Author: David Petts

Talk 19. The certainty of our resurrection and final victory over death – 1 Corinthians 15

Last time: The certainty of Christ’s resurrection

vv      1-4      Resurrection is an essential part of the Gospel

vv      5-8      The evidence of Christ’s resurrection – he appeared

vv      9-11    Digression – Paul’s unworthiness to be an apostle

vv    12-19    The logical outcome of denying the resurrection

vv    29-34    Further illogicalities in denying the resurrection

Today: The certainty of our resurrection and of final victory over death.

vv    20-28    Christ’s resurrection and final victory guarantees ours

vv    35-50    How are the dead raised?                                            

vv    51-58    The certainty of final victory over death

a) Christ’s resurrection and final victory guarantees ours (20-28)

V 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

But the fact is that Christ did rise from the dead!

This obviously disproves the theory that there’s no such thing as resurrection. In fact it guarantees resurrection for all who are in Christ. 

The firstfruits referred to is an allusion to Leviticus 23. 

The full harvest was foreshadowed by the first sheaf brought as an offering on the day following the Sabbath after the Passover – the day Christ rose from the dead!  Christ is the firstfruits.  We are yet to be gathered.

Vv 21-22 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

This is reminiscent of Romans 5.  Paul sees Christ’s victory as the divine remedy for Adam’s defeat. 

(The two alls in v22 are not coextensive – all  men die because of Adam’s sin, but only all in Christ will be made alive in Christ).

V 23  But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

This clearly indicates that the resurrection for which Paul is arguing is to take place at Christ’s coming.

24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

27 For he ‘has put everything under his feet’. Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Whatever the time-scale, the overall teaching seems to be as follows:

All things have been put under Christ’s feet (v27) (cf. Ephesians 1:19-22)

and yet we see not yet all things put under him (cf. Hebrews 2:8). 

But it will be and all enemies will be conquered. 

Christ must continue to reign (basileuein) until finally, when he has accomplished his victorious purpose, he will deliver up the Kingdom to the Father, to whom the Son will be subject, that God might be all in all (vv 24 and 28).

b) How are the dead raised? (35-50)

But, of course, one of the great problems with believing in physical resurrection is imagining how the dead can possibly be raised.  Paul now deals with this problem.

35 But someone will ask, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?’

36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.

38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.

39 Not all flesh is the same: people have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendour of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendour of the earthly bodies is another.

41 The sun has one kind of splendour, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendour.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;

43 it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;

44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

45 So it is written: ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven.

49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

The argument may be summarised as follows: 

1. Resurrection is not inconceivable if we do not leave God out of the picture – the reference to foolish in verse 36 follows the OT understanding of a fool as one who does not take God into account.

2. Resurrection is not inconceivable because God has given us an abiding example of his power to raise the dead in the world of nature around us (vv 36-38).

3. Resurrection is not inconceivable because the resurrection body will be

God has also shown us a great variety of examples of the different types of ‘body’ he has made, both earthly and heavenly (vv 39-41)

Vv 42-44 show the great contrast between the natural body and the spiritual body we receive at resurrection. 

Further, the natural body we inherit from Adam is as different from the spiritual body which will be our inheritance in Christ as Christ is different from Adam himself. 

Adam is of the earth, earthly.  Christ is the Lord from heaven (vv 45-50).

This may be seen from the chart below.

Body sown                                       Body raised

perishable                                            imperishable

in dishonour                                       in glory

in weakness                                        in power

natural                                                 spiritual

of Adam                                               of Christ

earthly                                                 heavenly

c) The certainty of final victory over death (51-58)

The closing verses of the chapter form one of the most powerful passages to be found in the Bible.  When the trumpet sounds at Christ’s coming, Christians still alive will be changed in a split second.  Their corruptible, mortal bodies will become incorruptible and immortal.  The dead, too, will be raised with incorruptible bodies.  So will be manifested the final victory over death.

50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed 52 – in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’

v 50   flesh and blood…

Paul’s point is that the living cannot inherit the Kingdom of God as they are.

It is not death that is essential but transformation.

“The perishable body, either dead or alive, cannot inherit the imperishable life of the future” (Fee).

v 51   we will all be changed

Paul clearly expected to be among the living at the Parousia

The important point is that all must be transformed to bear the likeness of the Man of Heaven.

v 52   the trumpet will sound

The order of events here is the same as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord for ever.

v 53   the perishable must clothe itself…..

Cf. he must reign (v25). Our immortality is as certain as his reign!

“The long chain of decay and death inaugurated by the first Adam will finally be irrevocably broken by the last Adam” (Fee p 803).

v 54   Death has been swallowed up in victory

Cf. Isaiah 25:8 God will swallow up death forever

vv55-58

55 ‘Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?’

56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labour in the Lord is not in vain.

The connection between sin, death and the law forms a major aspect of Paul’s teaching in his letter to the Romans. 

Summarised briefly here, the law is seen as strengthening sin, and sin is the cause of death. 

It follows, therefore, that victory over death implies victory over all its causes – including sickness. 

Final victory is ours, over law and sin and death – through Jesus Christ our Lord. 

Our labour is not in vain.  Christ is risen.  Because he lives we shall live also.  The knowledge of these certainties should inspire us to practical Christian discipleship.

Talk 18. The Certainty of the Resurrection of Christ

Paul now turns from the subject of public worship to the vitally important matter of the resurrection of the dead. 

Some had been questioning and even denying the great truths of bodily resurrection (v 12). 

1 Corinthians 15 is a masterpiece of literary logic in defence of this fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.

The chapter may be summarised as follows

vv      1-4      Resurrection is an essential part of the Gospel

vv      5-8      The evidence of Christ’s resurrection – he appeared

vv      9-11    Digression – Paul’s unworthiness to be an apostle

vv    12-19    The logical outcome of denying the resurrection

vv    20-28    Christ’s resurrection and final victory guarantees ours

vv    29-34    Further illogicalities in denying the resurrection

vv    35-50    How are the dead raised?                                                   

vv    51-58    The certainty of final victory over death

We will deal with the chapter under 2 headings:

The certainty of Christ’s resurrection

The certainty of our resurrection and of final victory over death.

The certainty of Christ’s resurrection

1. a) Resurrection is an essential part of the Gospel (1-4)

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.

By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

Paul’s defence of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body centres around the historicity of Christ’s resurrection. 

So he begins by reminding the Corinthians that to believe the Gospel at all means believing in resurrection. 

The Gospel which he preached and which they had accepted was the Gospel by which they had been and still were being saved (unless they had believed in vain).  And what was that Gospel?  Christ died for our sins …. he was raised …. according to the Scriptures. 

And so Paul paves the way for a point he is to make later (vv 14-29) that to deny the resurrection is to render the Gospel meaningless.

1. b) The evidence of Christ’s resurrection – he appeared (5-8)

…and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.

After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Since Christ’s resurrection is crucial to Paul’s argument he proceeds to elaborate the evidence for its historicity.  Note the four-fold he appeared in these verses (5, 6, 7, 8).  (Note that the verb here also means ‘he was seen’). He appeared to (and was therefore seen by):

• Peter (v5) (cf Luke 24:34)
• the Twelve (v5) (a title rather than a number)
• 500 brothers (v6) (cf. Matthew 28:7,10, 16)
• James (v7) (referred to only here in NT) – James the Lord’s brother who ‘did not believe in him’ during his earthly ministry
• all the apostles (v7) (including Thomas? or does this refer to a wider company than the 12?)
• me also (v8) (note the importance of personal experience)

Vv 9-11 Digression – Paul’s unworthiness to be an apostle

For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve 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 to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them – yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

It was appropriate for Paul to digress for a moment to consider his own unworthiness to be called an apostle and the greatness of the grace of God in making him what he was.  But whether it was he, or the other apostles, the message preached was the message of resurrection, and that was what the Corinthians had believed in (v11).

1. c) The logical outcome of denying the resurrection (12-19)

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.

But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.

For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.

If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

The logic of these verses is extremely compelling.  The apostolic preaching in which the Corinthians had believed was that Christ rose from the dead. 

It was, therefore, quite illogical to say that there was no such thing as resurrection (v12)! 

If there is no such thing as resurrection then Christ can’t have risen (v13), and if Christ didn’t rise then Paul’s preaching and their believing were both completely pointless (v14). 

In fact, if Christ didn’t rise, the apostles must be liars (vv 15-16)

and the Corinthians’ faith was futile and their sins unforgiven (v17). 

And those who had already died had perished (i.e. died with their sins unforgiven) (v18). 

In fact, if there’s no resurrection, Christians are to be pitied more than all other men (v19) (not because the Christian life is miserable but because, if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, we’re completely deluded!)

vv    20-28    Christ’s resurrection and final victory guarantees ours

We will deal with this next time. We move on now to vv29-34 which continue the theme of the logical outcome of denying the resurrection.

1. d) The logical outcome of denying the resurrection (29-34)

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptised for the dead?

If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptised for them?

Paul is not condoning baptism for the dead. He is using it  as an illustration of their inconsistency. If the dead don’t rise, what’s the point of doing anything on their behalf, baptism or anything else?

He probably forbade it on his next visit to Corinth (cf. 11:34), for the practice did not survive in the church.

And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?

I face death every day – yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained?

If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’

And what’s the point of all the persecution Paul has just suffered if there’s no resurrection? 

Paul was having a hard time at Ephesus. The reference to fighting with wild beasts (v 32) is probably metaphorical as Roman citizens were not put in the arena, but he was facing the reality of death every day (v 31), there were many adversaries (16:9) and he had despaired of life itself (2 Corinthians 1:8-11).

He might just as well live for the moment (vv 30-32). 

And this is just how the Corinthians would start behaving.  Their actions would be influenced by the false doctrines of those who denied the resurrection  (vv 33-34).

Do not be misled: ‘Bad company corrupts good character.’

Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God – I say this to your shame.

Summary

People were saying that there’s no such thing as resurrection.

But resurrection is an essential part of the Gospel. Without it the Gospel is meaningless.

There is abundant evidence for the fact of Christ’s resurrection – he was seen!

So it’s quite illogical to say that there was no such thing as resurrection.

If there is no resurrection:

Our Christian faith is completely pointless

The apostles were liars

There is no hope of salvation

We’re completely deluded

We might as well eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die!

BUT NOW IS CHRIST RISEN FROM THE DEAD AND BECOME THE FIRSTFRUITS OF THOSE WHO HAVE FALLEN ASLEEP.

But that’s for next time.1 

Talk 17 1 Corinthians chapters 12 to 14

Welcome to talk 17 in our series on 1 Corinthians. Today’s talk will be rather different from usual as I have decided to cover chapters 12-14 in one single talk. This is because I recently recorded five Podcasts on these chapters under the general heading of The most excellent way. These talks are each somewhat longer than those in our current series, but I encourage you to listen to them in addition to today’s talk which will be a brief summary of the content to be found in the five talks in the earlier series. If you visit my website www.davidpetts.org you will find them by clicking on MENU and then on Podcasts. Look for August 2020 and you will find them under numbers 094-098.

1 Corinthians 11 to 14 are the only chapters in the New Testament that deal specifically with the subject of public worship.

Of course the Corinthian culture was very different from ours today. But what principles can we learn that will guide us in our worship today? We’ll begin by outlining Paul’s purpose in these chapters:

To correct disorder in public worship especially at the Lord’s supper

To teach the right use of spiritual gifts

To demonstrate our dependence on each other as members of the body of Christ

To show the overriding importance of love

To give clear instructions on the public use of gifts such as tongues, interpretation and prophecy

To offer guidelines as to how a believers’ meeting should be conducted.

We’ve already dealt with Chapter 11 in our last two talks.

In my series titled The Most Excellent  Way I divide chapters 12-14 into the following sections:

Expect the supernatural 12:1-11

We are all needed 12:12-31

It’s all meaningless if we don’t love one another 13:1-13

Put other people first 14:1-25

Take responsibility for your actions 14:26-40

Talk 094. Expect the supernatural 12:1-11

The major theme of the chapter as a whole is that of:

unity       4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 20, 24–25

and interdependence      21,25,26

in the midst of diversity.    4, 5,6,8-11,12,14,20, 24-25.

This theme is clear in the first 11 verses where Paul talks about the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit. There are various gifts but they are given by the one Spirit. Paul does not want the Corinthians, or us for that matter, to be ignorant about this important subject. It’s vital that we understand how to distinguish between genuine manifestations and those which are false. I go into some detail on this in talk 094.

Talk 095.  We are all needed 12:12-31

In this section Paul compares the church to the human body and shows clearly that every member is needed. The very purpose of our being baptised in the Holy Spirit is for the benefit of the body (13). Please listen to talk 095 for an explanation of why I believe verse 13 should be interpreted in this way.

The basic teaching of the passage is that we are all different but we all need each other and are united by the fact that we are all part of the same body. We are not independent of each other but rather we are interdependent on each other. It is God who has arranged the members of the body just as it has pleased him. We mustn’t think of anyone as useless and we mustn’t think of ourselves as useless. Whether you believe it or not, like it or not, you belong to the body! To say ‘I don’t need you’ is to imply that your gift or ministry is the only thing that matters. Our attitude should be that of the three Musketeers  – all for one and one for all.

In talk 095 I also deal with the question of what Paul means by the greater gifts in verse 31 and the implication of his question in verse 30, Do all speak with tongues?

Talk 096. It’s all meaningless if we don’t love one another 13:1-13

This is one of the greatest chapters in the Bible. However it is frequently taken out of context, the surrounding chapters being often ignored.

In talk 096 I covered the following main points:

What does Paul mean by tongues of angels in verse one?

I give reasons for believing that when we speak in tongues we are not speaking a heavenly language as is commonly believed.

I also answer the question, Can the devil understand tongues?

Another main feature I deal with is the question, What does Paul mean when he says that tongues will be stilled? I dismiss the cessationist view that gifts like tongues ceased with the apostolic age.

But of course the overriding emphasis of this wonderful chapter is the supremacy of love and my talk concludes with a devotional consideration of what this means for us personally.

Talk 097. Put other people first 14:1-25

1 Corinthians 11 to 14 are the only chapters in the New Testament that give an insight into the worship of the early church

Chapter 12 teaches us to expect the supernatural and that we are all needed

Chapter 13 makes clear that whatever we do and whatever gifts we may have it’s all a waste of time if we don’t love one another

That brings us to chapter 14 which may be divided into the following sections:

1-5 prophecy is preferable to tongues

6-11 tongues alone are of little value

12-19 edification is the underlying principle

20-25 the case of unbelievers coming in

26-40 the ordering of spiritual gifts

The main emphasis of verses 1 to 25 is that we should put other people first. That is a natural continuation of the theme of love. If we love one another we will put others before ourselves.

In verses 1-5 Paul shows clearly that in church prophecy is preferable to speaking in tongues because tongues without interpretation does not edify other people. In talk 097 I also deal with what Paul means when he says that the person who speaks in tongues does not speak to men but to God. This is obviously very relevant when we come to the nature of the gift of interpretation of tongues.

Verses 6-11 are fairly straightforward. Speaking in tongues (without interpretation) is of little value in the assembled church because nobody understands what is being said.

Verses 12-19 teach that edification is the underlying principle. Tongues is of great value for private personal edification but in church it is of little value unless it is interpreted.

Verses 20-25 deal with the case of unbelievers coming in. The basic teaching is clear but the details of the argument are difficult in that the verses appear to contain a twofold contradiction. I deal with this suggesting a possible interpretation which does not require us to see a contradiction in scripture.

Despite the difficulties in the passage, what is clear is that all our conduct in our meetings should be determined by what is good for others, not what feels good to us.

Talk 098. Take responsibility for your actions 14:26-40

In verses 26-40 Paul gives specific instructions regarding the exercise of the gifts of tongues, interpretation and prophecy. However the overriding principle in his teaching is that we must take responsibility for our actions.

Verse 26 is particularly important because it is the only verse in the New Testament which answers the question what shall we do when we come together in church. Seen in this way it may be taken as the pattern for a New Testament believers’ meeting. Themes contained within the verse are participation, variety, and edification.

In verses 36-40 Paul summarises his teaching on public worship:

Whatever your spiritual gift may be,  you must submit to the authority of the apostle’s commands  (v 37).

This has obvious implications with regard to the authority of scripture.

It also implies the authority of ministry gift over spiritual gift

Whatever happens everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way(40).

Please listen to talk 098 to see how I interpret Paul’s specific teaching with regard to the verses I haven’t mentioned specifically today.

Talk 16:  The Lord’s Supper – 1 Corinthians 11: 17-34

1 Corinthians was written before the Gospels and so this is the first written account of the events that instituted the Lord’s Supper.

One of our greatest problems is that we are very familiar with at least part of this passage and our understanding has been conditioned by its liturgical setting.

In seeking to understand it we must remember that what Paul writes here is in the context of the abuse of the Lord’s Supper in which the Lord’s people, and therefore the Lord himself, were being dishonoured.

The following facts will also help us:

1. Cultic meals were an almost universal phenomenon as part of worship in those days.
2. In the early church the Lord’s Supper was probably eaten as, or in conjunction with, such a meal.
3. The church gathered for such meals in the homes of the rich, the host acting as patron (cf. Romans 16:23).
4. The dining room (triclinium) in such homes would not accommodate many guests. The majority would therefore eat in the large entry courtyard (atrium).
5. The host would probably invite those of his own social class to eat in the triclinium.

With this in mind we may now approach the text.

a) The Problem – Abuse of the Poor (1 Corinthians 11: 17-22)

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.

Compare v2 I praise you.  Having commended them where he can Paul proceeds to reproach them for their misbehaviour.

18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

In the first place

We might have expected a secondly later in the passage, but there is none.  The expression should therefore be taken as indicating the importance of the subject he is dealing with.

as a church

In non-Biblical Greek ekklesia refers to the citizens of a town assembled. Here it refers to the assembled church. The Corinthians’ problem was not that they failed to gather, but that when they gathered they failed to be what God intended them to be. Their divisions (cf. chapters 1-4) are here seen to be directly related to their gatherings. Cf. my comments on 3:16.

to some extent I believe it

Paul did not automatically believe everything he heard, but on this occasion he had reason to believe there was some truth in the bad report he had received.

19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.

This either means that of logical necessity there has to be error so that truth may be shown to be truth, or, more probably, that their present divisions are a part of the divine testing process which are an inevitable part of the Eschaton. Paul would have expected divisions to accompany the End. Cf. the teaching of Jesus (Matthew 10:34-37, 24:9-13 etc).

20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat,

The early church gathered for a common meal which was far more than the modern communion service.  It was a love-feast (agape) (see Jude 12, 2 Peter 2:13). The word Lord’s here is emphatic.  Barrett suggests in honour of the Lord as a translation.  It is not the Lord’s supper that you are eating, but your own. They were thinking of themselves, not the Lord.

21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.

This verse either means that the rich ate their sumptuous meals before the others arrived, or that they were eating them at the Lord’s Supper itself. This reveals the total lack of courtesy and consideration that was being shown.  It is hard to imagine such selfish behaviour at a time when they were intended to remember Christ’s selfless love shown at Calvary.

22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not

homes …the church

Note the contrast between eating at home and eating the Lord’s Supper with the assembled church.  The Supper is thus more than Christians having a meal together (as some have suggested). Its purpose was to remember Christ’s death, not to satisfy hunger.

despise…humiliate

The haves despise the church of God by humiliating the have-nots. The verb humiliate is the same as is in vv. 4-5.

b) The Problem – Abuse of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11: 23-26)

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,

Paul uses the pronoun ego here. Since Greek pronouns are usually contained in the verb the use of a pronoun in addition normally implies emphasis. I, Paul, have received. 

It may be that Paul is thus claiming to have received a direct revelation from the Lord concerning this (cf. Gal. 1:12), and not just to have learned it from the other apostles. However, the context in Galatians is different and Fee (548) concludes that Paul does not mean that Jesus gave him these words personally and directly.

24 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.”

when he had given thanks

Jesus actually gave thanks knowing that his body was to be broken!

This is my body

This saying does not substantiate the doctrine of transubstantiation.  Jesus did not say ‘This will become my body’, and the bread was not his body on the first occasion.  Jesus was physically distinct from the bread he broke.  Further, the verb to be does not always imply identity (cf. 10:4).

do this

Do is a present imperative, a continuous command, keep on doing this.

25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

The communion service is the memorial and expression of a new covenant sealed with the blood of Jesus (cf. Exodus 24:8, Jer. 31:31).

26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes

In the NT the verb kataggello is never used to express proclaiming to God, but always to man.  There is thus no basis for the sacrifice of the mass here.  The verb may be taken as an imperative or an indicative and so may be taken as a statement or a command.  The act itself may be seen as a proclamation, or the events of Christ’s passion may have been recalled by word of mouth.

c) The Answer – Discern the Body (1 Corinthians 11: 27-32)

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

The AV unworthily is an unfortunate translation. It draws attention to the person doing the eating rather than to the manner in which the eating is taking place. The passage is not an exhortation to deep personal introspection. It challenges us to make sure that we are eating with our fellow-Christians in mind. Furthermore, it certainly does not refer to non-Christians taking communion.

guilty

This word implies liability. To be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord means to be liable for his death.

‘To “profane” the meal as they are doing is to place themselves under the same liability as those responsible for that death in the first place’ (Fee, p. 561).

28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.

This is not a call for deep personal introspection as to whether one is worthy. It stands in contrast to the divine examination to which unworthy participation will lead (vv29-30).

29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

The communion bread or the church?  Probably the church (cf. 17-22, 10:16-17). But perhaps there is a double entendre here.

30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

Note that Paul is not saying that all sickness among Christians is related to an abuse of the Lord’s Supper. Fee suggests that Paul had prophetic insight that this was the cause of the Corinthians’ sicknesses at that time.

31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.

32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

God’s judgement rested upon them because they would not judge themselves (v 31). However, the remaining verses make it clear that such judgement is remedial.

Verses 33-34 summarise the whole discussion.

33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other.

34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.

For further comments on the Lord’s Supper see the relevant chapter in You’d Better Believe It! where I point out that the Lord’s Supper is a time of:

fellowship

self-examination

remembering

proclamation.

Talk 15:  Women and Men in Worship (11:2-16)

Paul leaves the matter of meat offered to idols and turns his attention to the subject of public worship. This important theme occupies the next four chapters which deal with head-coverings, the Lord’s Supper and the right use of spiritual gifts in all of which the over-riding consideration must be love.  He opens his discussion with the matter of head-coverings.

This passage is full of notorious difficulties. These are largely due to our lack of knowledge about:

• the meaning of certain crucial terms
• prevailing customs in culture and in the churches

For example, to what is Paul referring when he says that a woman should not pray or prophesy with her head uncovered? Does he mean without a covering, or without long hair, or with her hair loose? All three have been suggested, although the first seems most likely.

Fee suggests that some women were praying/prophesying without the customary head-covering or hairstyle which probably involved some kind of breakdown in the distinction between the sexes.

1. a) An Argument from Culture and Shame (2-6)

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.

Paul is about to rebuke them for disorders in their worship, so he begins by praising them where he can.  They were holding to his teachings, but there were still some areas that needed putting right.

3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

This verse, along with verses 7-9, states certain basic theological principles. 

Paul uses those principles to support the regulations for worship which he gives in the remaining verses.

One of the basic principles is that the man is the head of the woman just as God is the head of Christ. 

However, kephale (head) in Greek has the primary meaning of source or origin rather than of ruler (cf. Fee pp 502-503). 

There is no disgrace in the woman’s relationship to the man, just as there is no disgrace in Christ’s relationship to the Father.

It is simply the divine order of things. It is relational not hierarchical.

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head.

Literally having down from the head.  Having what down from the head?

This could refer to hair (see NIV footnote) but probably refers to the veil worn by the devout and modest Jewess. 

The man who prayed or prophesied with his head covered in this way dishonoured his head.  Paul probably intends both man’s physical head and Christ his spiritual head here.

5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head–it is just as though her head were shaved.

Conversely, the woman who prayed or prophesied with her head uncovered dishonoured her head (i.e. her husband or, more probably, ‘man’ in general, in terms of male-female relationships, as well as her physical head).  In fact she might as well have been shaved bald as have her head uncovered.  It is not clear that society in most parts of the world would make the same judgement today.

6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

For a woman to be shaven at that time was a great disgrace.  It indicated that she was an adulteress.  From this Paul reasons that it is a disgrace for a woman to pray with her head uncovered.  The connection in thought is perhaps explained in vv. 14-15.

14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,

15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

For more on these verses see below.

1. b) An Argument from Creation (7-12)

7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;

9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

In verses 7-9 the teaching that men should not cover their heads for prayer and that women should is supported by the following theological considerations. 

First, man is the image and glory of God whereas woman is the glory of man (7).  But “This is her role in creation; it is not her role in Christ” (Barrett). 

Second, man was not made from woman; woman was made from man (8). 

Third, man was not made for woman but woman was made for man (9).  Clearly Genesis 1-3 is in mind here.

But how does the woman’s coming from the man and being created  for his sake make her his glory? Fee refers back to the Genesis account and suggests:

‘Man by himself is not complete; he is alone, without a companion or helper suitable to him. The animals will not do; he needs one who is bone of his bone, one who is like him but different from him, one who is uniquely his own “glory”. In fact, when the man in the OT narrative sees the woman, he “glories” in her by bursting into song’ (p 517).

10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

          a sign of authority

This phrase, along with because of the angels (see below) is extremely difficult. At the end of the day we have to say that we do not know. The following explanation must therefore be viewed in that light.

For the reasons given in vv 7-9 Paul taught that a woman should wear a sign of authority on her head.  However, a sign of is not to be found in the Greek text.  The verse literally teaches that the veil is the woman’s authority.

          because of the angels

Various explanations have been offered:

Aggelos means messenger as well as angel and some take the phrase to refer to visiting preachers.  However, this seems unlikely. 

Others see the angels referred to as the fallen angels of Genesis 6.  It is by no means certain, however, that the sons of God refers to angelic beings. 

The best, simplest, and most obvious explanation is that angels are present with the worshipping church.

11 In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.

12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

Paul now puts vv 7-9 in perspective.  If woman came from man in the first place, thereafter man has come of woman.

1. c) An Argument from Propriety (13-16)

13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

Paul appeals to the Corinthians’ own judgement and expects them to agree with his teaching.  Not every generation and culture, however, would give the same answer.

14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,

It is not immediately obvious that nature teaches that women should have longer hair than men, but the majority of cultures throughout history have conformed to this practice.

15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

Paul was not teaching that the head-covering was unnecessary for a woman with long hair but that nature teaches her to cover her head by giving her long hair.

16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.

This is probably better translated no such practice (which appears to mean the exact opposite!)

However, if read this way we should understand Paul to be saying that there is no such practice as the women were advocating.

Read the other way he means no other practice than that which he is advocating!

There is much in this passage to indicate that Paul’s teaching can only be understood within the culture of his day.   

That the Christian church has not permanently and universally adopted the same practices, however, does not invalidate the underlying theology.

Talk 14.   No going to idol temples (10:14-11:1)

As we have seen in recent talks, in chapter 8 Paul brought out the general principle that there are some things that are quite lawful but from which we should abstain for the sake of weaker Christians.

This theme is partly continued in chapter 9 where he points out that he has certain rights as an apostle which he has not claimed. 

The same line of thought dominates the second part of chapter 10, which includes a strong prohibition against attendance at cultic meals. 

As we saw last time, the chapter may be divided into four main parts:

1. An example from OT history (1-5)
2. Lessons to be learned from this (6-13)
3. Christianity and idolatry are incompatible (14-22)
4. Eating market-place food (23-33)

Today we pick up where we finished last time.

c) Christianity and idolatry are incompatible (14-22)

Here Paul flatly prohibits idolatry. He does so on two grounds:

1)       The sacred meal means fellowship with the deity

2)       Idolatry involves the demonic.

14 Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.

God’s promise of help (13) is not intended to cause us to see how near we can get to sin and get away with it!  We must flee from idolatry. There are some things it is wise for us to run away from (cf. 2 Timothy 2:22).  It’s not sinful to walk near the edge of a precipice, but it’s very foolish!

15 I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.

16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

          the cup of thanksgiving

A technical Jewish term for the cup of wine drunk at the end of a meal as its formal close. “Blessed are Thou, O Lord our God, Who givest us the fruit of the vine”.  In the Passover meal it was the third of the four cups that had to be drunk.

          a participation

Koinonia is the joint sharing of a common blessing.  Paul is not identifying the wine with Christ’s blood.  He is thinking of the share all Christians enjoy in the benefits secured for them through the blood of Christ.

               the bread that we break

The bread comes after the wine in this passage indicating that at the time of writing no strict liturgy had developed (although everywhere else in the NT the bread precedes the wine).

17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.

          one loaf

A single loaf was used.  Christians are united, despite their plurality, by the fact that they participate in one loaf, the same Christ.

18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?

          Consider the people of Israel

The illustrations that follow are analogies to clarify Paul’s points, not arguments to prove them.  The Jew making a sacrifice in the OT was allowed to eat a part of it. Paul argues that he thus became identified with the altar.

19 Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything?

Paul repeats his contention that the idol is nothing (cf. 8:4-5), but:

20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.

A variety of OT passages indicate that heathen sacrifices were made to demons (e.g. Ps.96:5 LXX, Isa. 65:11). 

Idolatry thus brought a man in contact with the unseen spirit world. 

So it’s not the eating of the food that is condemned, but participation in idolatry.

21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.

Idolatry is unthinkable for the Christian because of his exclusive relationship with Christ (cf. 6:18, 10:14, with regard to immorality). 

Christ and demons are incompatible.  You can’t be involved with both!

22 Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

The general sense of the verse seems to be Do you really think you can do what you like and get away with it?

d) On Eating Market Place Food (10:23-11:1)

23 “Everything is permissible“–but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”–but not everything is constructive.

24 Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

v23    “Everything is permissible”

This is almost certainly a quotation from a Corinthian source. Paul does not disagree with it, but quickly qualifies it with           not everything is constructive

25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience,

26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”

v25    Eat anything….

This remark indicates that Paul had ceased to be a practising Jew. 

27 If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience.

28 But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake–

29 the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?

30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

The general sense of these verses is as follows:

If you don’t know whether the food you’re offered has been sacrificed to an idol or not, eat it without asking any questions. 

(If it has been offered to an idol it won’t do you any harm). 

So eat what’s set before you;

but if anyone tells you it’s been offered to an idol (28), don’t eat it or you’ll look like an idol-worshipper. 

(People may get the idea that Christ is just another god who can be worshipped along with the idols).

31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God

v31    the glory of God

I will not glorify God if I give an idol the honour due to Him, or if I cause ill-feeling within the church, or if I cause a fellow-Christian to fall from his faith.

33 even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

All our behaviour should be motivated by the good of others.  The ultimate good is their salvation.  In comparison with that nothing else matters.

Verses 23-33 express three basic principles of Christian living:

Edification (the spiritual welfare of our fellow-Christians) (23)

Exaltation (the glory of God) (31)

Evangelism (the salvation of many) (33)

We are to follow Paul’s example (11:1) as he follows Christ. Christ’s example is the way of the cross, the way of love, which does not insist on its own rights, but seeks the salvation of others.

Talk 13.   Warnings from Israel’s History (10:1-11:1)

In chapter 8 Paul brought out the general principle that there are some things that are quite lawful but from which we should abstain for the sake of weaker Christians.

This theme is partly continued in chapter 9 where he points out that he has certain rights as an apostle which he has not claimed. 

The same line of thought dominates the conclusion of chapter 10, but the main theme of the chapter is a strong prohibition against attendance at cultic meals. 

The chapter may be divided into four main parts:

1. An example from OT history (1-5)
2. Lessons to be learned from this (6-13)
3. Christianity and idolatry are incompatible (14-22)
4. Eating market-place food (23-33)

We will deal with the first two parts today and the final two parts next time.

1. a) An example from OT history (1-5)

1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.

2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

3 They all ate the same spiritual food

4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

This section is a reference to the children of Israel coming out of Egypt. 

The main theme here is the need to endure to the end. 

Note the repetition of the word all.  They all had all these blessings.

Nevertheless (5) many did not reach the promised land. 

These verses are a serious warning that Christians should not take their security for granted.

1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.

Most of Paul’s readers were Gentiles yet he refers to the Israelites as our forefathers.  However, here as elsewhere he sees Christians as integrated with the people of God.

2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

Some have taken this to typify baptism in water and in the Spirit, but although the NT acknowledges such a distinction it would be unwise to draw such a conclusion from this verse.

3 They all ate the same spiritual food

4 and drank the same spiritual drink

This is almost certainly intended to be analogous to the Lord’s Supper.

Pneumatikos (spiritual) does not mean non-material, but connected with the Holy Spirit.

4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

This is clearly not intended to be taken literally (cf. ll:24).  Israel was supplied by God with visible signs which conveyed to them the blessings of  Christ, just as the Church has been supplied with water, bread and wine.

5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert

          most of

This is clearly a great understatement!

 In fact it was all except Joshua and Caleb! 

All but two of them had their corpses scattered all over the desert!

1. b) Lessons to be learned from this (6-13)

6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.

7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry.”

8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did–and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died.

9 We should not test the Lord, as some of them did–and were killed by snakes.

10 And do not grumble, as some of them did–and were killed by the destroying angel.

11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.

12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!

13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

These verses describe a typical idol feast.

Sexual immorality was a part of idol-worship, and is still today in many cases. 

Of course, the idol in itself is nothing (8:4-5), but to get involved in idolatry or to encourage others to do so is to invite the judgment of God.

The examples Paul cites in these verses probably reflect the Corinthians’ grumbling against Paul over the right to attend pagan feasts.

6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.

Immorality and idolatry are both suggested in these words.

7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry.”

Paul deliberately chooses the part of the OT narrative which specifically indicates that the people ate and drank in the presence of the golden calf.  Exodus 32:6.

               to indulge in pagan revelry

Immorality may be implied here, but the verb paizein  simply means to play and its use here probably refers solely to idolatry.  The connection with immorality, however, is clearly established in the next verse.

8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did–and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died.

For evidence that feasting in idol temples also at times involved sexual play, see Fee pp 455-456.

          twenty-three thousand

The reference here is to Numbers 25:9 where a number of 24,000 is mentioned. 

The apparent discrepancy might be explained by Paul’s qualifying phrase in a day.

9 We should not test the Lord, as some of them did–and were killed by snakes.

The reading test Christ is to be preferred.  The reference is to Numbers 21:5-6, the brazen serpent episode.  The same episode is referred to in John 3 with reference to eternal life. Paul is purposely tying the situation of Israel and Corinth together.

10 And do not grumble, as some of them did–and were killed by the destroying angel.

This suggests that the Corinthians were grumblers and, if Fee is right, indicates that they had complained about Paul’s prohibition on attending idol feasts. Grumbling can be a cause of division (cf. Acts 6:1) and there were certainly divisions in the Corinthian church!

11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfilment of the ages has come.

Paul clearly believed that he was living in the last days of world history before the dawning of the Messianic age (cf. 15:51).

12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall!

If there is no possibility of a Christian ‘falling’ this warning is meaningless.

13 No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

“The way out is for those who seek it, not for those who (like the Corinthians) are, where idolatry is concerned, looking for a way in” (Barrett).

Note that Paul does not talk about victory here.  Sometimes it’s enough to escape (cf. v 14).

Talk 12.  Paul defends his Apostleship (9:1-27)

In this chapter Paul continues his theme of love not insisting on its own rights.  In vv 1-14, he talks about his rights as an apostle and in vv. 15-27 explains why he does not choose to exercise those rights. 

In this chapter, as in the last, love is the over-riding consideration.  He illustrates by personal example the principles he has been teaching in chapter 8.

It is also possible, as we saw in the last talk, and as Fee suggests, that Paul is defending his apostleship in this chapter because it had been challenged at this point in the letter from the Corinthians.

It is even possible that his refusal to accept material support called into question his authority as an apostle.

We will consider the chapter in broad outline and see what practical lessons may be learnt from it with regard to the ministry today.

The fact of Paul’s apostleship (1-2)

The rights of an apostle (3-6)

The reasons for those rights (7-14)

The extent to which Paul abandoned his rights (19-22)

His reasons for not exercising his rights (15-18, 23-27)

The fact of Paul’s apostleship (1-2)

        He had seen the risen Christ (Cf. Acts 1:21-22)

1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?

The Corinthians were a proof of it

2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

The rights of an apostle (3-6)

        to eat at the church’s expense (4)

3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me.

4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink?

        to take a wife with him on his travels (5)

5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

        to give up secular employment (6)

6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

The reasons for those rights (7-14)

        according to the world (7)

7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk?

        according to the Word (8-13)

8 Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing?

9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned?

10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the ploughman ploughs and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest.

11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?

12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

13 Don’t you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?

        according to the Lord (14)

14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

See Matthew 10:10

The extent to which Paul abandoned his rights (19-22)

        as a free man he has become as a slave (19)

19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.

        as free from the Law he has subjected himself to it (20)

20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

        as a Jew he has become as a Gentile (21)

21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

        as strong he has become weak (22)

22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

His reasons for not exercising his rights (15-18, 23-27)

        He wanted the reward of knowing that he had made the Gospel of Christ

        without charge (18).  Note that this was the apostle’s decision, not the

        church’s.

15 But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast.

16 Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!

17 If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me.

18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.

Finally, he was determined to gain the crown that will last for ever (23-27).isHisHhhh     

23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.

25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.

26 Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air.

27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

Talk 11   Love, the Basis of Christian Behaviour (8:1-13)

Introduction to Chapters 8-10

The main theme of chapters 8-10 is that love does not insist on its own rights (cf. 13:5  Amplified Bible). 

This principle is applied to the question of meat offered to idols in chapters 8 and 10 and to the rights of an apostle in chapter 9.

The question of meat offered to idols is a very specific topic which was of immediate relevance to the early church and is of less significance to Christians in Britain today. 

However, the principles taught here are always relevant and have a very real application in a variety of areas in our Christian lives.

In seeking to understand this section we need to bear in mind two main facts:

1. It was the common practice to have a meal in the temple with your friends. It was almost like going to a restaurant. But this involved you in pagan worship. When an animal was sacrificed,

part was burnt as an offering to the god,

part was given to the priest

and part to the worshipper who shared it with his friends in a cultic meal.

The Gentiles who had become believers in Corinth had probably attended such meals all their lives as every kind of occasion was celebrated in this way.

2. Since the priest would get far more than he could eat, it would be sold off in the market.

Most of the meat you could buy in the market would have come from this source, having been already sacrificed to an idol.

However, the customer could never be sure whether what he bought in the market had been sacrificed to an idol or not.

Fee’s Reconstruction

Now before getting into the text of chapter 8, it will be helpful to mention Fee’s understanding of the issues addressed in chapters 8-10.  He argues that

although the traditional understanding of these chapters is that Paul is dealing with the eating of food bought in the marketplace (see 2 above),

the real issue is the eating of sacrificial food at the cultic meals in the pagan temples (as in 1 above).

This explanation seems to make the best sense of chapters 8-10 as a whole, which Fee sees as a response to the Corinthians’ letter to Paul. He reconstructs the situation as follows:

Some of the Corinthians had returned to the practice of attending cultic meals. Paul in his previous letter had probably forbidden this. But they disagreed with him and in their letter made four points:

1. We all know that idols aren’t real, so attending the temple has no significance one way or the other.
2. We all know that food is a matter of indifference to God, so it doesn’t matter what we eat or where we eat it.
3. Our baptism and participation in Communion will keep us from falling anyway. (Paul’s strong warning about the danger of falling – see 10:1-13 – seems to indicate that they may have held such a view).
4. What authority has Paul to forbid us on this matter anyway? (This may account for Paul’s strong defence of his apostleship in Chapter 9).

Paul’s overall response to all this may be summarised as follows:

Love rather than knowledge underlies Christian ethics.

Attendance at cultic meals is forbidden because:

• it involves fellowship with demons (10:18-22),
• it may stumble weaker Christians (8:7-13)
• indulging in pagan revelry may lead to destruction (10:1-11)

However, buying food in the market-place, even though it may have been offered to an idol, is not forbidden, unless in certain particular circumstances it may cause a brother to stumble.

Whatever rights I may feel I have as a Christian, I must be willing to give them up for the sake of my fellow-Christians.

Now to the text of chapter 8:

1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

Knowledge here means knowledge that the idol is nothing (cf. v4).

However, knowledge puffs up (with pride), but love builds up (cf. 13:4). 

2 The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know.

True knowledge begins when we realise how little we know (cf. 13:9  we know in part).

3 But the man who loves God is known by God.

God knows the man who loves him.

Love is more important than knowledge – even theological knowledge. 

The Corinthians knew that an idol was nothing and therefore reasoned that they could eat meat offered to it. 

But there are circumstances in which love dictates otherwise.

4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.

There is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4).

However, compare 10:20 where Paul says that the things sacrificed to idols are sacrificed to demons.

5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”),

6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

The terms ‘god’ and ‘lord’ are used interchangeably in verse 5.

Applying the same principle to v 6, we see a clear testimony to the deity of Christ.

          for whom we live

The whole purpose of our existence is for God.

The Corinthians should not have been insisting on their rights,

but acknowledging God’s rights over them.

7 But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.

There were Christians who were not yet able to shake off the feeling that the idol was somehow real. 

They still felt as though the food were being sacrificed to a god.

So they felt that they were doing wrong in eating meat offered to it. 

These weak Christians were condemned by their own conscience. 

Our conscience is moulded by our upbringing and environment. 

That is why people’s consciences differ. 

Ultimately God wants our conscience to come into line with Scripture, but until it does our conscience is a fallible guide. 

Nevertheless, we are answerable to it and must live in accordance with it. 

That is why to cause a man to act against his conscience – even if his conscience is misguided – is to cause him to sin.

8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

What we eat does not affect our spiritual or moral standing. 

Despite the OT food laws the NT teaches very clearly that nothing we eat makes us unclean. 

Note Jesus’ very definite teaching on this matter in Mark 7:14-20, esp. v19.

Compare 1 Timothy 4:3-5. 

However, those Christians who understand this must make allowances for those who do not and should seek not to offend them.  Consider Romans 14:13-18.

9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.

The word is proskomma – an object against which one strikes one’s foot. 

However, in v13 the verb skandalizo is used. 

The skandalion was the part of a trap that triggers off its mechanism (e.g. the spike on a mouse-trap). 

Seeing another Christian eat meat offered to an idol could ensnare, or even destroy, a weaker Christian.

10 For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols?

Many Greeks, on rationalistic grounds, had given up belief in the gods, but for social reasons would eat with their friends in an idol shrine. 

Could not a Christian do the same? 

Perhaps it would even encourage the weaker Christians to realise that there was nothing in the idol. 

No, says Paul.  By following your example they will be acting against their own conscience, and therefore sinning. 

Compare Romans 14:23:  Everything that does not come from faith is sin.

11 So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.

By your example (of doing something which is perfectly in order, both according to Scripture and according to your own conscience), you may cause someone to transgress the law of his (so far uneducated) conscience, and so to backslide and to perish.

12 When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.

Although it may not be a sin in itself, because it causes a weaker brother to stumble, it is a sin – against him, and against Christ!

13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

An extravagant statement, but the principle is that the strong must adapt their behaviour to the conscience of the weak.

In summary, it’s not what I know that matters. It’s not my rights that matter. What matters is love, a love that sacrifices its rights in order to save someone from perishing.

Point to ponder:

Are there areas in my life where by insisting on my rights I might cause someone else to stumble?

Talk 10.  Questions about Marriage (7:1-40)

One of Paul’s purposes in writing 1 Corinthians was to answer certain questions about which they had written to him. 

The first of these was on the subject of marriage and Paul devotes the whole of Chapter 7 in giving his answer.

It’s too lengthy for verse by verse exposition and I shall not be reading it all in this podcast.

So I suggest that before listening any further you hit the pause button and take time to read through it and then have it open as you continue to listen.

The chapter presents certain difficulties because in some verses (e.g. v.1) Paul appears to be teaching that Christians should not marry. 

However, the slogan It is good for a man not to marry possibly came from a group of ascetics in the Corinthian church rather than from Paul himself. 

Today I shall be highlighting ten major lessons that are to be found in the chapter.   

1. Marriage is a gift from God (7)

7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

So it would be quite wrong to suggest that Christians should not marry.

Marriage is a divine institution given:

• for companionship
• as a channel for our sexual desires
• that children might be brought up in the ways of the Lord.

The Christian view of marriage is the answer to many of the social problems of our generation.

2. The married have privileges and duties that the unmarried do not have (3-5)

3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.

4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.

5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Each partner in the marriage has sexual privileges from and duties to the other. 

It is the will of the God that husbands and wives fulfil their sexual responsibilities to each other except for times of prayer and fasting by common consent (5).

3. The unmarried can devote themselves more fully to the Lord’s work (32-34)

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs – how he can please the Lord.

33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world – how he can please his wife –

34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world – how she can please her husband.

In pastoral life there are considerable advantages in being single. 

There are also serious disadvantages.

4. To remain single requires a definite gift (charisma) from God (7)

7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

No Christian is ever left ‘on the shelf’.  God is able to find us a partner, if he will, or to give us the charisma to go through life unmarried.

5. Those who do not have this gift ought to marry (9)

9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

They should marry is a command.  With passion (NIV) is not in the Greek. Nevertheless, this is clearly the sense here.

6. In time of difficulty for the church it may be better not to marry (26)

26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are.

What Paul means by the present crisis is unclear.

Barrett and Fee both take it to refer to the eschatological woes that are to precede the second coming.

More generally we could take it to refer to times of persecution.

But even in these circumstances it is not sinful to marry (25-28, 35-40). 

As we have already seen, it is better to marry than to burn with passion (9)

Cf. v.36 if he feels he ought to marry (NIV)   

           If his passions are strong (EV)

However, in times of persecution there are greater problems and heartaches for married people, especially for those with children

7. A Christian should never marry an unbeliever (39).

39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.

She marries anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 

This is the only restriction placed on marriage other than the OT prohibitions placed on marrying close relations. The Christian may choose their partner provided they’re also a Christian.

(‘Marriage’ to someone of the same sex would of course have been unthinkable.)

8. If your partner is not a Christian, let them go if they want to! (12-16)

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.

13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.

14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.

16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Since Christians may not marry non-Christians, this must refer to the situation where one partner becomes a Christian after marriage. 

The suggestion is that the Christian life is so incompatible with that of the non-Christian that the marriage may well break up. 

There is no guarantee that the partner will get converted.  There is no Scriptural basis for ‘claiming’ one’s loved ones for the Lord.  This practice rests on a false interpretation of verse 14 and a misunderstanding of Acts 16:31.

The word sanctified (14) simply means that the marriage is sanctified in the sight of God and the children are not illegitimate.

Some of the benefits of salvation extend beyond the saved person.  Christians act as salt in any community, even their own family, but this does not bring eternal life to the members of that community. 

Whichever way it is interpreted, v 16 makes it clear that the conversion of the family is not certain.

9. Christian couples may separate, but not remarry (10-11)

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

It is possible that Matthew 19:9 modifies this slightly, but opinions vary as to the correct interpretation of marital unfaithfulness.

However, the general principle is undoubtedly that marriage is for life. 

Paul’s teaching does not contradict that of Jesus.

He is answering specific questions in this passage, not giving an entire analysis of the Christian view of marriage.

10. As a general principle, don’t change course unless clearly led to do so (17-24)

17 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.

18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised.

19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.

20 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.

21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you–although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

22 For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave.

23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

24 Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.

These verses do not just apply to marriage.  The general principle is repeated in 20 and 24.  Your outward circumstances are relatively unimportant compared with what you are in Christ (22).