments on the question of women participating in the "whole church" affairs mentioned in Acts, especially after the death of the apostles. Is there any evidence that women did in fact speak out and give opinions and judgments as to rightness or wrongness of proposed action by the elders and, if appropriate, deacons?
187 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
The background of this is a situation where several men are refusing to permit ANY meeting where women would be present. If permitted to attend, would this be to just listen and be informed? In our situation here many of the women are quite knowledgeable, and are principle givers. There is no indication that anyone wants to cause any trouble, only to clarify at this time as we begin an elder selection process. Thanks for your quick response.
The present work is adapted from a series of posts I submitted in response to the above request, and benefits (I hope) from having been edited and enlarged.
In short, what I am going to say is, I believe the scriptures allow women to attend such meetings (else it is not the "whole church"), and that the scriptures teach that they must be silent in such meetings, because such meetings are assemblies of the sort where women must be silent.
As to the specific circumstance of selecting elders, wisdom suggests that there be sufficient time allowed for anyone (not just women) to approach those who desire to serve with whatever objections they may have. Given the qualifications and work of elders, I think it would be an unusual situation where names were first put forward, and men appointed, all in the context of one assembly, with no time permitted for consideration, discussion, and, if necessary, objections, apart from the assembly.
Concerning the broader question of women and congregational meetings, some would try to distinguish between a "business meeting" and a "worship service". With respect to the presence and role of women, I believe such a distinction is arbitrary, and suggests a conclusion based on tradition rather than on scripture.
PART 1 - The Assembly
That 1 Corinthians 14 distinguishes between what is proper "in the church" from what might be proper elsewhere should be clear to all. Though Paul thanked God that he spoke with tongues, he said, "howbeit, in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding...than ten thousand words in a tongue" (1 Cor. 14:19). Without an interpreter present, the one with the gift of tongues was to "keep silence in the church" (1 Cor. 14:27). Similarly, Paul's instruction that the women should keep silence was applicable "in the churches." Paul explained that "in the church," it was a shame for a woman to speak. Now, certainly Paul was not prohibiting the women from ever speaking. If there were any doubt, it is removed when Paul said, "let them ask their own husbands at home." Now if there is an instruction that pertains to one who is "in the church," we must assume that being in the church is not an indefinite status. We can know what it means to be "in the church."
The word church is a translation of the Greek ἐκκλησ ία. This same word is translated "assembly" in Acts 19:32, 39 and 40. Some have said that ἐκκλησ ία means called out . While it may have been derived from two words, one meaning call and the other meaning out , even this is not certain. A footnote in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament cites an article by A. Jehle who "correctly emphasises the doubtfulness, if not the total irrelevance, of the etymology of ἐκκλησ ία." (TDNT, vol. 3, p. 530, n.91.) For his own part, K. L. Schmidt, who cited Jehle's article, wrote,
Whether Paul and other Greek speaking Christians were thinking of those "called forth" when they used the word ἐκκλησ ία, we cannot tell. It is not impossible, but not probable. (TDNT, vol. 3, p. 530.)
In the standard lexicon of New Testament Greek, the entry for ἐκκλησ ία contains no mention of "called out" as a meaning or possible translation of the word. Rather ἐκκλησ ία is rendered assembly, assemblage, gathering, meeting, congregation, church, church meeting, etc. (Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich, 2nd ed.)
That God's people are called out of darkness is incontrovertible. But in the first century, there was no thought of "called out" in the word ἐκκλησ ία, whatever its derivation may have been. If ἐκκλησ ία was in fact derived from the expression "called out," we can see all the more why the Holy Spirt saw fit to use this word. However, we must always keep in mind the meaning which the word had in the first century.
Why should the word "assembly" have been used? First, because the one church, the one body of Christ, is a people spiritually assembled in the mind of God. Hebrews 12:23 speaks of "the general assembly and church ( ἐκκλησ ία) of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven." In this sense, ἐκκλησ ία is used in Matthew 16:18 and Ephesians 1:22.
188 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
But the word is also used of Christians who literally, physically assemble. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul not only has reference to such Christians, but to their being assembled. He says, "if therefore the whole church be come together into one place..." (1 Cor. 14:23).
Now some speak as if it is unrealistic to be able to know what is an assembly and what is not. Particularly as we begin to consider 1 Corinthians 14:34f, some suppose that we really cannot ever prohibit speaking on the part of women for we cannot ever know with certainty that the whole church is come together in one place. Such reasoning is to mock Paul and the Holy Spirit, for 1 Corinthians 14 presupposes that we can know.
The church was an identifiable group, not just a random gathering of saints. Paul could address the "church of God at Corinth" and it's particular problems. Similarly, those occasions when the church (assembly) is assembled are scripturally identifiable. They are not unidentifiable, nor are they to be arbitrarily identified.
The Whole Church, Assembled for "Business" (Acts 6, Acts 14, Acts 15, 1 Cor 5)
Is it an "assembly" if the activities are primarily concerned with what we might call business ? Or to ask the question another way, is there business of the church that needs to be brought before the assembled assembly for consideration?
First of all, consider Acts 6, where the " multitude of the disciples" were called together in order to choose out seven men. It was not just the men, being called for a "Men's Business Meeting." Consider also Acts 14:27 where they "gathered the church ( ἐκκλησ ία) together" so that Paul and Barnabas could report on the things God had done with them. Consider Acts 15:22 where "it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole church ( ἐκκλησ ία)" to send men to Antioch with a letter. And finally, consider 1 Corinthians 5:4, where Paul admonishes the Corinthians to note the fornicator, delivering him to Satan, "ye being gathered together." It wasn't done behind closed doors in a "Men's Business Meeting" and then announced after the fact to the congregation.
This is not to say that all "business" related to the church requires the attention of the whole church. Indeed, the appointing of the seven, though itself a concern of the multitude of disciples, was intended to establish a means whereby some, specifically the apostles, would not need to be concerned with the arrangements for feeding the widows. Surely those seven men coordinated their efforts. Did they meet to discuss menu, to discuss helpers, to discuss the particular needs of the various widows? Did every such discussion require the participation of the whole church? Surely not. They were appointed over the business of serving tables.
Many of the topics discussed in "men's business meetings" are rightly the province of deacons. There are other topics that do not involve the sort of ongoing tasks to which a deacon might be appointed, but certainly do not require the attention of the whole church. Some of these topics might best be addressed by groups of brethren smaller than the whole church, perhaps the song leaders, or maybe those who prepare the Lord's Supper, or perhaps even the men of the congregation. In other words, I do not mean to suggest that any meeting that does not involve the whole congregation is wrong. But when there is a topic that should concern the whole congregation, let the whole congregation be concerned.
In What Assembly are the Women to Keep Silent?
As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14:33b-35)
Some suppose this instruction was a unique limitation made necessary by circumstances peculiar to Corinth. But it begins, "As in all the churches..." Furthermore, the words, "for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church" are stated as a fundamental fact, not as a circumstantial judgment. And finally, Paul says, "let them be in subjection, as also saith the law." These are hardly words indicating a unique limitation made necessary by circumstances peculiar to Corinth.
189 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
The appeal to the law is not a reference to some Old Testament passage that required women to refrain from speaking. When Paul said, "as also saith the law," he was not talking about application, but principle. The law was subjection. The principle of subjection holds even though varying settings may call for a varying applications. For example, the wife is to be in subjection at home just as certainly as she is to be in subjection in the assembly. And yet the application of the principle is different. What she is told to do at home, she is forbidden to do in the assembly. "Let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." If the principle of subjection had the same application everywhere and in every relationship, then if asking a question in the assembly was a breach of subjection, it would be also at home.
Now, if the application of the principle can vary from assembly to home, it can also vary from the Old Testament to the New Testament, and yet the principle be constant. No, I don't believe I can show that Israelite women were to be silent in the holy convocations of the Old Testament, or in whatever might be construed to correspond to the assembly in 1 Corinthians 14. However, it is the principle, not the application, wherein Paul finds common ground with the Old Law.
Having said that, Paul does not give us the latitude to apply the principle however we see fit. Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, tells "all the churches" what application to make: "Let the women keep silence."
Notice that the passage does not say, "In the worship service..." It says, "in all the churches" i.e., in the assemblies. It is not "worship" that defines the occasion when the limitation applies, but assemblage. Paul stresses the idea of the assembled assembly by his redundant way of speaking in 1 Corinthians 11:20 ("assemble...together" - how else would a group assemble?) and in 1 Corinthians 14:23, where the KJV properly reads, "the whole church be come together into one place ." That's not talking about an hour during which some of the saints are in the auditorium, some are in this room, some in that, and each group unaware of the activities of the others. Hence, a woman speaking in one of several Bible classes, while others of the congregation are in various of the other Bible classes, is not speaking in the "assembly". But there is no distinction whereby we might suppose that women are to be silent on one occasion when the church is assembled, and be permitted to speak on another such occasion.
The Activities of an Assembly: "5 Acts" are Neither a Maximum nor a Minimum
To assert that we only have an assembly of the church when all "5 acts of worship" (itself, a phrase and a concept which is contrary to scripture), is to assert what one cannot find in scripture. Is the Lord's Supper mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14? No. And yet what is discussed there is an assembly wherein the women must be silent.
To assert that we only have an assembly when we only worship is to misunderstand the meaning of worship. From the standpoint of New Testament authority, to speak of worship meaningfully, one must associate this English word with one or more of the Greek words translated worship. The verb most frequently translated worship is προσκυν έω. But this verb is too narrow to include much of the preaching that is included in assemblies. On the other hand, perhaps we would have in mind the verb λατρε ύω, which is translated worship four times in the King James Version of the New Testament. However, this word, also translated serve , is broad enough to include the conducting of what we might call business, if that business is what the Lord wishes his people to be doing. Paul was " serving God night and day." Therefore, one could hardly deny that assembling to conduct the business given to the church by the Lord is serving the Lord. The fact is, it is not possible to come up with a scriptural definition of worship that will include preaching, and collecting funds, but exclude choosing deacons, or dealing with the unfaithful. The presence of "five acts of worship" is an arbitrary and unscriptural criterion for recognizing something as an assembly, and it is an arbitrary and unscriptural criterion for determining when women are to be silent.
My preference is to use the English word worship to represent the Greek προσκυν έω, and then to use it only with respect to those actions properly denoted by that verb. Thus, we worship in singing hymns of praise, but not in listening to a sermon. We worship God as we praise him in prayer at the beginning of what some would call a business meeting, but not in everything that is said during the ensuing discussion. If this be how we use the word worship, then neither the typical Sunday morning assembly nor the "business meeting" is characterized exclusively by worship, and neither is void of worship. Therefore, on what scriptural basis could we allow women to speak in
190 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge one setting, but not the other? If someone wishes to speak of worship more broadly, only let him not be arbitrary in his use of the word, and he will still find it is applicable to the activities of either of these assemblies.
An Assembly does not Exclude "Business"
To assert that we only have an assembly of the church when there is no "business" discussed is also to assert what one cannot find in scripture. Is it proper to discuss "business" in an assembly where we worship? Yes. In Acts 6, the multitude of the disciples was gathered to choose 7 men who might be appointed "over this business" (serving tables), and they "prayed" (6:6). Who can imagine a congregation of God's people who would consciously separate conducting the God-given business of the congregation from acknowledgement of God's sovereignty?
In Acts 15, was it not the business of the Jerusalem congregation to deal with the issue of circumcising Gentiles inasmuch as some of its own number had taught error on this point? And yet the subject was discussed reverently, with a focus on God's will. James' argument (Acts 15:13-21) could well be a Sunday morning sermon, as could Peter's comments (15:7-11).
In 1 Corinthians 5, was it not the business of the church to deal with the fornicator? And should we suppose such serious action should be taken without prayer to God, and meditation upon his word? But some will say, that's not what we mean when we say "business." But what "we mean" may be the problem. We should mean what the scriptures mean. What business does the church have, other than that which God has given it?
Furthermore, even in those assemblies where we sing, and eat the Lord's Supper, it is common practice to make announcements concerning such matters as the needs of the sick, tasks that need to be performed, etc. Therefore, any distinction between one assembly and another based on the conducting of what we call business would merely be a distinction in degree. We would be making a distinction based on what portion of the assembly was devoted to what we call business as compared to the portion devoted to worship, and the portion devoted to edification. That is an arbitrary distinction.
Women should be Present when the Church (Assembly) is Assembled, and Because it is an Assembly, Women should be Silent
What I have tried to show is that there is nothing in the New Testament that indicates a hard, fast distinction between a "worship service" and a "business meeting" of the church such that we could claim that a meeting of the church to discuss its business is not an assembly. After all, what is the church's business? Is it not to do those things which the Lord has authorized it to do? Well, if it is doing those things at a time when it is assembled, or in Paul's words, when "the whole church be come together into one place" (1 Cor. 14:23, KJV), why is that not an assembly? Or to be more clear, why is that not the "assembly" assembled? Now, there will be occasions when some business needs to be discussed, handled, or executed, and the immediate attention of the whole church is not required. Witness the work of deacons. Those seven men in Acts 6 would have had a hard time doing their job if they neither met together, nor met with helpers, nor met with widows. But when there is business that scripturally is the business of the whole congregation (for example, choosing the seven men in the first place) then let the whole congregation be assembled, including the women. Remember, we read about the multitude of the disciples being called together, but never do we read of a "Men's Business Meeting" wherein congregational decisions were made while women were excluded. But whenever the church is purposely assembled, let the women heed the instruction of 1 Corinthians 14:34ff.
PART 2 - Does Silent Mean Silent? (1 Corinthians 14:34)
In Part 1, we considered the arbitrary distinction made between occasions when the whole church is assembled together in one place, and some business is discussed, and those occasions when the whole church is assembled together and little or no business is discussed. The upshot of those considerations was that, when the whole church is assembled together in one place according to the Lord's instruction, whether the activities include, on the one hand, prayer and discussion of the need for deacons, or on the other hand, songs of praise and a sermon, the women are to be silent.
But several questions arise. What does "keep silence" mean? Which women are to be silent? Is the teaching that women are to be silent applicable today?
191 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
σιγ άω means "keep silence"
What we are going to find is that "keep silence" well conveys the meaning of the Greek word, σιγ άω, which it represents. That is why the translators have so translated the passage! Now the English word silent does not mean, "speak in a non-authoritative manner" or any such thing. And yet some have supposed that is what "let the women keep silence" means. We will see that neither the word itself nor the context of 1 Corinthians 14 calls for such a meaning.
Let us consider each of the ten passages where σιγ άω occurs in the New Testament. The last of these is 1 Corinthians 14:34. We will see that in every case, the word means not to speak, and that it usually means to be silent with reference to something, e.g., some particular occasion, audience, topic, or time frame. Then we will note that the occasion under discussion in 1 Corinthians 14 is the assembly, and the audience is the assembly. With reference to speaking out in the assembly, whether in the form of a question or otherwise, women are to be silent. In short, Paul is saying women should not take the floor in the assembly. They should not speak out. Not a word.
LUKE 9:36
We recall Peter's inclination to speak, even "not knowing what he said," when Jesus was transfigured and Moses and Elijah appeared with Him. In Luke's account of the transfiguration, we read,
And when the voice came Jesus was found alone. And they held their peace, and told no man in those days any of the things which they had seen.
The phrase, "held their peace" represents the single word, ἐσίγησαν, which is simply the 3rd person plural aorist active indicative, of σιγ άω. Does this mean that Peter, James, and John continued to speak in a non-authoritative manner?
LUKE 18:39
Luke tells of a certain blind man who called after Jesus, saying, "Jesus thou son of David have mercy on me." The crowd rebuked him, telling him "that he should hold his peace [σιγ ήσῃ, 3rd per sing aor act subj. of σιγ άω]." Did they mean that he should not say a word to anyone? That is doubtful. But they certainly did not mean that he should call after Jesus in a non-authoritative manner. They meant, with reference to calling out to Jesus, he should not speak; he should be silent.
It is worth noting that, contrary to the crowd's rebuke, the blind man continued to cry out. His words were reverent, pleading, and not at all authoritative. Nonetheless, he was not holding his peace. He was not being silent.
LUKE 20:26
When Jesus answered the question about giving tribute to Caesar, Luke says, "they were not able to take hold of the saying before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace." Now I don't suppose it is necessary to understand that those who had asked the question ceased to talk at all. However, with reference to arguing the point with Jesus, they quit talking; they were silent; they didn't say anymore, not a word.
ACTS 12:17
When Rhoda, the maid, excitedly announced that Peter was at the gate, the brethren who had gathered to pray were incredulous, some supposing that, "It is his angel." When they saw Peter with their own eyes, they "were amazed." Luke says, Peter, "beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him forth out of the prison." The picture is clear - he held his hand up, perhaps palm down, raising and lowering the forearm, motioning for his excited brethren to be quiet so that he could speak. When Luke says that Peter signalled them to "hold their peace" he certainly does not mean that Peter wished they would speak in a non- authoritative manner. He means that Peter wanted them to quit talking and listen, so that he could speak to them.
192 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
ACTS 15:12-13
In the context of the meeting in Jerusalem to discuss the teaching that Gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, Luke writes, "And all the multitude kept silence and they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul..." This is getting redundant, but once again, did that mean the multitude spoke in a non-authoritative manner? No, it meant they got quiet and listened, so that Paul and Barnabas could speak. While Paul and Barnabas spoke, a woman in the audience might have told her child to sit still, but the people in the audience allowed Paul and Barnabas "to have the floor." Women, and for that matter, men, were not speaking out with comments or questions. They held their peace. They were silent.
Then Luke writes, "And after [Paul and Barnabas] held their peace, James answered..." Now it was James' turn to speak. Paul and Barnabas quit speaking. Paul and Barnabas did not continue to recite, in a non-authoritarian manner, what God had wrought among the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas "gave up the floor." Paul might have whispered a comment to Barnabas as James spoke, but with reference to speaking out before the audience, Paul and Barnabas were silent.
ROMANS 16:25
Paul's reference to "the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal" does not indicate that if the revelation of the mystery had been previously made, it would have had to be made in a non-authoritative manner. God did indeed speak in Old Testament times, but with reference to revealing the mystery, He did not speak; He was silent.
1 CORINTHIANS 14:28 The man who has the ability to speak in a tongue is to "keep silence in the church" if there is not one present who can interpret. This does not mean the tongue speaker can continue to speak in his tongue as long as he does so in a non-authoritative manner! Of course, it also doesn't mean that he can't lead a prayer if he does so in the common language. It means that, with reference to speaking in some other tongue, he is to refrain from speaking; he is to be silent. He is not to say a word.
1 CORINTHIANS 14:30
One man is speaking what has been revealed to him. "But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence." That does not mean the first can continue to speak, ask questions, etc., as long as he does so in a non- authoritative manner. It means he is to shut his mouth.
Now in all of this, notice that σιγ άω means "be silent". It does not mean talk in a meek voice. Contrary to some who present specious arguments designed to prove the word does not mean be silent, let me say that it means precisely that. Now this silence is usually silence with reference to something, e.g., some particular occasion, topic, or time frame. But with reference to that occasion, topic, or time frame, it means not to speak.
1 CORINTHIANS 14:34
In this passage as well, when the women are told to keep silence, that means they are not to speak. Indeed Paul, says, "for it is not permitted unto them to speak."
Does it merely mean she cannot speak in an authoritative manner? That the word itself doesn't mean that is clear from all the passages where it is used, which we have discussed. Now let's turn our attention to the context, and see if there is anything in the context which suggests Paul means, be silent with reference to speaking in an authoritarian manner.
The meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34f
If the context of the whole chapter is considered, we recall that Paul was not saying the tongue speaker could speak in a non-authoritative manner in the absence of an interpreter, nor was Paul saying the first prophet could continue speaking if he did so in a non-authoritative manner when one sitting by received a revelation.
193 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
In the immediate context, notice that the women were not even to ask questions: "If they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home." Nothing in the context suggests that Paul's command to be silent only had reference to speaking in an authoritative manner.
Do notice that in the context, Paul does have reference to speaking out in the assembly, to "taking the floor," to speaking out so to have the attention of the assembled brethren. That's what he was talking about in verses 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 16, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, and really, throughout the whole chapter. The instruction regarding the women is in this vein. Therefore, this passage does not prohibit the woman from whispering to her child that he needs to sit still. Nor does this passage prohibit the woman from adding her voice to the chorus of voices that offer praise to God and edification to one another. But with reference to speaking out in the assembly, she is to be silent, absolutely silent. She is not even to ask a question.
Given the context, it appears Paul has in view first of all silence with regard to prophesying and speaking in tongues. That is to say, the context suggests that "let the women keep silence" means that the women are not to prophesy, or speak out in a tongue in the assembly. Nonetheless, Paul gives the reason: "for it is not permitted unto them to speak." Paul's admonition that the women keep silence is based on the general principle that the women are not permitted to speak.
This prohibition against speaking cannot be limited to the exercise of spiritual gifts, for it even precluded asking a question. Paul writes, "And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." Some stumble over this sentence, noting that not all women have husbands, and miss the point. Paul is talking about asking questions, and forbids women to do this in the assembly! How can it be construed that Paul is only speaking of the exercise of spiritual gifts when he speaks of seeking information?
What about the problem that not all women have husbands? It is as in 1 Corinthians 11:34, where Paul wrote, "If any man is hungry, let him eat at home." This was not to say that home is the only place a man could satisfy his hunger. But it was to say that a man should not construe the Lord's Supper as a meal to satisfy hunger, that there are other occasions where it is appropriate to satisfy hunger, and Paul mentioned the most obvious: "at home". So also in 1 Corinthians 14:35. Paul does not mean to say that a woman may not privately ask one of the elders, or an older woman, or whomever. But he makes it clear that she should not ask her question in the assembly, that there are others besides the assembled church to whom she can address her question, and Paul mentions the most obvious: her husband. (See this point addressed again under "objection #3" in Part 3, below.)
PART 3 1 Corinthians 14:34 - Objections to the Plain Meaning
(Objection #1) "Then she can't sing"
Some object: "If silent means silent, the women wouldn't be able to sing in the assembly!" If this were a true statement, our conclusion ought to be that women shouldn't sing in the assembly. A need to seek a forced interpretation of 1 Cor. 14:34 in order to justify women singing in the assembly may reflect a greater reverence long standing practice than for scripture. "We can't change the way we have always done it, therefore we'll have to change the meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34."
However, the statement "If silent means silent, the women wouldn't be able to sing in the assembly" is a non sequitur . Does verse 30 mean the first prophet is not allowed to sing? Not at all. He is told to be silent with reference to speaking when another man receives a revelation. Does verse 28 mean the man with the ability to speak in a tongue is not allowed to sing? Not at all. He is told to be silent with reference to speaking in a tongue when there is no interpreter present. In both cases, speaking means speaking out in the assembly, and so throughout the chapter. Being silent is to "yield the floor". Does verse 34 mean the women can't sing. Not at all. But she is to "yield the floor". In what context? "In the church." To what extent? She is not even to ask questions (vs. 35). Does she take the floor when she adds her voice to the chorus of voices who sing praise to God. I don't believe so. Ephesians 5:19 does say we are to speak to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, by singing. But unless this means the woman is to sing a solo, it doesn't teach that she is to do what she is told not to do in 1 Corinthians 14. (To be sure, Ephesians 5:19 does not specifically mention the assembly, although I believe it applies to the singing in the assembly as well as singing apart from the assembly.)
194 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
(Objection #2) "Then she can't confess"
Here we have an egregious example of rejecting the word of God in order to keep the traditions of men. Is there ever any example, command, or instruction of any sort that teaches a woman must stand in the assembly and verbally, audibly, confess before the assembly her faith in Christ before she can be baptized? There is no example of such ever happening in scripture. There is not any command to that effect. You won't find it. To argue that such is required by 1 Timothy 6:12 or Matthew 10:32 (in spite of the fact that neither passage says such) is tantamount to arguing that baptisms can only take place in the assembly. The Eunuch would have been unscripturally baptized, for he did not confess his faith in and to the assembly. For the same reason, we would have to conclude that Lydia, the Philippian jailor, and Saul were not scripturally baptized. But it's the way things are done (in many congregations, not all). And because it's the way things are done, some are willing to distort the meaning of 1 Corinthians 14:34.
Some believe that 1 Timothy 6:12, Matthew 10:32, and Romans 10:9 require that one make a verbal confession of faith immediately prior to being baptized. I'm not convinced that such is taught by these passages. But even if it were, and even if it is during an assembly that a woman indicates her desire to be baptized by walking to the front and speaking quietly to one of the men, it is an easy thing to accommodate her confession of faith without having to speak to the entire assembly. I marvel at the numerous attempts to justify women speaking in the assembly which are based entirely upon the supposed necessity of a woman speaking out in the assembly prior to her baptism. There is no such necessity, and if there is not necessity, there is no overthrowing of the plain teaching of 1 Corinthians 14:34.
(Objection #3) "Some women don't have husbands"
In Paul's admonition, "And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home" some see evidence that Paul could not have been referring to all women in 1 Cor 14:34-35, because not all women have husbands.
Consider 1 Corinthians 11:34 where Paul says, "If any man is hungry, let him eat at home." We have no trouble understanding that Paul was not saying the only place you can eat is at home. He was saying that the assembly is not the place to eat for the purpose of satisfying hunger. When one is hungry, there are alternatives to eating in the assembly. And Paul mentions the most obvious - "at home". Does this passage mean we can't stop and eat at McDonald's on the way home? Of course not.
Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 14:35, We should have no trouble understanding that Paul is not saying the only person a woman can learn from is her husband. He is saying that the assembly is not the place for a woman to ask questions. When a woman has a question, there are alternatives to asking it in the assembly. And Paul mentions the most obvious - her own husband. Does this passage mean she can't stop and ask an elder a question after the assembly is dismissed, or that a woman who has no husband is not allowed to ask a question of anyone at all? Of course not.
(Objection #4) "Not applicable today"
Because Paul's instructions in 1 Corinthians 14 pertained to the use of spiritual gifts, which we do not have today, some suppose the instructions concerning women being silent have no application today.
In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul takes general principles and applies them to spiritual gifts. The general principles are still applicable today. For example:
GENERAL PRINCIPLE "Unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?...seek that ye may abound unto the edifying of the church."
Spiritual Gift Application
For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries....if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
195 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Shouldn't We Apply the Principle Today?
Does not this same passage inform us that it would not be right to have a speaker present a sermon in Mandarin Chinese to an English only audience today? We might be impressed, but we would not understand, nor would we be edified.
GENERAL PRINCIPLE "God is not a God of confusion but of peace....Let all things be done decently and in order."
Spiritual Gift Application
"If a man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three and that in turn....And let the prophets speak by two or three and let the others discern. But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence. For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted."
Shouldn't We Apply the Principle Today? Does not this same passage inform us that, even today, it would not be right to have three or four speakers all speaking at once in the assembly? We would rightly consider that disorderly and not conducive to our being exhorted. It would be confusion. [For those who believe that the dispersed Bible classes are part of, or included in, the assembly, how do you justify various teachers, in their respective class rooms, speaking at once? 1 Corinthians 14:27-31 should make it clear that the assembly is what Paul defined when he said "the whole church be come together into one place (KJV)].
GENERAL PRINCIPLE "It is not permitted unto [the women] to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law....it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church."
Spiritual Gift Application
[Remember, women did have spiritual gifts, including the gift of prophecy, Acts 21:9, 1 Corinthians 11:5] "As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches."
We Should Apply the Principle Today
Paul applies the general principle that a woman is not to speak in the assembly to the use of spiritual gifts. While women might prophesy, they were not to do so in the assembly. That application does not preclude all others. Even today, women are not to speak in the assembly.
To say 1 Corinthians 14 does not apply today is to say that we can have multiple speakers, speaking in unrecognizable languages, all at once.
(Objection #5) "'Your women' means prophets' wives"
This objection arises in part because of a textual variant. Not all Greek manuscripts which include 1 Corinthians 14:34 say the same thing. Following the Received Text, the KJV translates "Let your women keep silence..." while the ASV (and similarly, the Douay, RSV, NASB, and NIV), following older manuscripts, has "Let the women keep silence..." Where we find the word wife in the New Testament, it is simply a translation of the same Greek word that is everywhere used for woman. When it is translated wife, it is because something in the context indicates that wife is meant. A possessive pronoun ( his wife), certain verbs ( take a wife, have a wife, marry a wife, put away a wife) or correlation with a husband (as in Eph. 5:22,) are the kinds of things that indicate that we are to understand wife rather than simply a woman . The reading, "your women," could mean wives, and because the last men mentioned are prophets (vs. 32), some suppose that the prophets' wives are the ones who must be silent. A little imaginative speculation results in a whole scenario wherein.
Consider, however, that even if the "your" is authentic, it is not necessary to assume Paul only addresses the prophets. Paul is giving instructions to the church at Corinth, not merely to the prophets. Furthermore, regardless of who it is that Paul instructs to keep silent in verse 34, as a reason for this instruction, Paul says in verse 35, "for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church." He doesn't say your women , he says a woman . Now if one supposes Paul still has in mind wives, it cannot be only the prophets wives, but rather any wife. But what possible reason could there be for requiring the married women to keep silence while allowing the unmarried women to speak? We
196 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge are left with the conclusion that Paul does not mean wife in verse 35. Rather, as translated in the KJV, ASV, NASB, NKJB, NIV, and NRSV, it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.
But the authenticity of the "your" in the text is doubtful. The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament mentions many variants, but not all. Those mentioned are "for the most part...readings significant for translators or necessary for the establishing of the text." Apparently, the variant reading, " your women" failed this test in the eyes of the committee responsible for the GNT (4th ed.), for it is not included at all. (For a full discussion of the manuscript evidence, see the Appendix.)
Some suppose that the reference to husbands in verse 35 is sufficient to justify interpreting verse 34 as having reference only to married women. I have already shown why Paul would refer to husbands even though he is instructing all women regardless of marital status. Otherwise, what possible reason could there be for requiring the married women to keep silent while allowing the unmarried women to speak? The sad truth is, those who argue that Paul is only talking about wives would not be happy with Paul's instructions even if he were speaking only of wives. They are not content to have the wives be silent and let only unmarried women speak. They wish to allow all women to speak!
(Objection #6) "'The law' didn't prohibit speaking"
On page 88 of Confusion or Consensus? Vance Trefethen lays out a syllogism:
1. Women in the new covenant are to be in subjection or under obedience "as also saith the law." (1 Cor 14:34) 2. Attending and speaking in a congregational decision-making assembly did not violate women's subjection or obedience under the law. (Num 27:7) 3. Therefore, women in the new covenant may attend and speak (submissively) in a congregational decision-making assembly without violating their subjection or obedience.
Because, as has been set forth in this work, the activities of the particular assembly are not the criteria that determine when women may speak or must remain silent, we will simplify his syllogism, before showing its fallacy:
1. Women in the new covenant are to be in subjection "as also saith the law." (1 Cor 14:34) 2. Speaking in an assembly did not violate women's subjection under the law. (Num 27:7) 3. Therefore, women in the new covenant may speak in the assembly without violating their subjection.
Quite simply, principles that are common to the Old Covenant and the New may nonetheless have different applications. For example, faith is required of those under the Old Covenant as well as those under the New Covenant. But the applications are different. We would not fall for the following syllogism:
1. The righteous under the New Covenant are to live by faith as also saith the prophets (Rom. 1:17, Hab. 2:4). 2. Instrumental music in worship did not violate living by faith under the word revealed by the Old Testament prophets. 3. Therefore, God's people under the New Covenant may use instrumental music in worship without failing to live by faith.
Something is wrong, isn't it? Logically, the fallacy is that the conclusion does not follow from the major and minor premises. The confusion arises because of the "as also saith" which, in brother Trefethen's syllogism, is made to mean "in the same way as under." But Paul did not say, "let them be in subjection in the same way as under the law." Paul said something as also the law said it. What was that? "Let them be in subjection." The comparison is between two things saying "be in subjection," not between two methods of being in subjection.
Compare 1 Corinthians 10:6, where Paul wrote, "we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted." Now if the words as also in 1 Corinthians 14:34 require only that women be in subjection in exactly the same way as under the law, then should we suppose the words as also in 1 Corinthians 10:6 require only that we not lust in exactly the same way that Israel lusted? The incident referred to in 1 Corinthians 10:6 was originally related in Numbers 11:4ff. The people complained because they desired meat (flesh), having grown tired of the manna with which God sustained them. Surely we understand that Paul's as also in 1 Corinthians 10:6 does not limit the lusting that is prohibited to lusting for meat.
197 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Trefethen cites Genesis 3:16 as do most, and that suffices to establish that there was a common principle in the teaching of 1 Corinthians 14 and the Law regarding subjection. It is the principle, not the application, wherein Paul finds common ground with the Law. But Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, tells us what application to make: "Let the women keep silence."
PART 4 Quietness vs. Silence
Some interpretations of 1 Corinthians 14:34f are influenced by 1 Timothy 2:11-12, as if the latter passage defines the former. In the latter passage, Paul wrote, Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
In truth, the two passages teach different things. One is specific, forbidding the woman to speak. The other is general, describing the overall demeanour of the woman. One is limited to the woman's role in the assembly. The other has to do with the woman's role generally in her dealings with her brethren.
It may be asked whether a woman who is present, and silent, in a congregational meeting might appropriately offer her counsel to an individual or individuals subsequent to and apart from the assembly. 2 John 1:1 (which I am inclined to believe refers to a woman, not a church), Philippians 4:2, Acts 18:26, 1 Corinthians 16:19, (it's hard to see how a man who dwells with his godly wife according to knowledge would unilaterally decide to have the church meet in his house) and Romans 16:1-4 all illustrate the role, influence, and yes I would go so far as to say counsel, of women.
But 1 Timothy 2:9ff, not being limited to the assembly, applies here. Women who offer counsel apart from the assembly must nonetheless be mindful of the demeanour taught in 1 Timothy 2. Abigail, the wife of Nabal, well demonstrated the ability of a woman to not only stand for what is right, but also to counsel a man, without abandoning her womanly demeanour. Her plea to David, as she fell at his feet, was first, "On me alone, my lord, be the blame. And please let your maidservant speak to you and listen to the words of your maidservant" (1 Sam. 25:24). After acknowledging her husband's folly, she advised David concerning the impropriety of personal vengeance (1 Sam. 25:25-26). After acknowledging the future of David's house, and that David was "fighting the battle of the LORD," she exhorted him that "evil shall not be found in you all your days" (1 Sam. 25:28). Even this was offered more as a statement of fact than as an admonition. After speaking of David's future as ruler over Israel, she reminded David that he would not want to look back on an incident wherein he had shed blood without cause. Though her words were so gentle as to endear herself to him (he took her as his wife after Nabal's death), they stayed him from his intended, wrongful course of action.
In comparing 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Corinthians 14:34, even the words that are used vary from one another in meaning, one having to do with demeanour, and the other having to do with speaking. The word σιγ άω is a verb with a very specific meaning: "say nothing, keep silent" (Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich, 2nd ed.). However, ἡσυχ ία, the word translated "quietness," is a noun which is used generally of behavior and is not at all limited to speaking. The related adjective, ἡσύχιος, is also used in 1 Timothy 2. It occurs in verse 2, where Paul's words are translated, "that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity."
Its verb cognate, ἡσυχ άζω, also occurs in the New Testament, and in the ASV, is translated "held their peace" just as σιγ άω is elsewhere. However, the contrast in the meaning of the two words is pronounced. Consider Acts 11:18 where the brethren in Jerusalem have heard Peter's explanation and defense of his eating with the Gentiles. The text is clear in saying that the people were not "silent" even though ἡσύχασαν (3rd pers. pl., Aorist Act. Ind of ἡσυχ άζω) is translated "they held their peace." The text says,
"And when they heard these things, they held their peace , and glorified God, saying , Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life."
Clearly, ἡσυχ άζω does not mean "say nothing." Rather, the word indicates that the brethren ceased contending. Prior to Peter's explanation, these Jewish brethren had "contended with him" (Acts 11:3). After Peter's defense, the Jewish brethren expressed their acquiescence by speaking: "they held their peace... saying , then to the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life." The significance of ἡσυχ άζω is not merely that the Jewish brethren ceased
198 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge speaking (which in fact, they did not). Rather ἡσυχ άζω indicates the agreement that was achieved in contrast to the earlier discord.
The words σιγ άω and ἡσυχ ία mean different things. The contexts of 1 Corinthians 14:34ff and 1 Timothy 2:12f are about different things. The meaning of "learn in quietness" and "not permitted to speak" are two different things. To insist that 1 Corinthians 14:34 be interpreted so as to say nothing different than 1 Timothy 2:12 is arbitrary, and does violence to God's word.
PART 5 Conclusion
On more than one occasion, I have heard someone ask, "What good does it do for the women to be present in a meeting if they can't talk?" One might as well ask, what good does it do for a woman to be present in the Sunday morning assembly if she can't talk!
There is much that makes sense about all members being present as congregational decisions are made. Though a woman does not speak, if she is present for the discussion she has a better understanding of the reasons behind a decision, the sentiments that were considered, pitfalls that were avoided, than she could have if she merely gets an after the fact account of the final decision. All of this will provide her with a deeper appreciation for the wisdom of the final decision.
The "business" of the congregation should be that with which the Lord has given the church to be busy. And women are a part of the church, and were a part of the whole multitude of the disciples in Acts 6. If it is the church's business, is it not all the church's business?
But in the final analysis, whether it makes sense to us or not - both in the case of women being present, and in the case of women being silent, this is what the Bible says. And regardless of the times in which we live, and regardless of the artificial standards of orthodoxy, this is where we must take our stand.
APPENDIX
As noted in Part 3, The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (3rd ed.) cites many variant readings, but not all. Those mentioned are "for the most part...readings significant for translators or necessary for the establishing of the text." The variant reading, " your women" failed this test in the eyes of the committee responsible for the GNT (3rd ed.). Bruce Metzger, one of the members of the committee, wrote A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament in which he explained many of the decisions of the committee regarding variant readings. On the variant "your women" in 1 Corinthians 14:34, he wrote:
The Textus Receptus, following D F G K L many minuscules it d,g syr p,h with obelus al , reads ὑµῶν after γυνα ῖκες. The Committee regarded this as probably a scribal addition, and preferred the shorter text, which is strongly supported by p 46 vid ) A B C P Y 33 43 88 104 256 263 296 436 467 623 915 1319 1739 1837 2127 vg cop sa,bo,fay arm eth al . (p. 565f)
The various manuscripts cited by Metzger include not only Greek mss, but also Old Latin, Syriac (Peshitta and Harclean), Latin Vulgate, Coptic (Sahidic, Bahairic, and Fayyumic) Armenian, and Ethiopic.
Here we will note in particular only the Greek manuscripts individually cited by Metzger. The name, date, and reading of each of these manuscripts are shown below:
199 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
manuscript date reading comments
PAPYRI
P46 c. AD 200 women state of preservation makes reading less than certain
UNCIALS
Sinaiticus 4th cent. women=א
B=Vaticanus 4th cent. women
A=Alexandrinus 5th cent. women
C=Ephraemi 5th cent. women(?) Metzger cites Codex Ephraemi in support of "women". However, Kurt & Barbara Aland indicate that Codex Ephraemi is missing chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians
While Codex Claromontanus does have the reading, "your women", the text of verses 34-35 is removed D=Claromontanus 6th cent. your women from its customary position and is found instead at the end of the chapter, following verse 40.
the text of verses 34-35 is removed from its customary F=Augiensis 9th cent. your women position and is found instead following verse 40.
the text of verses 34-35 is removed from its customary G=Boernerianus 9th cent. your women position and is found instead following verse 40.
K=Mosquensis 9/10th cent. your women
L=Angelicus 9th cent. your women
Metzger cites Codex Porphyrianus in support of "women". However, Kurt & Barbara Aland indicate that P=Porphyrianus 9th cent. women(?) Codex Porphyrianus is missing chapters 12-16 of 1 Corinthians.
Ψ=Athous Laurae 8/9th cent. women
Before noticing the minuscules cited by Metzger. It should be remembered that "your women" is supported by "many minuscules" which are not individually cited by Metzger. Here, I suspect we will encounter the debate concerning text type. Inasmuch as those who defend the Byzantine text type usually denounce the more modern text as being a part of the theologically liberal package, it would seem ironic to have someone argue for women speaking in the assembly based on the reading of the Byzantine text. Because the minuscules are all of late date, their importance depends upon other considerations. Kurt and Barbara Aland (The Text of the New Testament ) identify five categories of manuscripts grouped by importance. The first three are described as follows:
Category I: Manuscripts of a very special quality which should always be considered in establishing the original text (e.g., the Alexandrian text belongs here).
Category II: Manuscripts of a special quality, but distinguished from manuscripts of category I by the presence of alien influences (particularly of the Byzantine text), and yet of importance for establishing the original text (e.g., the Egyptian text belongs here).
Category III: Manuscripts of a distinctive character with an independent text, usually important for establishing the original text, but particularly important for the history of the text (e.g., f1, f13 ). (The Text of the New Testament by Kurt and Barbara Aland, p. 105f)
200 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
If we use these categories to evaluate the significance of the minuscules which Metzger cites as supporting the shorter reading ( women , rather than your women ) we see that 13 of these 15 minuscules are rated as belonging to category III or higher in the Pauline epistles. (I have no information about minuscules 43 and 1837.)
category rating given by Aland & manuscript date reading Aland
MINUSCULES
33 9th cent. women category I
43 12th cent. women not described by Aland & Aland
88 12th cent. women category III
104 1087 women category III
256 11th cent. women category III
263 13th cent. women category III
296 16th cent. women category III
436 11th cent. women category III
467 15th cent. women category III
623 1037 women category III
915 13th cent. women category III
1319 12th cent. women category III
1739 10th cent. women category I
1837 11th cent. women not described by Aland & Aland
2127 12th cent. women category II
When all has been said, the reading "your women" is supported by no Greek manuscript of earlier origin than the sixth century, and by only one Greek manuscript originating prior to the ninth century. The 6th century manuscript which supports the reading, "your women," as well as two of the ninth century witnesses, have the verses containing these words in the wrong place. From the ninth century forward, the evidence is mixed.
201 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
202 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge The Searcher
THE NORTHERN KENTUCKY SEARCHER "Search the scriptures: for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” " (John 5:39)
VOLUME 6, NUMBER 9, MARCH 5, 2006
IS GIVING AN ACT OF WORSHIP?
What is worship? Is it possible to give one all-encompassing definition in just a few short sentences? Not if you are serious about understanding what it is. We can go to Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary and find several definitions listed there, such as, “1. Reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred. 2. Formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: 3. Adoring reverence or regard:…6. To render religious reverence and homage to. 7. To feel an adoring reverence or regard for…” This is just a sampling, there were actually ten definitions given, as well as the synonyms “honor, homage, adoration, idolatry, venerate, revere, adore, glorify, idolize, adulate.”
When we turn our attention to God’s word, we find that in the New Testament there are at least six different Greek words that are translated as “worship,” when used as a verb. They all have different nuances in meaning. The most frequent word rendered worship is “proskuneo,” which means “to make obeisance, do reverence to.” It is used of an act of homage or reverence. The other words are “sebomai,” meaning to revere; “sebazomai” meaning to honor religiously; “latreuo” meaning to serve, to render religious service or homage; “eusebeo” meaning to act piously towards; and “therapeuo” meaning to serve, do service to.
In the Old Testament the principle word for worship is “shahah” appearing at least 95 times. It contains both the ideas of the physical acts of worship as well as the volitional and emotional idea as well. The context determines more or less clearly which idea is intended.
Examination of the Old Testament concept of worship shows that it is the “reverential attitude of mind or body or both, combined with the more generic notions of religious adoration, obedience, service.” Examination of the New Testament idea of worship shows that it is “a combination of the reverential attitude of mind and body, the general ceremonial and religious service of God, the feeling of awe, veneration, adoration.” It is a massive subject the study of which had better not be taken lightly.
The worship of God is enjoined upon all men. The book of Psalms is filled with general calls to worship. Jesus, in John 4:23-24, said, “But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” In Revelation 19:10, we read, “And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of they brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
There is a question that has been bandied about recently concerning the giving of our means upon the first day of the week, about the contribution. It has been questioned whether or not this is an act of worship. Is it an act of reverence or homage? Is it an act of service, an act of piety? All of this must be taken into consideration as one seeks to answer that question, for all of it is involved in both the New and Old Testament teaching concerning worship.
Romans 15:4 tells us, “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” We can, and must, learn a great deal from the Old Testament, including some wonderful principles about worship. Surely what happened with Cain in Genesis 4 and with Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10 teach us the seriousness of worshipping God in the way that He has set forth. These passages, as well as others, show us that when God gives a pattern for worship, it behooves man to abide by it.
203 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Let’s consider Deuteronomy 12. In this chapter worship laws were set forth as Moses restated that which God had given to him. The chapter starts in verses 1-4 by stating that when they entered the land of Canaan, all pagan sanctuaries and other paraphernalia were to be destroyed. Next come verses 5-14, which state, “But unto the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come: and thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your free will offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks: and there ye shall eat before the Lord your God, and ye shall rejoice in all that ye put your hand unto, ye and your households, wherein the Lord thy God hath blessed thee. Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes. For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God giveth you. But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there: thither shall ye bring all that I command you: your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the Lord. And ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God, ye, and your sons, and your daughters, and your menservants, and your maidservants, and the Levite that is within your gates; forasmuch as he hath no part nor inheritance with you. Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offering in every place that thou seest: but in the place which the Lord shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee.”
Thus, legitimate worship could only take place at that spot that the Lord would designate. The phrase “the place which the Lord shall choose” appears six times in Deut. 12, not to mention eleven other times in the book. At that place, at that sanctuary (if I may use that term) all tithes, gifts, and sacrificed were to be presented in worship.
Verses 15-28 make the point that slaughtering and the eating of meat for ordinary meals could take place anywhere. However, religious meals were restricted to that central place which the Lord would choose.
Verse 29-32 warn the Israelites that they must not emulate the detestable idolatrous worship practices of the Canaanite.
From this passage there can be no argument that the giving of money, as well as other goods, was viewed by God, indeed commanded by God, as worship.
Let’s not stop here though, let’s go to Numbers 18 and consider verses 24-29. The passage says, “But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the Lord, I have given to the Levites to inherit: therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe. And this your heave offering shall be reckoned unto you, as though it were the corn of the threshingfloor, and as the fullness of the winepress. Thus ye also shall offer an heave offering unto the Lord of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and ye shall give thereof the Lord’s heave offering to Aaron the priest. Out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave offering of the Lord, of all the best thereof, even the hallowed part thereof out of it.”
Thus the tithes of the Israelites were referred to as a “heave offering” and the 1/10 of the tithes that the Levites had received they also had to offer to God as a “heave offering.” Brethren, the “heave offerings” were part of the peace offerings, offered in worship to God. The peace offerings indicated right relations with God, and expressed fellowship with Him, gratitude and a sense of obligation. The heave offerings were that which was lifted up, dedicated in service to Jehovah, consecrated to Him. Once again, without possible argument, the giving of the tithes, including money as well as other things, was considering an offering, a sacrifice to God. It was an act of worship which was to be done in the legitimate place for worship.
This principle of giving as an act of worship (and yes, there are acts of worship – indeed, worship can be partially defined as an act of reverence or homage) is also found in the New Testament and reemphasized as such.
204 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
Most bible students are familiar with 1 Corinthians 16:1-2. However, I am afraid that many have not gone deeply enough in their study of this passage to understand or know all of its ramifications. The passage says, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”
We first consider the word “collection.” That word is “logeia” and was thought to have been derived from “lego” and to be a word distinctive to the New Testament. This is a point made in Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon. However, additional work by archaeologists, particularly Adolf Deissmann, has produced papyri that tell a different story. We now know that the word “logeia” was derived from the word “logeuo” (I collect) and was commonly used in Paul’s day. Deissmann wrote, “We find it used chiefly of religious collections for a god, a temple, etc., just as St. Paul uses it of his collection of money for the ‘saints’ at Jerusalem.” (Adolf Deissmann, Light From the Ancient East ).
What is the big deal? The importance of this discovery is to prove that Paul used the word just as his contemporaries used it. The normal usage of the word was that of a collection in the “formal” sense. He wasn’t telling the Corinthians to put a little money away every week in a jar at home. Rather, just as faithful Christian scholars had asserted all along, he was instructing them to take a formal collection on the first day of every week.
Some have argued that this passage only authorizes taking a collection to relieve the needs of the poor saints among the brethren and not for general purposes. “This passage has never been used to show all of the scriptural usages of the first-day-of-the-week collection. Instead, it has been used, and properly so, as the only passage in the Bible to tell how churches raised their funds in the New Testament. Other passages imply a common treasury (2 Cor. 11:8; Philippians 4:14 -16; 1 Tim. 5:9; etc.). We can know how the money in those treasuries was raised only from this passage. We must consult other New Testament passages to understand all of the things for which the collection can be scripturally spent.”
One would wonder why giving as worship, so clearly set forth in the Old Testament (and we will see it set forth equally clearly in the New) is now being questioned. Where in the New Testament is singing designated as worship? Where is partaking of the Lord’s Supper said to be worship? We all recognize and understand that these things are indeed acts of worship and we understand and recognize that from passages such as 1 Corinthians 11, 12, 13, 14 that these things are done when the whole church comes together into one place, or in the assembly. We also recognize that the only authorized time to partake of the Lord’s Supper and to take that formal collection (remember now, a formal collection has been proven to be the way the word was used in Paul’s time) is on the first day of the week. Men may do those two things on other days, but not by faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
Brother Robert Turner, in his wonderful little magazine, Plain Talk , answered a question about giving and the collection that is pertinent to this article. It appeared in the February, 1967 edition of his paper. I know that Brother Turner hit the nail right on the head. Here is the question and his answer.
“Brother Turner: Years ago I heard of a brother who said collection should be taken only for some specific purpose. Recently I have heard this repeated, and the whole idea of church treasury questioned. Please comment on this.
Reply:
This is an age-old hobby-horse, repeatedly raised. Lipscomb had to deal with it in his day.
It is true that we give for specific purposes—i.e., the treasury is not the end or purpose for giving. As saints of God, we have obligations to meet, work to do. Some of this work is done distributively, as individuals (Gal. 6:6) and some is done collectively (Phil. 4:15). To act collectively there must be a pooling of our means and/or abilities; and money is the medium of exchange by which this is usually done…The treasury (pooled fund) is just a means to the end we may act collectively in whatever work is proposed….
205 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
If I didn’t believe God had a full time work which He wants His saints to do collectively, I certainly would not consider a continuous ‘collection’ or treasury necessary. 1 Cor. 16:1-2 stipulates purpose for the ‘laying by’ on the first day of every week. They had a treasury to help the needy saints. The ‘collection’ of vs. 1, and the ‘gathering’ (KJ) of vs.2, are from ‘logeuo” and refer to a ‘religious collection’ as for a god or temple. This was what some today sneeringly refer to as a ‘church’ collection; but it had a specific purpose as we have seen. Phil. 4:15 and other passages show there were other purposes for the pooling of funds; such as supporting preachers.
Saints who work and worship together scripturally have divine purposes, either specifically or generically, for all they do. It is to the end that these divine purposes may be carried out –collectively— that the treasury exists, is used, and must be replenished…
To question the whole idea of a ‘church treasury’ is to question the God given privilege and obligation of saints to function collectively. It is a shameful end to which some of my brethren have come. Fighting abuses of the ‘church treasury’ –and there are such—they are casting God’s plan aside. Echo, THEY SHALL NOT PASS!”
I can but add a hearty and heartfelt AMEN!
We have seen Phil. 4:15 mentioned repeatedly in this discussion. Let’s read it through vs. 18. “Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia , no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity. Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account. But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God.”
This was an act of giving done collectively by the brethren in Philippi, made possible through the continuous collection. (Consider 2 Corinthians 11:8-9). Their contribution was considered by the Holy Spirit to be a sacrificial offering to God, a sacrifice acceptable to God. This is language borrowed from the Old Testament, such as Noah offering burnt offerings upon the altar and “ the Lord smelled a sweet savour” (Gen. 8:20-21). This was worship.
Make no mistake. An in-depth study of the matter demonstrates that God views giving of our means as worship! He always has, He always will.
Greg Litmer (www.nkcofc.com/BulletinArticles/Volume6Number9.htm).
206 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
207 PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS by David Ethan Cambridge
END
208