Author: David Petts

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).

Talk 9:  Dealing with Immorality (Part 2)

Welcome to talk 9 in our series on 1 Corinthians. Today we are in chapter 6.

As we saw last time, in chapter 5 Paul has been dealing with a very serious case of sexual immorality within the church.

He teaches the Corinthians that they must judge and discipline the offender.

He concludes by explaining that, in saying that they were not to keep company with the immoral, he was referring to those inside the church, not to those outside it.

Similarly it is not our responsibility to judge those outside the church, but we must judge those within.

This brings him quite naturally in Chapter 6:1-8 to the case of a Christian going to law with another Christian. This might appear at first sight to be something of a  digression from the subject of sexual immorality, but Paul is simply expanding on the whole subject of the Christian’s responsibility to judge and quickly returns to the subject of sexual immorality in vv9-20.

We will deal with the chapter under three headings:

Christians have a responsibility to judge (1-8)

Sexual  Immorality is not compatible with the Kingdom of God (9-11)

Six reasons why a Christian should avoid sexual immorality (13-20)

1. a) Christians have a responsibility to judge (6:1-8)

v.1 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people (the saints)?

has a dispute

This phrase in the Greek is a technical term for a law-suit

dare

This verb powerfully expresses Paul’s horror at what he has heard. How dare a Christian do such a thing?! He is horrified at the very idea of a Christian taking a brother to court before the ungodly. A Christian should not take a fellow-Christian to a secular court.

v2 or do you not know that the Lord’s people (the saints) will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?

3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

judge the world

Daniel 7:22 is probably in mind here.  Judgment was given to the saints of the Most High – though Paul does not explain what this means in a Christian context, nor does anyone else in the NT. 

However, the sense of what he is saying is quite clear.  If Christians are going to have to judge the world, and angels one day, they ought to be able to sort out these small matters.

are you not competent..?

This means literally, Are you unworthy of the most insignificant tribunals?

This could mean either,

Are you unfit to form even the most insignificant courts?

Or

Are you not competent to judge trivial cases?

Fee prefers the latter on the grounds that kriterion, which properly means a court of justice can also denote the legal action itself.

4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church?

The Corinthians ought not to be making an outsider the judge between Christians.  To go to court before the Roman pro-consul was, in effect, to ‘appoint’ him over their affairs.

5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?

With all the wisdom they had been boasting of, there was not a man among them wise enough to deal with these things.  It was an absolute disgrace for a Christian to go to law with his brother Christian (cf 4:14).

6 But instead, one brother takes another to court – and this in front of unbelievers!

The church is airing its dirty linen in public (cf 10:32, 1 Thes. 4:11-12, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:8, 10, 3:1)

7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?

Whatever the result of the court case, you’ve already lost (because you felt the need to go to court at all).

If you have a quarrel, sort it out among yourselves, but better still, take wrong.  Let them cheat you if they want to. 

Turn the other cheek.    Give your cloak too.  (Cf  Matthew 5:39-41). 

If they hadn’t learnt that basic lesson they were already defeated!

8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.

This is a very serious statement in the light of verse 10.

nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

1. b) Sexual Immorality is not compatible with the Kingdom of God (6:9-11)

In these verses Paul returns to the theme of sexual immorality and other sins.  Some things (vv9-10) are completely incompatible with the Kingdom of God.

9. Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul’s purpose is to warn ‘the saints’ that if they persist in the same evils as ‘the wicked’ they are in the same danger of not inheriting the Kingdom of God. If, as some believe, this warning is purely hypothetical, it is no warning at all!

11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

But you’re not like that any more (11). You were washed…!  Literally,  you got yourselves washed. So stop living like the wicked!

Six reasons why a Christian should avoid sexual immorality (6:13-20)

1. Our bodies are ‘for the Lord’

12. ‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say – but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’ – but I will not be mastered by anything.
13. You say, ‘Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.’ The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

Paul refers to a common saying, without necessarily agreeing with it. 

It may be true that food is for the stomach and the stomach for food,

but that does not mean that the presence of sexual desire means that it must be satisfied (cf.  the modern attitude to sex).

2. Our bodies are to be raised from the dead

14. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

The importance God attaches to our bodies is indicated by the fact that we are to be physically resurrected (cf chapter 15).

3. Our bodies are members of Christ

15. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!
16. Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh.’
17. But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

To give yourself to a prostitute (or to anyone to whom you are not married, for that matter) when you belong to Christ is unthinkable.  Physical union with a prostitute is totally incompatible with our spiritual union with Christ (vv 16-17)

4. To indulge in sexual immorality is to sin against your own body.

18. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

To indulge in sexual immorality is to sin against your own body.  Strong evasive action is, therefore, necessary.  Such temptation was common at Corinth, even as it is in Britain today.  The verb flee is Present Continuous:  keep on fleeing from it.

5. Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit

19. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?

Again it is  naos that is used (as in 3:16), but here it is the individual Christian rather than the church that is seen as the dwelling place of God.

6. Your body belongs to God, not you!

20. You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your bodies.

The fundamental idea of a ransom Paul derived from the OT

but the picture is also that of ‘sacral manumission’.

A slave could buy his own freedom by paying the price of it into the temple treasury. 

He then became the slave of the god, but as far as men were concerned he was free. 

The Christian is both free and yet a slave to his God.  Our bodies are not our own to do with as we like.

But this goes much further than sex. It should be the fundamental principle guiding every area of our lives. My life is not my own. It belongs to Jesus.

Talk 8: Dealing with Immorality (5:1-13)

Chapters 1-4 have dealt with divisions in the church.

Now in Chapters 5-6 Paul turns to the serious matter of immorality.

The two chapters may be divided into four main sections:

          Sexual immorality must be put out of the church (5:1-13)

          Christians have a responsibility to judge (6:1-8)

          Sexual immorality is not compatible with the Kingdom of God (6:9-12)

          Six reasons why a Christian should avoid sexual immorality (6:13-20).

In this talk we shall deal only with chapter 5.

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife.

2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?

3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.

4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present,

5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?

7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast–as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people–

10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”

Sexual Immorality must be put out of the Church

Today I think the best way to deal with this passage is to work through it verse by verse

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife.

actually

The Greek holos could also mean everywhere

          sexual immorality

porneia strictly means prostitution, but in the NT it means any form of sex outside marriage.

          does not occur

There is no verb in the Greek here. Thus Paul need not be taken to imply that such things did not happen among the pagans.  They clearly did! He probably means that the Gentiles condemned these things too. Cf. ESV …is not tolerated

          a man has his father’s wife

The verb has is a present infinitive in the Greek. This indicates not a singular incident, but marriage or concubinage.  Barrett translates is living with.

Note that his father’s wife does not necessarily mean his mother. Paul does not use the word for incest, so the woman was possibly the man’s step-mother. (This was forbidden in Leviticus 18:8). He does not use the word for adultery, so the father was probably dead or divorced

2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?

you are proud

Perhaps they were proud of their tolerance! (Cf v 6)

          filled with grief

The word used is that referring to mourning for the dead. The immoral person should have been so excluded from their company that it would have been as though he were as one dead to them

3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.

          with you in spirit

Paul does not just mean that he would be thinking of them! It could be that in some mystical way he was to be present in spirit though absent in body. This is a difficult concept, but compare Ezekiel 8. 

Alternatively, spirit in this context could be taken as an aspect of Paul’s personality.  He will make his contribution as the Corinthians reflect on what they remember of his convictions etc.

However, I find Fee’s explanation more compelling. The believer in the new age has received the Spirit and has become ‘one spirit with the Lord’ (6:17). Paul also speaks of ‘my spirit’ in ways that seem ambiguous.

Compare 14:14-15 where speaking in tongues is described as ‘my spirit’ praying, but is clearly enabled by the Holy Spirit.  Fee argues that we might translate this ‘My S/spirit prays’. 

So here in 5:3 he is saying When you and my S/spirit are assembled together….. In short, Paul is able to be present with them because his spirit is united with the omnipresent Spirit of God.

4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present,

          the name of……. the power of…….

Note the connection between the name and power of the Lord

5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature (the flesh) may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

          hand … over to Satan

Compare 1 Timothy 1:20 (Hymenaeus and Alexander). The suggestion seems to be that those who sin seriously can be handed over to the one to whom they have already in a measure given themselves. The sinner is thus confirmed in his sin. A physical affliction is suggested in order to produce spiritual good. Compare Job and Paul, though not because of sin.

Compare also Hebrews 12:5-11.  The purpose is corrective and ultimately redemptive.  In effect, the church withdraws its protective fellowship from the offender.  To be put out of the church is in a very real sense to be in the hands of Satan. To be truly in the church is to be out of Satan’s hands.

6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?

          your boasting

The form of pride may well have been subtle rather than open (cf v2)

          yeast

If the yeast is not got rid of, it will only spread.

Paul’s concern is not only for the offender, but for the purity of the church

7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast – as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

          without yeast – as you really are

For seven days before the Passover the Jews would clean out the house and get rid of the old yeast.

So when the Passover Lamb was sacrificed, there was no yeast left.

Paul reasons that, since Christ our Passover Lamb has already been sacrificed then the Corinthians must already be without yeast. (Yeast here is a symbol for sin). In effect he is saying, You are without yeast, so be without yeast!  

This is often the exhortation of Paul. The fundamental structure of Paul’s ethical thought is that an imperative (a command) is based upon an indicative (a statement of fact).  This underlies his teaching in Romans 6. A Christian’s state does not always conform to his status, but it is only when he understands that he is holy (in God’s sight) that he can obey the command to be holy (cf. 1 Peter 1:16, 2:9).

8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

          the Festival

In the context this is clearly a reference to the Jewish Passover which for Christians is superseded by the Lord’s Supper or communion.

In verses 9-13 Paul clears up a misunderstanding arising from his previous letter. He had told them not to keep company with the sexually immoral. Now he clarifies the matter. Christians must mix with non-Christians even though they may be immoral, otherwise it would mean being taken right out of the world altogether!  It is the so-called Christian who is immoral who must be excluded (although of course the repentant sinner would be welcomed back).

9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people–

10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

v11    Do not even eat

This  would include, but not be confined to, the Lord’s Supper

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”

           expel

The verb is plural, indicating the church’s collective responsibility to judge.

And as we shall see in the next chapter, Paul goes on to make it clear that:

Christians have a responsibility to judge (6:1-8)

          Sexual immorality is not compatible with the Kingdom of God (6:9-12)

And he concludes by giving us

          Six reasons why a Christian should avoid sexual immorality (6:13-20).