Before we begin our study of the first chapter of 1 Corinthians, it would be good for us to view the book as a whole as summarized in this outline:
1:1-9 |
Introduction: Salutation (verses 1-3) and Thanksgiving (verses 4-9) |
1:10–4:21 |
Dealing With Divisions / Unholy Separation |
5:1–6:20 |
Dealing With Sin / Biblical Separation |
7:1–10:33 |
Questions Answered: Commitments (7) and Convictions (8-10) |
11:1–14:40 |
Church Conduct—Diversity Without Divisions |
15:1-58 |
The Doctrine of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ |
16:1-24 |
Conclusion—Getting Personal |
A number of years ago, one of the seminary students in our congregation left for a summer ministry in the South. During that week, we received word that his car had broken down on the way and that he was stranded. It was reported as a matter for prayer, but in jest, someone suggested the church send “Bob” to fix the car. My response was that, while I may be able to “heal the sick” (automotively speaking), I am not able to “raise the dead!”
While a student in seminary, I became friends with a student who was a veterinarian. I always teased him by telling him his ministry could be preaching in a church that was going to the dogs. I wonder just how one would feel about being sent to a church like the one in Corinth, as described in the two epistles of Paul to the Corinthians. Frankly, from a purely human point of view, the situation in Corinth appears to be hopeless.
And yet when we read these introductory verses to this epistle, Paul is positive, upbeat, and optimistic. His prayers concerning this church are filled with expressions of thanksgiving. How can this be? How can Paul be so positive and optimistic as he communicates with this church? One thing is certain—it is not because of the godly conduct of many of its members.
Paul’s first words to the Corinthians are not just a repetition of a standard form, a kind of “boiler plate” greeting, as though he were using a pre-packaged computer program which needed nothing else but to fill in the name of the church. The salutation of this epistle provides us not only with a demonstration of Paul’s optimism and enthusiasm in writing to these saints, it also indicates how he can be so positive about this troubled body of believers. More than this, it begins to lay a theological foundation for Paul’s ministry and teaching as it will be given throughout the epistle. This salutation tells us not only how Paul feels about this church, but why he feels as he does. Gordon Fee has this to say about the importance of these first nine verses of 1 Corinthians:
With the elaborations of this letter Paul begins a habit that will carry through to the end. In each case the elaborations reflect, either directly or subtly, many of the concerns about to be raised in the letter itself. Even as he formally addresses the church in the salutation, Paul’s mind is already at work on the critical behavioral and theological issues at hand.1
At the end of Paul’s so-called first missionary journey with Barnabas, the Jerusalem Council met to decide just what should be required of Gentile converts (Acts 15:1-29). When Paul and Barnabas went their separate ways, Paul took Silas with him and set out on what was to be called the second missionary journey of Paul (Acts 15:36-41). They began by revisiting some of the churches that had been founded on the first journey, delivering to them the decision of the Jerusalem Council (16:4-5).
After being divinely prohibited from preaching in Asia (Acts 16:6) and Bithynia, Paul, Silas, and Timothy ended up at Troas, where Paul received the “Macedonian vision” (16:9-10), which brought them2 to Philippi where a number were saved and a church was established. From Philippi, Paul and his party went to Thessalonica, then to Berea, and finally to Athens (Acts 17). From Athens, Paul went to Corinth, an ancient city of Greece, the seat of government of the Roman province of Achaia. It was in Corinth that Paul first crossed paths with a Jew named Aquila and his wife Priscilla. Like Paul, this man was a tent-maker. He and his wife had fled from Italy because of a command from Claudius that all Jews must leave Rome (Acts 18:1-3). Every Sabbath, Paul went to the synagogue, where he sought to evangelize Jews and Greeks (18:4). Eventually he was joined by Silas and Timothy, who had just arrived from Macedonia. Apparently they brought a gift from the Macedonians which enabled Paul to fully devote himself to the Word, so that he gave all of his efforts to preaching Christ (18:5).
As usual, Paul’s preaching prompted a reaction from the unbelieving Jews, so that he left the synagogue and began to concentrate on evangelizing Gentiles (18:6-7). Paul moved his headquarters to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a Gentile God-fearer who lived next door to the synagogue (18:5-7). Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, became a believer along with the rest of his household. Many other Corinthians were also being saved as well and were submitting to baptism (18:8). The Lord appeared to Paul in a vision, assuring him that there were many more souls to be saved in that city and that he was not to fear. He was to speak out boldly, rather than to hold back for fear of trouble (18:9-10).3 As a result, Paul extended his ministry in Corinth, staying a total of 18 months, a considerably longer period of ministry than usual.
Paul’s lengthy ministry was facilitated, in part, by Jewish litigation and by the precedent-setting ruling of Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia (18:12-17). The Jews seized Paul and brought him up on charges before Gallio. They accused him of being neither a faithful Jew nor a good citizen. They accused him of speaking and acting against the law. Paul did not even get the opportunity to speak in his own defense. Before he could open his mouth, Gallio gave his ruling. This strife between Paul and the Jews was but another instance of the in-fighting which was so typical of the Jews. Gallio was fed up with it and with them and was not about to be used by these Jewish zealots to prevail over their Jewish rivals. This was not a matter for his judgment. He threw them and their case out of court.
From all we are told of him, Gallio was a pagan who cared nothing for the Jews, the gospel, or Paul. And yet his ruling was a landmark decision, officially legitimizing and protecting those who preached the gospel throughout the entire Roman Empire. Judaism was an official religion, recognized and sanctioned by the Roman government. The Jews were seeking to convince Gallio that Paul was really no Jew and that the preaching of the gospel was not the practice of Judaism. Thus, they inferred, Paul was a threat to the stability of Roman rule. They argued that neither Paul nor any other Christian should be allowed to preach the gospel under the permission and protection of the Roman law. When Gallio refused to rule on this matter, calling it a Jewish squabble, he was declaring Paul’s preaching of the gospel to be the practice of Judaism. Christianity, Gallio’s ruling indicated, was Jewish and thus protected by Roman law. Thus, Paul’s ministry was legal, and any Jewish opposition could not claim Rome as their ally.
Gallio drove them away from his judgment seat. The Jews were furious, and in retaliation they seized Sosthenes, the leader of the synagogue, and began to beat him in front of the proconsul. He looked on with disdain, not at all impressed or concerned. This Sosthenes seems to be the same person who is with Paul as he writes to the Corinthians (1:1).
Secular history only verifies and clarifies the impression of the city of Corinth which we gain from the pens of Luke (Acts) and Paul (1 and 2 Corinthians). It was a great city in many ways. Politically, Corinth was the capital city of the Roman province of Achaia, a territory including nearly all of Greece. That is why Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, was in Corinth and heard the charge against Paul. Geographically, Corinth was so strategically located it could hardly do other than prosper. The city was situated on a plateau overlooking the Isthmus of Corinth, two miles distant from the Gulf.4 Nearby was the Acrocorinth, a 1900-foot mountain that was perfectly suited as a citadel for the city. This fortress was so secure it was never taken by force until the invention of gun-powder.5 It also contained an inexhaustible water supply in the fountain of Peirene.6 At the summit of Acrocorinth was the temple of Aphrodite, the goddess of love. At the base of the citadel stood the temple of Melicertes, the patron of seafarers.7
Located on an isthmus, Corinth became a crossroads for both land and sea trade. By looking at a map, one can quickly see that Corinth is situated between two large bodies of water and two land areas, and these are virtually surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea. Were it not for the isthmus on which Corinth was founded, the southern part of Greece would be an island in the Mediterranean Sea. Goods exchanged between the north and south would normally be shipped by land through Corinth.
Much of the sea trade of the Mediterranean from east to west also passed through Corinth. To the west of Corinth was the port city of Lechaeum on the Gulf of Corinth. On her east was the port of Cenchrae on the Saronic Gulf. These were ports of call for ships that sailed the seas. Travel across the isthmus and through Corinth was generally considered safer than the 200-mile voyage around Cape Malea, the most dangerous cape in the Mediterranean.8 So dangerous was this journey by sea that the Greeks had two sayings well known to sailors in those days: “Let him who sails round Malea forget his home,” and, “Let him who sails round Malea first make his will.”9
To avoid the distance and danger of the journey around the Cape of Malea (now called Cape Matapan10), goods would be unloaded at one port, transported across the four-mile strip of land (through Corinth), and reloaded on the other side. Smaller ships were actually transported with their cargo over the isthmus by means of rollers. Consequently, the isthmus was named the Diolkos, “the place of dragging across.”11 Nero had planned a canal to join the Aegean and Ionian seas, and he even began construction in A.D. 66. The three and one-half mile canal was finished in 1893.12
Corinth thus became a great commercial center. Luxuries from all over the world were available, and the vices of the world were also to be found there. These evils did not all have to be imported, however, for the temple of Aphrodite, the goddess of love, was nearby with 1,000 cult prostitutes who sold themselves in the name of religion. The Greeks had a proverb about the city which tells a great deal about its moral decay: “It is not every man who can afford a journey to Corinth.”13 Those who were worldly wise used the verb “corinthianize” to describe an act of immorality. “Corinthian girl” was known to be a synonym for prostitute.14
Estimates of the population of Corinth range from 100,000 to 600,000. The diversity of peoples who lived in this city is explained by her history. In Paul’s day, Corinth was a very old and yet a very new city. “Signs of habitation date back to the fourth millennium B.C.”15 Alexander made Corinth the center of a new Hellenic League as he prepared for war with Persia.16 In 146 B.C., the city was destroyed by Roman soldiers because it led the Greek resistance to Roman rule. All the males of the city were exterminated, and the women and children were sold for slaves.17 The city was rebuilt by Julius Caesar 100 years later, and it eventually became the capital of the province of Achaia. Many of those who settled in Corinth were not Greeks. A large number of Roman soldiers settled there after retiring, having received their freedom and Roman citizenship in addition to grants of land.18 A variety of nationalities settled in Corinth, enticed by the prospects of economic prosperity. A good number of the immigrants were Jews.
Being a relatively recent city with newly acquired wealth brought problems, for there was the absence of an established aristocracy which would have provided a much more stable society. Farrar spoke of Corinth in this way:
… this mongrel and heterogeneous population of Greek adventurers and Roman bourgeois, with a tainting infusion of Phoenicians; this mass of Jews, ex-soldiers, philosophers, merchants, sailors, freedmen, slaves, trades-people, hucksters and agents of every form of vice … without aristocracy, without traditions and without well-established citizens.19
Every two years Corinth presided over the Isthmian Games, a contest in which all the Greek city-states took part. At these games, the sea-god Poseidon was specially honored.20
After Paul had completed his 18-month ministry in Corinth, he set out for Syria with Priscilla and Aquila. On reaching Ephesus, Paul ministered for a short time, promising to return if the Lord willed (18:19-21). He left Priscilla and Aquila there and journeyed on to Caesarea, Jerusalem and Antioch (Acts 18:18-22). After strengthening the churches in Asia Minor, Paul returned to Ephesus for a much more extensive ministry. He stayed in Ephesus, teaching in the school of Tyrannus for two years. While in Ephesus, he seems to have received unfavorable reports about the Corinthian church which prompted him to write his first letter to this church, a letter which was not preserved as a part of the New Testament canon (1 Corinthians 5:9-11).
Later, while Paul was still ministering the Word in Ephesus, he heard from some of “Chloe’s people” that divisions were beginning to emerge among the Corinthian saints. In addition, Paul was informed of a case of gross immorality in the church, one with which the church had not dealt. Instead of feeling shame and sorrow over this sin, at least some of the saints were proud of their tolerance (chapter 5). He heard also of Christians taking their fellow-believers to court, seeking to have pagans pass judgment on spiritual matters (chapter 6). Paul was also told of unbecoming conduct at the Lord’s Supper (chapter 11) and of doctrinal error concerning the resurrection (chapter 15). A three-man delegation consisting of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus also arrived from Corinth (16:17) bringing a letter which inquired of Paul about marriage (7:1), virgins (7:25), food sacrificed to idols (8:1), spiritual gifts (12:1), the collection for the saints (16:1), and Apollos (16:12). It was while he was in Ephesus that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in response to the reports and questions he received there.21
1 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
That Paul should write such a letter as this should come as no surprise to us and certainly not to the Corinthians. After all, Paul had already written one epistle which was not preserved for us. Paul was the one who first came to Corinth with the gospel. Many of the members of the church in Corinth were the fruit of his ministry (1 Corinthians 9:2; 2 Corinthians 3:1-4). Paul wrote with apostolic authority. By the will of God, he was chosen and called as an apostle. He wrote with full authority. His words were not to be ignored.
Paul addresses his epistle to the church at Corinth and then proceeds to define the church. This is a very important definition to which we should give our full attention. First, Paul wants us to be assured that the church belongs to God. How often we hear churches identified in terms of who the pastor is. That is ______’s church, and we fill in the blank with the pastor’s name. When we do so, we indicate our deep and fundamental difference with Paul who believed that the church belongs to God. God is the One who brought the church into existence through the shed blood of His Son, Jesus Christ. God is the One who sustains His church. It is God’s church.
Generally speaking, the term “church” is defined in terms of two categories: (a) the local church and (b) the church universal. The local church is understood as that body of believers who gather regularly in one place. The “universal church” consists of all believers in every place and in the whole course of church history.
I do not wish to differ with these two definitions of the church. They are probably useful ways of considering groups of believers. But the “local church” and the “universal church” are not entirely consistent with Paul’s use of the term as he employs it in the New Testament. Here, the church is defined as (a) “those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling,” and (b) “all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (verse 2).
We might be inclined to think of this first category as “the local church.” In a sense, it is. But when Paul speaks of the church, he simply refers to a group of believers. Sometimes this group is a “house church,” a group of believers meeting in a certain person’s home (Romans 16:5, 19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2). These “house churches” may have met in a larger gathering, as did the saints in Jerusalem (see Acts 2:46). Then, Paul referred to the “city church,” that is, the group of all believers in a particular city (see Revelation 2 and 3), or the church at a particular city (Acts 11:22; 13:1; 18:22; Romans 16:1). This is the way Paul referred to the Corinthian church, the “church of God which is at Corinth” (1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1). Finally, Paul speaks of the church as all those living at one time, who have trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation.
I fear our view of the church is either too narrow (the local church—our church) or too broad (all those who have ever lived and trusted in Christ for salvation). We pray for our missionaries, the missionaries we have sent out from our local church, or more broadly, from our denominational group. A few churches share with those in need within their own fellowship or local church. When the new believers (the church) at Antioch heard a famine was coming upon the world, they enthusiastically began to prepare to give to their brethren in Judea. They understood, even at this early stage in their growth and maturity, that the church is bigger than the local church.
When we hear of disasters taking place around the world, do we immediately begin to consider the impact on our brethren, our fellow members of the world-wide church, and act accordingly? I fear we do not, at least to the degree we should. With such rapid communications in our time, we could easily and quickly learn of the trials and tribulations of fellow believers, no matter where they are in the world. And our ability to respond is also significantly easier than it was for the saints of Antioch. Let us begin to think of the church in Paul’s terms, rather than in the narrower terms to which we are accustomed.
In this broader sense of the church, we see that Paul’s epistle, though addressed to the saints at Corinth, was also written to the church at large. Look once again at the first two verses of Paul’s salutation: “Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, to the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.”
This broader element in Paul’s salutation is important because it reminds us that “church truth” is “church truth.” That is, Paul’s teaching to the saints at Corinth is just as applicable and just as authoritative for the church at Philippi, or Ephesus, or Dallas. Too many have tried to avoid Paul’s teaching in his Corinthians Epistles by insisting he is speaking to a very special and unique problem found only in Corinth. This simply does not square with Paul’s words. His instructions to the Corinthians apply to every other saint:
16 I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church (1 Corinthians 4:16-17).
33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 34 Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says (1 Corinthians 14:33-34).
It has also been pointed out that in addressing the church at Corinth, Paul does not distinguish any one believer or group of believers from any other. We shall soon see that the Corinthian church was plagued with the dilemma of divisions. Here, Paul does not address the church other than as one group of believers, equally lost as unbelievers, and now equally saved through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Paul is careful to emphasize that the standing of the saints in Corinth and elsewhere is solely the result of the grace of God manifested through the Lord Jesus Christ. There are no grounds for boasting, except in the person and work of Christ.
4 I thank my God always concerning you, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who shall also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Somehow, an expression of thanksgiving is not what I would have expected from Paul at this point in time. Here is a church that has begun to listen to false teachers and who is challenging Paul’s authority. Here is a church which condones immorality and “unconditionally accepts” a man whose sin shocks the unbelieving pagans of that city. Here is a church whose personal conflicts are being aired out before unbelieving eyes in secular courts. How can Paul possibly give thanks?
Paul does not give thanks for the sins and failures of these saints. Paul gives thanks to God for what He has done and for what He will ultimately do for His children. Paul first gives thanks for the “grace of God,” which He has given the saints in Christ Jesus (verse 4). Grace is unmerited favor, and we must surely agree that these saints—not to mention ourselves—are unworthy. The good things which have already been accomplished, and all those good things yet to be accomplished, are manifestations of God’s infinite grace, bestowed upon those who are unworthy.
Paul gives thanks for the sufficiency of God’s grace to the saints as articulated in verses 5-7.
5 That in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
God’s grace to the saints in Corinth and everywhere was boundless. He enriched them in everything. They were enriched in all speech and all knowledge. This was achieved through the preaching of the “testimony of Christ,” as it was confirmed in each and every believer. The Corinthians had no critical need for which God had not made provision through the apostolic preaching of Christ. Were there false teachers who indicated the Corinthians were lacking and that they needed more of something? They were liars! God had already provided all that was necessary for “life and godliness” in Christ (see 2 Peter 1:2-4). No gift was lacking in the church. God had provided just the right gifts for the growth and maturity and ministry of the saints in Corinth. If the church at Corinth was failing, it was not due to any failure on God’s part to provide for their needs, but rather a failure on their part to appropriate these means.
Finally, Paul expressed his thanksgiving for the faithfulness of God and the resulting assurance that He would complete that which He had begun in the Corinthian saints (verses 7-9). Elsewhere, Paul put it this way:
6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6).
12 For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day (2 Timothy 1:12).
These saints were eagerly awaiting the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ (7a). Their salvation had not only the past and present benefits, referred to earlier, but a future hope. As motley a crew as this Corinthian church proved to be, their salvation and security were God’s doing. Consequently, Paul had great confidence concerning this church and the future of each saint. Paul thanked God because He would confirm these saints to the end. What God had started, He would finish. They were secure, and their hope was certain, just as Peter also writes:
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time (1 Peter 1:3-5).
While these Corinthian saints may not consistently be faithful, God is faithful. It is through His faithfulness that each believer has been called to salvation. It is because of His faithfulness that we will persevere and enter into His kingdom, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
No wonder Paul is thankful. In spite of the stumbling and sin which is evident in the Corinthian church, God has saved the saints there. He has sufficiently provided for their every spiritual need. He has purposed to present them faultless when He establishes His kingdom. Paul therefore is assured that his ministry is not in vain, because the salvation and sanctification of the saints in Corinth and elsewhere are the work of God. The God who called these saints and destined them for glory is the God who called Paul to be an apostle and to minister to these saints. Paul’s work is not in vain, for his work is ultimately God’s work.
Paul is writing to a very troubled church, a church which exists in the midst of a very corrupt city and culture. In spite of this, Paul has a very confident mood as he addresses the saints at Corinth and around the world of his day and ours. I notice that in spite of the weaknesses and willful sins of these saints, Paul does not begin by questioning the reality of their conversion, but by affirming the present and future benefits. There are texts which do question the reality of the faith of persistently wayward professing believers, but this is not one of them. These saints need to be reminded of the certainty of their salvation. The certainty of their salvation rests not within themselves, but in the One who called them and the One who will complete all that He has begun. This certainty also assures Paul that his continued ministry to this church is not in vain.
This book of 1 Corinthians should cause us to reject the myth of the perfect New Testament church. We often refer to ourselves at Community Bible Chapel as a “New Testament church.” We are that in the sense that our church is patterned after the principles set down in the New Testament. We have no one “pastor,” who is the head of the church, but we recognize that Christ is the only Head of the church. We are governed by a plurality of elders. We have a weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, and we encourage believers to exercise their spiritual gifts in a way that edifies the whole body. We do not wish to imply by the expression “New Testament church” that we are a perfect church or even that we are a good church at all times.
So often Christians look back to the New Testament times as though the church in those days was nearly perfect. If you read the Book of Acts the way I do, there is a wonderful period of bliss in the infancy of the church, but this lasts only from late in chapter 2 to the end of chapter 4. In chapter 5, a couple is struck dead for lying to the Holy Spirit. In chapter 6, there is strife between two groups of Jews over the care of their widows. And by the time we get to the Corinthian church, it is far from perfect and hardly what could be called good. The final words of our Lord to the seven churches of Asia in Revelation 2 and 3 are not complimentary either. The church was not perfect in New Testament times, and neither is it perfect today. The same sins which Paul exposes in 1 and 2 Corinthians are present and evident in evangelical churches today. And so Paul’s words of admonition and correction are just as applicable to us today as they were to the saints of his day.
We deceive ourselves if we think we can retreat within the church walls to escape the evils of the world. The Corinthians Epistles inform us that the world too easily and quickly finds its way into the church. The church is not the place where we go to escape from sin; it is the place where we go to confront our sin and to stimulate each other to love and good deeds. The church is not a Christian “clean room” where we can get away from sin; it is a hospital, where we can find help and healing through the ministry of the Word and prayer.
The church is not the place which is kept holy by keeping sinners away. It is the place where newly born sinners are brought, so that they can learn the Scriptures and grow in their faith. All too often, new believers feel unwelcomed by the church. The church is afraid of newly saved sinners because they do not really understand holiness or sanctification. Let us not strive to preserve the purity of the church by keeping out the newly saved pagans. Let us strive to preserve the purity of the church by throwing out some of the professing saints who boast only of the time they have put in at the church but whose profession of faith is hypocritical (see 1 Corinthians 5).
If there was hope for the Corinthians, then there is hope for anyone. The first nine verses of this epistle are saturated with reason for hope. Do you know someone who is hopelessly lost, who is not just disinterested in the gospel but adamantly opposed to it? Then take hope from the two men from whom this letter is sent. The apostle Paul was once Saul, the Saul who stood by and held the garments for those who stoned Stephen, the Paul who went from city to city seeking to find Christians whom he could arrest and even put to death. This man is now willing to give his life for the sake of the gospel.
If I understand the text correctly, Sosthenes is another Saul. In Acts 18, we are told that Crispus, the synagogue leader in Corinth, came to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It appears that Sosthenes is his replacement. I understand him to be the leader of the opposition to Paul and the church in Corinth. At his instigation, it would seem, charges were brought against Christianity before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12-17). When Gallio refuses to hear this case, it is clear that Paul and the church have won. In frustration and anger, the unbelieving Jews turn on Sosthenes, their leader, beating him as Gallio watched, unmoved. Now, Sosthenes is a traveling companion of Paul’s, a brother in the Lord. Two of the most hostile unbelievers are now brothers in the Lord. Is there hope for the lost? There most certainly is!
If there is hope for the lost, there is also hope for those who are saved but whose life falls far short of the standard set by the Scriptures. Here is a church that seems almost beyond hope. There are divisions, immorality, and opposition to the apostle Paul and to apostolic teaching. Is Paul discouraged? Does Paul give up hope? No! Paul’s first words to this church are those of hope and confidence. Paul’s confidence and hope are not in the Corinthians, in their good intentions, or in their diligent efforts. His hope is in the One who called him and who called the Corinthian saints as well. His hope is in the fact that God has abundantly provided for every spiritual need in that church. His hope is in the faithfulness of the God who started the good work in these believers and who is committed to bring it to completion.
Have you ever felt that a loved one or a friend were hopeless? They may be a believer, but their life is a mess. This epistle reminds us that there is hope for such a saint. Have you ever felt that you were beyond help, beyond hope? This epistle is for you. Its first words to you remind you of the character and the work of God in the saints, through the work of His Son, Jesus Christ. Cease trusting in yourself, in your good intentions, in your efforts, and once again place your trust in the One who alone can save and sanctify. Heed Paul’s words of warning and of instruction. If there is hope for Saul and Sosthenes and for saints at Corinth, there is hope for anyone.
1 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company [reprint], 1993), p. 28.
2 It seems that here at Troas Dr. Luke joined the party, for beginning in Acts 16:10, Luke changes from the third person (he, they) to the second (us, we).
3 This is certainly not the typical impression which we have of Paul. We think of him as a kind of religious pit bull, who simply cannot be stopped or silenced. This vision strongly implies that Paul was fearful and that without God’s encouragement, Paul may have held back for fear of Jewish reprisals.
4 A Rupprecht, “Corinth,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Merrill C. Tenney, General Editor (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), I, p. 960.
6 F. F. Bruce, The New Century Bible Commentary: I and II Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 18.
8 William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), p. 2.
12 D. H. Madvig, “Corinth,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., Geoffrey W. Bromiley, General Editor (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., I, p. 773.
13 Barclay, Corinthians, p. 3.
18 “When a Roman soldier had served his time, he was granted the citizenship and was then sent out to some newly-founded city and given a grant of land so that he might become a settler there. These Roman colonies were planted all over the world, and always the backbone of them was the contingent of veteran regular soldiers whose faithful service had won them the citizenship.” Barclay, Corinthians, p. 4.
During my school teaching days, I referred to one of my superiors as an “unbeliever” in correspondence with another Christian. Through a sequence of events, this “unbeliever” read my letter and was greatly offended by what I said. Though he was a religious man, one could not think of him as a Christian. My relationship with this man was greatly impaired, and another Christian gave me this advice: “Bob, ________ is a very proud man. The only way to reach him with the gospel is to appeal to his pride.” Even at the time, I knew this advice was unbiblical, and now, studying Paul’s words in the early chapters of the Book of 1 Corinthians, I am even more convinced that my friend was wrong—dead wrong!
The first nine verses of 1 Corinthians 1 are Paul’s introduction to the entire letter. In these verses, we have been told that Paul is the author and that he is accompanied by Sosthenes. Paul’s epistle is addressed not only to the saints in Corinth but to all saints everywhere. Paul expresses his thanksgiving to God for the Corinthian saints, for the sufficiency of God’s provisions for them, and for the certainty that God will complete what He has begun in them by calling them to faith in Jesus Christ. Based upon this foundation, Paul now moves on to reiterate the call to Christian unity (verse 10). He then points out the ways in which this unity has broken down in the Corinthian church (verses 11-12). In the remainder of this chapter (1), and in the next three chapters (2-4), Paul shows how disunity is a contradiction of the gospel and how unity is a manifestation of the gospel.
The lessons Paul has for the saints of his day are most applicable to our own lives as well. The conflicts which existed then are still very much with us today. We have conflict and strife in the church, in the home, and at work. Paul will have us see that not only are such divisions contrary to the gospel, they should be set aside by the gospel. The gospel strikes at the heart of inter-personal conflicts, then and now. Let us listen and learn, for the lessons Paul has for us here are those which we should apply moment by moment.
10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”
Paul does not begin with the problem of divisions but with a positive exhortation to maintain Christian unity.22 Paul’s call to unity in verse 10 sets the standard. His exposure of divisions in the church at Corinth in verses 11-12 shows a specific deviation from God’s standard.
I am most reluctant to challenge the translation of the text of Scripture, especially in a version like the NASB, which attempts to be literal in its rendering of the original text. Here, however, I must raise the flag. Paul is not exhorting the saints to “all agree” on every subject, as our translation suggests.23 We will soon come to chapters 8-10, which deal with matters of conscience. Paul expects Christians to disagree as to matters of conscience. He will speak of the diversity of spiritual gifts which are evident in the church, and he does not suppose that this will result in total agreement because our gifts influence our perspective and our viewpoint.
Literally, we see from a marginal note that the text reads, “to speak the same thing.” Paul calls upon Christians to “speak the same thing.” This is quite different from agreeing on everything. When Christians have different convictions, they are not to dispute with one another over them (Romans 14:1). Rather they are to keep their convictions to themselves (14:22). We are not to speak about them in a way that disputes with others about them or which seeks to impose our convictions on others. If we are exhorted to “speak the same thing” so as to practice and promote unity, then we must speak about those truths which all Christians share.
I like what I know of Barbara Bush. I do not know if she is a Christian, but I think she is a woman of integrity. While her husband was in the Oval office, Mrs. Bush did not speak publicly about her views on abortion. I do not agree with her position on abortion, as I understand it. And from all I can tell, Mr. Bush does not agree with her. But while he was in office, she did not speak publicly about her position. She did not “agree” with President Bush, but she did “speak the same thing”; that is, she spoke of those things on which they did agree, rather than on those matters where they differed. Christians are to do likewise in the area of differences, when these areas are not fundamental areas of Christian doctrine.
Paul further defines unity as the absence of schisms. Gordon Fee writes,
Although the Greek word for ‘divisions’ (schismata) is that from which we derive the English word ‘schism,’ it does not in fact mean that, at least not in the sense of a ‘party’ or ‘faction.’ The word properly means ‘tear/rent’ (cf. Mark 2:21) or the ‘plowing’ of a field. The best illustration of the present usage is found in the Gospel of John (7:40-43; 9:16; 10:19-21), where various groups are said to have divided opinions about Jesus, meaning they were arguing with one another as to his significance. Thus Paul does not refer to distinctly formed groups of ‘parties’ here, but to divided opinions over their various leaders, which according to v. 11 and 3:3 have developed into jealousy and quarrels.24
Two further qualifications of unity are indicated by Paul. We are to be made complete “in the same mind” and “in the same judgment.” For Paul, maturity is not just an individual matter but a corporate growth. Maturity here is the process of the mending of relationships25 that takes place through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Maturity and unity are inseparable. Those who are truly growing in Christ are those who are both growing up and growing together:
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love (Ephesians 4:11-16).
Having the “same mind” refers to the more general “disposition” or “way of thinking” of the Christian. Fee has this helpful insight when he indicates the Greek term rendered “mind”:
… here means something close to ‘disposition’ (J. Beam, TANT IV, 958) or ‘way of thinking’ (BAGGED), cf. 2:16, where in contrast to the people of the world who do not have the Spirit, Paul says, ‘But we have the nous Christ,’ which in this case means something closer to the actual thinking or plans of Christ.’26
To have “the same mind” is to have the same outlook or perspective. To have “the same judgment” is to agree as to a particular decision, to agree on a particular issue.27
When the apostles and the rest of the 120 saints gathered in the upper room (Acts 1:12-14), they were all like-minded. They were one in spirit and in focus. And when they (rightly or wrongly) selected Matthias as the replacement for Judas, they came to the “same judgment.” They reached a particular decision with unity. The same kind of decision-making process can be seen in Acts 6:1-6 and 15:1-35. Paul likewise desired that they would unanimously agree on some particular judgments which he had indicated, such as the excommunication of the wayward brother in 1 Corinthians 5.
If we were speaking in musical terms, Paul is not calling for the church to sing in unison—everyone singing the same note at the same time—but rather he is urging the entire church to sing the same song, in harmony. This is what Christian unity is about. Unfortunately, the Corinthian saints were not living up to the standard Paul set for them. There were quarrels and divisions in the church, which he had heard about from “Chloe’s people.” The situation in Corinth can be summed up with these characterizations of the conflicts which were evident there:
(1) There are problems of division in the church which are wide spread and widely known. The strife and contention in the church is prevalent. When Paul speaks of this problem he says, “each one of you is saying …” (verse 12). This probably does not mean each member, without exception, but those who are not guilty of this evil are the exception and not the rule. The problem is so prevalent that it seems to be well-known. Even as far away as Ephesus, Paul hears of this matter.
(2) The quarrels and dissension are due to a party spirit on divisions which focus on personalities—individuals with which certain members have identified—to the exclusion of others. Every one of Paul’s examples is of a person who identifies with a particular person, and thus who stands aloof from others.
(3) Each of the divisions focuses on leadership. Each of the personalities—Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and Christ—is viewed as the one leader that the individual member has chosen to follow. Each says, “I am of Paul or of Apollos or Cephas or Christ.”
(4) In Paul’s example, none of the leaders named is viewed as responsible for the problem or of encouraging any to follow them and not other true apostles (or Christ). The problem as it is introduced here is a “follower problem” rather than a “leader problem,” in that the followers are at fault. Paul’s emphasis will change on this matter as time goes on, but no New Testament writer ever fails to hold individuals responsible for whom they choose to follow. There appears here to be an unholy devotion to godly men.
(5) We should bear in mind that the problem here is just being introduced in the first chapter of Paul’s first (preserved) epistle, and the problem Paul identifies is in its incipient (early and undeveloped) form. As time passes and as Paul’s epistles continue, the problem will more fully develop and manifest itself. A problem in its earliest form may look very different from the problem in its full-blown manifestation. Expect further developments on this matter as we continue our study of the Corinthian epistles.
(6) This example which Paul sets forth is largely hypothetical. The problem is not really one of loyalties and allegiances to different apostles, but of loyalties to leaders who are never named in 1 or 2 Corinthians. Paul will make this abundantly clear in chapter 4, where he writes,
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other (1 Corinthians 4:6).
(7) The root problem underlying the Corinthian quarrels and factions is pride. We see this clearly stated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:6 (above). Some are “becoming arrogant in behalf of one against the other.” But this same pride is evident in our text as well. “Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ’” (1 Corinthians 1:12). The first three hypothetical examples take pride in the leader they have chosen to follow. The last takes pride in thinking he or she is following Christ. But each is proud in feeling superior to the rest of those referred to in Paul’s example.
(8) The most dangerous group of all in these four examples is the last. Surely Paul means for us to assume “guilt by association” here in verse 12. Paul uses the same words, only changing the name in the case of the last group. It is true that we all should be followers of Christ. But we should not be proud of ourselves for doing so. This fourth group is no less proud or arrogant than the others who are condemned. I am afraid that I understand Paul all too well in this fourth example. Those who think of themselves as being “of Christ” also think of the rest as not being “of Christ.”
Exclusivism is wrong, even the exclusiveness of those who think themselves superior to all other believers because they follow Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or Christ. Those who boast of their following Christ are effectively declaring themselves to be the leader. Those who are “of Christ” do not need Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas. They do not need an apostle. They can discern Christ’s mind by themselves without any outside help from others. These autonomous folks are the most frightening group of all, and Paul makes this clear.
Paul’s rebuke and rebuttal to the Corinthian sin begins at verse 13 of chapter 1 and continues on through chapter 4. In this lesson, we will only deal with his four lines of argument which are found in the remainder of chapter 1.
13 Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
In a nutshell, Paul takes us to the core question: Is salvation about the work of men or about the work of Jesus Christ? All four of the groups mentioned by Paul in verse 12 were man-centered. The fourth group was a little more subtle about it, but all of these individuals took pride in themselves, based upon their perceived allegiance. Paul wants to make the point clear and unmistakable: Our salvation is totally about Christ’s work. Those who are man-centered need to be reminded of the gospel and of their salvation, to recall that salvation is Christ-centered. Christ has not been divided, so how can His body, the church, be divided? It was not Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or any other mere man who died on the cross of Calvary; it was Christ whose shed blood cleansed us from all sin. Baptism testifies to this fact. All of the Corinthian saints were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. They were not baptized in the name of any man. This is because salvation is through Christ alone, and not through mere men, even if they were apostles.
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 that no man should say you were baptized in my name. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void.
Baptism is a very prominent theme in these verses, mentioned six times here by Paul. I take it that some, at least, took pride in the person who baptized them. Some people appear to have been proud and looked down on others who were not baptized by as great a celebrity as their baptizer. Paul lets the air out of the tires of these proud name droppers by telling them that baptism is not a celebrity affair, and compared to the preaching of the gospel, baptizing is a lower priority to him. Do they take pride in the one who baptizes them? Paul is glad he has not made baptizing a priority, and thus that he has baptized very few of the Corinthians.
It is thus evident that Paul viewed his preaching of the gospel as having a much higher priority than baptizing new converts. It can hardly be overlooked that Paul saw salvation as something which occurs independently of baptism. Baptism is important. It is the believer’s public identification with Jesus Christ. But baptism is not viewed as the means of one’s salvation; rather it is the outward manifestation of salvation. Paul rejects the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Otherwise, if he thought baptism was the means of salvation, he would have made it a much higher priority than he did. People are saved by believing the gospel, and it was Paul’s priority to preach it. Baptism took second place to preaching in Paul’s life and ministry.
We find the same principle of the priority of proclaiming the gospel applied more broadly than just to baptism. It is applied by the Lord Jesus to the working of miracles.
29 And immediately after they had come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 30 Now Simon’s mother-in-law was lying sick with a fever; and immediately they spoke to Him about her. 31 And He came to her and raised her up, taking her by the hand, and the fever left her, and she waited on them.
32 And when evening had come, after the sun had set, they began bringing to Him all who were ill and those who were demon-possessed. 33 And the whole city had gathered at the door. 34 And He healed many who were ill with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He was not permitting the demons to speak, because they knew who He was.
35 And in the early morning, while it was still dark, He arose and went out and departed to a lonely place, and was praying there. 36 And Simon and his companions hunted for Him; 37 and they found Him, and said to Him, “Everyone is looking for You.” 38 And He said to them, “Let us go somewhere else to the towns nearby, in order that I may preach there also; for that is what I came out for” (Mark 1:29-38, emphasis mine).
In past years, I have been involved with the ministry of Prison Fellowship conducting in-prison seminars in various prisons in different parts of the country. I found it an exciting experience to join with Christians of different denominational and theological circles in these seminars. Prison Fellowship has made it clear that proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ is the primary goal and not the promotion of secondary practices or doctrines. When we make proclaiming Christ our priority, we find we can work together in unity, even though we may differ in secondary matters.
Conversely, when we wish to be perceived as better than others, we do not emphasize what we hold in common, but what is uniquely us, our distinctives. In an election year, when have you ever heard a political candidate say that he agrees with his opponent? Churches which seek to compete with other churches, or look down on other churches, must do so in terms of their differences rather than in terms of their unity and commonality.
The subject of the closing words of verse 17 Paul picks up in a little while, but for now Paul sets down two powerful arguments against the kind of pride which elevates “silver tongued orators” whose methods are those of worldly wisdom and power which appeal to the lost and ungodly. In verses 18-25, Paul argues that the gospel negates pride in a believer because the gospel is antithetical to human pride, human wisdom, and human power. In verses 26-31, Paul wages another attack on human pride by reminding the saints of who God has chosen to save, and that few saints are those who will ever win acclaim and status in a lost and pagan culture.
18 For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.” 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
The Corinthian Christians were characterized by quarrels and a party spirit. In verse 13, Paul indicates what he constantly emphasizes elsewhere, namely that divisions are contrary to Christ and to the gospel. Why then do Christians get caught up by quarrels and strife? The answer seems straightforward and simple: pride. Pride causes a person to desire to think of himself as being superior to others. If one can identify with a leader whom he perceives to be superior to all others, then he, as a follower, can feel superior to those who follow someone else. In verses 18-31, Paul points to two characteristics of the gospel which serve as a death blow to the human pride found in the Corinthian church, and, unfortunately, in every church.
In verses 18-25, Paul reminds the church that those who are status seekers will never gain recognition and status from the unbelieving world. The gospel does not appeal to human pride; it cannot even co-exist with it. The gospel informs us that there is only one thing to do with pride—crucify it.
The “word of the cross,” that is, the gospel, is not a status symbol to unbelievers; it is an offense. For those of us who “are being saved,”28 the gospel is the power of God (see also Romans 1:16). For the unbeliever, the cross is a shame; for the Christian, the cross is glorious.
The conflict between divine wisdom and power and the secular world’s view of these matters should come as no surprise. Throughout history God has worked in ways that the world would never have imagined or believed. God’s purpose in history is not to glorify man but to glorify Himself by demonstrating the foolishness of man’s wisdom. The text which Paul cites in verse 19 is but one indication of God’s intention of proving man’s wisdom to be folly. He refers to Isaiah 29:14 to show that God has always worked in a way that is contrary to human wisdom. Would human wisdom have chosen an insignificant people like the Jews to be the nation among whom God would dwell? Would human wisdom have chosen the land of Palestine over other places on earth? Would human wisdom have led the Israelites to be trapped between the Red Sea and the on-coming Egyptian army? Would human wisdom have instructed the people of God to use their power to help the weak, rather than to use their power to take advantage of the weak? Would human wisdom have purposed to save Gentiles through the rejection and failure of the Jews, rather than through their triumph? Would human wisdom have declared that the coming Messiah was to be born of a virgin?
In verse 20, Paul asks a series of questions. Where is the wise man, the scribe, the debater of this age? I think he means where are they in the church, in the outworking of God’s plans and purposes? Paul would have the Corinthians look around them to see where the intellectual and scholarly giants are. By and large, those so highly esteemed in the world are absent from the church and absent so far as the outworking of God’s purposes in human history. And even when God may draw one of the “greats,” He first humbles them. Nebuchadnezzar is but one example (see Daniel 1-4).
Does the world think that God’s wisdom is foolish? God has set about a course that will prove man’s wisdom to be foolish. God will use foolishness to prove the ungodly to be fools. Since the world has not come to know God through its wisdom, God will make Himself known to some through means which the world regards as foolish. God has chosen the cross of Christ as the means whereby men may be saved from their sins.
Jews and Gentiles may agree on few things, but they mutually hold that the cross of Christ is foolish. The Jews are into power through signs and wonders. All through our Lord’s life, they wanted to see signs and wonders. They expected their Messiah to be a wonder worker, here to do their bidding. Even the disciples bought into this frame of mind, so that Peter rebuked the Lord for speaking of His cross (Matthew 16).
The Gentiles were into a different kind of power—mind power, human wisdom. They took pride in following great intellectual thinkers or powerful orators. The message of a humble carpenter’s son, who died as a common criminal on a Roman cross, was not that which the Gentiles sought. And the straight-forward proclamation of this “word of the cross” by means that were far from entertaining or impressive was not popular either. To those who are called, this humanly unimpressive gospel is good news, and the proclamation of the cross of Christ is a manifestation of the wisdom and the power of God.
There are two radically different views of the same gospel. The view of the unbeliever, whether Jew or Gentile,29 is that the gospel is foolish and weak. The view of the Christian is that the gospel is the wisdom and the power of God. Even that which seems to the unbelieving eye to be God’s weakness and foolishness proves in the end to cause man’s wisdom and power to pale in insignificance.
The Corinthian saints were status seekers. Paul wanted them to see how foolish this was in the light of divine wisdom and power and how inconsistent status-seeking is with the gospel. First, Paul challenges his readers to take a good look around the church to note who was not present among them. This he did in verses 18-25. Glaringly absent in the church are those people who hold positions of status in the secular world, in accordance with secular values. The church is not made up of wise men, scribes, and debaters (verse 20). Now, in verses 26-31, Paul wants the Corinthians to give thought to who is present in the church.
“Look at yourselves,” Paul challenges the Corinthians. Granting the possibility of a few exceptions, Paul reminds the Corinthians of the rule. By and large, the church is not composed of the wise, the mighty, or the noble, when judged by fleshly (unbelieving) standards (verse 26). Instead, God has chosen to save the foolish, the weak, the base and despised, the “nobodies.” The word “chosen” in verse 27 is very significant, because it underscores that God chose those on the lowest rung of the social ladder. It was not that these were all that would come to God; it is that these are those whom God ordained to come to Him. It was not that God could do no better; it was that God chose not to do better.
Following the principle set down in verse 19, Paul explains why God selected the undesirables of this world for salvation. God has purposed to nullify the wisdom of the wise and to humble the proud. He has chosen to do so by employing means and people that the world rejects as weak and foolish and worthless. God chose the foolish things of this world to shame the wise, the weak things of this world to shame the strong, the base and despised things to humble that which is highly esteemed (verses 27-28).
God has not done this because the weak and foolish are any better than the powerful and the proud. He has set aside the highly regarded and employed those things which are disdained so that all the glory might come to Himself and not to mere men. This is the concluding point Paul makes in verses 29-31. If God were to achieve His purposes through the worldly wise and powerful, we would be inclined to give the praise and glory to the men He has used rather than to God. This world believes the “shakers and the movers” are the ones who make things happen. Even the church seeks to evangelize and train those whom the world regards as “most likely to succeed.” But God chooses the opposite, those whom we expect to fail (or, more accurately, those we already deem to be failures), so that when His wisdom and power are evident, there are no wise and powerful men to take their bows before men. Instead, men must bow before God, giving all the glory to Him. To God be the glory, great things He has done!
Obviously, there are just as many divisions in the church today as there were in Paul’s day. Some of us might argue that there are more divisions today than in his day. The thing that amazes me is the dramatic difference in the way we deal with those divisions and strife. In the church and in Christendom in general, the vast majority of cases are dealt with psychologically. This is the first level of appeal. If all else fails, turning to God and His Word is the last resort.
What is the root of this evil of divisions? The secular world, and a distressingly large number of professing Christians, would answer this question without a moment’s hesitation: poor self-esteem. This alleged “malady” is said to be the root of crime, of moral evils (many of which are no longer a crime), and of inter-personal conflicts. It should come as no surprise that Paul’s “root problem” is just the opposite of the secular world. Paul indicates that the root of the Corinthian conflicts is pride. It is not that the believers in the church think too little of themselves; they think too much of themselves. It is not “poor self-esteem” but “inflated self-esteem” that is the problem.
Why are these secular “cures” being embraced by the church? Why when we seek to heal conflicts and strife do we turn to a psychology book rather than to 1 Corinthians? When Paul deals with strife among the saints, he begins at the beginning—the gospel of Jesus Christ. His introductory words have already taken us to God and to His sufficient provisions for salvation and godly living. Now, after setting the standard of Christian unity, Paul seeks to correct the ungodly divisions in the church. He does so by turning us immediately to the gospel. Our salvation is Christ-centered and not man-centered. How then can Christians divide themselves from other Christians on the basis of the men whom they have chosen to follow? We were saved in the name of Jesus Christ; how is it that we now take pride in the names of the men we follow?
In the past, I have advocated “biblical thinking,” and I still do. But this text has forced me to see that Paul’s thinking goes even deeper. Paul is a model for us in what might be called “gospel thinking.” Baptism is a command of our Lord, and it is an important part of our obedience to Christ. But Paul makes it clear that proclaiming the gospel takes a higher priority in his life than performing baptisms. The Bible teaches us many truths, but the one truth which stands above all is that of the gospel. If any other truth begins to overshadow the gospel, something is wrong.
Notice with me how the gospel colors Paul’s thinking in almost any situation. In Acts 20:24, we see that Paul refuses to take the “advice” of the saints to avoid going to Jerusalem. Paul knows that “bonds and affliction” await him there, but Paul’s consuming desire is to fulfill his mission of proclaiming the gospel. Preaching Christ is more important than saving his skin. In Philippians 3:15, people who have “a different attitude” Paul leaves to God to change their hearts. However, in Galatians 1, Paul has a scathing rebuke for those who have “a different gospel” (see verses 6-10). When Paul is imprisoned, and some use this fact to further themselves at his expense, Paul rejoices because even in this, the gospel is preached (Philippians 1:12-18). In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul documents his right as an apostle to be supported by the churches where he ministers. He purposefully sets aside this right for the sake of the gospel (see verses 15-23, especially verse 23). When Paul encourages the saints in Corinth to give to the poor, Paul appeals to the gospel for their motivation in giving (2 Corinthians 8:9).
Over and over and over again, it is the gospel which provides the standard, the basis, the motivation, and the guiding principles for Christian living. The gospel is not merely that truth which we believe in order to be saved; it is the truth which we are to seek to grasp more fully day by day, and the truth which we are to live out in our everyday lives. As Paul put it,
6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, 7 having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude (Colossians 2:6-7).
Paul gets to the root of the problem of division and strife when he goes to the gospel, for the gospel is the key, the basis for all human relationships:
32 And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. 5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; 2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma (Ephesians 4:32-5:2).
1 If therefore there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Philippians 2:1-8).
12 And so, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. 14 And beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. 15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful (Colossians 3:12-15).
Pride is not the root of all evils (see 1 Timothy 6:10), but it is the root of many evils, including strife and division in the church. Pride was the cause of Satan’s downfall (see Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:1-19). Pride and wisdom are closely linked. In his pride, Satan tempted Adam and Eve in the garden. God had reserved certain knowledge for Himself, and that knowledge was there on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God forbade Adam and Eve to eat of this tree, to gain this knowledge. Eve saw that fruit, that knowledge, as desirable, and sought it by eating the fruit even though this required disobeying God. And the result of this act was division and strife, from that point onward in history. Man does not want to admit that only God is all-wise. Man seeks wisdom because he wishes to bolster his pride.
It was pride that prompted David to stay at home when he should have gone to war. As a result, he committed adultery with another man’s wife, and he tried to cover this sin with murder. As a result of David’s pride, he numbered the troops of Israel, and thereby brought upon his people the wrath of God. It was pride that God warned the nation Israel about, knowing that these people would eventually take credit for that which God had accomplished by His grace. Pride is a great evil, and it has for all of history been a prominent factor in human strife and division, even among the people of God.
Paul spotlights pride as the root problem among the Corinthians. He does not advocate months or years of therapy. He does not see the need to know the childhood, the background, or the individual struggles of each Christian. All they need to know is the gospel. It is by means of the gospel that God removed the conflict, the enmity, between sinners and Himself. It is also by means of the gospel that the enmity between men is removed:
11 Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands—12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:11-22).
The gospel is incompatible with human pride. When saints strive with other saints out of pride, the cure is not to enhance their pride, to improve their “self-esteem”; it is to remove that pride. The self-esteem of the saints does not need to be commended; it should not even be criticized. It needs to be crucified. Do you wonder why our Lord instructed His church to remember His suffering and death every week by the observance of the Lord’s Table (communion)? You should not. Communion is the commemoration of the work of Christ, the gospel. Communion is not simply a remembrance of an act which our Lord accomplished in the past; it is a way of life which we are to emulate every day of our lives.
How often, when men seek to evangelize the lost, or when they attempt to motivate Christians (and unbelievers) to give or to serve, do they appeal to human pride. They glorify certain tasks and positions, so that people will fill them for that glory. They publicly laud the gifts or service of people, so that they will be proud of their contribution. Gospel thinking requires us to do just the opposite. In order to be saved, we must confess our sin and admit that we are unworthy of God’s gift of salvation. We must humble ourselves and accept the free gift of eternal life in Jesus Christ. We must cease trusting in our goodness, in our works or efforts, in our worthiness, and cast ourselves on the sinless Son of God who died in our place, bearing the penalty for our sin, and giving to us His righteousness as a free gift. The gospel which saves is the gospel which humbles, and that humbling gospel is the basis for Christian unity and harmony. If you have never accepted the gospel message, and the gift of salvation in Christ of which the gospel speaks, I urge you to do so this very moment.
22 In Matthew 19, the scribes and Pharisees quiz Jesus about divorce. Under what circumstances can a man divorce his wife? Jesus’ response is to emphasize the rule and not the exceptions. It is not that exceptions do not exist. But to focus too much on the exceptions can undermine the rule. So here Paul wants to begin with the rule. He then cites specific examples where the Corinthians have departed from it (and these areas are not exceptions to the rule; they are examples of the rule).
23 Robertson and Plummer indicate that, “The expression is taken from Greek political life, meaning ‘be at peace’ or (as here) ‘make up differences.’” Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1971 [reprint]), p. 10. Leon Morris quotes Bishop Lightfoot: “This ‘strictly classical’ expression ‘is used of political communities which are free from factions, or of different states which entertain friendly relations with each other.’” Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966), pp. 38-39.
24 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary, F. F. Bruce, General Editor, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987 [reprint, 1993]), p. 54.
25 The term used here by Paul is a colorful one. Robertson and Plumber (p. 10) tell us, “It is used in surgery for setting a joint (Galen), and in Greek politics for composing factions (Hot. v. 28).” In the New Testament, it is employed for the process of mending fishing nets (Matthew 4:21).
27 “… nous, as is shown in ii. 16, denotes the Christian way of thinking in general, the conception of the gospel in its entirety; the gnome, according to vii. 25, refers rather to the manner of deciding a particular point, what we call opinion, judgment.” Frederic Louis Gadded, Commentary on First Corinthians, Kregel Reprint Library (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications [reprint], 1977), p. 63.
28 Paul speaks here of our salvation as an on-going process, and not just as a historical event.
29 It has been observed that Paul divides the whole world into two categories. These are not the categories of “Jew” and “Gentile,” but of believer and unbeliever.
While I was a high school teacher in a medium security prison, the opportunity arose to very naturally explain the essence of the gospel. Never before have I received the reaction I did that day from two men in particular. They found what I was saying incredibly stupid as, in a very distinct “New Joisey” twang, one inmate exclaimed to the other, “Ain’t that somethin’ man? Ain’t that somethin’?” This man’s reaction to the gospel was far more honest than most, for a great many non-Christians feel exactly the same way about the gospel but are simply too polite, or too afraid, to say so. In the confines of that prison, those two men could have cared less about what I thought of them, and so they very plainly expressed exactly what they thought of my religious beliefs.
In the first chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul exposes and then confronts the problem of divisions within in the church at Corinth. He renounces divisions as contrary to the gospel. Further, Paul implies that the underlying problem is pride. Individuals took pride in the one whom they chose to follow. As Paul later says, they have “become arrogant in behalf of one against the other” (4:6). In verses 18-31 of the first chapter, Paul argued that pride and the gospel are incompatible. The world will never esteem the gospel or those who embrace it because it is contradictory to all they highly esteem. The Jews, who are impressed by power, wanted signs (of power). A crucified Christ was certainly not a demonstration of power but of weakness. The Greeks were impressed by intellectualism, by wisdom. To them, there was nothing wise about the gospel. It was foolishness to believe that faith in a crucified criminal could save anyone from their sins.
Paul has challenged the Corinthian saints to look around the church and observe that those most esteemed by the world are strangely absent in the church. By and large, the church is not composed of wise men, scholars, and debaters of the day. The church is not made up of the cultural elite. In verses 26-31, Paul urges the saints to look around them in the church to see who is present. The church is not made up of the upper crust of society but rather the rejected and despised of society. Of course there are exceptions, but the rule is clear: “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are” (verses 27-28). This is so that no man may boast, but God may receive the glory for what He accomplishes through those most unlikely to succeed in this world.
One might conclude from what Paul has said that the gospel really is foolish and weak. Not at all! This is only the way the world perceives the gospel. In chapter 2, Paul reveals that weakness and simplicity are not the end of the story but the beginning. It is through the weakness of proclaiming the gospel that the wisdom and power of God are made manifest. The world regards God’s wisdom as foolish because it is incapable of comprehending or accepting its truths. God’s wisdom is a mystery which the unsaved cannot grasp, and no one would have known apart from divine revelation. Through His Spirit, God has revealed Himself to men. The Spirit who searches the depths of God has been given in a special way to the apostles. Through these inspired men, divine thoughts have been translated into divine words. Those who possess the Spirit by faith in Christ can appraise the spiritual truths of Scripture; those who are unsaved, and thus without the Spirit, cannot. No wonder they think God’s wisdom is foolish. They cannot understand it—or God. But we who have the Scriptures and the Spirit have the mind of Christ.
1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4 And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
The Corinthians now look upon Paul somewhat like a teenager views his or her parents. Paul is not wise but simplistic. He lacks the charm and charisma which makes his spiritual children proud of him, and thus they have begun to listen to others who have a higher level of esteem, especially by their peers. Paul seeks to correct their wayward thinking by reminding them that he is the same Paul who came to them at the beginning, preaching to them the gospel of Jesus Christ. It was through his simplistic message and methods that the Corinthians, once pagans, became saints. Paul now reminds them of his message and manner when he first came to them which resulted in their salvation.
When he came, Paul did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom. He did not come with “high fullutin” words or thoughts, nor did he employ oratorical embellishments which would draw attention to himself and to his methods. Paul came with a simple, straightforward approach which sought to make the message, not the messenger, primary. He came to them “proclaiming the testimony of God” (verse 1). That is, he came to them preaching the gospel in simple terms, without sensationalizing it.
In verse 3, Paul turns his attention from his message and method to his mind set. He describes the attitude with which he came to the Corinthians with the gospel. If the charlatans of that day had lived in our own time, they would have worn expensive clothing, had a recent face-lift, a self-assured manner, and an omnipresent smile. They would have exuded confidence and composure. But this would not be so with Paul. When Paul first came to Corinth, he worked as a blue collar laborer making tents with Aquila. His mind set was characterized by his threefold description: weakness, fear, and much trembling. He may have come with a physical weakness, for it does seem as though Paul suffered from some physical affliction (see 2 Corinthians 12:7-10). In addition, I believe Paul came to Corinth with a clear sense of his own limitations, knowing that the salvation and sanctification of men could only be accomplished by the miraculous intervention of God.
Paul also characterized his coming as “in fear and much trembling.” We know there were fears, as Luke indicates to us. After previous persecution in other cities, Paul came to Corinth where he again faced opposition. But the Lord appeared to Paul with these words of assurance: “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; 10 for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city” (Acts 18:9b-10).
I have always thought of Paul as a kind of “pit bull” evangelist. Some dogs have no courage at all, while others may sound awesome but when threatened or harmed they protect themselves by backing off. Still other dogs—like the pit bull—will continue to fight until they are dead. How easy it is to think of Paul in this way, as invincible and undaunting. But Luke’s words indicate otherwise. Paul was a man of like passions with our own. He too had fears. But our Lord’s words of assurance enabled him to press on in spite of his fears.
The expression, “fear and trembling,” seems to mean more than just “fear” and “trembling” combined.
33 But the woman fearing and trembling, aware of what had happened to her, came and fell down before Him, and told Him the whole truth (Mark 5:33).
15 And his affection abounds all the more toward you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, how you received him with fear and trembling (2 Corinthians 7:15).
5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ (Ephesians 6:5).
12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13).
21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, “I am full of fear and trembling” (Hebrews 12:21).
The expression seems to convey the realization on the part of the person fearing and trembling that he or she is of a lower rank, a lower position than the one who is feared. The woman who had been healed by touching Jesus (Mark 5:33) seems to have realized not only that she had been healed, but in being thus healed, she came to recognize the greatness of the One who produced the healing. Slaves should submit to their masters with fear and trembling, recognizing that God has put them under the authority of their masters. We are told by Paul to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling,” knowing that it is ultimately not our working or even our willing, but God’s sovereign work in us which causes us to will and to work His good pleasure.
Pride was the underlying reason for the divisions in Corinth. People took pride in following the right leader, the leader who spoke words of wisdom with oratorical skill who also had status and esteem among the unbelievers. Paul speaks of himself as a humble man, a man with no confidence in his own abilities, in his own message or methods, but whose trust is in God alone. Paul proclaims Christ, knowing that apart from the working of God in the hearts of men, nothing eternal will happen.
Paul’s actions in Corinth were purposeful, not accidental or haphazard. It was not that Paul was ignorant or uneducated, nor was it that Paul only knew about Christ and Christ crucified (verse 2). Paul determined that this was all he would know while ministering in Corinth (or anywhere else). He chose to limit his knowledge to those truths which would save men from their sins and transfer them from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. Even though many would be impressed by his knowledge in areas which the unbelievers believed to be wisdom, Paul determined not to know such things and thus not to preach them.
Paradoxically, Paul came to the Corinthians in weakness, fear, and much trembling so that the power of God might be demonstrated (verse 4). If Paul’s human skills were dominant in his preaching, Paul’s power would be displayed. But when Paul came in weakness proclaiming a message men deemed foolish and men were converted, it was evident it was the result of the supernatural power of God and not the merely human power of Paul. Paul has much more to say on this subject later, especially in 2 Corinthians 12, but for now we should note that Paul’s weakness was not a hindrance to the demonstration of God’s power but the means through which God’s power was displayed. God’s power is manifested through human weakness.
Paul did not want to make disciples; that is, Paul did not want people to be his followers. His goal was for men and women to trust in Jesus Christ for salvation and to become His followers, His disciples. If men were converted because of Paul’s wisdom and because of his persuasive skills, they could then be led astray by anyone who was wiser and more persuasive. Paul’s desire was that men would place their faith in God and in His power (verse 5).
6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written, “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, And which have not entered the heart of man, All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”
At verse 6, Paul changes from the first person singular (“I”) to the first person plural (“we”). Verses 1-6 spoke of Paul’s mind set, message, and methods when he first came to Corinth with the gospel. Now in verse 6, Paul speaks for more than just himself. I understand the “we” to refer principally to the apostles.30 As further developments in this epistle and 2 Corinthians will show, the real struggle was not with Corinthian cliques, each of which had chosen to follow a different apostle, but with those in Corinth who had turned from the apostles to other teachers, of which some will prove to be “false apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:12-15).
What characterizes Paul that is so offensive to some of the Corinthians, causing them to follow other leadership? It is Paul’s “simplistic” devotion to Christ crucified. Paul has chosen to be a kind of “Johnny-one-note,” and the note he continues to play is offensive to both Jews and Gentiles. Consequently, for a Corinthian Christian to identify with the apostle Paul is to embrace that which is foolish and weak to the unbelieving mind, whether Jew or Gentile. To identify with Paul and his preaching is to become a fool in the eyes of the world, which has no status. And so some are tempted to identify with new leaders whose methods and message are far more acceptable. Associating with them gives one a much higher status.
Paul does not deny that his message and methods are foolish; rather, he emphasizes this is so. But in moving to the first person plural (“we”), Paul links himself, his message, and his methods with all of the other apostles. Paul’s message and methods are no different from those of his fellow apostles. He speaks with and for all the apostles as he admonishes the Corinthians.
At verse 6, Paul makes another shift in his emphasis. Up to this point, Paul has granted the fact that his gospel is foolish and weak. Now he begins to clarify and expand his instruction. The apostolic gospel is foolish and weak to unbelievers, but it is neither foolish nor weak in the sight of God. Neither should it be regarded as foolish nor weak in the sight of the saints. In verse 6, Paul insists that the apostles do speak wisdom. This wisdom is not for all, however. There are two groups from whom apostolic wisdom is withheld. The first group is those who are immature (verse 6). In chapter 3, verse 1, Paul plainly tells the Corinthians they are “men of flesh,” “babes in Christ,” and in verse 3, he contends that they still remain in the same condition. Did the Corinthians chafe because Paul’s message was too simple? It was because the simple things were all they were able to grasp. The problem was not with Paul or his colleagues; the problem was with the Corinthians.
The second group from whom apostolic wisdom is withheld is those who are unbelievers (2:6). Paul says the wisdom the apostles preach is not of “this age.” Consequently, the rulers of “this age” are not able to grasp it. Even those who are the wisest and most powerful people of this age are unable to grasp it. This is evident at the cross of Calvary. There, at the cross, the rulers of this age rejected Jesus as the Messiah as God’s means of salvation. God’s “wisdom” was never more clearly manifested to men than in the person of Jesus Christ, but the best of this age were not able to see it. It is obvious that they did not receive this “Wisdom” because they crucified Him.
Paul’s words here help us to distinguish between God’s wisdom and worldly wisdom. God’s wisdom was revealed in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ at His first coming, but the world rejected Him and the wisdom He manifested. The wisdom of God is “eternal wisdom,” a wisdom established in eternity past yet to be fully implemented when Christ’s kingdom is established on the earth. The wisdom of this world is “empirical wisdom,” based upon that which can be seen and heard and touched. The wisdom of God is otherwise. It is not seen by the naked eye, it cannot be heard with the ears, it cannot be fathomed by the natural mind. It surpasses even man’s imagination. It is other worldly. This should not come as a surprise to the Christian, for the prophet Isaiah indicated as much in the citation which Paul includes in verse 9.
Let me pause to reflect further on this concept of the “other worldliness” of God’s wisdom. Do we not tend to think of heaven as an extension of earth’s joys? Most people who believe in heaven think of it as the place where they will be reunited with their family and friends. And yet, when Jesus spoke to the Sadducees, he chided them for their ignorance because they supposed marriage would continue on into eternity (Matthew 22:23-33; see also 1 Corinthians 7:25-35). Are we perplexed when we find prophecies which describe things of which we have never seen nor heard? For example, there are Ezekiel’s wheels (see 1:16, 19-21; 3:13; 10:2-19; 11:22), and there are the “living creatures” of the Book of Revelation (Revelation 4:6-9; 5:6-14; 6:6; 7:11; 14:3; 15:7; 19:4). Nothing in this life can be compared with such things. Heaven is not just an improved earth; it will be “a new heaven and a new earth” (Revelation 21:1) where there will be no sea (21:1), no temple (21:22), no need for sun or moon (21:23-25; 22:5). The streets, we are told, will be paved with gold. This may be a way of telling us that what we value most highly on earth will have little or no value in heaven. Heaven, that biblical “new age,” is nothing like the present age, and thus no mortal can conceive of what it will be like. The things of God are other worldly, and thus we cannot even guess as to what they will be like.
10 For [But]31 to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
Paul has just shown us why God’s wisdom, the wisdom which the apostles proclaimed, is rejected by the great but unbelieving men of this age. Men of this age are limited to temporal, human wisdom. They cannot grasp God’s eternal wisdom. They cannot see, hear, or comprehend the things of God. How then can mere mortals ever know God’s wisdom? The answer is found in verses 10-16. In verses 10-13, Paul expounds the doctrines of inspiration and revelation whereby God has made his wisdom known through the apostles who have inscripturated the “depths of God.” In verses 14-16, Paul turns to the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, enabling him to comprehend the things of God which He revealed in the Scriptures through the apostles.
How can men know of a God who cannot be seen and whose provisions are beyond human thought? The answer: through the Holy Spirit, who has imparted the knowledge of God to and through the apostles in the New Testament Scriptures. The Holy Spirit is the “Spirit of God.” Just as man’s human spirit knows the deep thoughts of the man, so the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, knows the intimate things of God. When the Lord Jesus was on the earth, He spoke many things to His disciples which they did not understand or even remember. Jesus told them that after His departure, He would send His Spirit. The Holy Spirit would not only call the things He had spoken to their remembrance, He would also enable them to understand them so that they could record them for others. In addition, the Spirit would reveal things to come, things of the coming age:
25 “These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you” (John 14:25-26).
12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said, that He takes of Mine, and will disclose it to you” (John 16:12-15).
Paul has already spoken of the wisdom of God as a mystery (1 Corinthians 2:7). A mystery is something God reveals concerning the future, which is not fully grasped before its fulfillment because it is beyond human comprehension. The apostles played a unique role as “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Corinthians 4:1). After God has completed a work that was formerly a mystery, He fully discloses that mystery through one of His apostles. Paul was surely one of the great “mystery apostles” in that it was his privilege to speak of several mysteries. In the Book of Ephesians, Paul spoke of the privilege God had given him as an apostle to reveal some of these mysteries (Ephesians 1:3-14; 3:1-13; 5:32).
In 1 Corinthians 2:10-13, Paul describes the fulfillment of our Lord’s promise to His disciples (remember that Paul was divinely added as the twelfth apostle). Man, Paul is saying, could never know God on his own. But God has chosen to make Himself known through His Word and through His Spirit. His Spirit was given to the apostles in a special way so that the things of God might be inscripturated, divinely inspired and recorded as a part of the Bible. The apostles have been given the Spirit in this unique way so they “might know the things freely given to us by God” and might communicate them to us. The Spirit superintended this process by “combining spiritual thoughts (“the depths of God,” verse 10) with spiritual words” (the words of Holy Scripture).
Here is a very crucial difference between the apostles and the false apostles. The apostles claimed to speak for God, and they did! False apostles claimed to speak for God, and they did not! God can be known intimately because He has chosen to disclose His innermost thoughts and being to men by means of His Spirit working through the apostles, resulting in the New Testament Scriptures. To reject the apostles and their teaching as the “wisdom of God” is to reject God, for they are the only ones through whom God has chosen to disclose Himself. Is the gospel simplistic? It is because God’s way of salvation is simplistic—one way (see Matthew 7:13-14ff.; John 14:6). To reject the apostles’ teaching is thus to reject the God who disclosed Himself to men through them.
There may be a secondary interpretation of Paul’s words in verses 10-13, but, if so, it is surely secondary. Many interpret these verses as speaking of God’s direct disclosure of Himself to men, through His Spirit. I do not think so. I believe these words make sense only as interpreted above. This same thought is taught by Peter as well in 2 Peter 1:16-21. The work of God the Spirit in the lives of Christians in general is spoken of in the closing verses (14-16) of 1 Corinthians 2.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no man. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:1-16).
God has disclosed Himself to men through the Holy Spirit. The Spirit knows the intimate things of God and, by inspiring the apostles, has translated spiritual thoughts about God into spiritual words—the New Testament. In the Old Testament period, God revealed His Word through the prophets. In the New Testament times, this revelation came through the apostles. Yet the unbeliever seems blinded to the truth contained in God’s Word. How can this be? How can some find in the Bible a rich source of revelation which enables them to know God more intimately, while others find the Scriptures a senseless mixture of writings which cannot even be understood? Why are some drawn to the Scriptures and others repulsed by them?
The difference may be summed up in terms of the presence or the absence of the Holy Spirit. We see in verses 10-13 that Paul speaks of the Spirit’s work in conveying God’s thoughts to men by inspiring the apostles to convey spiritual thoughts through spiritual words, the words of the New Testament. Now, in verses 14-16, Paul writes of the work of the Spirit, enabling men and women to understand the Scriptures and thus to know the mind of God.
Previously, Paul has divided mankind into two groups: (1) those who trust in the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary for their eternal salvation and (2) those who do not. Another way of viewing these two groups would be: (1) those (unbelievers) who do not possess the Holy Spirit, who cannot understand the wisdom of God as revealed in the Scriptures, and (2) those who do possess the Holy Spirit, who therefore have the capacity to understand the Scriptures.
The first group Paul refers to as “the natural man” (verse 14). The “natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God.” The natural man, who is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit, cannot understand the Scriptures (“the things of the Spirit of God”). God the Holy Spirit conveyed the “deep things of God” to the apostles, who by the Spirit’s inspiration, recorded them as Scripture. The Scriptures are thus “the things of the Spirit of God,” the things which the Spirit of God has originated and communicated. How can one “devoid of the Spirit” (see Jude 19) grasp the things of the Spirit? No wonder the wisdom of God seems foolish to the unbeliever. They cannot fathom anything which falls within the realm of the Spirit.
More than a year ago, Dr. Jim Lopez visited our family while interviewing for a position at the University of Texas Medical School in Dallas. A part of his interview process involved making a presentation of his research. After Sunday dinner, he wanted to “run through” his presentation one last time, and so we set up the slide projector in the living room. I must confess I did not understand a word Jim said. It was completely over my head; it was a different world. Both of our cats perched on the coffee table beside the slide projector and were fascinated with the slides. Jim’s research was done with rats, and the cats found the slides of great interest.
True wisdom cannot be grasped by those who are unsaved, by those who do not have the Spirit of God dwelling within them illuminating the truth of the Scriptures so they can know the deep things of God. True wisdom speaks of things which pertain to a future age and of things which no man has ever seen, or heard, or is even able to imagine. The only way this kind of wisdom can be known is for men to trust in Jesus Christ so that their spiritual eyes may be opened to see the wonders of the wisdom of God and the world to come.
The Christian is the one who is called “spiritual” (verse 15) here by Paul. Most often, we understand the term “spiritual” to refer to those who are mature, who manifest the fruit of the Spirit in their lives. Paul seems to use it here to refer to those who possess the Spirit, who live in the realm of the Holy Spirit because they have trusted in Jesus Christ. The one who possesses the Holy Spirit is able to grasp and to appraise both temporal and eternal matters. The Book of Proverbs, for example, is divinely inspired and provided so that we may see life clearly from God’s point of view. The prophetic books have been given to us so that we may look at the eternal dimension of God’s plan. Thus, Paul can say that the Christian who possesses the Holy Spirit is able to “appraise all things,” things earthly and things eternal, things pertaining to this age, and things pertaining to the next.
While the Christian—“he who is spiritual”—is able to appraise all things and thus to understand the beliefs and the behavior of the unsaved, the unsaved (“natural”) man is unable to understand the Christian (“he who is spiritual”). No wonder Christians are misunderstood and even persecuted. No wonder they are considered foolish and weak. This is the best the unaided mind of the natural man can do.
In verse 16, Paul closes our chapter with the words of Isaiah 40:13: “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:1-16). These words sum up the difference between the non-Christian and the Christian. God has revealed Himself to all men in the person of Christ and in the Scriptures (see verses 10-13 above). The Scriptures make no sense to the unbeliever. This is because it is impossible for the unbeliever to grasp the things of God apart from the Spirit of God. Who can know the mind of the Lord? No one can, apart from the ministry of the Holy Spirit in revealing the Word of God through the apostles and in illuminating the Scriptures to the individual believer. Note that the words of verse 16 indicate not only the natural man’s ignorance but also his arrogance. Who would think that any man could instruct God? But this is precisely what the unbeliever does think. This is why they think the Christian is foolish and weak.
In contrast to the unbeliever, who is oblivious to the mind of God, the Christian can say confidently, “We have the mind of Christ.” The “we” may refer either to the apostles, who alone can speak the “mind of Christ,” or more generally, of all the saints who possess the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures. It is through the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit that the “mind of Christ” is conveyed to the saints. The Christian has both the Word of God and the witness of His Spirit, the Author of that Word. What more can one ask for than this?
This final statement sums up the vast difference of opinion which exists between Christians and unbelievers over “wisdom.” The unbeliever is incapable of understanding God’s wisdom and so is confined to a very limited, distorted temporal wisdom. The Christian has the means for knowing the mind of God and thus has access to the wisdom of God. The Christian should not be surprised by the reaction of the unbeliever to the preaching of the gospel. And the Christian should not forsake the vast wisdom God has made available to us in order to pursue the wisdom which the world seeks.
What a blow this chapter strikes at human pride. Paul’s coming to the Corinthians was far from prestigious. He came in weakness, fear, and much trembling. He came with a message offensive to both Jews and Greeks. He refused to “know” anything other than the crucified Christ, for he came to bring the message of salvation. His message was not one of superior wisdom, one that would appeal to the intellectual curiosity or headiness of the Corinthians. His method of presentation was not one that would naturally draw a crowd or attract a following. From a merely human point of view, Paul did everything wrong when he went to Corinth. But what happened? A number of his readers came to faith in Jesus Christ because of Paul’s mind set, message, and method!
How could Paul do everything wrong (from a worldly point of view) and yet sinners be converted and a church born? In verses 1-5, Paul indicates that he purposed to come to the Corinthians as he did so that the Corinthians’ faith would “not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God” (2:5). How does this happen? How is the faith of men and women turned God-ward by a mind set of weakness and humility and by a message and method which runs contrary to human wisdom? The answer is implied here and clearly stated later by Paul:
9 And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Corinthians 12:9-10).
In God’s economy, divine wisdom is foolishness to the secular mind; divine power is weakness to the unbeliever. Paul’s weakness and simplicity were not obstacles to divine wisdom and power; they were the means through which God’s wisdom and power were demonstrated. Had Paul come with self-assurance and confidence preaching a “wisdom” applauded by the world, through a method which ranked with the best secular communicators, the best that could have happened was that men would place their confidence and trust in Paul. But when Paul came as he did, only God could convince and convert the Corinthians, and their faith must therefore be in God, not in Paul.
How does this happen? How can human weakness be transformed into divine power? How can human foolishness become divine wisdom and pagan sinners become saints? The answer: The Word of God and the Spirit of God. The gospel is the means by which men are saved: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16). And how can the gospel become the “power of God for salvation?” Again, the Spirit of God:
7 “But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged” (John 16:7-11).
The Corinthians had become mesmerized by men and by human wisdom. They were wrong. What had saved them was the Word of God and the Spirit of God, working through humble men who proclaimed a straightforward, simple message of Christ crucified, even though their message and their methods were unappealing to unsaved men.
If the Word of God and the Spirit of God were sufficient to save the Corinthians, Paul makes it clear to them that the teaching of the apostles does convey wisdom, but a wisdom of a different order (verses 6-9). It is a wisdom which even the cultural elite (“the rulers of this age,” verses 6, 8) could not comprehend. Indeed, when wisdom was personified in the person of Jesus Christ, they crucified Him. Why would the Corinthians be so enamored with secular, human wisdom? It cannot lead us to God; indeed, it will turn us from God. Human wisdom cannot comprehend God or the things which He has for men. Human wisdom is of no eternal value, and its temporal value is limited.
At verse 10, Paul turns us once again to the Word of God and the Spirit of God. What men could never have known about God (see verse 9), God has chosen to reveal to men. This He has done through His Spirit. His Spirit knows what no man can know about God. His Spirit took these spiritual thoughts, spiritual realities, and translated them into spiritual words, the words of Scripture. This He did by His Spirit, who inspired the apostles who were the human authors of the New Testament.
Men can come to know God in only one way—through His Word and through His Spirit. There are many different beliefs about God, but there is only one true God. This is the God who has revealed Himself to us in the Bible. All views of God which originate with men, rather than with God, are false. All views of God which come from some other source than the Bible are false. How often I hear people say something like, “Well, I like to think of God as… .” It does not matter how you would like to think of God. Paul’s words inform us that the way we think about God is certain to be wrong, for true wisdom comes from above, not from below. True wisdom flows from God to men, not from men God-ward. The Bible reveals to us a God that we would not have imagined, a God whom we would not have wanted, a God whom we would not have received. Apart from the Spirit of God and the Word of God, we could never have come to know God.
If anyone can appreciate this truth Paul is teaching, it is the teacher. Think about Paul. He was a devout Jew, deeply religious, committed, and sincere. But he was dead wrong. When God revealed Himself to Paul (it is always God who initiates a relationship with man and who initiates the revelation of Himself to man), everything suddenly changed. Indeed, all was reversed. The things he once prized, thinking they won him favor with God, Paul now counted as “dung” (Philippians 3:1-11). Now Paul is a new man in Christ. Now he has come to know God through His Word and through His Spirit. That is what Paul wants for each one of us.
If you have never trusted in Jesus Christ, you do not know God. You cannot know God apart from Christ, and you cannot know Christ apart from His Word and His Spirit. Hell will be populated with countless souls who served a “god” of their own making, and such “gods” are not God at all but only idols of our mind. We cannot know God through our own wisdom or insight. We cannot see, hear, or touch Him. But He has revealed Himself through His Word, the Bible. By the ministry of His Spirit, we can come to know God personally as the One who has provided for the forgiveness of our sins and for eternal life. God has revealed Himself in His Son, who died on the cross of Calvary, bearing the penalty for our sins. He has raised Him from the dead, as proof of His satisfaction with the work of Christ. All we need do is to believe the One whom God sent, that we are sinners, deserving eternal punishment, and that through the death of Christ, we have been punished and raised to newness of life. I urge you to view God through the pages of Holy Scripture and to trust in His provision for salvation in Jesus Christ.
My Christian friend, do you believe wisdom comes only from God, through the Scriptures, by means of the Spirit? If so, where are you seeking daily wisdom, the wisdom to understand the events and crises of daily living? Where are you seeking a knowledge of God and of His “mind”? Where do you go to learn of the glories of the coming age and of His promised kingdom? Do you read the Bible, or books about the Bible, or do you read “Christian books,” sparse with references to the Word of God or the Spirit of God? God has revealed Himself through His Word and through His Spirit, and we do well to take heed:
1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (Hebrews 1:1-2).
1 For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, 4 God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will (Hebrews 2:1-4).
1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, 2 like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, 3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord (1 Peter 2:1-3).
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18 and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:16-21).
30 Would the Corinthians segment themselves into factions; would they distinguish their groups by individual leaders? Paul speaks of and for the apostles as a group, with no distinction. There may be divisions in the church concerning apostles, but there is no dissention among the apostles.
31 It is baffling to see the translation “for,” chosen as the reading of preference by the translators of the NASB. The KJV, NKJV, NIV, and Berkeley versions, and even J. B. Phillips’ paraphrase all begin verse 10 with “But.” The editors of the NASB do indicate in a marginal note that some Greek manuscripts read “but.” The fact is that most all of them do so with very sparse support for the reading they have selected. In addition, the context calls for a more decisive break here, indicating the beginning of a new paragraph.
I probably read the automobile section of the Want Ads more often than most. In addition to the year, make, and model of the car, certain bits of information determine whether I call the owner32 to ask for more information. Normally, good automobiles are identified by labels such as, “cream puff,” “immaculate,” “like new,” “showroom condition,” “pristine” or “spotless.” The losers’ category, from which I usually buy, are labeled “basic transportation,” “cheap,” “rough,” “good work vehicle,” “mechanics special,” “needs TLC,” or even “ugly.” A friend once owned a Vega (so did I, but I repented), and I offered to write the newspaper ad when she decided it was time to sell. Since it was Thanksgiving, I suggested the ad read: “Here’s a real turkey! Only 39 cents a pound.”
Other labels are not clear about the quality of the car for sale. Recently a Honda was advertised as, “One very old owner.” I know what “one owner” means, but I could not grasp what the seller meant by “very old.” Were they elderly and no longer driving very much or very fast, or had the car been driven by someone whose driving skills had deteriorated so much the car had reached a premature demise?
Labels are also a part of the Christian’s vocabulary, and not all are biblical. As we approach the third chapter of Paul’s first recorded Epistle to the Corinthians, we find several labels, and one is the source of fairly intense debate among evangelicals. The label, “carnal Christian,” is based upon the rendering of our text in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 by the King James Version:
1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? (1 Corinthians 3:1-3, KJV, emphasis mine).
The King James’ rendering of “carnal” comes from the influence of the Latin Vulgate translation. The Latin word chosen to translate the Greek word, sarkinos, is equivalent to the English rendering, “carnal.” This is probably not the best rendering because of the nuances of the term, which the translators of the NASB changed to fleshly, and the NIV version to worldly. J. B. Phillips focuses on the contrast Paul makes with those who are spiritual and renders the term unspiritual.
There are several good reasons for restricting our study to only the first four verses of chapter 3 and the topic of the “carnal Christian.” First, the debate over the category of the “carnal Christian” is heated, with broad implications for good or evil. Second, the label, “carnal Christian”—whatever it means—is one Paul uses to describe the condition of many of the Corinthian Christians. This is a most important point. The first and second Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians are about “True Spirituality,” the title I have chosen for this series. Paul defines true spirituality, contrasted with the “carnality” of the Corinthians, and with their understanding of spirituality. Understanding what Paul means by “carnal” becomes crucial to our grasp of his two Epistles to the Corinthians. With this in view, let us carefully and prayerfully consider the “carnal Christian” summarized in our text.
Paul lays the foundation for this Epistle in the first nine verses of chapter 1. He indicates his letter is not only written to the saints at Corinth but to all the saints (verse 2). He assumes that his readers are true saints, and, therefore, he gives thanks to God because he knows God has abundantly provided for their salvation, sanctification, and future glorification. Paul’s confidence is not in the Corinthians, but in the God who saved them and who will perfect them (verses 4-9).
At verse 10, Paul begins to deal with the problem of divisions within the saints. He first exhorts them to live in unity (verse 10), and then indicates he is aware of factions emerging in Corinth which seem to focus on following a particular leader (verses 11-12). Paul strongly rejects such divisions as contrary to the gospel (verse 13). He then speaks of his own ministry, and the fact that preaching the gospel takes priority over such secondary matters as baptism, important though they may be (verses 14-17).
Verse 17 serves as Paul’s transition to his next line of argument. He says his preaching is not done in “cleverness of speech,” because this is detrimental to the proclamation of the cross of Christ. (If the cross is the good news that, in Christ, God has enabled men to die to all they were as unbelievers, how can Paul preach in a way that seeks to capitalize on human skill and ability?)
Men and women who boast that they are followers of a certain prominent leader (“I am of…”), or of Christ Himself, are exhibiting pride. Paul reminds his readers in verses 18-31 that the preaching of Christ crucified is diametrically opposed to worldly pride. He therefore encourages his readers in verses 18-25 to look around the church and remind themselves that the culturally elite, in whom the world takes pride, are strangely absent. This is because the gospel is an offense to them, appearing to them as foolish and weak. Conversely, they are attracted to worldly wisdom and power.
In verses 26-31, Paul tells his readers to look about them to see whom God has chosen to save. As they look to their left and to their right, and in the mirror, with few exceptions, they must note that God has chosen those whom the world’s elite despise and reject. God chooses to save the weak, the foolish, and those who are “nobodies.” Through them, He accomplishes His purposes so that God’s power is revealed, and He receives the praise and the glory, rather than men.
In the first five verses of chapter 2, Paul reminds his Corinthian readers that they were saved through weakness and foolishness. When Paul first came to them in Corinth, his mentality, his message, and his method were those the world’s elite disdain. He came in “weakness and in fear and in much trembling,” (verse 3), having purposed to know nothing the world regards as wisdom, but only Christ, and Christ crucified (verse 2). He came preaching simply, with no secular techniques of human persuasion (verse 4). He did so because God’s power is demonstrated through human weakness, and men’s faith then rests in God rather than men (verse 5).
Just because the world regards the gospel as foolish does not mean Paul and the other apostles have no wisdom to teach. Paul does teach wisdom, but only to those who are mature in Christ (2:6). Paul’s kind of wisdom cannot be grasped by those who are “wise” in this present age. Paul drives his point home by reminding us that God’s wisdom has been revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. What did the rulers of His day do with Him? They crucified Him (verse 8). If the culturally elite (the “wise” of this age) had been able to grasp divine wisdom, they could not have missed it in Christ. But if they crucified our Lord, the Lord of glory, we must not deceive ourselves into thinking they can be won through worldly wisdom and worldly methods. Paul further drives home his point by turning our attention in verse 9 to the words of Isaiah. These words buttress Paul’s argument, informing us that the natural senses cannot discern the things of God, the eternal wisdom pertaining to things yet to be revealed.
If men are not capable of knowing God by their own efforts, how can God ever be known by men? Paul answers this dilemma in verses 10-16. Of His initiative, God chose to reveal Himself to men through His Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God alone knows the “depths of God” and has revealed them through the human authors of the New Testament, so that in these Scriptures the “wisdom of God” is revealed, which men cannot otherwise know (verses 10-13). The same Spirit who converted the “spiritual thoughts” of God into “spiritual words” (i.e., the New Testament Scriptures) also enables believers to understand the wisdom of God. The natural, unconverted man, does not have the Spirit within, and thus he cannot understand the Scriptures. The Spirit indwells the Christian, the “spiritual man,” and thus he is able to understand this current age and the mysteries of God revealed in Scripture concerning the coming age (verses 14-16).
The Corinthian saints have begun to look down upon Paul (and the other apostles) and the gospel message he preaches because it is simplistic (Christ crucified). And it is proclaimed in a way which does not stimulate or appeal to the flesh. The Corinthians have turned from Paul and his kind of preaching to others, whose “wisdom” and “power” are of this world. Their excuse for turning from Paul to other men and another “wisdom” is that Paul fails to measure up to the new standard set by the cultural elite, whose message and methods appeal to the lost.
Paul has a big surprise for the Corinthians in chapter 3. Do they think Paul is the problem? They are wrong! Paul has already hinted at the real problem. In chapter 2, verse 6, Paul writes, “Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature.” Now Paul tells the Corinthians they are not mature. The reason he cannot speak words of wisdom to them is because they are “carnal.” We are back once again to the word “carnal” (or “fleshly,” or “worldly”). If we are to understand this text and the message of Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians, we must deal with this term.
C. I. Scofield’s note in the Scofield Bible articulates a definition of the “carnal man,” which some embrace and others eschew:
Paul divides men into three classes: psuchikos, ‘of the senses’ (Jas. 3:15; Jude 19), or ‘natural,’ i.e. the Adamic man, unrenewed through the new birth (John 3:3, 5); pneumatikos, ‘spiritual,’ i.e. the renewed man as Spirit-filled and walking in the Spirit in full communion with God (Eph. 5:18-20); and sarkikos, ‘carnal,’ ‘fleshly,’ i.e. the renewed man who, walking ‘after the flesh,’ remains a babe in Christ (1 Cor. 3:1-4). The natural man may be learned, gentle, eloquent, fascinating, but the spiritual content of Scripture is absolutely hidden from him; and the fleshly, or carnal, Christian is able to comprehend only its simplest truths, ‘milk’ (1 Cor. 3:2).33
A strong rebuttal to Scofield’s interpretation comes from a pamphlet by Ernest C. Reisinger:
Many who regularly occupy church pews, fill church rolls, and are intellectually acquainted with the facts of the gospel never strike one blow for Christ. They seem to be at peace with his enemies. They have no quarrel with sin and, apart from a few sentimental expressions about Christ, there is no biblical evidence that they have experienced anything of the power of the gospel in their lives. Yet in spite of the evidence against them, they consider themselves to be just what their teachers teach them—that they are ‘carnal Christians’. And as carnal Christians they believe they will go to heaven, though perhaps not first-class, and with few rewards.
That something is seriously wrong in lives which reveal such features will readily be admitted by most readers of these pages; no argument is needed to prove it. But the most serious aspect of this situation is too often not recognized at all. The chief mistake is not the carelessness of these church-goers; it is the error of their teachers who, by preaching the theory of ‘the carnal Christian’, have led them to believe that there are three groups of men,—the unconverted man, the ‘carnal Christian’ and the ‘spiritual Christian’… all those who accept this [‘carnal Christian’] view use 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 to support it. Consequently, if it can be established that the preponderance of Scripture teaches only two classes or categories of men—regenerate and unregenerate, converted and unconverted, those in Christ and those outside of Christ—the ‘carnal Christian’ teaching would be confronted with an insurmountable objection. It would be in conflict with the whole emphasis of Scripture and of the New Testament in particular.34
Virtually all admit that while Paul has just (2:14-16) divided the world into two groups—those who are “spiritual” (saved, who possess the Spirit) and those who are “natural” (unsaved, and thus who do not have Spirit)—he now speaks of three categories in chapter 3, verses 1-4:
Certainly there is such a thing as a carnal or worldly Christian, but the ‘carnal Christian’ theory has in recent years taken on some fairly weird extremes that bear little relation to what this chapter actually says. When we remember that this is the only place where the New Testament uses this language, we are forced to recognize that it is important to get the interpretation of the passage right.35
I also recognize that there is a sense in which Christians may be said to be carnal but I must add that there are different degrees of carnality. Every Christian is carnal in some area of his life at many times in his life. And in every Christian ‘the flesh lusteth against the Spirit’ (Gal. 5:17).36
First Corinthians 3 is not the only place in the Bible where Christians are referred to as those who fall short of the goal of being “spiritual”:
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil (Hebrews 5:11-14).
1 Brethren, even if a man is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, lest you too be tempted (Galatians 6:1).
The writer to the Hebrews uses very similar terms to Paul’s as he speaks of those to whom he is writing as not able to handle the spiritual “meat” of his teaching on Melchizedek. Their immaturity causes them to still be dependent on others and to continue to require “milk.” In Galatians 6, Paul instructs “spiritual” Christians that they are to come to the aid of those “caught” in a particular sin. Such a saint is not spiritual. There must be some category into which he or she can be placed, since the category of “spiritual” simply does not fit.
To those of the “either/or” school, I have a few things to say. The “either/or” school is that group of people who think—yea, who insist—that things must be either one way, or they must be another. Ernest Reisinger seems to say that we must have either a two-fold division of mankind (saved and unsaved, “spiritual” and “natural”), or we must have a three-fold classification.37 But one thing is for sure: in Reisinger’s mind, we cannot have both.
Life simply is not this way, and neither are the Scriptures. The Pharisees pressed Jesus with this question: “Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?” (Matthew 22:17). Do we pay taxes to Caesar, or do we give to God? Jesus answered that men should do both. We are to give to Caesar what is his and to God what is His. Is God sovereign, or is man responsible to do certain things? Is man a two-fold or three-fold person? Was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament to be God or man? Some questions cannot be answered in an either/or fashion. Are there two categories of men, saved and lost? Yes. Are there three categories of men, saved and spiritual, saved and carnal, and unsaved? Yes.
Perhaps the best analogy is how Jesus dealt with divorce. In Matthew 19, the Pharisees ask Jesus what grounds for divorce are acceptable to Him. Their question is not sincere, and the Pharisees, as conservative as they were, hold a much more liberal view on this issue than did our Lord. I understand the New Testament to teach that our Lord did allow for divorce, but for very few reasons. Our Lord’s response is very instructive. Paraphrased, Jesus’ answered: “I refuse to talk about exceptions, because for you, divorce has become the rule, and keeping your marriage vows the exception. There are exceptions, but you have so abused these that one can divorce for the most casual and insignificant of reasons. I want to emphasize the rule; I want to speak about the ideal, and the ideal is that one man and one woman remain husband and wife until one of them dies” (see Matthew 19:4-6).
The ideal is that all Christians should be “spiritual.” Every Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and every Christian should walk in the Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 2:14-16, Paul speaks of but two categories of men, those with the Spirit and those without. Now, in chapter 3, Paul introduces a sub-category of those who are saved and indwelt by the Spirit: those who are saved, but who do not live in accordance with who they are and what God has adequately provided for them to be. Whether this category is called “sub-standard saints,” “carnal” or “fleshly” or “unspiritual” does not matter that much. We simply must recognize that Paul must deal realistically with unspiritual saints, and yet he does not want to set aside the broader division of men into simply two categories.
The “carnal” issue is not just an academic matter to be debated only by theologians, which has little or no relevance to the daily life of the saint. The “carnal Christian” is not that far removed from the experience of the “spiritual Christian,” whose daily life manifests the constant battle we face between the flesh and the Spirit (Romans 7:14, 18-19, 24-25; 8:1-4; Galatians 5:13-24). The “spiritual” Christian and the “carnal” Christian both struggle with the pull of the flesh and its opposition to the Spirit. The difference between the “carnal” saint and the “spiritual” saint is that the “carnal Christian” is losing the battle, and the “spiritual Christian” is, by the grace of God, holding his or her ground.
A few concluding remarks may be helpful about the “great debate” raging over this matter. First, the issue is not whether there is a legitimate category which can be labeled “the carnal Christian.” The issue is broader, encompassing matters of “lordship salvation” and “eternal security.” While all grant that there may be a person who could be called a “carnal Christian,” the debate is over what implications and applications are drawn from this. Reisinger speaks for many of his colleagues when he objects to those who use the concept of the carnal Christian to justify, or inadvertently encourage, professing Christians to live a life of minimal commitment and obedience to Christ, all the while confident that they will get to heaven (though perhaps not “first class”) because they at one time made a profession of faith.
I agree with Reisinger and others that this abuse of the doctrines of the grace of God is deplorable. Nevertheless, abuse of a particular doctrine does not prove that doctrine to be wrong. In Romans 5, Paul concludes by saying that “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 5:20). Some had concluded this meant one could, and even should, sin that grace might abound (6:1). Paul is horrified at this thought and strongly rejects it. But the perversion of this doctrine in its application by some does not prove that the doctrine itself is wrong. We must beware of rejecting the category of the carnal Christian just because some abuse it.
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to babes in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?
In college, I took education classes to prepare to be a school teacher, and we always snickered about the professors who taught elementary education, which was my specialty. They had become so accustomed to dealing with little children that they treated their college students like elementary school students. They even had us file out of class like we were still in kindergarten, and often talked to us as if we were children.
That is the way the Corinthians feel about Paul. He is too elementary and too simplistic. They are insulted by his message and his methods. In these first four verses of chapter 3, Paul exposes the reason for his content and method of preaching. It is not that Paul is incapable of going deeper or grasping secular wisdom. Neither is the problem that apostolic preaching has gone as far as it can go. The problem is that his readers are carnal, fleshly. Paul must deal with them in an elementary fashion because, figuratively speaking, they are still elementary school students. These “kindergarten Christians” want to boast that they are taking graduate level courses.
In some sense, all could agree that the Corinthian Christian falls short of the mark. By whatever label, the Corinthian Christians are childish and immature, incapable of in-depth teaching. Granting the term “carnal” for the moment, what does Paul mean by it? What picture should come to mind when we hear the term “carnal Christian”? These first verses tell us a great deal about the characteristics of a carnal Christian. The rest of the book (and 2 Corinthians) has much to add to the topic. For now, let us make some initial observations about the carnal Christian.
(1) In general terms, the carnal Christian is the Christian whose thinking and actions are prompted by the flesh. Conversely, the spiritual Christian is the saint whose attitudes, thinking, and actions are due to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The spiritual Christian’s life indicates that he or she is walking in the Spirit, in accordance with the promptings (leading) and the power of the Holy Spirit. The carnal Christian possesses the Spirit, but he or she chooses to follow the promptings of the flesh and to walk in the power of the flesh.
(2) Because the carnal Christian lives in accordance with the flesh, at times it may be hard to distinguish him from the unsaved, “natural,” man, who also thinks and walks according to the flesh. The difference between the carnal (Christian) man and the natural man is that the former has the means to live a godly life, while the latter does not. The difference between the carnal man and the natural man is that the former is saved and going to heaven, while the latter is lost and doomed for an eternity apart from God.
(3) Carnal Christians are babes. When Paul first came to Corinth, he had to speak to these pagans as to “natural men,” that is, as unbelievers, who did not possess the Spirit. Spiritually speaking, he proclaimed the gospel at an elementary level. Even after they were saved, Paul still had to speak to the Corinthians as babes, as brand new believers. Paul soon begins to spell out some of the specifics of babyhood, and other characteristics of immaturity emerge throughout the epistle. But first, let us ponder what babies are like, and then compare this to the spiritual realm.
Babies are little; they are immature and must begin to grow up quickly. The Corinthian newborn saints are immature babies who need to grow up. Babies are weak and vulnerable. They are completely dependent upon others for their food, cleaning, clothing, protection. Being weak, vulnerable and dependent, babies take a great deal from others, but they do not give to others. There is no “give and take” with babies; we give, and they take. As babies begin to grow up, they become more independent. Every parent knows about the “terrible two’s”! Children have trouble getting along with other children because they are self-centered and selfish, and so they fight and squabble over toys and attention.
(4) Carnal Christians are little babies who stay babies; they never grow up. We must be careful when we think about “carnal Christians” as babies, because newborn saints may have their weaknesses, but they also have their capacities. You and I know that new Christians, baby Christians, often put us to shame. They have a zeal for the lost, and they share boldly about their new-found faith. They have a deep sense of that from which they have been saved. They have a hunger for the Word, often devouring it as they discover its riches for the first time.
Paul is not critical of the Corinthians for being immature after their conversion at the time he first came. Paul’s criticism stems from their having remained children. They have not grown up and matured into adult, serving saints. Growth is normal and natural, and when children do not grow up, it is considered a tragedy. Spiritual growth is expected also, and when it does not happen, it is abnormal:
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love (Ephesians 4:11-16).
1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, 2 like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, 3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord (1 Peter 2:1-3, see Hebrews 5:11-14).
Paul simply states that the Corinthian believers have never grown up. It is not wrong for them to digest only simple truths as newborn babes, but it is wrong for them to fail to grow up and not to take solid food. To stay immature is sin. The Corinthians are guilty of this malady.
(5) Carnal Christians are “Wimps in the Word.” The Corinthian Christians are only able to handle “milk” when Paul is with them. Their condition has not changed because there is no growth toward maturity, no movement from “milk” to “meat.” What is “milk,” and what is “meat”? Paul does not spell this out for us in our text, but the writer to the Hebrews does:
13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. 6:1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment (Hebrews 5:13–6:2).38
According to these words, “milk” would be those elementary truths necessary for salvation, and the taking of one’s first steps in his or her walk in the Spirit. When the Christian moves from “milk” to “meat,” he is not moving from “Christ crucified” to “deeper truths.” He is moving from a basic grasp of the meaning of Christ crucified to a deeper understanding of Christ, and thus of the gospel and the implications for godly living. Gordon Fee puts it this way in his commentary on 1 Corinthians:
The argument of 2:6-16 implies that for Paul the gospel of the crucified one is both ‘milk’ and ‘solid food.’ As milk it is the good news of salvation; as solid food it is understanding that the entire Christian life is predicated on the same reality—and those who have the Spirit should so understand the ‘mystery.’ Thus the Corinthians do not need a change in diet but a change in perspective. As Morna Hooker nicely puts it: ‘Yet while he uses their language, the fundamental contrast in Paul’s mind is not between two quite different diets which he has to offer, but between the true food of the Gospel with which he has fed them (whether milk or meat) and the synthetic substitutes which the Corinthians have preferred.’39
Put simply, both the “milk” and the solid food, the “meat” of the Christian’s diet is the Word of God, centered in Christ crucified. The Corinthian Christians are feeding on “junk food” at best. As I understand Paul’s words, it is not that the Corinthian saints are still trying to digest the “milk” of the Word. They have turned up their noses at “milk” and are seeking truth (“wisdom”) from those teachers who give them “food” that appeals to their fleshly natures.
The carnal Christians of Paul’s day disdain doctrine, as they do in our day. They do not want any diet which requires study, hard work, and thought. D. A. Carson describes them this way:
They are infants still and display their wretched immaturity even in the way that they complain if you give them more than milk. Not for them solid knowledge of Scripture; not for them mature theological reflection; not for them growing and perceptive Christian thought. They want nothing more than another round of choruses and a ‘simple message’—something that won’t challenge them to think, to examine their lives, to make choices, and to grow in their knowledge and adoration of the living God.40
A very substantial “market” exists in the Christian community for sermons, tapes, radio and television talk shows, and Christian gurus who predigest truth for us and then tell us exactly how to do everything. The books on Christian marriage, child-rearing, facing life’s problems, and handling money are endless. It is not that all of these books are wrong (though some are); it is that we must everything predigested for us. We seem incapable of thinking for ourselves.
What is the goal of education? What is maturity? Our goal is not to teach people in a way which causes them to come back again and again with every new question, every new wrinkle to their problems. Our goal in education is to provide people with the tools, the methods, and the motivation to learn for themselves. We are never completely independent of others, nor should we be, but as we grow up in the Word, we should become less dependent. We should not have to be told every “answer,” because we should begin to find the answers for ourselves. In this sense, “milk” is the product which has been produced by someone else, the nourishment we get “second hand.” A mother’s (breast) milk is the result of her proper diet, and the baby lives from what the mother has produced. Solid food is the food we will eventually have to get for ourselves. We have too many “pablum solutions” available upon purchase and too few people able or willing to search out the truth for themselves. The plethora of books, tapes, and materials can be either a blessing or a curse to us, depending on whether they help us learn to find the truth in the Scriptures, or whether they give us an excuse not to search out the truth for ourselves from the Scriptures. There is little doubt as to which is the best:
1 My son, if you will receive my sayings, And treasure my commandments within you, 2 Make your ear attentive to wisdom, Incline your heart to understanding; 3 For if you cry for discernment, Lift your voice for understanding; 4 If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; 5 Then you will discern the fear of the Lord, And discover the knowledge of God. 6 For the Lord gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding. 7 He stores up sound wisdom for the upright; He is a shield to those who walk in integrity, 8 Guarding the paths of justice, And He preserves the way of His godly ones. 9 Then you will discern righteousness and justice and equity and every good course (Proverbs 2:1-9).
(6) Carnal Christians are not those who think of themselves as carnal, but those who think of themselves as spiritual. The “carnal Christian” Paul speaks of is not the stereotypical “carnal Christian.” Neither is that person the one described earlier by Reisinger:
Many who regularly occupy church pews, fill church rolls, and are intellectually acquainted with the facts of the gospel never strike one blow for Christ. They seem to be at peace with his enemies. They have no quarrel with sin and, apart from a few sentimental expressions about Christ, there is no biblical evidence that they have experienced anything of the power of the gospel in their lives. Yet in spite of the evidence against them, they consider themselves to be just what their teachers teach them—that they are ‘carnal Christians’. And as carnal Christians they believe they will go to heaven, though perhaps not first-class, and with few rewards.41
I must be fair to Reisinger and say that he refuses to accept this characterization as a legitimate example of the “carnal Christian.” To him, the “carnal Christian” is one who struggles over one particular sin:
In endeavouring to understand how Paul thinks of those he addresses in 1 Corinthians 3 we must bear in mind the designation he gives to them in chapter 1. He says they are ‘sanctified in Christ Jesus’, they are recipients of ‘the grace of God’, enriched by Christ ‘in all utterance, and in all knowledge’ (1:2-5). They are rebuked in chapter 3, not for failing to attain to privileges which some Christians attain to, but for acting, despite their privileges, like babes and like the unregenerate in one area of their lives.42
I agree with Reisinger that the Scriptures do not give comfort or encouragement to professing Christians who manifest no evidence of spiritual life. I further agree that the typical description of the “carnal Christian” is flawed. More strongly than Reisinger, it appears, I feel there is a legitimate category we can designate with the label, the “carnal” Christian.
In my study of the “carnal Christian” in Corinthians, I have reached the surprising conclusion that Paul has a completely different kind of person in mind than we do when he refers to those who are “carnal” or “fleshly” in his epistles. The carnal Christian is not the person who once made a profession of faith, who has done nothing since. The carnal Christian is the person we think of as spiritual—the kind of person who thinks of himself (or herself) as spiritual:
So this is what Paul means by a ‘worldly’ Christian, by a ‘carnal’ Christian (if we adopt older English). Paul does not have in mind someone who has made a profession of faith, carried on in the Christian way for a short while, and then reverted to a lifestyle indistinguishable in every respect from that of the world. After all, these Corinthian believers are meeting together for worship (1 Cor. 14), they call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1:2), they are extraordinarily endowed with spiritual gifts (1:5, 7; 12-14), they are wrestling with theological and ethical issues (1 Cor. 8-10), and they are in contact with the apostle whose ministry brought them to the Lord. Far from being sold out to the world, the flesh, and the devil, they pursue spiritual experience, if sometimes unwisely. 43
The “carnal Christian” is one who may well be regarded as “spiritual” by others:
1 “Write this to the angel of the Church in Sardis: These are the words of him who holds in his hand the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: I know what you have done, that you have a reputation for being alive, but that in fact you are dead” (Revelation 3:1, Phillips).
Notice what is said to the “carnal” saints at Sardis. They are not rebuked for having done no works. God indicates that He is aware of their deeds. It seems the saints in Sardis have a reputation for being “alive” (I think we could say “spiritual” and not miss the point) on the basis of their works. But in spite of this apparent evidence, God exposes them as being “dead,” not “alive.”
In the same chapter, we see that the saints in Laodicea also thought they were “spiritual,” but God informed them that they were not:
14 “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: 15 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot. 16 So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, 18 I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, that you may become rich, and white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see. 19 ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; be zealous therefore, and repent” (Revelation 3:14-19).
How can this be? How can the ones who consider themselves as “spiritual,” and whom others consider as “spiritual,” be the very ones God designates as “carnal”? The answer: we have the wrong criteria for judging spirituality. Our judgment is based upon outward acts, upon appearances of spirituality. But Jesus warned about making judgments on the basis of externals: “And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God” (Luke 16:15). The “false prophets” of whom Jesus warned are those who performed very impressive works, and yet Jesus calls them those “who practice lawlessness”:
15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 “Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 “So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. 22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness’” (Matthew 7:15-23).
Immediately after this, Jesus goes on to emphasize that those who are “wise” (an interesting word in relationship to the Corinthians) are those who do what He has taught:
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. 25 “And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. 26 “And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. 27 “And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall” (Matthew 7:24-27).
Addressing the “carnal” Hebrew Christians, the writer to the Hebrews indicates that their immaturity is due to their lack of use of the Word, while the mature are those who are wise concerning good and evil because they have put their biblical knowledge to use. “But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14 emphasis mine).
What is the difference between the “works” of those who are unspiritual (even unsaved), and the “works” of those who are “spiritual”? The answer is amazingly simple. The works of those who are “fleshly” or “carnal” are those prompted and empowered by the flesh. The works of those who are spiritual are prompted and empowered by the Spirit. Seemingly spiritual people may hustle and bustle around the church, doing so much they appear to put others to shame, while in reality their works are fleshly. The “fleshly” Christian may even prostitute his or her spiritual gifts, employing them in self-serving and self-promoting ways. There is no question but what the Corinthian church is well-endowed with spiritual gifts, and yet Paul’s description of the meeting of the church implies that the gifts are being misused. Prophets, teachers and tongues-speakers, seem to be pushing and shoving to get a hearing when the church gathers. People are grandstanding their gifts.
We are amazed that God may choose to use the ministry of “carnal” Christians in spite of their sin. I am reminded of the Philippian church and those who used Paul’s imprisonment as an opportunity to undermine his ministry and authority, while at the same time promoting themselves. Even so, Paul rejoiced because some seem to have been saved by the gospel proclaimed to them by self-serving “preachers”:
12 Now I want you to know, brethren, that my circumstances have turned out for the greater progress of the gospel, 13 so that my imprisonment in the cause of Christ has become well known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to everyone else, 14 and that most of the brethren, trusting in the Lord because of my imprisonment, have far more courage to speak the word of God without fear. 15 Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; 16 the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; 17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice, yes, and I will rejoice (Philippians 1:12-18).
Being carnal is not indicated by the absence of what might be called “good works,” but the absence of the Spirit in these “good works.” Can you imagine the shock wave that hits the church at Corinth as the saints read and reflect upon Paul’s letter? Paul is not only calling many of the Corinthian saints carnal, he is calling those carnal who are most highly regarded (and followed?) as those who are spiritual. We must brace ourselves for one more surprise concerning the carnal Corinthians. The carnal Corinthians are not only those who are regarded as spiritual, who think themselves to be spiritual; they are also those who have the audacity to claim that Paul and his fellow-apostles are “carnal”:
1 Now I, Paul, myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am meek when face to face with you, but bold toward you when absent! 2 I ask that when I am present I may not be bold with the confidence with which I propose to be courageous against some, who regard us as if we walked according to the flesh. 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:1-3, emphasis mine).
Some can be called “carnal Christians.” Carnal Christians are “fleshly Christians,” believers in Jesus Christ whose thinking and actions are rooted in the flesh rather than in the Spirit. “Spiritual Christians” are those who mortify the flesh, and walk (albeit imperfectly) in accordance with the promptings and power of the Holy Spirit. Carnal Christians are not proficient in the Scriptures because the wisdom of God is not known through fleshly wisdom but through the Spirit (see 2:14-16). Spiritual Christians seek to plummet the depths of the wisdom of God revealed in His Word through the enablement of the Holy Spirit. Further, they seek to apply the teachings of the Scriptures through the power of the Spirit.
The two Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians deal with the fruits of carnality. Paul seeks to point his readers to “true spirituality.” As we continue on in our study, we will gain insight into why “spiritual saints” are often considered “carnal” and why “carnal Christians” are thought to be “spiritual.” We will become increasingly aware that times have changed, but people have not. The pages of Paul’s epistles read like the pages of our daily newspaper.
Salvation is a radical change. It is not merely adding Christ to our life; it is not just “inviting Christ into our life.” Salvation is the change from death to life, from darkness to light. Salvation is accompanied by repentance, the turning away from all that we once depended upon for eternal life, from all that we once held precious as non-believers. Salvation turns one’s life, one’s values and thinking, upside-down and inside-out. Certain instant changes do occur at conversion, but many of the changes take place in the life-long process of sanctification, that process by which we are being transformed into the image and likeness of Christ. The “carnal Christian” resists this change. While he or she is more than adequately endowed with all that is necessary for growth in godliness, they fail to appropriate these resources and, in so doing, become carnal. Over time, they lose not only their appetite for the “milk of the Word,” but they begin to seek their spiritual nourishment from the well of “worldly wisdom,” which is no wonder since this wisdom is amiable to the flesh. The cross of Christ requires the mortification, not the indulging, of the flesh.
Two of the Christian’s greatest resources are the Word of God and the Spirit of God, as Paul emphasized in chapter 2. We must saturate our minds with the Word of God, so that our thinking is transformed (Romans 12:1-2; Ephesians 4:17-24). We must also apply the truth of God’s Word so that our senses are, by application of the truth, trained to discern between good and evil (Hebrews 5:12). To comprehend the Word of God, and then apply it, we must rely upon the enablement of the Holy Spirit. We are to “walk in the Spirit,” to avoid succumbing to the magnetic pull of the flesh (Galatians 5:13-24). We are to “sow to the Spirit” so that we shall “from the Spirit reap eternal life.” Spiritual growth is possible only by the grace of God, but this does not mean we must be passive in the process, or—worse yet—we should seek to pervert God’s grace into an excuse for sin (Romans 5:20—6:2, 15-23; Jude 4).
If there is any “key” to the spiritual life, surely it is summed up in terms of the Word of God and the Spirit of God. How great is our need to grow up as Christians and to become increasingly dependent upon God’s Word and His Spirit.
I wonder into what category the apostle Paul would put our church and each of us. If Paul calls those “carnal” who are thought to be “spiritual,” what of those whom we would call “carnal”? I think we must turn to Paul for his own words: “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you— unless indeed you fail the test?” (2 Corinthians 13:5). This passage is not meant to encourage Christians who fall short of the mark, some who may be called “carnal.” Paul is not trying here to assure us that we will get to heaven no matter how sinful our lives may be. He is trying to convince us that we may be “carnal,” no matter how “spiritual” we or others may think we are. The proper application of this text is repentance, not relief.
21 Therefore putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. 22 But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; 24 for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. 25 But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does (James 1:21-25).
The danger of dispensationalists is to make unfruitful, fleshly Christians comfortable in their carnality (or even in their unbelief), confident that a one-time profession secures them a place in heaven. The danger of the reformed theologian is legalism. Those who strongly hold that “fruits of repentance” must be evident in the lives of those who profess faith in Christ also tend at times to equate these “fruits” with external acts of “righteousness.” Spirituality must not be judged on the basis of externals, but on the basis of the work of the Spirit in the life of the individual. As Paul will say shortly, spirituality is not really something we can judge at all, but something we must leave to God. Let us not concern ourselves so much with the “carnality” of others, as with the carnality in our own lives.
May we not fail the test, but from our study of this epistle and from the rest of God’s Word, may we continue to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen” (2 Peter 3:18).
32 One of the first things I try to determine is whether this car is being sold by the owner. My first statement is, “Hi, I’m calling about the car you have advertised in the paper.” If they respond, “Which one?”, I know I am dealing with a “wheeler-dealer” of some sort, which almost always ends the conversation.
33 Scofield’s note at 1 Corinthians 2:14.
34 Ernest C. Reisinger, “What should we think of ‘THE CARNAL CHRISTIAN’?” (Printed by Hazell Watson & Viney Ltd, Great Britain, n.d.), pp.1, 8.
35 D. A. Carson, The Cross & Christian Ministry: An Exposition of Passages From 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), p. 69.
36 Reisinger, p. 8.
37 “Consequently, if it can be established that the preponderance of Scripture teaches only two classes or categories of men—regenerate and unregenerate, converted and unconverted, those in Christ and those outside of Christ—the ‘carnal Christian’ teaching would be confronted with an insurmountable objection. It would be in conflict with the whole emphasis of Scripture and of the New Testament in particular.” Ernest C. Reisinger, p. 8.
38 Verses 1 and 2 of Hebrews 6 spell out the curriculum for the elementary grades of our spiritual instruction. This seems to be done in related pairs. “Dead works” are to be repented of for us to have “faith toward God.” The Old Testament ceremonial “washings” did not sanctify, but rather the Holy Spirit, who was (at least initially on some occasions) received by the “laying on of hands.” The “resurrection of the dead” is a truth foundational to the gospel and to the certainty of the “eternal judgment” of the wicked.
39 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987 [reprinted, 1993]), p. 125.
40 Carson, p. 72.
41 Reisinger, p. 1.
42 Reisinger, p. 11. It is perplexing that Reisinger can suppose that a “carnal Christian” is losing on but one front in his or her life. In my understanding, a “carnal Christian” will be losing the war with the flesh on most fronts. In fact, there may be hardly any war going on at all.
43 Bibliographic information unavailable.
Christianity has had its share of “Pied Pipers,” those charismatic (in personality) individuals who seem to be able to lead a group of followers anywhere they wish. We are all too familiar with the names of men like Jim Jones and David Koresh, and we wince at the memory of what they did to their followers, not to mention the name of our Lord. Then there are some whose sins have devastated others, and at times have wrought financial havoc for many Christian ministries.
It is not just the “way out” fringes of Christianity which are plagued with leaders who have nearly total control over the lives of their followers, but whose personal lives are out of control. I know of several men whose failures have caused great damage to the church and to the cause of the gospel. There seems to be one common element in these disasters—the men who fell were so powerful, and their control so great, that they seemed almost “unstoppable.” The reason for this: these leaders were so elevated and revered in the minds of their followers that they were considered beyond the temptations and sins of mankind. When men are elevated too highly in the minds of their followers, the people begin to think their leaders are infallible, that they are above the sins we see in ordinary people. And so they refuse to believe the evidences of sin, even when they are compelling. Even if they are guilty of known sin, no one seems to feel sufficiently qualified to attempt to rebuke or correct them.
The problem of esteeming leaders too highly starts very subtly and innocently. It begins with a deep respect and appreciation, often because this individual has led them to Christ, or that he (or she) has significantly contributed to their spiritual growth. This one person is given excessive credit for the work of God and elevated to a position of authority above what should be given to men. Allegiance to this leader becomes a status symbol in which followers take great pride. Out of this misguided allegiance, they feel obligated to ignore or even oppose other Christian leaders.
This is precisely the problem at Corinth, as described in its incipient stages in the early chapters of 1 Corinthians. But by the time we reach the end of 2 Corinthians, it is a much more developed and dangerous matter. People are not attaching themselves to one apostle as opposed to the others; they are attaching themselves to false apostles, who are not servants of God, but servants of Satan:
12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve (2 Corinthians 11:12-15).
Paul exposes the problem of divisions (1:10-12) and indicates that these are contrary to the gospel (1:13-17). He writes that the gospel does not divide saints from one another, but it does divide true believers from the unsaved. To the lost, the gospel is both foolish and weak, and they are in pursuit of “wisdom” and “power.” This is the reason so few of the cultural elite are found in the congregation of the saints (1:18-25), and also the reason those who make up the church can be identified as the non-elite—indeed the rejects of society. When God saves and uses the weak, the foolish, and the insignificant to accomplish His purposes, the glory must go to Him (1:26-31).
Those who identify themselves with a certain leader do so in pride, confident that his (or her) message and methods are highly esteemed by the culture of that day. Paul reminds them that this was not the way they began their Christian life. He came to them in weakness, fear, and much trembling. He did not come with a “powerful” message or method of presentation, but with the simple proclamation of Christ crucified. While that message and method may not have won the praise of the lost, it was the means of their salvation (2:1-5).
Paul is not willing to concede that his message is really foolish and weak; it only appears that way to the lost. And no wonder, for the lost are unable to grasp the wisdom of God. It is only for those who are saved and who are mature in their faith. The unsaved find God’s wisdom completely beyond their comprehension. Left to themselves, lost men will never know God (2:6-9). What men can never know about God by their own reasoning or searching, God chooses to reveal to men. He does so by means of the Holy Spirit, who inspires and enables the New Testament writers to put the “spiritual thoughts” concerning the deep things of God into the “spiritual words” recorded in the New Testament Scriptures (2:10-13). The natural man, devoid of the Spirit, can never know these truths, even though revealed in the Scriptures, but the Christian, enabled by the Spirit, has the “mind of Christ,” enabling him to understand this present age and the one to come (2:14-16).
The “problem” the Corinthian Christians have with Paul is really their problem, not his. Their failure to grow up through the Word to mature Christians causes them to turn from the “milk of the Word” and return to the teachings of men and the wisdom of men. The carnality of the Corinthian Christians is not evident by their lack of religious talk or activity, but by shallowness in their knowledge and practice of the Word of God, and in their distorted dependence on one person, whom they proudly claim to follow (3:1-4).
Now at verse 5, Paul commences to show the folly of exalting one leader so highly that all others are rejected. He will do so in verses 5-17 by the use of three analogies. In verses 5-9, Paul speaks of the church as a farm, and the apostles as farm workers. In verses 10-15, Paul speaks of the church as a building under construction. Paul is the “master builder” who has laid the foundation. Others now work to complete the building on his foundation. He speaks of the standard for building and the rewards for those who build well. Finally, in verses 16 and 17, Paul speaks of the church as a temple, the dwelling place of God, and the severe consequences for defiling it.
Our text is one we must carefully study (as with all Scripture), for it is misused as a proof-text by many:
Here is another paragraph that has suffered much in the church (cf. 2:6-16; 3:1-4): from those who would decontextualize it in terms of individualistic popular piety (i.e., how I build my own Christian life on Christ), to certain Protestants who have used it as grist for the Calvinist-Arminian debate over the security of the believer, to those in the Roman Catholic tradition who have found in it the single piece of NT evidence for the doctrine of purgatory. Paul addresses none of these issues, not even indirectly. His concern is singular, that those currently leading the church take heed because their present work will not stand the fiery test to come, having shifted from the imperishable ‘stuff’ of Jesus Christ and him crucified.44
Let us listen well, for we are all builders. Paul’s words offer great encouragement to us to be good builders, as well as a reminder that our building must be on the foundation laid by the apostles, and according to the standards Paul has set down. The quality of our work will be revealed at the coming of our Lord. The rewards are great, but so are the consequences for living in such a way as to defile the dwelling place of God.
5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
Notice that Paul speaks of himself and Apollos alone, omitting Peter for the moment (compare 1:12). Paul is the first to come to Corinth with the gospel, followed later by Apollos. These were the two apostles most intimately associated with this church. Contrary to the translation found in the new and the old King James Versions (which render “Who?”), Paul begins his question with the word “What?”. By asking “What?” rather than “Who?”, Paul focuses on the place or position to which the Corinthians’ leaders have been elevated, rather than upon the personalities of each. “To what position or place have you assigned your leader?” Paul asks.
Their answer to Paul’s question is something like: “My leader is my everything! My leader is my teacher, my counselor, my guide, my confidence, my pride.” Paul brings the Corinthians back down to earth. Speaking of himself and Apollos, the two greatest leaders the Corinthians have known, he says, in effect, “We are not heroes, to be adored; we are not gods, to be worshipped; we are not masters, to be blindly followed. We are simply servants of God, servants who by God’s grace and appointment were allowed to be instrumental in your coming to Christ.” These two men are the means by which many of the Corinthians came to faith, but they point these folks to Christ, to trust in Him and to follow Him, to be His disciples. Whatever was accomplished by their coming, it is God who accomplishes it; it is God who is Master; they are but servants. How then can the Corinthians place them on a pedestal?
God did not choose either Paul or Apollos to be the single instrument to achieve His purposes in Corinth. Each has his own task, his own calling. Paul, as the first to come to Corinth, is the seed planter; Apollos, who follows, is the “waterer.” The ministry of each, Paul and Apollos, is dependent upon the other. They are not competitors or rivals, but teammates, fellow-workers. They work in complementary roles, rather than competitive roles. Both are engaged in the same work, in the same goal of making disciples, those who trust in and follow our Lord Jesus Christ. They are “one” (verse 8), so how can their alleged followers and supporters (“I am of Paul, … I am of Apollos”) be divided?
Both unity and diversity can be seen in the complementary ministries of Paul and Apollos. Both serve the same Master; both are engaged in accomplishing the same task. Both are brothers in Christ. But each one has his own unique calling and contribution to make to the overall task. Each will receive a reward, granted according to his own labor. This is not spiritual socialism, where each member contributes what he wills and all are rewarded alike, regardless of their faithfulness, diligence, or personal sacrifices.
Verse 9 plays a critical role in this passage by serving as a transition from the analogy of the “farm” to that of “construction.” When Paul says, “For we are God’s fellow-workers; you are God’s field, God’s building,” he is telling us two very important things. First, he is indicating that all the saints belong to God, and none of them belongs to any apostle. Second, he distinguishes himself and Apollos, as apostles, from all the rest of the saints in Corinth. He and Apollos are apostles; the rest are not. The translation of the King James Version best expresses this: “We [the apostles] are laborers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.” The apostles play a unique role in the founding of the church, a role not to be duplicated by any other. In a unique way, the apostles did “labor together with God” in their intimate contact with Him, and in being witnesses of His resurrection, but especially in the “laying of the foundation of the church” by being the human authors of the New Testament Scriptures. This occurred through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as previously described by Paul in 2:10-13. Paul speaks of this apostolic foundation in his epistle to the Ephesians:
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22).
The writer to the Hebrews also speaks of this unique group of men through whom God chose to reveal Himself in the New Testament Scriptures:
1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:1-3).
1 For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense, 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, 4 God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will (Hebrews 2:1-4).
God has spoken in various ways and at various times. He has spoken through the prophets. But the Word we hold in our hands, the Bible, was given to the saints of various ages as God spoke His inspired Word in such a way as to permanently record it for men of a later time. The “word spoken through angels” (2:2) is the Old Testament. The word spoken through His Son (1:2) is that which the apostles heard, and which they, by divine inspiration, recorded. God accredited these “foundation layers” by enabling them to perform “signs and wonders and various miracles” and “by gifts of the Holy Spirit” (2:4). Paul claims this same apostolic authority, and thus he played a significant role in laying the foundation:
11 I have become foolish; you yourselves compelled me. Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody. 12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles (2 Corinthians 12:11-12).
As Paul moves on to his second analogy, that of “God’s building” which is under construction, he underscores the necessity of building upon this foundation and of not forsaking it for another.
10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
Before we look at Paul’s words here, let us take note of Peter’s words in his first epistle, words which closely parallel those of Paul:
1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, 2 like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, 3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord. 4 And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:1-5).
Let us look also at a different but related image from Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians:
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love (Ephesians 4:11-16).
These texts show how the same basic topic of the church is addressed by means of a variety of images. Peter speaks of individual spiritual growth as the result of dependence on the Word of God, and then moves on to the corporate growth of the church as God places individual believers (“living stones”) into the structure. This “spiritual house” is the dwelling place of God, and the temple from which spiritual worship is offered to the glory of God.
Like Peter does in 1 Peter 2, Paul speaks of “church growth” in Ephesians 4. Be warned, however, for it is nothing like the “church growth” of today. Paul’s imagery in Ephesians 4 is not that of a house or a temple, but of a body. The apostles’ task was to equip the rest of the body to fulfill their individual tasks (as enabled by their spiritual gifts) within the body, so that the whole body grows up to maturity, the standard and goal of which is “the Head,” Jesus Christ. The whole body grows up to the image and character of Christ as each member of the body carries out his or her assigned task.
Paul speaks of this “growing” of the church, the body of Christ, in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. The church is likened to a building which is under construction. Paul calls himself a “wise master builder,” who has laid the foundation on which others build. When Paul refers to himself as a wise master builder, it is with a very deliberate goal in mind. The Corinthians think themselves wise, and they consider Paul and the other apostles simple, foolish, and weak. Their thinking is wrong! Paul is wise whether or not the Corinthians believe it to be so.
In verses 5-9, Paul spoke of himself and of Apollos. Now, Paul speaks only of himself. He is a wise master builder. This word “wise” (unfortunately obscured by the rendering “skillful” in the NIV) is purposeful and pointed. The Corinthians think themselves to be wise, and Paul to be foolish (see 4:10). But it is they who are foolish, and Paul and the apostles who are “wise.” If they would be wise, let them recognize Paul’s unique role as a “wise master builder,” and let them build only upon the foundation he has laid. Paul is not boasting in his role, for this is “according to the grace of God” and not according to his innate abilities (3:10).
Here, Paul speaks not in the plural (“we,” “us”) of himself and Apollos, but only of himself (“I”). Paul distinguishes himself from Apollos. Paul is the one who planted; Apollos is the one who later waters (3:6). Paul alone is the foundation-layer in Corinth, and others like Apollos built upon that foundation. Apollos is a powerful and eloquent speaker, a man mighty in the Scriptures (Acts 18:24), but also a man who built upon the foundation Paul laid in Corinth. Paul came first to Corinth with the gospel as the sower of the seed. Apollos is the one who watered. Paul laid the foundation in Corinth, and Apollos and others built upon it. You will remember that it was Priscilla and Aquila, those whom Paul taught, who “explained to him the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). Since Priscilla and Aquila are students of Paul, it seems self-evident that Apollos learns second-hand from Paul. He builds on Paul’s foundation.
In the previous example of the “farm,” the apostles like Paul and Apollos are primarily in view. It is their work which Paul seeks to show as “one work,” pressing toward a common goal, so that the apostles are working in cooperation with each other, rather than competing with one another. Now, in verses 10-15, the entire church is in view. At the outset Paul refers to his work, that of laying a foundation on which others will build. It is a unique work, a work reserved for apostles like Paul, and for those who articulate the gospel in the New Testament Scriptures. Paul’s work of “foundation laying” is represented as a finished work, as a work which is not to be repeated, and most certainly not to be revised. Even he cannot change the foundation he has laid:
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:6-9).
The Apostle Paul looks upon his mission of laying the foundation for the Corinthian church as complete. What remains is for the saints at Corinth (and elsewhere) to engage themselves in completing the construction. The proper function of each worker is Paul’s primary focus. In construction terms of our own day, Paul gives us three general guidelines. First, we must build according to the building code. Our city of Richardson, Texas, has a building code, a very strict one. One must follow all kinds of rules when building. For example, if my memory is correct (and the code hasn’t changed), electrical wiring must be stapled within 12 inches of the box, where an outlet or switch is placed. God’s “code” for building is the “foundation.” No building can take place that is not on the foundation; that is, not in accord with the foundation. The apostles’ doctrine (the New Testament Scriptures) is the building code, according to which we build (minister).
Second, the builder must use the best materials. Not only are we to be careful to build according to the code (on the apostles’ foundation), we are to build with the best materials. Some materials are cheap, but they don’t last. The church is God’s building, built not only to last for time, but for eternity. The materials which last are those which are eternal. That which is eternal is of God, of His Word, and of His Spirit. As these well-known words express, “Tis only one life, T’will soon be past. Only what’s done for Christ will last.”
Third, the builder must build skillfully. A friend of mine is a master craftsman. His woodworking is perfection. When he needed a new house, he did not have time to build it himself, so he had a contractor build it for him. A good friend advised him not to go out to “see how it was coming” until after it was finished. He was right. My friend could not have endured watching his home being built the way they are so often built today. I have gone to the construction site to see countless nails which missed their mark, not even close to the joist or rafter they were supposed to strike. God does not want His building built sloppily. He is the “building inspector,” watching every stage of construction, every bit of labor we invest. Thus, Paul exhorts us to build well.
As is evident in verses 13-15, there is good reason to take Paul’s urging seriously. The “building” will have its final inspection when our Lord returns. It will be tested by fire, and that which endures will be the basis of each builder’s rewards. If his work remains, he receives a reward. If his work does not remain, there will be no reward:
12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames (1 Corinthians 3:12-15).
Paul is not talking about salvation here. This is not a proof-text for the doctrine of purgatory. Paul is saying that a Christian’s works may be burned up by the fire of divine judgment, but not the believer. The believer will be saved, but only by the “skin of his teeth.”
Someone might think Paul’s words encourage the “carnal Christian” to live a careless, self-indulgent life, knowing he will get to heaven regardless. A very few Christians whom I have known actually dare to state: “I know that if I sin as I plan to, I may not get any rewards in heaven, but I know I will get to heaven, and that’s all that matters.” They think that they are getting the “best of both worlds.” How foolish! How dangerous! Paul’s next words are aimed right at those who might try to pervert his teaching in practice, so that a life of sinful self-indulgence is based on the “comfort” of his words in verse 15.
16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.
What a sting Paul’s words, “Don’t you know … ?” must be in the ears of the Corinthians! They are so wise. They know so much. Yet Paul asks with seeming bewilderment, “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple, and that God’s Spirit lives in you?”45 The building described by Paul as under construction in verses 10-15 is “God’s building” (3:9). And now, as Paul indicates, it is God’s temple, His dwelling place. While elsewhere Paul speaks of each individual believer as God’s dwelling place (1 Corinthians 6:19), here he speaks of the whole church as God’s dwelling, through the Spirit. We are not the temple, but we are a temple, a place where God dwells. Because God dwells there, the temple is holy, and it must remain holy.
Since this is the case, we should understand the seriousness of the implications for defiling God’s temple. When we live godly lives, in obedience to His Word through the power of the Spirit, we display God’s glory (1 Peter 2:9). In so doing, we are good workers, building up the church in accordance with our calling. But when a Christian fails to fulfill their mission, then they become a detriment to the church. In the symbolic terminology of Paul, we “destroy” (NASB) or “defile” (KJV) the temple of God when we are not building well.
The consequences for such defilement are severe, because we are defaming the reputation of God by defiling His temple. Those who would do damage to God’s dwelling place should expect severe consequences. Paul does not hold back when he warns, “If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are” (verse 17). Just what does this mean? We know from the preceding verses (especially verses 13-15) that a Christian will not lose his salvation, but that he will lose his reward. Lest one feel too smug and secure in sin, however, let him ponder the meaning of the word “destroy” in verse 17. Paul does not seek to comfort any Christian who purposes to sin willfully. This passage cannot be construed to encourage a sinful, carnal, lifestyle, unless it is greatly distorted, for Paul’s words of warning are clear.
Just how does one defile the temple of God? Paul gives a very strong word of warning for defiling the temple, but he does not define for us just how one defiles it. Let us pursue this matter as we conclude our study of this text.
(1) A person can “defile the temple of God” by doing the things for which Paul rebukes the Corinthians. One can defile the temple by dividing it up into little groups and factions. One can defile the temple by forsaking the simplicity of the gospel and seeking wisdom elsewhere. He can defile the temple of God by sexual immorality (chapter 5) or by taking a brother to the law court (chapter 6). God’s temple can be defiled by divorce (chapter 7) or by causing a weaker brother to sin through the insensitive use of your rights as a Christian (chapters 8-10). One can defile the temple of God by misconduct at the Lord’s Supper and the meeting of the church (chapters 11-14). One can also defile the temple by false teaching (chapter 15).
(2) A person can “defile” or “destroy” the temple by failing to perform their part in its construction. Can you imagine a building under construction where there are whole sections missing? A partially constructed temple is a reproach to the God who dwells within. According to Ephesians 4, each believer contributes to the building up of the body (the temple in our text). The body does not function as it should unless every member of the body is doing its part (Ephesians 4:15-16). When Christians fail to fulfill their part in the construction program, the temple is adversely affected.
My reader friend, let me ask you a pointed question. If, as Paul teaches in our text, every Christian is to build upon the foundation of the apostles, if each believer is to build skillfully, using only the best materials, then how is your contribution to the building going? Do you know what part you are to play? Do you know what part of the temple is yours to build? You cannot build well if you are not building at all. If you are not building at all, you are defiling the temple.
We live in a consumer age. By and large, the church growth movement caters to members, or seekers, as consumers. It finds out the kind of church people want to attend, and then seeks to provide this kind of church. Consequently, some churches may have many of their pews filled, but with people who expect, even demand, to get what they want from the church in terms of services, yet at a bargain price—at little or no cost to themselves. They want to get much and give little.
Paul knows nothing of this kind of church. Paul knows only of the kind of church where every member is a worker, and where there is no such thing as a shirker. Paul’s words here have a very clear inference. He assumes we know that we have an obligation to build the temple, to play an active role in the building up of the church, the body of Christ. Why then in most churches do a few members give much, some members give a little, and many to most members do not give at all? Why does the church have so much trouble getting volunteers to teach in Sunday School, and to help with the many tasks in the church? It is simply because many consider themselves a part of the church (rightly or wrongly), but fail to grasp the fact that God requires every member of it to be a working member, contributing to the growth and ministry of the church.
(3) We defile the church when we do not build on the foundation of the apostles, or when we fail to build well. Not only are we obliged to be an active contributor to the construction of God’s temple, we are to build well. We are to build upon the foundation of the apostles. That foundation is referred to as the “apostles’ doctrine” in Acts 2:42. It is now what we know as our New Testament. If we are building, we are to build well. This means that we must know the foundation well, for all of our building must conform to it, conform to the “code” the Bible sets down. Some people seem to think that “working hard” in the church is enough. Paul would not agree. We are to work hard, but only in compliance with, and in submission to, His Word, the Bible. For the builder who would work so as to please God and to obtain His approval and reward, he or she must build in accordance with sound doctrine, the apostles’ doctrine. Workers must work in accordance with sound doctrine. Doctrine is therefore important to every Christian, and not just for the theologians.
Sound, apostolic doctrine is foundational. Using the construction analogy, sound doctrine is not enough. A building consists of more than a foundation. But a building is only as good as the foundation on which it is constructed. Sound doctrine is not required just for those who teach; it is required as the basis for each and every ministry which takes place in the church. Those who show mercy should do so in accordance with sound doctrine. Those who give must give in accordance with sound doctrine. For example, they must not give to the support of those who are false teachers (2 John 7-11). Those who serve should serve in accordance with sound doctrine. Those who “love” must love within the confines which sound doctrine defines:
9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, 10 so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; 11 having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God (Philippians 1:9-11).
Sound doctrine is the basis for all ministry. We dare not seek to serve God apart from sound doctrine.
At Community Bible Chapel, those in leadership positions have spent many hours laying out a curriculum for adult and youth education. We believe that if sound doctrine is foundational and fundamental to all ministry and to spiritual growth, then we must offer teaching which provides the essentials for sound doctrine. But this must also include a commitment on your part to take advantage of this teaching. You need not get all of your teaching in our church, but you do need to get it somewhere, and from a source that is based upon the Scriptures. Do you know the subject matter which is essential to having a firm foundation in doctrine? Do you have a curriculum for your own program of spiritual growth? My fear is that most of us are better prepared for our retirement than we are for our present growth and ministry. This is a responsibility which you must assume, along with us.
When we serve in a sloppy, haphazard fashion, we defile the church. I frequently hear people ask, “How do we motivate people to serve in the church?” I think Paul has answered this one for us already. We teach them that they will stand before God and give an account of their ministry, and that they will be rewarded or put to shame on the basis of their faithfulness. But another question is asked as well: “How do we get people to serve well, to serve with excellence?” All too often, those who do serve minister in a way that may pass as “volunteer labor,” but which would never be acceptable in the work place. Paul’s words should do the trick. Paul tells us that we are going to be judged on materials and craftsmanship. A sloppy job for God is most certainly going to defile the temple of God, and this is a most serious matter.
(4) Disunity and divisions are destructive and defiling to the church, and thus a most serious matter. Divisions, often the result of following a particular leader and rejecting all others, are a very serious offense, an act of destruction and defilement so far as the upbuilding of the church is concerned. For saints to be divided and to oppose one another is a tearing down of the church, not a building up of the temple of God. Let us see the evil of divisions, and also the serious consequences which it brings to us personally.
May God grant that we see the crucial role which the apostles played in New Testament times, by laying the foundation for our faith and ministry in the Scriptures. This was a one-time, once-for-all role, one that does not need repeating. And may God grant that each of us may see the crucial role which we have to play in the building up of the church. May each of us do our task, and do it well, to the glory of God and to our benefit as well. And may we see that divisions are destructive to the church, and thus taken most seriously by God.
44 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary, F. F. Bruce, General Editor (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 1987 [reprint, 1993]), pp. 136-137.
45 Paul employs this question ten times in 1 Corinthians (3:16; 5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24), and only 1 time elsewhere (Romans 6:16).
Four key words sum up the problems Paul addresses in the church at Corinth:
(1) Divisions. There are divisions in the church at Corinth. Paul contends that there must be unity, for it is Christ alone who has saved us, and we who trust in Him are all one body. Paul reminds his readers that while leaders in the church may have different tasks to perform, all are engaged in the same cause.
(2) Leaders. The existing divisions had been made on the basis of personalities, those whom the Corinthians chose to follow as their leader, those to whom their followers belong. Paul is about to show that leaders are merely servants; those who think of themselves as “belonging” to a certain group need to be reminded that all the leaders in the church of our Lord belong to them, and not the reverse.
(3) Pride. The Corinthians boast in their leaders, in whom they take great pride. The Corinthians do not take pride in what they themselves are, or in what they are doing, but in the status and success of their leader. They are proud vicariously. Paul undermines and attacks human pride by pointing to the kind of people God generally excludes (the cultural elite), and those whom He includes (the weak, the foolish, the nobodies). The things of God are foolish to the world, and the things of the world are foolish to God. The gospel is not about the indulging of the flesh, but about the mortification of the flesh. The gospel spells death to human pride, for all that is worthy of praise is the work of God and not of men.
(4) Wisdom. Status in Corinth seems to be determined more on one’s intellectual standing than on one’s wealth. Those whose teaching is regarded highly by the secular community as being “wise” are most highly esteemed. The one who is highly skilled in speaking and persuasion is even more highly esteemed. Paul reminds his readers that divine wisdom is incomprehensible to the natural (lost, unsaved) man. Divine wisdom does not come from the great thinkers of this age. God reveals His wisdom through His Word and through His Spirit.
In chapter 3, Paul comes right to the heart of the matter. The problem in Corinth is not Paul’s problem, but the problem of the Corinthian saints. Paul is unable to speak God’s wisdom to the Corinthians because they are too immature, too unspiritual (“carnal”) to handle it. The Corinthians’ carnality is evident in their inability to handle teaching and doctrine which has not been predigested by someone for them (“milk”). Indeed, even the “milky” truths are looked upon with scorn, because they seem so elementary and simplistic. Not only is the carnality of the Corinthians evident in their spiritual appetite (and digestion), it is evident in the factions which exist in the church, factions centered upon certain leaders.
Up to verse 18 of the third chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul has “laid a foundation” for his bottom line, which begins at verse 18. For the first time, Paul calls upon his readers to do something, to change something. The key word is the word “let” (3:18, 21; 4:1). His readers are challenged to stop deceiving themselves and to become fools (3:18). They are to cease boasting in men. They are to look upon Paul and his fellow-apostles in a new way (4:1f.). Our focus in this lesson is the final verses (18-23) of chapter 3.
Verses 18-23 are a call to repentance. Although the word “repent” is not found in these verses, the concept of repentance is very clear. To repent is to turn around or to change one’s mind. Paul calls for the Corinthians to change their thinking and their actions regarding wisdom and regarding their leaders. The errors so prevalent in the Corinthian church are just as evident in the church in our day as they were to Paul so long ago. Let us listen to Paul to see how we must repent if we are to be truly spiritual.
18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness”; 20 and again, “The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.”
The Corinthians are an arrogant and conceited bunch, who take great pride in their wisdom, a fact which becomes increasingly clear in this epistle (see 4:6-10). Paul’s first words in verse 18 must sting, for he addresses the Corinthians as self-deceived. To keep on as they are thinking and behaving, the Corinthians prove themselves to be unwise—indeed to be downright foolish—at least in the sight of God.
Paul calls upon us to “fess up” to our error, to acknowledge that by thinking ourselves to be wise, we are foolish and self-deceived. He instructs us to forsake “wisdom” and to embrace “folly”; in so doing we will be wise. We find our Lord employing a similar kind of argument in the Gospels.
24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 25 “For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it. 26 “For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:24-26).
Paul is not telling us that every foolish person is really wise. Neither is he calling upon us to forsake every kind of wisdom but a certain kind of wisdom. He is not requiring us to become foolish in every sense of the term, but to become foolish in a particular sense. We can only understand what Paul means here in context. The one who “thinks himself wise in this age” is proud and takes pride in the wisdom of this age, rather than in the wisdom of God. To become truly wise—wise as God views wisdom, wise in those divine and eternal matters which God reveals through His Word and His Spirit—we must forsake worldly wisdom and embrace what the world regards as folly. In simple terms, we must become foolish by embracing the simplistic and “foolish” truths of the gospel, of apostolic doctrine, of Christ crucified. We must embrace that which the world has rejected as foolish.
The Corinthians had been saved by believing the “foolish” message proclaimed by Paul, the message that Jesus Christ died on the cross of Calvary for our sins, and was buried and then raised from the dead, ascending into heaven and being seated at the right hand of God. They had been saved by the preaching of Christ crucified when Paul came in weakness, fear, and much trembling, proclaiming the simple truths of the gospel in a straightforward fashion. Since Paul’s departure, some saints have begun to look down upon Paul, his message, and his methods. They are being tempted to follow others whose message has a worldly appeal, messengers whose style is eloquent and impressive.
Paul now calls upon the Corinthians to repent, to change their minds, and to turn around. Once again, as after their salvation, they are to regard the world’s wisdom as folly, and God’s folly (the gospel, the preaching of Christ crucified) as true wisdom. They must admit their folly and turn back to the gospel as first proclaimed by Paul, and later confirmed and corroborated by Apollos and others.
Paul now cites two Old Testament passages as proof texts to show that worldly wisdom is folly and that God’s “folly” (in the eyes of the world) is true wisdom. The first quotation is from the Book of Job: “For it is written, ‘He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness’” (verse 19b; see Job 5:3). This quotation is most interesting. These are the words of Eliphaz, one of Job’s “friends.” Paul quotes a man who is later rebuked by God for being wrong: “And it came about after the Lord had spoken these words to Job, that the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, ‘My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has’” (Job 42:7).
How can Paul cite these words as a proof text? Eliphaz, like his friends, was not wrong in what he said about God; he was wrong in how he applied this truth to Job. Eliphaz was accusing Job of being “crafty,” and thus explained Job’s sufferings as divine judgment for sin. This was not the case (see Job 1:1, 8). God does trip up the wicked by employing their own cunning (wisdom) to be the means of their downfall:
16 For their feet run to evil, And they hasten to shed blood. 17 Indeed, it is useless to spread the net In the eyes of any bird; 18 But they lie in wait for their own blood; They ambush their own lives. 19 So are the ways of everyone who gains by violence; It takes away the life of its possessors… 29 Because they hated knowledge, And did not choose the fear of the Lord. 30 “They would not accept my counsel, They spurned all my reproof. 31 “So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way, And be satiated with their own devices. 32 “For the waywardness of the naive shall kill them, And the complacency of fools shall destroy them (Proverbs 1:16-19, 29-32).
The “wise” of this age are not so smart after all. God allows the wise to carry out their schemes, but He employs their cunning schemes (their wisdom) to bring about their own downfall. The gallows which proud Haman built, on which he planned to hang Mordecai, became the very instrument by which the king ended Haman’s life. In the Gospels, the scribes and Pharisees deemed themselves to be “wise” in the interpretation of the Old Testament. In their “wisdom,” the scribes and Pharisees orchestrated the crucifixion of our Lord. This cunning, which resulted in the crucifixion of Christ, also resulted in the guilt and condemnation of these leaders, unless of course they repented and acknowledged Jesus as their Messiah.
Do you see why Paul can use this verse to undergird his point that the world’s wisdom is really folly? Eliphaz thought himself wise. He, in his “wisdom,” appointed himself as Job’s counselor. Eliphaz was dealing with Job as though he (Job) were foolish and needed to wise up. The truth was that Eliphaz became the illustration of the very truth he misapplied toward Job. Eliphaz was tripped up by his own wisdom.
The second quote Paul employs comes from the Psalms: “And again, ‘The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless’” (verse 20; see Psalm 94:11). It is interesting that the Psalm actually reads: “The Lord knows the thoughts of man, That they are a mere breath.” Paul’s citation is significant in that it varies slightly at two points. First, Paul exchanges the word “wise” for the word “man.” In the context of the Psalm, it becomes clear that the unbelieving man thinks himself wise, when he is really foolish (see verses 2, 4, 8). And so the reasonings or thoughts of unsaved man are the reasonings of one who thinks himself wise. Second, Paul uses the rendering “useless,” while the translators of the Psalm use the expression “mere breath.” The thoughts of arrogant (wise) men are futile, or useless, because they are temporal rather than eternal. Man’s thoughts are restricted to “this age” and God’s thoughts are eternal. Man’s thoughts, even if true in this age, are not true in the next. They pass away. Merely temporal truths are thus “useless” truths, so far as eternity is concerned.
Paul has shown us why the pursuit of worldly wisdom is foolish. Worldly wisdom is merely temporal; it will not last. Man’s reasonings are useless so far as eternity is concerned. But man’s reasonings are not just useless; they are destructive. They not only lead us astray, but actually become the means of tripping us up, of causing us to stumble. Man’s wisdom is destructive. It is no wonder that we should forsake worldly wisdom, and pursue the wisdom of God which comes through the Word and the Spirit.
21 So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, 23 and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.
Paul now calls for a second act of repentance, closely linked with the forsaking of worldly wisdom. We are instructed to forsake boasting in men. There is no question but that the Corinthians boast in their leaders, in the men to whom they belong:
Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:12).
For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men? (1 Corinthians 3:4).
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other (1 Corinthians 4:6).
The situation in Corinth is neither new or novel. Throughout history, men have found their “identity” or “significance” in groups. They take pride in belonging to a certain group, a certain leader. We see this in the gangs which roam the streets, and in the young people who kill innocent, unknown victims just to be accepted by the gang. Cults are another example of the same problem. Certain charismatic (in personality, not necessarily in theology) leaders attract a following of people who need a sense of identity, of belonging. Some of these followers will believe anything they are taught and do anything they are told by their leader. Their pride is not in themselves, per se, but in the one leader they have chosen to follow above all others. These people become proud and arrogant, and they boast in a mere man—their leader.
Paul pulls the rug out from under this practice in verses 18-20 by proving the “wisdom of men” to be folly. If we turn away from the wisdom of men and embrace the foolishness of Christ crucified, we will surely cease to boast in these “wise” men. These men in whom the Corinthians boast are revered for the worldly wisdom they teach. Now, if their teaching is shown not only to be worthless, but destructive, these men lose their attraction.
But this is the reason Paul has already supplied. When he calls upon his readers to cease boasting in men in verse 21, he gives yet another reason for doing so: “For all things belong to you…” What does Paul mean when he tells us that all things are ours—and how does this undermine boasting in men? Let us seek to understand what Paul is telling us, for it is a significant part of his “bottom line” in these verses.
Let’s go back—way back—in the Bible to identify some crucial differences between true wisdom, God’s wisdom, and that which is false. True wisdom, as Paul indicates in 2:10-16, is that which God has revealed in the Scriptures, and continues to illuminate through His Spirit. God’s wisdom is that which He has revealed. That which He has not revealed is outside the bounds of our “need to know,” and thus purposefully concealed from us.
When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, the “wisdom of God” was simple: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die’” (Genesis 2:16-17). The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was “hidden wisdom,” that which God indicated men were not to know. Satan virtually called God’s wisdom a lie, succeeding in getting Eve to seek that knowledge which was forbidden.
From the fall onward, true wisdom and false wisdom have been carefully distinguished. True wisdom is that which God has revealed in His Word; false wisdom is that which He has concealed: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29).
In the Book of Proverbs, both true and false wisdom are symbolized by a woman. False wisdom is portrayed by the imagery of a prostitute, the “strange woman.” True wisdom is personified by a noble woman, sometimes referred to as “dame wisdom.” Notice the contrast in Proverbs between these two women and the wisdom they offer to men. Madam Folly offers the naive young man a secret encounter:
1 My son, keep my words, And treasure my commandments within you.2 Keep my commandments and live, And my teaching as the apple of your eye. 3 Bind them on your fingers; Write them on the tablet of your heart. 4 Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,” And call understanding your intimate friend; 5 That they may keep you from an adulteress, From the foreigner who flatters with her words. 6 For at the window of my house I looked out through my lattice, 7 And I saw among the naive, I discerned among the youths, A young man lacking sense, 8 Passing through the street near her corner; And he takes the way to her house, 9 In the twilight, in the evening, In the middle of the night and in the darkness. 10 And behold, a woman comes to meet him, Dressed as a harlot and cunning of heart. 11 She is boisterous and rebellious; Her feet do not remain at home; 12 She is now in the streets, now in the squares, And lurks by every corner. 13 So she seizes him and kisses him, And with a brazen face she says to him: 14 “I was due to offer peace offerings; Today I have paid my vows. 15 “Therefore I have come out to meet you, To seek your presence earnestly, and I have found you” (Proverbs 7:1-15).
Madam Folly preys upon the naive. She “lurks,” for her work is not done in public. She seeks out the vulnerable and offers him an experience with the unknown. She appeals to his ego, flattering him until he surrenders, to his own destruction. This is not so with Dame Wisdom. She does her work in public. She publicly offers her wisdom to any who will receive it. She does not flatter; instead, she speaks to those who need her as “fools” and those who are “naive.” She offers truth, and a truth which leads to fullness of life:
1 Does not wisdom call, And understanding lift up her voice? 2 On top of the heights beside the way, Where the paths meet, she takes her stand; 3 Beside the gates, at the opening to the city, At the entrance of the doors, she cries out: 4 “To you, O men, I call, And my voice is to the sons of men. 5 “O naive ones, discern prudence; And, O fools, discern wisdom. 6 “Listen, for I shall speak noble things; And the opening of my lips will produce right things. 7 “For my mouth will utter truth; And wickedness is an abomination to my lips. 8 “All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness; There is nothing crooked or perverted in them. 9 “They are all straightforward to him who understands, And right to those who find knowledge. 10 “Take my instruction, and not silver, And knowledge rather than choicest gold. 11 “For wisdom is better than jewels; And all desirable things can not compare with her” (Proverbs 8:1-11).
When our Lord presented Himself as Israel’s Messiah, we should not be surprised that He did so by publicly teaching (as in the Sermon on the Mount). He did not seek to gain followers on the fringes of Judaism, but He went to Jerusalem and taught in the temple. He engaged the teachers and leaders of the nation, and showed their teaching to be in error.
Paul and the apostles taught publicly on the teaching of divine wisdom. As he traveled from city to city, the first place he went was the synagogue, where he began to proclaim Christ crucified. It is true that unbelievers did not grasp or accept his message, but this was because they were blind, not because Paul was being secretive or vague. While Paul and the other apostles proclaimed the Word of God openly, the false teachers specialized in the unknown or in the obscure. They gained their reputation and following by teaching what was new and novel, and the reason was that it was not true, and it was not wise. But it did appeal to many of the unsaved.
16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was beholding the city full of idols. 17 So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present. 18 And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. And some were saying, “What would this idle babbler wish to say?” Others, “He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,”— because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming? 20 “For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; we want to know therefore what these things mean.” 21 (Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.) (Acts 17:16-21).
As we read the epistles of Paul and Peter, we find that the church was constantly plagued by false teaching, and this teaching concentrated on the vague and the unknown. It focused on what God has not spoken, rather than on what He has revealed:
3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. 5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions (1 Timothy 1:3-7).
7 But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness (1 Timothy 4:7).
3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. 6 But godliness actually is a means of great gain, when accompanied by contentment (1 Timothy 6:3-6).
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
16 As also in all his [Paul’s] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).
Now, in the light of what we know about false teaching and false teachers, let us seek to grasp what Paul is saying to us in 1 Corinthians 3:21-23. False teachers, in order to draw a personal following, must teach “truth” unique to them, which is not being taught by others. They must have a distinctive message. This message cannot be the gospel, or the apostles’ doctrine, because every Christian teacher would teach these truths. They must teach a “higher” truth, a truth which results from speculative teaching on obscure issues. These matters appeal to the curiosity of some. In gaining this “inside information,” the followers of such a leader consider their understanding of truth above that of the rest. It allowed men to become proud and to look down on others, like Paul. Whatever novel truth a given teacher emphasized, he alone would be the source of that truth. No wonder the Corinthians take pride in men. Their spiritual “gurus” are finding all kinds of “truth” which others do not, and (due to their ignorance and inferior teaching) cannot see. The only way to be in this inner circle of “truth,” this gnostic (from the word “to know”) cult, is to “belong” to the group, especially to its leader.
But suppose there is no such thing as the “truth” these false teachers peddle so persuasively? Suppose, as Paul has just indicated in verses 18-20, that this “worldly wisdom” of the false teachers is really worthless and destructive? What appeal do these leaders have now? None! The church does not have an exclusive “inner circle” of the informed and an “outer circle” of the ignorant. The truth of God (like wisdom in Proverbs) is proclaimed to all, and all are urged to embrace that truth. The truth belongs to every believer. Indeed, the teachers (if they are teachers of divine wisdom) belong to the whole body. Teachers do not own their followers; the saints own their teachers, each and every one of them!
A word of explanation may be helpful at this point. In the text, the different teachers to whom Paul refers in verse 22 are all apostolic leaders. These are not false teachers at all. That is correct. But in verse 6 of chapter 4, Paul indicates that these well known and highly regarded leaders are being used symbolically to refer to other unnamed leaders. As Paul’s teaching in his Corinthian Epistles continues, it becomes increasingly clear that a number of these cultic leaders are false apostles, false teachers, who are seeking to lead men astray from the truth (see Acts 20:28-32; 1 Corinthians 14:37; 15:31-38; 2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:1-2; 11:12-15). I have gone beyond Paul’s immediate meaning, because it is all too clear where he is going. In these early chapters of 1 Corinthians, Paul already sees the divisions in the church as the seed bed of heresy, and so it will be.
It is not just the teachers who belong to the Corinthians. In verse 22, Paul moves on from “Paul,” “Apollos,” and “Cephas” to a larger category, that of “all things” (verse 21): “For all things belong to you, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, 23 and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.” In what sense do “the world,” “life or death,” “things present or things to come” belong to us? What does Paul mean by these words?
D. A. Carson, an excellent scholar, poses this explanation:
The five things that follow “Paul or Apollos or Cephas” represent the fundamental tyrannies of human life, the things that enslave us, the things that hold us in bondage … The world squeezes us into its mold (compare Rom. 12:1-2). It demands so much of our attention and allegiance that we seldom devote thought and passion to the world to come … Similarly, this present life clamors to be treated as if it were worthy of ultimate respect … And at the end of this life there is only … death, which hovers over us, the ultimate specter … Thus the constant urgency of the present and … the vague promises and threats of the future combine to divert our attention away from the God who holds both the present and the future in his hands.46
Carson’s interpretation has much to commend it. I would take a slightly different slant, but one that does not really contradict his explanation. Paul’s words here are not unique to the New Testament, for he has used several of them elsewhere:
37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:37-39).
In Romans 8, Paul is trying to be all-inclusive. He is seeking to convince us that there is absolutely nothing which can separate us from the love of God. “Death and life” and “things present and things to come” are opposites, encompassing everything in between. I think Paul has the same general intent in 1 Corinthians 3. The “things” he lists are, no doubt, the things which seem to own us, or which would try to do so. They are also the things to which we can voluntarily belong by making them our master.
I see a link between the people and the things Paul lists together, which is the key to understanding his meaning. The Corinthians think their leaders are the one and only avenue through which “wisdom” and the “things” (the content of their teaching or wisdom) they want can be obtained. False teachers appeal to the flesh by offering people what they want (see 2 Timothy 4:3-4; 2 Peter 2 and 3). These vulnerable saints think the only way they can get what they want is through their leaders, so they gladly belong to them. Paul is saying that all true teachers belong to the saints already. All of God’s revealed truth, His revealed wisdom, belongs to the whole church, not some elite group of knowers (gnostics). Besides this, all things belong to the saints. No one has a “corner on the market” of what God has for His own. They are owned by all of His children, and accessible to all as well. The wisdom teachers of this age have nothing to offer the saint, nothing with which to tempt him. Forsaking true wisdom to pursue false wisdom is like forsaking your place as a son of the world’s richest man to live with a homeless beggar, who says he knows the key to obtaining wealth. Does this sounds a little like the prodigal son?
How are all these “things” ours? Why do we possess “all” things? It is not due to our wisdom, to our social standing, to our status. It is the result of belonging to Christ. We belong to Christ, Paul reminds us, and Christ belongs to God (verse 23). Since all things belong to God, we possess them in Christ. How foolish the thinking of the Corinthians is! They are looking upon the simple teaching of Christ crucified as shallow and elementary. They are beginning to seek “wisdom” and “standing” in mere men, and in the wisdom of this world. That wisdom is worthless and destructive. God’s wisdom and wealth has been provided for us in Christ. To forsake Christ is to become poor and foolish, even though we consider ourselves rich and wise (see Revelation 3:14-22). Being rooted and grounded and growing in Christ is being truly wise and truly rich:
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich (2 Corinthians 8:9).
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ (Ephesians 1:3).
1 For I want you to know how great a struggle I have on your behalf, and for those who are at Laodicea, and for all those who have not personally seen my face, 2 that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:1-3).
As I conclude my messages, I usually focus on application. I will do so in this message as well. But let us not lose sight of the fact that this text is Paul’s application. These verses are Paul’s bottom line, his way of indicating what we should do with what he has taught us. What then has Paul instructed us to do? Basically, he has called on us to repent, to change our minds regarding wisdom and men. We are to cease taking pride in the wisdom of men, in the wisdom of this age. We are to regard the wisdom of this age as folly. We are to embrace God’s wisdom which the world regards as folly. We are to return to the simple message of the gospel—the message of Christ crucified—as the wisdom of God and the foundation for our ministry.
I fear that we do not distinguish sharply enough between the two “wisdoms” before us that call upon us to believe and to act according to their doctrine. The Book of Proverbs makes it clear that such a distinction is not only valid, it is imperative. The Book of James makes the same strong distinction:
14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. 15 This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. 18 And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace (James 3:14-18).
In his excellent book, entitled, God in the Wasteland, David F. Wells makes a strong distinction between these two wisdoms. He sums up this distinction in this paragraph:
There are, then, two opposing ways of thinking about the world that can be found in the West today. The one belongs to those who have narrowed their perception solely to what is natural; the other belongs to those whose understanding of the natural is framed by the supernatural. The one takes in no more than what the senses can glean; the other allows this accumulation of information to be informed by the reality of the transcendent. The one indiscriminately celebrates diversity; the other seeks to understand life’s diversity in the light of its unity. The one can go no further than intuition; the other pierces through to truth. The one presumes that everything changes and that change is the only constant; the other measures the things that change by the standard of things that are changeless. The one looks only to the shifting contents of human consciousness, which differ from one individual to the next; the other holds the individual consciousness up for comparison to the larger realms of meaning in which are rooted those things that are common to all human nature. The one acknowledges no ultimate certainties; the other places the highest value on ultimate certainties. All of these differences arise from the simple fact that the one perspective receives its meaning from God and the other does not.47
First Paul calls on us to renounce the secular wisdom of this age and to view life through the divine wisdom which God provides through His Word and His Spirit. This does not say that Christians should not be deeply engaged in the search for knowledge and truth. It does say that for the Christian, wisdom begins with God and ends with Him. As the writer of the proverb says, “There is no wisdom and no understanding And no counsel against the Lord” (Proverbs 21:30). When we study nuclear physics, astronomy, or computer science, we begin with the foundation which God has laid. We test all claims to truth by the standard of God’s truth, the Word of God. When divine wisdom contradicts human knowledge, we know which to question and which to trust.
Too many Christians are seeking truth in the opposite direction. They begin with human understanding and reasoning, and then look to the Bible for an illustration or a proof text. The wisdom of God is the foundation on which all of our building should take place, and the standard for all that we think and do. Let us carefully consider the vast differences between divine wisdom and the wisdom of this age. Let us beware of placing our trust or our pride in the wisdom of men; let us embrace the wisdom of God, knowing that it alone is true wisdom.
The second area of repentance which Paul calls for is the change of mind and action which characterizes us in terms of our boasting in men. The wisdom of men is foolish and destructive. The wisdom of God belongs to all the saints, and it is not mediated to us by any one man who is the key to certain knowledge unknown and unknowable to others. All truth belongs to us, and all those who teach the truth of God belong to us, the saints. We do not belong to our teachers; they belong to us. We do ourselves a great disservice by devoting ourselves to only one human leader.
Jesus made it clear that men are not to usurp the position and the prerogatives which are His alone (Matthew 23:1-12). Jesus did not choose one apostle, but twelve. He did not instruct the church to have only one leader, but a plurality of leaders known as elders. The position of “pastor,” as it is practiced today, is unknown to the New Testament writers. We find churches today structured in a way that directly contradicts the teaching of Paul—churches established on the basis of allegiance to one man.
Men are exalted in other ways above and beyond that which they should be. Those of us who teach the Scriptures often use Greek, Hebrew, and theological terms in a way which sends an entirely wrong message: that no one can study or teach the Scriptures who has not learned Hebrew, Greek, and theology. So we have a whole congregation of people who feed on “milk,” the truth processed and delivered by the preacher, but who cannot chew on any meat of the Word themselves. We often seek to develop leadership in the same ways the world does, and we honor those who gather a personal following. We sanctify this by saying, “A leader is one who has followers.” A biblical leader is a man who, in obedience to God’s direction and calling, leads. He may or may not have many followers. Jesus did not have many followers in the end, and neither did Paul. We must not judge “leaders” by how many people follow them.
Certain practices and teachings in the church of our time should be carefully thought through in the light of Paul’s teaching in our text. One of the current buzz words in leadership circles is “mentoring.” We should be very careful that mentoring does not degenerate into “mentoring” We are not to train men to become followers of men. We are to teach and encourage men and women to be followers of Christ. How easy it is in the name of mentoring to violate Paul’s instructions to us from our text. “Accountability” is another popular concept, which can easily be distorted into an undue attachment and devotion to a mere man.
Finally, Paul’s words should cause us to see the folly of following one man to the neglect (and even rejection) of others. How easy it is to find our identity and our status linked with one person. When we do this, divisions arise within the church of our Lord. I am not a charismatic Christian, but I do think we might learn some things from good, solid charismatic teaching and practice. Likewise, charismatics could gain by learning from us. Pre-tribulational thinkers could learn some things from the “post-tribbers,” and vice-versa. Arminians could learn much from those of us who are Calvinists, and we may learn some things from them. Isolating ourselves to the point where our identity is summed up by one person, or one perspective, deprives us of the wealth God has for each of us. “All” things are ours. Let us learn from many of those gifted to teach, and not just one or a few. We can learn through radio, tapes, and reading, as well as by a broader contact with believers. Let us make use of the vast wealth God has given to us in Christ.
The teaching of our text poses two extremes of which we should repent. The first extreme is that of going too far afield, seeking truth from human wisdom, when we should search for it in the Word of God. The second extreme is in being too narrow, in limiting ourselves to but one leader, one perspective, one source of wisdom. May God keep us from these extremes, and enable us to seek true wisdom as taught in the Scriptures and expounded by a large number of those whom God has gifted to teach and to lead us.
“There is an exquisite compass of vision here that is tragically lost when all of our Christianity means nothing more than ‘finding fulfillment’ or seeking personal peace or—worse yet—identifying with the ‘right’ party or Christian guru. We are God’s, and that transforms everything. If we truly understand this, there are no tyrannies left. We will want all that God has for us, both in this life and in the life to come. And that means we will never reduce the God-sized dimensions of biblical Christianity to all that can be embraced by just one Christian teacher or worker, no matter how able or wise. Factionalism is utter folly. Not only does it hurt the church, it impoverishes all those who embrace it, for it cuts them off from the wealth of the heritage that rightly belongs to all the children of God.”48
“If leaders are too greatly elevated in the popular mind, they can do almost anything, and large numbers of their followers will trail along unquestioningly. We marvel how many educated Germans followed Adolf Hitler without protest; we marvel how many religious people followed Jim Jones to their death. But examples that are not so extreme may be more difficult to detect. It is possible so to lionize some Christian leader that we start making excuses for his or her serious, perhaps even catastrophic, faults. What we must remember is that the leaders are no more than servants. Meanwhile, God loves his church, and he holds accountable those who seek to build the church.”49
“What might this mean for us today, in practical terms? … But it does mean that if you are, say, a Lutheran, you must not cut yourself off from what is right and good in the Wesleyan, Reformed, charismatic, Anabaptist, and other lines. (And of course, I could have rephrased that sentence in any combination.) At the local church level, it will not do to lionize one particular leader (preferably recently retired or deceased!) at the expense of all the others. Ultimately, to do so is to assign him or her almost tyrannical powers. Not only does it breed factionalism, it ignores the vast heritage and wealth that are ours simply because we are Christians and we belong to God. And, in the sense already expressed, what belongs to God belongs to us. Must we have fights over church music? We should have the best, the most God-centered, the most truthful, the most edifying. But must it all be in one style? Is there nothing to be gained from wide exposure to the company of saints in many parts of the world who have expressed their adoration of the Savior with richness of hymnody we can never exhaust, but which we ignore to our detriment?”50
46 D. A. Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry (Grand Rapids: Baker Books [Inter-Varsity Press], 1993), pp. 86-87.
47 David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), p. 45.
48 Carson, p. 88.
49 Carson, p. 82.
50 Carson, p. 89.
The Corinthian church has a leadership crisis. Small cliques have attached themselves to leaders in whom they take pride. Highly regarded in the secular world, these leaders are chosen because of their message and their methods. Their content is thought to be the essence of wisdom. Their methods are powerful. Viewed simply from the standpoint of numbers, the church may be experiencing significant growth.
From Paul’s statements in the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians, one would suppose that each clique is a personal following of one of the apostles, of Paul, Apollos, or Peter. We should already have concluded that the apostles themselves are not the problem. They are not competing with one another for positions of power and prominence.51 If we think the rivalry at Corinth is between the followers of certain apostles like Paul or Apollos or Peter, Paul has a surprise for us in chapter 4. Here, in verse 6, Paul indicates that the real cliques have been established around personal allegiance to certain unnamed men, who are not apostles. As the two Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians continue to unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that some of these leaders are spiritual (1 Corinthians 14:37-38), and some are not even believers, but rather “false apostles” (2 Corinthians 11:12-15).
In contrast to the “leadership” of these cult-like leaders, we find the Apostle Paul. In chapter 4, Paul speaks of himself, along with his fellow-apostles, and informs the Corinthians about the way in which he and his colleagues should be regarded (4:1-5). He then exposes the real leadership problem at Corinth, outlining the dramatic contrast between the way the Corinthians view themselves and the way they view Paul (4:6-13). Verses 14-17 express Paul’s emotional appeal to the Corinthians to heed his instruction and to follow his leadership. The final verses (18-21) contain a warning for those who will not repent of their error. Paul will come to them, and if need be, he will come with “ a rod.”
After his introductory words (1:1-9), Paul brings up the problem of divisions among the Corinthians. From 1:10—3:9, Paul approaches the problem in terms of principle. He shows that the basis for the divisions in Corinth is contradictory to the gospel as it is expounded in the Scriptures. In 1:10—3:9, Paul attacks the Corinthian schisms theologically; now, beginning at 3:10, Paul spells out specific corrective measures which must be taken to set this matter right. Here, Paul is not only calling for repentance, but spelling out the form repentance must take.
Paul indicates in 3:10 that each Christian must be careful how he or she builds upon the foundation which Paul has laid. The ministry of each believer is described as the construction of a portion of “God’s building” (3:9). Each believer is a workman, assigned with the construction of a certain portion. Each must build on the foundation Paul has laid. Both the materials and the workmanship of each believer must be of the highest quality. If the workman’s work endures, he will receive a reward from God (3:13-14). If the workman’s construction is detrimental and destructive to the “temple of God” (verses 16-17), Paul warns that God will destroy this workman. It is clear from the context that this does not refer to his eternal damnation (see verse 15), but it must surely speak of earthly judgment (5:5), and of loss of eternal rewards (3:15).
In 3:18-23, Paul warns the Corinthians not to deceive themselves by thinking themselves to be wise in this age. This worldly wisdom is “folly” to God and actually the means of our own downfall (3:19-20). We must therefore become truly wise by becoming a fool in this age (3:18). Knowing that the wisdom which comes from men is foolish to God, one must certainly cease boasting in men (3:21-23), as though they are the means to divine wisdom. Rather than taking pride in belonging to a certain group and a particular leader, the Corinthians should rejoice that in Christ they possess all things, and they belong only to God.
Now, in 4:1-5, Paul sets down yet another manifestation of the repentance which God desires and requires from the Corinthians. Let us listen well to these words of the Apostle Paul, knowing that what God required of the Corinthians, He also requires of us. Let us seek not only to discern the strong words of this apostle, but also his warmth of heart and his gentle spirit. Here is a man who is a model leader, a model for all to follow.
1 Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy. 3 But to me it is a very small thing that I should be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. 4 For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord. 5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.
The Corinthians had given themselves to one leader, a leader whom they elevated to the place which rightly belongs only to our Lord. Speaking for himself and for the other true apostles, Paul seeks to revise their perception of leaders. Even those whom God had appointed as apostles are to be regarded as servants, not as masters. Paul made this point earlier in chapter 3, verse 5: “What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.”
In this verse (3:5), Paul employs the first of three Greek terms for a servant, which he will employ in reference to himself and the other apostles. Diakonos is a common term for servant, which on a few occasions refers to the office of deacon. The term for servant in 4:1 is hyperetes,52 which refers to a slave who was seated under the deck of a ship and was one of a number of rowers, by whom the ship was propelled. It is not a position of status, and thus Paul employed this term to emphasize the humble service of the apostles. The third term, oikonomos, is rendered “steward.” The steward was also a slave, but one given a higher authority, under his master:
The oikonomos (oikos and nemein) was the responsible head of the establishment, assigning to each slave his duties and entrusted with the administration of the stores. He was a slave in relation to his master (Luke xii. 42), but the epitropos or overseer (Matt. xx. 8) in relation to the workmen.”53
Thus the Corinthians must take their leader off the pedestal on which they had placed him (or her). Even apostles are mere men, who have been chosen and appointed by God to be His servants, and to whom He has given authority to serve as “stewards of the mysteries of God.” These words are pregnant with meaning, but we will only mention several important nuances. First, the apostles are servants. Servants do not own things; they are owned by their Master. As servants, the apostles did not own or possess their followers as the false teachers seemed to do, and as their followers even boasted (“We are of …”). As stewards, the apostles had a certain authority to act in behalf of their Master, but they are still slaves, servants of Christ. As slaves and stewards, the apostles are not intent on pleasing men (see Galatians 1:10), but on pleasing the Master. The Lord is their Master, and He will be their Judge. They will give account to Him for their stewardship, and the standard for judgment is their faithfulness in fulfilling their stewardship.
In verses 3 and 4, Paul now pursues the matter of the judgment of himself and the other apostles as God’s stewards. He is conveying to the Corinthians the inherent weaknesses in human judgment. Paul informs them that he is not overly influenced by their judgment of his faithfulness to his calling as an apostle. He does so, not by directly attacking their ability to judge him, but rather by pointing out his own limitations in judging himself. If Paul cannot rely completely on his own self-evaluation, then how can he be heavily influenced by the judgment of the Corinthians, whose knowledge of Paul is much more limited? Paul can search his conscience to see if there is something worthy of an indictment, but even if his conscience gives him a clean bill of health, his conscience may be ill-informed. Consequently, the only One who is completely qualified to judge Paul is his Master. It is the Lord who examines him.
If human judgment is fallible, then Paul can rightly instruct the Corinthians to refrain from making final judgments, which should be left to God. This he does in verse 5. “Therefore” indicates that the instructions Paul gives here are the conclusion (or the application) of his argument in verses 1-4. When he says, “do not go on passing judgment,” we know that the Corinthians are passing judgment, and Paul is instructing them to cease doing so.
How can Paul instruct us to cease judging, when we know there are times when we must judge? What is wrong with the Corinthians’ judging that might not be wrong with other judgments? Let us pause for a moment to consider what the Bible as a whole has to say on the subject of judging. We are required to judge many things. Let me mention some of them. The Book of Proverbs is written to enable us to discern character, and various character types are vividly described: the naive, simple or gullible, the fool, the sluggard, and the scoffer. Contrasted with these is the wise. We are to deal with a person according to their character, and thus we must judge character, based upon the descriptions given in Scripture. We are to judge sin, which is clearly defined in the Scriptures, and clearly evident in our life (1 Corinthians 11:17-31) and in the life of another (1 Corinthians 5). We are also to make judgments on spiritual matters involving believers (1 Corinthians 6). We are to judge the doctrinal truth of what we are taught (Acts 17:10-11).
There are also things we must not judge. We are not to judge the convictions of a brother in the Lord, since these are not matters of biblically defined sin, but of liberties (Romans 14:4). Neither are we to judge or speak against a brother in any matter which the Scriptures have not defined as sin, and for which we have no biblical support. To do so is to place ourselves above the Word of God and to pass judgment on God’s law and God, the Lawgiver and the Judge (James 4:11-12).
When God calls upon the saints to judge, they do so in God’s behalf (Matthew 18:18-19). When we wrongly judge, we judge in God’s place (James 4:11-12). In our text, Paul is forbidding men to judge in God’s place, passing judgment upon those things which God alone can judge. The judgment which does not belong to men is that which will be done by our Lord in the day of judgment, when He returns to the earth to establish His kingdom (1 Corinthians 3:10-15). We dare not “go on passing judgment” before “the time” (4:5). The judgment Paul forbids is God’s judgment, a judgment to be carried out by God in His appointed time. This judgment is God’s judgment alone, because it is that which only God can perform.
Verse 5 characterizes the judgment of which Paul speaks: it is divine judgment, the judgment God Himself will pronounce. Here is the judgment of believers in Jesus Christ, not the judgment of unbelievers. The outcome of this is not punishment, but rewards. In order to exalt one leader, the Corinthians find it necessary to judge and condemn the rest. Paul speaks of rewards, of God’s praise, for all. It is a future judgment which will occur when the Lord comes. It is the final judgment, the final verdict, when all the results are in. Our judgment is temporal and incomplete; it is not final, nor can it be. Let me seek to illustrate what this means. During the recent elections, television networks continued to give updated results, as the precincts closed and votes were counted and reported. After a while, certain trends became apparent, and winners were “predicted” and announced as such. While such predictions are usually accurate, the final outcome cannot be determined until all the precinct voting places have closed and all the ballots have been counted. Our judgment is not the final verdict. Such pronouncements belong only to God.
When God passes judgment in that coming day, it will result in praise. That praise will be given for things unknown and unknowable to us.54 Paul tells us that God’s judgment will occur when He reveals or brings to light “things hidden in the darkness” and when He discloses “the motives of men’s hearts.” These “heart motives” and “things hidden in the darkness” are not just the wrong and sinful things invisible to the human eye, but also the wholesome and commendable things we cannot see or know. Only God can reveal these things, and reveal them He will! Until then, we do not have sufficient information on which to make a final judgment.
Paul instructs the Corinthian saints to cease judging their fellow servants because they do not have sufficient data on which to base a judgment now. The arrogant, boastful Corinthians who are judging actually think they are wise enough to judge in God’s place. They base their judgments on outward appearances, a very dangerous thing to do (see Luke 16:15). No wonder we will soon find Paul insisting that all do not possess gifts which produce visible results (1 Corinthians 12:29-30). These are the gifts the boastful Corinthians hold in such high esteem, because those granted such gifts are able to produce visible results, and thus judged spiritually superior by their fellow-saints.
One thing remains vague in what Paul says, something we must infer from the context: what are the Corinthians judging about which they are told to cease passing judgment? It seems evident that it is making a final and decisive judgment on the success and quality of the ministry of an apostle of our Lord. Paul warns these Corinthians (who are themselves “servants” of Christ) not to keep on passing judgment on the service of those servants who are apostles, and in so doing condemning apostolic leadership, while choosing to follow a particular favorite leader. Just who these individuals are becomes more and more clear as Paul’s epistles fill in further details.
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 7 For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? 8 You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and I would indeed that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. 9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. 11 To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; 12 and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; 13 when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now.
Centuries before the days of Paul and the Corinthians, Nathan the prophet provided us an excellent example of indirect confrontation. David had sinned greatly, not only by taking Bathsheba in an adulterous act, but by also attempting to cover up his sin of the thinly-veiled murder of her husband. When Nathan confronted David, he did not immediately accuse him of his sins. Instead, he approached David with the story of a poor man whose only lamb was taken away by a very rich man. David was incensed and demanded that this “sinner” be brought to justice. Only then did Nathan disclose that this story was but a parable, and that the guilty man was none other than King David. David confessed his sin and was forgiven, although serious consequences followed. The indirect approach of Nathan was effective as it committed David to a righteous course of action in principle when it did not appear to relate personally to him. Once David embraced the matter in principle, Nathan spelled it out to the king in very personal terms.
Paul does something very similar in the first chapters of 1 Corinthians. The Corinthians have a problem of divisions in the church, divisions based upon undue attachment to a particular leader, one that leads to the rejection (or at least disdain) of other leaders. The leader they follow is a great source of pride to these cultic cliques. They boast of belonging to a particular person as their leader. Paul first deals with the matter in principle, contrasting the gospel, weak and foolish in the eyes of the unbelieving world, with the false wisdom and power of those who are considered leaders in the secular world.
Paul also addresses the problem of divisions at Corinth in terms of personalities: Paul, Apollos, Cephas [Peter], and Christ (1:12), and then later just in terms of himself (Paul) and Apollos in 3:4-5. Paul and Apollos are not competitors but co-workers, in the kingdom of God. Each has his unique role to play. Paul was first at Corinth, and so he speaks of himself as the one who sowed the seed of the gospel there. Later, Apollos arrived at Corinth, and so Paul speaks of him as the one who waters (3:6). Both are laboring in the same cause of the gospel. Both are “one.” And each has his own distinct role to play, just as each will receive his own rewards. There is unity in diversity as seen in the relationship of Paul and Apollos. How can any attempt be made to play them against each other?
Now in verse 6 of chapter 4, Paul has a surprise for his readers. The problem is not between the apostles, or even between any who might claim to be followers of a particular apostle as opposed to the rest. Paul speaks of the apostles—particularly of himself and Apollos because both ministered at Corinth—in a figurative way. The apostles are used as a kind of parable or analogy. From what he has said about his relationship with Apollos, Paul hopes to turn the Corinthians from the folly of attaching themselves to one leader, while opposing the rest. He speaks of himself and Apollos so that they might learn in them “not to exceed what is written,” which in turn will keep them from boasting in one man over and above another.
For the moment, let us dwell on Paul’s general statement, and then move on to the particulars of Paul’s argument in support of his general statements. The real problem at Corinth is not between any of the apostles or their alleged followers. The real problem is divisions and cliques which center about others. Paul’s teaching to this point in the first Epistle to the Corinthians is intended to draw men’s attention and commitment to the Scriptures, to “what is written.” The Corinthians departed from the Scriptures, and in so doing, proudly boasted of their attachment to a certain leader and their disdain for others. In verses 1-4 of chapter 3, Paul exposes the carnality of the Corinthians and offers as evidence of their condition their weakness in handling the Word and their attachment to men. Now, Paul indicates that carnal Christians attach themselves to men because they have gone beyond the Scriptures to find truth and wisdom.
In a general way, these Corinthians have become arrogant in behalf of one against another. In verse 7, Paul becomes much more specific: the Corinthians have become arrogant against the apostles. Verses 7-13 are a graphic description of how the Corinthians look at themselves and, in contrast, how they look at Paul and his fellow-apostles.
Paul raises three very crucial questions in verse 7 which, if answered correctly by the Corinthians, will expose the seriousness of their self-deception and sin. Paul first asks, “Who regards you as superior?” Who is their judge? If the Corinthians are so high and mighty, who thinks this? Is it the unbelieving community? God is their judge, not the corrupt Corinthians of that day. Paul asks yet another question: “What do you have that you did not receive?” Do the Corinthians boast in their abilities? Where did these abilities come from? If they were given, and they were, then they were given by God. If the Corinthians are boasting in their God-given gifts, then they are boasting in God’s place. They have the wrong judge, and they have the wrong object of praise. Men have taken the place of God.
There is then a third and final question: “If all that the Corinthians possess is a God-given gift, then how can they boast, as if it were not a gift?” The Corinthians think themselves so wise. They are arrogant and boastful. Yet, if they are so wise, how can they be so foolish as to take credit for something they were given, as though they were not the recipients of a gift? They have forgotten—or worse yet, they have forsaken—grace. These all-wise Corinthians are self-deceived.
In verse 8, by divine inspiration and enablement, Paul virtually reads the minds of his audience and describes the way they look on themselves. They are “already” filled; they have “already” become rich. Indeed, they have become kings. These Corinthians are much like the Laodiceans of Revelation 3: “Because you say, ‘I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked’” (Revelation 3:17).
The word “already,” used twice by Paul in verse 8, is most enlightening. It indicates that in their minds, the Corinthians have “already” arrived. It will soon be clear that Paul and the other apostles have not. How can this be? How can the carnal Corinthians think they have arrived when the apostles have not?
In effect, the Corinthians think that they have “already” entered into the kingdom; they have “already” entered into the full benefits and blessings of Christ’s work at Calvary. They are not unlike a number of professing Christians today, who argue that all of the blessings resulting from Christ’s work on the cross are our present possession, and that all we need do is have the faith to claim them. They claim to possess them and look down upon all who do not. They also claim that those who do not possess them suffer and are afflicted in this life and do not experience success and the good life here and now.
Such thinking contradicts the clear teaching of our Lord and of his apostles. Jesus clearly speaks of suffering and adversity in this life, and the glories of His kingdom in the next, as did all of the apostles:
18 “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19 “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).
“These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).
Strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22).
Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ; so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel; 28 in no way alarmed by your opponents—which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you, and that too, from God. 29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, 30 experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me (Philippians 1:27-30).
10 That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:10-11).
And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (2 Timothy 3:12).
12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; 13 but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing; so that also at the revelation of His glory, you may rejoice with exultation (1 Peter 4:12-13).
How can these Corinthians miss the fact that if we identify with Christ in this age, we will suffer rejection, persecution, and affliction, but with the assurance of entering into the blessings of His kingdom when He comes? The answer is quite simple. First, Paul has already told us that these Corinthians need to learn not to “go beyond what is written.” They are wrong because they have forsaken the Scriptures as the only source of divine truth. Second, they have twisted the Scriptures pertaining to prophecy and future things. Like many others in New Testament times (not to mention our own), they have distorted the doctrine of the resurrection, future judgment, and the blessings of Christ’s kingdom:
Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? (1 Corinthians 15:12).
That you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come (2 Thessalonians 2:2).
Men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some (2 Timothy 2:18).
3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:3-4).
If the Corinthians, boasting in their worldly wisdom, think they have arrived, they are equally convinced the apostles have not. Judgmentally, they look down upon the apostles in their suffering and humble service. Paul paints the picture of the Corinthians, sitting “on high” looking down from their lofty heights, disdaining the apostles who are a shame and a reproach to them. Paul says God has exhibited the apostles before the world as those condemned to die, as those being led to their execution. They are a spectacle to angels and to men. The apostles are fools; the Corinthians are wise. The apostles are weak; the Corinthians are strong. The Corinthians are distinguished; the apostles are without honor (verse 10).
Paul’s description of the apostles in verse 11 sounds remarkably like a description of the lowest rung of our own social ladder today. It also sounds like the men and women I have seen in prisons and in the skid road missions in various parts of this country. They are hungry and thirsty, poorly clothed, roughly treated, and homeless. Though not said, it takes little imagination to picture the contrasting condition of the Corinthians. In today’s terms, the Corinthians are like many of the televangelists of our time. They are well fed, impeccably dressed, highly esteemed (this may be changing), often possessing several expensive homes, indeed, mansions.
Even more amazing is the response of Paul and his fellow apostles to the abusive treatment of the world, and even some in the church. This response is described in verses 12 and 13. Rather than living like kings off of the saints, Paul labors with his own hands. He is not supported by those whom he serves; rather, he supports them (Acts 18:3; 20:33-35; 1 Corinthians 9:1-23; 2 Corinthians 11:7-9; 2 Thessalonians 2:9). When the apostles are reviled, they give a blessing in return. When persecuted, they endure. When slandered, they seek to conciliate. In spite of this—or perhaps, because of this—they are regarded as the scum of the world, the dregs, the bottom of the social barrel.
In some ways, those who have raised teenagers may identify somewhat with Paul’s words. Parents invest their lives in their children. They do without so their children might have what they need. In the early days of childhood, the children depend upon their parents; they cling to them. But when the teenage years arrive, teens begin to think of their parents as a liability, rather than an asset. They prefer to be seen apart from their parents than with them. This is the same way the Corinthians look upon and treat Paul, only worse.
14 I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me. 17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church. 18 Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant, but their power. 20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in words, but in power. 21 What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod or with love and a spirit of gentleness?
Paul’s response to the Corinthians is nothing less than amazing, an example of what he has just said in verses 12 and 13. Paul is a model leader. He is a very different leader from those whom some Corinthians are choosing to follow:
19 For you, being so wise, bear with the foolish gladly. 20 For you bear with anyone if he enslaves you, if he devours you, if he takes advantage of you, if he exalts himself, if he hits you in the face. 21 To my shame I must say that we have been weak by comparison. But in whatever respect anyone else is bold (I speak in foolishness), I am just as bold myself (2 Corinthians 11:19-21).
The unholy leaders whom some find so appealing are authoritarian leaders. They are men who lead in the same way the pagans ruled over others (see Mark 10:42). They push people around, and their followers love it.
Paul’s words in verses 14-17 are a dramatic contrast to this kind of leadership. He does not seek to shame them, or put a guilt trip on them. Guilt is profitable when it is a response to sin, and when it leads to repentance. But the fuel on which the ministry and life of the church runs is not guilt, but grace. Paul’s epistle is not written to shame the Corinthians, but to warn them of the direction in which they are heading, and to urge them to turn around. Paul speaks to them not as a “lord,” but as their father, and that he is, for many came to faith through his ministry.
Paul could command them to follow certain rules, but here he exhorts them to follow him, to follow his example (verse 16). While Paul cannot be present with the Corinthians, he does send his finest gift—Timothy (see Philippians 2:19-24). Timothy will remind them of what they have already seen and heard from Paul. He will remind them of Paul’s conduct (his ways) and of his teaching, which are in Christ. Paul’s preaching is fleshed out by his practice. Paul can not only say, “Do as I say,” but also, “Do as I do.” Paul practices what he preaches. Timothy will remind the Corinthians of these matters. Furthermore, Timothy’s reminder of Paul’s teaching and conduct will be exactly the same message as he and Paul teach in any other church: “Just as I teach everywhere in every church.” This is a very important statement, which contradicts all those who tell us that Paul’s words to the Corinthian church are uniquely fashioned for this one situation, but not for other churches. That is not what Paul says. His teaching and his practice are consistent in every church.
Are there those who will not heed Paul’s gentle plea for repentance? Are there those who have somehow become bold in Paul’s absence, convinced that they will never see him again? With Paul gone, some Corinthian leaders are beginning to reign roughshod over their followers. How bold they are in Paul’s absence! For such folks, Paul has a stronger word of warning: “Look out! I am coming soon, and when I come, I will be as tough as I have to be.”
Paul’s intent is to come as quickly to Corinth as he can. His desire is that the saints there have heeded his written warnings and made right the things in which they are wrong. If such is the case, Paul can expect to come and be warmly received, forgetting the sins of the past. But if there is no repentance, if those who oppose him persist, Paul will come in power, and he will then use his apostolic authority to deal with them. The eloquent speech of these leaders will not be enough when Paul arrives, for he will expose their lack of real spiritual power.
Timothy will come shortly. But soon, Paul is coming to Corinth. How do they want him to come? Do they wish to have him come with love and a spirit of gentleness, made possible by their repentance? Or, do they wish him to come with the rod of correction? The choice is theirs.
Paul’s words to the Corinthians are for us as well, and they have much to say. Let me conclude by suggesting some of the implications of our text.
(1) Paul’s words speak volumes on the subject of leadership. I hear a great deal about leadership in the church these days. Sadly, most of what is said is from the secular wisdom of this world. We seem to hear more from Peter Drucker than from Jesus or from Paul. What is said that “sounds” spiritual is usually secular at its core—with a sugar coating of spiritual terminology, proof-texted by some passage, strained beyond its meaning or intent.
Paul attributes the leadership which many Corinthians follow to the secular wisdom and power of the day. These are the leaders whose followers disdain and even reject the apostles. Paul’s leadership is described as a radical contrast to this worldly-wise leadership. We are told that a leader is “one who has followers.” Leadership, by this definition, is not a matter of divine calling or of Christ-like character. Paul must have overlooked something very important, then, when he spelled out the qualifications for leaders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Peter too must have missed the mark in the fifth chapter of 1 Peter.
If I could take up the text of 1 Corinthians 4 and wring it out like a wet rag, it would virtually ooze with Christ, “Christ crucified.” In verses 1-5, Paul speaks of himself and the other apostles as servants and stewards, and he urges the Corinthians to hold up on judgments they cannot and should not be making. I find this reminiscent of our Lord:
Jesus therefore said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me” (John 8:28).
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me; for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me” (John 8:42).
“For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me commandment, what to say, and what to speak” (John 12:49).
“Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works” (John 14:10).
“Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
47 “And if anyone hears My sayings, and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day” (John 12:47-48).
Were the apostles homeless? So was our Lord:
57 And as they were going along the road, someone said to Him, “I will follow You wherever You go.” 58 And Jesus said to him, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head” (Luke 9:57-58).
Are Paul and his apostolic colleagues despised and rejected, the scum of the earth? So was the Lord Jesus Christ. Are they exhibited as those condemned to death? So was our Lord:
3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him (Isaiah 53:3-6).
When the apostles are abused, mistreated, and wrongly accused, do they respond graciously, seeking reconciliation? So did our Lord.
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. 19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a man bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. 21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22 who COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN His mouth; 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. 25 For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls (1 Peter 2:18-25).
The apostles are simply living out the life of Christ: “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21). This is exactly what we are called, and even commanded, to do. Paul instructs the Corinthians to be imitators of him (1 Corinthians 4:16). In the context of his words, we see that he is calling upon us to suffer for Christ’s sake, to “take up our cross daily,” and to follow Him. The cross is not merely the means by which we are saved; it is the basis for our sanctification, and it is the paradigm for our daily lives. The foolishness and the weakness of the gospel is that which we not only embrace to be saved, but which we embrace as the model for our lives. No wonder Paul forsakes secular leadership principles and turns us to Christ. To do this is not drudgery; it is a joy and a privilege:
29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake, 30 experiencing the same conflict which you saw in me, and now hear to be in me (Philippians 1:29-30).
8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:8-11).
(2) Paul’s words caution us about seeking to please men, rather than God, and striving to do those things which appear to be successful and worthwhile. There is a time to judge ourselves and others. But here Paul warns of the danger of judging others. He even warns of the danger of judging oneself. The Corinthians want to possess those spiritual gifts which are verbal and visible, the gifts many think are the best. Paul shocks them by challenging their system of evaluating the importance of the gifts in chapter 12. He seeks to encourage those with seemingly insignificant gifts that they indeed play a most vital role in the body of Christ. Let us be careful that we do not gauge our effectiveness on the basis of what others say, or even on the basis of what we think or feel. Our task is not to succeed, but as servants and stewards to fulfill the calling which God has given us. Our work may not seem successful, significant, or effective, but neither did our Lord’s word win the approval of men. Paul too looks a miserable failure. But today is not the time to judge the results of our ministry, and we are not the ones to judge such things. Let us leave these matters to God and faithfully continue to fulfill our stewardship.
(3) Paul’s words exhort us to live in the light of the second coming. To Paul, what we do in the present is very important, but only when considered in the light of eternity. The Corinthians err in assuming that they presently possess those blessings God provides and promises for the future. They fail to understand that those who are men and women of faith must be willing to suffer for Christ’s sake in this age, so that they can enter into His glory in the next. This is the theme of the Book of Hebrews, and the point of all those named in the “hall of faith” in Hebrews 11. The unbelieving world, with its “wisdom” and “power” is all of this age. The Christian’s “world” includes this age and the one to come. We are to live in this age in the light of the next. The unbeliever lives only for the present. Eschatology (the doctrine of future things—prophecy) has very important implications for godly living in this present age.
(4) Paul’s teaching in the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians is an example of godly leadership and a model for us in dealing with problems in the church. The church at Corinth has many problems, but in the light of eternity, we probably have just as many in our own church today. Paul could have come on like gangbusters, wielding his apostolic authority by naming names and calling out orders. He could have gone straight to Corinth and “had it out” with the problem people. Paul’s dealings with those in the wrong at Corinth are an example of his instructions to Timothy in handling problem people at Ephesus:
21 Therefore, if a man cleanses himself from these things, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work. 22 Now flee from youthful lusts, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. 23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will (2 Timothy 2:21-26).
How could Paul be more gentle than he is with the Corinthians? He exposes the problem and then deals with it in principle, rather than in terms of personalities. When he does name names, they are only figurative analogies so that the real culprits remain unnamed. Finally, Paul clearly exposes the problem: little groups of arrogant Christians are proudly following leaders who use secular means and who proclaim a secular message, turning believers from the truths of the Word and the simplicity of the gospel. These folks have come to think too highly of themselves and too poorly of Paul and his fellow-apostles. And yet even now, Paul admonishes them as their father, seeking to bring about repentance and reconciliation without the use of more aggressive means. Only as a last resort does Paul threaten the use of these more forceful means. Here is a different breed of leader, a leader who is like Christ, and a leader whom all of us should seek to imitate. Let us learn to deal with problems as graciously as Paul.
(5) Finally, Paul’s teaching in chapters 1-4 lays the foundation for what he is about to say in chapters 5 and following. There are many specific problems in Corinth which need correction. The next matter Paul must address is incest in the church (chapter 5). Why does Paul not begin with this problem? It is because right thinking precedes right conduct. The Corinthians are misbehaving because they are weak in their grasp of the Word. Paul’s first four chapters are about the right foundation. The Corinthians must see that God’s Word is true wisdom, and that God’s power is displayed through human weakness. They must understand that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the foundation for all life and ministry in the church. Christ crucified is the foundation and the standard for all church life. And the good news of the gospel is that which humbles us, breaking our pride and arrogance. Only when these fundamental matters are set straight does Paul move on to address particular problems. Right thinking precedes right conduct. Right thinking comes from the Word of God as we are illuminated and empowered by the Spirit of God. May we be men and women of the Word, filled with His Spirit.
51 One could not have said this of the disciples before the crucifixion and ascension of our Lord, for in those days of His earthly ministry, they were competitive with each other (see Mark 9:33-37; 10:35-45).
52 It is significant that this term is employed by Paul, especially in the light of Paul’s testimony in Acts 26:16: “‘But arise, and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister [hypereten] and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you.’” The first words our Lord spoke to Paul on that Damascus road characterized his ministry as an apostle as that of lowly service. No doubt this influenced his choice of words in verse 1. “The word [hyperetas] originally denotes those who … in the lower tier of a trireme, and then came to mean those who do anything under another, and hence simply ‘underlings.’” Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1971 [reprint]), p. 74.
53 Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, p. 74.
54 Knowing that the final judgment of our service comes from the Lord when He returns, and that it is based upon things we cannot see or know at present, helps to explain two texts in the Gospel of Matthew. This principle Paul sets down concerning the future judgment of men explains why both believers and unbelievers are surprised and taken back by the final judgment of God. In Matthew 7:15-23, our Lord revealed that many self-righteous religious leaders would be rejected as unbelievers by our Lord, much to their surprise. In Matthew 25:31-40, those believers whom our Lord commends for their righteous deeds do not even remember what they have done for the Lord or realize that such deeds were acts worthy of divine rewards.
When a friend’s car began to behave in a strange manner, I volunteered to bring it home to take a look at it. I took my daughter, Jenny, and a friend by this fellow’s house and exchanged cars with him, which meant I had to drive his car past the girls’ school on the way home. Just as we approached the school, the car began to behave very badly, missing and backfiring noisily so that we sounded like a very troubled version of Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang! As we passed by the school, I looked back in the mirror just in time to see my daughter and her friend, without any signal, dive down into the seat. They did not want anyone to see them in that old, sickly car. The car was no status symbol—I would have ducked myself, but someone had to drive.
If likened to an automobile, the church at Corinth is a wreck. The engine barely runs (on just a few cylinders), the transmission slips, and the wheels are about to fall off. The irony is that the Corinthians drive about in this car with heads held high. They are proud of their car (church), and they let everyone know it.
In the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians, Paul introduces a shameful problem in the church. The Corinthians proudly attach themselves to certain leaders, whose teaching seems to disclose a “wisdom” not known or taught by other teachers, and certainly not by Paul or his fellow-apostles. These cliques and factions are undermining the unity of the church and are a denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In chapters 5 and 6, Paul calls attention to two other problems plaguing the church: immorality and lawsuits.
Chapter 5 is not actually about the immorality of one church member, as much as it is about the pride and passivity of the entire church in response to this sinner. It is not until the end of chapter 6 (verses 12-20) that Paul exposes the evil of immorality. We see then that chapters 5 and 6 are a unit. Chapter 5 introduces the matter of immorality and the obligation of the church to exercise discipline. Chapter 6 takes up the issue of Christians taking each other to law courts (verses 1-11), and then concludes with Paul’s teaching on immorality.
We might look at chapters 1-6 in this way. Chapters 1-4 address “in house” sin, sins that are not recognized or regarded by the unsaved. These first four chapters speak of divisions which are neither biblical nor godly, those based upon leaders, pride, human wisdom, and power. Chapters 5 and 6 deal with sins which are being practiced in public, while the world looks on in amazement. Chapter 5 exposes a situation in which the Corinthians should divide; that is, they should separate themselves from one who professes to be saved, but who is living in sin. Not only those in Corinth, but others elsewhere are aware of the immorality of this man in the Corinthian church, and even the pagans are shocked. In the first 11 verses of chapter 6, Paul shows how unholy divisions have been taken into the public view, when believers are taking each other to court to settle their differences. In verses 12-20, Paul returns to the issue of immorality to show why this is such a great evil.
It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.
Even though far removed from the Corinthians, news reaches Paul of immorality in the church. Paul’s introductory words, “It is actually reported…,” are instructive. The translation “actually” expresses Paul’s shock and dismay. But the same term is rendered “commonly” in the King James Version. The emphasis here falls on the fact that the immorality in the Corinthian church is common knowledge. Thus, the New Jerusalem Bible renders Paul’s words, “I have been told as an undoubted fact.…” I am inclined to think Paul intends us to get both of these nuances. Paul is shocked that immorality is taking place in the church, and that this fact is such common knowledge that no one doubts it.
It is bad enough that Paul hears of immorality in the Corinthian church, but what Paul has yet to say is even more disturbing. While it is possible, even likely, that immorality is commonplace in the church, Paul turns to a specific instance. It seems that this is a “worst case scenario;” that is, there are other cases of immorality in the church which may have been known to Paul, but the specific instance he refers to is the situation in which a son has taken his father’s wife. Paul’s words seem to inform us that this is not a “one night fling,” because he says, “someone has his father’s wife.” The sin is still going on as Paul writes! Whether or not the father is alive is unclear. Whether this man is married to his father’s wife is also not clearly indicated. Neither are we told that the woman is a professing Christian. We do know that Paul does not instruct the church to cast the woman out, but only the man. It is very clear that a man is living immorally with his father’s wife, something which would be shocking to an Old Testament saint (Leviticus 18:8; Deuteronomy 22:30; 27:20), something which was forbidden by the apostles (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25), and something which is considered taboo by the pagan Corinthians.
And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst.
The sin of this one man is but the tip of the iceberg. Other cases of immorality (acceptable to the Gentiles!) can no doubt be revealed. But while Paul is distressed by the sin of this one man, he is even more disturbed by the sinful response of the church. They have “become arrogant,” and at the same time, are virtually doing nothing to correct this matter. Paul is distressed by the arrogance of the saints at Corinth. We have already been told of their arrogance in the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians. Now Paul speaks of it in relationship to this case of immorality.
We could understand this arrogance in relation to this sin in the church in several ways:
First, the Corinthians may be proud of this man’s sin. In the secular world, this “pride in sin” is evidenced by those who parade their sins publicly on television talk shows. Something similar may be happening at Corinth. Remember that in the pagan religions of Corinth, immorality was practiced as a part of their heathen “worship.” The Corinthians could have redefined the rules so that this sinful act is looked upon as enlightened Christianity. Do you think this suggestion is groundless? I encourage you to read about the false teachers in 2 Peter and Jude and to read the accounts of the teaching and lifestyle of David Koresh on his compound just an hour’s drive from Dallas, Texas.
Second, the Corinthians might be puffed up and proud, not because of this man’s sin, but because of the “loving way in which they deal with him.” In this therapeutic age when the church is often looked upon more as a “support group” than a “holy temple,” church members refuse to discipline members and continue to embrace sinning saints, even when it is clear they have no intention of repenting of their sins, and even when they publicly persist in their sinful ways. If this is the case in Corinth, they would love the expression of our day, “unconditional acceptance.” I have never seen this expression in the Bible, but I often hear it on the lips of Christians. It is a banner some hold high. It is a banner some hold with pride.
Third, the Corinthians may be proud and arrogant, not because of this sin or their response to it, but in spite of this sin. We have already been informed about the pride of the Corinthians. Of what are they so proud? Well, they take pride in their leaders, in their message, and in their methods. They take pride in their “wisdom,” a wisdom which is worldly that looks down on the simple message of Christ crucified and the apostles who proclaim it. It may just be that these saints are so proud that they cannot or will not acknowledge or act upon the sins which are public and undeniable. J. B. Phillips seems to understand the Corinthians’ pride in this way, for he renders Paul’s words, “Are you still proud of your church?” The New English Bible reads, “And you can still be proud of yourselves!” Pride is the result of turning from the truth. Pride keeps one from seeing the truth. The Corinthians maintain an attitude of pride when the situation should produce mourning.
The last part of verse 2 indicates that while the Corinthians should excommunicate this man from the church, they have not done so. Paul also gives us insight into why the Corinthians do not act and what would change this. These saints are proud when they should be mourning. Pride is what keeps the church from expelling the wayward and willful saint. Mourning is what should be taking place in the church, and if it does, the saints will expel the immoral man.
When my wife has gone to school for the day, I am left at home alone. Our cats know that when my wife leaves and the front door closes, a whole new set of rules are in place. Our cats love to jump up on the table. If there is a clothes basket filled with clothes, so much the better. What they really love is a basket full of warm clothes, just out of the drier. I almost never make the cats get down. When I do, it is because Jeannette is home. But those cats look so cute all curled up in a clothes basket. I’m proud of our cats, and that is why I don’t correct them, even though I know that what they are doing is wrong.
Now, if one of our cats broke its back and was in terrible pain, Jeannette and I would mourn. We would be deeply saddened by this malady. And even though it would break our hearts, we would take him to the vet and have him put to sleep. I do not seek to correct that in which I take pride. I do seek to correct any situation which causes me to mourn. Sin should cause the Corinthians to mourn, but it does not. Instead, as strange as it may seem, these saints continue to be puffed up with pride. One can hardly expect a proud church to commence the painful process of correction. At this point, Paul simply says that this person should be removed from their midst. In the next verses, we shall see the form that Paul expects correction to take, the correction in which Paul himself is a participant.
3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
What a great excuse Paul has for not getting involved in this ugly situation in Corinth. After all, he is far removed. What can he do? Well for one thing, Paul can write a letter. For another, he can act even from a distance. Paul describes the discipline process in verses 3-5, and he speaks of himself as an active participant. He thereby sets the example and hopes the Corinthians will follow.
Paul may be physically absent, but he is never spiritually absent. This is true not only of the Corinthian church, but of the other churches (see Colossians 2:5). Paul’s references to his prayers (see Romans 1:9; Ephesians 1:17; Philippians 1:3-5; 1 Thessalonians 1:2-3, etc.) and his personal knowledge of people in churches where he has never yet visited (e.g. Romans 16) are indicative of his spiritual presence beyond his physical local church. Many of the Corinthians are Paul’s spiritual children (see 4:14-16). He not only writes to them, but he makes every effort to obtain reports of how they are coming along. When word of problems in Corinth reaches Paul, he does not allow his absence to keep him from doing the right thing. He is with these saints in spirit, and so while the Corinthians have not yet done anything to correct the situation, Paul informs them that he has taken action. He has already acted as though he were present. He has done what he would do if he were present, and what those who are present should do. In following Paul’s example, they will carry out the kind of discipline which the Scriptures require.
15 “And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 “But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 “And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. 18 “Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20 “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst” (Matthew 18:15-20; see also Galatians 6:1-2; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15; Titus 3:10-11).
This text in Matthew 18 is our Lord’s instructions to His disciples—the apostles—among whom Paul has been added as the replacement of Judas. What our Lord commanded the apostles, they were to instruct the churches, so that church discipline would be an on-going practice throughout the history of the church. More than any other text, Matthew 18 spells out the process of discipline. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5 closely parallel those of our Lord. Let us consider some of the key elements of church discipline, as taught by our Lord and reiterated by Paul in our text.
(1) Church discipline is a process. Here, in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul speaks of the final step of discipline. Matthew 18 spells out the full process of church discipline, from the private rebuke of a single saint, to the collective expulsion from the congregation by the whole church. The reason Paul deals only with the last step of this process in 1 Corinthians 5 is that the willful rebellion of the sinner is evident, and his sin has already become public knowledge. Discipline must be as public as the sin.
(2) Church discipline is the obligation of the whole church. Paul speaks of the discipline process taking place when “you are assembled.” Our Lord instructed that the matter be told “to the church” (Matthew 18:17). In the Matthew text, it is assumed that this will happen after the wayward individual has been privately confronted. In the case of the immoral man in the church at Corinth, the matter has already become a matter of public knowledge. Consequently, the correction must be as public as the sin. We see in the Scriptures that the final step of discipline is taken by the entire church, when they have assembled. The Lord promises His special presence when such a gathering is assembled for discipline:
19 “Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20 “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst” (Matthew 18:19-20).
How often this text is misapplied, as though our Lord is referring to just any gathering of two or three saints. In the context, the gathering of but two or three is sufficient for the Lord to be specially present in this most difficult duty.
(3) Church discipline involves all of the local church, and it has implications for the church at large. Paul calls for the whole Corinthian church to be involved. This is a most difficult assignment, for the Corinthian church is divided into various factions that seem unable to work together on anything. Church discipline should be exercised in unity. But Paul goes even further than requiring the whole church to participate in this act of discipline. Paul, acting with the church in this matter, strongly implies that church discipline should be exercised more generally, by all the churches. In our day of great mobility and many churches to attend, someone who is under discipline usually finds it easy to simply attend elsewhere. It seems that word of discipline needs to be communicated to other churches, and that other churches have an obligation to honor that act of discipline if the wayward party attempts to “move his membership” to that church. It also suggests that newcomers to any church should be interviewed, to be certain that they are not under discipline elsewhere.
(4) Church discipline is to be done in the name and in the power of our Lord. The church acts on behalf of the Lord in carrying out discipline. This is why the Lord’s presence is promised in discipline. This is why Paul speaks of acting “in the name of the Lord Jesus” and in “the power of the Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 5:4). We act on God’s behalf, and thus when we act, God acts as well (see Matthew 18:18-19).
(5) Church discipline delivers the sinner into the power of Satan. Church discipline expels the wayward and unrepentant saint from the church, from participating in its worship (i.e., the Lord’s Table), and from fellowship with individuals or small groups of believers. In so doing, the sinning saint not only loses the positive benefits of being a part of the church body, but is placed in the very dangerous position of being vulnerable to Satan’s attacks. In Paul’s words, the one who is disciplined is “delivered to Satan” (see also 1 Timothy 1:20). Satan is a destroyer, a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour (see 1 Peter 5:8). When the church expels a wayward member, that person is given over to Satan, knowing that he delights in destruction. It is not a pretty picture, nor is it something any church should take lightly. When we deliver one over to Satan, we are simply giving the unrepentant Christian what he has chosen. To remain in sin is to be in the bondage of Satan (2 Timothy 2:24-26). To be disciplined is simply to hand that one over fully to Satan. Discipline confirms a choice that the sinner has already made.
(6) While Satan has the power to destroy the flesh, he does not have the authority to destroy the spirit. At Satan’s request, he was given the authority to attack Job, but this authority has always had boundaries. Given God’s permission, Satan could do so much to Job and no more (see Job 1:12; 2:6). Satan does not have the power to spiritually destroy one who is saved by the blood of Jesus Christ:
27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. 29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand” (John 10:27-29).
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written, “For Thy sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” 37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:31-39).
Satan’s destructive powers and desires extend only as far as the flesh:
“And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).
“And the nations were enraged, and Thy wrath came, and the time came for the dead to be judged, and the time to give their reward to Thy bond-servants the prophets and to the saints and to those who fear Thy name, the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth” (Revelation 11:18).
(7) Church discipline is only for those who are saints or for those who profess to be saints. Paul makes it very clear in verses 12 and 13 that church discipline is for those who are inside the church, and not for those who are outside. The Lord makes the same point in Matthew 18:15, where He begins, “If your brother sins. …” The final outcome of church discipline is that a believer who willfully remains in sin is treated as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer (18:17). Association with the believer under discipline is to be terminated, but he is still to be regarded as a brother, and not as an enemy (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15).
(8) Church discipline is not a final judgment which condemns one to eternal hell, but one which has the goal of the sinner’s repentance and final salvation. Church discipline is to be exercised for the highest good of the sinning saint. Consequently, Paul makes it very clear that “turning one over to Satan” in church discipline is not a final act of condemnation, but an action taken with a view to the wayward saint’s repentance from sin in this life, or at least his spiritual salvation in the next. Discipline is a severe mercy, which is painful to those who discipline, and to the one disciplined. It is mercy in that it seeks the highest good of the wayward saint.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
In verse 2, Paul indicates that the response of the Corinthians to this great sin is just the opposite of what it should be. They should mourn and then remove this one from their midst. Instead they are puffed up with pride and do nothing about this evil. Paul wants to be absolutely clear that the arrogance of the Corinthians is not good. Why not? Because it is destructive. We surely know it is harmful to the man living in sin. But now Paul seeks to show us how destructive failing to deal with sin is to the church. He does so by an Old Testament ritual, which was fulfilled in Christ, but also has much application to the New Testament saint.
Paul turns his readers to imagery of leaven, and the way a little bit of leaven can change the whole lump of dough in which it is found. The sinner whom the Corinthians embrace and fail to put out of the church is likened to a little leaven placed in a lump of dough. If left there for long, it changes the whole batch of dough. If this sinner is allowed to remain in the fellowship of the saints at Corinth, he will contaminate the entire church, just as Achan brought harm to the entire nation of Israel (see Joshua 7). By removing this man from their midst, the church at Corinth not only seeks the sinner’s restoration, they also promote their own purity.
Now Paul begins to fine tune this leaven and lump analogy, turning to a specific celebration in the Old Testament. Paul reminds his readers of the feast of unleavened bread, which was to begin immediately after the Passover lamb was sacrificed:
1 “Observe the month of Abib and celebrate the Passover to the Lord your God, for in the month of Abib the Lord your God brought you out of Egypt by night. 2 “And you shall sacrifice the Passover to the Lord your God from the flock and the herd, in the place where the Lord chooses to establish His name. 3 “You shall not eat leavened bread with it; seven days you shall eat with it unleavened bread, the bread of affliction (for you came out of the land of Egypt in haste), in order that you may remember all the days of your life the day when you came out of the land of Egypt. 4 “For seven days no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day shall remain overnight until morning” (Deuteronomy 16:1-4).
After the Passover was celebrated, the Feast of Unleavened Bread commenced. The Israelites were to go throughout their dwellings, seeking to find any leaven and remove it. They were to eat unleavened bread. Leaven is a symbol of sin, and the Passover lamb was a prophetic foreshadowing of our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul calls Him “Christ our Passover” (verse 7) and reminds us that He has been sacrificed. If Christ is our Passover and He has been sacrificed, what is to follow, given the Old Testament prototype? The leaven is to be removed. Since Christ has been sacrificed, we are not to harbor sin in our lives, but to seek to identify sin and remove it. Week after week when we celebrate the Lord’s Table, we are commemorating the fulfillment of Passover. This is no mere ritual; it is a reminder of what should follow the sacrifice of the Lamb—cleansing in the camp! The leaven in the Corinthian church (the camp) is this sinner. He must be removed. What better time and place is there than in the meeting of the church, where the Lord’s Table is celebrated?
Paul is not content to allow us to think that Christ’s atoning death, celebrated at the Lord’s Table, should only be applied to this man and his expulsion from the church. In verse 8, Paul broadens the application, indicating other forms of “leaven” which are all too evident in the church. The “old leaven” (this sinner who needs to be expelled) and the “new leaven,” that of malice and wickedness, must be put away. Malice and wickedness refers to that whole spectrum of “sacred sins” which are harbored and even nurtured in the church. They must go, and in their place there should be the “unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (verse 8). We are to put off the hypocrisy and the false wisdom we have embraced and return to purity of motivation and of doctrine.
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler— not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).
This is not the first letter Paul has written to the Corinthians. Paul indicates in verse 9 that he has previously written to the Corinthians on the subject of separation. In that first letter, he instructs them not to associate with immoral people. Paul’s previous instructions include unbelieving sinners of all kinds, those who are immoral, those who are covetous, those who swindle, and those who are idolaters. The Corinthians either misunderstand or twist Paul’s words to mean something other than what Paul intends. They, like the Jews of Jesus’ day, equate holiness with separation from unbelievers. When he writes to the Corinthians, Paul is not instructing them to avoid contact with unbelievers. There is no way to avoid contact with unsaved sinners, other than by means of death. The only way to avoid “the world” is not to live in the world. Besides this, our task is not to avoid sinners, but to live among them in such a way as to reveal Christ to them:
13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. 14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 “Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:13-16).
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a HOLY NATION, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. 11 Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul. 12 Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation (1 Peter 2:9-12).
The Christian must live in the world and rub shoulders with it in order to be a witness to the lost. What a Christian cannot do is participate with the world in sin. We are to be in the world, but we are to be unlike the world, living out the life of Christ as lights in a dark place:
3 But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them; 8 for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), 10 trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; 12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. 13 But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light. 14 For this reason it says, “Awake, sleeper, And arise from the dead, And Christ will shine on you” (Ephesians 5:3-14).
Paul does not mean for the Corinthians to try to keep the church out of the world, but to keep the world out of the church. He means that those who profess to be saved must live like one who is saved. A person should not be embraced as a believer whose profession and practice are in contradiction. The Corinthians are not to associate with a person claiming to be a Christian, who continues to live in sin. Immorality is not the only basis for church discipline; there is also covetousness, idolatry, slanderous speech, drunkenness, or swindling. Fellowship with someone who falls into this category is forbidden. This does not simply mean that this person is excommunicated from the meeting(s) of the church; it also means that individual believers must withdraw any manifestations of fellowship. This includes the sharing of a meal, which in biblical times was an intimate act of fellowship (see Revelation 3:20).
Church discipline is a form of judging, which is not only permitted but required of the church when professing Christians willfully disobey God's Word and reject attempts to correct them. Outsiders are not a legitimate recipient for church discipline. They do not profess Christ, and separating from them would only serve to prevent Christians from sharing their lives and their faith with those who are lost. It is those who profess faith, and yet persist in sin, who should be the focus of church discipline. We should separate from them when all disciplinary efforts have been rejected.
This last expression, “Remove the wicked man from among yourselves,” is virtually a quotation of Deuteronomy 17:7 from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament:
2 “If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the Lord your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, by transgressing His covenant, 3 and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded, 4 and if it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly. And behold, if it is true and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed, to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death. 6 “On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. 7 “The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst (Deuteronomy 17:2-7, emphasis mine).
The expression is similar to that found elsewhere in the Old Testament:
7 “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you” (Deuteronomy 24:7).
What Paul calls for in the New Testament church is not significantly different from what Moses communicated to the nation Israel. After all, in the Old Testament, God dwelt in the midst of His people, and thus the Israelites were required to remove sin and sinners from their midst. In the New Testament, Paul informs the Corinthians that God now indwells His temple, the church. They too must remove sin from their midst, because a holy God indwells them. In both cases, it is recognized that removing the sinner may include death. This is a most serious step, one which we will take only when we take sin and God’s commandments seriously.
Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5 are sobering. They are meant to be. He has already written, “If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are” (1 Corinthians 4:17). Now, the Corinthians are reminded of their duty to play a part in this process by removing the wayward and willful sinner from their midst. Our text raises a number of issues. Allow me to summarize some of them.
Whatever happened to sin? Years ago, a secular psychiatrist, Dr. Karl Menninger, wrote a book entitled, Whatever Became of Sin. Even this man realizes that evils have become too “psychologized,” and that a simple diagnosis of “sin” is needed. I can imagine the kinds of diagnosis we would have today for the malady of this Corinthian man, living with his father’s wife. We could delve into his past and probably find some excuse for “abuse.” Some would argue that he must have some kind of genetic predisposition (biological predestination?) for this kind of conduct. Others would argue that his conduct is normal, and that the problem in the church is with narrow-minded church members. Those who buy into the therapeutic mentality would prescribe long, intensive (and expensive) therapy. Many, I am sure, would tell us that this man’s problem is “poor self-esteem.” The cure is for him to “feel better about himself.” This would certainly mean that church discipline would be considered harmful, rather than helpful. For Paul, the diagnosis is simple, and so is the prescription. The problem is the sin of immorality, and the prescription is to remove him from the church. When the Bible is the standard for conduct, and it is viewed and used for defining sin and righteousness, the diagnosis of this man’s problem is not that difficult.
Whatever happened to discipline (church and otherwise)? The Corinthian church fails to exercise discipline on the immoral man to whom Paul is referring. At the same time, Paul accuses the church of being arrogant. How can this be? I can think of one way. To exercise discipline is to acknowledge that you have done all that you can, and that you have failed. If we are thinking clearly as Christians, we realize that there is nothing spiritual which we can accomplish. We cannot save anyone; we can only proclaim the message of Christ crucified, and know that God, through His Spirit, will draw those to Himself whom He has chosen. We cannot bring about the sanctification of a believer. Once again, we can, as faithful stewards, do what God has given us to do, but we cannot produce the results. In Paul’s words, we may plant or water, but it is God who gives the growth.
In our arrogance, we can sometimes convince ourselves that, given enough time, we can turn someone from their sin. There is a great deal of emphasis on counseling in our culture, and even in the church. There is a place for counsel, but we often give ourselves and our system of counseling too much credit. We don’t want to admit failure, and so we refuse to take that final step of “removing the wicked person from ourselves.” Just a little more time, we suppose, and we can correct this person’s thinking. Church discipline is based upon the recognition that we have done what we can in the context of the church, and that God can turn that wayward person to repentance apart from us and apart from our ministry, whether that be teaching, or helps, or exhortation.
The church has unconsciously begun to think of itself as a “support group.” There are no doubt some senses in which we do function as a “support group.” But the support group mentality is a very dangerous one. Support groups can cause individuals to put their trust in “the group” rather than in God. Support groups often pride themselves for “being there,” no matter what the wayward one has done, or will do. The support group purposes to always “be there,” while the church purposes not to be there indefinitely for the one who refuses to heed a rebuke and to turn from willful sin.
The therapeutic movement within Christianity has propagated a term which, to my knowledge, is never found in the Bible. Those who frequently employ this term advocate a practice which is antithetical to the duty of exercising church discipline. The term is “unconditional acceptance” or “unconditional love.” The assumption is that we must love one another unconditionally. There is a sense in which this is true, of course. But we are not to “love” others unconditionally in terms of the way they wish to define love. To exercise discipline on a wayward saint is to love that person and to seek their highest good. To unconditionally accept that person is to never refuse to have fellowship with them, thinking which directly opposes Paul’s teaching in our text. “Pop” psychology and “pop” theology must never set aside biblical commands. Paul’s words to the Corinthians in chapter 5 end with a clear command. When called for, we will either obey this command, or we will sin.
Whatever has happened to church discipline? I have seen very little of it. Even when such discipline is taken, all too many church members are tempted to second-guess the church and to privately continue to fellowship with the one under discipline. This is a most serious matter, for if I understand the Scriptures correctly, to do so is to become a partner with that person in his or her sin.
Church discipline is one of those very clear duties of the church and of the individual Christian. Why, then, is it not practiced more often? I have previously suggested that arrogance may be one cause. I would also suggest that these days fear may now be a cause for not taking disciplinary action. We may be afraid to take a stand against sin because we are afraid of rejection. We may be afraid of appearing to be narrow and unloving. We may be unwilling to lose the friendship and the fellowship of those we love. Some church leaders are afraid of being sued for taking disciplinary action against a church member. It can and does happen. I suspect that it will happen more and more in the coming days.
Sometimes we are afraid that the work of God will be thwarted by church discipline. In several instances of which I am aware, a Christian leader was the brother in sin. That leader, when rebuked, would not repent. Sadly some faithless saints responded: “But the work that God is doing in this person is so great, we can’t afford to jeopardize it by exercising discipline.” God’s work is bigger than any man or any organization. God’s work is making sinners holy, to His glory. When a leader continues in sin, the church should discipline him publicly, as an example to all (1 Timothy 5:19-20). When any saint is placed under discipline, it serves notice to the world that the church does not accommodate sin.
Finally, the popular teachings and practices of the “church growth movement” have tended (whether consciously or unconsciously) to discourage church discipline. The church growth experts tend to measure the success of a church in terms of numerical growth. This movement seeks to attract unbelievers to the church by being “seeker-friendly,” by making unbelieving “seekers” (here is an oxymoron—see Romans 3:10-11; Ephesians 2:1-3) feel comfortable with the church and with the Christian message. How can this possibly be in the light of Paul’s teaching in chapters 1 and 2? The message of the cross is foolish. Divine truth concerning God is incomprehensible to the lost. Men and women are not saved by getting comfortable with God, but by becoming uncomfortable by the conviction of the Holy Spirit that they are sinners, that God is righteous, and that judgment awaits the sinner (John 16:7-11). When God struck Ananias and Sapphira dead for their deception, the unbelieving world was not comfortable; in fact, it caused them to stay away from the church. Nevertheless, many were being saved (see Acts 5:11-16). Sinful men should not and cannot be comfortable in the presence of a holy God, save through the cleansing of their sins by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Men and women cannot come to faith without first becoming uncomfortable about their sin and God’s judgment. That is what being saved is all about—being saved from the wrath of God upon sinners.
Our duty to discipline provides a strong incentive for preventative action. We all know these words addressed to parents in the Old Testament:
6 “And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; 7 and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. 8 “And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 9 “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:6-9).
We know this command comes from the Lord, and that we, as parents, should keep it. The following command is further motivation to obey the command to teach our children the way of the Lord:
18 “If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, 19 then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. 20 “And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 “Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
If we lived in Old Testament times, and knew that we must stone our own child for being disobedient and rebellious, it would give us good reason to be diligent in performing those duties aimed at preventing such rebellion and disobedience in our children. Parents today—Christian parents—do not even spank their children. Many of them are proud of this fact, as though such discipline is brutal and primitive. It does not matter that the Scriptures teach us that spanking our children is one55 means of dealing with sin. Spanking provides a lesson that informs our children that sin has very real, very painful consequences. Hell, my Christian friend, is not going to be a “time out.” There may be occasions when a “time out” is appropriate, but there are also times when painful physical consequences are experienced. No, I do not advocate beating a child. No, I do not defend those who abuse their children. Yes, there is a time to spank, and most of us have forgotten when it is. If we will not spank a wayward child, when would we possibly “deliver someone over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh”?
Now for the bottom line. Why would we discipline a wayward saint, when we will not discipline ourselves? I find myself very passive and quiet about those sins in others which are present in my life as well. As we shall soon see in 1 Corinthians (e.g., chapter 9), the Corinthians have very little self-discipline. This being the case, why would we expect this church to be strong on discipline? If we would discipline others, we must first discipline ourselves. This discipline is not that which comes only from within ourselves (see Colossians 2:20-23), but which comes from the Spirit of God (see 2 Timothy 1:7; 2 Peter 1:4-7).
In the past, I have been involved in prison ministry, and on more than one occasion I have seen a commitment to take sin seriously. I was told of one occasion when a particular inmate was acting inappropriately toward a young woman volunteer, who came with a group to minister to the inmates. A number of these inmates were new Christians, who were serious about their own Christian walk and about obeying the Lord Jesus. They talked among themselves about this one inmate, who was acting inappropriately. They talked about 1 Corinthians 5, and concluded that they should “discipline” the sinning inmate. Given their violent past and their lack of depth in the Scriptures, they thought this man should be put to death and were actually ready to do it. Fortunately, a more mature Christian helped them come to a more accurate understanding of church discipline. But the fact is that these men were serious about sin and about obeying the Scriptures. Would that you and I were as serious about sin as they were! We must begin by taking up our cross, by mortifying the flesh daily. Then, and only then, will we be willing and able to deal with sin in the lives of others.
God takes sin seriously. That is why the cross of Calvary was necessary. God took our sin so seriously that He sent His Son to die in our place, to suffer the punishment for our sins. The good news of the gospel is that while God takes our sin seriously, and while our sin must be judged, He has judged our sins in Christ. To enter into this forgiveness, all we need do is to receive the gift of salvation which God offers to us by faith in His Son. When we see how seriously God has taken our sins, we see how serious we must be about sin as well.
55 Listen well. I am not saying that spanking is the only way to deal with disobedient children. I am saying, on the basis of the Word of God, that it is one means of doing so. To reject this means entirely is as wrong as constantly resorting to spanking as the only way to deal with children. Let us not err in either direction.
Years ago when I was a seminary student, we lived in an apartment beside the seminary’s parking lot. Late one night I was working on a paper, and I went outside to try to wake up in the crisp night air. As I sat on the back steps of our second floor apartment, I saw a car drive into the parking lot, pull up close to one of the buildings, and then turn off the headlights. No one got out of the car. Somehow, that seemed a little unusual to me. After a little while, I went down to the parking lot and got close enough to the car to see four heads silhouetted in the dim light of the parking lot. There had been a number of burglaries in the recent past, and it occurred to me that these four fellows might not have noble intentions.
I went home and called the police, trying to make this matter sound as casual as possible. I told them where I lived and that a car with four men was parked in the seminary parking lot. I informed them that I was aware of nothing illegal taking place, but that it did look a little suspicious in the light of recent burglaries in the neighborhood. I asked if they might have a squad car just cruise by and take a look when convenient.
No more than a couple minutes later, four squad cars converged on the scene, quickly locating the suspicious car and surrounding it. I watched the scene, taken back by the dramatic scene for which I was responsible. I then began to feel guilty. Suppose nothing was wrong, or suppose I had created all this trouble for nothing. A few days later, I mentioned the incident to a professor friend. He told me what had happened. Three of the four men in the car were seminary students. The fourth individual was a man whom they had concluded was demon-possessed. They were in the process of trying to exorcise the demon when the police arrived.
My professor friend and I could not help but laugh at what must have happened. Can you imagine trying to explain to the police what you were doing there in the middle of the night? Can you see the looks on the faces of the policemen if you told them you were casting out a demon? When I asked my friend what he would say, he replied, “I’d lie!” I know what he meant. There is no way that these policemen could possibly understand what was taking place in that car.
This story illustrates the fact that the world of the policeman is a vastly different world from that of the preacher. No doubt preachers would have some difficulty grasping the world of the policeman, but I can assure you the policeman would have an even more difficult task understanding the spiritual world in which the preacher lives and operates. This is exactly the point Paul tries to make as he rebukes the Corinthian saints for taking one another to court. The secular, legal world of the courtroom is vastly different from the spiritual realm of the church. And yet Christians who have disputes with other Christians are looking to worldly judges to settle their differences. Paul’s words to the Corinthians could not be more applicable to Christians today. We live in an age when law suits are more common than they have ever been in our history. Christians are taking fellow-Christians to court. Even churches are being sued. One prominent pastor indicated that the church in which he had been ministering had four lawsuits pending against it at the time he stepped aside to assume other responsibilities. Let us listen to Paul and learn what the Spirit of God has to say to us in this text.
The first four chapters of 1 Corinthians focus on the problem of fleshly divisions within the church. Little factions, each with their own leader, have arisen. Worldly wisdom has been embraced in place of the wisdom of God in Christ. Pride is one of the distinguishing marks of these Corinthians. In their false pride, the Corinthians have begun to judge Paul (and other apostles) unfairly, and to look down upon him, his ministry, and his message. Paul has gently rebuked these saints, and at the end of chapter 4, he urges them to heed his admonition so that he will not have to come to them “with a rod” (4:21).
While the Corinthians are wrongly dividing over petty distinctions, they are unwilling to separate themselves from one who is persisting in sin, a sin so abominable that even the pagans are shocked. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul rebukes the church for failing to exercise church discipline on a man who is living with his father’s wife. Paul informs the church of his action, even from afar, and urges them to follow his example. They have somehow misunderstood his previous letter, supposing that he is teaching that Christian separation is a separation from unbelieving sinners. Paul corrects this misconception by insisting that the separation he advocates is a separation from professing Christians whose practice is heathen.
Chapter 6 takes up the issues Paul has spoken of in chapter 5. In the first 11 verses of chapter 6 (our text), Paul addresses the sinful divisions of the Corinthian saints which have made their way into public view in the civil courts. The divisions Paul speaks of theoretically in chapter 4 are now addressed specifically in chapter 6. Verses 12-20 continue Paul’s instruction concerning the Christian and the laws of the land. If the Corinthians are seeking to deal with their disputes according to civil law in verses 1-11, they seem to be looking to the same law to define morality. And so Paul seeks to show the Corinthians the “higher road” of morality, which comes not from civil laws but from the gospel.
Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?
Are the Christians in Corinth thinking and behaving in terms of civil law? Then Paul will present them with an indictment in verse 1 of chapter 6. Paul has been exceedingly gentle in the previous chapters, only indirectly introducing the problem of divisions in the church. Now, Paul is becoming very specific and reveals that he is most distressed. The blood must be rushing to Paul’s face as he writes, “How dare you go to law before the unrighteous when you have a dispute with a fellow-believer and not go before the church?”
Several things cause Paul to be greatly distressed by the Corinthians’ conduct. First, disputes are erupting between believers in the church. The saints are at odds with one another. The term “neighbor” in verse 1 may appear to be general, but in the context of the entire passage it is clear that Paul is speaking specifically of Christians who are taking fellow-believers to court (see verse 6). Second, these disputes between believers are being taken to the secular courts by these Corinthian believers. Third, unrighteous (that is, unbelieving) judges are being asked to arbitrate between Christians. Fourth, when these disputes are taken before unbelieving judges, the whole ugly ordeal is carried out before the curious eyes of unbelieving spectators. The world gets to watch these Christians fight with one another in court. Fifth, these disputes have not been taken to the church, where they belong.
I understand all of what Paul has been saying in verse 1 in the light of our Lord’s teaching in Matthew 18:15-20 and Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 5. If a brother has a dispute or an offense with another brother, this should first be addressed personally and privately, one to one. If this does not bring about reconciliation and harmony, then one or two witnesses must be brought along. If this does not result in repentance and reconciliation, then the matter should be taken to the whole church. If the belligerent party does not heed the admonition of the whole church, the wayward saint must be expelled from the fellowship of the church.
Disputes between believers should be resolved as privately as possible within the church, unless the wayward saint chooses to disregard the church, in which case that individual should be publicly excommunicated. Instead of these two individuals at Corinth going through this process, they have taken their grievances to the local courts to seek a judgment from an unbelieving judge. Paul is shocked and greatly distressed by this approach.
2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, matters of this life? 4 If then you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, 6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?
Paul asks a sequence of questions of the Corinthians, which indirectly expose the pathetic condition of the saints at Corinth. Five times in this chapter Paul asks the question, “Do you not know…?” This strikes a very hard blow at the pride of the Corinthians, who think themselves so very wise, and Paul so very naive and provincial in his thinking.
Paul begins, “Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?” They most certainly should know this:
21 “I kept looking, and that horn was waging war with the saints and overpowering them 22 until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was passed in favor of the saints of the Highest One, and the time arrived when the saints took possession of the kingdom… 27 ‘Then the sovereignty, the dominion, and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him’” (Daniel 7:21-22, 27).
And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28).
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years (Revelation 20:4).
Paul assumes they do know it, and that their actions are completely contradictory to their theology. If these saints are going to reign with Christ and participate in the judgment of the world, how in the world can these Corinthians turn now to the unsaved for judgment? If the righteous will judge the unrighteous at the second coming, how can the Corinthian Christians now be looking to a heathen to judge the righteous?
Paul asks a second question in verse 3: “Do the Corinthians not know that they will be judging the angels? And, if so, why is it that they are not now able to judge in the trivial matters of this life?” Both the Old Testament Scriptures and the New are clear that the saints will judge the world. However, there is no clear statement in the Old or New Testaments (other than this statement by Paul) that the saints will judge the angels. It is not a great reach to infer this, however. The saints will reign with Christ when He comes and establishes His kingdom. When Christ judges the world, we will participate. Through our Lord, God will also judge the angels (See Isaiah 24:21-22; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6; Revelation 20:10). If this judging of the angels is also a part of our Lord’s reign, and if we shall reign with Him, then we too will judge the angels. Furthermore Paul, as an apostle, is given the authority to reveal that which is a mystery in the Old Testament. If these Corinthians have begun to trust in other (false) apostles, then perhaps it is time they reconsider their source of authority and revelation. If they are listening to Paul, they would know such things.
Verse 4 is understood in a number of different ways, depending upon the translation.56 I prefer the translation (paraphrase) of J. B. Phillips: “In any case, if you find you have to judge matters of this world, why choose as judges those who count for nothing in the church?”
Paul drives home the point he makes in the questions of verses 2 and 3. If the saints will judge both the world and the angels at the coming of Christ, why in the world do they turn to the world’s judicial system to pronounce judgment in a dispute between two believers? Especially is this true after what Paul has already written:
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no man. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:14-16).
Given their inability to comprehend or appraise spiritual things, the judgment of worldlings cannot count for much in the church. If this is true, why would church members turn to them for judgment in spiritual things?
In chapter 4, Paul assures the Corinthians he is not trying to shame them by what he says: “I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children” (1 Corinthians 4:14).
Now, in chapter 6, Paul does try to shame them, and rightly so! They should be ashamed of themselves for taking their disputes before unbelieving judges, as unbelievers look on in amazement, or amusement. We are often told by some alleged psychological experts of our day that there is a great difference between guilt and shame, and that shame has no place in our dealings with others. Hogwash! Shame should be our response to guilt. We should feel ashamed for those things for which we are truly guilty before God. While the guilt for our sins is forgiven through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, we still look back on the evil things we did with shame (see Romans 6:21). Those who seek to rid us of shame should be ashamed.
Paul asks the Corinthians if there is not one wise person among them who is qualified to judge the dispute between these two Corinthian saints. What a blow to their pride! These are the ones who are so wise, so very wise. These are the ones so quick to judge Paul and find him wanting. These very saints can proudly follow one leader and condemn the rest. Where are these Corinthian critics when they are needed? Why is no one able to judge such mundane matters? Instead, the saints are at one another’s throats, all the while as the world looks on. The Corinthians are great at being judgmental; they are absent when there is a need for judges.
7 Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud, and that your brethren. 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.
For the competitive Corinthians, life is all about winning and losing. Lawsuits are certainly about winning and losing. Paul makes a most troubling announcement: any Corinthian Christian who takes another believer to court has already lost. Going to court with a fellow-believer is a no-win situation. The better way is to take the loss. Imagine Paul telling us that it is better to be a victim than a victor. Is Paul saying that it is better to be wronged, better to be defrauded?
How can this be? Looking at Paul’s words from the dark side, just what keeps the Corinthian saints from taking the loss, from being the victim? The only reasons I can think of are all bad ones. We don’t want to take a loss because of our pride. We don’t want to let the other person get the better of us. We don’t want to lose. If we are materialistic, we don’t want to lose money or possessions, which are more precious to us than our relationships with fellow-believers. Those who are self-centered and self-serving do not want to have any of their rights violated. We protect and exercise our rights, no matter what the cost to others.
Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian Christians can only be understood in terms of the utterly different value system of the Christian, as opposed to that of the unbeliever. When Jesus invited men to follow Him, they were instructed to “take up their cross daily” to follow Him. Thus, the Christian is a person whose life is dominated and directed by the cross of Calvary. It was on the cross of Calvary that our Lord was wronged, and this brought about our salvation. The wrongful death of Christ is established by Peter as the model for the Christian in 1 Peter 2, verses 18-25.
This is the reason our Lord taught His disciples not to retaliate, but to return good for evil (Matthew 5:43-48). This is what Paul teaches as well (Romans 12:17-21). Jesus taught that if a man forces you to go a mile, you should go two miles instead (Matthew 5:41). The one who asks of us should receive from us (Matthew 5:42). Our goal in life is not to accumulate possessions or to protect and preserve them. We are to give all these things up, gladly. Our attitude should not be to seek our own interests ahead of others, but rather to seek the interests of others ahead of our own (Philippians 2:1-8). This being the case, we should be willing to be wronged and defrauded, especially for the sake of the gospel and for the testimony of the church.
It is a terrible thing for one Christian to take another to court. Even worse, the defendant is a crook. In verses 1-7, Paul addresses the plaintiff, the one who feels offended or ill-treated. Paul urges the plaintiff to take his grievance to the church and to suffer loss rather than damage the reputation of the church and hinder the gospel by exposing the sins of a brother to the world. Love, after all, covers a multitude of sins (Proverbs 10:12; 1 Peter 4:8). But now Paul turns to the defendant, who may have a smirk on his face. How comforting to hear Paul rebuke his adversary. But when Paul gets to him, he is not gentle.
If the plaintiff must be willing to be wronged and defrauded, this certainly is not an invitation to the others to wrong and defraud. Some of these Corinthians are crooks, and they prey upon (not praying for) their own brothers in the Lord. For such as these, Paul has something to say: “Crooks don’t go to heaven!” Would we not agree that heaven is not a haven for sinners, but a blessed sanctuary for those who have been saved, those whose sins have been forgiven, those who have forsaken their sins? It is true that the Corinthians were once sinners, those whose lifestyle was sinful. But that was the past, and this is the present. The Corinthians were a horrible bunch as unsaved sinners. Paul’s list is not complete, but it is broad and all-inclusive.
“Don’t kid yourselves about this fact,” Paul warns, “because sinners will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.” Sinners include those who commit sexual sin outside of marriage (idolaters), those who serve other gods of various kinds (idolaters), those who commit sexual sins against their partner in marriage (adulterers), passive (effeminate) and active (homosexuals) sexual deviates. Those excluded from heaven are thieves, those who lust for what others possess (the covetous), alcoholics (drunkards), those who speak against others (revilers) and con artists (swindlers). This is a sampling of those whom no one expects to find in heaven, and rightly so. Heaven is a holy place, because God dwells there. Consequently, unholy people will not be there.
The Corinthian church includes those who are characterized by all of these sins. But when they were saved, this became a past, which should be forgotten and forsaken. Salvation includes repentance. Repentance means that we not only agree with God that we are sinners, doomed to eternal torment, and that Christ’s righteousness will save us, but also that we turn from a life of sin to a life of righteousness. Of course this does not mean that we will live a life of sinless perfection. But neither does it mean that we can keep on living in sin, as we once did while we were unsaved. Salvation is the process of turning from darkness to light, from death to life, from sin to righteousness. Salvation means that we should never consider continuing on in sin, even though God’s grace is greater than all our sin (see Romans 6:1ff.).
This is a sobering thought, is it not? The gospel is about sinners who are turned from sin to righteousness. The gospel is about turning away from the sins which once dominated us. It is one of the greatest comforts for the Christian. What we were as unbelievers, we are not now as Christians. Our sins of the past are not only forgiven, they are forgotten by God. When men and women are released from prison, they are often thought of as criminals, even though they have paid their debt to society. Regretfully, many are still criminals because prison has not produced repentance. At best, former prisoners are ex-offenders. But the Christian who was once a thief is not just an ex-thief; he is a new creation. The old things have passed away, replaced by what is new (2 Corinthians 5:17). What we once were as an unbeliever, we will never be again. There are no second-class citizens in heaven, based upon what was once one’s practice as a sinner.
We find another great comfort here in Paul’s words: no sinner is too far gone for God to save. Granted, Paul does not here include “murderers,” but this is not because murderers cannot be saved. It is because there are no murderers in the Corinthian congregation. As we meet as a church today to worship our Lord, there is a man with us who was a murderer, more than once. He was given a 500-year sentence. He even escaped from prison once. That man is a brother in Christ, a new creature. He is not an ex-murderer; he is a new creation in Christ. Some people think homosexuals are the lowest people on earth. Some of the Corinthians were once homosexuals, but they are no longer. There is hope for every kind of sinner, and when that sinner repents of his sin, he need never turn back.
Paul has a very different view of the relationship of the past to the present than that popularly held by many psychologists and psychiatrists today. In the psychological world of our day, what one was in the past determines what he is in the present. This is why so much time and money is spent digging up the past. It makes a great excuse for sin in the present. Paul’s thinking is just the opposite for Christians. What we were in the past does not determine what we are today, because the cross of Christ separates us not only from our sins but from our past. Christ stands between us in the present and us as we were in the past. What we were is not what we are. The cross of Christ is the reason why we can be now what we were not then. The cross of Christ is the reason Christians cannot and must not be crooks. It is not because Christians cannot sin, but because they must not sin. For a Christian to be a crook is for a person to return to that wicked state from which he (or she) was delivered by the grace of God in Christ.
When we were saved, we were completely saved, severed from our past identity and given a new identity. We were washed, cleansed of our sin and our guilt. We were sanctified, set apart from sin unto holiness. We were justified, legally declared righteous through the righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed to us by faith. All of this transpired in the name of Jesus Christ.
Let us be clear on what Paul says here. Paul rebukes the Corinthian saints for failing (or refusing) to resolve their disputes with one another within the church. Paul wants his readers to see the folly of taking spiritual matters before unbelievers, who can have no grasp of the real issues. Paul knows, as the Corinthians should, that the legal system deals with the protection of men’s rights and the seeking of one’s self-interest, while the gospel is about the surrender of one’s rights and the seeking of the best interests of others. If the dispute cannot be resolved within the church, Paul advocates that the offended party suffer the loss, for the sake of the gospel. In no case should any Christian think that breaking the laws of man or God is something a person can continue after coming to faith in Christ, as though this doesn’t matter. Crooks do not go to heaven; saints do.
Why is Paul taking this situation in Corinth so seriously? Why, in the light of his gentleness in the first four chapters, does Paul suddenly become agitated about lawsuits between Christians? First, the issue is the unity of the church, the body of Christ. The church is one body, and believers are all brothers. The focus of each believer is to build up the body of Christ, which means that he must build up individual believers. Taking a fellow-believer to court is not what edification (building up) is about. Generally, we take another person to court to take him apart, not to build him up. The church is a temple, the dwelling place of a holy God. To destroy the temple (by attacking its members) is to invite divine destruction (3:16-17). Lawsuits in Corinth are a denial of the gospel. To continue to act an we formerly did, as sinners, denies the radical change the gospel makes. We were sinners; we are now saints, a holy nation, declaring the excellencies of Him who saved us (1 Peter 2:1-11). As Christians, we cannot persist in thinking and acting as we formerly did, apart from Christ.
Unreconciled relationships have an adverse affect upon our worship, and there must be reconciliation before we can worship in unity and harmony:
23 “If therefore you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your offering there before the altar, and go your way; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering” (Matthew 5:23-24).
5 Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus; 6 that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 15:5-6).
Paul knows, as our Lord taught as well, that the process of litigation is the opposite of the process of reconciliation:
25 “Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, in order that your opponent may not deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 “Truly I say to you, you shall not come out of there, until you have paid up the last cent” (Matthew 5:25-26).
Reconciliation is the goal of the Christian. Retribution or restitution is the goal of litigation. Reconciliation can be commenced immediately; litigation drags on endlessly. Reconciliation is pursued privately, and becomes no more public than is necessary. Litigation is public. Jesus therefore instructs His followers to seek reconciliation before, and instead of, litigation. Once the process of litigation has commenced, it is nearly irreversible, and the two litigants become irreconcilable. I have seen marriage partners repent and be reconciled through biblical counsel and rebuke. I have yet to see a reconciliation take place in the divorce courts. The law may do well at defining separation, but it does not do well at uniting. No wonder Paul is so distressed at what is happening at Corinth.
It seems that the Corinthians do not ignorantly or innocently pursue the resolution of their disputes in the law courts of that day. I believe these saints purposely avoid taking their dispute to the church. They do not want to deal with this matter on a spiritual level. They do not wish to reconcile. They most certainly do not want to be confronted with their sin and challenged to repent. They do not wish to run the risk of being under church discipline. They want to protect their rights and their possessions. They want to get ahead of their opponent, not to take a loss. The law courts held “clout” and could force a person to act in a certain way. The church only has spiritual authority, which to the carnal saints is another form of weakness. They want to make something happen, and so the process of seeking reconciliation in the church is carefully avoided, and the secular courts are chosen instead.
Several principles are either taught or assumed in our text, which I shall enumerate.
(1) The Christian’s values and guiding principles are diametrically opposed to those of the world, and thus they are incomprehensible to the unbeliever. Christians march to the beat of a different drum. We do not live for the present, but for the future. Our actions in time are governed by the future certain realities of the kingdom of God, as declared in the Scriptures.
(2) Unbelievers are unable to judge spiritual matters, and they should not be asked to do so. Because the views and values of the unbeliever and the Christian are so vastly different, non-believers are simply not suited to the task of judging believers in spiritual matters.
(3) The Christian’s citizenship is not in this world, but in the next. The values and guiding principles of the Bible must take priority over the values and guiding principles of this age. The “wisdom” of the Christian must be the wisdom of God, the wisdom of the cross of Christ, the wisdom of the Bible, and not the wisdom of this age. We are therefore guided and governed by the Scriptures. The Scriptures teach us to obey the laws of the land, but always as subordinate to the laws of God.
(4) The Christian’s responsibilities take priority over his rights. The essence of the Christian life is “taking up our cross,” of “dying to self,” and serving God by serving others. Our goal is neither to promote our own interests or to preserve them, but to sacrifice these for the cause of Christ.
(5) Spiritual issues are very different from legal issues, although the two are related. Spiritual issues take priority over legal issues. This is the reason the Christian is instructed to stay out of court if at all possible, even if it means taking a loss to do so.
(6) When Paul teaches Christian doctrine, it is not isolated from Christian practice, but directly linked to practical matters. Paul does not teach doctrine in isolation. He teaches doctrine as the basis for our actions. Doctrine is the basis of godly living and practice. Thus, when Paul teaches us about the doctrine of Christ’s kenosis, His “emptying” of Himself, he does so in the context of strife and contention in the Philippian church (see Philippians 2:1ff.). Doctrine is not meant to be heard and filed away; it is meant to be lived.
(7) The litigation process does not facilitate reconciliation and harmony, but is counter-productive to it. This is the reason we are urged to avoid litigation if at all possible.
(8) The legal battles referred to in 1 Corinthians 6 are a concrete example of the divisions which existed in Corinth, as first mentioned by Paul in chapter 1. Strained relationships, relationships not reconciled in the church, are the cause of all sorts of other sins. Husbands and wives, children and parents, struggle with unreconciled relationships. Many of the problems we face can be found to originate here with unforgiving, unrepentant hearts. The gospel is not only about man’s reconciliation with God, but also about man’s reconciliation with man (see Ephesians 2:11-22). To be reconciled with Christ is to be reconciled with men. Our calling as Christians is to be reconcilers (2 Corinthians 5:17-19), and this will not happen in the secular court room.
Having set down some of the pertinent principles which govern our handling of conflicts in the church, we must make some attempt at answering some very hard questions. Is the Christian never to go to court under any circumstances? Does this apply to civil proceedings or to criminal proceedings as well? Should a Christian ever “press charges” against a fellow-believer? These are very difficult questions, for which there are not always black and white answers. Allow me to make a few comments on these issues for your consideration.
We know from the Scriptures that Paul has several encounters with the court system of his day. When Paul is brought before Gallio, it is in Corinth (see Acts 18:12-17). There, Gallio’s decision is reached and announced before Paul can even speak a word, and the result is a landmark decision. Gallio rules that Christianity is Jewish, and thus men like Paul can proclaim the gospel under the same protection of the Romans that the Jews enjoy. Later, when Paul is arrested in Jerusalem, he appeals his case to Caesar, knowing that a fair trial is impossible in Jerusalem or Caesarea (see Acts 25:6-12). We do not know the outcome of his trial for certain. The Book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome, and we know a few more details from Paul’s “prison epistles,” such as Philippians.
It is not wrong for Paul to appear in court in these cases, so we must conclude that while Christians are urged not to take one another to court, this is not the same as saying that a Christian should never appear in court. A Christian may find that his or her spouse files for divorce in a civil court, and we may have no other choice but to respond (failure to respond brings its own foreknown results). It would seem, at least in my way of viewing the New Testament teaching on divorce, that a Christian may even have the option to file for divorce in the case of immorality (see Matthew 5:32). When another party chooses to sue us, we have little recourse, other than to make our best case before the court. In this day and age, churches are being sued much more frequently, ironically, sometimes because they have exercised church discipline.
What Paul seeks to forbid in our text is Christians looking to the secular court system to resolve spiritual conflicts between themselves. There are times when two Christians appear in court when neither is attempting to harm the other. For example, one Christian might accidentally run into the car of another believer. His insurance company may try to withhold payment, even though he admits guilt. In such a case, the two parties might appear in court, but it is the two parties’ insurance companies seeking some kind of legal judgment. I know of one case where a property deed was altered, and the property in question belonged to a Christian camp. The property was donated by a Christian, who allegedly altered the deed. In this case, the ownership of the property had to defined, and it could only be done in court (or so I was told).
It may be necessary to go to court to protect the interests of someone other than ourselves. Suppose you were appointed the guardian of two young children, and a relative was illegally trying to gain control of the property of these children, property for which you were given responsibility? In such a case, you might have to act through the court system to protect the interests of the children. When we are acting in a fiduciary capacity, and not for self-interest, legal action may be necessary for us to serve others well.
It is possible that while one cannot take a brother to court apart from church discipline, it might be required after church discipline. You will remember from our Lord’s teaching in Matthew 18 that once the whole church has sought to turn a man from his sin and been ignored, the church is to excommunicate him, treating him as a “Gentile and a tax gatherer.” As I understand our Lord’s words, the person is to be dealt with as though he were an unbeliever.57 If this person were, let’s say, sexually molesting his little girl, a concerned Christian mother might have to seek a custody hearing or might even request an injunction. Once again, this cannot be for revenge, but for the best interests of both the husband and the child.
It should be said that some Christians get into legal troubles, troubles which necessitate them going to court, because they do not seek proper legal counsel before making agreements or commitments. Lawyers are not just in practice to get us out of trouble; they are also there to keep us out of trouble. Sometimes we may get ourselves into trouble because we want to appear spiritual, and so we agree to do things without defining the details. Differences and disagreements which result from such agreements are unnecessary, and the result of our own carelessness.
There may be a time to involve both a lawyer and a Christian brother. (If you are fortunate, you may find a good Christian lawyer who meets both of these requirements.) As I understand and have observed the legal system, a person accused of a crime may very well need to be represented by one who is an expert in the law. The court system is set up in such a way that both the prosecution and the defense do their best to prove their case. The prosecution is not going to try to defend the one they are accusing. To fail to have an attorney when accused of a crime seems foolish in most instances. At the same time, spiritual issues need to be addressed, and an unbelieving lawyer is not capable of dealing with these matters. A similar situation is evident when visiting someone who is hospitalized with very troubling symptoms. This person needs the best medical help he can find. On the other hand, he and his family members and friends need prayer and biblical encouragement. While there are cases in which we must choose between a lawyer and a Christian who is wise in the Word, there are also many times when we need both. Sometimes we must choose the courtroom or the church, but at other times we must not lose contact with either.
I must admit that in the past I would have said that Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6 are to be applied to civil cases, and not to criminal matters. The list of offenses Paul gives us in verses 9 and 10 include those matters which are morally wrong (adultery, covetousness) and those which are criminally wrong (e.g. swindlers, thieves). There may be times when the Christian chooses not to press criminal charges against a fellow-believer. There may also be times when this is done for the good of that believer and for the good of society. Violent physical abuse may be an occasion where pressing charges is in order, especially after church discipline has been carried out. There are no nice and neat answers to such troublesome matters, but we do have spiritual principles to guide us. In the final analysis, we should act in a way that we believe takes God’s Word seriously, which promotes the gospel, and which brings glory to God.
Do not ever forget that the courts before which we may stand now are not the “court of final appeal.” God alone will bring justice to this earth. It is before God whom we must all stand. If we are wronged in this life, be assured that God will make things right in the next. The ultimate judgment is the one which we should regard as the final judgment. How awesome it will be for sinners to stand before God to give an account for rejecting Jesus Christ as God’s provision for sinners to be saved, to be cleansed, to be sanctified, to be justified. For those of us who have been forgiven, let us count it a privilege to forgive those who wrong us.
One more thing which is very important must be said. The Corinthian Christians end up in the civil courts because their conflicts were not dealt with in their early stages. Conflicts are like cancer: the sooner we get after them, the sooner we will be healed, and the more likely it is that the consequences will not be devastating. There are those who are reading these words whose relationships are in trouble. Husbands and wives, be reconciled to each other. If you cannot resolve your conflicts by yourselves, do not seek to solve them in a court of law, but follow out the principles of Matthew 18. The sooner conflicts are addressed, the more likely the cure. Parents, don’t wait until it is too late to try to heal broken relationships with your children. Believers, you know who has something against you, or against whom you have some kind of grudge. Seek out your brother, and heal that relationship. It will be not only for the good of the gospel, and the glory of God, but for your good as well.
56 In reality, it is probably one’s understanding of the meaning of the verse which dictates the translation.
57 This must be qualified, however, in the light of 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15. The willful saint is to be treated as an outsider but still considered (in heart) as a brother. The brother is to be shunned, not despised.
The previous owners of our church building did not believe in orthodox Christianity. As I heard the story, interest and attendance were lagging, so they decided to ask various members of their congregation to share about their occupations. One Sunday, an exotic dancer was scheduled to share about her work. Since we live nearby, I happened to drive by the church building as that meeting took place. The place was very crowded, though I didn’t know why at the time. Now, I call it their version of a “body life” meeting. The dancer’s body brought the place to life, or so it seems.
It never ceases to amaze me how some who profess to know and serve God can be so lax (or even worse) when it comes to sexual morality. One of the common characteristics of a cult is a distortion (in one way or another) of sexual morality. For some, it is the denial of any sexual pleasure, while for others it is the indulgence in all sorts of sexual encounters. David Koresh and his following of Branch Davidians, for example, were known to have a very bizarre system of sexual behavior.
Mr. Koresh and his followers might have felt very comfortable in the Corinthian church. You will recall that in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul rebuked the church for failing to discipline a man who was living with his father’s wife. The Corinthian pagans were shocked by such conduct, and yet many in the church became proud over their handling of this matter. Paul instructed the church to put this man out of their assembly, thus placing him within Satan’s extended reach (to destroy his physical body), and also disassociating the church from this wayward saint and his willful sin.
It is not strange that Paul deals with immorality in 1 Corinthians 6, since he introduced the subject in chapter 5. The question is, “Why did Paul interject the matter of Christians taking fellow-believers to court in 6:1-11?” It almost appears as though the first 11 verses of chapter 6 are out of place. I don’t think so. Some time ago a friend of mine spoke to a group of socialites in New York, engaging in conversation with a particular young intellectual. My friend said to him, “Your problem is that you don’t know the difference between legality and morality. Some sins are not crimes. And some crimes are not sins.”
The Corinthians appear to have the same problem. They appear to equate morality with legality. For many of them, whatever is legal is moral. This appears to be the reason Paul returns to the subject of immorality after introducing the Corinthian lawsuits. The Corinthians are becoming too wise for Paul and for the apostolic preaching of the cross of Christ. They are submitting themselves to other teachers, whose message and methods are far more prestigious and popular in their secular culture. If the Corinthian Christians are living according to human judgment, then why not take their disputes before unsaved judges, who judge only according to human wisdom? If they are to accept the legal opinions of Corinthian judges regarding disputes among believers, why not also accept the legal definition of morality? Why not let legality determine morality? If one can accomplish such a gigantic logical leap, then a Christian can do virtually anything any pagan Corinthian can do. Among the things they can do is visit a cult prostitute.
But I am not willing to let the Corinthians off quite this easily. While they are in error about the relationship between legality and morality, they also make a very grave mistake concerning the relationship between spirituality and morality. The teaching of the Bible is entirely consistent on this relationship. True spirituality results in morality, in godliness. True spirituality turns one away from immorality. Paul has just said as much:
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
The Corinthians no longer see it this way, which is the reason they become proud of conduct which shocks even pagans (see 1 Corinthians 5:1-2). They have twisted spirituality to such a degree that their version of spirituality is the basis for immorality, rather than the basis for holiness.
The immorality Paul deals with in our text is sexual immorality. Specifically, Paul addresses sexual immorality with a prostitute. It seems this particular form of immorality is widely accepted as normal and moral, as well as legal. We should remember that prostitution in Corinth is a “religious act of worship.” Corinth takes pride in the temple of Aphrodite, the goddess of love, which has 1,000 cult prostitutes. In the name of religion, men can indulge their fleshly appetites. The Greeks have a proverb about the city of Corinth, which tells us much of its moral decay: “It is not every man who can afford a journey to Corinth.”58 Those who are worldly wise use the verb “to corinthianize” to describe an act of immorality. “Corinthian girl” was a synonym for a prostitute.59 For a Corinthian saint, concluding that whatever is legal is also moral leaves him a great deal of latitude. There isn’t much he can’t do under this definition of morality.
The structure of our text may be viewed from at least two vantage points. In verses 12-14, Paul focuses on a statement of the Corinthians’ doctrinal basis for their immorality. This is either a false or distorted premise held by the Corinthians, which Paul proceeds to correct. Verses 15-20 deal with the problem of immorality from the perspective of the ignorance of the Corinthians—what they don’t know (or choose to forget). Thus, three times in these verses we find, “Did you not know…?” Paul turns their attention to what they should know and its implications for sexual morality.
There is yet another way of understanding the structure of our text. Verses 12-20 give the biblical basis for sexual morality, and specifically why sexual immorality is wrong for the believer. Verse 12 explains why sexual immorality is wrong for the Christian: it is an obstacle to one’s spiritual growth. Verses 13-20 demonstrate that immorality is an offense against God:
Verses 13-14 |
Sexual immorality is an offense against God |
Verses 15-17 |
Sexual immorality is an offense against the Lord Jesus Christ |
Verses 18-20 |
Sexual immorality is an offense against the Holy Spirit |
I believe we will discover that Paul’s curriculum in dealing with sex is not what we would find being taught in the public schools. However, it is what every Christian must know, and what we should proclaim to our children and practice in the sexually indulgent world of our time.
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything (NASB).
“Everything is permissible, for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything (NIV).
“I am free to do anything,” you say. Yes, but not everything is for my good (New English Bible).
“For me there are no forbidden things”; maybe, but not everything does good (New Jerusalem Bible).
In interpreting verses 12-14, we must first determine whether the statements Paul gives are his own theology, misunderstood and misapplied, or the twisted theology of the Corinthians. As indicated by the quotation marks employed in the NIV and by the other translations I have cited, many take the foundational statements of these verses to be the theology of the wayward Corinthians. This is the way I choose to understand them as well, even though there may be a measure of truth in them. That the Corinthians’ theology is a distortion of Paul’s should not be surprising.
The premise on which the Corinthians seem to base their immorality is that whatever is legal is also moral. All things, they claim, are lawful for them, which seems to mean in practice that they are free to do anything that is not against the law. It may well be that the Corinthians attempt to justify their theology on the basis of Paul’s teaching—teaching such as this:
14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! (Romans 6:14-15).
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery (Galatians 5:1).
Paul’s dealing with the problem of immorality here is brief. He could argue with the premise, “All things are lawful…,” but he does not. Paul’s brevity should be understood in the light of several facts. First, Paul spent considerable time in Corinth. He does not need to teach the Corinthians as much as to remind them of what he has taught them already. Second, Paul is planning to return to Corinth, where he can deal with these problems face to face. Third, since this is a letter, Paul does not have unlimited space in which to write, so he goes to the very heart of the issues, confident of what he has taught and what he will teach when he returns.
Without debating the issue of what things are permissible (although surely not all things are permissible—there are many prohibitions in the New Testament, as well as in the Old), Paul points them to a higher standard. Whatever that list of “permissible” things may be, not all permissible things are advisable. If one is buying a house, it is not enough to know that a certain list of homes is for sale (these are all possible purchases). Certain houses are a wise investment, and others will prove to be a waste of money. A Christian must therefore determine his conduct on some higher, more selective standard. The standard is clearly stated by Paul: “Not all things are profitable” (verse 12). But how does one know what conduct is profitable or unprofitable? Paul clarifies the matter by his second statement: “I will not be mastered by anything” (verse 12).
Paul’s teaching in our text is but an abbreviated version of what he has taught in Romans 6. The Christian dare not feel free to “live in sin,” because he or she has “died to sin” when joined by faith to the person and work of Jesus Christ. Dying to sin is symbolized in Christian baptism. By going under the water, we proclaim in a symbolic way that we died in Christ, and were buried. By coming forth from the water, we proclaim that we have been raised from the dead, in Christ, now enabled to live an entirely new life. To continue to live in sin is to deny everything we believed when we were saved, and everything we symbolically proclaim when we were baptized.
As Christians, we have been freed from our bondage to sin so that we may now serve God in righteousness (see Romans 7:1-6). We are therefore to put away the old sinful practices that once enslaved us and to live a life of righteousness, through the power of God which is in us. Our aim as unbelievers was to indulge our own fleshly lusts, and in doing so, we were actually enslaved to sin and to Satan (see also Ephesians 2:1-3). Now, having been freed from our bondage to sin, we must not return to our former lifestyle. Any practices which enable the flesh to gain mastery over us must be avoided, even if they are not forbidden by Scripture. The writer to the Hebrews (could it be Paul?) says much the same thing:
1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:1-2).
To a marathon runner, everything which is not a “wing” is a “weight.” One of our church members is running in a marathon race this very day. There is nothing wrong with a laptop computer, but I guarantee that Al Angell is not carrying a laptop with him. He may carry one when he travels on an airplane, but he does not carry one in a marathon race because it doesn’t enhance his ability to win the race.
Paul further explains the statement, “not all things are profitable,” with the additional statement, “I will not be mastered by anything.” Paul’s words address a matter about which our Lord taught:
20 “But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21 for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. 22 “The lamp of the body is the eye; if therefore your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light. 23 “But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! 24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. 25 “For this reason I say to you, do not be anxious for your life, as to what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor for your body, as to what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body than clothing? 26 “Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?” (Matthew 6:20-26, emphasis mine).
According to our Lord, one must choose between the “treasures” of this life and the “treasures” of the next. To treasure the things of this life is to have a “bad eye,” and thus to fail to see things clearly. (You will remember that the Corinthians are not thinking too clearly.) Then, changing images, Jesus warns that one can serve only one master, not two. If God is our Master, then we dare not seek to serve another. But the “other master” is not a person, but things, the things of this life—eating, drinking, bodily needs. If we are preoccupied with such things, we cannot focus on our one Master, and on His coming kingdom.
In the light of our Lord’s teaching, Paul’s words are applied to a very practical application—sexual immorality. The Corinthians think of a brief visit to the prostitute as a casual thing, something with no long-term commitments (like an “affair”). How can such a casual relationship hurt? Paul’s response reveals a very different perspective of sexual immorality. Does the male ego look upon such a liaison as a conquest? Not so! Immorality is a moral surrender which leads to bondage. It is not the man who masters the woman, but the prostitute (and the sin she promotes) which masters the man.
Think about Samson in the Old Testament for a moment. Who better than he illustrates the mastery of the prostitute over the man? Samson was the strongest man on the earth at that time. He could easily snap the bonds placed around him. He could kill a thousand men with the jawbone of a donkey (Judges 15:14-16). But Samson was not in control; it was the woman of his life. And so, not once, but several times, he gives in to the seductions of a woman. Samson was in bondage. He was mastered. This is so for all who choose this path (see Proverbs 7:6-27).
A very popular word today used even in Christian circles is the psychological word, “addiction.” Virtually every malady known to man is described as an “addiction.” Men and women, under the bondage of sexual immorality are said to have a “sexual addiction.” Alcoholism is spoken of as an addiction, one for which the individual under bondage is hardly seen to be responsible (after all, it was genetically predestined). Food is an addiction. And now, co-dependency is an addiction. Where will these addictions end? I think I know. They end with a new Master, Jesus Christ. We can serve but one master. When that Master is our Lord Jesus Christ, all other “masters” must be set aside.
Paul refuses to engage in any practice which will prove to be “addictive,” any practice which will come to master him, rather than facilitating him in his service of the Master. The application of the principle Paul sets down is very important. This is where error and false teaching can arise. If certain practices really are permissible, then these are liberties, which the Christian might enjoy, but need not enjoy. Paul spends more time discussing this in chapters 8-10. Some practices have no grip on some Christians, but they become the source of bondage to others. We should never practice those liberties which might enslave us. We should not practice those liberties which might encourage a weaker brother to follow our example, and thus become enslaved through his weakness.
But what about those things God has intended for our enjoyment? Is it wrong for the Christian to enjoy fishing, or golfing, or watching the Dallas Cowboys on TV? Some would go too far and tell us that if we are enjoying life, something is wrong, such as those to whom Paul refers in 1 Timothy 4:
1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:1-5).
False teachers speak not from the leading of the Spirit but from the deceptive doctrines of the evil one, communicated through his demonic activity (compare this with 2 Corinthians 11:13-15). They seek to prohibit Christians from enjoying the things God has given us to enjoy. All too often, those thus deprived of the pleasures which come from God, become the ones who overreact by casting themselves into fleshly indulgence.
The solution to the problem of being mastered by the flesh is not the avoidance of all pleasures in the flesh:
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence (Colossians 2:20-23).
The solution is to avoid those fleshly pleasures God identifies as sin, and those we know to be enslaving (“addictive” for us), and to gratefully enjoy the blessings of God with thanksgiving, seeing life’s pleasures as a gift from God:
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:4-5).
17 Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. 18 Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, 19 storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed (1 Timothy 6:17-19).
16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow (James 1:16-17).
13 Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body. 14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power.
One must decide where the Corinthian’s theological position ends and Paul’s commentary begins. I am inclined to understand these verses in this way:
The Corinthian’s Position: |
|
Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food |
but God will do away with both of them. |
Paul’s Correction: |
|
Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body. |
14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. |
The Corinthian position is not hard to grasp. It is a completely “this worldly” view of life leading to a lifestyle of sexual morality. Remember, this passage is about sexual morality, not about food.61 The logic is simple, even though it is erroneous. The purpose of food is to fill the stomach, to meet its physical needs. The nature of the stomach is that it requires food; its purpose is to process food. Food and the stomach are physical entities, and thus they will perish. But God will do away with them. Our Lord taught that it is not food which defiles a man, and thus all foods are clean (see Mark 7:18-19). One is thus free to eat of any food, knowing that food and the stomach are made for each other. Beyond this, food and the stomach have no eternal function because God will do away with them, so one may eat what he likes without guilt.
The unspoken inference is that the Corinthians apply the very same logic to the body and its sexual design and appetites to sexual liaisons with prostitutes. “After all,” I hear more often than I wish to say, “I’m only human.” “God made me a sexual being,” the Corinthians reason. “He made me to need sex. So when I have sex with a prostitute, it is simply meeting my physical needs, just as I eat when I am hungry. And what difference does it make what I do in this body anyway, since God is going to do away with it?”
I differ with a number of biblical scholars, who do not include the statement about God doing away with food and the stomach as being the creed of the Corinthians. I think it is very much their theology. Paul corrects this error in verse 14 by confidently claiming that God will raise up our bodies from the dead, just as He raised our Lord from the dead. But this is precisely the problem—some of the Corinthians do not believe in the resurrection of the dead, which is why Paul devotes chapter 15 to this subject.62 You will see that the resurrection of the dead is a problem area in a number of other churches as well (see Acts 17:32; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 2 Timothy 2:18). Denying the resurrection of the dead is a denial of the “day of the Lord,” a day of judgment on sinners. To deny a coming future judgment is the foundation for advocating a sinful lifestyle now (see 2 Peter 3). Paul waits until chapter 15 to defend the doctrine of the resurrection. But for the moment, he declares it with confidence as the basis for sexual morality in this life, contrary to the theory and practice of some of the Corinthians.
Paul exposes the error that God will simply do away with fleshly things like the body, with no future or eternal consequences. In addition, Paul sets down a very different standard regarding our physical body and its appetites. In Paul’s words, the “body is not for immorality;” the body is “for the Lord,” and “the Lord is for the body.” God did not create the body with its sexual capabilities and drives to satisfy these desires indiscriminately. God made man’s physical body for His purposes, ultimately to bring glory to Himself. This is Paul’s bottom line in verse 20: “Therefore glorify God in your body.” We are not to use our bodies to serve ourselves, but to serve God. The sexual dimension of our makeup is to be exercised only within the bonds of marriage. In our marital relationship, including the sexual union which is holy within marriage (see Hebrews 13:4), we are to symbolically represent the union of Christ and His church. Sex has a holy function, which is to be carried out only in the context of marriage.
Paul has yet another thing to say, something which some find difficult to understand. Paul writes that “the Lord is for the body.” We cannot live without eating, but most of us don’t need to worry about death by starvation. There is an important lesson here which we see throughout the Bible. Life does not really come from food. Life comes from God, from knowing Him and from obeying His commandments. When our Lord was tempted for 40 days and nights in the wilderness, He did not eat for that period of time. One of Satan’s temptations was for our Lord to make stones into bread. It is as though Satan were saying, “If you are the Messiah, then you must live to fulfill your mission. You cannot let yourself starve out here in the wilderness, so create bread from these stones, even if it means disobeying God.” Our Lord’s answer, rooted in the theology of the eighth chapter of Deuteronomy and in the experience of Israel in the wilderness, was that “man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4).
God is the ultimate source of life, not bread. God preserved the Israelites in the wilderness with bread from heaven. Jesus told the Jews who wanted mere physical bread that He was the bread of God, come down from heaven to give them life. He was “the bread of life” (John 6:32-35). He was the “water” which would give the woman at the well everlasting life (John 4:13-14). When His disciples urged Jesus to eat, Jesus responded that His food was to do with will of the Father, who sent Him (John 4:31-34). Our life is but a vapor, and the life which we experience moment by moment comes from God. Our bodies need God more than they need food. He is the source of life, both physical and eternal (see John 1:1-5).
No wonder Paul can live out his life in a way that does not indulge his bodily desires, but denies them (see 1 Corinthians 9:24-27). No wonder he lives so dangerously and suffers physically in his ministry (see 1 Corinthians 4:9-13). No wonder he can say that to live (rejected and persecuted) is Christ, and to die is gain (Philippians 1:21). No wonder the false teachers cater to the desires of the flesh, while Jesus and His apostles call upon men to take up their cross, and to crucify the flesh and its desires.
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God (Romans 6:12-13).
12 So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—13 for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live (Romans 8:12-13).
Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry (Colossians 3:5).
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? May it never be! 16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body with her? For He says, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.
Sexual immorality is an offense against God, from whom, through whom, and for whom are all things (including our bodies—Romans 11:36). Sexual immorality is also a sin against the Lord Jesus Christ. The Corinthians err in thinking too little of their spiritual union with Christ and in taking too lightly their sexual union with prostitutes.
Paul’s argument in verses 15-17 rests on the incompatibility of two unions: (a) the Corinthians’ union with Christ, and (b) their union through sexual intercourse with a prostitute. Note Paul’s words later in 1 Corinthians where he refers to the union of the believer with Jesus Christ by saving faith:
12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many… 18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. 19 And if they were all one member, where would the body be? 20 But now there are many members, but one body… 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it (1 Corinthians 12:12-14, 18-20, 27).
When we trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins and for eternal life, we are united with Christ. But there is another union, which is incompatible with our union with Christ—the union of a man with a prostitute. This “union” is referred to in verse 16. Paul buttresses his argument by citing Genesis 2:24, a text to which our Lord also refers (Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8). Paul refers to this same text in Ephesians 5:31, there in relationship to the holy union of a man with his wife. To have sex with someone—even a prostitute—is no casual matter, Paul reminds us. To have sex with a prostitute is to become one with her. How can one who has been joined with Christ now join with a harlot? Only by “taking away the members of Christ” to do so (verse 15).
At least some of the Corinthians hold the view that what one does in the body has no relationship to what one is and does in the spirit. Paul directly contradicts this error. The one who joins himself to Christ becomes one in spirit with Christ (verse 17). The one who joins himself to a harlot becomes one flesh with her. Paul insists that one cannot be one in spirit with the Savior and one in the flesh with a harlot. Thus, what is done spiritually does directly relate to what is done in the body. We dare not think of ourselves as spiritual when what we are doing in our bodies is immoral:
1 If then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. 3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. 5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. 6 For it is on account of these things that the wrath of God will come, 7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them (Colossians 3:1-7).
18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
We have just seen that Paul links our spiritual identity in Christ with our conduct in our physical bodies. The spirit and the body are inseparably linked in orthodox Christian doctrine and teaching. Paul establishes yet another link between the spiritual and the physical in verses 18-20. Body and Spirit are directly related to each other because the Christian’s body and God’s Spirit are inseparably linked at the time of our salvation. The union of the Christian and the Person of Christ occurs at the time of salvation, and it is brought about by the Holy Spirit: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13).
The Spirit not only accomplishes the union of the new believer with Christ, the Spirit actually indwells the Christian from the moment of his salvation. According to Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 12:19, our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Before, in chapter 3, Paul indicated that the Holy Spirit indwells the church, the corporate body of Christ:
16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; see also Ephesians 2:19-22).
Now, Paul speaks of the individual believer as the temple of the Holy Spirit. Both, of course, are true without any contradiction. To use one’s body as an instrument of sin by having a sexual union with a prostitute is a most despicable sin. It is a uniquely defiling and wretched sin, as Paul indicates by the words of verse 18: “Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body.”
How is sexual sin uniquely a sin against the body, while other sins are just sins we commit in the body? Let me seek to illustrate this by using the analogy of a fine automobile. If I owned a magnificent Rolls Royce, there are many ways I could sin in that car. I could, for example, exceed the speed limit. I would be sinning in the car, but not sinning against it. If I were to rob a bank and use the Rolls for a getaway car, I would once again be sinning in the car. But if I needed a load of cow manure for our flower garden, and I opened the doors and shoveled that manure into the car to transport it from the barnyard to my home, that, my friend, would be sinning against the Rolls Royce.
Our bodies have been created by God (see Psalm 139). They have been created as the temple of the Holy Spirit, and as instruments by which we can serve and glorify God. Our bodies are not our own, but a stewardship entrusted to us by God, so that we might serve and glorify Him. Since the Christian has died to sin in Christ, and has been raised in Christ to newness of life, we dare not use our bodies as instruments of unrighteousness, but we must use them as instruments of righteousness:
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God (Romans 6:12-13).
In the words of our text, each of us must “therefore glorify God in our body” (verse 20).
Consequently, sexual immorality is not an option. Sexual immorality is a sin of the highest order. If we are to live in a manner consistent with our calling, we must “flee immorality” (verse 18). Paul not only means we are to avoid immorality, we are to flee from it. We are to avoid it like we would a deadly snake. We are not to see how close to sin we can get; rather we are to see how far away from sin we can stay. Sexual immorality is sin, and it should be avoided with zeal.
Some may wish to restrict the application of Paul’s teaching in our text just to the prohibition of sex with a prostitute. I do not think we dare narrow the application in such a way. After all, it is Paul who applies an Old Testament text on oxen to meeting the needs of those who preach (see 1 Corinthians 9:4-14)! I believe Paul addresses sexual immorality with a prostitute because this is a very common sin in Corinth, even among the saints, and it is a sin the church does not take seriously enough. Paul takes the most “casual” sin (in the minds of the Corinthians) and shows it to be utterly sinful; how much more are any other sexual sins condemned? Just because one is saved and spiritually alive is no reason to take our actions in the flesh lightly.
We should be greatly informed by the way Paul engages in “sex education.” The term, “sex education” is highly charged with emotion on the part of some Christians, and rightly so. I simply point out to you what Paul’s curriculum consists of in 1 Corinthians. Paul does not describe in intimate detail the nature and practice of immorality. To do so might become a temptation for us. Paul does not seek to prevent sexual immorality among Christians by frightening them with the physical adverse consequences, like pregnancy, AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases. Paul, as always, goes back to the gospel. Paul’s argument for sexual morality is rooted in sound doctrine, specifically the doctrines which pertain to salvation. The gospel is the basis for sexual (and every other kind of) morality.
Note also that Paul could very quickly deal with the Corinthians’ immorality by simply referring to the rules. Not only is sexual immorality forbidden by the Old Testament law, it is forbidden by our Lord and by the Jerusalem Council. In Acts 15, sexual immorality was one of the four things specifically forbidden to the Gentiles (see “fornication” in Acts 15:19-21, 28-29). Immorality was “against the rules,” but Paul wants the Corinthians not just to keep the rules, but to consciously serve God by doing that which is consistent with our calling, with the gospel, and with sound doctrine. It is necessary to keep the rules, but let us do so for the right reasons. Here, Paul gives us the reasons for sexual purity.
The problem of sexual immorality in the Corinthian church is due, in part, to the fact that such conduct is not considered sinful or illegal by the pagan Corinthian culture. The Corinthians seem to live more in conformity to the standards of their culture than to the standard set by Christ. If a certain practice is legal, some Corinthian Christians seem to think it is moral. The Bible has a much higher set of standards than this. If something is illegal, it is almost always immoral for the Christian (except for those few times when the law forbade what God commands—e.g. Acts 5:29). When the laws of the land allow certain forms of conduct, we must ask ourselves if that practice is permitted in the Scriptures. For example, the law may allow immorality, but the Bible forbids it. Then there are those things which both the law and the Bible allow. These “liberties” may or may not be advisable for the Christian. The use of any Christian liberty should be subject to the following questions:
(1) Does this practice contribute to my own spiritual growth and maturity?
(2) Does this practice contribute to the growth and maturity of fellow-believers?
(3) Does this practice further the gospel?
(4) Does this practice glorify God?
Liberties are those things which the Bible says I am free to do. If any matter is really a liberty, it is something I am as free not to do as I am free to do. I should be free not to do anything which is a liberty. If I am not free, it is not really a liberty. If I am not free, then in Paul’s words, I am “mastered by” it. Let’s assume that eating popcorn is a Christian liberty. If I cannot control my appetite for popcorn so as not to eat it, then I am in bondage to popcorn. I know of people who say something like this: “Oh, I can quit ______ing any time I want. I’ve done it a hundred times.” Whatever we can’t stop doing is probably something which masters us. Paul’s commitment is not to let his body master him, but to become the master of his body:
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. 25 And everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 27 but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).
Our text has something very definitive to say on the subject of abortion. One of the classic arguments of the pro-abortion movement is that “the woman’s body is her own private possession,” so that no one (not even government) can tell her what to do with her body. Of course, the pro-abortion movement views the unborn child as merely a part of the woman’s body. Thus, the woman is free to do whatever she wishes with that unborn child, including killing it. Paul’s words deny the very premise on upon which the pro-abortion position is based:
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).
The woman’s body is not her own, not to mention the child she carries within. She is not free to use her body as she chooses. The Christian should realize that the body is not to be employed for self-gratification (most often, immorality is the cause of an unwanted pregnancy), but for the glory of God. Paul’s words in our text will certainly be judged “foolish” by those who wish to live in sin.
Our text reminds me that it is only the Christian who values sex highly enough. The unbelieving world likes to look down on the Christian, as though we have no appreciation for sex, as though we think sex is evil, or at least unspiritual. The truth is that only a Christian can appreciate the true value of sex. In the Bible, the sexual union is a part of the marriage relationship, and this relationship portrays or symbolizes the union of Christ and His church. If sex is a kind of symbol, and what it symbolizes is the ultimate value—the ultimate good—then sex is a most benevolent gift and privilege. It is a great blessing.
The Christian sanctifies sex by restricting it to the sanctity of the marriage bed (Hebrews 13:4) and only to one’s spouse. Those who degrade sex make it common. The word “profane” and the word “common” are nearly synonymous in the Bible. Those who restrict sexual intimacy to their marriage partner value it most highly. Those who indiscriminately engage in sex make it common and profane.
Let me illustrate. My wife has a set of special dishes. These dishes are more expensive and more beautiful than our other dishes. The special dishes are saved for special occasions. They are not used as often as our “everyday” dishes. Nobody gets upset if an everyday dish is dropped and broken. But there is a little more consternation if a special dish is broken. That which is most precious is used with greater discrimination than that which is common or profane.
I have a fairly large collection of tools. Most of my tools I am willing to loan out to others. Some are restricted to a much smaller group. My micrometers, for example, are not generally available for borrowers. This is because they are delicate, precise, and expensive tools. I do not want these tools abused, and so I restrict their use. On the other hand, I’ll loan a crescent wrench to virtually anyone. What is most valued is most restricted; that which is least valued is commonly available. God values sex, and so should we, which is why it is restrictive for the Christian. A prostitute makes sex profane, common.
A book in our library is entitled, Need, the New Religion.63 In the self-indulgent society in which we live, need has become a compelling reason for our actions. If we think we “need” something, then it is only reasonable that this need be met. The vast majority of the advertising before us on television and in other forms of the media, seeks to convince us that we have a need, and that their product is the answer to this need. What every man and woman needs is the forgiveness of sins and the assurance of eternal life, through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. There is no higher need. And the only fulfillment of this “need” is salvation. God calls on us to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son. We must admit that we are sinners, in need of forgiveness and justification by God’s grace alone. All other needs pale into insignificance in comparison to this need. Let us look to Christ to satisfy this need, and every other need as well. Jesus Christ is all we really need. And having Him by faith, we shall turn away from sexual immorality.
Is it possible that you have already fallen, that you are already guilty of sexual immorality? There is forgiveness through the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. The good news is that those who have made themselves sexually “unclean” can be cleansed completely. This can be seen in the forgiveness granted the woman at the well in John 4, or in the forgiveness of the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8). It can also be seen in the saints at Corinth:
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come (2 Corinthians 5:17).
Perhaps Paul’s words can best be summed up by Paul, as he writes to the Philippians:
17 Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us. 18 For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; 21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself (Philippians 3:19-21).
58 William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1975), p. 3.
59 D. H. Madvig, “Corinth,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., Geoffrey W. Bromiley, General Editor (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), vol I, p. 773.
60 See also Romans 6:15-23, esp. v. 16; 2 Peter 2:19; John 8:34.
61 Having made this distinction, one must also recognize that “eating,” “drinking,” and “being merry (e.g. immorality),” are often inter-related, as Paul will point out elsewhere, such as in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 and Titus 1:10-16. Notice also that the reverse is true. Asceticism denies foods and sex (1 Timothy 4:1-5). Peter, in his second epistle, also indicates that fleshly indulgence encompasses foods and immorality (see 2 Peter chapter 2).
62 See 1 Corinthians 15:12, where the denial of the resurrection by some Corinthians is clearly indicated by Paul.
63 Tony Walter, Need, The New Religion, (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1985).
When my friend Craig Nelson and I were in India, we decided to speak from the Book of Genesis, alternating messages between us. We first spoke on Jacob and his wives (his two wives, Leah and Rachel, and their two handmaids, Zilpah and Bilhah—see Genesis 29 and 30), entitling that message, “The Battle of the Brides.” After teaching the story of Joseph’s betrayal by his brothers from chapter 37, we came to chapter 38 and the story of how Judah unknowingly becomes a father through Tamar, his daughter-in-law. We then came to chapter 39 and the story of the temptation of Joseph by Potiphar’s wife, who eventually falsely accuses Joseph of rape.
After the second or third message, a friend informed us that one of the men had walked out during the meeting in protest. Craig and I were shocked. What had we said that was so offensive? We were told that we were talking too much about sex. This man did not want us to meddle with his sex life. We simply spoke about sex as often as the subject came up in the Book of Genesis.
If you think about it, you will have to agree that sex is a subject frequently addressed in the Scriptures, both Old Testament and New. Though the Bible handles this subject matter much differently than the secular world, it does have much to say on the subject. I can only think of one reason for matters pertaining to sex to be so frequently discussed in the Bible—sexuality must be very closely related to spirituality.
The beliefs and practices of the Corinthian saints seem to vary greatly when it comes to matters of sexual values and conduct. We have already been introduced to the liberal extreme in chapters 5 and 6. In chapter 5, Paul rebukes the church at Corinth for failing to exercise church discipline on a man living in an incestuous relationship with his father’s wife. In the second half of chapter 6 (verses 12-20), Paul confronts those who feel that having sex with a prostitute is not contrary or detrimental to one’s spiritual life. There are those in Corinth whose sexual values are shocking, even to the pagan Corinthians (see 5:1).
In our text, it seems that for some believers spirituality is a pretext for sexual immorality, while for others spirituality means abstaining from sex altogether. In chapter 7, Paul turns his attention to those who seem to regard all sex as dirty, and who therefore advocated celibacy. For those who are single, it means staying single and, unlike today, celibate as well. For those who are married, it seems to mean that these couples should also refrain from sexual relations.
In the matter of sexual conduct, the Corinthians live in a very troubled world, not unlike the world of our own day. The ancient world of Paul’s day has a very distorted view of women, sex, and marriage. A. W. Verrall, the great classical scholar, once said that one of the chief diseases of which ancient civilization died was a low view of women.64 The Greeks were not known for sexual purity:
Prostitution was an essential part of Greek life. Demosthenes had laid it down as the common and accepted rule of life: “We have courtesans for the sake of pleasure; we have concubines for the sake of daily cohabitation; we have wives for the purpose of having children legitimately, and having a faithful guardian for all our household affairs.”65
The Roman sexual ethic was no better:
But at the time of Paul, Roman family life was wrecked. Seneca writes that women were married to be divorced and divorced to be married. In Rome the Romans did not commonly date their years by numbers; they called them by the names of their husbands. Martial the Roman poet tells of a woman who had ten husbands; Juvenal tells us of one who had had eight husbands in five years; Jerome declares it to be true that in Rome there was a woman who was married to her twenty-third husband and she herself was his twenty-first wife. We find even a Roman Emperor Augustus demanding that her husband should divorce the lady Livia when she was with child that he might himself marry her. We find even Cicero, in his old age, putting away his wife Terentia that he might marry a young heiress, whose trustee he was, that he might enter into her estate, in order to pay his debts.66
One would hope the Jews would be exemplary in matters of sex and marriage, but this simply is not the case.
In Paul’s day Judaism reverenced neither women nor marriage. “It was Josephus who wrote, ‘The woman is worse than the man in everything’ (Josephus, Contra Apionem, 2, 201). No wonder, in the light of such harsh attitudes, that the Synagogue prayer book has the man offer the daily prayer, ‘I thank Thee, O Lord, that Thou hast not made me a Gentile dog nor a woman.’”67 In the age of the coming of Christianity, even with Judaism the marriage bond was in peril. So great was its peril that the very institution of marriage was threatened. Jewish girls were refusing to marry at all because the position of the wife was so uncertain.68
Even in our own time, the ancient ritual of “female circumcision” is practiced. This surgical procedure (if one dares to dignify it by such terms) is of no benefit to the woman, but imposed upon the female so that she may never have the enjoyment of sex. It seems that in the minds of those men who impose this on women, it is the woman’s place to give pleasure to the man, but never the woman’s place to receive pleasure from the man. Sadly, among pagans and Christians alike, there is a similar (if less brutal) belief strongly held by some today. The man expects his wife to give him sexual pleasure at any time, but he feels little or no obligation toward fulfilling his wife sexually.
Paul’s words concerning sex and marriage were desperately needed in his day and no less needed in our own day. Let us listen to the finest sex education available to men—a word from God on sex and marriage, through the Apostle Paul.
Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 are in response to a question asked by some of the Corinthian saints who correspond with him. Paul is required to address a group of Corinthian saints who have adopted an extreme view of sex and marriage. Paul’s words in the first seven verses of chapter 7 should be understood in light of the broader teaching of the Bible concerning sex and marriage. Before devoting our attention to the distorted views of sex and marriage which some of the Corinthians hold, let us remind ourselves of what the Bible as a whole says on the subject.
In Genesis 2:18, we read that God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone: I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Being alone, that is, being single, was not good, and so God created a helper suitable for Adam, a wife to be his companion and counterpart. From the Book of Proverbs, we know that God designed marriage and sex not only as a means for bringing children into this world, but also as God’s appointed means for a man to find pleasure in his wife:
15 Drink water from your own cistern, And fresh water from your own well. 16 Should your springs be dispersed abroad, Streams of water in the streets? 17 Let them be yours alone, And not for strangers with you. 18 Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. 19 As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love (Proverbs 5:15-19).
In the New Testament, we are told that Jesus attended a wedding and then miraculously provided wine when their supplies were exhausted (John 2:1-11). The Apostle Paul assumed that elders and deacons would be married, with children (1 Timothy 3:2, 12). Paul also encouraged younger widows to marry (1 Timothy 5:14). He claimed the right as an apostle to “lead about a wife” (1 Corinthians 9:5). The writer to the Hebrews also held marriage in high esteem, and the proper realm for sexual enjoyment between husband and wife. “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4).
In the Bible, marriage is viewed as the norm, and the single life as the exception. Marriage is viewed as holy, righteous, and good. Those who seek to prohibit marriage as something evil are identified as false teachers by Paul (1 Timothy 4:1-5). When we approach 1 Corinthians 7, we must do so confident that marriage is a good gift from God, a gift many Christians gratefully receive and enjoy.
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman (NASB).
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry (NIV).
It is generally assumed that the Corinthians wrote a letter to Paul asking his advice on certain matters. Beginning with the statement, “Now concerning the things about which you wrote…” in 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul continues to go back to their questions (not necessarily in the order they raised them) and to give his answer. It seems good to ask our own question, like the little lady in the TV commercial who asks, “Where’s the beef?” Where’s the question? Paul does not say, “Now concerning the things you have asked,” but rather, “Now concerning the things about which you wrote….” There is a considerable difference here.
Some people ask a question which is not meant to be enlightening. Many questions are asked in a way which cleverly “teaches” the one who is asked or others who are listening. Some seek to undermine the teaching or authority of the one asked. This is surely the purpose of the questions the scribes and Pharisees asked our Lord. But here, we should recognize that we are assuming something not specifically stated. Were the Corinthians really asking Paul questions? And, if so, were their questions sincere?
I raise this issue because of what Paul has already told us in his letter to the Corinthians. There are divisions in the Corinthian church. Various little groups have their own leaders and their own doctrines. Each group takes pride in itself, in its leader, and in the “wisdom” it possesses. Those in one group look down on those in another, because they are not so wise nor so persuasive and powerful, nor well esteemed by the pagan world of that day. One thing many Corinthians share is their disdain for the Apostle Paul. They believe they are wise, and Paul is foolish:
8 You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and I would indeed that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. 9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. 11 To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; 12 and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; 13 when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now (1 Corinthians 4:8-13).
In the light of Paul’s assessment of his standing in the hearts and minds of the Corinthians given here, it seems we should be very careful about assuming too much when we come to those things the Corinthians have written to Paul. Are they—wise as they are—trying to enlighten Paul? It is indeed possible.69 Are they writing to Paul as their spiritual father and mentor, wanting to hear and to heed his wisdom? It is not very likely. I am therefore inclined to view their communication with Paul with some suspicion. Paul may very graciously avoid giving us any greater detail than to specify the issues raised by their communication with him, whether rightly motivated or not.
We know from Paul’s words in chapter 5 that when a man is found to be living with his father’s wife, the church does not mournfully exercise church discipline; rather, they become proud (5:2). Some Corinthians are proud as a result of sin and their response to it. When Paul raises the issue of sex and marriage in chapter 7, he is dealing with the opposite extreme in the church … those who have overreacted to fleshly lusts, seeking to overcome them by asceticism. These folks are just as proud of their asceticism as the others named in chapter 5 are of their fleshly indulgence.70 Perhaps these ascetics have become so smug they assume Paul will applaud them. After all, when it comes to sexual abstinence and remaining single, Paul stands out among the apostles, and among those in the churches (see 1 Corinthians 9:4-5). They may not agree with Paul on many matters, but these ascetics seem to want Paul’s endorsement here. Paul’s words in response to their communication will shock them. They will not get what they expect nor what they want. They will get much more than they asked.
Before attempting to interpret Paul’s words in verse 1, we must pause to point out that the translation of the NIV is inaccurate. The expression, “not to touch a woman,” is a reference to sexual intercourse, not marriage, and thus the NIV is in error when it translates as it does.
The idiom ‘to touch a woman’ occurs nine times in Greek antiquity, ranging across six centuries and a variety of writers, and in every other instance, without ambiguity it refers to having sexual intercourse. There is no evidence of any kind that it can be extended or watered down to mean, ‘It is good for a man not to marry.’71
The Corinthian ascetics would not sanction sexual immorality. Indeed, they would not sanction sex. They feel that sex is dirty, whether within marriage or without. This tells us more about the ascetics than it does about biblical morality: “To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled” (Titus 1:15). Having concluded that all sex is evil, these folks follow out the implications of their false doctrine. If all sex is evil, then it is evil to enjoy sex in marriage. Husbands and wives should abstain from sex, unless for the bearing of children (if that). And those who are single should avoid the “temptation to have sex” by avoiding and abstaining from marriage. Paul cannot and will not endorse such a view.
What is most impressive in chapter 7 is the gentleness of the Apostle Paul. He is certainly practicing what he preaches. Remember these words Paul wrote to Timothy about dealing with those who are in error:
23 But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will (2 Timothy 2:23-26).
How easy it would have been for Paul to come on strong with these Corinthians. Instead, he gently seeks to show them the error of their thinking and conduct. He clearly distinguishes between his personal convictions, his counsel (advice), and his authoritative apostolic commands (see 7:6-7, 40). His approach is to introduce the issue at hand and then gently correct the errors. In later chapters (e.g. 8-10), Paul’s initial gentleness leads to a very clear and forceful conclusion.
The ascetics of the Corinthian church have over-reacted to the immorality of that day, concluding that all sex is dirty and should be avoided, even within marriage. When Paul says, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” I think he is repeating the position held by the Corinthian ascetics. This was their slogan. Paul repeats the statement, not because he agrees with it in its entirety, but because he agrees with it in part. He will shortly set out to clarify the circumstances in which celibacy could serve a beneficial purpose. I am going to advance to verses 6-9 at this point to suggest just how sexual abstinence could be beneficial. I do this because the main thrust of verses 1-7 is to address the role of sex within marriage. Later verses will expand upon the benefits a celibate lifestyle can produce.
6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 Yet72 I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. 8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn.
The first thing we should observe is that celibacy does have its benefits. When celibacy (abstaining from sex, and thus from marriage) contributes to the cause of Christ, it is depicted positively in the Bible. Our Lord spoke positively of celibacy:
11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it” (Matthew 19:11-12).
Paul speaks positively of it as well in 1 Corinthians 9 in reference to his choice and to that of Barnabas also to remain single (1 Corinthians 9:4-6). Finally, in the Book of Revelation we are told that the 144,00 will be celibates:
3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders; and no one could learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been purchased from the earth. 4 These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they have kept themselves chaste. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These have been purchased from among men as first fruits to God and to the Lamb (Revelation 14:3-4).
When Paul speaks of sexual abstinence and celibacy, he does so in a very carefully defined manner. Notice the qualifications Paul sets down regarding sexual abstinence:
(1) Paul does wish that all of the Corinthians could be single (and thus sexually celibate). Paul indicates his “wish” that all men were as he. It is clear that this could not and should not be. Paul simply desires that men might be free from distractions in order to devote themselves to serving God (see also 1 Corinthians 7:34-35).
(2) Paul does not seek to impose this on the Corinthians; he indicates this is his wish, stated by concession and not as a command (oh, that we might be so honest). The ascetics seem to have imposed their view of spirituality upon all. Paul does not represent his preference as a biblical imperative, but as a personal preference which God has allowed him to express as such. Unlike many of us, Paul carefully distinguishes between those commands which are from Christ, and must not be ignored, and the counsel he offers which men can (and perhaps should) disregard. I am reminded of Paul’s advice to Apollos, which Apollos declined to accept and apply:
12 But concerning Apollos our brother, I encouraged him greatly to come to you with the brethren; and it was not at all his desire to come now, but he will come when he has opportunity (1 Corinthians 16:12).
(3) This distinction between concession and command is not an indictment against the inspiration of the Scriptures, but an affirmation of them. Some might question why anything we find in the Scriptures is less than a command, but this is the very nature of convictions. When Paul indicates that a certain view or preference of his is not by divine revelation, and therefore not binding on his readers, he is demonstrating personal integrity by not trying to give the impression that his desires are God’s desires. By doing so, he also underscores the fact that the rest of the Scriptures are inspired and authoritative:
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:14-17).
If any of Paul’s statements are less than a “thus saith the Lord,” we can count on Paul to tell us so.
(4) Paul does not speak of celibacy as a spiritually superior state but as a less distracted state, a way of serving our Lord with greater focus and consistency. The Corinthian celibates surely thought of themselves as more spiritual and were proud of their celibacy. They must have looked down on those who were married. But it doesn’t take a Harvard graduate to recognize that many singles today who know Jesus Christ as Savior are not serving God with the intensity and focus of some who are married and have families.
(5) Paul sees this singleness and celibacy as a matter related to one’s gift and calling. Unlike most students of the Scriptures, I am not saying that celibacy is a spiritual gift. I am saying that celibacy is related to one’s gift and calling. If one were to conclude that there were such a thing as “the gift of celibacy,” it would have to be from this passage, and quite frankly, this passage does not compel one to reach this conclusion. Consider the reasons that there does not seem to be such a thing as a gift of celibacy:
Staying single (and thus sexually inactive) may be the calling of some. If it is your calling, it is for the glory of God and for the promotion of the gospel. But the single life and sexual abstinence is not the rule, as Paul knows. And so in verses 2-5, we find Paul speaking of the role of sex in marriage.
2 But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Notice the three-fold parallel structure in verses 2-4 which stress the mutuality of sexual pleasure and sexual duty:
Paul does not stress the submission of the wife to her husband here, as though it is his role to get pleasure from his wife, and her role to give pleasure to her husband. There is mutual submission here,74 so that both the husband and the wife are to subordinate their interest (pleasure in sex) to the interest of their mate. Consider the guiding principles for what we might call “Spirit-filled marital sex.”
(1) The norm is that Christians will marry and that as a Christian couple, the husband and wife will enjoy regular sexual relations. The ascetics are absolutely wrong in thinking and teaching that sex is unspiritual and thus inappropriate even within the bonds of matrimony. Consistently abstaining from sex in marriage is not only unnatural, it is unholy.
(2) A healthy sex life is a preventative for immorality. A healthy and pleasurable sex life between a husband and wife is a normal and natural release of sexual tension, and thus it is helpful in the prevention of sexual immorality. Good sex in marriage is not a guarantee that there will be marital fidelity. If one mate is unfaithful to the other, it does not necessarily mean that the offended spouse has failed to satisfy the other. David certainly had enough wives to satisfy his sexual appetites, but he committed adultery anyway. The lusting eye is never satisfied. Nevertheless, Paul speaks of sexual relations in marriage as a preventative for sexual immorality outside of marriage: “Because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.” The ascetics are wrong. To abstain from marital sex proves to be a temptation; to enjoy marital sex promotes edification.
(3) Both husband and wife should eagerly engage in the sexual act as their duty, both to God and to their mate. It is not just the wife who is commanded to give herself to her husband; the husband is likewise commanded to give himself to his wife. In fact, the husband is first commanded to give himself to his wife, and then the wife to her husband (see verse 3).
(4) Both husband and wife should not only give themselves for sex, but each should seek to produce the ultimate pleasure for their partner. Reaching the ultimate pleasure in the sexual union is what best insures against immorality. Frustratingly unfulfilling sex to one partner or the other will also tempt one to be immoral. The “use me” mindset in sexual intimacy falls far short of the mark which Paul sets for us here. The duty of the husband is to satisfy his wife sexually, just as the duty of the wife is to satisfy her husband. This is the best one can do to stay sexually pure and to encourage one’s mate to do likewise.
(5) Neither the husband nor the wife has the authority to deprive75 their mate sexually. If I have not said it clearly enough, I will say it bluntly here: it is wrong to deprive one’s mate of the pleasures of sexual intimacy. There is nothing spiritual about avoiding sex. I think I should also say that there is nothing particularly spiritual about demanding sex either.
(6) Those Christians who have been forcibly making a celibate of their mate by withholding sex are commanded to stop sinning in this fashion. Paul’s command to “stop depriving one another” in verse 5 strongly implies that a number of Corinthian Christians are already withholding sex from their mates. Paul tells us that withholding sex from your mate is sin, a sin which must be repented of, and a sin which we must correct by obeying our Lord’s command through Paul. Paul spoke of the benefits of staying single by concession, rather than by command. But the instruction to husbands and wives to sexually fulfill each other is a command, not a wish or a suggestion. To refuse to change in this area is to willfully disobey one of God’s commands.
(7) Sexual abstinence is to be a rare and temporary exception to the norm of regular sexual union. There are obviously times when normal sexual relations are temporarily interrupted. In the Old Testament, a man was not to have sex with his wife during her monthly period (see Leviticus 15:19, 24; 18:19). Here, Paul speaks of the temporary interruption of a couple’s marital sex life to facilitate prayer. The reason should be obvious, especially for parents with children in the home. Bedtime seems to be the only “private” time two parents have. This means that besides sleep, closing the bedroom door affords the opportunity to enjoy sexual intimacy; it also affords the opportunity for prayer. Frankly, it is difficult to have both prayer and sex on the same agenda, especially if the prayer is urgent and extended. For a bachelor, Paul seems to understand married life very well.76
Paul sets down some very stringent requirements regarding the cessation of normal sexual relations in marriage. First, the decision to abstain from sex must be mutually reached by the husband and the wife. There must not be a unilateral decision made by one spouse. Second, a cessation of normal sexual relations should only take place for matters of great urgency. I understand Paul’s words in verse 5 to refer to specific, urgent matters of prayer, and not normal prayers. The King James Version may well be the original text, and it includes fasting with prayer.
Third, normal sexual relations should be resumed quickly, so that Satan may not take advantage of their lack of self-control. This statement should have really irritated the Corinthian ascetics, who thought of their sexual abstinence as the epitome of self-control. Not according to Paul! Sexual abstinence did not strengthen these saints in their battle with the flesh and with Satan; it weakened them, and it made them vulnerable.
Unfortunately, I have known of situations in which “prayer” was the excuse of one mate for avoiding sex with the other. Who can be more pious than one who gives up sex for prayer? And who can be so unspiritual as to criticize anyone for neglecting their sex life to enhance their prayer life? It is the ultimate spiritual “lion in the road” (to use an expression from the Book of Proverbs). A “lion in the road” is a compelling reason (excuse) for avoiding what one really doesn’t want to do. If the truth were known, a healthy sexual relationship between a man and his wife may facilitate a richer prayer life. I say this on the basis of Peter’s words in 1 Peter 3:7 “You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” Surely “living with one’s wife in an understanding way” includes the sexual relationship. A sexually frustrated and irritated mate is not a good prayer partner.
The church at Corinth did not write to Paul about divisions and factions, about false wisdom or pride, about leaders who looked down on Paul and his gospel. They wrote to Paul about sex, and specifically, about abstaining from sex. They do not want advice from Paul on their sex lives; they only want his endorsement. But if they had wanted advice on matters of sex, do you think they would have expected wise counsel from Paul? How can a man who is both a bachelor and a preacher teach these “worldly wise” folks anything about sex? They must believe they know it all. They may have been the Dr. Ruth’s of their day. But, wonder of wonders, God chose to give the finest sex education available, the best counsel on sex in marriage, through Paul. Once again, the wisdom of God is vastly other than the wisdom of men!
I wish I could have seen the looks on the faces of the Corinthian ascetics as they heard Paul’s response to what they have written. These folks must be so puffed up with pride at their self-control and victory over fleshly desires. While they differ with Paul in many matters, surely they think Paul will applaud them for maintaining that sex is dirty and should be avoided, even in marriage. They do not want Paul’s advice or instruction, only his endorsement. What they receive is something entirely different. Paul agrees that abstaining from sex can be beneficial, but only in the most restricted applications. Instead of applauding them for abstaining from sex in marriage, Paul instructs them to engage in sex with their spouses as a duty. This must not be done with gritted teeth, and the goal of each mate should be to satisfy the other.
The Corinthian ascetics think that spirituality is antithetical to the enjoyment of sex within marriage. Paul wants his readers (which includes us) to understand that spirituality encompasses every aspect of one’s life, including sex. If you are married, have you ever thought of whether your sex life is Spirit-filled or not? You should. Paul is teaching husbands and wives that servanthood is the fundamental ingredient to satisfying sexual intimacy in marriage. How many times have you read these words penned by Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians:
1 If therefore there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Philippians 2:1-8).
How often have you considered Paul’s teaching here as governing your sexual relationship with your spouse? If marriage is a reflection of the union Christ has with His church, then how would we think the physical union of a man and his wife is not of great importance to God? True, this is a “private” matter, between man and wife, but why would we think the angels would not be watching and learning (see 1 Corinthians 11:10)? Sex is not “dirty;” it is a gift of God, which is to be enjoyed in the confines of marriage and to portray the most precious “union” of all, the union of God and His church.
God has uniquely fashioned the man and the woman so that they are very different. I do not mean different in the biological sense, but different in their makeup. Husbands tend to respond very quickly; wives are not as quickly stimulated and not by the same kinds of things. I have heard it said by some that men and women are mismatched, sexually speaking. And so they are, by divine design. Sex cannot be mutually satisfying without real love. In this sense, biblical sex is “making love.” And love is manifested in sacrifice. Only as both the husband and the wife sacrifice their own interests (sexually speaking) is the other satisfied. Sacrificial servanthood is the key to Spirit-filled sex.
I want to be very clear here that we are not just talking about some kind of technique, which, if followed, brings maximum pleasure to the one who employs it. The husband should be sensitively attuned to his wife, seeking to bring her fulfillment. But this is not just because it is the way he will find his own fulfillment. Love-making in marriage seeks to bring pleasure to one’s spouse at one’s own expense. There is a lot of talk about “maximum sex,” but sex should never be approached selfishly as the means to the ultimate goal of self-satisfaction. “Taking up one’s cross” applies in the board room and in the bedroom.
In his Epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul specifically deals with sex as a part of the believer’s sanctification:
3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5 not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. 7 For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. 8 Consequently, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8).
Sanctification includes the avoidance of sexual immorality (verse 3). It also involves the Christian relating to his or her spouse sexually in a way that is distinctly Christian and not pagan (verses 4-5). It is clear that we may sin in the matter of sex, and that God is the avenger is such cases (verse 7). God has not called us to impurity but to holiness, and this holiness will be evident in the way we sexually relate to our spouse (verse 7). To reject Paul’s “sex education” is to reject the Spirit of God (verse 8).
I am not amazed that the unbelieving world, sex-and self-crazed as it is, finds frustration more than fulfillment in the bedroom. I am deeply distressed that many Christians are living defeated lives in relation to sex. Some are simply not having sex, usually due to the disobedience of one of the two partners, and sometimes due to the apathy of both. Some are engaging in illicit sex, either by means of pornography or illicit sexual unions outside of marriage. Others find sexual stimulation in the workplace by telling off-color stories and by suggestive dress and talk. The newest temptation is “cyber sex,” illicit sex by means of the computer. I don’t think I will tell you all of the ways this can be done. Hopefully, I do not know them. Here is a definite area of danger, and I hope that you can see that it is totally self-serving.
Paul’s teaching in verses 1-7 present us with two apparent problems. First, Paul speaks of marriage and sex as a preventative to immorality: “But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (verse 2). These words seem to suggest that Paul views sex and marriage in a less than noble way. Is sex only a preventative and not a pleasure for the Christian? Paul’s second statement raises similar questions: “Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband” (verse 3). Is sex only a duty and not a delight?
I would say first that in our fallen world and culture, sex is viewed primarily in terms of selfish pleasure. Sex, apart from biblical servanthood, is self-centered pleasure seeking. I would like you to consider sex in the light of the “great commandment” of the Bible:
34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they gathered themselves together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 “This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 “The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:34-40).
The whole Law can be summed up by two commandments: (1) love God with all of one’s being, and (2) love your neighbor.
How does one love God? Peter tells us how we are to conduct ourselves in relation to God:
14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17 And if you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each man’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay upon earth; 18 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers (1 Peter 1:14-18).
Loving God requires being holy. Being holy means not being conformed to those lusts which once dominated us as unbelievers. Immorality is one of the sins which characterizes the Corinthians (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Thus, the Christian should fervently desire to avoid immorality. And so when Paul speaks of marriage and sex as a preventative for immoralities, why should we think Paul is taking sex lightly? Righteousness is the higher goal, and marriage (and sex) are a means to this goal. Paul does not think little of sex; he thinks more highly of righteousness. Isn’t being godly a higher goal than being sexually fulfilled? The problem is not with Paul; it is with us. We value sex more highly than pleasing God.
The second dimension of the great commandment is that we should love our neighbor as ourself. How does this relate to the subject of sex within marriage? Our wife (or our husband) is our neighbor. We are to love our spouse as we love ourself (see also Ephesians 5:28-32). To do so, we must put the (sexual) interests of our mate above our own. Living by the law of love makes it my duty to sexually fulfill my spouse. Is my duty demeaning, something for which I should apologize? It is my duty to keep the commandments of my Lord. Is this demeaning? Not at all! The goal for which I should strive is to see my duty as my delight. This is the way David and other godly men approached God’s law (see Psalm 40:6-8; see also 119:9-16, 24, 137-144).
I would like to suggest to you that sex is similar to worship. Indeed, in the pagan cultures (such as with the Canaanites in the Old Testament and the Corinthians in the New) sex was a part of worship (see also Exodus 32:1-6 and 1 Corinthians 10:6-8). And no wonder, for making sex a part of worship assured the “worshippers” of instant satisfaction.
I fear that we approach worship in a way that is all too similar to the way many approach sex. Some, who feel like worship does not satisfy or fulfill them, are inclined to avoid it. We evaluate worship more in terms of what we have gained than in what we have given. I would remind you that the operative term when it comes to worship is sacrifice, not fulfillment. I would further say that worship (like sex) is not so much about seeking pleasure for ourselves as it is about giving pleasure to God.
Sexuality and spirituality are very closely related. Paul calls for each of us who knows God through Jesus Christ to elevate our sexuality to the standard God has set, to make sexuality an expression of our spirituality to the glory of God, and ultimately for our good.
64 William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1958), p. 199.
65 Barclay, p. 201.
66 Barclay, p. 202.
67 Cited by Gary Inrig, Life in His Body (Wheaton: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975), p. 156.
68 Barclay, pp. 200-201.
69 “Rather than a friendly exchange, in which the new believers in Corinth are asking spiritual advice of their mentor in the Lord, their letter was probably a response to Paul’s previous Letter mentioned in 5:9, in which they were taking exception to his position on point after point.” Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary, F. F. Bruce, General Editor, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987 [reprint, 1993]), pp. 266-267.
70 Is it possible that some who were proud in chapter 5 are proud because the immorality of this man living in an incestuous relationship made their asceticism look pious? Maybe they do not put out sinners so that the pseudo-righteous look pious.
71 Gordon D. Fee, p. 275. Fee goes on to say of verse 2, “Second, there is no known evidence that the idiom ‘to have a wife’ means ‘to take a wife.’ In fact this idiom is common in biblical Greek and usually means either to ‘have sexually’ (Exod. 2:1; Deut. 28:30; Isa. 13:16) or simply to be married or to be in continuing sexual relations with a man or woman (see esp. 5:1 and 7:29; cf. mark 6;18; John 4:18).” Fee, p. 278.
72 I have serious doubts about the choice made by the translators of the NASB here. The King James Version (and the Greek texts which underlie it) seem to give the correct rendering of “For” and not “Yet.” Verse 7 is thus an explanation of Paul’s statement in verse 6.
73 Thus, the New English Bible actually paraphrases, “I should like you all to be as I am myself; but everyone has the gift God has granted him, one this gift and another that.”
74 Compare Ephesians 5:21 with 5:22-33.
75 “The use of the verb ‘deprive’ is especially striking. This is the same verb used in 6:7-8 for the man who had defrauded another. It is a pejorative word for taking away what rightfully belongs to another…” Fee, p. 281.
76 There are some, of course, who argue that Paul had once been married. This conclusion is the result of several inferences. It begins with Paul’s statement in Acts 26:10 that he “cast his vote” against some saints who were on trial for being Christians. The first assumption is that Paul must have been a member of the Sanhedrin to be able to “cast his vote.” The next assumption is that all those on the Sanhedrin had to be married (this does not come from the Scriptures). Therefore, it is concluded that Paul was once married and was either divorced or widowed. This is possible, but in no way is it a fact which the Scriptures compel us to assume. One way or the other, it really isn’t important.
As I was driving home from a funeral, I happened to notice a billboard advertising the services of a lawyer or group of lawyers. I may have missed some of the small print because I was trying to watch the road, but the billboard read something like this:
Traffic tickets—$45
Divorce—$25
Imagine that! It is easier to take care of a failed marriage by divorce than to handle a traffic violation. I am sure divorce is not as easy or as cheap as this sign might lead us to believe, but the reality is that divorce can rather readily be obtained. I wonder how many people pass by that sign and say to themselves, “For a mere $25, I could solve my problems.”
Christians are now resorting to the divorce courts nearly as often as those who profess no faith at all. A few years ago, divorce was looked down upon by our culture. Now divorce is accepted. It may even be accurate to say that divorce is advocated as the better way for those whose marriages are a mess. The church used to oppose divorce. Then, in some “exceptional” cases, it came to endorse it. Now it seems, divorce is simply accepted as a fact of life.
Moral conditions in Paul’s day are at an all-time low. In some circles at least, divorce is more the rule than the exception:
But at the time of Paul, Roman family life was wrecked. Seneca writes that women were married to be divorced and divorced to be married. In Rome the Romans did not commonly date their years by numbers; they called them by the names of their husbands. Martial the Roman poet tells of a woman who had ten husbands; Juvenal tells us of one who had had eight husbands in five years; Jerome declares it to be true that in Rome there was a woman who was married to her twenty-third husband and she herself was his twenty-first wife. We find even a Roman Emperor Augustus demanding that her husband should divorce the lady Livia when she was with child that he might himself marry her. We find even Cicero, in his old age, putting away his wife Terentia that he might marry a young heiress, whose trustee he was, that he might enter into her estate, in order to pay his debts.77
It is not surprising that the subject of divorce arises in this epistle. The city of Corinth is morally corrupt. Immorality is common practice and generally accepted. Immorality is not shocking to the saints. They somehow are able to embrace a man living immorally with his father’s wife (chapter 5), and Paul finds it necessary to prove that having sexual relations with a prostitute is wrong (chapter 6). Where there is immorality, divorce is not far behind. In addition to immorality in the church at Corinth, divisions and rivalries are also commonplace (1:10ff., etc.). Is it any wonder that division takes place within marriages? If one Christian has no hesitancy to take another to court (6:lff.), should we be shocked that a marriage made in heaven is being dissolved in the law courts?
If divorce is only regarded as the “lesser of two evils” in Corinth, that is bad enough. But a segment of the church goes so far as to view divorce as the spiritual thing to do. Some Corinthian ascetics hold that sex is dirty, even within marriage. The next step is to look upon marriage as evil, something not unheard of in the churches (see 1 Timothy 4:3). If sex and marriage are unspiritual, does this mean that a “spiritual Christian” should seek to be loosed from the bonds of marriage? And what of those who find themselves married to an unbeliever? Paul has written in chapter 6 that the union of a Christian with a pagan prostitute has very serious spiritual implications (6:16ff.). Is a Christian sinning every time he has sexual intercourse with his unbelieving spouse?
Our text is penned by the Apostle Paul to correct the misconceptions and false doctrine some Corinthian church leaders are teaching and some Corinthian Christians are embracing regarding sex and marriage. Paul addresses three different groups in verses 8-16. In verses 8 and 9, Paul writes to those who are unmarried. In verses 10 and 11, the apostle addresses those marriages in which both partners are Christians. Finally, in verses 12-16, Paul writes to those Corinthian Christians whose mates are unsaved.
Paul’s words in verses 6-16 are spoken from three different perspectives, which the apostle clearly identifies, and which we need to keep in mind as we attempt to interpret and apply them. First, Paul speaks from the standpoint of his own personal convictions and preferences in verses 6 and 7. He begins by saying, “But this I say by way of concession, not of command” (verse 6). He then goes on to express that he wishes that all men were as himself. Paul is single as a matter of personal conviction. He desires that all might remain single, like himself, but he knows better. He does not speak with apostolic authority, and those who do not follow his advice are not regarded as disobedient to a divine command. This same perspective is carried on in verses 8 and 9, where Paul reiterates the potential benefit of remaining single and yet urges single saints to marry rather than to burn.
Second, Paul speaks as an apostle of Jesus Christ, who is simply repeating the instructions of the Lord Jesus in verses 10 and 11: “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, …” (verse 10). Paul is simply reiterating Jesus’ teaching on divorce when he instructs both the Christian husband and the Christian wife not to initiate divorce.
Third, Paul speaks as an apostle of Jesus Christ, but of matters on which our Lord did not give instruction in verses 12-16: “But to the rest I say, not the Lord, …” (verse 12). As I understand Paul’s words here, he is saying that he speaks only for himself, and not for the Lord. Paul is saying that his teaching here is apostolic instruction, with full apostolic authority. The difference here is that the subject matter was not taught by our Lord. Paul speaks for our Lord, but he is not repeating instructions which the Lord gave His apostles while on earth. The reason is quite simple. The Jews cannot conceive of a mixed marriage, the marriage of a believer and an unbeliever (or, at least, between a Jew and a Gentile). In Jerusalem and the land of Israel, such a possibility would sound incredible, so why would anyone teach those in a mixed marriage about marriage? But in Corinth, mixed marriages are inevitable after Paul and others proclaim the gospel. No doubt most of these mixed marriages occurred because one of the two unbelieving partners is saved after the commitment of marriage has been made.
With these thoughts in mind, let us listen carefully to Paul to learn what he has to say about marriage and divorce. His words are just as applicable to our own day as to his.
But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn (1 Corinthians 7:8-9).
Paul’s words here must be understood in light of the overall teaching of the Bible on marriage and celibate single life. The Lord Jesus, a defender of the sanctity of marriage, says this on marriage and staying single:
9 “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it” (Matthew 19:9-12).
The Jews of Jesus’ day take divorce lightly. They see it not as a kind of necessary evil, but as a right. The only differences between liberal and conservative Jews on divorce are over the reasons for a divorce. The liberal Jews feel divorce can be granted for virtually any reason (see Matthew 19:3). Conservative Jews feel divorce is not quite so easy to obtain, nor can the basis for a divorce be so trivial. Jesus shocks them all with His conservatism, even His disciples.
Jesus refuses to allow His opponents to control the agenda. They do not ask Jesus about the morality of divorce; they only want Him to reveal His views on what grounds are sufficient for a divorce. Jesus refuses to concentrate on the exceptions, but rather dwells on the rule. God never commanded men to divorce. At the very most, God reluctantly allows men to divorce for very limited reasons, due to the hardness of men’s hearts. Jesus goes back to the garden and sets before His questioners God’s ideal for marriage: One man, married to the same woman, for life. What God joins together, no man should dare to separate.
The disciples of our Lord are shocked. They seem to have no idea that Jesus takes such a hard line on divorce. If this is the way it is—that a man should not really enter into marriage thinking he can get out of that union by means of a divorce—then maybe one should not marry at all. Maybe a man should remain single. Jesus does not correct His disciples for reaching this conclusion. Instead, Jesus actually encourages the disciples along the line they are thinking. Jesus makes it clear that His words will not be accepted or applied by many, but that some have, and others will take His teaching seriously. Some men are born as eunuchs, and thus sex (and by inference, marriage) is not a likely alternative. Other men are made eunuchs by men. Perhaps unwillingly, some men are castrated and prohibited from the pleasures of sex and the joys of marriage. But there is a third group, a group which Jesus clearly commends—those who voluntarily choose the celibate lifestyle, not for their own selfish reasons, but for the sake of the kingdom of God. Those who are able to accept and apply this same commitment are encouraged to do so. Jesus, like Paul in our text, advocates staying single as a way of serving God, which some should embrace.
One perspective is that some who are single should contemplate making this a permanent state. But Paul also gives what may initially appear to be contradictory counsel to Timothy, who is ministering to the saints in Ephesus:
11 But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, 12 thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge. 13 And at the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. 14 Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; 15 for some have already turned aside to follow Satan (1 Timothy 5:11-15).
While Paul gives instructions concerning the permanent support of a very select group of elderly widows in verses 3-10, he specifically prohibits supporting younger widows in verses 11-15. Instead of instructing young widows to stay single, he encourages them to remarry. His logic seems to flow in this manner. If permanent support were provided for younger widows (something like welfare or social security today), then many would be “tempted” to stay single. To be supported by the church, they would rightly feel obliged to make a pledge to stay single (not unlike the vow a nun takes in the Catholic church). As time passes, this young woman would begin to feel the tug of her sexual passions (verse 11). In the words of Paul from 1 Corinthians 7, this young widow would begin to “burn.”78 When a certain Mr. Wonderful comes along, this woman would be tempted to despise her commitment to Christ and to break her vow, thus bringing condemnation upon herself. Further, fully supported by the church, some young widows would be tempted to become busybodies, since they would have a lot of time on their hands. They have neither a family to care for nor a job to consume their time and energies. And so, Paul instructs, let younger widows marry.
Here we have the two extremes. On the one hand, the single life is commended, by our Lord and by the Apostle Paul. On the other, marriage is commended, both by our Lord and by Paul. How can we reconcile these seemingly conflicting instructions?
A similar apparent contradiction is found in the words of our Lord concerning discipleship. On the one hand, Jesus invited men and women to follow Him, to become His disciples. On the other hand, Jesus almost seems to discourage potential followers from becoming His disciples. Both appear to be happening in this text in Luke’s Gospel:
57 And as they were going along the road, someone said to Him, “I will follow You wherever You go.” 58 And Jesus said to him, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” 59 And He said to another, “Follow Me.” But he said, “Permit me first to go and bury my father.” 60 But He said to him, “Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God.” 61 And another also said, “I will follow You, Lord; but first permit me to say good-bye to those at home.” 62 But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:57-62).
Jesus does want men and women to be His disciples, to follow Him. But He does not want half-hearted followers. He knows our hearts, and how easily we can be turned from the path of discipleship. He knows the difficulties and demands of following Him. And so when He invites people to follow Him, He clearly sets out the demands of discipleship. He discourages the faint-hearted from starting on a course which they will not complete. Thus, He both invites people to follow Him, and He discourages people from following Him. The result is that those who do follow Him are more likely to endure, for they have counted the cost of discipleship.
The same is true of purposing to stay single. The Bible encourages some to stay single, as the most effective way to serve God. Yet the Bible also discourages men and women from staying single, knowing that many who commit themselves to such a life will not keep it and will bring condemnation upon themselves. The result is that those few who choose to follow Christ by staying single are those who are most committed to doing so, and thus are the most likely to persevere in their commitment to a celibate single lifestyle.
The satisfaction of our God-given sexual desires within the context of marriage is wholesome and good. There is no intrinsic merit in the suppression of sexual desire. If sexual fulfillment (a definite “good”) is voluntarily set aside for the purpose of ministering to others, even as our Lord did, then celibacy is better. If one’s service as a celibate is one of constant preoccupation with sexual desires, marriage is the better way. It is surely better to marry and be sexually pure than to fall into sexual immorality.
I am convinced that Paul’s words here are not intended to keep most Christians from marrying nor to place a stigma on those who do. Yet they have great value for every Christian who is not yet married. While it is less true today than in times past, marriage has been considered the norm, and any who did not get married felt a strong pressure to do so. The implication of Paul’s advice here is that no Christian should assume that marriage is the path God would have for them. Both the benefits and the liabilities of marriage should be carefully weighed. Can a couple say with genuine conviction that God has led them to marry and that their marriage will enhance their ministry rather than restrict it? There would be fewer divorces among Christians if couples gave more consideration to the cost and commitments of marriage before saying, “I do.” While some Christian young people may be reluctant to admit it, strong sexual passion is a very good reason for marriage, but let them be certain to marry a godly mate.
Before leaving these verses, let us consider the practical implications of what Paul has just said. He certainly indicates that marriage is not sin. In fact, marriage may be instrumental in keeping a saint from sin. Remaining single can be a very beneficial means to serving God, for those who have the self-control to handle their sexual passions. Yet it can prove to be a temptation greater than some can handle, if they lack sufficient self-control.
Paul’s teaching is liberating in the sense that it removes the social stigma some feel if they remain single. In my college days, this stigma created what was known as “senior panic,” the phenomenon which occurred primarily among senior class single women who saw no immediate prospects for marriage. To those who are single, Paul’s words mean they can rejoice in the freedom being single gives them to serve God. Neither those who are single, nor those who are married, should see themselves as any more spiritual than the rest. Whether single or married, we are to serve the Lord and to seek His glory. Being single or being married should be viewed the way Paul looks at living or dying in Philippians 1. Either option has its benefits and blessings. Consequently, there is no need to agonize over one’s marital state, but rather we should seek to serve the Lord, whether married or single.
When I counsel with couples who are looking toward getting married, I like to challenge them to consider Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul puts marriage into perspective in this chapter. He makes it clear that marriage is neither unspiritual, nor is it heaven on earth. Marriage is a liberty which some Christians will exercise to the glory of God, but which some Christians may forego to the glory of God. Marriage is not the key to happiness, to significance, even to spirituality. A person who thinks they cannot be happy without marriage is the man and woman who should seriously consider staying single as an option. The one who will most benefit from marriage is the one who does not feel compelled to marry to find happiness or joy in this life. In the Christian life, it is the one who gives up his life who gains it.
10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not send his wife away.
There are two distinct groups in Corinth who need counsel regarding the Christian and divorce: (1) Christian couples, where both husband and wife are believers in Jesus Christ; and (2) “mixed marriages,” where one of the two partners has come to faith in Christ after marriage. Verses 10-11 address the first group. It may be that the ascetics who so forcefully condemned sex (see 1 Corinthians 7:1) also forbade marriage. This is most certainly the case in Ephesus:
1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:1-5).
This may also be the teaching in Corinth, which is held by some. If this is the case, it is easy to see why Paul must speak to the Christian couples in Corinth concerning divorce. If staying single is what it takes to be spiritual, then does this mean Christian couples should terminate their marriages? If such action is considered spiritual, does this provide an easy (even spiritual) out for those who are weary of their marriage? Divorce is certainly a culturally acceptable option in Corinth. Paul’s words to Christian couples regarding divorce are clear, concise, and authoritative.
Paul’s words on divorce can be summed up by several statements, enumerated below:
(1) Paul’s teaching on divorce is not his own, but that of the Lord Jesus Christ. Whatever we make of Paul’s other statements, nothing could be more clear in verses 10 and 11 than that Paul teaches with the authority of our Lord. Paul is teaching what Jesus taught. Those who like to read Paul’s instructions as those of an eccentric bachelor dare not do so here.
(2) Paul’s teaching here is addressed to Christian couples, those marriages in which both husband and wife trust in Jesus Christ.
(3) Paul’s teaching in these verses is mutual—what he teaches the husbands, he applies as well to the wives. Paul is not a chauvinist here (or elsewhere). He repeatedly states that what is good for the husband is good for the wife, and vice-versa.
(4) Paul teaches both Christian husbands and Christian wives that they are not to initiate a severing of their marital union. This statement requires some clarification and expansion. No Christian mate can control the actions of the other. Thus, it is possible that one mate may forsake the marriage, even though he or she is a believer. Paul speaks to each in terms of the sphere of their control and responsibility. They, on their part, are not to sever the marital union. This initiation of a severance is not to be taken in a narrow sense. Paul is not just forbidding the Christian spouse to file for a divorce first. He is not just prohibiting one mate from packing up and leaving the other. He is instructing each mate to do everything in his or her power to keep the marriage alive and well. A mate who disobeys Paul’s teaching in the previous verses may withhold sex from the other partner and thus tempt him or her to be unfaithful, or to initiate the divorce. We should never be the cause of our partner’s departure.
Further, when Paul forbids terminating the marriage, he forbids both separation and divorce. All too often, I hear Christians acknowledge that divorce is forbidden, and then proceed to encourage someone in a troubled marriage to separate. Their thinking is that divorce is one thing, and separation is quite another. I believe Paul clearly differs. Paul employs two different terms in verses 10 and 11, when he forbids the termination of marriage. In the NASB, the first term is translated “leave,” with a marginal note which indicates the literal meaning is “depart from.” The same term occurs at the beginning of verse 11. This same word is employed by our Lord in His teaching on divorce: “Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6, emphasis mine). But when Paul speaks specifically to husbands at the end of verse 11, he employs a term which is rendered by the expression, “send her away” (with a marginal note indicating the alternative, “leave her”). In the vernacular of our times, Paul is forbidding women both separation and divorce.
In Paul’s day, it may be technically true that both women and men could obtain a divorce. Practically speaking, however, I am convinced it is much easier for the husband to divorce his wife than for the wife to divorce her husband. In my opinion, the woman’s escape from an unsuccessful marriage would often be by simply leaving, without any divorce. The husband would more likely, more easily, and more frequently be the one who divorced his wife. Either way, Paul does not distinguish between separation and divorce.
I have seen a number of Christian couples separate, and I must say that it is not only unbiblical, it is counter-productive. Separations do not pave the way for reconciliation; they pave the way for a divorce. Quite frankly, those who separate are happier apart. Life is easier. The tensions and conflicts are removed, but the problems with the relationship are not solved. Very often, the mate that separates justifies their actions by insisting that they don’t intend to divorce, but nearly always this is the outcome. All too often, separation is employed as a bargaining tool, as a means of forcing the other partner to do what the separating partner dictates.
Paul sees a marital union where the two partners live separately as a broken union, and even worse, as a broken vow. So does our Lord. In the words of our Lord, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” To live apart is to live in disobedience.
A question may now be in your mind: “Is it never permissible to leave, even when the wife is in physical danger?” It may be permissible, even advisable, for a wife to temporarily leave, so as not to expose herself or her children to physical harm from an abusive (often when drunk) husband and father. Leaving for the evening or for the night is not the same as separation, however. The motive must be carefully considered. Very often, the danger is not as great as feared or represented. Abuse has become a “lion in the road” for many, a compelling excuse for disobeying God’s command. It may be that the wife should call the police. Certainly she should follow the teaching of Matthew 18:15-20. But too often the “violence” which seems to justify the wife’s separation is the result of provocation on the part of the “abused” partner.
(5) In these verses, Paul mentions no exceptions to his prohibition on terminating marriage. Paul’s words are clear and emphatic to Christian couples: “Don’t divorce and don’t separate—period!” He gives no exceptions here. This does not necessarily prove that there are no exceptions, no reasons why a Christian can divorce. It does underscore the fact that divorce is, at best, the exception to the rule, and Paul is here emphasizing the rule. It is much the same in Matthew 19, where the scribes and Pharisees quizzed Jesus on the reasons for divorce. Jesus knew that His questioners had made the exception the rule, and thus he refused to talk about exceptions, but rather stressed the ideal, as viewed from the original marriage of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. God intended a man and a woman to be joined together as one flesh for life. What God has joined, let no man separate. So it is with Paul. In a city and a church where divorce is not only permissible, but where some think it “spiritual,” Paul does not wish to emphasize the exceptions to the rule. Even where divorce may be an alternative, it is only permitted as a kind of necessary evil, given the fallen state of sinful men.
(6) Paul does not mean for us to view the first part of verse 11 as an exception, although many Bible students interpret his words as an exception. Someone is sure to object to my contention that Paul makes no exceptions in this passage. It may appear that this is exactly what Paul does when he writes,
10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband),…
Some view this parenthetical statement in verse 11 as a kind of exception to what was written in verse 10 and the latter part of verse 11. We are told that Paul knew some would not (or could not) keep this command.79 In answer to the hypothetical question, “What if I do get a divorce, anyway?,” Paul is thought to have responded, “Then at least remain single, or be reconciled to your husband.” I find it difficult to accept this view even though the translations of both the NASV and the NIV seem to reflect it.80 Why does Paul make such a strong statement forbidding divorce for a Christian couple only to parenthetically undercut his instruction by suggesting an alternative course of action for those who decide not to obey? I cannot believe Paul is saying, in effect, “Don’t ever divorce; but if you do anyway, then don’t remarry unless it is to your estranged mate.”
This is exactly the kind of logic we strongly protest today. When our children are taught sex education in the public schools, at best they are told, “Don’t have premarital sex, but if you do, use a condom.” We argue that advocating the use of condoms is accepting and even advocating premarital sex. I agree. And I would point out that viewing Paul’s teaching in verse 11 as an exception also encourages the divorce which Paul has just prohibited.
There are at least two solutions to the problem of interpreting Paul’s words at the beginning of verse 11. First, we can stress the passive voice of the verb “to separate” (Greek, choridzo) so that the initiative taken is by the other mate: “If it should happen that you are divorced (by the other), then don’t marry again; or be reunited with your mate if possible.” A second possibility is to see the grammatical construction as exceptional, and stress the fact that this separation or divorce is not a hypothetical possibility for the future, but a historical fact: “But if she is separated from him she should either remain unattached or else be reconciled to her husband” (Phillips); “But if she be already separated from him…” (Conybeare). The latter solution is held by a number of biblical scholars, including Bishop Ellicott: “The apostle, in case such separation should already have taken place, anticipates the difficult question which might then arise by parenthetically remarking that in such a case the woman must not marry again, but ought to be reunited to her former husband.”81
It is easy to understand why such a question has arisen in the church. What about those who have already divorced? It is too late to avoid a divorce. So what should they do now? Paul’s words are intended to help such people make the best of their situation. They should not remarry, for that would be adultery. They must remain single or be rejoined to their former mate.
Paul’s position on divorce is but a reiteration of our Lord’s teaching on the subject. Among Christians, divorce should not even be considered as an option. Granted, divorce is permissible in the case of immorality, but it is never something in which God delights; it is something God tolerates, due to the hardness of men’s hearts. Divorce is not a license for the wicked to sin by forsaking their vows and their mate; it is a protection for the “innocent” partner, making legal provision for their remarriage. If the other partner chooses to disregard biblical teaching, they may pursue a divorce, which is beyond the obedient Christian’s control. If the disobedient partner divorces and marries another, I believe both Paul and our Lord would agree that the “innocent party” (or at least the offended party) has the freedom to remarry for two reasons: (1) the marital union has already been broken by the other party’s adultery, and (2) remarriage to the partner who initiates the divorce is impossible once that partner has married another (Deuteronomy 24). Like Jesus, Paul would have every Christian seriously consider the possibility of living the single life. If one marries after this consideration, it should be based on a clear conviction that the marriage will promote God’s purposes and enhance the ministry of both (compare Matthew 19:10-12 with 1 Corinthians 7:1, 6-9, 25ff.):
Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor. For if either of them falls, the one will lift up his companion. But woe to the one who falls when there is not another to lift him up. Furthermore, if two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one be warm alone? And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12).
12 But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, let him not send her away. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
The “super spiritual” ascetics must have a hand in this matter. They might be willing to grant that a marriage between Christian mates should (or at least could) be maintained (preferably without sex—see 7:1-5). But for a Christian to be married to an unbeliever is another matter. How can a Christian remain in a marriage union with an unbeliever? Does the Old Testament Law not forbid mixed marriages? Does Paul not teach the same (see 1 Corinthians 7:39; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18)? How then can a Christian be married to an unbeliever?
There is a great deal of difference between entering into a marriage with an unbeliever—and staying in a marriage where one’s mate is an unbeliever. Paul’s teaching elsewhere speaks to those who have not yet entered into an unequal yoke.82 Here, Paul speaks to those who are already married. The assumption is that there was not an unequal yoke at the time of the marriage, as both were unbelievers. Now, one has come to faith in Jesus Christ, and the result is that the marriage union is not the same. But the principle which should guide the believer who is married to an unbeliever while unsaved is three times repeated in the following verses:
Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And thus I direct in all the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17).
Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called (1 Corinthians 7:20).
Brethren, let each man remain with God in that condition in which he was called (1 Corinthians 7:24).
In contemporary terms, marriage is a pre-existing condition. Such conditions as those in which one is found at the time of conversion should be maintained as a believer.83
Paul gives pointed application to this principle in verses 12-16. In verses 12-14, Paul urges the believing marriage partner to do all he or she can to preserve the marriage. This is because the teaching of the ascetics is exactly opposite the truth. The believing partner and the children of this mixed marriage are not defiled by the presence of the unbeliever. To the contrary, the unbelieving partner and the children of the union are “sanctified” by the presence of the believing partner.
Just what does Paul mean by the term “sanctification”? This is a matter of considerable discussion. It is generally agreed that Paul is not teaching that the unsaved partner is somehow saved by the faith of the other. Some go to considerable lengths to find scriptural grounds for infant baptism,84 a most difficult feat. Paul seems to desire to communicate in general terms that there are spiritual benefits for the one who chooses to remain married to a believing partner, even though this person is unsaved.
The term “sanctify” is often used in a general way, not referring to salvation. In I Timothy 4:5, Paul teaches that foods once prohibited (and still forbidden by some) are “sanctified” by means of the Word of God and prayer (cf. also Acts 10:9-16). In the Old Testament, contact with the “holy” altar rendered the things which touched it holy: “For seven days you shall make atonement for the altar and consecrate it; then the altar shall be most holy, and whatever touches the altar shall be holy” (Exodus 29:37; cf. Leviticus 6:18). Those who came into close proximity with God’s people experienced God’s blessing: “And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3); So the LORD said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole place on their account” (Genesis 18:26). Because of Joseph, Potiphar and Pharaoh were blessed (Genesis 39:5, 47:13-26).
I take it then that the unbelieving husband or wife participates in what might be called the fringe benefits of the salvation of the believing mate.85 If the unbelieving partner were not “sanctified” by the marital union with the Christian, there would be serious consequences for the children resulting from the union. In Paul’s words, “Otherwise your children are unclean” (verse 14). Paul reasons that if marriage to an unbeliever in some way defiles the believing mate, it must also defile the children of that union. But since the unbeliever is blessed in the believer, so also are the children. Remaining married to an unbeliever has no negative connotations for the believing partner or the children, but there are distinct advantages for the unbeliever. There is, therefore, no good reason for the believer to seek to dissolve the marriage. All of this, however, is contingent on the desire of the unbeliever to remain married (cf. verses 12-13). What is the Christian partner to do if the unbeliever wishes to terminate the marriage? Verses 15 and 16 answer this question:
Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, 0 wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, 0 husband, whether you will save your wife? (1 Corinthians 7:15-16).
Paul makes no attempt to instruct the unbeliever; he only seeks to reassure the Christian whose mate wishes to dissolve the marriage. While the believer should not initiate a divorce, neither should the Christian aggressively attempt to resist it when initiated by the unbeliever. In circumstances where the unbeliever acquires a divorce, the believing partner is no longer under bondage (verse 15). Just what is meant by this is a matter of dispute. Certainly the believer who is divorced is no longer bound to the duties of marriage. So too the believer is no longer under obligation to maintain the marriage. I understand that Paul is saying, beyond this, that the believing partner is loosed from the marriage (especially in the case where the unbeliever remarries) and is morally free to remarry if so desired. If the unbeliever who has pursued the divorce has married another, there is no way the original husband or wife could remarry that one (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). If the unbeliever should wish to be rejoined to the believing partner, there is the question of whether or not that believer should now become unequally yoked to an unbeliever, and to have an unbeliever as the head of the home. I take it that Paul assumes the unbeliever has divorced in order to remarry, and under these conditions, the Christian is clearly free to remarry, “only in the Lord” (verse 39).
The reason the Christian should not “put up a fight” to resist the divorce seems to be twofold: First, the Christian “has been called in peace” (verse 15), and second, forceful efforts to save a mate by resisting divorce are likely to be unfruitful (verse 16). Paul does not say that the Christian is called to peace, as many versions suggest, but that we have been called in peace (the Greek-word is en, not eis). Those who say that we are called to peace may be overlooking the words of our Lord:
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it” (Matthew 10:34-39).
The gospel often creates adversity and animosity. If the world hated our Lord, it will also reject us (John 15:18-19).
Paul is calling our attention to the manner in which we were brought to the Lord. There is a sense in which our salvation was neither peaceful nor gentle. Paul’s conversion, for example, was not a peaceful experience. He was stopped dead in his tracks and dramatically turned about—converted (cf. Acts 9:1-19). Before we are saved, our spirits may be deeply troubled, convicted by the Spirit of God. Our lives may be in shambles and chaos. God aggressively draws us to Himself. Nevertheless, those instruments through whom the gospel is proclaimed are usually gentle. It is not by means of their forcefulness or pushiness that we are converted. This is especially true when it comes to the conversion of an unsaved mate:
In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. And let not your adornment be external only—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, and putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God (I Peter 3:1-4).
The meaning of Paul’s words comes to this: “If your unbelieving mate is willing to live with you, don’t you in any way attempt to terminate the marriage. There is benefit for all if he remains. But if he or she is determined to depart, don’t create a situation of strife and turmoil, for this kind of setting is not that which enhances your witness. Surely you don’t think that a fight over the divorce will save the lost, do you?” 86
This text teaches us that God takes marriage seriously, and so should we. It is, in part, because God ordained the institution of marriage, and He did so as a permanent union of a man and a woman, a union which no one should separate. We should not initiate separation or divorce because our Lord and His apostles thus commanded us.
There is another reason why marriage is so important. Marriage is a symbol of something much greater. If you remember the story in the Book of Numbers (15:32-36), a man was caught gathering wood for the fire on the Sabbath. The people inquired of Moses as to what they should do. I do not think it was because the Law was unclear, but rather because they may have thought the punishment for such an act was too severe. Moses instructed the Israelites to stone the man. Why was God so harsh as to require a man’s life for gathering wood? The Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. To break the Sabbath was a capital crime because it symbolized the breaking of the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai.
In the same way, marriage is a symbol.
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each individual among you also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see to it that she respect her husband (Ephesians 5:22-33).
How spiritual it seemed to the ascetics of Corinth to forsake their marriages and to live the life of a celibate. The only problem is that marriage is a divinely ordained institution, an institution God ordained at the beginning of creation, an institution whose true meaning and significance was not realized until after the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ (this is why Paul calls it a “mystery”). The way Christians conduct themselves in marriage is a picture to the world of the relationship of Christ and His church (those believers in Christ who make up His body, the church). For one to forsake his or her mate is to portray a false message of Christ’s faithfulness to His bride, and the faithfulness of the bride to Christ.
Some pride themselves for not obtaining a divorce, while looking down upon those who are divorced. Such pride is ill-founded. Let me indicate two reasons why this is so. First, divorce is not always the result of sin; it is sometimes the result of righteousness. Verses 14-16 speak of a divorce which is initiated by the unbelieving partner in a marriage. The implication is very clear that the reason the unbeliever is departing from the marriage is that the other partner is a believer. The unbeliever no longer wants to remain in the marriage because of the righteousness of the other partner. We dare not think or imply that wherever there is divorce there is sin on the part of both partners. Neither partner is ever free from sin; but there are divorces that are the result of righteousness, and not of sin, at least on the part of the believing partner.
Second, a marriage that merely exists, but which lacks the love, intimacy, and joy of a godly marriage, is an offense to the One who first instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden. Quite frankly, there are all too many marriages like this, both outside and inside the church. The marriage may be legally intact, but the relationship is virtually dead. Divorce is like a death certificate—it pronounces someone to be legally dead. A decree of divorce pronounces a marriage to be legally dead. There are a good many marriages around—even in the church—which are functionally dead, even though they have never been legally declared dead by a certificate of divorce. While divorce is often a sin, a sub-standard marriage is likewise a sin. Our Lord intended Christian marriage to reflect the love and intimate relationship which exists between Jesus Christ and His bride, the church (the body of all true believers). Texts like Ephesians 5:22-33 spell out the responsibilities of both the husband and the wife, so that the spiritual union of Christ and His bride may be displayed through the earthly relationship of a husband and his wife. When a marriage is dead or dying, it reflects badly on our Lord and His relationship with His church. This is a most serious offense. Let no one take pride for having avoided divorce who has likewise avoided striving in the power of the Spirit to manifest Christ in their marriage.
Don’t be so sure that your marriage is as healthy as you think. Many of those with whom I have dealt in this ugly matter of divorce have not had so much as a clue to the desperate condition of their marriage—until it was too late. How is your communication with your mate? Are you able to talk frequently and openly with your spouse about deeply personal matters? Or is your conversation just over routine things—what’s for dinner, who’s picking up the kids, and so on? Complacency and taking the other for granted is lethal to a marriage. Do not assume that your marriage is going as well as you would like to think.
Our text challenges those who are single. Many of those who are single are “unhappily unmarried.” They have not chosen to live their lives to the glory of God by remaining single; they are single because no one has made them a better offer (of marriage). Paul challenges every single person to be content in their single state. The single person should not see marriage as the key to happiness or fulfillment, just as the married person should not see the single life as the key to happiness. People who are content with their present state are those who have the greatest freedom to choose marriage or the single life, and who can be content with either, knowing that in either state, they can serve and glorify God. The one who is desperate to marry is in danger of jumping at anything, of grasping at any straw. The one who is content as a single will take a more careful look at the possibility of marriage, knowing it is not something which they must have to be happy and fulfilled.
The fact that marriage is a permanent commitment which is not meant to be broken should cause every person considering marriage to enter into that union as a life-long covenant. If, as our Lord’s disciples reason, it is better “not to marry,” then this is just one more cause for considering the bonds of marriage most carefully. And if divorce is not God’s “escape hatch” for unhappy marriages, and permanence is the standard, this should provide a strong incentive for every Christian to strive to make their marriage work, and if it is not working, to endeavor by God’s grace to mend and reconcile the relationship. Being married is something like owning a car: If you can’t replace it, then the only option is to maintain it.
There are undoubtedly those who may read this message who have already gone through divorce. You must know that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), and you should know as well that our Lord permits divorce in very restricted circumstances. Neither our Lord nor Paul ever encourage anyone to divorce. Having said this, it may be that your divorce was unbiblical. The good news is that God forgives sinners. He dealt graciously with a woman caught in the act of adultery:
3 And the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the midst, 4 they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” 6 And they were saying this, testing Him, in order that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And when they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst. 10 And straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 And she said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more” (John 8:3-11).
Paul has just reminded the Corinthians of their past, and that it is past:
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
For those who have sinned as unbelievers, the cross of Christ makes us new creatures, with a bright future and a forgiven past:
Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come (2 Corinthians 5:17).
If we are believers in Jesus Christ and have sinned as Christians, our sins may be forgiven, by simply repenting of them and confessing them to God:
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).
I must warn you that having heard Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7 makes you more accountable for your actions regarding marriage and divorce. The most dangerous sin of all for the Christian is the sin which is willfully committed, on the presumption that God is obligated to forgive us. The presumptuous sin is one which is committed with the presumption that God must forgive us for our sins, even the ones which we are about to do, knowing they are rebellion against God. This is the kind of sin I believe the writer to the Hebrews warns against:
4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. 7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned (Hebrews 6:4-8).
26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:26-31).
Let us then sum up what Paul has said to us in the verses we have considered: Those who are truly spiritual will give serious thought to whether or not they should marry. The crucial issue is not our happiness, but our holiness, and bringing glory to God by serving Him. Christian couples should not think of divorce as an option, as an “out” from an unhappy marriage. Each partner should be committed to the other, seeking to grow together in love and intimacy, thereby glorifying God through their marriage. Those who are married to an unbeliever should do everything they can to maintain the marriage, knowing that this union can be a blessing to the unbelieving mate and the children of that union. If the unbeliever insists upon leaving the marriage, we must not seek to preserve the union by force, knowing that it is God who saves, and that He does so in peace.
77 William Barclay, The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1958), p. 202.
78 The “burning” of which Paul speaks is most likely the burning of unfulfilled sexual passion. This is a picturesque way of describing the tremendous sexual frustration of a celibate Christian and the distraction from ministry this creates. In II Corinthians 11:29, Paul employs the same term, “to burn” (Greek, puroo), to express his intense concern over the spiritual welfare of another Christian who is led into sin.
Some think this burning in verse 9 refers to the penalty faced by those who try to remain celibate, but as a result fall into sexual sin. There may be evidence to support the fact that the Jews believed the flames of Gehenna were for the immoral. For example, Bruce cites from Jewish sources, “… where the wise men say, ‘Whosoever multiplies conversation with a woman…will in the end inherit Gehenna.’… Or elsewhere, where Rab says to R. Judah as they are walking along a road and see a woman walking ahead of them, ‘Hurry up and get in front of Gehenna’ (i.e. get in front of that woman so that, out of sight, she may also be out of mind).” F. F. Bruce, I and II Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980), p. 68. As interesting as it may be, this conception of “burning” does not appear to be what Paul is referring to in this passage.
79 Leon Morris, for example, says that Paul’s statement in verse 11 envisages the possibility of disobedience to this injunction (or perhaps of the action of the husband).” Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966), pp. 108-109.
80 The NIV and the NASV have rendered verse 11 as the grammatical construction would usually be taken. There are exceptions to this, however, and this seems to be the place for one of them. Why would Paul instruct a Christian couple not to divorce, fail to mention so much as one exception, and then give the impression that there is an alternative course of action for any who would choose to disobey his instruction?
81 Charles Ellicott, ed., St. Paul’s Epistles to the Corinthians (London: Cassell & Company, n.d.), I, p. 57. The translation and explanation which I favor can be found in Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), II, P. 523; The Twentieth Century New Testament (Moody Bible Institute), as cited in The New Testament from 26 Translations (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967); and W. Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974 [reprint]), II, p. 825. From fn. 2 above, it is evident that Morris also leaves room for this interpretation.
82 I do not understand the principle focus of Paul’s words here to be marriage, but rather to refer to unequal associations with unbelievers in doing the work of God.
83 There are qualifications and exceptions to this principle, but this is the guiding principle, and exceptions are just that—exceptions.
84 Cf. Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on First Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1977 [reprint]), pp. 34lff.
85 “But it is a scriptural principle that the blessings arising from fellowship with God are not confined to the immediate recipients, but extend to others.…” Morris, p. 110.
86 The Greek expression used in verse 16 is employed at times in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, in a way that suggests hope for a positive result, almost with the sense of “perhaps” (cf. 2 Samuel 12:22; Esther 4:14; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9). Because of this, some commentators think Paul is encouraging the saved mate to persevere, striving to save the marriage so as to save the lost partner. Bruce, for example, takes this position (p. 70). In the context of this verse, Paul is saying that one ought not resist the departure of the unbelieving mate, so the opposite sense is implied.
Today we begin a new year, the time when many reflect on the past, and purpose to do some things differently in the future. These changes are often referred to as “New Year’s resolutions.” One of the reasons we make resolutions is that in our nation, we have the freedom to make changes. Think of the many ways in which Americans have the option to change. We can change jobs, or churches, houses, or cars. Many Americans change their life’s mate by divorce and remarriage. Upward mobility gives those who are hard-working (and fortunate) the chance to change their social and economic status. Some people even choose to change sex!
Change is a vital part of American life. Why do millions of Texans (and those in other states as well) choose to buy lottery tickets? They hope to spend a very little amount of money and make a great deal of money by winning the lottery. The underlying reason people try to win the lottery is that becoming rich will enable them to change their way of life (which is not always for the better, as history has shown).
Much of politics is about change. It may not be accurate to make these distinctions between the two dominant parties—Republican and Democratic—but rather between political conservatives and political liberals. Liberals like to think of themselves as progressives, and therefore tend to be much more inclined to seek change. Conservatives think of themselves as those who “conserve” what is best, rather than moving from one experiment to another. Conservatives do not want change, but stability. If they want change, it is to return to values, policies, and structures which have been set aside by the liberals.
The current theological debate among evangelicals is over what is called the “lordship salvation issue.” Believe it or not, the debate is really over change. One side of the debate seeks to defend their understanding of grace (as opposed to “law” or “works”) by insisting that one can be truly saved, and yet not manifest outward changes of conversion. The other side, seeking to distinguish “living faith” (a faith that produces works) from “dead faith” (a faith without works—see James 2:14-26), insists that there must be some change in a person’s life if we are to be confident that genuine conversion has occurred.
Our text is about change—but not just any change. Paul is not resisting just any kind of change here. He is speaking of a preoccupation with changing one’s status. Paul cannot be opposed to all change, for conversion is a radical change.
Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come (2 Corinthians 5:17).
1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (Ephesians 2:1-3).
But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ (Ephesians 2:13).
For you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (Ephesians 5:8).
And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions (Colossians 2:13).
Salvation is a radical change, from darkness to light, from death to life, from being under condemnation to being justified. What starts at salvation continues through the process of sanctification:
5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. 6 For it is on account of these things that the wrath of God will come, 7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him (Colossians 3:5-10; see also Ephesians 4:17-24).
In this sense, the Christian should never be content with his or her spiritual status, but should always be pressing on to greater maturity:
10 That I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on in order that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; 16 however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained (Philippians 3:10-16; see also 2 Peter 1:2-11).
The change Paul speaks about is social in nature, rather than spiritual. At the beginning of this Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul calls the Corinthians’ attention to their humble state at the time of their calling:87
26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, 29 that no man should boast before God (1 Corinthians 1:26-29).
In spite of their humble beginnings, the Corinthians have become puffed up and arrogant. There are cliques and factions, and the Corinthians take pride in their leaders and in their superior wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:11-12; 3:3; 4:6-7). The Corinthians have even come to look down upon Paul. They look upon themselves as having arrived, and they disdain Paul because, to the world, he appears to be weak, foolish, and dishonored (4:8-13). They are no longer content to be “weak” or “foolish,” even though this was their condition when called. They are no longer willing to hold to apostolic doctrine alone as the truth, but are impressed with that which the world regards as wisdom. Is it any wonder that Paul finds it necessary to instruct these status-seekers to be content with their worldly status because change is irrelevant?
In the immediate context of chapter 7, Paul has been writing to the Corinthians concerning sex, marriage, and divorce. The ascetics in the church at Corinth seem to take pride in the fact that they disdain and avoid sex altogether. Their banner seems to be, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (verse 1). They apply this principle to those who are married. From this extreme, it is only a short distance to disdaining marriage altogether, so that some Christian couples are seriously considering divorce. And those involved in mixed marriages feel even more justified in abandoning their marriages. In verses 8-16, Paul instructs Christian couples to avoid divorce or separation, and he urges the Christian partner in a mixed marriage to do everything possible to preserve the marriage. The believing partner is not defiled in so doing, but is a blessing to the unbelieving mate and the children.
Paul’s words regarding change, recorded in verses 17-24, follow immediately. When Paul completes this paragraph, he immediately returns to the subject of marriage throughout the remainder of the chapter (verses 25-40). While it may initially appear that Paul’s teaching on change in verses 17-24 is some kind of digression, nothing could be further from the truth. The first word of verse 17, “only” connects the paragraph to something earlier, but in a way that contrasts with it.88 Paul is thus linking this paragraph with his previous instruction. Furthermore, it is not difficult to see how Paul’s teaching on change relates to what he has taught earlier in the chapter. Some of the Corinthians suppose that changing their relationships will make them more spiritual. Wouldn’t a Christian couple who abstains from sex altogether be more spiritual than a couple who enjoys a sexual relationship? Wouldn’t one who forsook marriage for the higher calling of serving God be more spiritual than one who remains fettered by marriage? Paul’s answer is an emphatic “No!” The spiritual Christian is the one who maintains the marital commitments in which he or she was found at the time of their salvation.
The structure and emphasis of our text are very clear, as evident in the arrangement below:
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And thus I direct in all the churches. |
|
18 Was any man called already circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. |
|
20 Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called. |
|
21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. |
|
24 Brethren, let each man remain with God in that condition in which he was called. |
Three times Paul repeats the principle that Christians are to remain in the condition in which they were found at the time of their salvation, with only slight variations. Interspersed are two specific illustrations of the principle. The first is that of circumcision; the second is that of slavery. Let us consider this principle and its implications for twentieth century Christians.
17 Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And thus I direct in all the churches. 18 Was any man called already circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.
Paul’s words are a command, one he says is universal and taught by him in every church. Christians are to remain in that condition in which they were called. This most certainly does not mean that a converted bank robber continues in a life of crime, nor that a converted prostitute persists in her trade. You may remember that our Lord told the adulterous woman, “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11). But Paul is saying to those who have become status conscious not to fix their attention or their energies on an upward change of status.
Paul emphatically states that God has sovereignly assigned each believer with a station in life, and it is from this station that they are to serve Him. Our “place” in this world is not a matter of chance, or simply the result of racial or economic or social bias (though these may well be factors). Our place in this world has been assigned to us by none other than our Lord. We know that place because it is the station in life we held at the time of our calling to faith. And this “calling” is to service, as well as to salvation.89 This calling is to serve God where we are. When our Lord delivered the demoniac from his bondage, this man pled with Him to accompany Him when He departed. Our Lord denied this request, instructing him to, “Go home to your people and report to them what great things the Lord has done for you, and how He had mercy on you” (Mark 5:19).
As a general rule, we have been called at a certain point in time, within a particular culture, and with a particular social station in life. It is in this setting that we are to begin to live out our faith and to fulfill our calling. That is precisely what Paul did. Throughout his life (as described in the Book of Acts), Paul continued to bear testimony to Christ and to his own conversion, not only to Gentiles, but to Jews, in particular to radical Jews who opposed the gospel, Jews just like Paul himself once was.
How amazing and assuring it is to realize that God has prepared us before our conversion to be, and to do, what He has purposed for us after our conversion. All of the events and factors which shaped us as unbelievers are a part of the divine plan, a part of our calling. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson was for many years the chairman of the New Testament (Greek) Department of Dallas Theological Seminary. He chose to major in Greek when he was an unbeliever in college. He did so because this subject best freed up his schedule to pursue golfing. God orchestrates the shaping events and elements in our lives before we are saved, to equip us to minister when we are saved. Knowing this, we ought not attempt to bury all that we were at the time of our conversion, but rather to build on it.
Paul illustrates his point by turning to the issue of circumcision. Circumcision is a status symbol for the Jews. One is highly regarded or disdained (by Jews) simply on the basis of whether one has been circumcised. On the other hand, there have always been Gentiles who are biased against those who are Jews. Circumcision is no status symbol (nor was the Star of David) in Germany when Hitler ruled. Consequently, while there may be a pro-Jewish faction in Corinth,90 there is likely an anti-Jewish faction as well. Those who seek the approval of this group will not want circumcision. But if they are already circumcised, they might be tempted to try to remove the evidences of circumcision. In fact, some actually underwent a surgical procedure to attempt to mask their earlier circumcision.91
Paul counters the inclination to change one’s status by undergoing or concealing circumcision. It simply does not matter. Some of the Corinthians have come to measure spirituality in terms of circumcision, whether by its presence or its absence. Paul teaches us that spirituality has nothing to do with circumcision. Circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, instituted during the life of Abraham (Genesis 17:1-14), and it was also required by the Law of Moses (Exodus 4:26; Leviticus 12:3). It was required of those Gentiles who wanted to enter into the religion of Israel (Exodus 12:44, 48). Circumcision was a symbol of what should and must take place in the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16). God promised to circumcise the hearts of His people, so that they would love His Law and obey it from the heart (Deuteronomy 30:6). The New Testament makes it clear that circumcision as a rite has been superseded by the reality which it symbolized:
9 For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. 16 Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God (Colossians 2:9-19).
Circumcision is of no value because that which it foreshadows has come through Christ. It may have some value for those of Jewish descent, who minister to Jews (Acts 16:1-3), but it is prohibited for any who seek to be circumcised by this “work” to their faith, or to place themselves under the Law of Moses, or to avoid persecution from the Jews (Galatians 2:1-3; 5:1-12; 6:11-16). Thus Paul can say of circumcision, “For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Galatians 6:15). To seek to change one’s status by means of circumcision or uncircumcision is simply a waste of time and effort. Stay the way you were when you were saved!
The Jews understand circumcision to be a sign of one’s commitment to the Law of Moses. This is why the Jews are so adamant about circumcising the Gentiles (see Acts 15:1-2). Once again, Paul shows that the symbol of physical circumcision is of no real significance; but what is significant is the reality to which it points: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God” (verse 19, emphasis mine). This is entirely consistent with Paul’s teaching elsewhere. In Romans, for example, Paul stresses that it is not circumcision per se which matters, but obedience to God’s commandments:92
25 For indeed circumcision is of value, if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And will not he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh (Romans 2:25-28; see also Galatians 6:12-13).
The danger is that we may find ourselves more committed to the outward symbol than to the inner reality. This kind of externalism leads to an undue concern with outward appearances, and to a false set of standards regarding spirituality. Our Lord attacked this kind of externalism: “And He said to them, ‘You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God’” (Luke 16:15; see also Matthew 6:1-18). The symbol of circumcision is of no great matter; the substance of circumcision is. Therefore, the one who was circumcised when saved should stay circumcised, and the one uncircumcised when saved should stay uncircumcised. Both the circumcised and the uncircumcised believer should value that which circumcision symbolizes.
20 Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, let each man remain with God in that condition in which he was called (1 Corinthians 7:20-24).
The principle which underlies verses 17-24 is repeated by Paul in verse 20, in its simplest form: “Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called.” Paul then seeks to illustrate this in relationship to the institution of slavery. Circumcision has to do with spiritual or religious status (or, in the minds of some, ethnic or racial status); slavery has to do with social status. In no earthly society of which I am aware are slavery or servanthood places of status. Our Lord overturned the relationship of status and service. He became a servant to save us, and because of this, God elevated Him to a position of even higher status (Philippians 2:5-11). Our Lord did not view menial service too demeaning for Him to perform (John 13). In fact, our Lord spoke of Himself as the One who would serve His followers in the kingdom of God (Luke 12:37).
Like the previously mentioned circumcision, slavery is an outward, earthly condition which is irrelevant to one’s spiritual standing before God. If one was called while a slave, this should not be a matter of great concern, consuming one’s mental and physical energies. On the other hand, it is possible for some to obtain their freedom. If this is the case, then one should take advantage of this opportunity. Freedom from slavery affords additional opportunities for ministry.
I am reminded of Joseph, who due to circumstances largely beyond his control, became a slave in the land of Egypt. During his years as a slave, we find Joseph effectively serving his masters and His God. So far as the biblical record is concerned, the only time Joseph made any effort to bring about his freedom was when he spoke to the butler, asking him to remember him in his incarceration (Genesis 40:14-15). We also know that this attempt did not produce Joseph’s freedom, either from jail or from slavery. Indeed, Joseph remained a slave of Pharaoh to the day of his death. Had winning his freedom been Joseph’s preoccupation, he would have had little time or energy to minister to others as he did.
If the secular world and falsely spiritual saints view slavery only from an external perspective, Paul gives a completely different perspective in verses 22 and 23. The first thing Paul wants the Corinthians to understand is that slavery or freedom have nothing to do with one’s status before God. The one who is called by Christ while a slave is, in reality, the Lord’s freedman. The ultimate slavery is our slavery to Satan, sin, and death. Salvation sets us free (Luke 4:18; John 8:31-36; Romans 6:20-23). In Christ, both the freedman and the slave have been freed from sin and death, and thus they are equal. This is precisely Paul’s point in Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Many people distort Paul’s teaching in this verse. He is not saying that all earthly distinctions have been eliminated in Christ. There are still distinctions between slaves and free men, between male and female, even between Jew and Greek. But, in Christ, all these different categories of men and women are one in terms of their standing before God. All men are one in their sin and condemnation; all who have trusted in Christ are one in their standing before God, clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Because of this, Paul can tell slaves and free men that they are equal in the sight of God, and that changing their status regarding slavery will not change their spiritual standing before God.
But Paul does not stop here, having shown that believing slaves and believing free men are all equal in God’s sight, freed from sin and its consequences. He goes on, speaking to slaves and free men, showing that in reality both are “slaves.” If both are free in Christ, they are also both slaves to Christ. As the Israelites whom God freed from their Egyptian slavery became God’s slaves, so both slaves and free men, saved by the blood of Christ, and freed from the power of sin and death, are slaves of Jesus Christ. This is nothing to be ashamed of; it is something of which to boast. No wonder the apostles often spoke of themselves and others as bondslaves of Christ (Romans 1:1; Galatians 1:10; Colossians 1:7; 4:7; 2 Peter 1:1).
When all is said and done, and all the externals are stripped away, there are no class distinctions in Christ. Because of this, a Christian slave need not be obsessed with gaining his or her freedom. There is no corresponding command for free men, instructing them not to agonize over being free, or informing them that they can become slaves without sinning. Who would want to become a slave? But a command is given that those who have been emancipated in Christ should not return to enslavement to men. Paul does not speak of becoming a slave in the literal sense here. He is speaking about becoming men’s slaves in a different way. His words are explained in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians:
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. 10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ (Galatians 1:6-10).
As I understand the situation in both the region of Galatia and in the city of Corinth, the Galatians are further down the path toward heresy and apostasy than the Corinthians. Both the Galatians and the Corinthians are accused of listening to false teachers who seek to proclaim another gospel (Galatians 1:6-10; 2 Corinthians 11:4, 12-15). Both groups seem to have a problem with division and strife (Galatians 5:13-21; 1 Corinthians 1:10-12; 3:4; 4:6-13). Both groups seem to be very sensitive to the approval or disapproval of men (Galatians 1:10; 6:12; 1 Corinthians 1-3).
Jesus taught us that “no man can serve two masters” (Matthew 6:24). Paul is saying essentially the same thing. Those concerned with winning men’s approval are those who will seek to improve their worldly status, by circumcision or uncircumcision (depending on the group whose favor they seek), or by striving to extricate themselves from the stigma of slavery. But in seeking man’s approval, they must abandon seeking to please God, for the two are incompatible. By seeking to win man’s approval, the Corinthians are enslaving themselves to the values of an unbelieving world (or a carnal church).
The Corinthians, like all saints, are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. As such, they were bought at the price of the precious blood of the Savior (see 1 Peter 1:17-21). They were redeemed from slavery, so how can they return to bondage? If the approval of God is our goal, and not the esteem of men, then matters like circumcision and slavery will not consume us. We will simply seek to serve God wherever He has placed us.
Yet one more thing should be said about this statement in verse 23, found earlier in chapter 6, verse 20. The word “price” only partially conveys the idea inherent in the original text. This same term is employed by Paul in 1 Timothy 5:17 “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” The term “honor” in 1 Timothy 5 is also inadequate in and of itself. “Honor” refers not just to respect, but to money, as most commentators point out. Honor is shown to the elder who rules well by paying him well. In our text, the price paid is indicative not only of the value (and thus honor) which is due or Lord, but which comes to those who have trusted in Him for salvation. I believe that in a subtle way, Paul is saying something like: “Why would you possibly seek the honor and esteem of men, by conforming to their values, when God has bestowed the greatest honor on us by saving us with His precious blood?”
Faith in Christ brings many changes. Some are immediate, and others are progressive. But there are also changes which should not be sought; in particular, Christians should not seek to change things which do not matter, just to win the approval of men. We must recognize that God has ordained the condition we were in at the time we were called to faith. It is in this setting that we should seek to serve Him, and to bear witness to His grace.
But what if God’s will is for us to change our circumstances? First, we should look upon this as the exception, and not as the rule. Secondly, rather than spending much fruitless energy agonizing about such changes, we should simply trust God to bring about those changes, or make it obvious that such change (on our part) is His will. I am reminded of the teaching of our Lord on this subject of “upward mobility”:
7 And He began speaking a parable to the invited guests when He noticed how they had been picking out the places of honor at the table; saying to them, 8 “When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, lest someone more distinguished than you may have been invited by him, 9 and he who invited you both shall come and say to you, ‘Give place to this man,’ and then in disgrace you proceed to occupy the last place. 10 “But when you are invited, go and recline at the last place, so that when the one who has invited you comes, he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher’; then you will have honor in the sight of all who are at the table with you. 11 “For everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, and he who humbles himself shall be exalted” (Luke 14:7-11).
If God chooses to elevate us, He most certainly can and will bring it to pass. We do not need to seek our own advancement. We should leave this to God. And we should understand that in the divine economy, “moving up” (in the world’s terms) is not necessarily advancing. The way “up” in God’s economy is “down.”
What Paul is seeking to teach us in our text may be summed up in one word, which is not found in our text, but which permeates its teaching—contentment:
And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, “And what about us, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages” (Luke 3:14).
Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Corinthians 12:10).
Not that I speak from want; for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am (Philippians 4:11).
3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. 6 But godliness actually is a means of great gain, when accompanied by contentment. 7 For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it either. 8 And if we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. 9 But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang (1 Timothy 6:5-10).
Let your character be free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself has said, “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5).
Contentment is the confidence and quiet peace which enables the Christian to accept our lot in life and to serve God in our circumstances, knowing He is the One who appointed them—for His glory and for our good.
It is here that the “good life gospeleers” lead many saints astray. They do not teach or encourage men to accept their circumstances and to joyfully serve God in them. They assure men that God does not want any of His children to experience pain or sorrow or the lack of anything we desire. They tell us that if we but have sufficient faith and employ the right techniques, God is obliged to give us what we want, and to remove us from difficulty and adversity. They are wrong, dead wrong. The things which they promise here and now are most often things God has promised us then and there, in His kingdom. In the light of the weight of the glory which is to be revealed, the trials and tribulations of this life seem inconsequential:
16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. 17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:16-18).
Some of us are trying to change things in our lives which God does not want changed. The changes God desires in our lives are not so much in our circumstances, but in our character. If we are “walking in the light” as we should be, then we will continually be in His Word, and we will see sins that need repenting of and commands that require our obedience. Let us not seek to change what God has arranged. Let us change that which God has condemned (sin), putting off the deeds of the old nature, and putting on the deeds of the new.
For those of us who are waiting for things to change before we serve God, Paul’s words instruct us to get going now. Are you waiting for a less demanding job, a schedule that is more open, a bigger house or paycheck? Recognize that God has called you where you are, and He has also purposed for you to serve Him where you are. Let us not wait for things to change before we are obedient to our calling.
Some of us devote a great deal of energy seeking to change others. I simply challenge you to consider whether we are trying to change things which God has called us to change. As I understand the Scriptures, there are a whole lot more sins in this world that we are to expose by godly living than we are to change by political action or other external pressure. Let us be very careful to consider what we are to change.
I am once again impressed that Paul’s teaching is always rooted in the truths of the gospel. The gospel is not a truth used to enter the faith, and then set aside. The gospel is the standard for our conduct. The gospel is the basis and the means for all that we do (see Colossians 2:6). How can Paul tell an uncircumcised Christian that circumcision isn’t important, nor is uncircumcision? It is because salvation is the process by which spiritual circumcision occurs. Salvation is the substance of which circumcision was merely the shadow (see Colossians 2:8-11). Paul can likewise tell the slave that while the outward social status of being a slave may not be changed, it is not that important since both slave and master are equal in Christ. Both are free from the bondage of sin and death; both are slaves of Jesus Christ. It is the gospel which equalizes believers, so that none is better than any other in their spiritual standing with God. All men are equal in falling short of the glory of God and in falling under the sentence of death and divine condemnation. All Christians are equal in that their standing with God is the righteousness of Christ. A failure to grasp or to appropriate the gospel leads to the problems before us. The gospel is the answer to each and every problem Paul addresses in our text.
If you are reading this message, and you have not yet trusted in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and for the gift of eternal life, then the gospel is the solution to your problem. Repenting of your sins and turning to faith in Jesus Christ is the most important change you will ever make. It is the one change which every human being on the face of the earth must make in order to dwell in God’s heaven. God often brings trials and adversity into men’s lives to bring them to the place where they are willing to change, to the point where they are willing to forsake their sinful life, and to embrace God’s only means of salvation. Is your life one of chaos and confusion? Are you weary of the burden of your sins? Do you fear death and facing a righteous God? Then the gospel is the good news of a change which will determine your eternal destiny. The gospel is the good news that our sins are forgiven by Jesus Christ, who died in the sinner’s place and who offers His righteousness and eternal life. All you need to do is to acknowledge your sin, and your need of forgiveness, and to trust in what Jesus Christ has done in your place, and you will be saved. Here is the one change you most desperately need to make. I urge you to do so today.
87 In this sense, Paul’s words are not that different from those of Moses, centuries before, who reminded the Israelites of their humble beginnings (see Deuteronomy 7:7-8; 8:11-14; 26:1-11).
88 “This sentence is tied to what precedes by the excepting conjunction ‘nevertheless,’ which itself refers back to the exception in v. 15ab.” Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), p. 309.
89 This is evident in the conversion of Saul, where he is informed of his calling as a witness to the grace of God, to both Jews and Gentiles, including kings (see Acts 9:15-16; 22:12-21; 26:14-18).
90 As there most certainly was. See 2 Corinthians 11:22-23.
91 “The Jews, of course, insisted upon circumcision, and during the Maccabean struggle the performance of the rite had assumed a paramount place. The uncircumcised were, for them, outside the covenant of God. They were cut off from the blessings God had for His people. In a sense circumcision could be said to be everything. For many of the Gentiles, on the other hand, circumcision was something to be looked down on. It was the mark of the religion of a despised people. For them it was a sign of emancipation when, as sometimes happened, a Jewish youth, by undergoing a surgical operation (e.g. I Macc. i. 15), tried to efface the marks of his circumcision in order to take his place in the wider world of Hellenistic culture.” Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1966), pp. 112-113.
92 There is a world of difference between the commitment to obey God’s commandments (some of which are in the Law of Moses), and placing oneself under the Law of Moses as a means for obtaining righteousness and salvation. Paul applauds the former and condemns the latter. Some dispensationalists obscure the difference.
25 Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. 26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. |
||
27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you should marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin should marry, she has not sinned. |
||
Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. |
||
so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; |
||
for the form of this world is passing away. |
||
One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. |
||
35 And this I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is seemly, and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord. |
Distractions can be devastating. A mother who is driving her children to school turns her attention for just a moment to arbitrate a squabble between her children or to fasten a child’s seat belt, and fails to heed a stop sign. A businessman driving to the airport takes his eyes off the road for just a moment to dial a number on his mobile phone or to change the tape in his stereo, and fails to observe a stalled car directly in his path. Following alcohol and drugs, I would guess that distractions are one of the major contributors to automobile accidents.
Some of us are more susceptible to distraction than others, but all of us are easily diverted from our mental focus. For example, you and I would both be distressed to know how many times in this sermon your attention will drift from our text and what I am saying to something else, like the football game which starts half way through this sermon, or the dinner warming in the oven, or the guests coming this afternoon, or the ministry group meeting tonight. We are constantly forced to refocus our minds, which drift so easily.
In our text, Paul seeks to help his readers minimize the distractions which so easily focus our hearts and minds on earthly things, rather than on things eternal. Specifically, Paul wants each of his readers to view their marital status and ambitions in the light of eternity. In the context of 1 Corinthians 7, Paul has been responding to the Corinthians’ questions about marriage and spirituality. It seems apparent that there are some ascetics in the church who teach that sex is dirty and should be abstained from, even in marriage. The inference, whether stated (as in 1 Timothy 4:3) or implied, is that marriage is a less than spiritual institution. Consequently, Paul advises those who are single to stay that way, if they have the self-control to do so (verses 8-0). To those already married who might be thinking about terminating their union, Paul says, in effect: “Don’t even think about it.” Those marriages in which both partners are believers are not to give marriage or separation a thought. If someone has already separated or divorced their believing mate, they are to either remain single or to be reconciled and reunited with their spouse (verses 10-11). To those married to an unbeliever, they should not initiate a separation or divorce, because their presence in that marriage is a benefit to both their mate and any children born of that union (verses 12-14). If the unbelieving mate opts to end the marriage, the believer should not seek to force the unbeliever to change his or her mind, since salvation does not come about by force, but in peace (verses 15-16).
Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.
In verses 25-40, Paul gives his advice and the practical applications of the principle he has set down three times in verses 17-24. But before he does so, he clearly identifies his words in verses 25-40 as his counsel, and not as his command. We tend to think of Paul as an aggressive, “take charge” kind of man. We might think that his every word is a “thus saith the Lord,” which we dare not disobey. Paul does give commands, which he expects us to obey, but when he does so, he makes it clear that this is the case (1 Corinthians 7:10). When his words are an expression of his personal convictions and preferences, he indicates this as well (7:6-7, 25). Paul gives this counsel in verses 25-40 in response to the questions posed to him by the Corinthians (7:1). His “advice” has therefore been solicited.
While Paul indicates that he is giving his advice, he also encourages his readers to take that advice seriously. While setting aside Paul’s advice is not a sin (verses 26-28), one will do well to take Paul’s counsel seriously. Paul indicates that while his advice may not be applied the same way by all, it should be regarded as reliable counsel. He tells us that his counsel is “trustworthy” (verse 25).93 His counsel is not Paul’s personal opinion, given independently of divine enablement, but is the fruit of divine mercy which was given to him. This man, who may never have been married, can give wise counsel on the subject because of God’s mercy shown to him. Let no one therefore take his words lightly.
Sometimes, I must confess that I (along with other preachers and teachers of the Bible) am guilty of passing off my convictions and preferences as though they were co-signed by God. When one reads or expounds the Scriptures, one speaks with Scriptural authority. When one speaks his opinion, that is another matter. Here, Paul is being straightforward about the fact that he is giving advice and not laying down a command. If the Corinthians choose to do other than what Paul recommends, they are not sinning (7:28). If Paul is clear to tell us when he is not giving us a command, surely we dare not attempt to pass off our ideas, preferences, or prejudices as though they are a word from God.
26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you should marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin should marry, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.
One of the difficulties in dealing with this passage is determining what Paul means by certain terms and expressions. For example, what does Paul mean by the expression, “the present distress,” in verse 26? In verse 29, what does he mean by the statement, “the time has been shortened”? I have chosen to understand the introductory statement of each paragraph as being parallel to his concluding statement in the same paragraph. I have attempted to convey this understanding by the arrangement of the passage at the beginning of this message.
By taking the approach of seeing Paul’s introductory statement as meaning virtually the same thing as his concluding statement, I find I am able to understand what Paul means. The “present distress” of verse 26 is further explained and defined by the expression, “trouble in this life,” in verse 28. The statement, “the time has been shortened,” in verse 29 is explained by the later expression, “the form of this world is passing away” (verse 31). And finally, “to be free from concern” (verse 32) is to “secure undistracted devotion to the Lord” (verse 35).
Paul takes up the phrase, “it is good,” employing it twice in verse 26 to introduce the matter at hand. You will recall that this chapter begins with the statement, “Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.” The ascetics in the church at Corinth think they have an endorsement from Paul concerning their distorted view of spirituality. Paul starts with a statement which seems to agree with them. There is some common ground, but not that much. As Paul’s argument in chapter 7 unfolds, he repeats the expression, “it is good,” to show that his understanding of goodness differs greatly from the ascetics. The two-fold “it is good” of verse 26 puts the reader on notice that Paul is further clarifying his initial statement in verse 1, and thus he is correcting the teaching of the ascetics. To them, it is good for married partners to abstain from sex in marriage, and even to forsake their marriages. Paul will say in verse 27 that “it is good” for married couples to stay that way. Paul does not defend the ascetics in our text, but demonstrates their error.
Paul’s advice in verses 26-28 is predicated on the fact that there is some kind of present distress. The nature of this “distress” is understood differently by Bible students. I am inclined not to take the expression in a narrow fashion (that is, some particular situation in Corinth as Paul writes, which passes), but rather in a more general sense. I take it that Paul is referring to “trouble in this life” as he states in verse 28.
While we have no indication of a particular problem in Corinth at the time of this epistle, we do have a great deal of revelation on the matter of a general distress which all Christians should expect to experience by virtue of their identification with Christ:
18 “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19 “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).
21 And after they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, 22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:21-22).
And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (2 Timothy 3:12; see also Romans 8:18-25; 1 Corinthians 4:11; Galatians 1:4; 1 Peter 4:12-14).
I understand Paul to be saying that while unbelievers have always resisted and rejected the prophets, the coming of Christ has intensified men’s opposition toward God, and specifically toward those who love and serve Him. This distress or trouble is life-long. One who is a follower of Christ should expect and endure it. But when one marries and has children, the distress is even greater because now it is not just we who suffer, but our family as well. Paul wishes us to limit our exposure to those pressures which might tempt us to back off from a bold profession of the gospel. Thus, one who is single should seriously consider staying that way.
Can you imagine Paul being married with children and seeking to carry on the ministry we see described in the Book of Acts? Those who can expect opposition and persecution should consider staying single. I cannot imagine a single Christian seeking marriage and a family if the description of Paul’s circumstances is what he or she might expect as well:
11 To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; 12 and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; 13 when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now (1 Corinthians 4:11-13).
Verses 27 and 28 speak not only to the single saint, encouraging him or her to remain single, but Paul also addresses the married believer, advising that one not seek to be loosed. Once one is married (with or without children), it is too late to reduce one’s exposure by seeking to terminate the marriage or to abandon one’s family. Paul does not here emphasize his words to those already married; he is emphasizing his counsel to those who are single and eligible to marry. This is because Paul has spoken with greater authority in prohibiting the Christian from pursuing divorce or separation (verses 10-16).
Christians can be assured of facing trouble in this life. Marriage and a family only multiplies the troubles one may expect; thus those who are single should consider the option of remaining just as they are. If they choose to marry, they have not sinned, but they have increased their troubles in this life. Mark Twain once said something like this: “It’s easier to stay out than to get out.” Paul does not even give us a way out of marriage, but he does say that while “getting out” is not an option, “staying out” is. Paul’s opponents, the ascetics, forbid marriage (1 Timothy 4:3); Paul simply encourages the saints to seriously consider the single life as a lifestyle, for the glory of God and the advancement of the gospel.
29 But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; 30 and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; 31 and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.
The Super Bowl will soon be upon us, and I know many will be watching the playoffs when they get home. Football fanatics know all too well what the “two-minute offense” is. It is the offensive strategy employed when time is short. When a football team is behind in the final two minutes of the game, this is no time for running the ball. This is a time for sideline passes and for running out of bounds to stop the clock. In this paragraph, Paul urges his readers to live out their lives like they were in a “two-minute offense.” The time is short, and every decision we make should be made in the light of the shortness of time and the urgency of our task.
The basis for Paul’s exhortations here is the “shortness of the time.” The NASB translates it, “the time has been shortened” (verse 29), and then further clarifies in verse 31, “the form of this world is passing away.” How has “the time… been shortened”? It is possible that Paul simply means to say, “the time is short,” which is the way the NIV translates the expression. It is also possible, however, that Paul means to say that the first coming of our Lord has somehow brought matters to a head, to a conclusion, so that we now are assured that the end is near. If not, then we are at least informed once again that the end is near:
11 And this do, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. 12 The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light (Romans 13:11-12).
11 Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come (1 Corinthians 10:11).
26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Hebrews 9:26).
17 And the world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God abides forever. 18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour (1 John 2:17-18).
3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near (Revelation 1:3).
One of the great dangers which confronts the Christian is losing sight of the shortness of the time:
“But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk” (Luke 12:45).
3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:3-4).
We must live in the light of the nearness of the return of our Lord, of the inauguration of His kingdom, and thus of the end of this present age.
In verses 29b-31a, Paul spells out several specific areas in which to apply our belief in the shortness of the time.
The first area of application is that of marriage: “so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none.” This is not an instruction for men to neglect their wives! Paul is not speaking so much about what husbands are to give to their wives as about what they are to expect from them. We must understand and apply Paul’s words here in relation to what he has written in Ephesians 5. Husbands are to care for their wives as Christ cares for His church. We are thus to nourish and cherish them, not neglect them. This is why Paul advises those who are single to stay that way, because if each fulfills their role, they will sacrificially care for the other. The demands of this sacrificial care are set aside only by staying out of marriage, not by neglecting the wife in marriage, or by ending the marriage.
Yet another dimension to Paul’s teaching seems primary in this text which places so much emphasis on this present age which is so brief as opposed to the coming age. We are to value all things in terms of how long they last and on how much benefit they provide. We should be willing to forego temporal things of limited benefit, if by doing so we gain eternal things of infinite value. Marriage is temporal, not eternal:
29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. 30 “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:29-30).
Nothing earthly should take precedence over that which is eternal. Human relationship, while important, should never take priority over our devotion to God:
26 “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:26).
Here is a truth which is not very popular and which is hardly ever mentioned in evangelical churches, because “family” has been elevated to a place where it conflicts with our devotion to God. Let us take the words of our Lord and of the Apostle Paul most seriously. Family must not be “first” in the life of the Christian, even if it is first in many churches. Paul wants us to walk the narrow line of keeping marriage and family in its proper place. We must not look down upon it, forbidding or forsaking marriage as the ascetics do. Neither should we elevate marriage and family above its proper place, as a gift of God for this life only.
The second area of application is to sorrow and suffering: “and those who weep, as though they did not weep.” Our hedonistic age places too much value on pleasure, and therefore does everything possible to avoid pain. The psychological talk shows have more than their share of tear-filled voices, telling of their woes, and of warm, compassionate therapists telling the sufferer that they can “feel their pain.” The problem with pain is that some masochists love it and seek to bring it upon themselves, as though it were a virtue to suffer needlessly. Then there are the hedonists, who will do anything to “stop the pain,” including suicide. Eternity gives us a very different view of earthly pain.
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matthew 5:4).
And He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away” (Revelation 21:4).
Earthly sorrows will be put aside in heaven; thus when God calls upon us to suffer for the sake of His name, we should rejoice in it, knowing that it is insignificant in comparison to the heavenly glory which is to be ours:
16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. 17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:16-18).
The third area of application Paul cites is that of pleasure: “and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice.” The ascetics seem to disdain all pleasure as sinful; the hedonists of Corinth see no sin in perverse pleasures. Once again, Paul seeks to strike a happy medium. He does not instruct the Corinthians to avoid everything which causes one to rejoice or to take pleasure in it. He simply warns them that earthly pleasures fall far short of eternal rejoicing. The pleasures of the wicked are short-lived, and they lead them headlong to destruction (see Psalm 73:1-20; Proverbs 6:6-27; Luke 6:25). The legitimate pleasures of this life should be enjoyed and received gratefully from the hand of a loving and gracious God, and they should be employed to the glory of God (1 Timothy 4:4-5; 6:17-19). As John Piper recently emphasized in his writings, finding pleasure in this life is not wrong; what is wrong is finding pleasure apart from God. All earthly pleasures, other than those focused toward God, are but the “passing pleasures of sin” (Hebrews 11:25). We are to recognize earthly pleasures as short-lived and not find them the essence of this life or the next. When we do rejoice, let it be in those things which are worthy of our rejoicing:
“Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven” (Luke 10:20).
Fourth, Paul applies the shortness of the time to materialism: “and those who buy, as though they did not possess.” The truth of the matter is that we do not really possess anything in the first place. When God brought the nation Israel into the land of Canaan, He made it clear that this was His land, not their land. He informed them that the Canaanites had been evicted from the land because of their sin and warned that they too would be evicted if they did not live according to His commandments (Leviticus 25:23; Deuteronomy 4:23-31; 9:4-6). Especially in the New Testament, Christians are taught that they are stewards of the possessions God has placed in their care. Jesus challenges His disciples to sell their possessions and give to the poor (Luke 12:33). He tells the story of the rich fool, who sought to save all of his possessions (Luke 12:16-21). He teaches His disciples to lay up treasures in heaven and not on earth (Matthew 6:19-20). Paul tells Timothy to remind the rich that their abundance comes from God, and that they are to be “rich in good deeds,” being “generous and ready to share” (1 Timothy 6:17-19). Jesus warns about greed when He says,
“Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions” (Luke 12:15).
The things we now possess will either be used up, worn out, or stolen here (Matthew 6:19), or they will be burned up at the end of the age (2 Peter 3:10-12). We had better not think of anything we purchase as our permanent possession. The “time is short” (verse 29), and the “form of this world is passing away” (verse 31), so we had better not put too much stock in “things. “
Finally, in verse 31 Paul seems to sum up the whole matter of our attitude toward this world and our relationship to it.
And those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away.
Paul’s use of the term “use” seems to imply two things. First, it implies that the things of this world are not ours, but God’s, and that we are only stewards, entrusted with them:
11 “If therefore you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous mammon, who will entrust the true riches to you? 12 “And if you have not been faithful in the use of that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own? (Luke 16:11-12).
Second, the term “use” here seems to have the sense of “take advantage of,” or use to one’s own personal advantage. Third, the term “use” requires a choice to be made, either to “use” the thing in question, or not to use it. Fourth, the term “use” here implies a temporary use, a use that has a limited life. A battery may be used for a time, and then its usefulness ends. Paul wants us to think of “using” the things of this world as a temporary use, a use that will end. The way we “use” what the world offers to us determines what we will have “laid up in heaven.”
From time to time, someone will call and say something like: “Bob, we have two tickets to the Dallas Cowboys football game this afternoon; do you think you could use them?” The use of these tickets is offered to me. They were not mine, but I can make use of them if I choose to do so. Making use of them may not make a better man of me, or further the gospel, but doing so could be a lot of fun. The Christian lives in this life, knowing that he or she is simply preparing for the next. While were are here in this world, we seek to “lay up treasure in heaven” (Matthew 6:19-21). We know that God “richly supplies us with all things to enjoy” (1 Timothy 6:17). We also know that while some things the world offers to us are lawful, all of these are not profitable (1 Corinthians 6:12). Some may hinder the gospel or the spiritual walk of a fellow-believer. Some may be detrimental to our walk. This means that we should not make use of everything which the world offers to let us use. We should use this world thoughtfully and selectively.
The unbeliever’s outlook is vastly different. It is summed up by the beer commercial: “You only go around once, so grab all the gusto you can get.” Christians know they “go around” in this life only for a short time, and that we “go around” the next life for all eternity. Because everything this world offers to us does not contribute to the kingdom of God, we choose not to grab all the gusto we can get. We choose not to fully use all the world offers. This is the reason Paul later informs the Corinthians of those rights and liberties he has chosen not to use:
12 If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:12).
15 But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things that it may be done so in my case; for it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one (1 Corinthians 9:15).
18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:18, emphasis mine).
Peter agrees, when he writes:
Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God (1 Peter 2:16).
We should not seek to go through our life in this world “grabbing all the gusto” we can lay our hands on. We are free to make use of those things which are lawful, but our higher calling challenges us to set aside temporary pleasures and to strive for those things which last. We should therefore not seek to “use” everything this life offers to us, but to “use” those things which promote the gospel and the growth of the saints, including ourselves.
The writer to the Hebrews said of Moses,
24 By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; 25 choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin; 26 considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward (Hebrews 11:24-26).
Not all of the pleasures we are to pass up are sinful pleasures. Paul calls on us to give up some of the legitimate, lawful pleasures of this life for the sake of the kingdom of God. His final words underscore the fact that these liberties are “passing pleasures;” they are a part of the “form of this world which is passing away” (1 Corinthians 7:31).
Our Lord underscored that the things of this life often “pass away” in this life:
19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 “But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21 for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matthew 6:19-21).
Peter goes even further, reminding us that those things which may endure through this life will suddenly come to their end at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:10-13).
God’s Word does not pass away (Matthew 24:35), and neither do people (see Luke 16:9; 1 Thessalonians 2:19). We should gladly give up the use of those things which are temporal and which do not benefit us in eternity, so that we may carry out our task and calling in this world.
And the world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God abides forever (1 John 2:17).
32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is seemly, and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.
In the previous verses, Paul called upon the Corinthian Christians to consider marriage in light of the shortness of the time and in view of the fact that the “form of this world is passing away.” Marriage, after all, is not an eternal institution, but one divinely provided for men and women in this age, rather than in the age to come (see Matthew 22:30). Marriage is a right, a liberty, which can be either exercised or set aside. Paul has just challenged the Corinthians to consider the possibility of remaining single, not because this makes one more spiritual than others, but because it may enhance their service in these shortened days.
Now in verses 32-35, Paul continues to advocate staying single, but from the standpoint of one’s devotion to God. In verse 33, Paul introduces this segment with an expression of his desire to help the Corinthians be “free from concern” (verse 32a). In verse 35, Paul ends the segment by indicating that his intention has been to help them “secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.” Staying single is one way that some Christians can reduce distractions from their devotion to the Lord.
Jesus put the matter this way, speaking of distracting concerns about material things: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24). Paul is saying the same thing, using marriage as the distraction. The one who is unmarried, Paul tells us, is concerned about the things of the Lord, about how he can please the Lord. The one who is married has a kind of “conflict of interest.” The man who is married is obligated to please his wife. This is not wrong, for the Christian husband pictures the love and care of Christ for His church as he cares for his wife (see Ephesians 5:22-33). The Christian woman who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, about being holy in body and in spirit, while the woman who marries now has the obligation to please her husband.
Remaining single provides an opportunity for the Christian to serve the Lord unreservedly, without the conflicting obligation of attending to the needs of one’s spouse. But staying single does not automatically produce this result, as the ascetics may teach or imply. I see a lot of Christian singles in the church today, and very, very few of them are devoting themselves to serving God and others. I fear that most of those who remain single are not in this condition out of commitment to comply with Paul’s advice in our text. Those who are single by choice may well be in that condition for the wrong reasons. It may be that a person is single out of fear, fear that marriage may not work. Statistics seem to underscore such fears. It may be that a person has remained single to avoid the commitment of marriage. It may be that one stays single for sinful and immoral reasons, even practicing their immorality with other singles in the church. Some have remained single because they are too selfish to give themselves to another. Staying single is not automatically the spiritual thing to do, but it most certainly can be an opportunity to devote oneself to the Lord.
Several years ago I conducted a wedding service, and I used verses 32-35 as the text of my message. It may seem strange to you—it certainly did to those at the ceremony. In truth, this text not only encourages someone who is single to seriously consider staying single, it also is a text which can greatly benefit those who marry. Remember that Paul has a lot to say in this chapter about staying in that condition in life in which we were called. Those who feel they have to change their circumstances to be happy, or to be spiritual, really do not understand what the Christian life is all about. I believe those most happily married are those who did not feel they had to marry to be happy. Those who feel that life is not what it ought to be unless they are married expect too much of marriage, and will consequently never be as content in marriage as they could be. Just as those who give up their lives are the ones who gain it, and those who lead do so by serving, those who are happily married could be happy unmarried. This is because their primary goal in life is not to be happy, but to be holy, whether this means staying single or getting married.
36 But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she should be of full age, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better (NASB).
36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better (NIV).
You will note from these two translations that biblical scholars interpret Paul’s words in verses 36-38 in two distinct ways. The problem we face is how to understand Paul’s words “his virgin.” The NASB translators understand Paul to be referring to a father’s virgin daughter, while the translators of the NIV believe Paul is speaking to a young man who is engaged to be married to a virgin. In the East, often the parents choose the marriage partner for their child, and so one can mentally picture a father reading what Paul has written and responding, “Paul, what should I as a father of a young woman do? Should I heed your words by refusing to let my daughter marry? What if she is already engaged?” The young Christian Corinthian man who has already become engaged before Paul’s letter arrives might ask, “Should I go ahead and get married, or should I break my commitment to marry?”
In either case, Paul’s response is essentially the same as his teaching to those who have not committed themselves to another for marriage: “If you are able to take the heat for standing firm in your convictions not to marry your daughter to another, then do so; if not, do not agonize about it. It is not a matter of sin, but simply a matter of “good” and “better.” The same answer is applied to the young man who is engaged to marry a young woman: “If you conclude that marriage is the proper course for your life, then don’t agonize over this, do it; you have not sinned in so doing. If, on the other hand, you are able to gracefully reverse your decision, and you have the will power to do so, then release yourself from this commitment and remain single. The one who marries does well; the one who does not marry does even better.”
39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.
Paul has almost completely covered the territory. He has spoken to those who are married, whether in a mixed marriage (one partner is a believer, the other is not), or those equally yoked. These are to stay married, and not even to think about divorce. They are not to deprive each other sexually, which would only tempt them to sin. Those who are unmarried should consider the spiritual benefits of remaining single. Those who are engaged (or who are planning their daughter’s marriage) should feel free not to proceed with marriage, but they should not feel guilty about marriage either. Now Paul turns to the only category which is left—widows (as distinguished from virgins).
Those who are married should consider themselves bound to that partner until death separates them. If a woman’s husband dies, she is then free to marry because the union is broken by death. The only condition placed on this widow is that she marry another believer. Nevertheless, Paul encourages such a widow to give due thought to remaining single, for the same reasons he has outlined above. These words of advice are an expression of Paul’s opinion, but failing to heed them is not sin. It is not just Paul’s opinion, he suggests, but counsel which he believes comes from the Spirit of God. It is, we might say, inspired advice.
Chapter 7 is a kind of self-contained unit. In this chapter, Paul shows the relationship of one’s spirituality to sex, celibacy, marriage and the single life. Paul deals with this subject in stark contrast to the ascetics of Corinth. I believe they set down rules for all to keep on this matter of sex and marriage. To them, one could hardly be spiritual if they enjoyed sex, even though in the confines of matrimony. Their hard and fast rules, without exceptions, are very different from Paul’s counsel. On some matters, there is no room for concession or compromise. Those who are married are to stay married. Those who are married are not to abstain from sex in that marriage, except for unusual and very limited circumstances. But when it comes to whether one should marry, Paul all of a sudden turns from laying down rules to giving advice. He does not demand that the Corinthians take his advice, and even tells them that they do not sin by acting contrary to his counsel. Rather than attempt to add weight to his every word, Paul indicates when he is speaking with full apostolic authority and when he is giving his opinion. Paul is not nearly as dogmatic and authoritarian as some in the Corinthian church (see 2 Corinthians 11:19-21).
This text reminds us of the freedoms we enjoy in the Christian life, and that we should not always look to the Bible or to others in authority to inform us of the content of God’s will. Some Christians want everything in black and white. They want nice simple rules, with all of the decisions of life about the will of God nicely summed up for them. In effect, they do not want to believe that they have the freedom to choose between acceptable alternatives. They want God to map out their life so that they do not have to make agonizing decisions. This text reminds us that many of life’s decisions are our responsibility. Paul gives advice. He tries to help us in thinking about the issues involved. But in the final analysis, Paul calls on us to decide what we will do. It is my opinion that when we decide between two morally acceptable alternatives, God is not as concerned with which we choose, as He is with why we choose as we do.
Paul’s teaching here makes it clear that what we do in this life must be determined in the light of eternity. Our choices should not be made on the basis of what “feels good,” or on what makes me “happy,” but on what pleases God and furthers His kingdom.
At the beginning of chapter 7, Paul seems to agree with the ascetics. In a sense, he does agree, for he goes on to extol the virtues of remaining single. But his reasons for doing so are so very different from those of the ascetics. The ascetics judge one’s spirituality by outward, external appearances. Paul calls for Christians to consider remaining single, so that we might serve God more devotedly and without distraction. Our decision about whether we should marry should not be made solely on the basis of what we are free to do, but on the basis of what course of action best enables us to serve God. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the time is short, and the days are evil. Let us make those choices which best advance the gospel and which enable us to serve God wholeheartedly.
93 The Greek word which the NASB here renders “trustworthy” is used by Paul a number of times. In the pastoral continued … epistles, it is used of sayings which are “faithful” or “reliable” (see 1 Timothy 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Timothy 2:11; Titus 3:8).
Years ago, there was a television program which gave contestants the chance to identify an object. The hitch was that these objects were not seen from a normal perspective, but from a microscopic or very close up view. It could be a sponge or a flower or something else, but because it was so close up, it was very difficult to identify. I had great difficulty “seeing” our text for the same reason: I was looking at it too closely. To understand 1 Corinthians 8, we need to back off and seek to understand Paul’s teaching here from a broader perspective. Several observations, made from a distance, should contribute greatly to our understanding of this text:
(1) Meat offered to idols is specifically prohibited for Gentile saints, which must certainly include the saints at Corinth.
28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: 29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell” (Acts 15:28-29).
20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 “What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 “Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses in order that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. 25 “But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication” (Acts 21:20-25).
Some Jews wanted to impose many rules and regulations on the Gentile converts, but the Jerusalem council determined that only four requirements would be made. One of these was a prohibition against eating meat offered to idols.94 Eating meat offered to idols is not a Christian liberty.
(2) While Paul initially appears to grant the premise that eating meat offered to idols is a matter of liberty in chapter 8, this same permissiveness is not found at the end of Paul’s argument on the subject.
14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? 19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we? (1 Corinthians 10:14-22).
(3) Paul’s approach to correcting error in 1 Corinthians is to grant his opponents some slack at the beginning of his argument, only to show they are wrong by the time he concludes. This is a most significant point and is the key to understanding much of this epistle. In chapter 7, verse 1, Paul appears to agree with the ascetics, who think that sex is wrong: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” The ascetics seem to have taken this as a global principle, so that Christians were abstaining from sex in marriage, were seeking to abandon their existing marriages, and were instructing those who were single that they could not marry (see 1 Timothy 4:3). As Paul’s argument in chapter 7 develops, he commands married partners not to cease sexual relationships for any extended period of time, he instructs married couples not to leave their marriage partners, and he makes it clear that eligible singles are not sinning if they choose to marry.
In 1 Corinthians 11-14, Paul deals with spirituality, spiritual gifts, and the roles of men and women in the church. Some leap on the fact that Paul mentions women praying and prophesying as a possibility, as though this proves that he condones such practice. What they ignore is that this reference to women praying or prophesying with an uncovered head is found at the beginning of Paul’s argument, and not at the conclusion. By the time Paul reaches the end of chapter 14, we know those who possess certain gifts, or who are prominent in their public participation in the meeting of the church, may not be so spiritual. We find that the most verbal and visible gifts are not of the greatest value, but the unseen gifts. Women are not given permission to lead and to assume visible and verbal ministries in the church meeting, but are to remain silent.
What Paul allows to stand initially in his argument, he may eventually prove to be wrong. This is the case in 1 Corinthians 8-10. In chapter 8, he allows those Corinthians who view themselves as being more spiritual than others to retain this false notion momentarily. But by the end of chapter 10, those who think they have the liberty to eat meat offered to idols are shown up for what they are. The “weaker brethren” of chapter 8 seem to be the “stronger brethren” in chapter 10. Those supposedly “weaker brethren” who refrained from eating meat offered to idols were not only in compliance with the decree of the Jerusalem Council, but with the teaching of Paul.
The background of our text may be summarized in this way. The question of eating meat offered to idols is not new, but a question which was raised shortly after Gentiles began to come to faith in Christ. The apostles and early church leaders at Jerusalem considered the matter and concluded that Gentile Christians should not eat meat offered to idols, along with avoiding blood, things strangled, and fornication. A group of Corinthian Christians, thinking themselves to be wiser than the apostles, developed a reasoned argument that meats offered to idols could be eaten. They even went so far as to look down on those who refrained from eating idol-meat. These meat-eaters seem to have taken pride in their superior knowledge and spirituality. Paul has some things to say to these stronger brethren. Using their own premises, Paul will show that they have fallen short of true spirituality.
It is this broader perspective of chapter 8 which resolves some of the apparent problems in its interpretation and application, and which makes sense of Paul’s teaching. This text may seriously reverse or revise some of our “convictions” and cause us to look at our liberties in a different light.
1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. 2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; 3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.
Paul sets the stage for his teaching on meats offered to idols in verses 1-3. In these three verses, addressed to those who prided themselves for their higher knowledge and who indulged themselves in the name of liberty, Paul lays down four foundational truths which they need to grasp. If these truths were understood and applied, the error of these libertines would be recognized as such and abandoned.
(1) Christian knowledge is common knowledge, available to all. There was an ancient heresy known as gnosticism which plagued the early church. Gnostics prided themselves in possessing knowledge not known by all. This secret knowledge was not found in Scripture, but outside of biblical revelation, and it was handed down orally to those “in the know.” Paul denies that there is any such knowledge outside of the Scriptures and known by the spiritually elite. He writes, “Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge” (1 Corinthians 8:1a). Knowledge is not restricted to the few but is available to all.
In the Book of Proverbs, error and deceptive knowledge is personified by “Madam Folly.” This woman is symbolized by the prostitute, who appeals not to the head but to the hormones; she appeals to fleshly pride and sensual desires. Her appeal is secret and sneaky. She lurks in the dark alleys, and she whispers her offer of illicit knowledge (Proverbs 7:6-27). Truth and wisdom is personified in Proverbs by a gracious and intelligent woman, Dame Wisdom. She publicly proclaims truth to all who will hear and learn, speaking openly in broad daylight and in the most public place (see Proverbs 8:1-21). True knowledge is offered to all, while false wisdom is secretly and seductively presented to the naive.
(2) Even true knowledge, which is wrongly interpreted or applied, can puff up the pride of the knower, while genuine love places others ahead of self and seeks to build them up.95 The “knowledge” which these “stronger” Corinthian brethren possessed was producing the wrong effect. True love is not puffed up with pride, and it does not serve self-interest (1 Corinthians 13:4-5). Knowledge is not opposed to love, but is to be closely associated with it, as we can see in the Scriptures:
And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing (1 Corinthians 13:2).
But just as you abound in everything, in faith and utterance and knowledge and in all earnestness and in the love we inspired in you, see that you abound in this gracious work also (2 Corinthians 8:7).
And to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fulness of God (Ephesians 3:19).
But speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ (Ephesians 4:15).
And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment (Philippians 1:9).
That their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself (Colossians 2:2).
But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith (1 Timothy 1:5).
But you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance (2 Timothy 3:10).
Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart (1 Peter 1:22).
The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth (2 John 1:1).
Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love (2 John 1:3).
(3) Those who suppose themselves to fully know only reveal their true ignorance (verse 2). Our knowledge in this life is partial, and even that which has been revealed by God is never perfectly grasped (see 1 Corinthians 13:8-13). Those who speak arrogantly of what they know are ignorant and self-deceived, often deceiving others as well (Romans 1:28-32; 2:17-23; Galatians 1:8; Colossians 2:18; 1 Timothy 1:7; 2 Peter 2:17-19). In 1 Corinthians, Paul does not hesitate to tell us when he is speaking the command of the Lord (7:10; 14:37), and neither does he fail to tell us when he is speaking his personal opinions or convictions (7:6, 25, 40). Over-confidence is often an indication of ignorance, while humility is the outgrowth of knowledge.
(4) Christians are not to boast in knowing, but to rejoice in being known by God, and this is the result of loving God (verse 3). When Jesus sent His disciples out to proclaim the coming of the kingdom of God, they returned, rejoicing over the mighty works God had accomplished through them. Jesus gently corrected them saying, “… do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven” (Luke 10:20). Here, Paul tells Christians that they should not rejoice in knowing, but in being known by God. Salvation surpasses any sheepskin (diploma) we will ever obtain. Moreover, the way that we are known by God is not because of our knowledge, but because of the love which God has produced within us for Himself. Once again, love takes priority over knowledge. What a humbling truth Paul has put before these all-knowing, stronger saints. If knowledge was the most important thing of all, and if they knew more than others, than they were the spiritual elite. But they have sought to excel in a category which is subordinate to love.
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 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 are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
It comes as no surprise to hear that false teaching leads to various kinds of evil. But it is also possible to pervert the truth:
1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (Romans 6:1-2).
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (Jude 1:4).
Even Satan sought to use the truth in such a way as to tempt our Lord to do what was evil (Matthew 4:1-11).
In verses 4-6, Paul supplies us with the doctrine—true doctrine—which the “stronger” Corinthians twisted in order to justify eating meat offered to idols. The doctrine which all Christians “know” is that there is but one God. This is one of the foundation stones of the Christian faith. It is emphatically laid down in the early chapters of the Book of Deuteronomy:
6 “‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 7 ‘You shall have no other gods before Me. 8 ‘You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 9 ‘You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 10 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments’” (Deuteronomy 5:6-10).
4 “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! 5 “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 “And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; 7 and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. 8 “And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 9 “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:4-9).
There is but one God. He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things. He is the One from whom all things come, and for whom all things exist (1 Corinthians 8:6). While there is but one God, He exists in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Here, Paul speaks only of Father and Son as the one true God, but it is clear that while he distinguishes Father and Son, he also considers them as One. The Father is the One from whom all things have come; the Son is the One through whom all things are, and through whom we exist (verse 6). Contrary to the objections of the Jewish religious leaders of our Lord’s day, the deity of our Lord was not a contradiction to the existence and worship of God as the only God.
From this foundational truth concerning God, a truth universally accepted by all Christians, the Corinthians sought to build an argument which rationalized the eating of meats offered to idols, even though this was forbidden by the Jerusalem Council. Heaping inference upon inference, these “wise” and “spiritual” saints justify their self-indulgence. Paul traces their reasoning from the truth of God’s exclusive existence as God to the error of eating meats offered to idols.
If there is but one God (and all Christians know this to be true), then there are no other “gods.” Idols are symbols or representations of these “no-gods.” These “no-gods” exist only in the minds of their heathen worshippers, and not in reality. Thus, since there are no other gods than God, idols really have no meaning or significance—they represent nothing. Idols are something like confederate money—they have nothing to back them up, so they are worthless. If idols are nothing, then the foods offered to them are of no significance either. Meats offered to gods which don’t exist are thereby assumed to have no negative or profane contamination by their use in false worship. If this is so, as some of the Corinthians have reasoned, then meats offered to idols are certainly free of moral contamination, and thus can be eaten without moral qualms. Those who fail to think on this high level are obviously weaker Christians, whose scruples are not to be taken into account. And if these “weaker Christians” follow the example of their “stronger brethren,” then they are so much the better for having done so, even though their consciences are pricked by eating this meat.
Jeremiah said it well: “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9). Through twisted logic and compounded inferences, some Corinthians have turned the truth of God into a lie. They have made orthodox doctrine the basis for their sin. In verses 7-13, Paul will show these “stronger” brethren that they have become puffed up with knowledge, but they have failed to show love for their brothers.
Before we move on to these verses, let us pause for one moment to look back on the truth on which these Corinthians based their practice of eating idol-meat. The truth that there is but one God is emphatically taught in Deuteronomy 6 and 8. But God never intended that men should perform the “great divorce” … separating truth from love. The Corinthians error was based upon a lack of knowledge, not an abundance of knowledge. The Corinthians lacked love, but this love was linked to knowledge and doctrinal teaching. Look once more at what God commanded the Israelites:
4 “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! 5 “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 “And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; 7 and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. 8 “And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 9 “And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:4-9).
The truth that God is One, that He is God alone, was taught to the Israelites. It was truth which they desperately needed to know and to practice by shunning every form of idolatrous worship and practice. The truths which God taught the Israelites through Moses were to be on their hearts. In the Bible, the “heart” is not just the seat of the emotions (the “bowels” are more closely identified with emotions), it includes the mind and the will of the individual. The Israelites were not only to know of God’s exclusive existence, they were to love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). In their love for God, they were to teach their children to do likewise (Deuteronomy 6:4-9). Love and knowledge were not to be divorced; they were to be interwoven. No one knew and taught this more than the Apostle Paul: “But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5). The “great divorce” which these Corinthians had brought about by their teaching and practice was the separation of love and knowledge. Paul has shown how their “knowledge” has been twisted to excuse and even encourage sin; now he will show them how their “love” is lacking as well.
7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9 But take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 12 And thus, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, that I might not cause my brother to stumble (1 Corinthians 8:7-13).
If the “knowledge” of some Corinthians was defective, so was their love. Having dealt with their “knowledge” in verses 4-6, Paul moves on to show the deficiency of their love in verses 7-13. It may be that these Corinthians prided themselves on their love, as well as their knowledge. Somehow, they were puffed up with pride over the fact that they continued to embrace and support a member who was living in an incestual relationship (chapter 5). Paul will show that their love no more meets God’s standards than does their knowledge.
The Corinthians were using their (defective) knowledge to the detriment of one who appeared to be a weaker brother. Paul will show them that one who loved his brother would surrender any right which would be detrimental to the weaker brother. For the time being, Paul allows some false assumptions to stand unchallenged. He allows the idol-meat eater to think he is more spiritual, and that the one who has scruples over eating such meat is the “weaker brother.” Paul argues, using the theology and assumptions of the allegedly “stronger brother.”
While some saints with superior knowledge seem to have the right to eat idol-meat, there are others who have not come to this same knowledge. How, then, does the one with “knowledge” respond to the one without it? Specifically, what does a man do about eating idol-meat when a “weaker brother” believes it is wrong to eat such meat? This weaker brother cannot so easily disassociate the idol-meat from the idol, or from the heathen worship associated with it, due to his past involvement in such worship. If this brother with his “weaker conscience” were to eat such meat, he would do so without faith, and thus he would sin.
Paul now makes a very important point in verse 8. Meat is really a matter of indifference. Contrary to the thinking of the “stronger brother,” eating such meat doesn’t make him more spiritual. Conversely, if one were not to eat such idol-meat, it would not in any way diminish his standing before God. It is a sort of “Heads, I win; tails, you lose” proposition. I don’t gain anything by eating idol-meat, nor do I lose anything by refusing it. Anyone who makes a big deal of idol-meat has failed to grasp this fact. The writer to the Hebrews has something similar to say on this matter: “Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were thus occupied were not benefited” (Hebrews 13:9).
While neither eating meat nor abstaining from it changes my spiritual status, what I do with this meat can have a great impact on my brother. If something is a true liberty, I can partake of it in good conscience, just as I can abstain from it in good conscience, for I am not doing what I believe to be wrong. But a truly weaker brother does not have the same liberty. He does not see eating this meat as a liberty, but as a sin. If he views me as the stronger brother, then what I do is an example for him to follow. If I am more spiritual by eating idol-meat, then my weaker brother assumes he will be more spiritual for following my example. But since his conscience is not clear with respect to idol-meat, eating of it will be a sin for him.
When I insist on exercising my liberty, in spite of the fact that others do not have this liberty, I am encouraging my “weaker brother” to sin. In verse 10, Paul employs a very well-known term, which is translated “strengthened” in the NASB (“emboldened,” KJV, NIV, Berkeley; “encouraging,” J. B. Phillips). The word is seldom used in this negative sense by Paul, but is most often positively used with the meaning “edified” or “built up.” Eating idol-meat is reverse edification. It builds up or strengthens others, encouraging them to sin. True love, Paul has just said in verse 1 “edifies” (the same root word). Eating idol meat so as to encourage a weaker brother to sin is not walking in love! It is, instead, putting a stumbling block in his path (verse 9).
In verses 11 and 12, Paul shows that eating idol-meat is not only a sin against a brother, it is a sin against our Lord. Here is how Paul’s argument plays out in these verses. Christ died for sinners, to save them from their sin and to sanctify them. Christ’s work on the cross of Calvary was to set men free from their sin, and to present them holy and blameless to the Father. Christ’s work on the sinner’s behalf was for their edification, for their spiritual birth, growth, and maturity. When a thoughtless, self-serving saint insists on eating idol-meat, he knows that his “weaker brother” will be encouraged to follow his example. But in so doing, the weaker brother is not edified; he is caused to stumble. Insisting on my right to eat idol meat may cause a fellow saint to stumble, falling into sin, and in causing this, I find myself working at cross purposes with Christ. I am therefore not only sinning against my weaker brother, I am sinning against my Lord. This is a most serious offense indeed.
In verse 13, Paul sets down a principle which establishes the relationship of love to knowledge and Christian liberties. No liberty should ever be exercised when it acts contrary to love. No liberty of mine should be a spiritual detriment or hindrance to my brother in Christ. If I love my brother, I will gladly forego any liberty which will cause my brother to stumble. If eating meat (any meat, not just meats offered to idols) would cause a weaker brother to stumble, then I should gladly be willing never to eat meat again. No right should be exercised which is contrary to love, and love always seeks to edify.
I would like to suggest that we take a good, long look at these two categories of the “stronger” brother and the “weaker” brother. As I understand chapters 8-10 and Romans 14-15, the stronger brother is the one whose grasp of the Scriptures may free him from unnecessary prohibitions. The stronger brother is quite often the one who understands his Christian liberties. But if the “stronger” brother is to be a spiritual saint, he must also be willing to set aside those liberties. To exercise one’s liberties at the expense of a weaker brother is certainly not spiritual.
The stronger brother is also the one who recognizes those things which are contrary to God’s Word. In the case of meats offered to idols, the stronger brother must be the one who knows they are forbidden, and who therefore abstains from eating them. The “weaker brother” would be the one who concluded that eating idol-meats was a Christian liberty, in spite of the decree of the Jerusalem Council. From Paul’s final words on this issue in chapter 10, I think we must conclude that the more spiritual brother is the one who abstains from idol-meats, grasping its evil associations.
All too often today, the “weaker brother” is defined as the one who does not grasp his Christian liberties. While alcoholism and drunkenness are surely wrong, drinking a glass of wine is not forbidden. When a “tee totaler” saint insists that another Christian must not drink even a glass of wine, he should also be willing to accept the label of the “weaker brother.” The one who insists you cannot exercise a liberty is the one who is weak and poorly informed. The one who insists that another must refrain from a matter of liberty because that liberty is offensive has missed the point of the Scriptures. You may find smoking offensive, but you are not a “weaker brother” unless you are so weak that you will follow the example of the one who lights up. Most of those who insist that others refrain from alcohol or tobacco (because partaking of them is sin) are not those who are truly weak, and who will violate their consciences by following the example of the one who partakes.
For those matters which are liberties, the one who is truly spiritual will be willing to forego them if exercising his liberty is at the expense of another. The knowledge which informs us of a liberty must be subject to the love which puts the interests of our brother before our own.
I think it is safe to say that many, if not most of us, are of the intellectual Christian stripe, while there are many others who are the “loving Christian” type. We know that our Lord does not want knowledge without love (see Revelation 2:1-7). We know as well that He does not want us to love apart from knowledge (Philippians 1:9; 1 Timothy 1:5). Let us seek to “know God” and to “love Him.” Let us not divorce love and truth. Both are essential, and each contributes to the other.
What Paul has written here in chapter 8 should in no way be misinterpreted to mean that he is opposed to theology. His Epistle to the Romans is a theological masterpiece, surveying the doctrine of salvation. Paul warns us about those who teach false doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3; 4:1; 6:3) and encourages us to be nourished with sound doctrine (1 Timothy 4:6). Jude spoke of our obligation to “contend earnestly for the faith, which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Peter warned us of those who distort the teachings of Paul (2 Peter 3:16). Our Lord warned of those who would teach the precepts of men as though they were divinely revealed doctrine (Matthew 15:9). We are expected to be students of theology and to be precise in the doctrines which we hold.
Having emphasized the importance of theology and sound doctrine, we must also recognize our limitations in this area. Our theology can only go as far as God’s revelation. We know there are many things which God has not revealed (Deuteronomy 29:29; Acts 1:6-7; 1 Corinthians 13:9, 12), and we must be careful not to “fill in the blanks” which God has purposely left open. All too often, we spend more time trying to supply the missing pieces, rather than concentrating upon what God has revealed. False revelation frequently majors on God’s silence in Scripture. Students of Bible prophecy often try to lay out the scheme of the end times when God has deliberately been vague, sometimes by failing to tell us things we would like to know and at other times telling us future events in terms too symbolic to understand.
We need to be very careful not to trust our own logic and reason, as opposed to God’s clear commandments. Those who hold to infant baptism, for example, reach their conclusions totally by way of analogy and inference. They conclude that parents should baptize their infant children, although there is not one New Testament command to do so, and not one clear example of it being practiced by the early church. While I appreciate much of the teaching and insights offered by those who hold to a reformed or covenant theology, I am greatly troubled that none of their foundational covenants are specifically named as such in the Bible, and that the covenants which are identified (the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New covenants) are not given proper emphasis. Inferences and human logic should never take precedence over divine decrees and commandments. Some of the Corinthian saints were able to set aside the decree of the Jerusalem Council and eat meat offered to idols, based upon their reasoning by heaping inference upon inference, starting with divine truth and ending in disobedience. Paul instructs us to subordinate our reasoning (often puffed up and distorted by our pride) to divine commands: “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).
There are two vastly different kinds of reasoning—one we should avoid like the plague, and the other we should practice and perfect. The first kind of reasoning is the reasoning of unbelief leading to disobedience. The second is the reasoning of faith unto obedience. Eve practiced the former; Abraham the latter.
God instructed Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, warning them that to do so would result in death. Satan questioned Eve in such a way as to cast a doubt on God’s character and on His command. She was forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He was to trust God and to obey Him by giving up an illicit means to knowledge. As she looked at this one forbidden tree, she came to look upon it as desirable, and thus she ate of it. Eve trusted in her own reasoning, and she consequently disobeyed God.
Abraham reasoned unto obedience. Abraham knew that God had promised this son in his and Sarah’s old age, when they were “as good as dead,” so far as bearing children was concerned. Nevertheless, he knew that God was the Creator, the One who called what did not exist into existence. He contemplated his own body and that of his wife Sarah, dead as they both were so far as bearing children, and chose to believe God’s promise, in spite of what he saw (Romans 4:16-22). Late in his life, Abraham was commanded by God to offer up his son Isaac as a sacrifice. Abraham once again contemplated the situation in the light of who God was. He knew that when he and Sarah were as good as dead with regard to bearing children, God gave them a son anyway. Their son was born as from the dead. And so, when God commanded him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham knew this son was the means to fulfill God’s promises. He also knew that God was able to bring life to (or through) the dead, and so he reasoned from his walk with God, and from the Word of God, that God was able to raise even the dead (Hebrews 11:19). Abraham reasoned by faith unto obedience. This is the kind of reasoning God wants of us. He does not want Christians to stop thinking; He wants Christians to think biblically, to think with a renewed mind, so as to have sound judgment, and thus to obey God’s commands (see Romans 12:1-3f.). We Christians do not think too much; we think too little, and when we do think, we often think humanly, unto unbelief and disobedience. Let us think more, with a renewed mind, and according to God’s Word, unto obedience to His commands.
94 There is discussion in the commentaries as to what the Greek term, rendered “meat offered to idols” means, but it is important to note that precisely the same Greek term Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 8:1 is what Luke employs in Acts 15:29. Whatever some Corinthians considered their liberty, the apostles and church leaders forbade.
95 That is Paul’s point here, it seems, but in Philippians 1:9, Paul indicates that love must be informed lest it degenerate to mindless sentimentalism.
Years ago, I found it necessary to deal with the Social Security office in Austin. When I phoned to describe my situation and to seek an answer as to what I should do, the woman who took my call began trying to find a category in which to place me. Certain options were open to those classified as “ministers,” and this was the category about which I was inquiring. Immediately, the woman asked if I was an “ordained minister.” When I told her “No,” she was obviously troubled. I believe she then asked if I was the “pastor” of the church where I served. Again, I had to say “No,” to which she responded, “When you get to be a real minister, call me back.”
The Corinthians have the same problem with the classification of an “apostle.” The Corinthians could well say to Paul, “When you get to be a real apostle, contact us again.” Some of the Corinthians have several problems with Paul’s apostleship. The first is Paul’s message. Paul’s message is simplistic (Christ crucified), and it is one that does not find general acceptance. Second, Paul’s methods are unappealing. He does not (indeed, he will not) use the persuasive techniques of some, which many find appealing. His speech is far from eloquent, and this is by choice. Finally, Paul does not charge for his services. They think that no one worth their salt would teach and preach for nothing, because after all, you get what you pay for!
Paul’s apostleship is under fire, but this is not Paul’s primary reason for writing 1 Corinthians 9. This ninth chapter of Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians is the centerpiece of three chapters devoted to the question they raise about eating meat offered to idols (see 8:1). In reality, there is really nothing to inquire about concerning this matter, because the Jerusalem Council has decreed that meats offered to idols are forbidden for the Gentile saints (see Acts 15:28-29; 21:25). Paul chooses not to mention this, but to temporarily grant the premise of some that meat offered to idols is permissible for the “strong” Christian. Even if the knowledge of the “stronger brother” freed him to eat idol-meat, love should constrain him to avoid it for the sake of his “weaker” brother. Since foods do not determine one’s standing before God, eating this meat does not make one the better for it, nor does abstaining from eating it hinder one’s walk with God. The Christian who walks in love will abstain from any liberty which hinders another believer.
Now, in chapter 9, Paul presses further this option of refraining from one’s rights by illustrating it from his own life and ministry. He first sets out to prove, without a doubt, that he is an apostle and that as such, he has the right to eat and drink at the expense of those to whom him ministers. Having done so, he then explains why he has chosen to refuse this right, at great personal cost. Not being supported at the expense of those to whom Paul ministers is 1) the basis for anticipated rewards related to his ministry and, (2) a means by which the gospel can be proclaimed more effectively.
Paul’s practice in this matter of eating and drinking at the expense of others is given to the Corinthians and to us as an example. It sets the benchmark for those who are truly spiritual. Let us listen and learn, and then put these truths into practice, motivated by love for the Savior and for our fellowman.
1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
Paul makes two claims here, which are the basis for rights he will surrender in his service to the Corinthians as a servant of Christ. He does not need to defend one of these claims; the other will be extensively defended. The first claim is obviously not challenged by the Corinthians. Paul is a free man and not a slave. As a free citizen of the Roman Empire, he has great liberties. In verse 19, Paul tells his readers that in spite of his freedom, he has made himself a slave to all men.
The second right Paul claims is that of an apostle. This claim is challenged or doubted by a number of the Corinthians, some of whom claim apostolic authority themselves:
5 For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles. 6 But even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge; in fact, in every way we have made this evident to you in all things. 7 Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself that you might be exalted, because I preached the gospel of God to you without charge? … 12 But what I am doing, I will continue to do, that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:5-7, 12-13).
Because of the simplicity (Christ crucified) of Paul’s message and of his method of delivery, some are ashamed of Paul and seek leadership from others, who have a more popular method and message. They also question Paul’s apostolic authority because he does not charge for his services.
Paul’s words in the first verses of chapter 9 are intended to remind the Corinthians that Paul truly is an apostle, with full apostolic authority. He is an apostle on a par with the other 11 apostles of our Lord. Some (including myself) go so far as to say Paul is God’s replacement for Judas, and thus the 12th of the 12 apostles. The apostles are men who were witnesses to the resurrection of our Lord (see Acts 1:21-22; 2:32; 3:15, etc.). Paul too claims to have “seen” the resurrected Lord Jesus. His unique conversion experience makes him a witness of the resurrection, like the other apostles (see Acts 9:1-9; 22:14). Paul’s first words in this epistle concern his divinely appointed apostleship: “Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother” (1 Corinthians 1:1).
If anyone should be convinced of Paul’s apostleship, it is the Corinthians. They are the fruit of his apostolic labors. He is the one who came, sowing the seeds of the gospel. Those who are now looked up to as leaders are reaping the fruits of what Paul has sown. As an apostle, he came preaching Christ crucified, and as a result of his ministry, many of the Corinthians come to faith. They are the seal, the proof,96 of his apostleship. Others might question Paul’s apostleship, but surely not the Corinthians.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?
Paul’s apostleship is under attack. Some are actually examining him (verse 3). This term is used of Jesus being examined by Pilate (Luke 23:14), of Peter and John on trial (Acts 4:9), and of Paul being interrogated by the Romans (Acts 28:18). We know that Paul is also being examined by the Corinthians:
3 But to me it is a very small thing that I should be examined by you, or by any human court; in fact, I do not even examine myself. 4 For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord (1 Corinthians 4:3-4).
It should not come as a surprise that the all-wise Corinthians set themselves above Paul, judging his spirituality (2 Corinthians 10:1), his ministry, and even his apostleship.
The Corinthians are Paul’s work (9:1), and thus it is only right that he should be supported by them. Paul does not speak of “support” or “money,” but rather of his “right to eat and drink.” Supporting an itinerate preacher is primarily a matter of giving him room and board (see Acts 16:15; 3 John 5-8). Paul uses “food and drink” for good reason, because the issue at hand is the eating of meat offered to idols. Paul first claims the right to “eat and drink” at the expense of the Corinthians, and then explains why he refrains from doing so. Throughout this chapter, the imagery of eating and drinking is maintained in Paul’s examples and proof texts.
Paul’s right as an apostle to “eat and drink” extends not only to himself, but to a wife. As an apostle, he has the right to be married and to take his wife along with him as he proclaims the gospel. Those to whom he ministers have the obligation to provide both he and his wife with food and drink. This, as Paul points out, is the case with all of the other 11 apostles. Only Paul and Barnabas have chosen not to exercise this right.
Paul’s words here, linking his right to eat and drink and his right to “lead about” a wife, strongly imply one of the reasons Paul chooses to remain single. If Paul does not exercise his right to be provided with his meals (and lodging), then he is in no position to support a wife. He is willing to “pay the price” of his convictions, but he does not wish for a wife to suffer the hardships he has chosen to endure.
Being an apostle then is having the right to be supported by those to whom he ministers. His right to “refrain from working” (at a secular job) enables him to devote himself to those to whom he ministers, his “work in the Lord” (verse 1). All of the other apostles except Barnabas have chosen to exercise the right to be supported and to lead about a wife. Paul and Barnabas have gone above and beyond the call of duty. They have chosen not to exercise their rights in these matters.
7 Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard, and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock? 8 I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? 10 Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. 11 If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we should reap material things from you? 12 If others share the right over you, do we not more?
In verses 7-12, Paul amasses an overwhelming collection of proofs for his right as an apostle to be provided food and drink by those to whom he ministers. In verse 7, Paul cites three examples from the secular world of work to show that the worker in each case expects to eat of the fruit of his work. In each of these three cases, the occupation is a biblical image applied to the Christian minister. In Ephesians 6, Paul speaks of the Christian life in terms of spiritual warfare and describes God’s provisions in terms of the armor of the soldier. Israel is likened to a vineyard, the people of God as vine tenders (see Isaiah 5; Matthew 20:1-16; 21:33-46). The image of the shepherd is applied not only to our Lord (e.g., John 10), but also to those who minister (see 1 Peter 5:1-5). In verses 8-12a, Paul turns to the Old Testament Law, as setting down the principle of support. A little later, in the next paragraph, Paul offers further proof. There, Paul turns to those engaged in temple ministry (verse 13). The final proof, which is sufficient on its own, is the teaching of our Lord Himself (verse 14).
Paul turns to three occupations in which the worker labors with the expectation of eating or drinking from the fruit of his labor. The soldier does not have time to produce his own rations,97 and so they are provided for him. The keeper of the vineyard expects to eat some of the grapes and to drink some of the wine he has labored to produce. The shepherd tends the flock with the expectation that he can drink of the milk of the flock. In every case, the laborer expects to eat or drink some of the fruits of his labor.
These are basically secular examples. Some might object that Paul is not speaking so much from divine wisdom, as from that which is merely human. Paul therefore turns to the Old Testament Scriptures, particularly to the Law of Moses, where we read this instruction: “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing” (Deuteronomy 25:3-4).
One hardly expects this text to bear upon the situation in Corinth. It is an Old Testament text, not a New Testament instruction. It is addressed to the ancient Israelites, as they are about to possess the land of Canaan. It is a command which was handed down to the Israelites by Moses, recorded in the Law of Moses. It is a passage which refers to oxen, not to preachers. The only thing it appears to have in common with Paul’s topic in our text is that it is a reference to food—food for the oxen.
Paul’s use of this Old Testament commandment is most instructive, not only for its teaching, but as an example of Paul’s method of interpreting and applying the Old Testament Scriptures. Paul indicates that his use of this text is not an indirect or secondary application of the text, but a direct application. He informs us that God did not give this command because of His great compassion on animals (though He is compassionate toward His creatures), but rather as an instruction primarily for us. He is speaking “altogether for our sake.” Since the ox labors by treading the grain, producing food for man, it should not be muzzled, so that it may partake of the food which is the fruit of its labors. In other words, this commandment was given to the Israelites to teach them the principle that the “laborer is worthy of his wages,” and should therefore benefit from his labors by being allowed to eat some of the grain.
By the way, this principle which God set down for the Israelites, and which Paul sets down for the Corinthians, is practiced by the more progressive and successful businesses of our time. It is known as “profit sharing.” If an auto worker is only paid a certain amount of money per hour, he may lack the motivation to work hard and to produce as many cars (at as high a quality) as possible. But when this same worker is given a share of the profits, he is motivated to produce qualitatively and quantitatively, because the better he does his job, the more he will benefit from his labors.
The laborer should labor in hope, in the expectation of benefiting from the fruit of his labors. The plowman, who prepares the field for sowing, and the thresher (the ox), should both benefit from their labors. In all of the examples Paul has named so far, the laborer has benefited directly from the food which his labor has helped to produce. The ox labors to thresh the grain, and thus is given the freedom to eat some of the same grain. In Paul’s case, it is different. He labors among the Corinthians in spiritual things. He has the right to benefit from them in a material way. If he labors in the greater (spiritual) work, then surely he will do so in the hope of benefiting in the lesser (material) work of the Corinthians. Paul reminds them that they are already practicing this principle. At the time of Paul’s writing, some who labored among the Corinthians were also being supported materially by the saints. If these late comers (the reapers) can expect to benefit materially from the Corinthians, how much more so the earliest comers, the sowers, like Paul and Barnabas?
Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share with the altar? 14 So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. 15 But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things that it may be done so in my case; for it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. 17 For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. 18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. 19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. 23 And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it (1 Corinthians 9:12-23).
This right, clearly established by God in the Old Testament Law of Moses, evident in the world of Paul’s day, and practiced by his fellow apostles, Paul (along with Barnabas) chooses to set aside rather than use it to his advantage. He does this at great personal expense, and thus Paul states in verse 12 that it is necessary for he and Barnabas to “endure all things.” Paul’s refusal to exercise his rights results in the adversities and difficulties he has already described in chapter 4: “To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure” (1 Corinthians 4:11-12). Paul’s decision to set aside his right to support is costly. It is a cost he purposes to endure, and this for the sake of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
How does declining financial support remove a hindrance to the advance of the gospel of Christ? For one thing, Paul’s work as a tent-maker puts him in touch with the lost. Preachers often live in a kind of seclusion, finding it difficult to get close enough to the lost to be a testimony. Working in the secular work place puts one in contact with people, heathen people who need to hear the gospel. Working in the secular work place gives one the opportunity to be a witness by the quality of our work and of our relationships. Not seeking or taking funds from people is something which takes the world by surprise. We all know that many unbelievers, not to mention many Christians (including most of us), roll our eyes when we hear the televangelists on television asking over and over for money. Paul is a man who not only refuses to exercise his right to be supported by the Corinthians, but often labors so that he can support the needy. In doing this, Paul sets himself apart from many of the religious charlatans of his day and causes people to look upon him and his message with a measure of respect.
If Paul has not already made his point about having the right as an apostle to eat and drink at the expense of the Corinthians, Paul now gives two final proofs of this right in verses 13 and 14. The first is his reference to the temple workers, who by virtue of their labor obtain a share of the temple offerings. Whether this is in the pagan temples of that day, or whether in the Israelites temple in Jerusalem, the right of those who labor in this religious work is obvious.
The final argument Paul offers in support of his apostolic right of food and drink is the teaching of our Lord Himself: “So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel” (verse 14).
The question the scholars ask is this: “Where does our Lord teach this?” I think His teaching of this principle is very clear in His sending out of the disciples:
1 And He called the twelve together, and gave them power and authority over all the demons, and to heal diseases. 2 And He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God, and to perform healing. 3 And He said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece. 4 “And whatever house you enter, stay there, and take your leave from there. 5 “And as for those who do not receive you, as you go out from that city, shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.” 6 And departing, they began going about among the villages, preaching the gospel, and healing everywhere” (Luke 9:1-6).
1 Now after this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them two and two ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come. 2 And He was saying to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. 3 “Go your ways; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. 4 “Carry no purse, no bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way. 5 “And whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house.’ 6 “And if a man of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him; but if not, it will return to you. 7 “And stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house. 8 “And whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat what is set before you; 9 and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 “But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 “I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city” (Luke 10:1-12).
Our Lord Himself is supported in His ministry (see Luke 8:1-3), and He likewise expects His disciples to be supported by those who benefit from their preaching and ministry of healing. The church is taught by the apostles that it is obligated to care for the needs of those who minister the Word of God (see Galatians 6:6; 1 Timothy 5:17-18).
Paul refrains from receiving this support from the Corinthians for two primary reasons, which he articulates in verses 15-23. First, Paul refrains from exercising his right to be supported because his resulting sacrificial service will bring him a reward. Paul is called as an apostle. As such, it is his duty to proclaim the gospel, a duty of which he was informed at the time of his conversion. For him to carry out his duty by preaching the gospel is not service worthy of a special reward. We are expected to fulfill our duty (see Luke 17:9-10). When we exceed the speed limit, we can expect to be given a traffic citation and to pay a fine. But when we obey the speed limit, we have no right to expect a police officer to pull us over, praise us for our obedience, and then reward us with a $20 bill. Our duty is what we are required and expected to do, for which there is no hope of reward.
The rewards come when we act “above and beyond the call of duty.” A number of years ago, a plane crashed shortly after take off in Washington, D. C. It was a cold winter day, and there was ice on the Potomac River into which the plane crashed. A number of rescue workers rushed to the scene, and quite of few of the passengers were rescued. None of the emergency workers were cited for their bravery, even though they risked their lives to rescue some of the crash victims. One man was singled out for praise by the media. This man happened to be nearby when the airplane crashed. He was watching the rescue efforts from one bank of the river when he noticed a women in the icy water in front of him. Many of the media were there, cameras rolling as people were sinking in the frigid waters. They didn’t seem to think of throwing down their cameras and jumping into the river to help someone. But this man did jump into the river, risking his life to pull the woman to shore. He was praised for his actions because they were not required; they were above and beyond the call of duty.
A Christian is not really free to refrain from proclaiming the gospel. It is our duty to do so. When we tell others about Christ, we should not expect to be rewarded for doing so. If we wish to be rewarded, we must do something above and beyond our duty. Paul’s duty is to preach the gospel, and his right is to be supported in so doing. But when Paul chooses to set aside this right to food and drink, he enters into the realm of voluntary sacrifice, and thus into the realm where he can anticipate a divine reward. Surrendering our rights is a basis for rewards, and so Paul gladly surrenders his right to be supported.
Paul’s second reason for setting aside his rights to food and drink is to promote the gospel. Once in verse 19 and again in verse 23, Paul tells us that this is his reason for abstaining from the free exercise of his right to be supported:
19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more.
23 And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it (1 Corinthians 9:19, 23).
The first statement, in verse 19, is a reference to Paul’s freedom. He is not a slave. He is, indeed, a “native Roman citizen,” a man born free as a Roman citizen, as opposed to those who have purchased their citizenship, or to those who are slaves and have no rights as Roman citizens (see Acts 22:22-29). This liberty and these rights, Paul gladly surrenders, thus becoming the slave of all men whenever this advances the cause of Christ.98
In verse 23, Paul again draws attention to the fact that he sets aside his liberties or rights when doing so is for the sake of the gospel. The gospel is an offense to the unbeliever, and only when chosen of God and quickened by the Spirit will men be able to get past the offense of the gospel to be saved. Whatever liberties Paul can sacrifice, he will sacrifice, in order to advance the gospel. As much as possible, Paul will accommodate the Jews, so that they might come to Christ. Likewise, when Paul is among the Gentiles, he refrains from any liberties which they find offensive, so that they might more easily hear and heed the gospel. To those under the Law, he seeks to conduct himself in a way that does not offend their sensitivities, so that they might come to Christ. To those Gentiles not under the Old Testament Law, Paul likewise adjusts his conduct, so that they might not needlessly be offended, and turn away from the gospel as they turned away from him.
What Paul is saying here in verses 19-23 is similar to what the writer to the Hebrews writes:
1 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance, and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:1-2).
There are “sins which easily entangle us” in our Christian walk. These must be put aside because they are sins. But other things are not sins; they are encumbrances. These hinder us from excelling in the race we are running. Thus the author urges us to set these encumbrances aside.
Paul is saying nearly the same thing, or at least applying the same principle. If the goal of the Christian is the salvation of souls, then the Christian should willingly set aside anything which hinders this goal. Some of our rights or liberties as Christians may actually be hindrances to the goal of winning souls. For Paul, being married and being supported by the church were hindrances to his mission as a called apostle. Consequently, he happily set them aside, knowing that this not only enhances his ministry, but increases his rewards.
It is vitally important for you to understand that in verses 19-23 Paul is not teaching: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” Paul is not speaking about the sins of others with which he is willing to participate. Paul is talking about accommodating himself to the weaknesses of the lost, by surrendering any liberties which might prove offensive to them and thus hinder his preaching of the gospel. One might be invited to make a gospel presentation in a retirement home. One could go with drums, guitars, and an electronic keyboard. But it is possible that an organ or piano accompaniment would be received more readily. Why insist on your rights, when practicing them might needlessly alienate someone who is lost, keeping them from hearing the gospel? Paul is willing to sacrifice the free exercise of any liberty if doing so will further the gospel. Never will Paul think of committing a sin in order to identify with the lost. One does not need to win an alcoholic to Christ by getting drunk with him, or to convert a drug addict by getting high with him. It is one thing to commit a sin in the name of furthering the gospel; it is quite another to sacrifice a liberty for the sake of the gospel.
It may be needless to say, but I will nonetheless say it again as I conclude this message: This passage proves that Paul has the right to be supported in his ministry, and that he also has the privilege of not exercising it, for his own benefit (his reward) and for the advance of the gospel. This text does not teach that individuals or churches have the right not to support those who preach.
In our text, Paul has spent a great deal of time defending his right as an apostle to be supported (to eat and drink) by those to whom he ministers. He has spent no time attempting to defend his status as a free man (not a slave). Why is there this emphasis on his rights as an apostle? First, because his apostleship is being challenged by some in Corinth, especially by those who are false apostles (see 2 Corinthians 11). Paul will not give ground on the matter of his apostleship, because he will not surrender the truth of the gospel to those who would change it. Second, Paul emphasizes his rights as an apostle because these rights are the most evident and least disputed. Aside from Paul and Barnabas, all of the other apostles not only support these rights, they exercise them in their ministries. If anyone wishes to challenge Paul on the matter of being supported, they will also have to take on Peter and all the rest of the 11. The “liberty” to eat idol-meats, claimed by some Corinthians and exposed by Paul in chapter 8, is based on very thin reasoning, which is directly opposed to the decree of the Jerusalem Council (which includes the apostles). Paul wants his “right” to be understood as indisputable, before he goes on to decline it for the sake of the gospel.
(1) Paul’s use of the Old Testament in our text has much to teach us about the role of the Old Testament Scriptures in the life of the New Testament saint. We dare not write off any portion of the Old Testament Scriptures as irrelevant to our lives. Paul tells us that this passage in Deuteronomy 25:4 was “altogether” written for our edification and instruction. He directly applies it to his right to support as an apostle. While we are not Israelites, living in the promised land under the Mosaic Covenant, the commandments found in the Law of Moses are nevertheless applicable to us. Behind the commandment, there is a principle, and that principle should not be overlooked or set aside.
Let me seek to illustrate what I mean from another Old Testament command, given three times in the Law of Moses: “You shall bring the choice first fruits of your soil into the house of the Lord your God. You are not to boil a kid in the milk of its mother” (Exodus 23:19; see also 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21).
This Sunday has been set aside by many evangelical churches as the “sanctity of human life Sunday,” because of the slaughter of millions of unborn children through abortion, legalized by the decision of the Supreme Court over 20 years ago in the case of Roe v. Wade. This case, incidentally, was filed in Dallas by a couple of young law students. “Roe” is a pseudonym for the woman who was denied an abortion and then filed suit against the prosecutor, Henry Wade.
One may not immediately see the relevance of this ancient command to abortion, but it is very real and direct. The Israelites were commanded never to boil a kid in its mother’s milk. Now what were the chances in ancient times that this would ever happen? This command, like the command not to muzzle the ox, was given to teach a very important principle. God did not care any more for the mother goat or the young kid than He did the ox. God wanted to teach an important truth. A she goat or cow becomes “fresh” (that is, she begins to give milk) when she delivers her offspring. The mother’s milk is provided to preserve the life of the offspring and to promote its health and growth. To boil a kid in its mother’s milk is to “profane” the milk by causing it to serve a purpose exactly the opposite of what God intended. How can one destroy the life of a kid with the very milk intended to preserve and promote its life? It would be a great travesty.
The mother’s womb is a haven for the unborn child. It is a place of safety, a place where the life of the unborn child is protected from danger. The womb is the place where the child who has been conceived can grow to the point where it can enter into the world and live independently of the mother’s body. How horrid to think that there are now abortion clinics which prosper by invading this place of safety, this sanctuary of human life, and destroy that life. How unnatural it is that the mother who has given life to this unborn child now sets out to destroy it, when her body is designed to protect it. This ancient commandment, which seems so out of place in the modern world, stands before our society to condemn it for the evil of abortion.
(2) Paul teaches us that we should willingly forego the exercise of any right which would prove to be a hindrance to the gospel. We can see this principle at work in the person and work of our Lord. It was evident in this incident, recorded by Matthew:
24 And when they had come to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter, and said, “Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?” 25 He said, “Yes.” And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?” 26 And upon his saying, “From strangers,” Jesus said to him, “Consequently the sons are exempt. 27 “But, lest we give them offense, go to the sea, and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a stater. Take that and give it to them for you and Me” (Matthew 17:23-27).
Jesus, as the Son of God, had every right to consider Himself exempt from the temple tax. He had every right not to pay this tax. And yet, He did pay it, lest the exercise of His rights hinder the preaching of the gospel. His message brought much offense to the Jews, but He would not add to the offense by the exercise of a right which could easily be set aside.
The greatest example of the principle of setting aside one’s rights for the sake of the gospel is seen in the incarnation of our Lord and in His sacrificial death for the sins of men:
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).
Some wrongly conclude that what our Lord set aside in His coming to the earth was some portion of His deity. Jesus is fully divine and fully human. He did not set aside any of His deity to come to this earth as a man; He simply added perfect humanity to His deity. When Paul speaks of our Lord emptying Himself, He does not mean that Jesus became less than the God He was in heaven, seated at the Father’s right hand. He means that when Jesus came to the earth as the God-man, He surrendered His rights as God. He did not cease to be God; He set aside His rights as God. And because of this, you and I, along with every believer, have been forgiven of our sins and entered into eternal life. It is at this point of sacrificing His rights that our Lord, like Paul, enters into the place of blessing and reward. And so Paul speaks not only of our Lord’s resurrection and ascension, but also of His being highly exalted with a name higher than any other name. Jesus, who surrendered His rights and stooped lower than any Old Testament saint could ever imagine, was also exalted higher than any could imagine, as a result of His sacrifice.
It is the surrender of our Lord’s rights which makes salvation possible for you. Have you received the gift of salvation which our Lord’s sacrifice made possible? If not, I invite you to receive His gift of salvation now. You simply need to confess that you are a sinner, deserving of God’s eternal punishment, and to receive by faith the forgiveness of sins and divine righteousness which our Lord accomplished through His death, burial, resurrection and ascension to the Father. And if you have received this gift, then you are obligated to walk in our Lord’s steps, willingly setting aside your rights, for the advancement of the gospel (see 1 Peter 2:18-25).
(3) In the light of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9, many of the things he has written earlier come into sharper focus. In chapter 4, Paul speaks of his suffering and humiliation, contrasted with the pride and lofty attitude of the Corinthians. We can now see that Paul experienced what he did for the sake of the gospel. Those Corinthians who began to look down on the gospel because of Paul are dead wrong. Paul’s attitudes and actions are completely consistent with the gospel. To distance themselves from Paul is to stand apart from the gospel as well.
In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul speaks of the Corinthians going to court with one another. We can now understand why. They are intent not only on practicing their rights, but in protecting and preserving them. Law courts are about rights. If the Corinthians will not sacrifice their rights for the good of their brethren and for the advancement of the gospel, we would expect to see them in the courts, where rights can be protected. Later in chapter 6, Paul writes that while all things might be lawful, all things do not edify. We now can see that chapter 9 is a much fuller explanation of his words in chapter 6. Anything which causes a weaker brother to stumble (chapter 8) or which hinders the advancement of the gospel should be set aside.
Paul’s words in chapter 7 about marriage and about staying single also come into sharper focus. For one to follow Paul’s example regarding support, it would be a virtual necessity to remain single. When one sets aside the right to support, he nearly always sets aside the right to “lead about a wife.” Marriage is a privilege, a right, and as such, it is also that which can be set aside, for the edification of others and for the promotion of the gospel. No wonder Paul can speak of not seeking to gain the full measure of all that life has to offer. And no wonder Paul can speak as he does in chapter 7 about being content with the status of a slave. Even one born free, as Paul was, should be willing to make himself the slave of men by surrendering those rights which hinder the gospel.
(4) Paul’s teaching in chapter 9 sheds light on those who insist upon exercising their alleged right to eat meat offered to idols in chapter 8. For many, the requirements of the Law or of any New Testament commands, are the high water mark of spirituality. To keep the rules is to be spiritual. To exercise every right not forbidden by the rules (or made possible by finding a way around the rules) is also the epitome of spirituality. Avoiding what is prohibited and begrudgingly doing what is commanded is as far as the legalist will go. The Law is the stopping place for the legalists, who will then indulge themselves in their liberties. For Paul, it is just the opposite. The requirements of the Law are the starting point. The bare minimum is what the Law requires or forbids. To abide within the Law is not proof of spirituality or the basis for rewards. Rewards can be hoped for only when one goes above and beyond the requirements of the Law (is this not what Jesus speaks about in the Sermon on the Mount?). One should think of acting sacrificially only when one willingly gives up the exercise of a right, for the sake of a brother or for the sake of the gospel. Those who think themselves spiritual for keeping the rules are wrong. The Law set the starting point, not the stopping point.
Let me seek to illustrate what I mean. The Law called for men to tithe. I do not wish to get into all the intricacies of what contributions the Law required. You should know, however, that in addition to the required offerings and gifts, there were the free-will offerings. Those who believe in tithing often take pride in the fact that they give their 10 percent. As I understand Paul’s words in our text, giving what is required is not a basis for rewards. Our rewards begin when we willingly choose to give sacrificially, beyond the tithe. This is what the Corinthians do, and this is why Paul commends them for doing so (see 2 Corinthians 8:1-15). It is also why Paul indicates that what he encourages them to do is not a command—it is beyond the requirements, entering into the area of true sacrifice (see 8:8).
(5) Paul’s words should be seriously pondered by those enamored with the teachings of the church growth movement. This movement has the lofty goal of drawing men and women to church and to faith in Christ. The trouble with this movement is that growth in numbers becomes the measure of spirituality and success. Too many churches who pursue church growth are willing to sacrifice the gospel to get growth. Is the Lord’s table offensive or unappealing to the lost, they say? Then let us do away with it, or hide it away in some obscure time and place, so that the lost will be attracted to church. Are the doctrines of God’s holiness, man’s sin, and eternal torment unappealing to the lost, they say? Then play them down. Seek to lure the lost to faith without these essentials, and let them learn the “fine print” of the gospel later. Although Paul speaks to us about surrendering our rights for the sake of the gospel, we are more inclined to surrender the gospel for the sake of our rights. Let the church growth movement (and all the rest of us) take heed!
(6) Paul’s words also challenge the current mindset that those who are spiritual are those who have a “full-time ministry.” I cannot tell you how many times I have seen and heard words and actions which betray the presence of a two-story spirituality. Those who are really spiritual go to seminary or devote themselves to full-time ministry. If this is so, then Paul must not be all that spiritual. No wonder some Corinthians challenge his spirituality (2 Corinthians 10:1-2). Paul’s spirituality is evidenced by his willingness to sacrifice his rights for the sake of the gospel. One such right is that of having a full-time ministry. Let us beware of false standards of spirituality. Let those who think they will be more effective by ministering “full-time” pause to reflect on Paul’s “part-time” ministry, for the sake of the gospel.
(7) Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 9 sheds new light on the matter of pleasing God. Pleasing God does not result from merely keeping the rules. Pleasing God comes from personal sacrifice, for the glory of God, the good of others, and the advance of the gospel. Many Christians talk about “knowing the will of God.” What they really want is a rule book, much like that of the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day. They want to know what is right and what is wrong. They want to avoid only what is sin and to enjoy everything else. They want the Christian life all spelled out in terms of do’s and don’ts. They want to know all the don’ts, so that they can indulge themselves in the do’s. Paul informs us that God is pleased when we “just say no” to the things which could be a “yes.” God is pleased when we choose to refrain from a right because of our love for God and for our brother, and because we do not want to hinder the advance of the gospel. This is why I believe God does not lay down more do’s and don’ts. He wants to give us as many liberties as possible, and then to see what we are willing to sacrifice for the gospel and for His glory. Pleasing God goes far beyond keeping the rules. Pleasing God begins when we have kept the rules, and when we start to sacrifice our rights for the sake of the gospel. May God cause us to reflect on this text, and on its many implications for our lives, for our good and His glory.
96 “A ‘seal’ was important in an age when many could not read. A mark stamped on clay, or wax, or some similar substance, was first of all a mark of ownership, and then a means of authentication.” Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966), p. 132.
97 The term employed here does not just refer to money, which the soldier is paid, but to “that part of a soldier’s support given in place of pay [i.e. rations]… .” Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, p. 471.
98 We must also point out that Paul sometimes insists on his rights as a Roman citizen, but this is only when it is for the good of the gospel (see Acts 16:35-40; 22:22-29).
My Dad told me one time that a preacher comes across better when he has that “lean, hungry look.” I think my Dad has something there, and unfortunately I wish I had that look now as I attempt to expound these verses in the ninth and tenth chapters of 1 Corinthians. I feel something like the woman in a weight loss group, who made this confession. She had lost a great deal of weight and was very pleased with herself. One of her bad habits had been stopping at a donut shop every morning on her way to work. There, she consumed more than her share of fat grams and calories. Now that she had gotten control of her eating, she was elated. On the way to work one morning, she was passing by the donut shop where she had failed so many times. On an impulse, she turned in to the shop. This time, it was going to be different. She was going to order a cup of coffee, and nothing else, and prove to herself that she finally had control of her eating.
She ordered her cup of coffee and sat down to drink it. There, across the table from her, was a man who was not showing the same self-control. He was drinking coffee and eating donuts covered with powdered sugar. Suddenly, he stood up and left the table—leaving one sugar-covered donut sitting on the table right in front of her. It was too much! She could not let this donut go to waste. She snatched it up and snarfed it down, dropping tell-tale evidences of the sugar all over the front of her dress. Then, to her horror, the man returned. He had not left at all, but only gotten up to refill his cup. How could she deny that she had eaten his donut? How could she explain?
All of us struggle with self-control. So do the Corinthians. In our text, Paul draws together all of his previous admonitions concerning the character and the conduct of the Corinthian saints. There are divisions and strife, with many looking down upon Paul as an apostle and upon his simplistic gospel of Christ crucified. There is immorality openly practiced by some of the saints, and some so vile that even the pagan Corinthians are shocked. Christians there are defensive of those things they consider their liberties, and they look to the secular law courts to protect their legal rights. Some Christians in Corinth are seeking to deal with immorality.
In the immediate context, Paul has been dealing with the question of meats offered to idols. This issue is first raised in chapter 8. For the moment, Paul allows their premises to stand unchallenged. These are: (1) they have the right to eat meat offered to idols since there is only one God; (2) they are wiser and stronger than those who have scruples against eating such meats, and (3) because this is their right, they have no reason not to exercise it. Paul deals with the last premise first. In chapter 8, Paul indicates that their right to eat meat, based on their “knowledge” is to be set aside for the sake of their “weaker” brethren. To insist on exercising their rights by eating such meat to the detriment of their brother is not walking in love.
In the first 23 verses of chapter 9, Paul contrasts his attitudes and actions with those who insist on eating these meats. He conclusively proves his right to “eat and drink” at the expense of the brethren to whom he ministers by citing biblical support from the Old Testament law, from secular life, from the practice of his fellow-apostles, and from the teaching of our Lord. In spite of his undeniable right to “eat and drink” at the expense of others, Paul sets this liberty aside, so that his ministry of the gospel will be enhanced. They insist on exercising a “right” which is wrong, and no right at all; Paul sets aside a “right” that is indisputable.
At verse 24 of chapter 9, Paul begins to approach the subject of eating meats offered to idols from a very different perspective. His point is powerfully made, but it goes even beyond the issue of eating certain meats. Paul’s words in our text apply to every one of the problems of the Corinthian church mentioned in chapters 1-9. Paul will show his readers that the Corinthians’ problems are not new, but simply a repetition of the problems faced by the ancient Israelites, as they made their way from Egypt to the promised land. He will also sum up all of these common problems and show that they have a common denominator, that all are sins of self-indulgence.
The problems of the ancient Israelites to which Paul refers, and the problems at Corinth which Paul has exposed, are precisely the same problems you and I face as Christians today. Let us listen to Paul’s words and learn, for to do so will avoid much needless failure in our Christian lives.
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. 25 And everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; 27 but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.
The Corinthians who feel free to eat meat offered to idols thought that they were wiser and more spiritual than their “weaker brethren.” It is their superior knowledge on which their liberty to eat idol-meat is based. Paul’s words in our text must sting: “Do you not know … ?”99 If this is not enough, he will also say in verse 1 of chapter 10, “I do not want you to be unaware, brethren … .” These smug saints prided themselves on their knowledge of the Old Testament, as seen from Paul’s words in chapter 8, verses 4-6. But they are ignorant. Paul takes them back to some important lessons they missed. But first Paul introduces this concluding section by an illustration from the Isthmian games.100
Many run as contestants in a race, but there is only one winner. We know that to be true from our own experience with the Super Bowl. The San Diego Chargers found little consolation in coming in second. They are as deflated as the Dallas Cowboys, who lost to the San Francisco Forty-Niners the week before. Every contestant in the race seeks nothing less than to win the race. Only one runner receives the prize. The Corinthians should do no less than the contestants in the Isthmian games—they should run in such a way as to win.
Paul is not talking about salvation here. He is not urging the lost to work hard in order to reach the goal of winning their salvation. He is challenging the Corinthian saints to strive to fulfill their calling as saints. Paul’s words here should be understood in the light of his words elsewhere, along with those of Peter:
3 Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 4 No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier. 5 And also if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not win the prize unless he competes according to the rules (2 Timothy 2:3-5).
5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. 6 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; 8 in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing (2 Timothy 4:5-8).
1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory (1 Peter 5:1-4).
Races are not won automatically. The athlete who wins outperforms his fellow-athletes, who also want to win. The athlete who wins the race is that individual who most wants to win, who purposes to win, and who is willing to pay the price for winning. The thing which sets a winning athlete apart from the rest is his self-control. This self-control is not simply evident in the race, nor is it restricted only to the realm of athletics. The winning athlete disciplines every area of his life so that he may win the race. The winning athlete will not stay up late watching television or going out, because his body needs rest. He will not eat like everyone else, because many foods will only make him fat and flabby. Every aspect of the athlete’s life is disciplined, so that he may win the prize.
If such discipline characterizes the athlete in the Isthmian games, how much more should the Christian be willing to exercise self-control to “win the race” set before him? In the Second Century A.D., the crown awarded the winner of the race was of pine or of withered celery.101 The Christian strives to win an eternal, unfading crown. How much more effort and sacrifice should we be willing to make in order to win so great a crown?
1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.
From the Isthmian games held near Corinth, Paul turns to the first generation of Israelites to leave Egypt, cross through the Red Sea, and begin to make their way toward the promised land. These ancient Israelites of Old Testament times are the counterparts of the Corinthians and Christians today. Paul refers to them as “our fathers” (10:1). While there are differences between Israel and the church, Paul wants his readers to sense the continuity. Their experiences are not that different from our own, and their failures are just like ours.
There were those in Corinth who looked upon themselves as “strong” in the faith, and who looked down upon others as “weak.” Those who think themselves “strong” are those whom Paul is showing to be weak, and whom he will shortly warn that their over-confidence may lead to their own downfall (10:12). These Corinthians, like their Jewish counterparts (see Matthew 3:8-10; Romans 9:1-5f.; 11:17-24; Galatians 2:15), seemed to think their privileges guarantee that they would not fall, and that they would surely “win” the race before them. Paul turns their attention to the first generation of Israelites to leave Egypt, showing that while they were granted blessings which closely parallel those of the New Testament saints, they nevertheless fail to enter into the promised land. Their bodies were strewn throughout the wilderness, and while all those who left Egypt experience God’s divine provisions, only two finished their course by entering into the promised land (see Numbers 14:30-32).
In the first five verses of chapter 10, Paul follows the same general theme he has introduced in 9:24-27, where he points out that in a race, all run, but one wins. Now, in 10:1-5 he turns to the ancient Israelites and points to the blessings which all experienced; yet most failed to enter the land, dying instead in the wilderness. The first blessing was that of divine deliverance, or we might say salvation. All were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. In so doing, the Israelites escaped from their captivity, and the army which pursued them perished. As the Israelites looked back upon the Red Sea, through which they had just passed and which now caves in upon their enemies, they must have thought to themselves, “We’re saved.” The New Testament parallel is the salvation from sin and death through our identification with Christ by faith.
The second blessing which all the Israelites experienced was that of “baptism.” Essentially, baptism refers to identification with something. The term was used of a garment which was immersed in a die, which identified with it by taking on that color. The Israelites of old were “baptized” too, in a sense. They were enveloped by the cloud and also by the sea as they followed Moses. As water baptism (by immersion) symbolizes our identification with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (see Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27), so Israel’s immersion in the cloud and in the sea symbolized their identification with Moses, the one who is a prototype of the Messiah to come (see Deuteronomy 18:15).
Israel’s third blessing was a counterpart to the Lord’s Supper or communion. At communion, we eat of the bread, and we drink of the wine. The bread symbolizes the sinless body of our Lord. The wine symbolizes the blood which He shed on our behalf, cleansing us from sin. The Israelites of old were blessed with eating and drinking which foreshadowed the communion we now celebrate by eating the bread and drinking the wine. They all ate of the spiritual food. This food was the manna, which God miraculously provided for the Israelites for 40 years. Our Lord indicated that He was like this manna, only vastly better, because He was the “bread which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world” (John 6:33).
The Israelites of old also had their own “spiritual drink.” This drink was the water God miraculously provided over the years which they spent in the wilderness. Jesus spoke of Himself as the source of this “water” (see John 4:7-15; 7:37-39). Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 10:4 are indeed surprising. Here, Paul identifies Christ as the “spiritual rock which followed” the Israelites in the wilderness. This is a most amazing statement. There are any number of fantastic explanations of what Paul means. The simplest way to understand Paul is to recognize that he is not speaking of a physical rock, but of a spiritual rock. Christ was the source of the water, particularly on those occasions when Moses struck the rock. But more than this, Paul wants us to know that Christ was ever present with His people in their wilderness trek. He was there to care for His people, to meet their need for water.
God supernaturally provided for all of the true needs of all the Israelites during their 40 years in the wilderness. He divinely provided for their salvation, for their protection, and for their guidance, by the cloud and by leading them through the sea. He “baptized” them, identifying them with Moses, His divinely appointed leader. God provided for the food and water which these Israelites required while in the wilderness. Yet in spite of all these divine provisions, the Israelites failed to enter into the land. Only two of all those wilderness wanderers ever entered the land of Canaan. Even Moses was not permitted to enter the land. Even though God provided for their essential needs, they did not please God, and they did not enter the land. Many left Egypt; all partook of divine blessings and privileges; only two entered the promised land.
Divine blessings and privileges do not guarantee that one will “win the race.” No one can ever say that they failed to finish the race because they were not adequately provided for. Those who failed to enter into the promised land are those who failed to appropriate God’s provisions. More than this, those who failed to enter into the promised land were those who lacked self-discipline, and who fell due to their self-indulgence. In verses 6-10, Paul will identify those specific sins which plagued the ancient Israelites, resulting in their failure to please God and to possess the land of Canaan. Each of these failures is a sin of self-indulgence, and each points to a sin which is prominent in the Corinthian church of Paul’s day, as well as in our church today.
6 Now these things happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved. 7 And do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to PLAY.” 8 Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. 9 Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. 10 Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer.
In verse 1, Paul speaks of the Israelites as “our fathers,” stressing the continuity of the people of God, Old Testament and New. Now, in verse 6, Paul writes that the experiences of “our fathers” is for us. He may even be saying that their experiences are examples of us.102 Again, in verse 11, Paul stresses the importance of these Old Testament stories as they directly bear on our lives. The overall lesson to be learned from Israel’s wilderness wandering is that we should not crave evil things. Craving evil things is that self-indulgence which keeps us from “winning the race” and which kept the Israelites from entering the land of Canaan. Self-control is the discipline we impose on our flesh so that we can win the race. In verses 6-10, we will see that Paul links the experience of the ancient Israelites directly to the experience of the Corinthians (and us). They lacked self-control, and they craved evil things. Each of the failures Paul highlights from the history of the first generation of Israelites is a failure of self-indulgence. And each of the failures is associated with eating and drinking, with food. Food—that is, meat offered to idols—is still the issue at hand, and Paul now shows us what we can learn about food and self-indulgence from the Israelites of old.
The first offense of the Israelites, as we have already mentioned, is “craving evil things.” This seems to be a general heading under which the other failures are listed as specific transgressions. This “craving” of evil things is linked with eating:
1 Now the people became like those who complain of adversity in the hearing of the Lord; and when the Lord heard it, His anger was kindled, and the fire of the Lord burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp. … 4 And the rabble who were among them had greedy desires; and also the sons of Israel wept again and said, “Who will give us meat to eat? 5 “We remember the fish which we used to eat free in Egypt, the cucumbers and the melons and the leeks and the onions and the garlic, 6 but now our appetite is gone. There is nothing at all to look at except this manna.” 7 Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium. 8 The people would go about and gather it and grind it between two millstones or beat it in the mortar, and boil it in the pot and make cakes with it; and its taste was as the taste of cakes baked with oil. 9 And when the dew fell on the camp at night, the manna would fall with it. … 34 So the name of that place was called Kibroth-hattaavah, because there they buried the people who had been greedy (Numbers 11:1, 4-9, 34, emphasis mine).
13 They quickly forgot His works; They did not wait for His counsel, 14 But craved intensely103 in the wilderness, And tempted104 God in the desert. 15 So He gave them their request, But sent a wasting disease among them (Psalm 106:13-15, emphasis mine).
How tragic is this description of the Israelites in the wilderness. It was not that they lacked food to eat, for God provided for their bodily needs. They grumbled because they found God’s provisions unsavory. They wanted something tastier, something spicier. And in so doing, they came to despise God’s provisions and to longingly look back to the days of their slavery, as though they were the “good old days,” simply because they then had tastier food. The unbridled craving, the fleshly desires of the Israelites which they sought to satisfy, led to their death in the wilderness. Self-discipline would have enabled them to finish their course, to win the race.
The second failure of the Israelites in the wilderness was that of idolatry; “And do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to PLAY.’”
1 Now when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people assembled about Aaron, and said to him, “Come, make us a god who will go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” 2 And Aaron said to them, “Tear off the gold rings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” 3 Then all the people tore off the gold rings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. 4 And he took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made it into a molten calf; and they said, “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” 5 Now when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.” 6 So the next day they rose early and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play (Exodus 32:1-6).
What is interesting about Paul’s words in reference to idolatry is that when he refers to the incident described above in Exodus 32:1-6, he does not mention the fashioning of the golden calf, but only the fact (described in verse 6) of Israel’s sitting down “to eat and to drink,” and then their rising up “to play.” The idolatry of the Israelites was clearly prohibited, and it was a most evil thing which they did. Paul seems intent upon pointing out not only their idolatry, but what accompanied it. Their idolatry was associated with eating and drinking. They offered sacrifices to the idol, and then they sat down to eat and to drink of these foods, which were a part of the heathen sacrificial service. Following this meal (including the eating of idol-meat), they arose to “play.” They were not playing “ring around the rosey”; the “play” which is referred to here is sexual in nature. And so both the eating and drinking of things involved with idol worship and immorality were a part of Israel’s idolatry. One further note should be made concerning this idol worship of the Israelites, which Moses described in Exodus 32:25: in their worship, the Israelites had cast aside all self-control. Their worship was not only heathen, it was unrestrained indulgence. There was no self-discipline here, and this is the kind of self-indulgence which kept the Israelites from entering the land.
The third failure of the Israelites of old is that of immorality: “Nor let us act immorally, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day.”
1 While Israel remained at Shittim, the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab. 2 For they invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. 3 So Israel joined themselves to Baal of Peor, and the Lord was angry against Israel. 4 And the Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.” 5 So Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Each of you slay his men who have joined themselves to Baal of Peor.” … 9 And those who died by the plague were 24,000105 (Numbers 25:1-5, 9).
The important thing to note here is that, once again, immorality is viewed as a part of the package of idolatry. The Israelites fell into immorality with the Moabite women as they joined with them in their idol worship. The people “ate and bowed down to their gods” (25:2). Here they were, sinning so as to be laid low in the wilderness, and this sin of immorality was linked with idolatry and with the eating of idol-meat.
The fourth failure of the Israelites in the wilderness according to Paul was that of “trying the Lord” or “putting the Lord to the test.” “Nor let us try the Lord, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents.”
There were at least ten such occasions when the Israelites put the Lord to the test (see Numbers 14:22). Some of these incidents are recorded in the Old Testament:
1 Then all the congregation of the sons of Israel journeyed by stages from the wilderness of Sin, according to the command of the Lord, and camped at Rephidim, and there was no water for the people to drink. 2 Therefore the people quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water that we may drink.” And Moses said to them, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the Lord?” 3 But the people thirsted there for water; and they grumbled against Moses and said, “Why, now, have you brought us up from Egypt, to kill us and our children and our livestock with thirst?” 4 So Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, “What shall I do to this people? A little more and they will stone me.” 5 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Pass before the people and take with you some of the elders of Israel; and take in your hand your staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. 6 Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink.” And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel. 7 And he named the place Massah and Meribah because of the quarrel of the sons of Israel, and because they tested the Lord, saying, “Is the Lord among us, or not?” (Exodus 17:1-7)
18 And in their heart they put God to the test By asking food according to their desire (Psalm 78:18, emphasis mine).
Putting God to the test was demanding that God meet their perceived needs, in the way which they demanded. The question of Exodus 17:7 sums it up: “Is the Lord among us, or not?” The way the Israelites determined God’s presence among them was by “counting their blessings.” If they were thirsty, they demanded that God satisfy that thirst, or they threatened not to believe He was with them. According to the psalmist, they demanded that God supply them with the food they craved to prove He was among them.
The specific instance Paul has in mind is recorded in the Book of Numbers:
5 And the people spoke against God and Moses, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this miserable food.” 6 And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7 So the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord and you; intercede with the Lord, that He may remove the serpents from us.” And Moses interceded for the people. 8 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he shall live.” 9 And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived (Numbers 21:5-9).
Here, the specific cause for Israel’s grumbling was the menu. They put Moses on notice that they were sick and tired of the food God provided. The result was the plague of fiery serpents, whose poisonous tongues (so to speak) were illustrative of the tongues of the Israelites (compare Psalm 140:3; Romans 3:13).
You will remember that Satan’s first temptation of our Lord was an effort to entice Him to cause stones to become bread. God had led Him into the wilderness to be without food or water. Satan’s assumption was the same as the Israelites—if God was really with someone, they would not lack anything they needed or desired. Consequently, Satan sought to persuade our Lord to make stones into bread. Later on in His wilderness testing, Satan sought to convince our Lord to jump from the pinnacle of the temple, reminding Him of the biblical assurance of angelic protection. Jesus, still dealing with Satan from the context of the early chapters of Deuteronomy, reminded Satan of the evil of putting God to the test, of trying to make God jump through our hoops. Once again, Israel’s sin of putting God to the test was closely associated with eating and drinking.
Finally, the ancient Israelites failed by grumbling: “Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer.”
2 And the whole congregation of the sons of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness. 3 And the sons of Israel said to them, “Would that we had died by the Lord’s hand in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat, when we ate bread to the full; for you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger” (Exodus 16:2-3).
41 But on the next day all the congregation of the sons of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron, saying, “You are the ones who have caused the death of the Lord’s people.” 42 It came about, however, when the congregation had assembled against Moses and Aaron, that they turned toward the tent of meeting, and behold, the cloud covered it and the glory of the Lord appeared. 43 Then Moses and Aaron came to the front of the tent of meeting, 44 and the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 45 “Get away from among this congregation, that I may consume them instantly.” Then they fell on their faces. 46 And Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer and put in it fire from the altar, and lay incense on it; then bring it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone forth from the Lord, the plague has begun!” 47 Then Aaron took it as Moses had spoken, and ran into the midst of the assembly, for behold, the plague had begun among the people. So he put on the incense and made atonement for the people. 48 And he took his stand between the dead and the living, so that the plague was checked. 49 But those who died by the plague were 14,700, besides those who died on account of Korah (Numbers 16:41-49).
In Exodus 16, the grumbling of the Israelites was about food. They recalled the “meat” they had eaten in Egypt and grumbled against Moses and God for leading them into the desert to starve them to death. The incident Paul seems to have in mind is recorded in the 16th chapter of Numbers. Korah, Dathan, Abiram and 250 others from among the leaders of Israel rose up against Moses, protesting against his prominence and authority. In the events that followed, these rebels were swallowed up alive by the earth, along with their families (16:28-35). God’s act of discipline, performed at the hand of Moses, did not strike fear into the hearts of the people, who on the following day grumbled against Moses, blaming him for the deaths of those who had perished for their rebellion (16:41). Only the intervention of Moses and Aaron stopped the plague which commenced against the grumblers, but not until after 14,700 perished (16:49).
This incident is especially pertinent because the grumbling of the Israelites was occasioned by the exercise of divine discipline. The Israelites blamed Moses for the deaths of those who rebelled against God. In the church at Corinth, a man is known to be guilty of living in sin with his father’s wife, yet the Corinthians do nothing about it. Rather than mourn over this sin, they are proud of it (see 1 Corinthians 5:1-5). Paul, even though at a distance from them, exercises discipline on his own, and urges the church to follow his example. If the church at Corinth is anything like the people of God in Moses’ day, they will grumble over Paul’s response to sin in the church. And thus the Corinthians find yet another point of contact with the ancient Israelites.
Now the real issue is out in the open. It is not really about what is right, or even about one’s rights; the issue is self-indulgence. All of the problems which have been exposed in the Corinthian church are really matters of self-indulgence. The little cliques are based upon some kind of mental self-indulgence; attaching oneself to a leader who is slick, smooth, and prestigious means that one gains status in the eyes of his (or her) peers. Often, I fear, “leaders” whom the Corinthians choose to follow are false teachers (see 1 Corinthians 4:6; 2 Corinthians 11), whose appeal is fleshly indulgence (see 2 Peter 10). The man living in an incestual relationship (chapter 5), and those sleeping with prostitutes (chapter 6), are indulging their flesh, as are those who go to court to protect their “rights” (chapter 6).
The problem with the ascetics, who advocated abstaining from sex and marriage, is that their self-flagellation often leads to greater immorality (see 1 Corinthians 7:5). The kind of legalistic self-abuse which the ascetics and legalists impose does not really deal with the flesh. In the first place, many practice a form of “self-denial,” which is but a mere outward appearance. They do it to appear spiritual and thus win the applause of their peers, thereby indulging themselves in man’s praises. While the outward appearance is that of self-control, the old lusts are not really dealt with, for they are still deeply imbedded on the inside:
2 “When therefore you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing 4 that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will repay you. 5 And when you pray, you are not to be as the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, in order to be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you. 7 And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition, as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words” (Matthew 6:2-7).
25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence” (Matthew 23:25).
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence (Colossians 2:23).
While self-abasement is futile and fraudulent, Paul is consistent with the rest of the Bible in calling us to a life of discipline. Discipleship is, after all, founded on discipline, not only in its terminology, but in its essence and expression. When Jesus preached, He did not offer an easy path nor did He promise earthly prosperity. He spoke of taking up one’s cross and of selling one’s possessions and hating one’s family. He was careful never to give the impression that following Him was going to be easy. He did not conceal the “cost of discipleship.”
But more than this, Jesus Himself practiced the very self-discipline and self-denial which He advocated, and which Paul requires in our text. From the very beginning, Jesus knew that He had come to this earth to serve, rather than to be served, and He gave His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). He consistently purposed to fulfill His calling and to carry out the will of His Father. The fulfillment of His calling was to die a most agonizing death on the cross of Calvary, and thus to make atonement for our sins. Never was there anyone who better exemplified the will and self-sacrifice to win better than our Lord. And it is because He completed His course that you and I may fulfill our calling as well. Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the grave is the basis for our sure victory as well.
Our Lord’s temptation in the wilderness, described by both Matthew (4:1-11) and Luke (4:1-12), is best understood in the light of those Old Testament events which Paul calls to our remembrance in our text. Throughout that 40-year period, the Israelites were constantly stiff-necked and rebellious. They continually sought to indulge their fleshly appetites, and as a result, they often rebelled against God and were stricken with various disciplinary plagues. Except for two men, Joshua and Caleb, the entire generation which crossed through the Red Sea failed to enter the land of Canaan.
Our Lord’s temptation in the wilderness was a deliberate “replay” of that period of time. As Israel, God’s “son,” was brought forth from Egypt, so was our Lord (Matthew 2:13-15; see Hosea 11:1). As Israel was tested in the wilderness for forty years (Deuteronomy 8:2), so was our Lord. But where Israel failed, our Lord triumphed. It is not by virtue of Israel’s faithfulness that we have hope, but by virtue of our Lord’s faithfulness. Israel was allowed to hunger and thirst (Deuteronomy 8:3), but they craved evil things and demanded that God give them what their fleshly appetites desired, loathing His provision of manna and water. Jesus was content to be hungry and to thirst, refusing to turn stones into bread. Our Lord succeeded where Israel failed. His success is the basis for our salvation, and thus for our successfully finishing our course. This is the case with Paul:
7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; 8 in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing (2 Timothy 4:7-8).
It can also be the case for us. This is the basis for Peter’s exhortation of the elders in his first epistle:
1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory (1 Peter 5:1-4).
The Old Testament is strewn with the wreckage of those whose lives were ruined by self-indulgence. Our Lord and Paul not only call us to a life of self-discipline and self-denial, they model it for us. Let us purpose to win the race, to finish the course which God has set for us. Let us deny ourselves and discipline our bodies, for our own good, for the good of our brethren, and for the advancement of the gospel.
99 This is similar to the question our Lord asked the Jewish religious leaders: “Have you not read … ?” See Matthew 12:3, 5; 19:4; 22:31.
100 The Isthmian games were “held every two years under the patronage of Corinth and second only to the Olympics.” They “were extravagant festivals of religion, athletics, and the arts, attracting thousands of competitors and visitors from all over the empire. Its sponsors and greater athletes were honored in Isthmia itself by monuments, statues, and inscriptions. Paul would have been in Corinth during the Games of A.D. 51 (in the Spring). Since there were no permanent facilities for visitors until the Second Century A.D., they had to stay in tents. Broneer (pp. 5, 10) conjectures that Paul would have had ample opportunity to ply his trade and share the gospel with the crowds visiting the Games of that year.” Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary, F. F. Bruce, General Editor (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987 [reprint, 1993]), p. 433, fn. 1.
102 Fee (p. 451, fn. 7) indicates that the original expression may just as well be rendered “examples/types for us” as “examples/types of us.” Surely we can see ourselves in the attitudes and actions of the Old Testament saints.
103 In the Greek Translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), the texts in Numbers 11 and Psalm 106 employ the same root word as Paul has employed twice in 1 Corinthians 10:6. In verse 25, the psalmist speaks of their grumbling, as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 10:10.
104 Notice that the psalmist also mentions the Israelites putting God to the test, as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 10:9.
105 There are all kinds of explanations offered for the discrepancy of 1,000 souls between Paul’s account and that of Moses in Numbers 25. It may be worth noting that Paul gives the number as 23,000 who died in one day. Moses tells us that a total of 24,000 died. Perhaps 23,000 died in a 24-hour period, but there were 1,000 more who died after the initial 24 hours passed.
I had just finished preaching in a humble Methodist church in Baroda, a city in the state of Gujarat in north-western India. The pastor invited me upstairs to the humble dwelling where he and his wife lived, above the church. While we were drinking a cup of tea, a couple appeared at the door. They were invited in and asked to join us at the table. I could tell that they were having trouble. The pastor asked me if I would mind assisting in counseling them. This couple began to pour out their story. They could not speak a word of English. The pastor would translate, as I sought to counsel them. I will never forget the sense of “sameness” in their situation. The culture was vastly different from my own in the Western world. Their language was a complete mystery to me. Yet even before hearing the translation provided by the pastor, I gained a fairly accurate sense of what was going on between this couple. The husband drank, and this was obviously a part of the problem. He was angry with his wife, and she was not that happy with him.
I was struck by the “sameness” I sensed as this unusual counseling session began to unfold. There were so many differences between this couple and their culture and mine, and yet their problems were really the same ones I constantly face in counseling with couples in America. Neither great distances in space nor in time change men. This is why seemingly sophisticated Christians in America can read the ancient accounts of Israel’s experiences in the wilderness and learn much from them.
Some Corinthians had raised the question of whether or not they were permitted to eat meats offered to idols. In chapter 8, Paul allowed his readers the luxury of assuming, for the time being, that they were correct in thinking that “strong” Christians could eat meat offered to idols, and that those who had scruples about such meats were “weak.” Even if these supposedly “strong” saints did have the right to eat meats offered to idols, they would be wrong to do so, Paul taught, when their liberty became a stumbling block to the weak. Knowledge should not take precedence in such matters, but love. Love would never exercise a liberty at the expense of a brother. Even if these “strong” saints were right doctrinally in assuming they had the liberty of eating meats offered to idols, they were found wrong by love’s standards when they insisted on exercising their rights at the expense of their brother.
In chapter 9, Paul drew the Corinthians’ attention to a genuine right (as opposed to their incorrect liberty to eat idol-meats): the right to be supported as an apostle and a minister of the gospel. After supplying overwhelming support for this right, Paul reminds his readers that he refused to exercise it in his ministry to them. While they of all people should be supporting him, Paul chose not to be supported, but to provide for himself by working with his own hands. He did this so that no one could ever accuse him of putting his own interests above those to whom he ministered. He refrained from receiving support so that his preaching of the gospel might incur the least resistance from those who heard it.
Having contrasted his decision to forego his right to be supported with the insistence of some Corinthians on exercising their rights regardless of its impact on others, Paul now turns to the root problem of the Corinthians, the lack of self-control. Self-indulgence lay at the root of every other Corinthian problem mentioned up to this point. The solution to self-indulgence is self-control. Paul begins by showing how self-control sets the winner of the race over and above all the rest of the runners. He then turns back to the time of Israel’s wilderness wanderings, to show that self-indulgence was the cause of the nation’s failure to reach the promised land. The same failures which prevented the first generation of Israelites from reaching the promised land are those which endanger the church today.
From the failure of the Israelites in the past, Paul draws two lessons for the readers of his Epistle. The first is a word of warning, recorded in verses 11 and 12. If so many Israelites failed to reach their goal despite God’s presence and provisions, we too should not presume that we will stand in times of testing. Second, Paul gives a word of encouragement and instruction in verses 13 and 14. He assures us that while falling seems to be the rule in Israel’s wilderness wanderings, it need not be. He cites several reasons for us to be encouraged in the midst of our trials and tests. And then he concludes by instructing us to flee from idolatry. Now the cat, so to speak, is out of the bag. Paul in no way sanctioned the eating of meats offered to idols in chapters 8 and 9. Finally, beginning at verse 14, he explains why idol-meats are deadly and dangerous, and thus prohibited. It will not be until our next lesson that we will consider verse 14 in the light of the verses which follow it. For now, we will seek to understand it in the light of those verses which precede it.
Our passage contains one of the most well-known and often quoted verses in 1 Corinthians:
No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it (1 Corinthians 10:13).
Nearly all of us understand this verse in isolation rather than in the light of its context. In this lesson, we will seek to understand this verse in context. Let us look to this passage to warn us and to encourage us, so that we will purpose to run to win, and so that we will flee from every form of idolatry.
Our text contains two major elements: (1) Paul’s admonition or warning, in verses 11 and 12; and, (2) Paul’s encouragement and instruction in verses 13 and 14. Verse 11 lays down the premise of Paul’s lesson in verse 12, introduced by “therefore.” Verse 13 establishes the foundation for Paul’s command in verse 14, once again introduced by the word “therefore.” The structure of these verses can thus be summarized:
Our text should be interpreted and applied in the light of two other biblical passages which bear on the same subject. Allow me to bring these texts to your attention as we begin this lesson:
1 “All the commandments that I am commanding you today you shall be careful to do, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the Lord swore to give to your forefathers. 2 And you shall remember all the way which the Lord your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not. 3 And He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord. 4 Your clothing did not wear out on you, nor did your foot swell these forty years” (Deuteronomy 8:1-4).
2 Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4 And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. … 12 Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life, which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death (James 1:2-4, 12-15).
11 Now [all]106 these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.
The moral failures of the ancient Israelites brought divine judgment. In each of the instances of Israel’s sin, there was a dire consequence of divine judgment. Paul means for us to understand that only two of the Israelites who escaped from Egypt and passed through the Red Sea entered into the promised land, while the rest died in the wilderness. But he is not focusing here on those who died of old age in the wilderness, but on those who were smitten of God for their sin, those who were “laid low” (10:5), “fell” (10:8), and “were destroyed” (10:9, 10). In the light of all this, I understand Paul’s words in verse 11 to read this way, “Now all these things happened as an example to them, and they were written for our instruction, … .” When God struck some of the nation dead for their sin, it was meant as a lesson for the rest. It was an example to all the rest, not to follow their peers in sinning against God by indulging themselves. The principle underlying Paul’s words is expressed in the Old Testament Book of Proverbs: “When the scoffer is punished, the naive becomes wise; But when the wise is instructed, he receives knowledge” (Proverbs 21:11).
In addition to instructing the Israelites not to sin, the recording of these events made it possible for those in future generations to learn from Israel’s mistakes as well. According to the NASB, Paul writes, “… and they were written for our instruction.” This translation is surely amazing. In the Book of Romans, Paul also referred to the Old Testament Scriptures when he wrote, “For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Romans 15:4, emphasis mine). Here, the Greek term which is rendered “instruction” is the normal term for instruction, which we would expect. But in 1 Corinthians 10:11, the term is not that which we would expect to find to convey the idea of instruction. It is, rather, the term which Luke uses of Paul’s words in Acts, and which Paul employed in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 and 14. “Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears” (Acts 20:31, emphasis mine).
12 But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction,107 13 and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another. 14 And we urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all men (1 Thessalonians 5:12-14, emphasis mine).
Surely we can see that “admonition” or “warning” is what Paul had in mind here. The sins of the Israelites in the wilderness, which provoked God to wrath, should have instructed the people of God in ancient times and served to warn us today. The fine points of these words may be disputed, but the main point Paul wishes to make is that we should be warned and sobered by the sins of our “fathers” (see 10:1), and the wrath of our Father.
The apostles do not make the distinctions between the Old Testament and the New which some do today. Some think that because the Old Testament Scriptures were penned before the coming of Christ, they do not measure up to the New Testament Scriptures. Some dispensationalists minimize the importance of the Old Testament, and even the Gospels. They link the Old Testament texts with “law” and contrast them with the New Testament Scriptures which they associate with “grace.” Paul finds (and condemns) legalism, whether it is found in the Old Testament period or the New. Paul, and Peter as well, believe that the Old Testament Scriptures were written for the benefit of the New Testament saint:
4 For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope (Romans 15:4).
8 I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.” God is not concerned about oxen, is He? 10 Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops (1 Corinthians 9:8-10).
6 Now these things happened as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved (1 Corinthians 10:6).
10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look (1 Peter 1:10-12; see also 2 Timothy 3:13-17).
The final statement of 1 Corinthians 10:11 is noteworthy: “upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” We are those upon whom the ends of the ages have come. So were the Corinthians, and they lived nearly 2,000 years ago. How could they and we both live at the “ends of the ages”? From the perspective of the Old Testament saint, the last days would begin with the coming of the Messiah. They, of course, did not distinguish between His first and His second comings. When Jesus came to the earth, died on the cross for lost sinners, and then was raised from the grave and ascended to the Father, the last act of God’s eternal plan commenced. It is a long act, I grant, but it is the final act. As Peter reminds us, a thousand years is as one day with God (2 Peter 3:8).108
The writer to the Hebrews looks on the coming of Christ as the consummation: “Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Hebrews 9:26). The coming of Christ was, to this inspired writer, the “consummation of the ages,” or in Paul’s words, the coming of the “ends of the ages.” When Paul writes to the Roman believers, he underscores the urgency of watchful living, in the light of the shortness of the time:
11 And this do, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. 12 The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts (Romans 13:11-14).
When we lose sight of the shortness of the time and the fact that we live in the end times, we are tempted to think we have lots of time, and thus we become sloppy and sluggardly. This is the very thing our Lord warned against:
42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 44 Truly I say to you, that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; 46 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him, and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers” (Luke 12:42-46).
Consistent with Paul’s view of the people of God, verse 11 underscores the continuity of God’s program, Old Testament and New. Here in chapter 10, Paul has referred to the ancient Israelites as our “fathers” (10:1). He has likened their salvation and sanctification in the wilderness to ours. He has previously (9:9-10; 10:6) and now (10:11) indicated that our experiences are very much the same, and that we can learn much from those people of God who lived long before us. And now, by speaking of the “ends of the ages” having come, Paul seems to be saying that while Israel’s liberation from Egyptian slavery was an early chapter in God’s plan for the ages, we are those in whose days the events of the last chapter are taking place. It is one program, in which both Old Testament Israelites and New Testament believers play a part.
The warning, to which Paul referred in verse 11, is spelled out in verse 12: “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” We must understand to whom Paul is referring when he warns the one who “thinks he stands.” Several observations should help us to grasp the meaning of Paul’s words:
(1) The terms “stand”109 and “fall”110 are not used casually elsewhere in the Scriptures, nor are they here. To “stand” is to persevere in the faith; to “fall” is to fall from the faith.
(2) The one who “thinks he stands” is thinking wrongly, for he is in the greatest danger of falling.
(3) The one who wrongly thinks he stands is often the one who thinks he stands strongly. Those who are most confident that they stand are those who feel strongly about it. The unbelieving scribes and Pharisees had no doubts about their salvation, wrong as they were (cf. Matthew 7:20-23). Our level of confidence about our security is not necessarily indicative of our actual salvation. How we feel about something does not determine how things really are. How things are should affect our feelings on the matter.
(4) The one who thinks he stands is the one who thinks himself to be “strong.” Chapter 8 spoke of the “strong” and the “weaker” brothers. The “stronger” brother of chapter 8 is certainly the one who “thinks he stands” in chapter 10.
(5) The one who thinks he stands is also the one who thinks he can (eat idol-meats). Paul is really turning the tables here. He allowed the one who ate idol-meats to continue to view himself as the stronger brother from chapter 8, until now. Now Paul warns these “stronger” brethren, who were confident that they were spiritual enough to eat idol-meats and not fall, that they are the ones most likely to fall. Spiritual pride leads to over-confidence, and over-confidence in one’s own standing and abilities sets one up for a big fall.
The Israelites of old were warned against such smug self-confidence. The Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ day were also self-righteous and self-confident. They thought that having Abraham as their forefather, that being set apart by God, that being the stewards of the revealed Word of God, proved them to be better than others, and thus they began to think of themselves as invincible. A drunken man will often get in a wreck, not only because his perception and reactions are impaired, but because he thinks he actually has greater abilities than he does. Those who carry firearms on their person or in their cars often are involved in violence because they become over-confident in their weapon.
The events in the history of Israel (our fathers, verse 1) which Paul has reviewed in the first 10 verses of chapter 10 should humble all of us, for even though divinely delivered, divinely provisioned, and constantly in God’s presence, they failed and they fell (verse 8) in the wilderness. The warning Paul sounds here is not just of the danger of falling, but of the severe consequences for falling, as seen in the events which took place in the wilderness. Let the “strong” Corinthians take heed and beware. Their attitude was self-defeating and self-destructive.
13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.
In the early chapters of Deuteronomy, Moses reviews the experiences of the first generation of Israelites, who were delivered from slavery, and yet who failed to enter and possess the promised land. If Israel’s failures drive home a solemn warning to us, cautioning us against smug self-sufficiency and security, God’s faithfulness to this wayward people should afford us a great deal of comfort. Man fails, but God is faithful. The amazing thing is not that God destroyed some in the wilderness, but that He did not destroy everyone instantly, and that He brought the Israelites into the land. In spite of one failure after another on the part of the Israelites, God was faithful to His promise. God did not allow the failures of His people to cause His promises to fail.
In verses 13 and 14, Paul has some very encouraging words for the Corinthian saints, and for us. His encouragement is based upon two foundational truths: (1) that all temptation is “common to man”; and, (2) that God is faithful to us in relation to our temptations. Let us consider these matters more fully, beginning with some observations related to self-indulgence and temptation.
(1) God never tempts men to sin (1 Corinthians 10:13; James 1:13). James says it as clearly as it can be said: “… God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt any one” (1:13b). Paul very carefully words verse 13 to say that temptation may overtake men, but there is no indication that this temptation comes from God.
(2) The same Greek word (peiradzo) is translated “tempt” and “test” in the New Testament. In one sense, temptation is very different. Temptation never comes from God, but from our own flesh, or from Satan.111 (James 1:12-14; Matthew 4:1-11; 1 Corinthians 7:5). God does “test” us, to prove and to enhance our faith. Temptation has as its goal sin and death (James 1:13-15). Testing has as its goal our purification and sanctification, and eternal life (James 1:12; 1 Peter 1:6-9). Testing leads to faith and obedience; tempting leads to doubting God and disobeying His commandments.
Having pointed out the great difference between “testing” and “tempting” in the Bible, let us also take note of the similarities. Both temptation and testing are prompted by trials and adversity.112 Both tempting and testing expose what is in our hearts (Deuteronomy 8:1-2; James 1:12-15). The same circumstances which result in unbelief and disobedience for one person, produce a deeper faith and greater obedience in another. If Paul has shown the difficulties of the wilderness to have resulted in failure and divine discipline in our text, the writer to the Hebrews commends men and women in the “hall of faith” who trusted God and obeyed His Word in chapter 11, the great faith chapter of this Epistle.
(3) It is in times of adversity that we may persevere through the time of testing and grow stronger in our faith, or we may surrender to temptation and sin. Suffering and adversity is the context for both testing and growth and for temptation and sin. The difference is who we are, and what is within us. Somebody once said that suffering is like boiling hot water; it makes a potato soft and an egg hard. Because the Israelites had hard hearts and stiff necks, their adversity seemed almost always to lead them to doubt God and to disobey Him. For Paul, suffering and adversity was a context for service, and a means of knowing Christ more intimately (see 1 Corinthians 4:9-13; 9:1-23; Philippians 3:10).
(4) The only way to know how the term peiradzo should be understood is by understanding the context in which it is employed. In the examples below, the context indicates how we should translate and understand the word as it is employed in each instance:
1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:1).
6 And this He was saying to test him; for He Himself knew what He was intending to do (John 6:6).
5 For this reason, when I could endure it no longer, I also sent to find out about your faith, for fear that the tempter might have tempted you, and our labor should be in vain (1 Thessalonians 3:5).
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son (Hebrews 11:17).
12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you (1 Peter 4:12).
Paul’s words, “common to man,” are pregnant with meaning, meaning on which we must meditate and reflect, meaning which is spelled out in other biblical texts.113
(1) Temptation is “common to man,” and as such, it will overtake the Christian. The Christian is not above being tempted (after all, our Lord was “tempted” by Satan.114) We should probably go on to say that being tempted is not a sin. Sin occurs when we allow our fleshly lusts to respond to temptation.
(2) Christians are human, and thus they were not exempt from being tempted nor prevented from falling. Paul warns those who wrongly think themselves strong, because they are capable of falling; indeed, they are the most vulnerable to temptation and falling.
(3) Temptation stems from, and appeals to our humanity; that is, from our fleshly desires (see James 1:13-15; 4:1-3).
(4) Temptation is the enticement to choose to do what our flesh desires, even though it is wrong. Temptation appeals to our fleshly desires, and we must decide whether to indulge our flesh or not. Satan does not overpower us, forcing us to sin; he tempts us, seeking to persuade us to choose to sin.
Let me try to illustrate what I mean. Suppose I am walking down the street and a man approaches me with a gun, demanding that I give him my wallet. I have not “yielded to temptation” by giving him my money; I have been forced to give up my wallet. But a con artist works to get my money in a different way. He does not use force to make me give him my money; he uses subtlety and deception to cause me to want to give him my money. The con man appeals to my fleshly lusts.115 Usually, my sinful lust is greed. I think that if I give him my money, I will get even more money, and so I gladly hand him what I have. I almost force him to take my money! Satan is not an armed robber as much as he is a con artist. The devil didn’t make me do it; the devil tempted me to want to do it.
If we could be forced to do evil, it would not be sin. When we are enticed or tempted to do evil, and we choose to do what is wrong, we do sin. The person who is raped is not guilty of immorality in the Bible. The rape victim is pitied, because it was not a matter of choice; the adulterer is stoned.
(5) We don’t have to sin when we are tempted, but when we yield to temptation we become enslaved to sin. We are never forced to sin, but we choose to yield to temptation. In Paul’s words to the Romans, we “present ourselves to someone as slaves for obedience,” thus becoming “slaves of the one whom we obey” (Romans 6:16; cf. Ephesians 3:1-3).
The Israelites of old were enslaved to their cruel taskmasters, the Egyptians. When God brought them out of Egypt, He freed them from their bondage. When they faced difficulties on their journey to the promised land, they began to look back upon their slavery in Egypt as the “good old days.” They began to see life in Egypt as the good life. They actually wanted to return to their bondage. In Romans 6, Paul draws a spiritual parallel in the life of the New Testament Christian. When we are saved by faith, we are freed from the bondage of sin. When we choose to yield to temptation and to return to the sinful ways of our former lives, we are choosing to return to slavery.
(6) Because no temptation comes to us except those which are “common to man,” none of our temptations are unique to us. Throughout human history, men have grappled with the same temptations which plague us today. Some have failed and fallen in these temptations, and some have persevered and endured. Often, we are “tempted” to think that the trials we face are totally unique, unlike those anyone has ever faced before. When we think this way, we have already begun to formulate an excuse for our failure and sin. Many have faced the same temptations before. Many have failed, and by this we should be warned. Many have overcome, and by this we should be encouraged.
(7) Being human (“I’m only human …”) is not an excuse for yielding to temptation, nor is it an excuse for our sin.
Let us now seek to determine the more precise meaning of the first statement which Paul makes in verse 13 in the context of 1 Corinthians. All of Israel’s failures, to which Paul has referred in 10:6-10, are in response to the difficulties into which God has led the Israelites under Moses. God was not “tempting” the Israelites, but “testing” them (Deuteronomy 8:1-2). As a result of Paul’s teaching regarding the failures of the first generation of Israelites to leave Egypt, the Corinthians should conclude that their “trials” could hardly be compared to the adversity faced by their “fathers.” Further, the Corinthian saints should recognize that any trial or temptation they might face would not be unique, but would find its precedent in the events recorded in the Old Testament Scriptures. In other words, no test or temptation which the Corinthians would ever face was new, but rather it was the common experience of many who lived before them. The Corinthians did not need to repeat the sins of their fathers, but they could learn from them so as to avoid the same mistakes.
Right now, I am learning to use a new piece of software on my computer. Frankly, I am having some difficulties. One of the ways the software company helps me deal with my problems is to set up a bulletin board, where the problems faced by others are described, along with their solutions. I can learn from the mistakes of those who have gone before me. My problems are not new, and thus I can learn from those who have been down the same path ahead of me.
Paul’s words, “No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man,” have another encouraging message for me. The problems, tests, and temptations which I must face in my Christian life are truly “human problems.” Think about this for a minute. We are tested and even tempted with regard to our humanity. The Israelites were tested with regard to eating and drinking, to following divinely appointed leaders, and obeying God’s commands. The testings of our Lord were tests of His humanity. When Satan tempted our Lord, it was in the context of His doing without food or water for many days. Satan sought to entice our Lord to provide Himself with food, even though God had led Him to do without it. Satan sought to tempt our Lord to test God’s faithfulness by forcing Him to rescue Him (by plunging from the pinnacle of the temple). Satan sought to tempt our Lord to establish His rule by submitting to him, rather than by submitting to the Father and undergoing the suffering He had appointed on the cross of Calvary. Our Lord’s temptations were, so to speak, human temptations, temptations rooted in His humanity.
If every trial and temptation (lumping them all together) which comes upon us is a trial of our humanity, then Christians should be most encouraged, because God has provided divine enablement with which we can not only escape from sin, but by means of which we may endure temptation and trial, to the glory of God and to our own spiritual growth. This divine enablement is the subject to which Paul now turns in the remainder of verse 13.
And God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.
In the first part of verse 13, Paul addressed the subject of sin and temptation from the standpoint of our humanity. Now, he speaks of sin and temptation from the perspective of our union with Christ. For those who have come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, we have much more than human gumption to enable us to overcome temptation. We are now united with Him who was tempted to the limit, yet who did not sin: “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). The One who was “tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” is the One who is faithful, and who provides the means for our not only surviving testing and temptation, but thriving in the midst of it.
One can hardly overstate the significance of God’s faithfulness to this matter of testing, trials, and temptation. When we surrender to temptation, it is usually due to doubt. In the temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden, Satan first cast doubt in her mind concerning God’s faithfulness. Though God had said that eating of the forbidden fruit would surely bring about death, Satan assured her that she would not die. Eve was deceived so that she doubted God’s faithfulness, and she trusted Satan. She obeyed the one she trusted.
When the Israelites were being led through the wilderness, they surrendered to temptation and fell into sin because they doubted God’s faithfulness. They doubted that God was with them, and so they demanded that God perform miracles to prove Himself and His presence among them. They doubted that God could sustain them in the wilderness, or that He would safely lead them to a land of “milk and honey,” so they sought to replace Moses and to elect another leader who would take them back to Egypt. We sing the song, “Trust and Obey,” and in doing so, we should see that obedience does stem from trust, just as disobedience flows from a lack of trust. Those who are listed in the “hall of faith” in Hebrews 11 are those who obeyed God because they trusted in Him and in His promises, in spite of what they saw at the moment. The faithfulness of God is the foundation for trusting and obeying Him. And God is faithful.
The faithfulness of God is evident in several ways as we come to times of testing and of temptation. First of all, God is faithful to keep us from any situation in which we would have no choice but to fall. God never puts us in situations in which we must fall. He will not allow us to be tested or tempted beyond our capacity to stand. When our Lord was tested, He was tested to the ultimate extreme. When we are tested, it is a measured testing. Some, like Job, face greater tests than others. But whatever tests and trials come our way, we can be sure that God has allowed them, knowing that we are not being tested beyond our ability to stand. That ability does not come from within us, but from Him:
24 Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen (Jude 1:24-25).
Let us be very careful to note here that God never promises us that we cannot fall, but rather He encourages us that we need not fall. The Book of Jude contains a great deal of warning, for there are many false teachers who are denying the gospel. Jude writes the words above to assure us that God is the source of our strength, so that we need not fall into sin. But the book is also an encouragement to guard the purity of the faith, and to make use of the resources which God has provided. We will not fall when we trust and obey, when we appropriate the resources which God Himself has provided.
There is a reason we can be sure that our trials and tests are not beyond our ability. With every test, God provides “the way of escape.”116 Paul does not speak of “a way out,” but rather “the way out.” I am inclined to think that Paul has employed the definite article (“the”) here to underscore the fact that there is a “way out,” and that this “way out” is not ambiguous, but specific. Every temptation and trial which comes into our life comes with its “way out.”
We need to be precise here, as I believe Paul is. The “way of escape” is mentioned as an encouragement, so that we are assured that we do not have to fail. It is not pointed out as an incentive to live carelessly, but as an encouragement to those who fear that enduring the trials and temptations of life is impossible. God has not promised to get us out of trouble, if we carelessly wander into it. Too many times, I have heard people misuse this promise as an excuse to toy with temptation. We continue to pursue a course of action we know to be wrong, falsely confident that God will bail us out of trouble at the last moment. To live in this way is to “put God to the test.”
Neither is the “way of escape” a promise that God will remove us from our trials. The question is, “What is it that we escape?” Some seem to think that Paul is promising that we will escape testing and tribulation. This is not the case, as many, many biblical texts make clear.117 Israel did not escape the hardships of the wilderness, because these were a crucial part of the test which God was giving His people. What God promises Christians a way of escape from, is sin. Sin was the rule, rather than the exception for the Israelites. Their persistent failure should serve as a warning to those who are overconfident. But it is not intended to cause us to throw up our hands and give in to sin, as though it were inevitable. With every test, and with every temptation, God provides “the way” to escape sin, often without escaping the pain and hardship of the situation. This is certainly Paul’s meaning, because he concludes by saying, “… that you may be able to endure it.” God provides the means to escape sin while enduring the test.
What form does this “way of escape take?” How will we know what it looks like? How will we recognize this way of escape? Broadly stated, the way of escape is to love God and therefore to trust and obey Him. Did the Israelites grumble against Moses and Aaron, and therefore against God? They were “baptized unto Moses” by the cloud and by the sea. The “way of escape” was to follow the leaders whom God had appointed, remembering how God had already delivered them through these same leaders.
Did the Israelites “try the Lord” by demanding that He provide for them in a certain way? The way of escape was to trust in the Lord, and to pray that He would provide for their real needs. Did the Israelites act immorally? What was the solution? One solution to immorality was a godly marriage. This is precisely what Paul says. Marriage is a preventative to burning. Further, the Israelites would not have engaged in immorality if they had faithfully obeyed His commandments, which not only forbade immorality but also those things which are often associated with it. Did the Israelites suffer divine judgment for idolatry? The Law forbade idolatry, and further, the Law prescribed how the one true God was to be worshipped. Did the Israelites want to have a visible “god” which they could see with their eyes? Let them escape by knowing that God is invisible, and that He cannot be fashioned by human minds or hands. Did the Israelites “crave evil things”? Let the Israelites learn to exercise self-control in their lives, so that fleshly self-indulgence is not the pattern of their lives.
All of a sudden, the argument begins to come full circle. Some of the Corinthians, thinking themselves to be both “wise” and “strong,” insisted on exercising their “right” to eat idol-meat, regardless of the fact that the apostles had forbidden it, and that their “weaker brethren” were hindered by their “liberty.” The bottom line reason for the insistence of some to practice their liberties was that they were self-indulgent, and they could not say “no” to their fleshly appetites. When one develops a lifestyle of self-indulgence, any denial of fleshly appetites seems like a horrible deprivation. The Israelites of old expected to get to the “land of milk and honey”without breaking a sweat, without paying a price. In New Testament terms, they knew nothing of the lifestyle of the disciple. They were unwilling to deny themselves in this life, in order to enter into the blessings of the coming age. Instead, they demanded that God provide kingdom blessings now, and threatened to turn back to Egypt if God didn’t bless them with prosperity and ease.
The Christian is to view the Christian life as the athlete viewed the race. There was a goal to reach and a price to pay in order to reach it. An athlete attains the prize only if and when he or she is willing to deny fleshly appetites and bring them under control. Those who serve the flesh are enslaved to it, and thus to Satan. The Christian must strive to make their physical bodies serve them as they seek to fulfill their calling. The more self-indulgent we are in our daily lives, the more we react to trials and testings, and the greater the temptation when we experience trouble. Being a disciple is about being disciplined, so that we deny fleshly lusts in order to serve God and others.
It may seem inappropriate, but the analogy is clear and compelling, so I will mention it here. Many Christians are very distressed (and rightly so!) over the way our culture deals with sexual immorality. If we as a nation were characterized by self-control, rather than self-indulgence, we would deal with AIDS and other STD’s by practicing abstinence. But that is not the spirit of the age. And so we find authorities urging people to “use protection,” rather than to exercise self-control. We advocate the use of condoms rather than abstinence.
Some of the Corinthians were just like this, and so are many, many Christians today. We look at the gospel as “protection,” and the promises of God’s Word in passages like ours, as the basis for loose living, expecting God to bail us out of trouble. Paul is telling us that God’s “way of escape” is His divinely-provided means for escaping from sin by fleeing from it, rather than by flirting with it and expecting a miraculous deliverance.
The “way of escape” which God promises us should not be thought of in terms of a miraculous intervention on God’s part, due to deliberate folly on our part. Jesus was tempted by the Devil in the wilderness, and there He “escaped” from sin. Satan was so bold as to seek to distort the promise of divine protection, making it instead a reason to put God to the test. God promised to protect His own, did He not, and especially His Messiah? So then, Satan reasoned, why not use this promise to check out God’s faithfulness, by our Lord casting Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple, causing God to miraculously intervene? Our Lord refused, and it should not be difficult to see why. The promise of divine protection should never be misapplied as a pretext for carelessness or even precipitous actions, which would require a miraculous intervention of God. Such actions seek to force God to act, making Him submit to our will, rather than us submitting to His.
The “way of escape” should not be thought of in terms of spectacular, miraculous interventions. Some such events do happen, but these are due to circumstances beyond the control of the Christian. For example, Daniel (in the case of his prayers) and his three friends (in the case of their being ordered to bow down in worship of the king’s golden image) had no choice but to disobey the king’s orders, if they were to be obedient to God. They endangered themselves by being obedient to God, while being disobedient to men. Even in these instances, they did not demand that God miraculously rescue them, although they knew He was able. The rescue of these saints was miraculous and spectacular, but they did not deliberately endanger themselves to force God to come to their rescue.
The “way of escape” is often much more mundane than it is miraculous. For those who are unmarried, and “burn” with sexual passion, the solution may be marriage. This was Paul’s counsel in 1 Corinthians 7:9. For those who are married, and who find themselves “oppressed” by an insensitive husband, or “harassed” by a nagging wife, the way of escape is not divorce, but bearing one’s cross silently, as our Lord did (see 1 Corinthians 7:10-14). In the most general terms, the way of escape is to love God and man, and to trust and obey Him.
The “way of escape” in many cases should come early, and not late; it should be a preventative course of action, rather than a prescriptive course of action. An alcoholic knows that there are certain people and certain places that are too dangerous. You don’t have to walk by the liquor store, or to call up those with whom you drink. Better to stay out of trouble than to get into trouble, expecting God to rescue you. Developing a lifestyle of self-discipline and self-control is one of the best “escapes” there is. That is what Paul is challenging us to do, to realize our own vulnerability to sin, and then to purpose to fulfill our calling in Christ, and therefore to pay the price which it requires.
If the Christian life is one in which we “take up our cross and follow Christ,” if it is a life of discipline and of denying fleshly lustsand it isthen surely our efforts to evangelize should not seek to deceive unbelievers by “luring them” or should we say “tempting them,” to trust in Jesus Christ for fleshly self-indulgence. Jesus was very clear on this to those whom He invited to follow Him.
34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake shall find it” (Matthew 10:34-39).
42 And calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43 But it is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42-45).
57 And as they were going along the road, someone said to Him, “I will follow You wherever You go.” 58 And Jesus said to him, “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” 59 And He said to another, “Follow Me.” But he said, “Permit me first to go and bury my father.” 60 But He said to him, “Allow the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim everywhere the kingdom of God.” 61 And another also said, “I will follow You, Lord; but first permit me to say good-bye to those at home.” 62 But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:57-62).
Why is it then that when we proclaim the gospel, we tend to disguise or set aside the fundamental issues of sin, righteousness, and judgment? Why is it that we say we are appealing to “seekers,” but those who are “seeking” are looking for some form of self-indulgence? They want God as the means to better relationships, a healthier self-esteem, ridding them of psychological pain, and taking them out of suffering. They want the very kind of gospel which the “good life gospeleers” offer. The problem is that it is “another gospel.” Let us seek to proclaim to lost sinners a gospel which saves men from sin and judgment, but which calls men to a life of discipleship, a life of taking up one’s cross, not a life of self-indulgence.
And let us, as Paul has earlier urged, purpose to “finish our course,” to “finish the race” which God has set before us, willing to endure trials and difficulties, willing to pay the price. Let us remember that our Lord was our example, in that the cross comes before the crown. The cross is the way to the crown. Let us choose then to take up our cross, and follow Him. To win the race is to bring glory to God, to build up believers in their faith, and to win the lost to Christ. Let us not fail to win because we cannot say no to fleshly lusts. And let us run the race, knowing that the time is short, for we are those “upon whom the ends of the ages have come”:
8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law. 11 And this do, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. 12 The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand. Let us therefore lay aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts (Romans 13:8-14).
106 A considerable number of Greek manuscripts include the word all. This all would include not only all of the incidents referred to by Paul in verses 1-10, but all of Israel’s experiences.
107 Here, the editors of the NASB give a marginal note, indicating that “admonition” may be the proper rendering. In verse 14, the same Greek term is now rendered “admonish.”
108 Peter says this in response to those who lived in his day, who reasoned that since such a long time had passed, the second coming of our Lord was suspect (see 2 Peter 3:3-4).
109 See Matthew 12:25; Romans 5:2; 11:20; 1 Corinthians 15:1; 1 Peter 5:12; Jude 1:24; Revelation 6:17.
110 See Isaiah 8:14-15; 28:13; 31:3; Jeremiah 50:32; Romans 11:11; 14:4.
111 Satan is thus called “the tempter.” See Matthew 4:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5.
112 We are also tested by prosperity, but that is another topic altogether.
113 Especially critical passages are Psalm 106:6-39; Proverbs 24:10; Acts 14:21-22; Romans 5:1-5; 1 Timothy 4:7-16; 2 Timothy 2:1-13; Hebrews 11; 12:1-13; James 1:1-18; 1 Peter 1:6-9.
114 Satan sought to tempt our Lord; it was his intent to tempt our Lord and to cause Him to fail. In one sense Jesus was “tempted” because this was what Satan sought to do. In another sense, this whole temptation event served only to demonstrate that Jesus could not be tempted, He was “untemptable.” The reason is that in His perfect humanity, there was no fleshly lust which was attracted to Satan’s self-indulging proposals.
115 Some con artists take advantage of our gullibility or our ignorance, but this is not the point I am trying to illustrate here.
116 The Greek term, here rendered “way of escape,” is used but once by Paul in its verb form (“cast out”), and employed only one other time in the form it is found in our text. There, in Hebrews 13:7, the term is used of the “end” or “outcome” of the lives of the leaders whom the saints are to follow.
A few years ago, my parents spent a year in Taiwan, where my dad taught in an American school, and my mother assisted. They came to know a young Chinese man whose name was Johnny. He did not know English very well, and my dad agreed to teach him—from the Gospel of Matthew. Johnny was saved at chapter 16. Over time, they got to know Johnny quite well. He began to speak of having them over for dinner, and that he had something very special to serve.
One evening, my dad and Johnny were walking home and were passing through an alley when a dog began to bark incessantly. Johnny finally yelled something at the dog in Chinese, and suddenly it was quiet. As they continued on, my dad pressed Johnny to tell him just what he had yelled at the dog. Johnny told him that he told the dog to shut up or he would eat him. Johnny was serious. As Johnny began to speak more often about the meal he planned to serve my folks, it came out that the special dish was a dog. As politely as they could, my folks explained that in America we looked at dogs as our friends, and so we would not think of eating one. That seemed to put the matter to rest.
What we eat really does matter a lot to us, doesn’t it? When one of our children was asked to spend the night at the home of a friend, our daughter had one important question to ask: “What are we having for dinner?” The answer to this question was usually the determining factor in her decision. The Corinthians seemed to have divided over what certain people ate for dinner. Some Corinthians felt they were free to eat any meat whatsoever, even meats offered to idols. They were so liberated in their thinking and behavior that they had no scruples about eating idol-meats at a meal that was part of a pagan religious idol worship ritual. Other Corinthians were much more particular. In fact, some were so sensitive on this matter that they would not eat anything without first knowing its origin. Every meal must have been like an inquisition, with the host being grilled (pardon the pun) concerning the origin of the meat being served.
The issue of meats offered to idols was first introduced in chapter 8. There, Paul did not debate the question of whether or not a Christian was at liberty to eat idol-meats, but allowed the assumption of some to stand that idol-meats were a matter of Christian liberty. Some seemed to be eating this meat and making a point of it, even though it caused some to stumble and follow their example, but still with pangs of conscience. In chapter 8, Paul sought to establish the principle that while one’s knowledge may cause him to conclude that he is free to eat idol-meats, love for the weaker brother should prompt him to forego his rights in deference to the one who may be caused to stumble.
In chapter 9, Paul uses himself as an example of this kind of love. Instead of referring to the dubious liberty of eating idol-meats, Paul cites a much clearer liberty, one universally agreed upon without dispute—the right of an apostle to be financially supported in ministry. In spite of a host of authenticating proofs of this liberty, Paul reminded the Corinthians that he refused to exercise it, knowing that this would not only enhance his eternal reward, but that it would also promote the proclamation of the gospel. Out of love for God and men, Paul refused to exercise a liberty which would be detrimental to his calling as an apostle. And so the principle laid down in chapter 8 is now illustrated in particular in 9:1-23.
In 9:24–10:19, Paul sought to expose the root problem behind some of the Corinthians’ insistence of eating idol-meats and to propose a better way. The underlying problem behind the eating of idol-meats was a lack of self-control. Many of those who refused to forego their right to eat idol-meats and insisted on eating these meats regardless of the negative impact on others, were those who simply lacked the self-discipline and self-control to deny themselves any sensual pleasure, including that of eating a certain piece of meat.
Paul first illustrated the need for self-discipline by likening the Christian life to the running of a race in the Isthmian games. While many contestants run in such a marathon, only one person will win the race. The one who wins the race is the person who has purposed to do so and who is prepared to pay the price for victory. The price of victory is self-control in every area of one’s life. Self-indulgence is not the way to win races; self-control is.
Turning from the athletic events of his own day, Paul moves on to the history of the first generation of Israelites to leave Egypt, and the lessons which can be learned from their failures in the wilderness (10:1-13). They partook of divine provisions, similar to our own. They experienced divine deliverance (salvation) from their bondage in Egypt, as we have been saved from our bondage to sin. They had their own baptism, which identified them with Moses, as we have a baptism which identifies us with Christ. They ate and drank of the “spiritual food and drink” which God provided in the wilderness, just as we eat and drink of the bread and the cup in communion. Christ was present in their midst, as He is present in ours. Yet in spite of all these divine provisions, the Israelites failed to “finish the race,” let alone win it. They all perished in the wilderness because they succumbed to the temptations of the flesh. They failed in exactly the same ways that the Corinthians did and that we continue to do today. They gave in to their craving for evil things, they acted immorally, they worshipped idols, they put the Lord to the test, and they grumbled; for each of these, a number of the Israelites perished as a result of an outbreak of divine wrath. The remainder of that generation died in the wilderness without entering into the land of Canaan.
We are to learn several important lessons from our “fathers,” the Israelites of old. We can learn from them when we realize that they, and we, are all a part of one eternal plan for mankind. They lived their lives as the first chapter, and we find ourselves living out the final chapter. We share our humanity with them, and thus not only their failures, but their victories are directly applicable to us. We should be warned about being over confident in our own strength, realizing that an entire nation failed to reach their appointed goal, with the exception of two men. We should be edified by seeing that their areas of failure are the same pitfalls we face today. But even though we are admonished by Israel’s failures, we should also be encouraged by the faithfulness of God, which is evident in Israel’s history. While the Israelites failed, God was faithful, and He saw to it that His purposes and promises were fulfilled, in spite of Israel’s failures. We need not fail. We need only to embrace the “way of escape” which God, in His faithfulness, brings with every trial and temptation.
Verses 14-33 spell out Paul’s bottom line in the matter of idol-meats. In these closing words of instruction and counsel, Paul practically applies what he has been teaching in principle by addressing three situations which the Corinthians would face: (1) The question of whether a Corinthian Christian should eat idol-meat at a meal that is a part of a heathen worship ritual (verses 14-22). (2) The question of whether a Corinthian should eat meat purchased at the meat market, the origins of which are not known (verses 25-26). (3) The question of whether a Corinthian Christian should accept a dinner invitation from an unbeliever (verses 27-28).
Interspersed in these verses are the general guiding principles which should govern every decision pertaining to idol-meats, and any other question regarding our conduct in a pagan world. Let us listen and learn from our “fathers,” as we are instructed from the inspired Word of God.
14 Therefore, my beloved,118 flee119 from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar?120 19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons,121 and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?
For some, the logic of 1 Corinthians 8:4-5 gave them license to eat idol-meats, and under virtually any set of circumstances. Paul takes a very different approach to this matter in the verses above. Paul first sets the scene in verse 14. The “therefore” of verse 14 connects what he is about to say with what has just been said. The ancient Israelites engaged in idolatry, for which they were severely disciplined. If the Corinthians should learn anything from their ancient “fathers,” it was that idolatry was not only wrong, it was deadly. The Corinthians should do what their fathers failed to do—flee from idolatry. Now just exactly what does this mean, to “flee from idolatry”? Paul will explain what he means in the following verses.
But before we get to these verses and their instruction to us, let us pause for a moment to savor the word “beloved” in verse 14. Here is a group of Christians who are far from what they should be. They not only look down upon Paul and the other (true) apostles, they are beginning to look down on the gospel. I can think of a lot of names by which the Corinthians could be identified or described, but “beloved” is not one of them. What we see here is that while many of the Corinthians had little regard for Paul, he still loved these saints. What he is about to say to them is written with the kindest of intentions, the deepest of affections. He is speaking to those whom he loves.
Paul does not patronize his readers either. They thought themselves to be wise and strong. They thought less of Paul. But in spite of this, Paul speaks to them as though they were wise. He informs them that they will have to reach for what he is about to say, and he encourages them to critically consider what he is about to say to them. What he will say can bear scrutiny and reflection. What others may be saying won’t.
In verses 16-22, Paul sets the table, or rather two tables, side-by-side. The Lord’s table is the table around which the Corinthians gather every week to commemorate the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord by partaking of the symbols of the bread and the wine. Some of the Corinthians have felt at liberty to sit at another “table,” the table which is served as a part of a heathen ritual, at which idols are worshipped, and to which sacrifices are made. The things which are eaten at this table have been sacrificed to the idol, or they are at least a part of the heathen ritual. In dealing with this matter, Paul establishes several principles upon which he bases his conclusion.
(1) To partake of the cup at the Lord’s table is to symbolically partake of what the cup represents. To partake of the cup is to symbolically commemorate the fact that we have become partakers in the shed blood of Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sins which it accomplished, through faith in His atoning death on the cross of Calvary. This is what Jesus taught before His death.
47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh.” 52 The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus therefore said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever” (John 6:47-58).
The drinking of the cup symbolizes the believer’s participation in the work of Jesus Christ by faith in His shed blood for the forgiveness of sins. The cup symbolizes the New Covenant, which was inaugurated by His death, burial, and resurrection.
(2) To partake of the bread at communion is to symbolically proclaim that we have identified with our Lord’s body. We have identified with Christ, not only in His incarnation, and in His bodily death, burial, and resurrection, but we have identified ourselves with His “body,” the church. The one loaf symbolizes one body, of which all Christians have partaken and are thus a part. When we partake of the bread, we remind ourselves of our union with His body, but also in His incarnation, and in His spiritual presence now, through the church.
(3) Communion commemorates our union with the person and work of Jesus Christ. It commemorates our union with Christ by faith at the time of our salvation and for all eternity. It commemorates our union with Him in His bodily death, burial, and resurrection. It signifies our union with the church, His body. Communion symbolizes our union with Christ, then (at the cross of Calvary) and now (in His body, the church).
(4) There is more than one “communion.” The Old Testament saints had communion, too. Eating of what has been sacrificed on the altar not only unites the one eating with the sacrifice, it unites him with those who share in the meal with him. The Old Testament saints had their own form of communion at which they ate a portion of what had been sacrificed. The sacrificial meal joined the participant to the sacrifice and to those who shared with him in eating of it.
(5) The pagan ritual of eating a meal, of which a portion is that which was sacrificed in heathen worship, was a “communion service” as well. The heathen worshipper is celebrating a communion service when he eats of what was sacrificed to an idol. In eating the things sacrificed to the idol, he is identifying himself with the pagan sacrifice and all that it means. Those who eat the meal together identify not only with the pagan sacrifice, but also identify themselves with all those sitting at the table with them.
(6) When the pagans worship idols by sacrificing to them, they are worshipping demons. Here is an amazing fact, which the Corinthians had overlooked. There are no other gods. Idols are nothing, because they represent gods which don’t exist. But false worship is not thereby rendered harmless and insignificant. This is where the Corinthians went wrong. Paul says that the worship of idols is the worship of demons. Is this some new truth, a mystery not revealed until Paul’s writing? Far from it!
7 “And they shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat demons with which they play the harlot. This shall be a permanent statute to them throughout their generations” (Leviticus 17:7).
17 “They sacrificed to demons who were not God, To gods whom they have not known, New gods who came lately, Whom your fathers did not dread” (Deuteronomy 32:17).
37 They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons (Psalm 106:37).
The Corinthians who reasoned that they were at liberty to eat idol-meats did so based upon principles they derived from the Old Testament Book of Deuteronomy (see 1 Corinthians 8:4-5). What they failed to take into account was the rest of the book, where it is clear that idol worship is not trivial, but the worship of demons.
(7) When Christians participate in the pagan sacrificial meal by eating the idol-meats, they unite themselves with the pagan sacrifice and with the heathen with whom they are eating. Just as biblical communion unites the meal-sharer with the sacrifice, and with those sharing in the meal, so the one who participates in a pagan festive meal becomes a sharer in the heathen sacrificial altar, and a co-participant with those eating the meal. One does far more than have dinner when one attends a pagan sacrificial meal.
(8) Christians cannot become partakers of two tables, for one is the table of the Lord and the other is the table of demons. Just as no man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24), neither can a Christian participate at two religious tables or partake of two sacrificial meals. The Lord’s Supper, and all that it symbolizes, is diametrically opposed to the “table of demons.” It is amazing that some Corinthians could so casually explain away their presence at the table of demons, while at the same time regularly observing the Lord’s table. The inconsistency is intolerable.
(9) When the Corinthians eat idol-meats while participating in pagan idol worship, they provoke the Lord to jealousy. Paul has instructed the Corinthians to “flee idolatry” in verse 14. Now we know exactly what he means. To sit at the table of demons and to participate in this pagan worship by eating idol-meats is to practice idolatry. This is exactly the way the ancient Israelites fell into idolatry, by joining themselves with the pagans at their “table.” No wonder God gave the Israelites such strict food laws; this kept the Jews from eating with the Gentiles, and thus from participating in their idolatry.
Idolatry is a most serious offense to God, even if it was not a serious transgression to the Israelites or to the Corinthians. The Israelites were “laid low in the wilderness” (10:5) because God poured out His wrath by various plagues. The Israelites were to have learned from the example of those who died. The Corinthians (and us) were to be warned by the outpouring of God’s wrath on idolaters. To practice idolatry is to provoke the Lord to jealousy, and this is a most serious situation. Those who were so cavalier in eating idol-meats at pagan celebrations should certainly be shaken by Paul’s words.
23 All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. 25 Eat anything that is sold in the meat market, without asking questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains.122
There are two major divisions in verses 14-33, verses 14-22 and verses 23-33. Verses 14-22 address the subject of meats offered to idols in the context of one’s relationship to God through Jesus Christ and symbolized by one’s partaking in communion. Verses 23-33 address the subject of idol-meats in the context of one’s relationship to his own conscience and to others. The two questions of (1) eating meats purchased in the market place, and (2) of accepting a dinner invitation from an unsaved acquaintance, are both addressed in this second section. But both at the beginning (verses 23-24) and at the end (verses 31-33) of this section, Paul underscores the guiding principles which should govern our actions with regard to these questions.
Paul’s words in verses 23 and 24 should sound familiar to us because they are not new:
12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body (1 Corinthians 6:12-13).
The context in which verses 12 and 13 (above) are found is that of lawsuits between Corinthian believers. It seems to me that in this context, Paul may be using the term “lawful” in relation to secular laws, not divine law. On this lowest level of morality (there are many sins which are not crimes), one still must ask whether an action which is legal is one which edifies. But immediately following verse 12, Paul begins to speak about matters of biblical morality, and not just of legality. He speaks first of foods and then of sexual immorality, the same subjects which are again picked up by Paul in chapter 10. When Paul repeats the words of chapter 6 in chapter 10, we should not be surprised. The principle of profitability (or edification) underlies the teaching of the entire book. We find it in chapter 6, again in chapter 8, now in chapter 10, and again in chapters 12-14. The law of love obliges us to act in a way that benefits or edifies our brother, and, if possible, the lost (by leading to their salvation).
The man or woman who does not purpose to “win the race” (9:24-27), who does not purpose to deny fleshly lusts and to overcome trials and temptations, is the one who is intent upon indulging the lusts of the flesh. The one who lives their life to indulge themselves is the person who is willing to sacrifice the well-being of their neighbor for their own self-satisfaction. The Christian is to be the person who is willing to sacrifice his or her own self-satisfaction in order to become a blessing to others. Before Paul gives specific instruction on the two questions before him in verses 23-33, he first sets down the guiding principles, principles he will repeat again at the end of this text. Having reiterated the guiding principles, Paul now sets out to answer the two questions, explaining how the command, “flee from idolatry,” applies to market meats and invitations to dinner from unbelieving acquaintances.
Can the Christian eat meat purchased in the market place, knowing that it could possibly have been sacrificed to an idol? The issue at hand seems to be as follows. The Christians purchased their food supplies at the market place. In addition to fruits and vegetables, this included meat. It was possible that some of the meat sold in the market place had been offered to an idol. It appears that the question pertains to meats whose origins are not known and are not immediately apparent. Should the Christian buy no market meats because of the possibility of obtaining idol-meats? Or, should the Christian seek to satisfy his sensitive conscience by inquiring about the origin of the meat? In this case and the next, Paul seems to change his focus. In verses 14-22, Paul was addressing those “liberated” saints who had no qualms at all about idol-meats and felt free even to participate in the pagan ritual meals where the sacrifices were made. Paul’s purpose in these earlier verses was to quicken the consciences of those who were far too casual about idolatry. But now in verses 23-33, he seems to be speaking to the other extreme, to those who were overly sensitive about eating any meats with “a bad or dubious background.”
I have been in some of the market places of the eastern world, especially in some of the remote villages of India. I have to confess that I had great interest in what was being purchased there. (I was not buying the food, but I often accompanied the person who was doing the shopping.) My questions were not those which some of the Corinthians asked. I wanted to know just what kind of meat it was. I also was interested to know how long it had been dead. The flies which swarmed over the dead carcasses were not doing much for my appetite. I was most concerned about whether I would live after eating these meats, and how they would taste on the way down. At least some of the Corinthians were interested in where these meats had been before they reached the market. Were these meats in any way involved in heathen worship? If so, should they be eaten? How hard should one try to find out about the origin of these meats?
Paul’s answer is really quite simple. In today’s jargon, Paul would have said, “Chill out; relax!” The fact is, it didn’t really matter. Biblical separation required that the Corinthian Christians have no part in the idol worship of their pagan peers. It was not necessary that the meat they ate have no such association. Whether or not a Christian should knowingly purchase idol-meats is not asked or answered. But when the origin of the meat is not known, the Christian is not to make an issue of it. They are not to “ask questions.” Such questions, I believe, would only be distractions, and Paul’s desire was to “secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.” Some Christians are so meticulously “straining at gnats” that they are “swallowing camels” pertaining to holiness.
Are the Corinthians concerned about the immediate origins and associations of the meat they purchase? They need not be. And the reason is to be found in the ultimate origin of such food: God created it. If God created it, we know it is good. And if we partake of it gratefully and with prayerful thanksgiving, we can be sure that it is sanctified:
1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:1-5).
27 If one of the unbelievers invites you, and you wish to go, eat anything that is set before you, without asking questions for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone should say to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake;
Now, Paul provides us with another specific application to his instruction to “flee from idolatry.” Does “fleeing from idolatry” mean that I should never go to dinner with an unsaved neighbor, for fear that I might be served idol-meats? The assumption here seems to be that the invitation is to the home of an unbeliever and not to a heathen temple, where the meal would be a part of a heathen religious ritual involving idols. This case seems quite similar to the one preceding it in that the apprehension of the Corinthian Christian is the possibility of eating meat which could have been offered to an idol.
As we read Paul’s words here about eating a meal at the table of an unbeliever, we are reminded of what Paul has already said on this point, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 5:
9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler— not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves (1 Corinthians 5:9-13).
Biblical separation does not require the Christian to avoid all contact with unbelievers. It does not even prohibit the Christian from enjoying the hospitality of an unbeliever by accepting a dinner invitation. Biblical separation is not meant to keep the Christian isolated from the world (which we are to evangelize), but to keep us separate from those who profess to know Christ and who live like pagans.
Paul’s answer is similar to his response to the previous question: “Don’t ask!” The Corinthians should not make an issue of the origin of the meat or food they are eating. They should eat all of it.123 Eating a piece of meat that was offered to an idol will not defile the Christian. What defiles the Christian is participating in heathen worship. If eating a piece of idol-meat does not defile the Christian, there is no need to make an issue of it. This simply exercises an overly-sensitive conscience and introduces an unnecessary affront to the hospitality of the host.
The law of love does require an exception to this instruction, however. If one’s host volunteers that the meat has been offered to an idol, then the Christian should refrain from eating it. When the host makes an issue of the origin, it is because it is important to him, or because he thinks it may be important to his guest. If the host informs you that the meat is idol-meat, he thereby indicates that this is important to him and to you. For his sake, do not eat of the meat. And if there happens to be another Christian present whose conscience is weak in this regard, the Christian should refrain from eating the meat for his benefit.
It is not all that clear just who might inform us that the main dish is idol-meat, but whether it be an unbeliever or a weaker brother, we should refrain from eating the meat for their sake. If they did not consider eating the meat a problem, they would not have brought the matter up. If no one makes a point of the origin of the meat, then the question should not be raised by us. The origin of the meat, once again, does not really matter.
28 But if anyone should say to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; 29 I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?
The general sense of what Paul is saying is clear, but the specifics are a matter of some speculation. It seems as though we must distinguish between the one who informs the believer about the idol-meat and the “other man” whose conscience is affected. The first seems not to have any personal hesitation about eating the meat, but assumes that the Christian would or should. The second seems to have personal qualms of conscience, and for his sake the Christian should refrain from eating the idol-meat.
Paul now asks two questions in the second half of verse 29 and in verse 30. First, Paul asks why his freedom should be scrutinized and restricted by the conscience of another. Second, he seems to asks why, even though he can partake of the meal with thankfulness, he should be spoken against as though he were doing wrong. I am inclined to understand these as the questions which prompt Paul not to partake of idol-meats, after their presence at the table has been pointed out. He does not wish to offend the conscience of another, and so any indication that another guest would have his conscience wounded by his eating is sufficient reason not to eat the idol-meat. Even though he could eat that meat with thanksgiving, he will not do so because he would be evil spoken of for having done so by another. In either case, Paul stands to lose much more by eating than he could possibly gain by eating.
31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved.
Having expressed his commitment not to eat idol-meats at the table of an unbeliever under certain circumstances, Paul now concludes by explaining his response in terms of two guiding principles, principles which should guide every Christian concerning the exercise of their Christian liberties. The first principle governs our actions in terms of our relationship to God. The next governs our actions in terms of our relationship to men.
The goal of history, and of God’s eternal plan, is to bring glory to Himself. The guiding principle by which the exercise of every liberty must be determined is that whatever we do, it must bring glory to God. Eating everything set before us at the home of a heathen can bring glory to God because our presence is to be a manifestation of His excellencies to lost men:
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a HOLY NATION, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Peter 2:9).
It may be by our witness at the dinner table that we are able to share our faith and be instrumental in leading lost souls to faith in Christ.124
The second guiding principle is that our every action should be done for the edification and upbuilding of others. For the lost, we should act in a way that most facilitates the gospel and the salvation of the lost. For those who are saved, our actions should be those which build up our brothers and sisters in their faith, and which enhance their daily walk with Him.
We have come full circle, as it were, in Paul’s dealing with the subject of meats offered to idols. Some of the Corinthians thought they had this matter well in hand. Based on the truth that there is but one God, the God whom we worship and serve, they concluded that idols were nothing at all. They were so confident about this that based on their superior knowledge, they “dined at an idol’s temple” (8:10), even though this had a detrimental impact on other brethren. To begin with, Paul instructed these saints that even if they did have the right to eat meat offered to idols, their love for their brethren should compel them not to exercise it. He then illustrated this by pointing out how he set aside his right to be supported, so that his proclamation of the gospel might be enhanced (9:1-23). Then, from 9:24–10:13, Paul exposes self-indulgence as the real reason the Corinthians refused to forego the dining pleasure of eating of idol-meats. The Corinthians didn’t set aside the eating of idol-meats because they were not in the habit of denying their fleshly appetites.
The grand finale comes next. Paul had allowed the assumption to stand unchallenged that the Corinthians could eat idol-meats, even by dining in an idol’s temple (8:10). Now, that assumption must fall, and fall it does. Paul shows the inconsistency of sitting at the Lord’s table in their Christian worship, and then sitting at the table of demons in their fellowship with unbelievers at an idol’s temple. One cannot symbolically commemorate partaking of the work of Christ on Calvary and also participate in the worship of demons. Dining at an idol’s temple was not a liberty at all, but a sin of the most serious order. These meat-eaters who ate dinner at an idol’s temple were wrong across the board.
In our text we find, once again, the summation of the Old Testament Law and of our guiding principles as New Testament Christians boiled down to two basic commands: Love God and love our fellow man.
35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:35-40).
8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:8-10).
In verses 14-22, Paul addressed the subject of idol-meats from the perspective of our love for God. If we love God, we will not engage in idolatry, which provokes Him to jealousy. Instead, we will refrain entirely from eating meats in the context of heathen idol worship. Our union with Christ, commemorated by our communion at the Lord’s table, prohibits us from entering into an illicit communion at the table of demons. In verses 23-33, Paul wishes us not to be distracted from our devotion to Christ by an obsession with the origin of every piece of meat we may eat. But when others point out that the meat set before us is idol-meat and we know that they would be hindered by our partaking of it, we forego that liberty for their benefit.
If those who ate idol-meats at the idol’s temple were wrong in what they were doing, those who were overly sensitive about idol-meats were also in need of correction. They were to “lighten up,” and quit making the purchase of meat or the acceptance of a dinner invitation an occasion for an inquisition. It was not the meat itself which was the source of defilement, but the environment in which the meat was eaten. It was wrong to eat that meat as a participant in the heathen ritual, but it was not wrong to eat the meat as the guest of an unsaved neighbor. The only time to abstain from eating the meat outside of the idol’s temple was when someone made a point of informing you that this meat was offered to idols.
We live in a culture characterized by self-indulgence. The advertising industry is constantly urging us to buy what we do not need, but what they say we should want. Merely wanting something is all the reason we need for justifying getting it. Credit cards enable us to buy what we don’t need with money we don’t have. We have all too few examples of denying ourselves for the moment in order to have real pleasure in the future. This is what the Christian life is all about. It is about our identification with Christ, who denied Himself and suffered in our place so that we might be forgiven, and that we might live eternally in fellowship with Him. His death on the cross of Calvary not only procured our salvation, it provided us with a pattern for this life. Let us walk in His steps, taking up our cross, for the joy that is set before us.
In the specific context of our text, let us be very certain that those things we consider Christian liberties are really matters of liberty. And if indeed we do have the liberty to enjoy certain things, let us be willing to set aside the momentary pleasure we might gain from the exercise of our liberty for the good of our brother, the sake of the gospel, and the glory of our Lord.
118 A term of endearment, employed six times by Paul in his Corinthian Epistles. See 1 Corinthians 4:14.
119 Used by Paul only in 6:18 (immorality—becoming one flesh with a harlot); 10:14 (idolatry); 1 Timothy 6:11 (false doctrine, disputes, greed); 2 Timothy 2:22 (youthful lusts).
120 See Exodus 12:43-49; 24:9-11; Deuteronomy 14:22-27.
121 See Leviticus 17:7; Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalm 106:37; Revelation 9:20.
123 Mothers may delight to find this verse and use it, and perhaps they should. Why does Paul tell his readers to eat everything placed before them? I think it is simple. To do otherwise is to needlessly offend your unsaved neighbor. To fail to eat what is served is an offense to your host, and thus an unnecessary hindrance to your witness. Do you not like what is served (I say this with fear and trembling)? Be master of your body and sacrifice your own selfish interests and eat it, all of it! I do not think I am going too far with Paul’s words.
124 Someone might ask why this opportunity to be a witness to the lost might also justify sitting at the table with the lost, while they participate in a heathen sacrificial ritual. The answer is quite simple. In so doing, we would deny the gospel and our union with Christ by sharing in the table of demons. But when the dinner table is in the home of the unsaved, and when we are not denying the gospel, then we can be a witness. We can surely witness to harlots, drug dealers, and thieves as we encounter them in the course of our lives, but we can hardly be a Christian witness by becoming one of them.
A Roman Catholic priest told this story in Readers Digest a few years ago. He was serving at the cathedral at Notre Dame and at the end of his day was making his way out to his car, apparently through a rather dark alley. From the shadows, a man approached, sticking a gun in the priest’s ribs and demanding that the priest hand over his wallet. As the priest reached into his coat pocket, the robber saw his clothing and realized he was a clergyman. Shaken, the once confident robber asked incredulously, “Are you a priest?” “Yes, yes I am,” replied the priest. “I don’t rob priests!” the man quickly assured him. “Well, thanks, thanks a lot!” the priest responded with relief. His hand still in his pocket where he had reached for his wallet, the priest said, “Here, have a cigar,” offering a cigar to the robber. “Oh no, I couldn’t do that,” the penitent thief replied, “you see, I’m a Catholic too, and I’ve given them up for lent.”
In the words of our Lord, this thief was “straining gnats and swallowing camels”:
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! 25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. 27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matthew 23:23-28).
The thief who would not consider robbing a priest would readily rob anyone else. He might even have been taking drugs, but he would not think of having a smoke, at least for a little while. Here we find a classic example of “straining gnats and swallowing camels.” The scribes and Pharisees did the same thing. They were meticulous in attending to the details of the Law, but they missed the main point of it all. This is why the prophets were sent, one after the other, to keep pointing out the essence of the Law: justice, mercy, and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23; see Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8).
All of us tend to get into a rut, doing the same old things and hardly remembering why we do them. I believe this is what had happened to the Corinthian saints. They were still doing the things they had first done—conducting baptisms, meeting weekly as a gathered assembly, observing communion, and the women were still covering their heads. But already these saints were beginning to lose sight of the big picture. In our text, Paul sets down one of the guiding principles for the traditions he had established during his time with them, and perhaps in the letter he had previously written to them (1 Corinthians 5:9).
The verses we are about to consider are among the most troublesome in this epistle. For everyone who is honest, this is a difficult text to interpret. I can well remember when one of my most respected professors (the head of the Old Testament department) published an article on this chapter, which some hoped would be the definitive work. As it turned out, there was not only a strong resistance to his position, but even he renounced his work. Lest you think I am poking fun at this godly scholar, let me also confess I have taught this passage several times over the past 20 years, and I usually come to a different conclusion each time I teach it!
For many today, this text is the cornerstone in their theology of the role of women in ministry in the church. This should be a foundational text, but those who are most inclined to turn here for a validation of their theology turn to the wrong place, for the wrong reasons, and with the wrong conclusions. Because this text is a battleground for evangelicals, we need to spend a little time laying the groundwork for our study in this exposition and in those texts which follow. Several introductory comments will help the reader to understand where I am coming from.
(1) Chapters 11-14 flow easily from what Paul has already written in chapters 1-10. There is no abrupt shifting of gears when moving from chapter 10 to chapter 11. At chapter 11, Paul makes his transition from the subject of participating in illicit idol worship to the conduct of the church at worship in chapters 11-14. If chapters 8-10 had to do with suppers where idol-meats were eaten, chapters 11-14 deal with the meeting of the church and its celebration of the Lord’s Table.
One could probably sum up the problems of the Corinthian Christians with one word: self. Seeking status for themselves, the Corinthians had divided into factions, each of which prided themselves on the status of their leader and the sophistication of his style. The Corinthians were into self-satisfaction so that all kinds of evils were practiced and tolerated. These included what appears to be incest in chapter 5 and immorality with prostitutes in chapter 6. These self-serving Corinthians were so into fulfilling their own desires that they fought for their rights in secular law courts, before unbelieving judges, and before the unbelieving world which looked on with wonder. Those who sought to correct the problem of rampant immorality did so by teaching the opposite extreme. They advocated the avoidance of marriage and of sex within marriage. These saints were so caught up in self-indulgence they did not have the discipline to say no to their fleshly lusts. They would eat idol-meats and even participate in their heathen idol worship ceremonies. They would insist on going to idol temples, even though this caused other Christians to stumble.
By and large, the self-indulgence Paul has exposed in chapters 1-10 has been outside the church. Now, at chapter 11, Paul turns to the evidences of self-seeking when the saints gathered as a church for worship and edification. Much of this self-seeking had some kind of spiritual label, which gave a semblance of spirituality. But it does not take a biblical scholar to conclude from Paul’s words in chapters 11-14 that it was mere selfism with a very thin spiritual veneer. The saints who gathered to observe the Lord’s Table did not wait for those who could only come late nor did they share their food with those in need. They indulged themselves so that they became drunk, and the celebration of the Lord’s Table was shamefully observed. When it came time for teaching and singing and edification, it seems as though every Corinthian, man or woman, was determined to speak or to perform, and much of their participation seems to be grandstanding. The sins formerly exposed outside the church meeting earlier in this first epistle of Paul’s to the Corinthians are now exposed in the context of the church meeting in chapters 11-14.
(2) Paul’s teaching here is consistent with his teaching elsewhere, with that of the Old Testament, the apostle Peter, and with the practice of our Lord. Too many professing Christians look down upon Paul and his teaching concerning women as though he were a hillbilly from the Ozarks, a narrow-minded chauvinist who sought to pass off his prejudices as apostolic instruction. Paul claims that his teaching and practice are consistent with the Old Testament “law” (14:34), and with his teaching and practice elsewhere (1:2; 4:14-17; 11:16; 14:34). Peter’s words in 1 Peter 3:1-6 mirror what Paul has written here and elsewhere.
There is little new or unique about Paul’s teaching on the roles of men and women except for one thing–the possibility that women might be able to pray or prophesy publicly in the church meeting. Nowhere else is this possibility mentioned, and so we must seek to explain Paul’s words in verse 4 in light of his teaching to the contrary everywhere else the subject of the woman’s role in ministry and worship is discussed. The wonder to me is how so many professing Christians can think of Paul’s words concerning women praying or prophesying in verse 4 as the rule, rather than as the exception.
(3) Paul’s words here concerning women and worship are not merely his own opinion but are his apostolic instruction, concluding in instructions from Paul which he calls the “Lord’s commandment” (14:37). It is amazing how many wish to be “Pauline” in their theology when it comes to justification by faith or the inspiration and authority of Scripture, but who suddenly look down upon Paul as a narrow-minded chauvinist when it comes to the role of women. We cannot pick and choose from Paul’s teaching. It is true that Paul does give his opinions elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, which are not binding on us (see 7:6-7, 25, 40). He clearly informs us when this is the case. But when Paul comes to the role of men and women and the principle of headship in our text, it is not opinion which he offers, but principles which culminate in clear-cut imperatives. If one is inclined to take Paul lightly here, let him remember Paul’s concluding words in chapter 14:
34 Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. 39 Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. 40 But let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner (1 Corinthians 14:34-40).
(4) Paul’s teaching in this passage is not just restricted to the Corinthians living in that place and time; it is for all Christians. Those who cannot deny the clear teaching of the apostle, but who do not wish to abide by that teaching, find an escape by restricting Paul’s teaching on sexual roles to that time and place, and not our own. Paul is writing to the Corinthians, but in his introductory words in chapter 1, verse 2, Paul indicates he is writing to all the saints, to those “who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul repeatedly emphasizes the global nature of his instruction and its universal implications (see 4:16-17; 11:16; 14:34). Paul’s principles and precepts are therefore as much for our benefit as they were for the Corinthian saints so long ago.
Many of the errors made in interpreting this passage (and others) are the result of two problems: (1) preconceived notions as to what Paul can and cannot teach on the roles of men and women in the church; and (2) the use of an improper method of interpreting the Scriptures.125 The first error is the result of presuppositions (“My mind is already made up, so don’t confuse me with the facts.”), and the second has to do with hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a fancy, five-dollar word for the science of interpretation. The text we are expounding is one of the most debated passages in the New Testament. Unbelievers reject Paul’s teaching here immediately. But believers too are very reluctant to take Paul’s words at face value. Some parts of this passage are simply hard to understand even though we desire to do so; others are hard to understand because we can see where Paul’s teaching is leading, and we do not really wish to go there. As we begin our study of chapter 11, I want you to know the guiding principles of interpretation I will seek to follow in this exposition.
(1) We must always interpret the “unclear” texts of Scripture in light of those which are “clear.” I must stress here that this principle of interpretation is held by virtually all conservative evangelical Christians, as well as others. The real question is: “Which texts are clear and which are unclear?” Too often our presuppositions prevail here, and we decide the “unclear” texts are those that teach something with which we disagree. The clear texts are those which appear to be proof texts for our own preferences. If we are honest, I think we would have to acknowledge that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is one of those passages which is unclear in some of its particulars. This is precisely why so many scholars have differed over its interpretation, even in those days when there was not strong cultural pressure to reject much of Paul’s teaching in this text.
(2) Paul’s teaching in this passage must be interpreted in light of Scripture and not in light of the culture of that day. A number of the commentaries assume we must understand, interpret, and apply Paul’s words in our text in light of the culture of his day. The simple fact is no one really knows the culture of that day that well. Furthermore, any number of cultures were represented in that cosmopolitan city, not just one. If the student of Scripture can only understand what he reads in light of the culture of that day and time, derived from some source other than Scripture, we are of all men most to be pitied. Historical background and cultural insight gained outside the Bible may be helpful and illustrative, but it is not crucial to interpreting and applying the Scriptures. If so, those jungle peoples who are given a copy of the Bible translated by Wycliffe missionaries cannot be expected to rely upon their Bibles alone, because they must have other facts to understand the message of any text.
I believe the Scriptures give us all the information we need to be able to read, understand, interpret, and apply any passage in the Bible. I am not advocating we ban or burn our Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias or that we cease archaeological excavations. I am simply saying that if all we have in our hands is a Bible, that is enough. A concordance can be of help, too. Enlightened by other texts and illuminated by the Holy Spirit, we can interpret and apply the Bible to ourselves and to our times.
(3) Chapters 11-14 are a unit, and every passage in this segment must be interpreted and applied as a part of this unit. Paul is a very logical thinker and writer. Paul is developing an argument for the entire book as each chapter unfolds. Each of the sub-sections (like chapters 8-10 and 11-14) also has an argument that is progressively developed. If we are to understand Paul’s teaching, we must do so by interpreting each portion in the light of the larger argument. Beyond this, if Paul’s epistles are the inspired Word of God, then what Paul teaches on the roles of men and women in ministry must be consistent with what he has written elsewhere in other epistles.
(4) We should interpret Paul’s words in chapter 11 (and elsewhere) in the light of Paul’s style of developing his argument. In the most general terms, the first 16 verses of 1 Corinthians 11 are Paul’s “introduction,” and the final verses of chapter 14 are the “conclusion” to his teaching on the conduct of men and women in the church meeting. One would hardly do justice to Paul’s argument by drawing too many conclusions from Paul’s introduction, and yet this is precisely what happens. Let Paul merely mention the possibility of a woman praying or prophesying in church, and many are willing to conclude that this is acceptable, even though Paul prohibits women to speak in the church meeting (even to ask a question) in chapter 14. Let introductions be introductions, and let Paul’s conclusions be our conclusions.
Having made these introductory comments, we need to understand the unique way in which Paul deals with the Corinthian problems. We need to understand the way Paul develops his arguments so we can interpret his teaching clearly. I am suggesting we now apply what we should have already learned about the way Paul develops his argument in 1 Corinthians 1-10, so that we can rightly discern his argument in chapters 11-14.
Paul does not deal with the Corinthian errors head-on as he does the heresy he confronts in his Epistle to the Galatians. In chapter 7, Paul begins with a statement that would have been on the lips of some of the ascetics in the church: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (verse 1). It would seem, on the face of it, that Paul is agreeing with the ascetics by referring to the celibate lifestyle as ideal. But as he develops his argument, we can see that marital sex is, for some, a preventative for immorality, and abstinence (in marriage) a cause of immorality. While the ascetics seem to have prohibited sex and marriage altogether (see 1 Timothy 4:1-3), Paul does not prohibit marriage and sexual intimacy in marriage. He does, however, encourage those who are single to consider the single and celibate lifestyle in order to serve the Lord without distraction (7:25-35).
In chapter 8, Paul appears to accept the position and practice of some Corinthians, who not only ate meats offered to idols but did so in a pagan idol worship ceremony (8:10). These idol-meat eaters not only indulged themselves in this meal, they did so knowing they would be a stumbling block to weaker brothers in so doing. And all the while these idol-meat eaters thought they were “strong” and more “spiritual” than those who refrained from such meats. By the time we reach the end of chapter 10, Paul has brought the whole matter to its conclusion, forbidding any believer to act in a way that hindered another, that became a sharer in demonic things, and which was contrary to the glory of God and the proclamation of the gospel. The appearance of chapter 8 (that idol-meat eating is permissible, and even preferable, for the Christian) is blown away by the reality of chapter 10. No one would think of casting aside the apostolic command not to eat idol-meats (Acts 15:28-29; 1 Corinthians 10:14-22) by claiming that Paul’s words in chapter 8 contradicted this command. And, likewise, no one should dare to cast aside clear apostolic commands to women based upon the fact that Paul speaks of the hypothetical possibility that a woman might pray or prophesy with her head uncovered. Paul’s conclusions on such matters are clearly recorded in his conclusion of chapter 14.
(5) The commands of Scripture always take precedence over our inferences drawn from the Scriptures (see Matthew 28:20; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 2 Corinthians 10:5). In Matthew 23, Jesus accused the scribes and Pharisees of “straining gnats and swallowing camels”; that is, they were knit pickers on little trivial details while they missed the main point of it all. The number one “camel” for me is a command from God. After all, the whole law was first summed up by Ten Commandments and then by just two. When Jesus commands me to love my enemy, my task is not to try to reason my way out of it, but to do it. No matter how many “justifications” I find in the Bible for not taking this command seriously, the command stands, and I obey or disobey. The first command which was given to Adam and Eve did not make sense to Eve, and both she and her husband disobeyed. No set of reasons was an adequate excuse. I am not saying there is never any exception to any command, but I am saying I must take commands most seriously of all. Paul put it this way:
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. 5 We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, 6 and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete (2 Corinthians 10:4-6).
To somewhat paraphrase what I understand Paul to be saying, we are in a spiritual conflict, and one of our chief weapons is the Word of God (the sword of the Spirit). While we can reason our way to nearly any conclusion (sprinkling that conclusion with an ample portion of biblical references), we are to take every thought, every doctrine, every theory, and subject it to Christ, specifically to obeying Christ’s commands. Jesus’ great final command is about obedience to His commands:
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20, emphasis mine).
If my reasoning and exegesis bring me to the point where I must choose to follow my reasoning (and thus disobey Christ’s command), or to obey Christ’s command, I should have little doubt as to which prevails.
Notice then that there are no commands in verses 1-6. The commands will be found later in chapters 11-14, with Paul’s final words in chapter 14 packed with them. Commands are the bottom line of Scripture, and Paul will not get to the bottom line in this introductory text in 11:1-16, but in chapters 13 and 14.
As we shall soon seek to demonstrate, those efforts to interpret our text in light of the culture of Corinth are destined to fail. Not one of Paul’s arguments is based upon the culture of his day, but upon the principles and traditions laid down by the holy prophets, including Paul.
1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
Paul has already given the Corinthians much to imitate. In the immediately preceding context, Paul calls on everyone to willingly surrender any right or liberty which does not edify (10:23), and specifically he claims that he seeks to please all men in all things, refraining from seeking his own profit in order to pursue that which is profitable to others (10:33). Here is something worth imitating, but there is yet more to come. In chapter 11, Paul will praise the Corinthians for remembering him in everything. They are to imitate and to obey Paul by following those things he teaches and practices in regard to the church (see also 4:14-17).
2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
We must admit that praise is not something we expect from Paul when writing to the Corinthians. After all, they are doing so many things wrong! Yet, in spite of this, Paul starts off in a very positive manner, commending the Corinthians for remembering him in everything and by holding firmly to the traditions which he taught them. Just what are these traditions? Some commentators believe we cannot know what they were. I think the Bible gives us a pretty clear idea as to what some of these were. Consider the following texts in which these same terms, “tradition” or “traditions,”126 are employed:
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
The verb form of this word is frequently found in the New Testament, and it is informative as well:
4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees, which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe (Acts 16:4).
2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you (1 Corinthians 11:2).
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread (1 Corinthians 11:23).
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3).
21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them (2 Peter 2:21).
What are the “traditions” Paul delivered to these Corinthians which they remember and persistently observe? They are the inspired, apostolic instructions, which were handed down to the churches regarding doctrine and practice. The traditions are the gospel message and the commandments which accompany it. In the context of chapter 11, the “traditions” are the head covering of women, the observance of communion, and the regular meeting of the church, all of which are discussed in chapters 11-14.
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
The “but” of verse 3 is significant. Paul did sincerely praise the Corinthians for remembering him in all things by keeping the traditions he had given them. They were going through the right rituals and practices, and this was commendable. But they were not doing so in the right spirit; they did not keep the traditions with an understanding mind, with a firm grasp of why they were doing what they were so faithfully doing. And so Paul sets out to remind them of a principle which gives meaning to the traditions they were so faithfully observing. That principle is the principle of headship. In verse 3, Paul applies the principle of headship to three relationships: (1) God the Father and Jesus Christ, the Son; (2) Jesus Christ and all mankind; and, (3) the man as the head of a woman.
Before we look at these three examples of headship, let us first pause to reflect upon what headship means. I will restrict the meanings of the term “head” to those which can be found in the Scriptures. To begin, let me summarize the scope of the meaning of this term “head”:
(1) To be the “head” is to be the source. We speak of the “headwaters” of a river, and we mean the place where the river begins, its source.
(2) To be the “head” is to be the one with ultimate authority. The head man is the man in charge, the man with final authority. The head waiter or the head of the household is the one in charge.
(3) To be the “head” is to be preeminent above others. To be preeminent is to get the glory. To be the head is to be the one who is most prominent, the one who has the preeminence. Anyone knows that in an organization, the underlings dare not upstage the one in charge, the head of the organization.
Christ is the head of the church because He brought it into existence. He is the head of the church because He sustains the church. He is the head because the church serves Him. He is the head in that He is preeminent in the church and in all creation. Paul includes all these elements in his Epistle to the Colossians:
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything (Colossians 1:16-18).
The man, Paul writes, is the head of a woman. Paul does not say men are the head of women, but he speaks of a one-to-one between a certain man and a woman. In effect, Paul is saying that the husband is the head of his wife (Ephesians 5:23). The expression, “the man” singles out one man, and then states that he is the head of “a woman,” a particular woman, namely, his wife. I believe the reason Paul states the principle in more general terms is because both in the creation of Adam and Eve, and in their fall and the curses, Adam and Eve both represent mankind as a whole; Adam represents both husbands and males, while Eve represents both females and wives. No woman, married or not, is to exercise headship over men. On the other hand, a particular man should be careful about taking headship too far, as though all women were subject to him. You will recall that Paul instructs wives to be subject “to their own husbands,” and not to men in general. In the church meeting, however, I believe that men are to exercise headship in the church (see 1 Timothy 2:8-15).
Finally, God is the head of our Lord Jesus Christ. When Satan tempted our Lord, he sought to persuade Him to act independently of His Father (see Matthew 4:1-11). Jesus repeatedly emphasized that He was not acting independently of the Father, but that He was doing the will of the Father (John 5:19, 30). Everything our Lord claimed as His own was that which He had been granted by His Father (Luke 10:22, 29; John 5:26-27; 6:27; Revelation 2:27). It was the Father’s will that the Son die on the cross of Calvary, and the Son of God submitted to the Father in His incarnation and in His atoning death (see Matthew 26:39; Acts 2:23; Philippians 2:8). In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul indicates that after all of the enemies of our Lord have been defeated (the last being death), then the Lord Jesus will hand over authority and dominion to the Father:
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:25-28).
While we have only made our way through the first three verses of chapter 11, we have already come to the “camel” of this chapter. For many, verses 4-6 are the focal point for their study, because it is here that some find a proof text for women exercising leadership in the meeting of the church. But the structure of this chapter should indicate that verse 3 lays the foundational principle (the “camel,” as it were), and verses 4-16 deal with the “gnats.” I do not mean to say these “gnats” are unimportant; I simply mean that verse 3 contains the guiding principle which governs all of the particulars, such as head coverings.
To those who would major on the minors by ignoring verse 3 and rushing on to verses 4-6, I would say you have failed to let Paul’s reasoning guide your own. And to those who throw their hands up in despair, so perplexed by verses 4-16 that they doubt anyone can ever understand them, do not miss what is patently clear here because of what is not clear. The principle of headship is the “camel” of chapter 11. It is clear, and it guides us in dealing with the particulars of verses 4-16. Even though we may not all agree on these later verses as to their meaning and their application, let us all agree on the principle.
The principle of headship is a unifying principle. It explains and encompasses all of the particular instructions Paul and Peter give to men and women regarding their dress, demeanor, and deeds in the church meeting. Let me illustrate. In 1 Timothy 2, Paul implies that women should not pray publicly, and he clearly forbids women to teach or to exercise authority over men in the church gathering. He also instructs women about their dress. They are to dress modestly and to avoid certain elaborate hair styles or jewelry.
The principle of headship makes sense of all these instructions. Paul forbids public teaching and leadership over men because men are to exercise headship, and thus men are to be those who exercise authority over the church. For a woman to teach or to lead the church is to usurp that headship which has been delegated to men. But what does a woman’s dress have to do with headship? Everything. Headship is not just about authority, but about preeminence—glory. A woman does not need to speak to have preeminence. All she needs to do is to dress in a way that is striking, that draws attention to her “assets.” In Paul’s day, it would seem that very little of a woman was exposed other than her head, and thus Paul and Peter warn about fancy hair styles and jewelry because these accentuated the woman’s beauty with reference to her head. In our day, there is much more to be seen by all, and in accentuating these the woman can attract attention to herself and thus gain preeminence. If everyone’s eyes turn to a woman as she enters the room, it is likely she has done something to attract that attention. So it is not just by a woman’s silence, but by her spirit and by her attire that she submits to the headship of her husband, and of her Lord.
The principle of headship guides us in our application of particular commands. Throughout the Scriptures, pleasing God is not just a matter of “keeping the rules” but of obeying God’s commandments in the light of His principles. Thus, the scribes and Pharisees received a rebuke from our Lord for their meticulous obedience in regard to some commands, but in a way that neglected “the weightier provisions of the law, [the principles of] justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23). This is what our Lord was seeking to show in His teaching of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). The scribes and Pharisees were into the rules but had lost the reasons, and thus they were willing to obey only the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. When the scribes and Pharisees accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath by healing, Jesus pointed out the principle that the Sabbath was for man’s benefit and not man for the Sabbath. Jesus did not violate the spirit of the law by healing on the Sabbath. The psalmist of 119 exemplifies the right spirit, for he diligently seeks to discover the reasons behind the rules. We should do likewise. The principle of headship is the reason behind the rules which Paul and Peter set down regarding the ministry of men and women in the church.
There are few diseases as deadly as the disease of legalism. This disease occurs when we dutifully observe the rules as mere traditions but forget the principles, the reasons, which lie behind them. This obviously happened to the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus’ day. It seems to have been happening to the Corinthian saints of Paul’s day, which necessitated these chapters (11-14) we are studying. And reluctant though I am to admit it, this legalism also is evident in us today. When we “follow the rules” (the “gnats”) but forget the “reasons” (the principles, the “camels”), we have become legalists, and we must repent. The principle of headship should put many of our practices in a whole new light.
The teaching of Paul on headship is most interesting when considered in the light of his previous instruction concerning idolatry in chapters 8-10. Idolatry is man seeking to reshape God into an image with which man is familiar and comfortable and over which man has control. Biblical Christianity is exactly the opposite. Christianity is about God reshaping man into His image:
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17-18).
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-13).
God is shaping us into conformity with His image, and this is so that we may reflect His glory to both men and angels (1 Peter 2:9; 1 Corinthians 11:10; Ephesians 3:8-11). If our duty and privilege is to reflect God as He is to men, then obedience to His commandments and instructions related to His headship is no small matter. To ignore, disregard, or disobey His Word in the matters about which Paul is writing is to distort the image of God; it is another form of idolatry.
Our submission to His headship by understanding and obeying His instructions regarding the proper functions of men and women in the church is vitally important in yet another way. Submission to the headship of our Lord is not just an issue, not even just an important issue; submission to our Lord’s headship is the ultimate issue. It was the issue when Satan rebelled against the headship of God (Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:11-15). It was the issue when Satan orchestrated the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God’s headship. It was also a mechanism of the fall, because Eve rebelled against Adam’s headship. When Satan tempted our Lord, he sought to entice Him to act independently of His Father and thus to rebel against His headship.
The establishment of the kingdom of God is about our Lord’s headship, about our Lord’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven (see Matthew 6:10; 1 Corinthians 15:20-28). It is an inexplicable part of the gospel which the apostles preached (see Acts 2:14-40). Sad to say, it is often excluded from the gospel we preach and apparently from the “gospel” which the Corinthians preached. The gospel is not the message of a weak and powerless God, who needs our cooperation and who desperately pleads for our obedience. The gospel is the announcement that Jesus Christ is God’s Messiah, the King. It is our duty to fall before Him in humble worship and obedience. When we preach the gospel, it must be as an ambassador who represents the One who is the “head of every man.” This headship of Christ includes all mankind, believers and unbelievers. Those who do not submit to His headship now must ultimately do so when He comes to subdue His enemies:
32 “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
35 Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.”’
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:32-36).
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).
The question is not if you will submit to our Lord’s headship and bow the knee to Him, but when and how. You may submit to His headship now by trusting in Jesus Christ as God’s Messiah, as the King of Israel, who took your sins upon Himself, who suffered and died in your place, and who was raised from the dead and ascended to the right hand of the Father. You may gratefully and joyfully submit to His headship as a child of God, reborn through faith in His Son. Or, you may reject His headship now, only to reluctantly bow the knee to Him when He returns as your adversary, when He comes to punish His enemies. He is Lord of all, a fact which brings comfort and joy to every believer, and one which will strike terror into His enemies.
May each of us submit to His headship by trusting in Jesus Christ alone for our salvation. And may each of us who has trusted in Jesus Christ as our “Head” submit to His headship by practicing the principle of headship through the roles which He has assigned to us.
125 Or it may be improperly using a proper method of interpreting the Scriptures. I would be using the wrong tool if I attempted to tighten the wheel lugs on my car with a pair of pliers. I would be misusing the right tool if I used a torque wrench, but set it at twice the suggested number of foot pounds, thus breaking the wheel stud.
126 The verb form of this term is often used to refer to the betrayal of our Lord. In the Gospels, traditions are the dearly held beliefs of the Jews, which they hold in opposition to the Scriptures. Paul also used this term in the same negative sense (Galatians 1:14).
When I was actively involved in prison ministry a few years ago, a seminar in which I participated was held in a large maximum security Texas prison. Approximately 200 men had assembled in the chapel where we met. Chapel gatherings are considered potentially dangerous because prisoners are carefully segregated so particular inmates are not able to have contact with certain other inmates. Old grudges had unfortunately been settled in or around the chapel, as just one year earlier one inmate had been murdered at the entrance to the very chapel where we were meeting. Because it is important to distinguish the guards from the inmates by their appearance, the inmates in the Texas prison system wear white. The guards uniforms are a contrasting color, clearly distinguishing them from the inmates. When outsiders visit a prison, we are asked to be careful not to wear the same color as the inmates. During one of the services, I took off my coat and sat down with the inmates in the center of the chapel. Ed Williamson, then State Director of Prison Fellowship, noticed I was nowhere in sight and began looking around the chapel to identify me. Since I had taken off my coat, I no longer looked different from the other inmates. In my white shirt, I was lost in a sea of other white uniforms. I simply did not look any different from anyone else. Distinctions can be very important.
Our God is a God of distinctions. This is apparent at the very outset of the Bible. Until now, I have never really appreciated that the first 19 verses of Genesis 1 are about divine distinctions or separations.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning— the third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights— the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day (Genesis 1:1-19, NIV, emphasis mine)
The account of Genesis 1:1-19 is not one in which God calls the creation into existence, out of nothing, but one in which He takes a formless, chaotic mass and transforms it into something beautiful and good in His sight.127 God brought about our world by separating one thing from another. He separated day and night, light and darkness (vss. 3-5). He separated the waters so that there is a water-laden atmosphere above and also the seas below (verses 6-10). God further distinguished between the land and the seas (verse 10). He distinguished between the different varieties of vegetation and of animals (verses 11-13). He distinguished times (days, years) and seasons (verse 14-15). From the very beginning, God made Himself known as a distinguishing God.
The Old Testament Law continued to emphasize this dimension of God’s nature as a distinguishing God.
19 “‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together’” (Leviticus 19:19)
5 “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” … 9 “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest all the produce of the seed which you have sown, and the increase of the vineyard become defiled. 10 You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together. 11 You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together” (Deuteronomy 22:9-11).
The Israelites were not to cross breed different kinds of cattle or crops (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:9). They could not plow with two types of animals harnessed (unequally yoked) together (22:10). They were not to wear garments made of materials that contained mixed fibers (Deuteronomy 22:9, 11). Women were distinguished from men in a number of ways. The sign of the covenant with Abraham (circumcision) was restricted, by design, to men (see Genesis 17:9-14). A woman who bore a girl child was unclean for 14 days, while a woman who bore a male child was unclean for only seven days (Leviticus 12). Women were not to wear a man’s clothing nor were men to dress like a woman (Deuteronomy 22:5). God distinguished the “clean” from the “unclean,” making yet another set of distinctions which the Israelites must observe. In the Exodus, God distinguished the Israelites from the Egyptians and Himself from all other “gods.” God purposed to keep many things separate, and He employed the Law to communicate what things God had separated that men must not join together.
Our text in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is really about a particular distinction God has prescribed, which we are obliged to maintain—the distinction between men and women. In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, this divinely ordained distinction between men and women is to be maintained in a very specific way. At certain times, the woman is to have her head covered, while the man is to have his head uncovered. This distinction is important to God, and to Paul, and thus it should be important to us as well. I believe this distinction is to be observed today, most likely in the very same way Paul instructed the Corinthians to observe it in his day. If you think these words have little to do with Christians today, I must warn you this is not the case. Let us listen carefully to what the Spirit of God has to say to Christians today about maintaining male-female distinctions.
We must always be careful to “handle accurately the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). This text requires us to be especially careful. As we begin this study, a few introductory comments should help to explain why caution is required:
(1) No one should dare to claim they have this passage fully under control. I have taught this text before, and I have changed my mind on some of the particulars. Nearly 20 years ago, I preached on this text in the meeting of the church shortly after we began to meet as a church. I can remember passionately concluding that this text teaches that women should cover their heads when they come to worship. Up to that time, a small handful of women did cover their heads during our worship. I was somewhat more than casually interested to see how many more women would come with heads covered the next week. To my surprise, not one woman came with her head covered the next Sunday who had not already been doing so. One of the brothers asked me about this, perhaps thinking the elders would take some action to require women to wear head coverings. I told him that if any conclusion were to be drawn from the lack of response to my message, it probably would have more to do with how convincing my sermon was than with how spiritual (or unspiritual) the women were.
I must warn you, though; I am going to try again. And, to be honest, I am going to teach this text a little differently than I have in the past. Because this text presents us with a number of difficulties, we should be very cautious about making it a proof text for views which are contradicted elsewhere in the Scriptures. As we shall see, this passage need not be understood in a way that contradicts or changes anything either Paul or Peter have taught elsewhere on the relationship between men and women in the church.
(2) I think we all should be honest enough to admit that while we may not dare claim that we have this text completely under control, neither are we completely objective when we seek to interpret and apply it. We all have our biases, and they may show here. Not only do we have our own individual biases concerning the issues Paul raises here, but our culture is vehemently opposed to any teaching which distinguishes between the roles men and women may play in ministry and in worship. No wonder so few are willing to face this text squarely.
(3) The topic of head coverings must not be one of the fundamentals of the faith as it is only mentioned once, but it is important because it is a matter of obedience, it is symbolic of submission to male headship, and it can be a source of contention and division (verse 16). A number of other texts teach on the relationship between men and women, on headship and submission, but this is the only text in which one of the apostles seems to require women to wear a head covering. If this is the only text about head coverings, it would probably be unwise to look upon head coverings as a fundamental of the faith, something which determines one’s salvation or spirituality. But because it is a command from the pen of the inspired apostle, and an issue which can divide the saints, it is important. It may not be a “camel,” but it is a fairly good sized “gnat” we dare not ignore.
(4) The matter of head coverings is one over which diversity is evident in our church. There are some women in our church who, out of a sincere desire to obey the teaching of this text, cover their heads during the worship service. Whether or not we agree with them, we should respect their convictions and their courage to live by them. I do not know of any who wish to draw attention to themselves or who think themselves holier than others. There are a good number of women in our church who do not cover their heads. Some may not do so because they have never thought (or been taught) about head coverings. It is my belief that most of those who do not cover their heads do not do so because they are not convinced the Scriptures require them to do so. I respect those who do not simply follow others, but act in accordance with their own convictions. If there are any who refuse out of rebellion (as there could be in our times), I do not know of them.
My teaching may not necessarily reflect the views of all the elders of our church nor should what I am teaching be regarded as a requirement laid down by the elders for women in our worship. There will be no “veil police” in the foyer next week to check for compliance on my conclusions. In truth, I hope no woman will act on this text until she is “fully convinced in her own mind.” I would rather have each individual study this matter carefully, think and meditate on it, and then come to a firm conviction. And then, do what you believe God requires of you. I would hope that any woman who decides to wear a head covering does so because she has been a “Berean Christian” and searched the Scriptures and her own heart on this matter. I will tell you I have reached some fairly strong convictions on this matter. I am not as clear on all the particulars of the application of Paul’s teaching.
For all of us, the first question should be, “What does the Bible instruct me to do?” The second question is, “Will I do it?” The order of these two questions should probably be reversed. We must first be willing to do whatever the Bible teaches us. When we have a willing heart which seeks to please God, we will be more clear-eyed as to what the Bible does require of us. Many who “can’t see it” are those who would not do it if they could see it. Let us all approach these important verses with a heart that is willing to obey.
29 “’Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever!’” (Deuteronomy 5:29)
33 Teach me, O Lord, the way of Thy statutes, And I shall observe it to the end. 34 Give me understanding, that I may observe Thy law, And keep it with all my heart (Psalm 119:33-34).
16 Jesus therefore answered them, and said, “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself” (John 7:16-17).
To help us with our study, I have set out the structure of the passage on the following page.
Introduction (vss. 1-2)
1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
The principle of headship (verse 3) and its immediate application (vss. 4-5)
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved.
The practice of head covering defended, in the light of the principle of headship (vss. 6-10)
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying,128 disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved.
In verse 3, Paul has highlighted the principle of headship in three dimensions: (1) the headship of Christ over every man; (2) the headship of the man over a woman, and (3) the headship of God the Father over Jesus Christ. Verses 4 and 5 move us from the principle of headship to its practical implications. The underlying assumption of the apostle in our text is that a head covering is the required symbol of a woman’s submission to the headship of her man. Since the man is to symbolize the headship of Christ, he is not to have his head covered when he prays or prophesies. So in verse 4, Paul writes that if a man were to pray or prophesy with his head covered, he would symbolically deny Christ’s headship over men, which the man is to reflect in his spiritual acts of worship conducted with an uncovered head, whether in the church gathering or elsewhere. Thus, to pray or prophesy with a covered head is to bring shame upon Christ, his Head.129 The woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered does not distinguish herself as a woman, but acts as a man would. She thereby symbolically claims headship in her activities, dishonoring her “head,” the man in authority over her.130
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Paul clearly senses the need to make his point, and make it he does. Even those who would debate the issue of head covering must admit that Paul has done his homework. Verses 6, 7, 8, and 9 all begin with the word “for,” indicating that each verse supplies us with another line of proof of the need for women to wear a head covering. Verse 6 argues from the premise that it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off. Some feel that this premise (i.e., it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off) can be demonstrated from the culture of Paul’s day.131 And, we can see that it is true today as well, with a handful of bizarre contradictions from the entertainment world. Women who have lost their hair due to chemotherapy do not take long to buy themselves a wig. On the other hand, most men and women take male baldness in stride.
The humiliation of cutting off one’s hair can be easily documented in the Old Testament Scriptures. When the ancients wished to shame an individual, they would remove some or all of his beard and/or hair (2 Samuel 10:4-5; Isaiah 7:20; 15:2; 50:6). When men wished to symbolize humiliation and defeat, they cut off their own hair (Jeremiah 48:37; Ezekiel 27:31; 29:18; Micah 1:16). Thus, anyone who reads the Old Testament would understand that shaving off the hair was a disgrace. If some women in Corinth were brazen enough to refuse to wear a head covering, let them play out their rebellion and shame to the full. Let them not only pray or prophesy with an uncovered head, let them also cut off all their hair, as a token of defeat and shame. If, on the other hand, a woman recognized that shaving the head was a disgrace, let her also recognize that having an uncovered head was shameful, and so let her cover her head.
In verses 7, 8, and 9, Paul gives us three reasons the woman’s head should be covered, all of which establish another basis for the headship of the man over a woman. In verse 7, Paul claims that it is the man who is to have his head uncovered, since he has been divinely ordained and commissioned to reflect the image and glory of God by exercising headship (by his leadership and prominence).132 The woman, on the other hand, is the glory of the man. The woman’s function and high calling is to seek to bring glory to her husband; the man’s function and high calling is to seek to bring glory to God.
Does this seem unfair and unjust? Does it appear, as some maintain, to demean the woman? Then perhaps we need to remind ourselves of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is subject to the Son. He does what the Son desires, and He seeks to glorify the Son, not Himself (see John 16:13-15). The Son does nothing on His own initiative, but seeks to bring glory to the Father (see John 5:18-33; 8:38, 49-50; 10:25; 17:1, 24-26). There is no inequality in the Godhead. The Son and the Spirit, though subordinate in their roles, are equal in their essence. Their delight is to bring glory to their Head. We are called to imitate them in delighting to bring glory to the one to whom we are subject, in obedience to God’s command.
In verses 8 and 9, Paul turns back the pages of history, going to the creation of man in the garden of Eden. It was the man, Adam, who was the source of Eve’s life. Eve was bone of Adam’s bone, and flesh of Adam’s flesh, because she was fashioned from a portion of his body. One dimension of headship is that the “head” is the source of that over which he has headship. It was Adam whom God designated to exercise headship over Eve, and thus it is the man whom God has instructed to function as the head of the woman. And, while on the subject of creation, Paul presses on to remind us that Eve was created for Adam’s benefit. He was not created for the benefit of Eve, but Eve was created for Adam. Once again, Paul points to the origin of mankind to defend the principle of male headship and the practice of head covering by women.
In verse 10, Paul reiterates the necessity of the woman’s head being covered, representing it as the appropriate response of women to male headship which he has just documented in verses 6-9. Submission to male headship requires a head covering for the woman, just as the expression of headship obligates the man to have no head covering.
The last phrase of verse 10 comes like a bolt out of the blue. Unexpectedly, Paul adds yet another reason why women should cover their heads “with [a symbol of] authority”—the angels: “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” The angels? What does a woman’s head covering have to do with the angels? Paul does not tell us. He expects us to be able to figure it out. Let us set our minds to understanding what Paul expects every Christian to grasp. First, we know that what God is doing on earth is a part of His plan to display His glory to the celestial beings:
8 Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 3:8-10).
The angels, fallen or unfallen, are not only watching what is taking place on earth, they are actively involved (see Job 1 and 2; Daniel 10; 1 Corinthians 12:1-3; Ephesians 6:12; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; Hebrews 13:1-2; 1 Peter 1:10-12). In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul has informed those who would partake of idol-meats while eating in a pagan idol temple that they are sitting at the table of demons. The angelic powers are very much involved in the affairs of this world.
Some have suggested (on the basis of texts like Genesis 6:1-4) that angels have taken on human form and have entered into sexual unions with women. They think the reason Paul instructs the women to have a head covering is so angels will not be tempted to repeat this sin. We know Satan is a fallen angel and that his demonic force is made up of fallen angels (see Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:12-15; Matthew 25:41; 2 Peter 2:4; Revelation 12:9). So far as I can tell, it is still possible for angels to fall (Revelation 12:4?). If this is the case, the angels would do well to watch women submit to the headship of their man, just as the angels must submit to God. Since the celestial beings are witnesses to and participants in the outworking of God’s marvelous plan on earth (Daniel 10; Ephesians 3:8-10; 6:12; 1 Peter 1:10-12) what we do, even when it appears to be in private, is of great cosmic importance.
Some have made a point of the fact that Paul uses the word “authority” in verse 10 and not the word “submission.” Why did Paul not say, “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of submission”, instead of, “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority”? F. F. Bruce really reaches when he writes,
Here, as elsewhere in this letter, ‘authority’ is probably to be understood in an active sense: the veil is not a sign of the woman’s submission to her husband’s authority … nor even of her social dignity … and immunity from molestation … ; it is a sign of her authority. In the synagogue service a woman could play no significant part: her presence would not even suffice to make up the requisite quorum of ten (all ten must be males). In Christ she received equality of status with man; she might pray or prophesy at meetings of the church, and her veil was a sign of this new authority … .133
It seems impossible to reach this conclusion from the evidence of the text. First, this passage is about the headship of the man over a woman and its implications for Christian men and women. Authority is not the only dimension of headship, but it is a prominent one, and here it is clearly the man who is in authority, not the woman. Further, the head covering must be used consistently as a symbol. The absence of the head covering symbolizes the authority of the one whose head is not covered. This is why it is shameful for a woman to have her head uncovered. The presence of a head covering is a symbol of submission, of being under authority, and thus it is appropriate for the woman but not for the man. How then can Bruce change the symbolism of the head covering to represent authority, rather than submission to authority?
Although I strongly differ with Bruce’s conclusion, there is at least an element of truth in his position, one which I believe is implied in this text and more clearly taught elsewhere. It is only when we are under the authority of our “head” that we have authority. Jesus had great authority, and yet He constantly acknowledged that He was under the authority of His Father. The centurion said to Jesus, “I, too, am a man under authority” (Matthew 8:9). He understood that our Lord’s authority came from being under authority. In this sense, it is the woman’s submission to the headship of her man which gives her authority.
11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
Every truth is capable of being perverted, in principle or in practice. Paul wants to be very careful that his teaching on headship does not give the men in the church a big head. Nowhere has Paul indicated that men are to exercise headship because they are stronger, smarter, more spiritual, or better leaders than their wives. We husbands are the head of our wives because of creation and the teaching of Scripture. Our headship is symbolic and not due to our superiority. Men should not feel either smugly superior or independent of134 women. Because of the unique characteristics of each, men and women are, so to speak, co-dependent upon each other. Have you ever seen a child born by the action of just one parent? Eve was brought forth from Adam, it is true, but from that time on, each of us has been brought into this world through a woman. While men are to initiate, to lead, to provide and protect their wives as their head (see Ephesians 5:22-33), they are never to forget that ultimately all things come from God. Headship should humble us, not cause us to become puffed up with pride.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray135 to God with head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,136 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
When women worship without a head covering, it is shameful because it is one of the practical applications of the principle of headship (11:3-5). Women who worship with uncovered heads are not far removed from those whose heads are shaved, and this is clearly shameful (11:6). A man symbolizes his headship role by worshiping with his head uncovered because he is the image and glory of God, while a woman must have her head covered because she is the glory of man (11:7). Because Adam was the source of Eve, men are divinely assigned the role of headship over their women (11:8).137 And because Eve (woman)138 was created for Adam’s (man’s) sake, it is evident that man is the head of a woman (11:9). The submission of the woman to her man is also a lesson to the angels (11:10).
Now to these reasons already stated by Paul, he adds his closing arguments in verses 13-16. The previous arguments Paul has presented in favor of head coverings are what we might call “external evidences.” These are arguments based largely upon biblical precedent. Now Paul asks his readers to simply look within themselves and to admit that head covering is a “natural”139 conclusion.140
Paul appeals to his readers in a way that we might paraphrase like this: “Be honest, now, don’t you think it improper when a woman prays with her head uncovered?” We should think it improper if we thought rightly about it. Looking about, one may say that throughout history the norm has been for men to have shorter hair than women. “‘In the sculptures of the catacombs the women have a close-fitting head-dress, while the men have the hair short’ (Vincent).”141 There are those exceptions, but they are exceptional. Normally, women can be distinguished from men by the fact that they have longer hair, while men have shorter hair. Paul presses the matter: “Doesn’t this tell you something?” It indicates that if hair already serves as a covering for the woman, something hanging down from the head, that a head covering is proper for the woman, too. The reverse is also true, though not stated. Since men do not normally have their hair serving as a covering, this must tell us that men do not need a head covering, even though women do.
There are those who argue that a woman’s long hair serves as the only covering she requires. The Greek preposition anti more often conveys the idea of substitution, but not always. Here, Paul is saying that her hair serves as a covering,142 which is further evidence for the fact that a head covering is appropriate.143 Paul can hardly mean that a woman’s long hair serves as a substitute for a head covering. Paul’s words in verse 6 simply do not allow it: “For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.” Far from saying that since the woman has her hair for a covering, she needs no other covering, Paul argues that if she will not cover her head, she might as well shave off the hair so that now she has no covering at all! Furthermore, since long hair serves as a natural covering for all women, the submission of a godly woman is hardly evidenced by being just like every other woman. The voluntarily worn head covering sets the submissive woman apart from all the rest.144 Finally, if a woman’s long hair is her glory, and the woman’s calling and intent is to bring glory to her husband, she veils her head so that her glory is veiled, thus calling attention to her husband’s glory and not her own.
This issue of head coverings seems to have been a matter of debate in the Corinthian church and could well have been the source of some of the divisions in the church. Knowing that his teaching on head coverings may still be resisted and debated, Paul ends with one final thrust in verse 16. For those who would be contentious over this issue, let them know that there is no other145 practice in any of the churches. For anyone to disregard and disobey Paul’s teaching is for them to set themselves outside the traditions of every New Testament church. It is not just Paul’s traditions but rather the consistent teaching and practice of every church. To disregard this instruction is to stand alone in disobedience and defiance.
Before we attempt to sum up Paul’s message and its implications for us, we must first call attention to a wrong conclusion which many evangelicals have reached, claiming that Paul’s words in verse 5 require it. This conclusion is plainly stated by F. F. Bruce and has been taken up recently by many others:
That there was liberty in the church (for it is church order, not private or domestic devotion, that is in view here) for women to pray or prophesy is necessarily implied by Paul’s argument: he does not suggest that there is anything undesirable about their doing so (whatever the injunction of 14.34 means, it cannot be understood thus), but requires them to do so with their heads covered.146
It would seem that the symbol of head coverings is still understood as essential by Bruce, and we would surely think that Schreiner agrees:
Nothing is clearer in verses 3-9 than that Paul wants the woman to wear a head covering because such adornment appropriately distinguishes women from men. Indeed, the focus on male headship over women in verse 3 shows that Paul wants women to wear a head covering in order to show that they are submissive to male headship.147
It does not take long for us to learn that while head covering was certainly applicable for Paul’s day, it is no longer appropriate for our own:
For Paul the issue was directly tied to a cultural shame that scarcely prevails in most cultures today.148
Paul was concerned about head coverings only because of the message they sent to people in that culture. Today, except in certain religious groups, if a woman fails to wear a head covering while praying or prophesying, no one thinks she is in rebellion. Lack of head coverings sends no message at all in our culture.149
And so, when all is said and (not) done, we end up with this as the final outcome of Paul’s teaching:
The principle still stands that women should pray and prophesy in a manner that makes it clear that they submit to male leadership. Clearly the attitude and the demeanor with which a woman prays and prophesies will be one indication of whether she is humble and submissive. The principle enunciated here should be applied in a variety of ways given the diversity of the human situation.150
Women everywhere are freed from Paul’s requirement of head coverings, and they can demonstrate their submission to the principle of male headship any way they think best.
Let us step back momentarily to think about what has been concluded in general. I understand Paul’s teaching on the role of women to have at least these four major components:
(1) The conduct of Christian men and women is to be governed by the principle of male headship in the home and in the church.
(2) The principle of headship requires that women not be preeminent, that they not exercise authority over men, that they do not teach or even speak publicly in the church meeting.
(3) The principle of headship requires that when women pray or prophesy, they must do so with their heads covered, to indicate their submission.
(4) The principle of headship is to be followed in the ways prescribed above, and this is to be done uniformly, that is without any exception, throughout every church.
Paul expected the saints to embrace the principle of male headship and to practice it by women refraining from functioning like men and from looking like men, by wearing a head covering. The outcome of Bruce’s conclusion is that the principle of headship is apparently accepted, but without any of the practices required by Paul (as outlined in points 2-4 above). Paul’s commands regarding the function of women (exercising authority, teaching, speaking publicly) are set aside by an inference based on verse 5, and Paul’s command regarding head coverings is set aside as merely cultural. And so while Paul called for the same action in every church, we are told that women may exhibit their submission to male headship, not by refraining from headship functions, and not by wearing a headship symbol, but in any way they may choose. If Paul’s instruction were likened to a Thanksgiving turkey, what is left of Paul’s teaching could be likened to a few bones, which will be placed in the trash. The principle of headship is not flatly denied; it is just functionally cast aside.
Assuming the interpretation described above is wrong, then how do we deal with the particulars of our text so that the details of this passage are explained and the point of this passage harmonizes with Paul’s commands elsewhere? I would like to deal with this text by first pointing out the “camels” which it contains—the broad, guiding principles which should always govern our practices. Then, secondly, I will attempt to deal with some of the “gnats,” the particular practices which these principles imply or require.
(1) The guiding principle for every disciple of our Lord should be: “Just say yes!” I confess, I am making a play on words based upon the current phrase, “Just say no” (to drugs). There are times when we should, “Just say no.” But there are also times when we should, “Just say yes” to the commands of our Lord. Jesus spoke often about His commandments:
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20).
15 “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15).
21 “Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him” (John 14:21).
10 “If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love” (John 15:10).
It is clear that the disciples are to keep the Lord’s commands and that when we set out to make disciples, in obedience to our Lord, we must teach them to obey all that Christ has commanded us (Matthew 28:20). Paul’s teachings on the role of men and women in the church are the command of Christ:
36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command (1 Corinthians 14:36-37).
We have become experts in reasoning our way around the commands of Christ, even though a disciple is to be one who keeps “every” command of our Lord. I must admit that it is interesting to observe the disproportionate reaction one often experiences when dealing with this command to women to cover their heads. As the writer to the Hebrews once wrote, “In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood” (Hebrews 12:4). Why does something so seemingly insignificant as putting a covering on one’s head cause such a great reaction? I leave this question for each to ponder. But let us seek to develop a mind set that, “Just says yes” to the commands of our Lord rather than one which first asks, “Why?” It is not wrong to want to know why we are commanded to do so, but it is not necessary to know why before we obey. If I understand the psalmist correctly in Psalm 119, he first obeys, and then he ponders God’s commandments so that he may understand more fully, to know God better, and to obey more fully. Let us seek to imitate this spirit toward our Lord’s commands.
(2) We must submit to God as the God who makes distinctions. As I attempted to demonstrate at the outset of this message, all through the Bible God has separated things according to His sovereign will. Creation was an act of separation. Salvation was and is an act of separation. Sanctification is about separation. Headship is but one facet of divine distinctions which we are to observe. We are to observe distinctions which God has made, and we are to refrain from distinctions which God has nullified. In the Old Testament, saints were to avoid certain things as unclean and others as clean, because God distinguished them as such. In the New Testament, Peter had to cease making distinctions on the basis of the Old Testament Law because God had set them aside. In the church, God has set aside the distinction between Jews and Gentiles (see Ephesians 2:11-22), and so retaining these distinctions is wrong (see Galatians 2:11-21). If God has distinguished between men and women, we must observe those distinctions, in obedience to Him. If our culture is striving to remove the distinctions which God has made, then we must obey God rather than men. Those who resist the roles and the rules which God has set down to distinguish men and women ultimately must face the fact that they are resisting the sovereign God who has every right to make distinctions.
Having said this, I must also point out that one thing is distinct from another, not because that one thing is intrinsically better, but because God chose to distinguish it. Women should not feel inferior because God has distinguished men by assigning them headship. Men should not feel superior for being the head of his wife. Indeed, we should rather be humbled, whether man or woman, because God has chosen us and given us a part to play in His eternal plan. Remember God’s warning to the nation Israel—that being distinguished by Him was no reason for pride (see Deuteronomy 9:1-6).
(3) What God has separated, let no man join together. This is, of course, a reversal of our Lord’s words on the subject of marriage and divorce in Matthew 19:6. But the reverse is true, based upon divine distinctions or separations. Israel was to live in separation from the Canaanites and the people of the lands surrounding them. They were to be a holy people, separate and distinct from the rest. When it comes to the distinction which God has made between men and women in the household of faith, we must maintain them rather than challenge them. Our culture is striving to eliminate the distinctions between men and women. It is one thing to seek to eliminate the unfair discrepancies in wages. Women should not be paid less then men for the same work. But our culture is attacking all distinctions. Men are beginning to wear their hair like women and to dress like women. They wear blouses and panties, while women are wearing shirts, pants, and male-like briefs. The tragic thing is that many men today are puzzled as to what makes them uniquely manly, and women are questioning what it means to be a woman. Satan has won a major victory here, because divinely ordained distinctions have become very cloudy, at best, and in the case of the role of women in ministry, the distinctions have been cast aside like a worn out (and much disliked) garment. Let us purpose not to blend what God has separated.
(4) Principles are not to be merely matters of theory and intellectual assent; they are meant to be practiced. Have you ever noticed how the Bible teaches theology? It does not do so in the same way that theology books are written. Take the doctrine of our Lord’s incarnation151 in Philippians 2:5-8 for example. Paul teaches this doctrinal truth in the midst of a passage dealing with Christian unity and harmony. The point Paul is making is that unity is directly related to humility, and nothing illustrates true humility better than our Lord’s incarnation, where He set aside His divine prerogatives152 as God in order to obey the Father’s will and to bring about our salvation on the cross of Calvary. Many of the epistles, like Ephesians, begin with a doctrinal foundation (chapters 1-3) and then move to the practical implications of that doctrine (chapters 4-6).
In verse 3, Paul sets down the principle of headship as the basis for head coverings. Tragically, by the time the scholars have finished with the text, we are left with a principle and no practice. Truth is meant to be believed and to be acted upon. The principles which underlie the Christian faith also underlie Christian practice. We dare not profess to believe the truth without doing something about it. And what is it that we must do to practice biblical principles? That, my friend, is easy—we are to obey biblical commands. The commands of our Lord are the application of divine principles. I hear many people say they want to hear sermons that are more “practical,” more “applicational.” I may need to improve in this area, but I hope and pray that my teaching urges people to obey the Lord’s commands. Much of the “practical preaching” of our time has little to do with God’s commands and much to do with human wisdom. Let us strive to practice God’s principles by obeying God’s commands.
Any interpretation which sets aside a command of our Lord should be carefully scrutinized. Each of the commands of our Lord needs to be applied in the light of God’s principles, in the light of other commands, and in the light of the practice of the early church as described in Acts and the Epistles. If there is a command which we conclude we must not obey, we had better have good biblical reasons for setting it aside. And if we do not obey a command in the way it requires, we must certainly seek to obey in a way that accomplishes the same goal and at the same price to us.
I fear that most of us set aside the commands of our Lord simply because we do not like them, and this is because they cost us too much. We are too much like Jonah, who tried to avoid doing what God commanded him. We can readily identify with Moses when God commanded him to go back to Egypt (where he was in earlier days wanted for murder). Moses spent an enormous amount of energy trying to talk God out of sending him to Egypt. He spent a great deal of effort to avoid obeying a command. If we spent as much time and energy striving to keep our Lord’s commands as we did trying to avoid them, we would be far better off.
(5) The principle of the headship of the man over the woman has implications and obligations for both the woman and the man. How easy it is for those of us who are men to read this passage in 1 Corinthians as though it were written solely to women. Our responsibility is not so trivial as merely leaving our heads uncovered, as we would normally do anyway. If God has given men the responsibility of representing God’s headship, then we need to act out our parts. The women submit to our headship by following our leadership and by wearing their head coverings at the proper time. We fulfill our headship when we exercise godly leadership. This is not for selfish gain, but it is sacrificial leadership which is aimed at the edification of the church and of our wives (see 1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 5:23-32; 1 Peter 3:7; 5:1-5). I will not say, as some do, that if we lead as we should, our wives will gladly follow. Christ is the good Shepherd, and this does not mean that we always follow. We are to exercise godly headship because we are commanded to, and because in so doing, we bring glory to God. This week, one husband told me that the big lesson he gained from this passage is not what his wife should be doing, but what he should be doing. I think he is right. Both men and women need to look at what God has required of them and not at what God requires of the other.
(6) When we fail to observe distinctions in one area, we will likely fail to make distinctions in another. This is a significant and even disturbing principle. Notice how God required the Israelites to make seemingly trivial distinctions in the Old Testament Law. Why would God be so meticulous in seemingly insignificant matters? Such minute distinctions may rightly be considered “gnats.” Nevertheless, we do not brush “gnats” aside; we give them proper attention, along with the “camels” (see Matthew 23:23). We need to see the connection between the gnats and the camels.
When we cease to observe divine distinctions in one area, we can expect to see sloppiness with regard to other distinctions. Those who fail to maintain the distinctions between males and females are likely to get sloppy about distinctions between good and evil, right and wrong. We know the Corinthians were getting sloppy about their other distinctions. The distinction between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the human wisdom and philosophies of that day was becoming blurred. The distinction between godly morals and heathen morals had gotten fuzzy; in fact, it was so fuzzy that the Corinthians were not at all distressed that a man in the church was living with his father’s wife (chapter 5).
When we cease to observe divinely ordained distinctions, we may begin to make wrong distinctions. Some Christians were maintaining an unbiblical distinction between Jewish saints and Gentile saints (see Ephesians 2 and Galatians 2). Some of the saints were making improper distinctions in regard to leaders so that cliques were forming (see chapters 1 and 2). Some were making wrong distinctions regarding spiritual gifts and their “status” in the church (chapter 12). Distinctions which are not sustained are lost and even replaced by those which are unbiblical and ungodly.
I fear that some crucial distinctions may have been set aside by recent efforts to create an institutional “unity” between very diverse religious groups. To be specific, I speak of the efforts to bring about a unity between Evangelical Christians and Catholics. There should be a unity between all who have been truly born again, and who are thus “one in Christ.” But let us not cast aside biblical and doctrinal distinctions in an effort to create a unity that is not based upon the truth of God’s Word. 153
127 I am certainly not attempting to suggest that God did not create the world from nothing originally. It could be, as some have suggested, that the account here is one of God’s re-creation of the original world, which was thrown into chaos because of Satan’s fall. Some of the same terms used to describe the chaos in Genesis 1:2 are also found in Jeremiah 4:23 to describe the chaotic state of Judah due to divine judgment for her sins.
128 “It is not certain whether the Jews at this time used the tallith, ‘a four-cornered shawl having fringes consisting of eight threads, each knotted five times’ (Vincent) as they did later. Virgil (Aeneid iii., 545) says: ‘And our heads are shrouded before the altar with a Phrygian vestment.’ The Greeks (both men and women) remained bareheaded in public prayer and this usage Paul commends for the men.” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931), IV, p. 159.
129 Some see the term “head” as referring to one’s physical head. This does not seem probable, for several reasons. First, this would be the only time Paul used this term to refer to shaming a thing, rather than a person. Second, Paul has just established the principle of headship. The act of covering or uncovering one’s head is a symbolic act, which either honors or dishonors the one who is our (spiritual) head.
130 In the case of the married woman, this would be the wife’s husband, who is her head (Ephesians 5:23). In the case of a single woman, I am inclined to assume this would be her father. See Numbers 30 where a woman’s vow may be nullified either by her husband or her father.
131 “‘Amongst Greeks only the hetairai, so numerous in Corinth, went about unveiled; slave-women wore the shaven head—also a punishment of the adulteress’ (Findlay).” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, IV, p. 60.
132 I understand this not to be a setting aside of Genesis 1:26-28, where man and woman are created in the image of God, but an extension of the principle of headship put forth in 1 Corinthians 11:3. There is an Old Testament sense in which man and woman reflect the image of God, but there is a further (New Testament) sense in which the husband is the image of God when he exercises headship over his wife, as Christ does over the church (see also Ephesians 5:22-33).
133 F. F. Bruce, The New Century Bible Commentary: I & II Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 106.
134 Compare this same smugness and independence evident in those who possess certain spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:21.
135 It is interesting to note that prophecy, which was named along with prayer in verses 4 and 5, is now dropped, although I will not venture an explanation for why.
136 The subject of the length of one’s hair could hardly have been avoided during Paul’s stay in Corinth, because it was there that he had let his hair grow long, symbolic of his taking a Nazarite vow (see Acts 18:18).
137 I do not use the expression “their women” to suggest that husbands “own” their wives, but, as suggested earlier, to keep the broader view which Paul himself indicates by his use of “man” and “woman” as opposed to “husband” and “wife.” The headship of a man over a woman will at least include fathers, who are the head of their daughters, and husbands, who are the head of their wives.
138 Eve is named “woman” by Adam in Genesis 2:23, and it is not until 3:20 that Adam names her “Eve.” “Woman” indicates that she came from out of the man (2:23), while “Eve” indicates that she is the mother of all the living (3:20).
139 “… Paul’s use of nature elsewhere and the use of teach suggest that he is referring to the natural and instinctive sense of right and wrong that God has planted in us, especially with respect to sexuality. … Nature teaches, then, in the sense that the natural instincts and psychological perceptions of masculinity and femininity are manifested in particular cultural situations. Thus, a male instinctively and naturally shrinks away from doing anything that his culture labels as feminine. So, too, females have a natural inclination to dress like women rather than men. Paul’s point, then, is that how men and women wear their hair is a significant indication of whether they are abiding by the created order. … The function of verses 13-15 in the argument is to show that the wearing of a head covering by a woman is in accord with the God-given sense that women and men are different. For a woman to dress like a man is inappropriate because it violates the distinction God has ordained between the sexes.” Thomas R. Schreiner, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1991), p. 135.
140 In Romans 1, Paul argues that sexual perversion is sinful because it is contrary to nature, contrary to the way things normally should and do work (see 1:26-27). Here, he follows the same logic. We have a natural sense of how men and women should look. Head coverings are a natural conclusion once one admits that women naturally look good with long hair, while men look good with short hair. The issue here is not how long a man or a woman’s hair could grow, but how long most people feel they should grow their hair.
141 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, IV, p. 162.
142 “For a covering (anti peribolaiou). Old word from periballo to fling around, as a mantle (Heb. 1:12) or a covering or veil as here. It is not in the place of a veil, but answering to (anti, in the sense of anti in John 1:16), as a permanent endowment (dedotai, perfect passive indicative).” A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, IV, p. 162.
143 “The preposition anti in 11:15 need not refer to substitution. It can also indicate equivalence. The latter makes better sense in the context. See Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (henceforward BAGD), trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, ed. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 73, 2.” Thomas R. Schreiner, “Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.” Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1991), p. 486, fn. 7.
144 This is not to imply that every woman with a head covering is submissive, and all others are not. It is to say that all women with long hair are not necessarily submissive, and thus the head covering is necessary to set the submissive woman apart from the rest.
145 Others, and in the past I as well, have made much of the fact that the word “other” is literally “such.” This is why the King James Version reads, “we have no such custom.” It does not really matter which word is used, because the sense is the same, as required by the context. Paul means either, “We have no other practice than that women cover their heads in worship,” or, “We have no such practice as women praying or prophesying with an uncovered head.”
148 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary, F. F. Bruce, General Editor (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987 [reprint, 1993]), p. 512.
151 Theologians speak of this as the “kenosis,” the doctrine pertaining to the things which our Lord set aside in His taking on human flesh in the incarnation.
152 Not His divine attributes, for God can never be less than God.
153 I believe John MacArthur had rightly criticized some of our top evangelical leaders for allowing some vitally important distinctions between Catholics and Protestants to be blurred, in an effort to produce unity. Let us always beware of becoming sloppy regarding divine distinctions. I highly recommend John MacArthur’s recent book, Reckless Faith (Crossway Books, 1994). In this book, he has an excellent chapter on “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (chapter 5).
Before we seek to consider some specific issues regarding the application of Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, let us first sum up what Paul has taught. To sum up verses 1-16, Paul is instructing women to cover their heads in order to demonstrate to the angels and celestial powers their submission to God’s appointed authority. Paul does not present head coverings as a matter of his opinion, but as an apostolic tradition. He does not describe this as a matter of Christian liberty, or as a personal conviction, but as a matter of obedience. (“Let her cover her head” in verse 6 is an imperative, buttressed by the “ought” of verse 10.) Paul mentions no other alternative symbol nor does he imply there may be some other way to symbolize submission to male headship. He also speaks of the head covering of women as the consistent practice of every church and not just that of the Corinthian church. Anyone who would wish to debate with Paul over his teaching in these verses seeks to reject a tradition held and practiced in every church.
Nothing is clearer in verses 3-9 than that Paul wants the woman to wear a head covering because such adornment appropriately distinguishes women from men. Indeed, the focus on male headship over women in verse 3 shows that Paul wants women to wear a head covering in order to show that they are submissive to male headship.154
Those who hold to the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, and who consistently employ sound methods of interpretation, find it difficult to come to any other conclusions than those stated above. We must ask the question: “Do Paul’s words apply to us just as they did to the Corinthians, and if so, how?” As we seek to reach the bottom line of our text, we must answer the following questions:
DO VERSES 1-16 DEAL SPECIFICALLY (ONLY) WITH THE MEETING OF THE CHURCH?
Some sincerely believe verses 1-16 refer to the church meeting. I believe Paul is speaking more generally so that his words apply both to the church meeting and elsewhere. My reasons for this view, and for rejecting the “church meeting only” position, are as follows:
(1) The conclusion that the church meeting is in view is inferential at best.
(2) It is clear, to me at least, that all of chapters 11-14 are not devoted to the church meeting. First Corinthians 11:1-16, along with chapters 12 and 13, deal with more general issues. This does not mean that what Paul teaches in these more general texts does not apply to the church meeting; it simply means his teaching is not to be restricted to the context of the church meeting.
(3) When Paul does refer specifically to the church meeting, he clearly indicates this fact as we can see in 11:17, 18, 20, 33; 14:4, 23, 26.
(4) The fact that women are not allowed to function in the church meeting in the way Paul describes in verses 4 and 5 certainly calls the “church meeting only” view into question. If Paul prohibits women to pray, or teach, or prophesy, or speak publicly in the church meeting, then how can we conclude that the teaching of this passage, which speaks of a woman taking a public verbal role, should be understood as applying specifically to the church meeting? This is about as logical as a maximum security prison passing out instruction booklets for the use of hand guns to inmates.
(5) Some think verses 17 and 18 imply that the previous 16 verses are a reference to conduct in the church meeting:
17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it (1 Corinthians 11:17-18).
I think these verses strongly argue in the opposite direction. Paul is now turning from his instructions on head coverings, which apply beyond the church meeting, to his instructions regarding the Lord’s Supper, which is a more specific context. His words, “in the first place,” in verse 18 do not make sense if Paul has been talking about the church meeting all along. He should now be saying, “in the second place,” because the first error was regarding head coverings. When he says, “in the first place,” he indicates this is his first correction under his instructions regarding the church meeting. I do not know how else to understand his words.
TO WHAT DEGREE SHOULD CULTURE INFLUENCE OUR INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THESE VERSES?
The assumption is often made that we must first understand the cultural setting of a particular passage before we can understand or apply it. Knowing the cultural background of any text is helpful, but it is not mandatory. If it is vitally important, the biblical text (in the context or elsewhere in the Bible) will supply what we have to know. If this were not so, we could have no confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture—that it contains all that is necessary for life and godliness (see 2 Peter 1:2-4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). It would also mean that some book, or books other than Scripture, are necessary for us to understand and apply the Word of God. Corinth appears not to have one given culture; rather Corinth was a cosmopolitan city with a wide diversity of cultures. In 1 Corinthians 1:1-2, 4:14-17, 11:16, and 14:33-34, Paul indicates that his teaching in this epistle is for every Christian in every culture. These truths are not culture-bound; thus, we need not know all we might wish to know about the cultural setting in Corinth. We simply do not know as much about the cultural setting of that day, as some commentators indicate:
In this case, even if we were sure of prevailing customs, we would need to be able to distinguish between Greek, Roman, and Jewish customs as well as differences in geography, how one dressed at home, outside the home, and in worship, and the differences between the rich and poor. This diversity is well illustrated in the various samplings in Goodenough.155
Paul applies his teaching to all of the saints in all of the churches. A look at a map of Paul’s missionary journeys, and noting 1 Peter 1:1 and Revelation 2 and 3, should remind us of the many cultures represented in the churches of Paul’s day.
Even if interesting and enlightening, there is a reason why a knowledge of the culture of Corinth is not necessary. Head covering is a symbol, a symbol designed to convey a message both to men and to angels. The symbol of head covering does not derive from the culture of Corinth, or our own culture, but from the nature of the Godhead and the divine distinctions God has determined and defined. These symbols have a message for culture, but they do not gain their message from culture. It is Scripture—not society—which provides us with the meanings of divine symbols.
Christians talk a great deal about culture, especially in reference to interpreting and applying Scripture. As popular as the word “culture” is today, I decided to see how often it could be found in the Bible. The term “culture” is foreign to the KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NASB translations of the Bible—it never occurs in the Bible. Is there a biblical term which is a synonym for “culture” in the Bible? Yes, there is. That biblical term is “the world” or “this world.” What then does the Bible have to say about “the world”?
(1) The unbelieving world (culture) of Jesus’ day was opposed to Him, and He warns that our culture (the world) will be hostile to us as well (John 17:13-21; 1 Peter 4:12-19; 1 John 3:13).
13 Do not marvel, brethren, if the world hates you (1 John 3:13).
(2) We once walked in accordance with our culture, but through the cross of Christ, the world has been crucified to us and us to it.
14 But may it never be that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world (Galatians 6:14).
1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 2:1-2, see also 4:17ff.).
(3) Our culture (“this world”) is seeking to squeeze us into its mold, and we are instructed to resist and to be transformed into conformity with Christ. We are not to walk according to fleshly wisdom, but in holiness and godly sincerity (2 Corinthians 1:12). We are strangers and pilgrims, whose conduct is governed by the kingdom which is yet to come with the return of our Lord (see 1 Peter 2:11ff.). We are to submit ourselves to earthly authorities (1 Peter 2:13ff.) but not to earthly values and standards (1 Peter 2:13ff.).
1 I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. 2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:1-2).
(4) Our calling as Christians is to live a holy life and to keep ourselves from being stained by the world. To be a friend of the world is to be in hostility toward God. If we return to living in accordance with the culture in which we live, we have been led captive.
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ (Colossians 2:8, see vss. 20-21).
27 This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world (James 1:27).
4 You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:4).
Paul employs the same term for the traditions of men as he does for apostolic traditions in 1 Corinthians 11, producing a most interesting contrast. When we live in accordance with the culture, we are living contrary to the traditions of Christ.
As we read through the Bible, do we ever find any instance where godly men or women set aside or modified a commandment of God in order not to accommodate their culture? I cannot think of any. I can think of instances where men made concessions to their culture, but never compromises. Joseph was a man who made a concession to his (Egyptian) culture when he shaved off his beard (the custom in the Hebrew culture) and changed his clothes before appearing in the presence of Pharaoh (Genesis 41:14). There was no compromise here of principle or of command. Indeed, by shaving off his beard, Joseph was identifying himself with the Egyptian culture and certainly symbolizing his acceptance of his circumstances as the will of God. Doing this made it possible for Joseph to conceal his identity from his brothers and thus bring about their repentance and ultimate reconciliation. But when Mrs. Potiphar propositioned Joseph, he did not give in to this sin, but chose to obey God and to accept the consequences.
Daniel and his three friends also made concessions to the culture of the Babylonian Empire when they were forcibly taken from their homeland and relocated in Babylon. They were willing to study in Babylonian schools and to engage in the service of the king. These concessions they were willing to make, but when Nebuchadnezzar ordered everyone in his kingdom to bow down to his golden image, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego refused. Doing so would have been to disobey God’s commands against idolatry. God’s commandments were not to be set aside because they came into conflict with culture, even when taking a stand would likely cost these men their lives (see Daniel 3).
When Daniel’s enemies realized they could not find any grounds for accusing him of wrong-doing with regard to his job, they also concluded he was a man who would not violate the “law of his God” (Daniel 6:5). They knew Daniel would not make compromises concerning God’s commandments. And so they tricked the king into signing a law which forbade anyone to pray to anyone other than the king for 30 days. Daniel could have ceased praying for 30 days, or he could have closed his windows and prayed privately. But Daniel refused to make any concessions or compromises because this was a matter of obedience to God’s commands. Daniel, like his three friends, would rather die in obedience to God’s commandments than live because of compromises made in these things to comply with their culture.
Paul was a man willing to make concessions to his culture. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul sets down his guiding principles regarding his willingness to surrender his liberties for the sake of the gospel:
19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. 23 And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
Paul was willing to give up any of his personal liberties if it might enhance the gospel. For this reason, Paul was willing to have Timothy circumcised (see Acts 16:1-3). But Paul would not budge when it came to divine principles or divine commands. And for this reason he refused to have Titus circumcised, and he rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in his associations with Jews and Gentiles (Galatians 2:1-5, 11-21).
Nowhere in the Scriptures do we ever find concessions or compromises made to culture when it requires disobedience to God’s commands. Head covering is a command, a tradition which was to be followed by every woman in every church. There is no reason and no room for compromise or change, and Paul does not so much as hint that there is. Why then are we so quick to make such changes, and why are we so bold to speak of doing so because of culture?
WHAT ABOUT THE EXPRESSION, “WHILE PRAYING OR PROPHESYING” IN VERSES 4 AND 5?
First and foremost, let us be clear that the main point of the passage is not the possibility of whether a woman can pray or prophesy in the church meeting. In this text, Paul is not as concerned with when and where a woman can pray or prophesy, but with how she would do so—with her head covered. Do we have problems with why Paul may have employed these terms and referred to these activities? That is understandable because Paul does not explain why these terms and activities have been chosen or what the implications of his words are. This is because whether or not a woman can pray or prophesy in the church meeting is not his primary concern in this passage. His concern is that which he consistently comes back to in verses 1-16—women wearing a head covering as a symbol of their submission.
Second, concluding that a woman can publicly pray or prophesy in the church meeting can only be done on the basis of several inferences. First, one must infer (without any clear indication of this possibility as seen above) that Paul’s words in verse 1-16 apply solely to the church meeting. Second, one must infer that because Paul mentions the possibility of a woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered in the Corinthian church, this means any woman could and should do so anywhere. But the inferences do not stop here. Some go on to reason that if prophecy is the greatest gift (see 12:31; 14:39), if Paul allows women to do the greatest thing (prophecy), he must allow women to do anything less, like teaching, or leading.
Third, it is only possible to conclude that a woman can pray or prophesy in the church meeting if one’s conclusion is based on a chain of inferences, which then allow this inferred conclusion to overrule the clear commands of the apostle elsewhere (see 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-38). Unclear texts should not override clear texts, and inferences must never take precedence over commands.
Fourth, if Paul is speaking more generally than just the meeting of the church (as I contend), then women could and did pray and prophesy, only not in the church meeting. And when they did so, they were to have their heads covered.
Why did Paul pick these two activities, one of which (prayer) is not a gift, and the other (prophecy) which is a gift? We can only conjecture. These two activities are not represented as the only things a woman could do, but as things which a woman should not do with an uncovered head. Why should a woman’s head be covered when praying or prophesying? For one thing, prayer and prophecy are functions which both have a strong element of authority. In both cases, the one who performs these functions is in direct contact with God. The one who prays speaks directly to God; the one who prophesies speaks directly from God. The prayer or prophecy of 1 Corinthians 11:5 is not all that different from the “prayer and the ministry of the word” to which the apostles devoted themselves (Acts 6:4). If there ever was a time when a woman seemed to be in authority, it would be when she was praying or prophesying. At these times, Paul insists, a woman should be thought to be acting shamefully if she does not cover her head.
One thing we can see from verses 4 and 5 is that by using the expression “while praying or prophesying” in relation to both men and women, Paul may be emphasizing that both men and women are doing the same thing—praying or prophesying. If they are doing the same thing, how then is the woman distinguished from the man? The answer: by wearing a head covering.
Here is a somewhat radical thought on this matter of prayer and prophecy related to the relationship between angels and women. Prayer is man approaching God, while prophecy involves man going forth, as it were, from God with a message and ministry from Him. Satan, the fallen angel, seems to lack the reverence he should have toward God. His interaction with God in Job 1 and 2 seems to lack any sense of reverence. In Luke 22:31, Satan is described by our Lord as “demanding permission to sift Simon like wheat.” The false teachers are referred to as “angels of light,” sent from Satan (2 Corinthians 11:13-14). One of the dominant characteristics of false teachers is their disdain for those in authority who “do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties” (2 Peter 2:10). If one of the first appearances of angels in the Bible is Jacob’s vision of the angels “ascending and descending” to heaven (Genesis 28:12), then is it not safe to say that angels are constantly going to and from God? If they watch godly women, who cover their heads as they approach God in prayer and as they go forth from God in prophecy, should they not learn to reverence God as described in Isaiah?
1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.” 4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke. 5 “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty” (Isaiah 6:1-5).
Will the angels not be instructed as to their proper response to God by what they see women doing as they approach God? Will they not be reminded that God is holy—distinct from and vastly above all others. And will they not realize that glory belongs to Him?
One thing more should be noted on this matter of prayer and prophecy. Jesus was a master teacher. When He taught, neither the crowds nor the disciples went away saying, “That was really clear; I understood everything He said.” Just the reverse was true. They went away shaking their heads, wondering what He meant. The disciples did not fully grasp what our Lord was saying until after He had risen from the grave and ascended to the Father. I believe God does not over-simplify those truths He wants us to ponder. His wisdom must be mined, not picked up like lost coins. The enigmatic expression of “praying or prophesying” may be by divine design. We are not supposed to get it immediately, but we are to think about it a lot. And until (and after) we do get it, we are to obey anyway because we do understand that the command is for the women to cover their heads.
DOES THE WOMAN’S SILENCE SUBSTITUTE FOR A HEAD COVERING?
Some contend that the woman’s silence is sufficient evidence of her submission. Thus, in the meeting of the church, if a woman is silent, a head covering is not required. But if silence is sufficient, then why does Paul not start with chapter 14 rather than conclude with it, for it is in chapter 14 that he calls for silence? Why would Paul make such a point of having your head covered in chapter 11 if it were not necessary in the first place due to the woman’s silence? In chapter 14, when Paul speaks about silence, it is not just the women who are to be silent, but some of the men as well. The problem in Corinth was not too much silence but too much speaking. If only one person is to speak at a time (see 14:27, 30-31), then everyone else is to be silent. If both men and women are silently worshiping, as some reason, then a woman will distinguish herself from a man not by her silence but by her head covering.
DOES THE WOMAN’S “LONG HAIR” SUBSTITUTE FOR A HEAD COVERING?
The fact that all women wear their hair longer than men (as a rule) is used as the premise on which Paul builds to show another reason why women should have their heads covered. In verse 6, Paul argues that if a woman will not cover her head, she should shave it. Thus, a woman’s long hair is not sufficient. Furthermore, a woman’s long hair is her glory, and her head covering veils this glory so that her husband is preeminent. One final observation: if all women in general wear long hair, then long hair does not distinguish the submissive Christian woman from the rest, but a head covering does.
WOULD SOME OTHER SYMBOL SUBSTITUTE FOR A HEAD COVERING?
I do not think so. The basis of the symbol is the divine order. Headship is symbolized by a head covering, which represents a woman’s submission to her (metaphorical) head. There is a clear and direct relationship between “headship” and “head coverings.” Paul does not mention any alternate symbols and seems to prohibit any practice other than head coverings (verse 16). I think there is significance to the fact that every woman testifies to her submission to male headship by the same symbol. If every woman was free to express her submission in any way she chose, how would the angels or anyone else understand what they were seeing? A wedding ring is a universally accepted symbol of marriage, at least in this part of the world. What if every person decided to symbolize their marriage by a symbol of their own choosing? Finally, how can a woman signify submission to male authority, as Paul has instructed, by setting aside the very instructions (for a head covering) that Paul has given? If submission to male headship starts anywhere, it starts by submitting to the authority of the apostle Paul. If we submit to God’s headship, surely this is by submitting to His commands and not by modifying them according to our preferences and judgments. In all too many ways, we function like the Supreme Court in relation to Congress. The Supreme Court passes judgment on the laws of Congress, rejecting those which it deems unconstitutional. We pass judgment on God’s commands, rejecting those which seem unreasonable.
25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes (Judges 21:25).
WHEN AND WHERE SHOULD A WOMAN COVER HER HEAD?
The question in our minds should not be if a woman should have her head covered, or “Why?” The questions we ask should be: “When?” and “Where?” Let us seek to establish some general guidelines for the answers to these questions. I would point out at the outset that Paul’s words imply that head coverings are not the exception, but the norm. I would also point out that Paul does not give precise “if … then” formulas for when a covering is required. It would seem that individual judgment is required here.
(1) Women should cover their heads when the angels are watching. When are the angels watching?
9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men (1 Corinthians 4:9).
8 To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, 9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things; 10 in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places (Ephesians 3:8-10).
10 As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, 11 seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look (1 Peter 1:10-12).
The angels seem to be watching all the time. I do not say this to suggest that women should cover their heads all the time, but to indicate that Paul is speaking more broadly than just the time when the church gathers. Other guidelines will help to narrow down the application of head coverings.
(2) Women should cover their heads when they are praying or prophesying. It should be self-evident that these two activities—prayer or prophecy—are an occasion for a head covering, because Paul specifies these two activities as such. If prophecy ceased with the apostolic age, then prayer alone remains. Is Paul speaking of verbal, public prayer? I would definitely think so. Is he speaking of public, unspoken prayer (as in the church meeting)? He may well be, especially since the angels would be observing. Is he speaking of private prayer at home? If it is the kind of regular prayer we see in Daniel 6:10, this would certainly be evident to the angels, and so a head covering would be appropriate. Of course, we are to “pray without ceasing,” and in this sense we are constantly in prayer. I think Paul is speaking more of covering the head when it is obvious (to men and/or to angels) that we are praying.
(3) Women should cover their heads when they are engaged in exercising their priesthood as believers. I do not think that we should consider “praying” or “prophesying” the only occasions in which a head covering is necessary. It seems that Paul has chosen these as two of the more self-evident instances in which a head covering is appropriate for women. Remember that Paul is dealing with those who seem to want to debate this matter (see verse 16). Praying and prophesying are the engagement of the believer in what we might call a person’s priestly activity. We are a “kingdom of priests” (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 1:6), and we exercise our priesthood by ministering for men to God (by intercessory prayer) and, in apostolic time, by prophets who ministered to men for God. Paul does not speak about wearing a head covering to work, or around the house all day, but specifically when we engage in those ministries which we have as priests.
(4) Women should cover their heads when the spiritual ministry in which they are engaged has a leadership or authoritative function or appearance. Headship is about authority and preeminence. Prayer and prophecy certainly have a “leadership dimension” as we can see in Acts 6:4. When women function with some measure of authority, the head covering seems required.
(5) Women should cover their heads when their submission to male headship is not apparent. This whole passage is based upon our observance of divine distinctions between men and women, between male and female. When men and women are engaged in the same activities, then the head covering visibly symbolizes the distinction which might not otherwise be apparent. When a woman (or a man) prays, she approaches God directly. There is no clear evidence of her submission to male headship, unless it is by her head being covered. When a woman once prophesied, she spoke to others directly for God. Again, a sign of her submission is necessary. When the distinctions between men and women are not evident, head coverings distinguish the women by symbolizing their submission to male headship.
(6) While Paul’s words in our text indicate that there are times when no head covering is shameful, Paul mentions no time when a head covering would be inappropriate. What I mean by this is not that a women should always have her head covered, but that one who is intent upon obeying Paul’s command and does not know for certain whether a covering is “required” would always be safer to lean to the “covered” side than to the “uncovered” side.
WHAT ABOUT MINISTRY GROUPS?
As elsewhere in this message, I speak only for myself, and it is an opinion with less conviction on my part than much of what I have said above. When there is the normal interchange (discussion, sharing, etc.) between men and women where the element of authority is not prominent, I do not see the need for head coverings. During the prayer time, when women would join in, I think it is appropriate for the woman to cover her head.
WHAT ABOUT A COVERING WHEN WOMEN TEACH OR LEAD WOMEN OR CHILDREN?
The element of authority is very evident in such cases. When men are not present, the need for a distinction may not be as great as when men are present. In His earthly ministry, Jesus frequently spoke of His submission to the Father’s authority (see John 5:17-26, 36-37; 6:37, 40, 57, 65; 8:27, 38, 49; 10:17-18, 29; 12:49-50; 13:3; 14:13, 16, 28, 31). It certainly does not hurt to remind others that we are under authority.
WHAT IF A HEAD COVERING ATTRACTS ATTENTION?
Jesus made it very clear that men should not perform their acts of obedience in such a way as to draw attention to themselves so as to obtain man’s praise rather than God’s (Matthew 6:1-18). As we identify ourselves with Christ by our obedience to His commands, we will become a “spectacle” to men and angels (1 Corinthians 4:9). Daniel and his three friends drew attention to themselves when they chose to obey God rather than men. We will do likewise, if we live obediently to God in a culture that hates Him (1 Peter 4). We are to obey God’s commands in order to publicly proclaim His excellencies to the world (1 Peter 2:9; Philippians 2:15) and to the celestial beings (1 Corinthians 11:10; Ephesians 3:10).
WHAT KIND OF HEAD COVERING IS REQUIRED BY PAUL?
The Greek expressions used of the woman’s head covering seem to indicate that something more than a piece of cloth (or a hat) resting on the head is required. Not only should something be on the head, but something should hang down from the head to cover the hair:
… what Paul had in mind is a veil which covers the whole head and in particular conceals all the hair; something worn on top of the head like a present-day cap or hat does not really come within the scope of his argument.156
… it is probable that Paul is speaking of wearing a head covering of some kind, such as a shawl. That a shawl rather than a full veil is in Paul’s mind is indicated by the word covering (peribolaios) in 11:15, which is not the usual word for veil but probably refers to a wrap-around. The evidence in favor of this position is as follows: (1) The verb translated as “cover” in the NIV (katakalypto) occurs three times in verses 6-7, and related cognate words occur in verses 5 and 13. These words most often refer to a covering of some kind. For example, the angels who saw the glory of Yahweh in the temple covered their faces (Isaiah 6:2). Judah thought Tamar, his daughter-in-law, was a harlot because she covered her face (Genesis 38:15). Since the word almost universally means “to cover” or “to hide,” the text is probably referring to a hair covering of some kind. … Esther 6:12 (LXX) employs the same expression found in verse four, kata kephales, of Haman, who hurried home mourning, covering his head in shame. He probably used part of his garment to do this. … To sum up: the custom recommended here is a head covering of some kind, probably a shawl.157
IS WEARING A HEAD COVERING “LEGALISM?”
I am hearing the word “legalism” a lot lately, and I do not like what it implies. Legalism, of course, is wrong and ought to be avoided. But the solution is not to throw out all the rules or commands of Scripture. A legalist is one who has a “fatal attraction” to rules. The rules become primary, and the principles get lost in the shuffle. A legalist gets lost in the details, the “gnats,” and loses sight of the “camels,” the underlying principles and motives. A legalist does not keep the commands of God because he loves God; he keeps the rules because he thinks that doing so makes him better than others, and because rule-keeping is the way to earn God’s favor and blessings. A legalist sticks to the rules because they deal with outward, external standards. Legalism is wrong.
The solution to legalism is not the absence of all rules and commands in the name of Christian liberty. This kind of liberation is unacceptable:
16 Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God (1 Peter 2:16).
In Matthew 23, Jesus does not teach that throwing out the rules is the solution to legalism.
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! 25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also. 27 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matthew 23:23-28, emphasis mine).
The solution to legalism is to continue to obey the rules, to keep God’s commands, but to always do so in the light of the principles which underlie them. Women should cover their heads because Paul commands them to, and because of the principles of headship and of God’s sovereign distinctions. Legalism is keeping the rules for the rules’ sake. Christian liberty is keeping the rules for God’s sake, and with a heart and mind which seeks most of all to be pleasing to Him by obeying His commandments.
THERE IS YET ONE MORE QUESTION WHICH SOME MAY BE ASKING: “WHY AM I MAKING SUCH A BIG ISSUE OF HEAD COVERINGS?”
First, Paul commands women to wear a head covering. We do not do well to ignore any command of God. To set one command aside is not only wrong, it sets a precedent. Can we now set aside any command we do not fully understand or which we dislike and with which we disagree? Second, the head covering of the woman is a symbol, a symbol of one of the great truths of the Bible. A woman’s head covering symbolizes her submission to the principle of headship. The headship of the man over a woman is important because it reflects the headship of Christ over His church and of God over Christ. When Adam and Eve sinned, they acted against the headship of God, following the precedent set by their tempter, Satan. All men are sinners, subject to the eternal wrath of God. The message of the gospel is not only that Jesus died for sinners, but that Jesus is Lord of all. Those who will be saved are to acknowledge Him as Lord and Christ (Acts 2:22-26; Romans 10:9-10). Those who will not acknowledge this now must ultimately acknowledge it when they bow the knee to Christ as His defeated foes (Philippians 2:9-11). God does not reveal Himself to men through idols, but He does reveal Himself through His church. As we acknowledge and practice our submission to His headship, we announce to the world that He is Head of all. To the degree that we fail to obey this command (and others), we distort the image of God which we are privileged to symbolically display.
It is now time for me to turn the question around. Why is this simple act such a problem to so many today? Is it really that Paul’s meaning is so hard to grasp? We should read this text repeatedly. For me, the more I read it, the more clear his message is. (Conversely, the more one reads most commentators on this text, the cloudier its message becomes.) Is it because we, individually or as a church, have not done it this way before? Then let us change our practice if we now understand this as our duty and privilege. If we as individuals and as a church are growing in Christ, our grasp of God’s Word should grow too, and we should be constantly changing our lives to conform to what we now understand. That is what “walking in the light” means. Is our disproportionate reaction due to the fact that the world is not wearing head coverings and neither is the church? Standing up for God’s Word may mean standing alone. Daniel and his three friends were four men living in foreign captivity along with thousands of other Jews. They stood alone against the sins of that culture, as aliens and strangers. We should do likewise:
13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them (Hebrews 11:13-16).
For some, the symbol of wearing a head covering may be a big thing because it is. If the symbol of head covering is to reflect our submission, not only to male headship but to God’s distinctions and His ways of doing things, we may need to ask ourselves whether we are truly submissive to God.
Perhaps some woman is thinking, “That’s all right for you; you’re a man. It’s easy for you to tell us to obey because it doesn’t affect you.” But you see, it does. It means that I am obliged to lead, and not just to lead in a way that pleases me. I must lead in a way that reflects Christ’s headship. I must lead in a way that is sacrificial to my own interests and which seeks to bless those under my leadership. And, beyond the matter of headship, I assure you that there are other commands which also strike me between the eyes. Obedience to God’s commands is not easy for any of us, but disobedience is not a viable option, if we wish to please God and to reflect His glories to the world, and to celestial beings as well.
15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15).
I think that while I have not answered every question you may have on this passage, I have answered some, and that my understanding of this text is clear. You may very well disagree with it. And if you do, I hope and pray it is for good and biblical reasons. If my message has caused you who differ with me to rethink your position, and to be more convinced about your conclusions than mine, I think I have done my job. The interpretations and opinions expressed here are my own. They do not necessarily represent the individual interpretations of the other elders, and they certainly do not represent the collective decision and policy of the elders of our church.
While my interpretation of this text has changed since I last taught publicly on 1 Corinthians 11 in 1982, I think some of my concluding words from that lesson years ago (cited below) are appropriate as we close. First, these words will remind you that I have changed my mind and will at least raise the possibility that I might change it again. Second, I hope that while my interpretation of these verses has changed, the spirit which I called for in these concluding words of my previous message might still be evident among us, as we each attempt to understand and obey this portion of God’s Word:
I urge you not to confuse form with function. To merely place a covering upon one’s head does not make one submissive. I have observed some very unsubmissive women who would not think of going to church without their head coverings. The scribes and Pharisees had an obsession about keeping certain forms, but in function they completely missed the point of the Law. These discrepancies between form and function, between practice and principle, were a major bone of contention between the religious leaders of Israel and our Lord Jesus. May I add that they were meticulous about crucifying Jesus according to the rules (cf. Matthew 26:57-66, 27:3-6; John 18:31-32), but it was a sinful and damnable act (cf. Acts 2:23).
I also ask you not to make head covering the touchstone of submission and spirituality. It is so easy for the one who believes head covering is a biblical requirement to pass judgment on the submissiveness of a woman solely on the basis of whether or not she has a covering on her head. No external act, no matter how meritorious, is proof of one’s spirituality. Neither is the absence of a head covering proof that a woman is unsubmissive. While we might desire to be made (or at least considered) spiritual by the observance of some specific practice such as head covering, the spiritual life is simply not like that. Many godly women may cover their heads as an act of submission; many submissive wives may not do so, convinced that it is not required or even beneficial. In and of itself, head covering, or the absence of it, will not determine and may not reflect one’s spiritual state.158
What I would hate to see from these lessons on headship and head coverings is hasty, ill-conceived action. I would be disappointed to see a woman covering her head, simply because I have taught the text as I have, or because other women are covering their heads. I would also be greatly disappointed to see a woman refuse to cover her head without giving this text serious consideration. I would also be somewhat disappointed to see a man “instruct” his wife to wear a head covering, so that she does so without being convinced this is what God requires. If the symbol is to be meaningful, it should be voluntarily worn, for submission is voluntary. Let me urge each one who reads this lesson to now leave my words behind and to turn to the text of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 itself, reading it repeatedly over the next weeks until you are convinced of what Paul and God require of you.
154 Thomas R. Schreiner, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1991), p. 135.
155 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary, F. F. Bruce, General Editor, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987 [reprint, 1993], pp. 508-509. In two footnotes, Fee adds: These kinds of problems render generally useless a large amount of the literary evidence that is often cited in reference to this text. This is especially true of the large collection of otherwise helpful texts, both Greek and Jewish, in Conzelmann, 185 nn. 39-40, since they deal for the most part with “going out in public.” The question is whether women in Christian worship in Corinth would be thought of as “going out in public,” or whether, in light of their gathering in homes and calling themselves “brothers and sisters,” the wearing of ordinary home “attire” would be proper—not to mention all the difficulties that may obtain from the fact that the gathering is also “religious” and that the women are prophesying. See n. 61. Cf. fig. 99 (where a priestess of Isis is uncovered) and 101 (another Isis example, where one woman is covered while the other is not). With this compare the literary evidence from Apuleius, Met. regarding the Isis festival in Corinth: “The women had their hair anointed, and their heads covered with light linen [cf. fig. 101 in Goodenough]; but the men had their crowns shaven and shining bright” (Loeb, 555). See also the two frescoes from Pompeii (nos. 117 and 118), where in scenes that “unquestionably represent religious ceremonies” (Goodenough, IX, 137) the central figures (women) are covered with the himation, while in fig. 117 the flute girl is not. The same ambiguity prevails in fig. 218, where the woman “crowning the dead” is covered while the (apparently slave) woman holding the umbrella is not.
156 F. F. Bruce, The New Century Bible Commentary: I & II Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1971), p. 104.
158 Bob Deffinbaugh, “How to Be Pious in a Pagan World, A Study of 1 Corinthians, When Women Worship,” Lesson 16.
1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. 3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 7 Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (1 Corinthians 5:1-8).
14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? 19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we? (1 Corinthians 10:14-22).
17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you.
20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 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.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself, if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord in order that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you may not come together for judgment. And the remaining matters I shall arrange when I come.
I was not always a model student in school. For some reason, I seemed most tempted to misbehave in my English classes. Such was the case one warm spring day in Mr. Riddell’s English class. The school sat on a hillside, and one could look outside the windows of Mr. Riddell’s classroom and see the hillside descending down onto the football field some distance below. One particular day it was warm enough to open the windows so that a small breeze could circulate in the classroom. I was sitting in the row beside the open windows after lunch, and since the lecture simply did not demand a great deal of my concentration, I started folding paper airplanes. When the teacher’s back was turned, I would fly them through the window where they would get caught in the breeze and glide gracefully down the hill.
One flight was especially magnificent. In fact, it was so good that Tommy Rowe, who sat just in front of me, became so caught up in its flight that he got up out of his seat and went to the window to get a better view of the plane’s descent. Although Mr. Riddell was speaking to the class, Tommy was not even conscious of the fact that Mr. Riddell had stopped, mid-sentence, to gape at this young man strolling from his seat to the window to watch with fascination. That is, he was not conscious of Mr. Riddell until his booming voice brought him sharply back to the real world. Hard pressed to explain what he was doing, Tommy blurted out the truth—he was watching my paper plane descend to the football field below.
Now Mr. Riddell was a very nice fellow as a rule. (Years later, I was privileged to teach with him in a high school in the nearby state prison.) But this really set Mr. Riddell off. How dare any student get up out of their seat and walk to the window in the middle of his lecture! He was right, of course, and I knew I was really finished. There was no excuse for my actions or for inadvertently getting Tommy into trouble. But Mr. Riddell chose to bear down on Tommy. “You can’t afford to be wasting your time with paper planes,” he bellowed and then gave him an extra assignment as punishment. I waited for him to pronounce sentence on me, but he simply returned to his lecture leaving me unpunished, inwardly relieved, but somewhat perplexed.
At times, disproportionate action seems meted out to some and not to others. This is true in the Bible, where seemingly trivial acts are at times dealt with in an unusually severe fashion. Adam and Eve are given the death sentence for eating a piece of forbidden fruit (Genesis 3). Nadab and Abihu are struck dead for offering “strange fire” to God (Leviticus 10:1; Numbers 3:4; 26:61). In Numbers 15:32-36, a man is stoned to death for picking up a few sticks of firewood on the Sabbath. Achan and his entire family are executed because Achan kept for himself a portion of the spoils of war (Joshua 7:1-26). Uzzah is struck dead by the Lord for reaching out and touching the ark, as he attempts to keep it from plunging to the ground from the ox cart on which it is being transported (2 Samuel 6:6-7). Because of David’s sin in numbering the Israelites, 70,000 Israelites die in a plague from the Lord (2 Samuel 24). Ananias and Sapphira are struck dead by the Lord for falsely reporting the amount of their donation to the church (Acts 5:1-11).
In light of these instances of divine discipline, it is hardly surprising to find divine discipline referred to in 1 Corinthians. We know from chapters 1-10 that there were many serious problems in the Corinthian church. And yet it is not until the final half of chapter 11 that we find a sin so serious that it results in divine discipline. God’s chastening comes in the form of weakness, sickness, and death for many of the Corinthian saints. According to Paul’s account, this discipline is extensive. We can see from our text that “many” of the Corinthians were weak and sick. According to the NASB, “a number” had died (Paul uses the term “sleep,” as it is found elsewhere—see John 11:11-14; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-15). We might be inclined to think from the rendering of the NASB that a good many of the Corinthian saints were sickly, but that a considerably smaller number died. This is not really the sense of the term rendered “a number” in verse 30.
Here the translation, “a number,” in the NASB is understandable but unfortunate. Both the KJV and the NKJV render the term “many,” while the NASB translates, “a number.” Compare these translations of verse 30:
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep (1 Corinthians 11:30, KJV).
30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep (1 Corinthians 11:30, NKJV).
30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep (1 Corinthians 11:30, NIV).
30 For this reason many among you are invalid and sickly, and quite a number have fallen asleep (1 Corinthians 11:30, Berkeley Version).
The translators of the NASB may have chosen the expression, “a number,” to render the particular Greek term Paul employed in the latter part of verse 30 to indicate that the Greek word rendered “many” earlier in the verse is different than the Greek word rendered “a number” in the last part of the verse. If so, the intent of the translators is noble, but the effect is to weaken the second term. The difficulty is that “a number” sounds rather like “some” or even “a few.” The Greek term is rendered “a number” only here, and elsewhere in the NASB it is translated “many” (9 times) and “considerable” (4 times), with “good many,” “great,” “large sum,” and “sizeable” all occurring once. Not only were many people weak and sick in Corinth, but a “good many” died. The discipline of the Lord was intense and extensive. There was a very serious problem at Corinth, which resulted in drastic disciplinary measures on God’s part.
What was this sin, so serious that it brought about divine judgment? Was it the shocking case of incest Paul referred to in chapter 5? Was it the lawsuits or sexual immorality of chapter 6? Was it divorce as dealt with in chapter 7? Was it involvement with idolatry as discussed in chapters 8-10? Was it the refusal of some women in Corinth to wear a head covering? No, it was none of these.
We might be somewhat relieved if we could conclude that those who were so severely judged in Corinth were those who partook of the cup as unbelievers. We often hear unbelievers being warned of the danger of partaking of the cup in their “unworthy state” as unforgiven sinners. This view has a number of difficulties, but it seems Paul cannot be speaking of unbelievers, for he calls their death “sleep,” clearly a term used for the death of a saint. Furthermore, Paul speaks of the sickness and death of many in the church as the Lord’s discipline, which takes place “in order that we may not be condemned along with the world” (verse 32). It must therefore be believers who are being disciplined by sickness and death.
Some suppose divine judgment has come upon believers who did not properly examine themselves, searching out and confessing their sins before partaking of communion. This interpretation also has a number of problems. First, there is certainly a theological problem with this interpretation. We are never “worthy” to partake of communion. Communion is the commemoration of our Lord’s sacrificial death in the sinner’s place. Because we are unworthy of eternal life and worthy of divine damnation, Christ died in our place on the cross of Calvary. He took our sins upon Himself. He alone is worthy, and communion celebrates what He has done for unworthy sinners like us. No matter how many sins we think of and confess, we will not be worthy, other than in the blood of Christ. Second, the word rendered “unworthily” (KJV) or “unworthy manner” (NASB, NIV, NKJV) is not an adjective describing the condition of the one partaking of communion, but an adverb, describing the manner in which one partakes of the Lord’s Supper. The sin of the Corinthians, for which divine discipline was imposed, was related to the manner in which the Lord’s Supper was observed.
I have thought for some time that the reason for divine discipline was the drunken and disorderly conduct at the Lord’s Supper. Certainly, Paul’s words inform us there were those who were drunk at the church meeting (verse 21), and chapter 14 seems to indicate that the sharing or speaking time of the meeting was unruly (see 14:26-40). But this is not the reason Paul gives for divine discipline. The real problem which resulted in divine discipline was that some of the Corinthian Christians refused to wait to eat the Lord’s Supper until all of the Corinthians had time to arrive. Those who arrived early seem to be the affluent members of the church, while those who came late were poor and probably were slaves. It is not too hard for a business owner to leave work early, but when you are a slave … Those who arrived early were eating their own food to excess and thus causing others to be deprived:
20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God, and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.
If it is not clear enough that this is the problem, we need only look at the final verses in this chapter to see what Paul says to the Corinthians regarding the solution to this serious problem:
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you may not come together for judgment. And the remaining matters I shall arrange when I come.
Can you imagine this? A church with as many problems as this Corinthian assembly is not as severely disciplined by God for incest and immorality as for failing to wait for someone to arrive at the supper table before eating? How could this be? Why would God be so severe as to discipline many with sickness and death because of their table manners?
Why was the Corinthians’ conduct so offensive to God that He disciplined these saints so severely? The answer lies in the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, a meaning which many of the Corinthians seem to have forsaken or forgotten, a meaning not grasped by many Christians today. Let us now think Paul’s thoughts after him to understand the seriousness of this sin of failing to wait for supper, the Lord’s Supper.
(1) The Lord’s Supper was a supper. Frequently, we speak of the Lord’s Supper as the “Lord’s Table,” although this expression occurs only once, in 1 Corinthians 10:21.159 Communion is another term frequently employed by Christians for the Lord’s Supper, and it conveys something significant about this meal. Nevertheless, it is only found once in 1 Corinthians 10:16 in the KJV and NKJV. The Lord’s Supper was a supper. When our Lord broke the bread and gave the wine to His disciples just before His death, He did so in the course of the meal (see “after supper,” 1 Corinthians 11:25). The celebration of the Lord’s Supper by the early church in Acts (2:42, 46; 20:7) and at Corinth was also observed as a part of a meal (11:20-22, 33-34). The Lord’s Supper seems to have been referred to as the “breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42, 46, 20:7).
(2) The Lord’s Supper was a meal that was celebrated by the entire church, when they gathered weekly as a congregation. The Lord’s Supper was a part of the meeting of the church. The whole church “gathered together,” a fact that Paul emphasizes five times in verses 17-34:
The verb ‘gather together,’ repeated five times in vv. 17-22 and 33-34, is one of the key words that holds the argument together. Given its similar usage in 14:23 and 26, it had probably become a semitechnical term for the ‘gathering together’ of the people of God for worship. Thus the concern is with what goes on when they ‘come together as the church’ (v. 18). The Corinthians problem was not their failure to gather, but their failure truly to be God’s new people when they gathered; here there was to be neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free (cf. 12:13).160
The term sunerchomai is employed eight times in the Gospels, two of which are found in Luke. The term is used 17 times in Acts, but not as a technical term for the church gathering. Elsewhere in the New Testament the term is employed only by Paul. In 1 Corinthians, the term is employed only in chapters 11 and 14. Paul is very clear about those times when his teaching is specifically directed to the “meeting of the church.” And when the church gathered weekly, the focus was the Lord’s Supper, although a number of other things happened also.
7 And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight (Acts 20:7, emphasis mine).
(3) In the Bible, the sharing of a meal is a most significant event. Throughout the Bible, the meal plays a very prominent symbolic role. The first sin is about the eating of an illicit or forbidden food in Genesis 2 and 3. Abraham’s hospitality in Genesis 18:1-8 and Lot’s in Genesis 19:1-3 are viewed as most significant events. The writer to the Hebrews even seems to refer to this when he writes:
1 Let love of the brethren continue. 2 Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it (Hebrews 13:1-2).
Abraham’s servant used hospitality as one of his most important criteria for the selection of a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24:10ff.). Jacob teaches us of the important role which the meal played but in a very different way. He perverted the table, using it not as a means to serve others, but as a means to serve himself by taking advantage of his table guests. Thus, Jacob used his stew to obtain his brother’s birthright (Genesis 24:27-34), and he used a meal to deceive his father so that he received his blessing as though he were Esau (Genesis 27).
In Exodus 12, the climax of the contest between God and the gods of Egypt was the judgment of God on the first born of the Egyptians, and God’s “passing over” all those who celebrated the first “Passover.” Perhaps one of the most unusual meals in all the Old Testament is that described in Exodus 24:7-11:
7 Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!” 8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” 9 Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. 11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they beheld God, and they ate and drank (Exodus 24:7-11).
In Exodus 32, when Aaron fashioned the golden calf, the Israelites engage in their idolatrous worship with a meal (32:1-6). The Israelites are seduced to engage in idolatrous worship with the Moabites when they accept the dinner invitation of the Moabites (Numbers 25:1-5). Judges 19 is a repetition of Sodom and Gomorrah, except the heathen are hospitable (verses 3-9) and the people of God are not, and they seek to rape the stranger in their midst (verses 10-26). David shows his love for Jonathan by making Mephibosheth (Jonathan’s surviving son) a guest at his table (2 Samuel 9). Psalm 23 describes the believer’s security and blessing in terms of a meal (Psalm 23:1-3 [a sheep’s meal], 5 [a banquet]). God’s care for the Israelites in the wilderness is poetically depicted as His preparing a table for them in the desert (Psalm 78:17-19). While Daniel is willing to live in Babylon to serve the king and even be educated in a Babylonian school, he draws the line at eating from the king’s table (Daniel 1).
In the New Testament, the Gospels continue to emphasize the significance of the dinner table. The feeding of the 5,000 is a most significant symbolic event, one our Lord employs to manifest Himself as the “bread from heaven” (John 6). The status-seeking of the scribes and Pharisees is evident by their seeking places of honor at the dinner table (Matthew 23:6; see also Luke 14:10; John 13). The Lord surely shocks His disciples when He speaks of serving them at the banquet table in the kingdom of God (Luke 12:37). He angers the Jews by informing them that while many Jews would not be sitting at His “banquet table” in the kingdom, many of the Gentiles would be seated at that table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Luke 13:22-30; see Matthew 8:11; 15:27). Jesus instructs His disciples about inviting guests to a banquet who can reciprocate, rather than those with real needs who cannot return the favor (Luke 14:12-14). Those who reject Jesus and His kingdom are likened to those who turn down an invitation to a banquet (Luke 14:15-24). The prodigal son is welcomed home with a banquet (Luke 15:11-32). Jesus promises His faithful disciples they will sit with Him at His table in the kingdom of God (Luke 22:30). When Jesus rises from the dead, He reveals Himself to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus while seated at the dinner table (Luke 24:30-31).
When God enters into a new covenant with men, this is often symbolized by a change in what His people can eat. In the Garden of Eden, it seems that men are vegetarians (Genesis 1:30). When God enters into covenant with Noah, men are given permission to eat meat (Genesis 9:1-7). When God makes a covenant with Israel through Moses, certain meats are declared “clean” and others “unclean.” To keep the Mosaic Covenant, one must watch what they eat. With the coming of Christ and the New Covenant in His blood, a new menu is prescribed. God declares all things to be clean (Mark 7:14-23). It takes a forceful vision to change Peter’s mind about eating foods previously declared unclean (Acts 10-11), but dietary matters are one of the things which separated Jews and Gentiles. At the Jerusalem Council, three of the four commands laid down for the Gentiles concerned food (see Acts 15:20, 29).
In the remainder of the New Testament, the dinner table is still a most important symbol. Paul severely rebukes Peter for separating himself from the Gentile believers and sitting at the supper table with the Jews (Galatians 2:11-21). In His letter to the Laodiceans, our Lord likens their repentance and restoration to fellowship with Him to sitting with Him at the meal table (Revelation 3:20). The final events described by John in Revelation 19 are depicted as two banquets. The first banquet in verses 1-10 is the marriage banquet, which celebrates the marriage of our Lord to His church. The second banquet I call the “banquet of the buzzards” (verses 11-18), in which the bodies of the defeated enemies of our Lord are consumed by the birds. In Revelation 22, it is almost as though we have returned to paradise regained, for there the “tree of life” is found, and by partaking of it, the nations are healed (Revelation 22:1-2).
(4) The Lord’s Supper was a meal which has its roots in the Old Testament celebration of Passover. The last supper, as described in the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and as communicated to Paul by our Lord (1 Corinthians 11:23-25), was originally a Passover celebration. Our Lord observed this Passover in an upper room, along with His 12 disciples. This “last supper” became the “first supper,” or more properly, the “Lord’s Supper.” Jesus instructs His disciples to continually observe this “supper” until His return (see verses 24 and 25).
(5) The Lord’s Supper was a supper with great symbolic meaning attached to it. The two most prominent symbols are the one loaf of bread, which is broken into pieces and shared by all, and the wine, which is apparently poured into a common cup and drunk by all. Jesus taught His disciples and Paul that the bread represents His body, and the wine, His blood. The one loaf of bread represents the physical body of our Lord, which was given for us so that we might be saved. The eternal Son of God took on human flesh in His incarnation, adding perfect, sinless humanity to His undiminished deity. He is the first and only God-man, as the result of His miraculous incarnation. He took on a sinless body so that He could endure our temptations without failure, and so that He could die in our place by taking our sins upon Himself. He could do this because he was sinless and did not need to die for His sins; He died bearing the guilt of our sins.
(6) You will notice that in 1 Corinthians, Paul places much emphasis on the bread. In chapter 5, Paul speaks of the bread in its developmental stage as one lump of dough which will be corrupted by the sinner who is not disciplined. In chapter 10, Paul speaks of the bread as “one bread” (10:16-17), so that all who partake of it are “one body.” The wine represents the “new covenant” in our Lord’s blood, but this is not so much emphasized in 1 Corinthians as elsewhere.
(7) The one loaf of bread, which was broken by our Lord and divided among His disciples, and which we share in communion as well, represents the physical “body of Christ.” The bread represents the actual body of Christ, in which our Lord came to the earth, successfully endured all the temptations we face, and then in His body, suffered and died in our place.
24 And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed (1 Peter 2:24).
By partaking of the bread in communion, we symbolize that we have, by faith, partaken of the work of Christ on our behalf at Calvary, by which we are cleansed from our sin and guilt and justified with His righteousness. This is what Jesus is teaching His disciples in John 6, but no one really grasps what He means until after His death and resurrection.
(8) The one loaf of bread, from which we partake at communion, also represents Christ’s spiritual body, the church. Communion is not a private celebration, but one which is observed by the entire church when it gathers to observe the Lord’s Supper (verses 17, 18, etc.). By partaking of a piece of the one loaf, we proclaim the unity of the church, the body of Christ, and our communion or fellowship with the rest of the saints, who have also partaken of the work of Christ.
17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread (1 Corinthians 10:17).
Thus, when we partake of a piece of the bread from one loaf, as a gathered church, we not only symbolize our union with Christ in His atoning work, but our union with His “body,” the church. We symbolize that we all, together, constitute the body of Christ, and that we are all equal sharers in the saving work of Christ. We profess not only our unity but our equality. We are all one body, and we all have equal standing in that body. It is by virtue of His work at Calvary that we are saved. No one is more saved or less saved than anyone else in the body of Christ.
11 Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands—12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:11-22).
(9) The problem with the Corinthians’ celebration of the Lord’s Supper was that of divisions. In verse 20, Paul begins to expose the problem that was occurring in the context of the Lord’s Supper. But in verses 17-19, Paul introduces this new section by focusing on the problem of divisions:
17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you (1 Corinthians 11:17-19).
Notice how Paul sets verses 17-34 apart from verses 1-16. Verses 1-16 are introduced with words of praise; verses 17-34 are set apart by Paul’s expressed refusal to praise them regarding their conduct at the Lord’s Supper. Verses 1-16 address the matter of head coverings, in a broad enough context to include the Lord’s Supper, but not so narrow as to restrict his instructions to the Lord’s Supper and the church meeting alone. And to emphasize that he has embarked on a new subject, restricted to the meeting of the church, Paul indicates that his first matter of rebuke concerns the divisions which are evident among them when they gather together as a church (verse 18). There is a very clear line of distinction drawn between verses 1-16 and 17-34 in my opinion, even though these two sections are related.
Here is why Paul finds it so important that the Corinthians wait for one another: it is so that they can all eat the Lord’s Supper together and so that each one who eats can receive an equal share. Here is why failing to wait for one another is such a serious sin. The symbolism of the Lord’s Supper is not limited just to the bread and the wine, but it extends to the entire meal as well. Some more affluent Corinthians were arriving earlier than others, and when they arrived, they refused to wait for their poorer brethren. They hastily ate the food which they had prepared and brought with them so that they could enjoy it all without sharing with the poorer members of the church. The “haves” received more than they needed, and the “have nots” did not get enough. There was blatant inequality at the Lord’s Supper. And yet Christ’s work on Calvary, commemorated in the Lord’s Supper, made all saints equal in Him. How could one commemorate Christ’s equalizing work of atonement by eating the meal in a way that exhibited inequality? How could the saints worship Him who said, “Blessed are you who are poor” (Luke 6:20) by shaming the poor? How could those who proclaimed their unity with their fellow believers ignore the physical needs of those who came with little or no food? How could a church which was one body begin to celebrate the Lord’s Supper with only a partial “body” present? What the Corinthians were doing at the Lord’s Supper denied the things the Supper was intended to symbolize. No wonder Paul said that when they gathered as a church, they were not celebrating the “Lord’s Supper.” They most certainly were not.
But wait. It gets worse. In the most general sense, the Lord’s Supper was a celebration of our Lord’s sacrifice on Calvary for our unmerited benefit and blessing. The Lord Jesus set aside His own personal interests and sacrificed His body so that by His sufferings in His body, we might be saved. And yet at the Lord’s Supper in Corinth, there is no self-sacrifice but only self-indulgence. The saints are all more concerned with satisfying their own bodily appetites than those of their fellow-believers. The most self-indulgent are those who least need food or drink. Those most in need are denied sustenance.
Let us seek to sum up the evils evident in the way the Corinthians observed the Lord’s Supper.
Paul exposes a serious problem in the Corinthians’ observance of the Lord’s Supper and links this problem to the sickness and deaths of many of the Corinthian saints, which are manifestations of divine discipline. Paul does not leave the Corinthians without a solution. In addition to exposing their sin for what it was, Paul tells them how to correct the problem and avoid further discipline from the Lord. The solution to the Corinthian crisis, according to Paul, is as follows:
(1) Recognize that their celebration of the Lord’s Supper was not really the Lord’s Supper at all. These Corinthians are “going through the motions” of observing the Lord’s Supper, but when you compare their practice with the reality of this Supper, it is apparent that what they were doing was nothing like what the Lord’s Supper was all about. Their celebration of the Lord’s Supper is something like a peace activist beating an innocent bystander with a sign with a dove on it. It is like a prison warden handing out handgun permits to the most violent inmates. It is like a man pawning his wedding ring to pay for a night with a prostitute.
How ironic that Paul assesses the situation in Corinth by saying their celebration of the Lord’s Supper is not a celebration of the (true) Lord’s Supper at all. I am reminded of the words of the prophet Amos as cited by Stephen in his final message to his Jewish brethren:
42 “But God turned away and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, ‘It was not to Me that you offered victims and sacrifices FORTY YEARS IN THE WILDERNESS, WAS IT, O house of Israel? 43 You also took along the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Rompha, the images which you made to worship them. I also will remove you beyond Babylon’” (Acts 7:42-43).
I cannot imagine that Paul did not mentally recall where he first heard that religious rituals are a sham without religious reality, without practicing what we proclaim. Even from the grave, Stephen was still preaching through one of his assassins—Saul—now the Apostle Paul.
(2) Recapture the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, as it was first instituted by our Lord. Paul takes these Corinthians back to the original Lord’s Supper, as he received this tradition from the Lord. If the Corinthians are to practice the Lord’s Supper as our Lord meant it to be, they must be reminded of that first Lord’s Supper which our Lord celebrated with His disciples shortly before His death.
(3) Return to the simple message and meaning of the gospel. We know from the earlier chapters of this epistle that some of the Corinthians are being lured from the simple gospel by the false wisdom of some of their (would-be) leaders. Paul is thought of as simplistic and second class because of his refusal to embrace anything but the gospel message of Christ crucified. The Lord’s Supper is the commemoration of our Lord’s sacrificial life and death for the salvation and sanctification of lost sinners, in whose place He was condemned, and in Whom the saints have been forgiven, justified, and glorified. The Lord’s Supper means nothing apart from the gospel, and so it is by revisiting the gospel message through the symbols of the Lord’s Supper that we come to appreciate the significance of the Lord’s Supper.
(4) Understand that the symbols God has appointed reflect substance. Symbols mean little without the substance. This is truly difficult for the self-centered for whom the measure of the meeting is “What did I get out of it?” Over and over again, the Old Testament prophets rebuke the Israelites for their elaborate display of feigned spirituality through external rituals and symbols, but doing so without the substance of what these symbols represent:
1 “Cry loudly, do not hold back; Raise your voice like a trumpet, And declare to My people their transgression, And to the house of Jacob their sins. 2 Yet they seek Me day by day, and delight to know My ways, As a nation that has done righteousness, And has not forsaken the ordinance of their God. They ask Me for just decisions, They delight in the nearness of God. 3 ‘Why have we fasted and Thou dost not see? Why have we humbled ourselves and Thou dost not notice?’ Behold, on the day of your fast you find your desire, And drive hard all your workers. 4 Behold, you fast for contention and strife and to strike with a wicked fist. You do not fast like you do today to make your voice heard on high. 5 Is it a fast like this which I choose, a day for a man to humble himself? Is it for bowing one’s head like a reed, And for spreading out sackcloth and ashes as a bed? Will you call this a fast, even an acceptable day to the Lord? 6 Is this not the fast which I choose, To loosen the bonds of wickedness, To undo the bands of the yoke, And to let the oppressed go free, And break every yoke? 7 Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, And bring the homeless poor into the house; When you see the naked, to cover him; And not to hide yourself from your own flesh? 8 Then your light will break out like the dawn, And your recovery will speedily spring forth; And your righteousness will go before you; The glory of the Lord will be your rear guard. 9 Then you will call, and the Lord will answer; You will cry, and He will say, ‘Here I am.’ If you remove the yoke from your midst, The pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness, 10 And if you give yourself to the hungry, And satisfy the desire of the afflicted, Then your light will rise in darkness, And your gloom will become like midday. 11 And the Lord will continually guide you, And satisfy your desire in scorched places, And give strength to your bones; And you will be like a watered garden, And like a spring of water whose waters do not fail. 12 And those from among you will rebuild the ancient ruins; You will raise up the age-old foundations; And you will be called the repairer of the breach, The restorer of the streets in which to dwell. 13 If because of the sabbath, you turn your foot From doing your own pleasure on My holy day, And call the sabbath a delight, the holy day of the Lord honorable, And shall honor it, desisting from your own ways, From seeking your own pleasure, And speaking your own word, 14 Then you will take delight in the Lord, And I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; And I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, For the mouth of the Lord has spoken” (Isaiah 58:1-14; see also Amos 5:21-24).
(5) Recognize the broader, corporate dimensions of the Lord’s Supper. The Corinthians tended to approach the Lord’s Supper in the same way most of us do, viewing the celebration individually and personally. Now do not misunderstand me here. If the Lord’s Supper does not apply to us personally and individually, it can have no meaning at all. But the Lord’s Supper goes beyond us as individuals and includes the church of our Lord corporately. When we partake of communion, we are not only reminded that we have partaken of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary for the forgiveness of our sins, we symbolically demonstrate that we have become a member of His body, the church. Communion symbolizes our identification with Christ and with His church. This is the message Paul seeks to convey in the second chapter of his Epistle to the Ephesians. In the first 10 verses, Paul reminds the Ephesians how they have been personally and individually saved from their sins to an eternal union with Christ.
4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved) (Ephesians. 2:4-5).
In verses 11-22, Paul reminds his readers that they have been saved from their alienation and separation from the people of God to a new status where they are one people as believers in Christ.
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:19-22).
To fail to wait for other believers in the church and not to share the Lord’s Supper with them is a blatant disregard for this corporate dimension of Christ’s atoning work on Calvary, which is to be symbolized in the Lord’s Supper.
(6) The affluent Corinthians are to stop despising and shaming those in the body whose socio-economic status is lower than theirs, by waiting for them before celebrating the Lord’s Supper, and by sharing their supper with them. The Corinthians are guilty of the same offense as those whom James rebuked in his epistle:
1 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. 2 For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, 3 and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? 5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag you into court? 7 Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been called? (James 2:1-7)
The Corinthians are also guilty of the sin of Peter which Paul rebuked in Galatians 2:
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? (Galatians 2:11-14)
The solution was for the Corinthians to see how their actions contradicted the gospel and then how they turned their celebration of the Lord’s Supper into a hypocritical sham. They were to see to it that the way they celebrated communion was consistent in substance (practice) with the symbolism of the meal.
As we come to the 11th chapter of 1 Corinthians, we see that Paul was hardly speaking hypothetically in 9:24–10:13. Those who would win the race must exercise self-control “in all things” (9:25). Who would have ever thought that self-control was necessary in the church meeting? But it is vitally important there. The Corinthians should have had the self-control to wait for those who must come late and the self-control to share their food with others. Later we will see that they need self-control in speaking and sharing in the church meeting, for only one can speak at a time, and only that which edifies is to be spoken.
The problem Paul exposes in the Corinthians’ celebration of the Lord’s Supper should be instructive to us. I doubt very much that the Corinthians grasped the seriousness of the sin they committed by failing to wait for the rest of the church before beginning the Lord’s Supper. I imagine they were shocked to learn that this was the reason for sickness and death in their assembly. Some of our most serious sins are subtle sins, sins that our culture may not even regard as bad taste. The Corinthians’ practice at the Lord’s Table was sin because it distorted one of the great symbols of our age, the celebration of our Lord’s suffering and death on our behalf. The Lord’s Supper commemorates what the Christian has experienced in Christ, and it proclaims to unbelievers what every person must do to enter into intimate fellowship with Him. To disregard or distort the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper is to distort and misrepresent the gospel. No wonder the Corinthians are sick and dying!
But this text was not written to the Corinthians alone; it was written to “those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:2). As we conclude, let us consider some of the ways this passage may affect us.
(1) We need to be reminded of the subtlety of sin. Sins should not be determined on a cultural basis but rather on a biblical basis. The Corinthians were guilty of a deadly sin, and they hardly seemed to know it. As we observe the exposure of this sin in Corinth by Paul, let us open our own hearts and minds to the Word of God and the Spirit of God, asking as the psalmist did to have our sins exposed and cleansed:
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts; 24 And see if there be any hurtful way in me, And lead me in the everlasting way (Psalm 139:23-24).
(2) We must be alert to the dangers of repeating a ritual without reexperiencing its reality. God gave the Israelites many symbolic celebrations to observe. Their purpose was to commemorate God’s great acts in the past and to remember His covenant(s) with them. The prophets frequently rebuked the Israelites for repeating the rituals, while forsaking or forgetting the realities behind them. The solution to religious ritualism is not to forsake the ritual, or to do it less frequently, but to seek always to perform the rituals in a way consistent with the reality they symbolize.
Some people wrongly suppose the Lord’s Supper will be more significant to them if they observe it less frequently. I simply remind you that Jesus commanded His disciples (and therefore His church) to be doing this until He comes. The practice of the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament churches was first daily (Acts 2:42, 46), and then weekly (20:7). Those who think that monthly, quarterly, or annual celebrations of the Lord’s Supper are sufficient seem to think too lightly of that which it symbolizes and of the value of the symbolic observance of communion to remind them of the realities of the gospel and its message of reconciliation with God and men. Paul did not tell the Corinthians to stop eating a meal or to meet less frequently, but to continue meeting as they have with a renewed appreciation for what it means, and a renewed commitment to celebrate the Supper in a way that is befitting to its message.
(3) We need to recognize the limitations imposed upon us by not having a communal meal and correct these as best as we can. In many ways, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in the ancient churches is more foreign to us than the matter of head coverings. We do not observe the Lord’s Supper as a supper, but simply by partaking of the symbolic bread and cup. In the way our auditorium is arranged, we partake of communion while looking at the back of other people’s heads. In Corinth, the celebration took place as a part of an intimate meal and with believers looking at one another face to face. We use matza for the bread. Several pieces of matza are placed in a cloth and crushed and then passed out to all. The matza is good in that it is unleavened bread, but it is not so good in that it is not “one loaf.” Matza does not visually symbolize the unity of the body of Christ as it could. Perhaps we should consider changing to one real (unleavened) loaf, which is broken before all. The cup as we distribute it is not a common cup from which all drink, but trays of individual cups. Once again, the element of common participation from one “cup” is symbolically lost. Having traveled in India and partaken from a common cup in a congregation where there was the danger of spreading sickness, I realize that a common cup may not be wise (humanly speaking). Perhaps we should pour the wine from one container into several of the cups, so that the element of unity is visibly expressed. In this day when “worship centers” are “in,” I wonder if we should consider building such a worship center in the light of this text in Corinthians, rather than according to other considerations.
(4) We need to recognize the importance of all believers in a church being present at the Lord’s Supper. The importance of this can hardly be overstated. Paul taught that the one loaf symbolized the whole body of Christ, at least the whole body of believers that met as a local church. For one segment of the Corinthian church to go on with the Lord’s Supper without the rest was a most serious violation of the symbolism of that supper. Our problem as a church is not that some believers go ahead with the Lord’s Supper before others can get there. Over the years there have always been a few who never seem to get to the meeting of the church on time. Paul only chastised the Corinthians who did not wait because the others could not arrive any sooner. In our church, he would probably chastise those who could get there on time but often do not. If not waiting is a serious offense, maybe being late is serious too. What then can we say for those who make no effort to attend the Lord’s Supper at all? Those who have not taken this part of the Sunday meeting of the church have something very serious to consider.
If it is vitally important for every member of the local church to be present at the Lord’s Supper, I wonder if this does not raise some troubling questions about the size of the local church. The megachurch is the new fad. The larger the church, the more programs and perks it can offer its members, everything from skating rinks and swimming pools to programs tailored to special needs. But what if all those who identify themselves as members of a particular church cannot share the “one loaf” together? I know of no church in the New Testament where the whole congregation could not meet together at one time. It seems sad, at the very least, for church members to identify themselves in terms of what hour they attend or by what door they enter and exit. I wonder if a church is too large when every member cannot meet in one place to remember the Lord’s Supper.
(5) As a local church, we need to recognize, symbolize, and practice our fundamental unity with all those who trust in Christ and avoid unbiblical distinctions which improperly divide us as believers. One of the foundational principles of the “church growth movement” is the principle of homogeneous grouping. In clich terminology: “birds of a feather flock together.” Church growth experts have determined statistically that the churches which grow biggest and fastest are those which appeal to one segment of society. In other words, to be a rapidly growing church, we would have to appeal to one race and even to one segment of our society. You would not want to try to reach intellectuals and white collar workers along with illiterates, street people, and factory workers. People do not feel comfortable with people who are not like them. This is the kind of thinking which seems to justify churches appealing to only one group. And by the way, guess which groups are sought and which are not?
The church cannot be true to its nature and calling and follow this principle of homogeneous grouping. Jews were not comfortable with Gentiles nor were Gentiles comfortable with Jews. So what? Paul would not allow Peter to identify himself with the Jews and at the same time separate himself from the Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-22). He saw this as a frontal attack on the gospel, and he would have no part of it. James would not tolerate a church which gave preferential treatment to the rich and which treated the poor as second-class citizens (James 2). The church which best represents Christ as a local manifestation of the body of Christ is that church which is made up of various races (ideally, all the races represented in that region), various socio-economic groups, the whole spectrum of society. Does this fly in the face of man’s human nature? Good! The church does not operate according to human principles, nor does it exist on the basis of human power. The church is supernatural, and unity expressed in diversity proves it. Let us not seek to operate as the world does, but as God does, by breaking the rules of “church growth” and following the rules of Scripture.161
Let me mention some of the divisions and distinctions which may violate the spirit and teaching of Paul’s teaching in our text. Denominationalism is certainly one form of division which needs to be scrutinized. I am not saying that a local church cannot or should not have its own distinctive doctrinal statement or practices, but I am saying there should be times when saints can affirm their oneness in the body of Christ in some tangible way. Churches should not be distinguished on the basis of race. Racism is a fact of life in many, if not most, churches. And then there are the laity-clergy distinctions which exist in so many churches. In those few times when communion is observed, who passes out the bread and the wine? Does this divide the body in a way that the Bible does not allow? And what of closed communion? Should those who profess faith in Christ be barred from communion because they do not possess a letter of commendation, or because they have not been baptized by a certain church or denomination? Are we guilty of shaming and despising certain segments of the church? What shall we do about it?
(6) We should beware of evaluating our worship in terms of what it does for us. I suspect you have frequently heard the question asked after church, “How did the church meeting go?” The basis on which we answer that question tells us a great deal. Unfortunately, we tend to measure the meeting by what it did for us. Did we feel elevated in our spirit? Did we come away feeling good? Did others say or do what we hoped for? Did we have the opportunity to do or to say what we wanted? We indulge ourselves in other ways than in food. Self-indulgence is all too often a motive or a goal in our worship. We worship because of what we hope we will gain. I must warn you that this is a most dangerous goal. The element of sacrifice is primary in everything we do as Christians, including celebrating the Lord’s Supper. If sacrifice is a significant element in worship, the question we should be asking to evaluate the quality of our worship is, “What did I give (up), and what did God gain?” All too often we worship expecting God to give and ourselves to gain. As we see in this text and in the chapters to follow, we are also to sacrifice so that our fellow-believers might gain, so that they might be edified. The element of sacrifice was missing in Corinth, as it is frequently missing in our worship today.
(7) We should be sobered by the meaning of the Lord’s Supper and how seriously God takes misconduct at the Supper. Some Christians wrongly measure worship on an emotional scale. If they come away “high,” they have worshiped, they think, and if they have been sobered or saddened, they have not worshiped. Because I have observed worship in a variety of cultures, I have learned not to be too hasty in what is true worship and what is not. I have been in a number of prison chapel services, and there is often a great deal of emotion and enthusiasm. But the moment some of these inmates get outside the chapel doors (or outside the prison gates), everything changes. True worship is not just getting exhilarated. True worship must begin with an appreciation of the fact that we are in the presence of a holy God, a God who hates hypocrisy and sin. I think the Corinthians were having a good time in their worship, not unlike the good times the pagans were having at their idol worship celebrations. But let us keep in mind the sobering fact that many of these Corinthian saints were sick or dead. Worship in the presence of God should be a sobering experience.
Now having said this, I do not mean that a “sober” or “somber” service is necessarily true worship any more than an exuberant service is. I mean to say that true worship cannot exist where the holiness of God is not grasped and where the seriousness of impure worship is comprehended. When we truly fathom the holiness of God and its implications for our worship, we can worship joyfully, within the boundaries of God’s Word. I see this illustrated in the life of David as recorded in 2 Samuel 6. There was great joy among the Israelites as the ark of the covenant was being transported to its proper place, but Uzzah reached out and touched the ark and was struck dead. Uzzah had the most noble intentions, it seems, but he did not appreciate sufficiently the holiness of God (and, by association with God, the ark) and the laws of God which governed the way the ark of God was to be transported. When the anger of the Lord burned against Uzzah, David himself became angry—with God. God had rained on his parade. It was not until after God’s blessings were observed on the household of Obed-edom (where the ark was temporarily kept), and until after David remembered that God had specifically instructed His people as to how the ark was to be carried, that he was able to worship the Lord joyfully in the presence of the ark.
The worship of our Lord at the Lord’s Supper does not need to be a funeral service. But the Lord’s Supper is a remembrance of His sacrificial death for our sins. The Lord’s Supper is a most serious occasion, and those who conduct themselves inappropriately are living dangerously. Joyful worship must never be separated from a healthy fear of the Lord, and attention to the principles and precepts He has set down as to how our worship is to be conducted.
(8) We need to be very sensitive about the unconscious or conscious disdaining and/or shaming of the poor, by structurally making them stand out as poor. I do not know whether the shaming of the poor in Corinth was purposeful or not, but I am confident that the affluent saints did not seem to care if their actions resulted in shame for the poor. There seems to have been a calloused disregard for the poor then, as there may very well be today. As a church, we are striving to avoid situations which might shame those with lesser means. For example, when we have a church camp, we do not wish to exclude children because they do not have the means to pay. Beyond this, we endeavor to provide the means for those without funds for camp in such a way that they are not singled out and thereby shamed. We try to be careful not to plan trips and social outings which will exclude those without the means to go. Our Benevolence Committee seeks to minister to the financial and material needs of those inside and outside our body, and they do so quietly and confidentially so that those who are helped are not shamed in the process.
I am convinced that sharing with those in need is one of the first fruits of genuine conversion. It certainly was quickly evident in the newly-born church in Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts 2:42-47; 4:32-37). Sharing should begin with those within the local church, but it should surely not stop there. The new church at Antioch enthusiastically shared its means with the saints in Judea when they knew that a famine would cause many hardships (Acts 11:27-30). The Macedonians eagerly shared with the needy as well (2 Corinthians 8 and 9). We should do likewise. We should not be calloused to the needs of our fellow saints in South Dallas or in South America. We cannot meet all the needs of our brethren around the world, but we certainly should strive to do more in this area.
(9) In a welfare-oriented society like our own, there is a danger of the opposite error, those with lesser means expecting the more affluent to carry the whole load. The affluent Corinthians were guilty of not sharing their food with the poorer saints and thereby shaming them. There is today a danger Paul did not mention and which did not seem to be as great a problem in those times—“mooching.” There are those today who have less means than some others, and they seem to expect the affluent to carry the entire burden. They are more than content to let others supply all their needs while contributing nothing themselves. I am reminded of our Lord’s commendation of the widow who gave her last two mites—all that she had. She did not hoard her two mites, consoling herself with the thought that there were plenty of rich folks around who could cover what she failed to give. She gave what she had, and our Lord commended her for doing so, in faith and obedience.
The man with but one talent in Matthew 25 was irresponsible and consoled himself that he had little entrusted to him while others had greater means. His master (who symbolized God) had harsh words for him (Matthew 25:14-30). The Macedonians were a poor people, but they gladly gave sacrificially above and beyond what would have been expected of them (2 Corinthians 8:1-6). In this church, as in virtually every other church, there are those who expect to be ministered to and provided for by others but who give nothing themselves. I am speaking of money, but I am also speaking of ministry. If it was wrong for the affluent Corinthians not to share out of their means, it is also wrong for anyone to refuse to share out of the means they have. Let us not look to others to provide for us what God has enabled us to provide for ourselves, and to provide for others:
14 “Three times a year you shall celebrate a feast to Me. 15 You shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread; for seven days you are to eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the appointed time in the month Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt. And none shall appear before Me empty-handed (Exodus 23:14-15, emphasis mine).
28 Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labor, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need (Ephesians 4:28).
(10) The good news is that even when sins as serious as those in Corinth are taking place in the church, God will use them for His glory and for our good. Paul does not wring his hands over the situation in Corinth, even though he might like to wring their necks. But even when the church is behaving as badly as many were in Corinth, God’s purposes are not frustrated. I think this is why Paul could be direct and confrontive, and yet still admonish these saints as his dear children in the faith. God is glorified when He disciplines the saints before the world and before the celestial beings. God’s holiness is surely evident when He disciplines His children, and so is His faithfulness and love. Remember that even in the discipline of death, God’s actions are for our best interest:
32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord in order that we may not be condemned along with the world (1 Corinthians 11:32).
When there are many in the church who are not conducting themselves as they should, this provides the occasion for those who are approved of God to become evident (11:19). And how are the approved evident? First, by their own conduct. They will not allow themselves to be squeezed into the mold of the world or even of their erring brethren. They will stand out by doing what is right. Second, they will become apparent by taking the appropriate actions to correct the evils they see, just as we find Paul rebuking Peter for his hypocrisy in Galatians 2. Third, they will think and act in accordance with the gospel, rather than in accordance with the thinking of others. Here, and in Acts 15 and Galatians 2 (as elsewhere), Paul sees the seriousness of the error because he always views things from the vantage point of the cross of Christ. Fourth, those who are approved will be evident in the attitude and manner by which they seek to correct those in error:
24 And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will (2 Timothy 2:24-26).
We live in a world which knows not the unity and fellowship which Christians possess, and which we should practice at all times, especially in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. If you are reading these words, my friend, and you have never experienced the forgiveness of your sins and the intimate fellowship with God and with other Christians of which Paul has been writing, I urge you to “come to the table”; that is, that you come to Him Who is the “Bread of life,” and Whose blood was shed for you. Come to Jesus Christ as the sinner you are, and partake of His sacrificial death on your behalf. To do so is to not only entitle you to sit at His table every week at the Lord’s Supper, but to sit at His table throughout all eternity in the kingdom of God.
159 In the Old Testament, we find the expression, “table of the Lord” in Malachi 1:6, 11, but not in the sense of the Lord’s table as it was observed in the New Testament churches.
160 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary, F. F. Bruce, General Editor (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987 [reprint, 1993]), p. 536.
161 I would not wish to be understood to say that all the principles of the church growth movement are unbiblical, but some are, and every principle ought to be scrutinized in the light of the Scriptures.
1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware. 2 You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the dumb idols, however you were led. 3 Therefore I make known to you, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
A Catholic priest once shared an incident which took place in the prison where he was serving as a chaplain. Assisted by an older man who happened to be a kind of “godfather,” the priest was in the chapel one day when someone came to inform him about the conduct of a particular inmate. Something had to be done. Since the priest’s assistant could not help but overhear the conversation, when the informer left he casually made an offer to help solve the problem: “Father, you want I should take care of this problem for you?” “No thanks,” replied the priest, “We don’t solve such problems with cement shoes.”
It was a sincere offer. The “godfather” was only trying to help. In his mind, there was nothing inconsistent with being a Catholic and ordering a “hit.” Fortunately, the priest saw things differently. I have heard similar stories of Christian inmates who sincerely believed the biblical way for them to discipline a wayward brother was to appoint someone to rub him out. Here is an interesting twist on 1 Corinthians 5. They did not need to turn this fellow over to Satan to destroy his flesh; they would take care of it themselves!
A distorted view of what it means to be spiritual is not new. One of the prominent areas of difference between Jesus and the religious leaders of His day was the definition of what it means to be spiritual. The scribes and Pharisees measured spirituality on the basis of external appearances. No wonder they were so eager to become wealthy. If Jesus’ parable of the shrewd steward in Luke 16:1-13 caused the Pharisees to scoff (verse 14), one can imagine how the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) offended them. Their problem, Jesus said, was judging on the basis of appearances rather than on the motives of men’s hearts (Luke 16:14-18).
The Sermon on the Mount was our Lord’s exposition of the Old Testament Law, stressing that true spirituality goes far beyond the letter of the law to the heart of the matter. Jesus encouraged the poor (literally, and in spirit), the mourners, the gentle, and those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness (Matthew 5:12; compare Luke 6:20-26). He warned against practicing our righteousness in a way that would attract men’s attention to us (Matthew 6:1-18) and against hoarding our possessions. Jesus cautioned those who were quick to judge others that the standard they applied to others would also be applied to them (Matthew 7:1-5). We are to look to God for the good things of life and to treat others the way we wish to be treated by them (7:7-12). Jesus did not forbid us from making all judgments about others. He taught that we should not give what is holy to dogs (7:6) and that we should be on our guard against false prophets (7:13ff.). In short, Jesus turned the Jewish definition of spirituality inside-out and the spiritual system of His day upside-down.
Even in contemporary Christian circles, there is no consensus of thought on true spirituality which one would expect to find among Christians. Christians are dividing themselves over differing definitions of spirituality. Chapters 12-15 of 1 Corinthians are about true spirituality, and in particular, these chapters address the subject of spirituality in the context of spiritual gifts.
It is no wonder that Paul finds it necessary to address the subject of spirituality when he writes to the Corinthian saints. As Paul’s words in verse 1 indicate, the Corinthians are really ignorant when it comes to the subject of spirituality:
1a Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware.
The Corinthians do not think they are ignorant. Quite the contrary! They believe they are spiritual. After all, they are a charismatic church, a church which possesses all the spiritual gifts (1:7). Regardless of whether we may view some gifts as temporary or not, this church has all the gifts. And these Corinthian saints see themselves as spiritual and wise, while at the same time they tend to look down on Paul and the other apostles:
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 7 For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? 8 You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and I would indeed that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. 9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor (1 Corinthians 4:6-10; see 3:18-20; 2 Corinthians 11:16-21).
Worse yet, some of the Corinthians actually dared to accuse Paul of being unspiritual:
1 Now I, Paul, myself urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am meek when face to face with you, but bold toward you when absent! 2 I ask that when I am present I may not be bold with the confidence with which I propose to be courageous against some, who regard us as if we walked according to the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:1-2).
The truth of the matter is just the opposite. It is the Corinthian saints who are unspiritual:
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to babes in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? (1 Corinthians 3:1-3)
The evidence in support of Paul’s accusation is abundant in the chapters we have already studied in 1 Corinthians. The Corinthian church is a divided church. There are factions, some based upon whom the group followed as their leader (1:10ff.). The Corinthians are proud and arrogant (1:18ff.; 3:18-23; 4:6-10, etc.). The Corinthians are soft on sin, especially sexual immorality (chapters 5-6). They are proud that they embraced a man whose sin shocked the pagan Corinthians (5:1-2). They are taking their disputes before the secular law courts rather than before the saints, or rather than suffer abuse for the sake of the kingdom of God (6:1-8). While some are engaged in sexual immorality, others are guilty of setting aside sex within marriage, thus setting themselves up for sin (7:1-5). Some portray marriage as an evil to be avoided and thus encourage unbiblical divorces (7:10ff.). Some Corinthians are not only eating meats offered to idols, they are participating in the heathen idol-worship ceremonies (chapters 8-10). And those who so casually engage in this heathen worship think themselves spiritual and look down on those who refrain from such involvement with idols as “weak.” Some of the Corinthian women seem to think that since they are so spiritual, they can cast aside the roles which God has assigned to men and women (11:1-16). Many of the Corinthian Christians are sick, and a good number died because they refused to wait for their brethren, consequently celebrating communion in a way that failed to properly estimate the value of the body and blood of our Lord (11:17-34).
The Corinthian church is not a pretty sight. These relatively young Christians are already showing signs of serious spiritual problems. And many of the problems Paul has already exposed in his first epistle thus far can be seen in the attitude and practice of the Corinthians regarding spiritual gifts.
1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware. 2 You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the dumb idols, however you were led. 3 Therefore I make known to you, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
As we have seen, Paul hardly flatters the Corinthians when he indicates in verse 1 that he is writing to remedy their ignorance on the matter of spirituality. You may very well wonder how I can make the jump from “spiritual gifts” to “spirituality.” The word gifts has been supplied by the translators, as indicated by the fact that “gifts” is in italics. Literally, Paul is writing, “Now concerning spirituals, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware.” The word rendered “spiritual gifts” here is not the same word which is rendered “gifts” in verse 4.
The word “spirituals” in verse 1 is a rendering of a word whose root (pneuma) refers to the spiritual realm. The problem is that the particular term found in verse 1 represents both the neuter and the masculine genders. If the term is understood as masculine in gender, Paul is referring to “spiritual people.” If the term is really neuter, Paul is referring to “spiritual things” or “spiritual gifts.” In 1 Corinthians 2:15; 3:1, and 14:37, Paul uses the term in the masculine gender, and thus we understand “spiritual” to describe people. In 1 Corinthians 14:1, the term is used as a neuter and thus is rendered “spiritual gifts.”
It would seem we are being forced to decide between one or the other, the masculine gender or the neuter gender. I am not alone in contending that the two senses may be combined and that we are not being forced to choose one and reject the other.162 Paul is introducing the subject of spiritual gifts. The term “spirituals” emphasizes the source of the spiritual gifts given to Christians. The root word charisma, employed in verses 4 and following, emphasizes the fact that gifts are manifestations of divine grace, sovereignly bestowed and not obtained on the basis of merit. Consequently, spiritual gifts are not the benchmark of spirituality or of status in the church, but rather are an equipping for service.
Spirituality is related to spiritual gifts, but not in the way the Corinthians suppose. The Corinthians, as we shall see later in chapter 12, suppose certain spiritual gifts are the evidence of superior spirituality, while the absence of these gifts is proof of spiritual inferiority. Paul has a great deal to say about the relationship between spirituality and spiritual gifts. He begins by making sure his readers recognize there are two kinds of spirituality. In verses 1-3, Paul distinguishes true spirituality from the false in terms of its origin. False spirituality originates from the unclean “spirits” and thus, ultimately, from Satan himself. True spirituality originates from the Holy Spirit of God. Paul then sets down one test for distinguishing the Spirit of God from other spirits.
In verses 4-31, Paul distinguishes false spirituality from that which is genuine in a different way. In verses 1-3, Paul draws two circles. One circle is that of false spirituality, the kind of spirituality inspired by false, demonic spirits which they experienced as pagans. The other circle is that of true Christian spirituality, spirituality inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. In verses 1-3, Paul gives a test by which they can know whether the prevailing spirit is divine or demonic. In verses 4-31, Paul does not challenge the source of the gift or its legitimacy as one of the true spiritual gifts which is given by the Holy Spirit. He challenges the way in which we interpret and apply these gifts. True spirituality does not judge one’s spiritual status or importance on the basis of the gift or gifts one has been given. True spirituality does not employ the spiritual gifts one has been given to enhance oneself, but rather employs them sacrificially to the edification of others.
In verse 2, Paul reminds those relatively new believers in Corinth who think they are so spiritual that not all that long ago they were spiritual by means of demonic spirits. In their minds, now they are “spiritual”, but not so long ago they were pagans. And in that pagan state, they were “spirit led.” They were led “astray to the dumb idols.” They were not led of God’s Spirit into closer fellowship with God. They were led astray, led to idols. And these idols were “dumb” idols. Over and over again the Old Testament prophets emphasize that idols are lifeless and speechless. God is eternal, immortal, the Creator and Sustainer of all life. He is the God who speaks and whose words are certain to accomplish His purposes:
10 “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth, And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; 11 So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:10-11).
1 Not to us, O LORD, not to us, But to Thy name give glory Because of Thy lovingkindness, because of Thy truth. 2 Why should the nations say, “Where, now, is their God?” 3 But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases. 4 Their idols are silver and gold, The work of man’s hands. 5 They have mouths, but they cannot speak; They have eyes, but they cannot see; 6 They have ears, but they cannot hear; They have noses, but they cannot smell; 7 They have hands, but they cannot feel; They have feet, but they cannot walk; They cannot make a sound with their throat. 8 Those who make them will become like them, Everyone who trusts in them (Psalm 115:1-8).
18 “What profit is the idol when its maker has carved it, Or an image, a teacher of falsehood? For its maker trusts in his own handiwork When he fashions speechless idols. 19 Woe to him who says to a piece of wood, ‘Awake!’ To a dumb stone, ‘Arise!’ And that is your teacher? Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver, And there is no breath at all inside it. 20 But the Lord is in His holy temple. Let all the earth be silent before Him” (Habakkuk 2:18-20).
The idols are dumb; they cannot and do not speak. But this does not mean the demons are speechless, that there is not inspired utterance in pagan or false religion. The Scriptures make it clear that the demons which lead men astray to the dumb idols are also those spirits who inspire speech which solicits them to engage in false and idolatrous worship. The demons inspire false religious worship:
7 “And they shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat demons with which they play the harlot. This shall be a permanent statute to them throughout their generations” (Leviticus 17:7).
17 “They sacrificed to demons who were not God, To gods whom they have not known, New gods who came lately, Whom your fathers did not dread” (Deuteronomy 32:17).
37 They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons (Psalm 106:37).
19 What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we? (1 Corinthians 10:19-22).
The demons not only inspire false religion, they are employed also in corrupting true religion:
3 But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. … 12 But what I am doing, I will continue to do, that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds (2 Corinthians 11:3, 12-15).
1 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; 5 for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:1-5).
I believe the inference of Paul’s words in verse 2 of chapter 12 is clear. The Corinthians are spiritual; they are “spirit led,” even while practicing their pagan religion. But beyond this, there is a subtle warning which may not be too subtle. The warning Paul implies is that those who have been falsely led astray in the past by deceitful and demonic spirits may be susceptible to the same influence as Christians. The appeal of the “spirit world” then and now is power. The Corinthians are into power, and they are into spirituality. In their eagerness to “tap into” spiritual power, they might involve themselves in the pagan spirit power of their past.
This warning is not really hypothetical. Israel’s history should teach us otherwise. The Old Testament prophets reminded the Israelites that the “gods” of Egypt were not really left behind in Egypt, but came along with the Israelites at the exodus:
14 “Now, therefore, fear the Lord and serve Him in sincerity and truth; and put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:14-15).
25 “Did you present Me with sacrifices and grain offerings in the wilderness for forty years, O house of Israel? 26 You also carried along Sikkuth your king and Kiyyun, your images, the star of your gods which you made for yourselves (Amos 5:25-26; see Acts 7:42-43).
When Jehoshaphat (the king of Judah) is conned into an evil alliance with Ahab (the wicked king of Israel) to fight with Syria, Jehoshaphat is rightly apprehensive. The false prophets put on a great show of support. They give the go ahead, indicating God’s approval and certain victory. Jehoshaphat is not convinced, and when a true prophet, Micaiah, is summoned, he reluctantly informs Jehoshaphat that such an alliance will be futile for the king of Judah and fatal for Ahab, king of Israel. He then explains the role of the false prophets with these words:
19 And Micaiah said, “Therefore, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ 22 “And the Lord said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.’ 23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you” (1 Kings 22:19-23).
While demonic spirits are not specifically mentioned in Deuteronomy 13:1-18 and 18:14-22, they are at least implied. In Deuteronomy 13, God warns the Israelites regarding false prophets. The assumption in 13:1-2 is that a false prophet may produce miraculous signs and wonders (the same is true in Matthew 7:22). These miraculous works do not prove that one claiming to speak for God is truly a genuine prophet of God who is to be obeyed. When an alleged prophet makes predictions and promises which fail to come true, this is a sure indication that he or she is a fraud. But when miraculous power is demonstrated, the final test is whether or not this prophet’s words and deeds lead men to submit to the lordship (authority) of God by obeying His word.
Verse 3 is necessary in the light of verses 1 and 2. Since the Corinthians are naive, ignorant of all that they should know concerning spirituality and spiritual gifts, Paul must “make known” to them a test by which the Holy Spirit is distinguished from all other “spirits.”
3 Therefore I make known to you, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3).
It is important to notice that Paul’s emphasis here is upon “speech.” He has already referred to the idols of the Corinthians’ past as “dumb idols” (verse 2). Now he speaks about speech, the speech of worshipers. Ordinary speech is not primarily in view here, but inspired utterance, speech made under the controlling influence of a spirit. This is specifically indicated in the case of one who speaks “by (or in—note the marginal note in verse 3 of the NASB) the Spirit of God.” In other words, it is the Spirit of God, speaking through a person, who is incapable of saying, “Jesus is accursed.” On the other hand, I believe Paul says that a person speaking under demonic control is incapable of saying, “Jesus is Lord.” Nowhere in the gospels does a demon-possessed person say this. The demons reluctantly acknowledge that Jesus is the “Son of God,” or the “Holy One of God,” but not that He is Lord. Even when commanded to come out of a possessed person, the demons seem to resist and rebel to the last moment (see Mark 1:23-26).
This test Paul sets forth in verse 3 is primarily a test of the spirit who inspires a man’s speech. Let the Corinthians remember there is a pagan spirituality, that as pagans they were spirit-led, but that leading comes from a demonic spirit who hates and opposes the lordship of Christ just as Satan did and will do to the end. Every person who is spirit-led then is not necessarily led by the Spirit of God. Those who are led by the Spirit of God will profess Jesus as Lord, and they will be led to intimacy with God, not away from Him by deceit.
But what of texts like Matthew 7:22 where men do acknowledge Jesus as Lord? Is everyone who mouths the words, “Jesus is Lord,” possessed by the Spirit of God? No. Even a Christian can mouth the words, “Jesus is anathema.” But they cannot do so in the Spirit of God. So too a person could say, “Jesus is Lord,” but not when possessed by a demonic spirit who is speaking through them. Remember too that in Matthew 7 the circumstances are carefully described. In Matthew 7, Jesus is not talking about a profession which men make today. The words “Lord, Lord, …” are spoken to our Lord and they are spoken in that day. Those who say, “Lord, Lord, …” are unbelievers who stand before the Lord Jesus Christ in the day of judgment, the day when every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess Jesus is Lord (Philippians 2:9-11). How would any man dare to stand before the Lord Jesus Christ in that day and not call Him Lord? These men remind the Lord that they have cast out demons and performed miracles and prophesied. But the Lord Jesus rejects them as unbelievers because they have not submitted to Him as Lord in life by obeying His commands. They boast of having done mighty deeds in His name, but they have not bowed the knee to Him by humbly obeying His commands, the sign of a true disciple:
19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19).
15 “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15).
21 “He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him” (John 14:21).
23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me” (John 14:23-24).
10 “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love” (John 15:10).
Lordship is more than words mouthed by men, but when a spirit is speaking through men, the confession of Jesus as Lord is a test of the spirit. Furthermore, confessing Jesus as Lord is an essential part of the gospel:
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36).
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation (Romans 10:8-10).
In the final analysis, spirituality is the work of a spirit. Paul reminds us there are two kinds of spirituality, the false and the true. All unbelievers are, in one sense, “spiritual.” Some are spiritual in the sense that they are actively involved with the spirit world, led of demonic spirits to worship idols. Other unbelievers may be spirit-led without even knowing it:
1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (Ephesians 2:1-3).
A spirit-led unbeliever may be an atheist. He may not believe in any god or practice any religion at all. Nevertheless, he or she is still spirit-led, still under the control of Satan. Those who indulge in and serve the flesh are not only “walking according to the course of this world,” they are also walking “according to the prince of the power of the air,” the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4).
If you are an unbeliever, you may very well scoff at what I am saying. In our unbelief and rebellion against God, we want to believe we are the “captains of our own souls,” the “masters of our own fate.” This is simply a delusion. Satan has blinded us to the truth. When we seek our own interests by serving the flesh, we are spirit-led—we are led astray, ultimately to idolatry. The only solution to being led astray by a demonic spirit is to be saved by the blood of Christ and to be delivered from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. I urge you, my friend, to recognize that, apart from faith in Jesus Christ, you are a pagan, and you are spirit-controlled.
If Paul would define true spirituality, he must first of all distinguish between that spirituality which is pagan and that which is of God. On the one hand, the issue is which spirit is in control of our life—the Spirit of God, Who promotes submission to the Lordship of Christ, or a false spirit, who detests and demeans the person and work of Christ and resists His authority. Conversely, the issue is ultimately summed up in our response to who Jesus Christ is. In the final analysis, Jesus Christ is either the Son of God, the Savior of the world and Lord of all, or He is accursed. One dares not ignore this issue, for it is the continental divide for salvation and for spirituality. The answer to the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?” determines our eternal destiny.
We can expect that false teaching will always attack orthodox theology at the point of Christology, the doctrine pertaining to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:
18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us. 20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father (1 John 2:18-24).
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world. 4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you that he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (1 John 4:1-6).
It is not just doctrinal orthodoxy concerning Jesus Christ which is necessary, although this is foundational. We must not only profess the lordship of Christ, we must practice it. This is what our Lord said regarding the scribes and Pharisees. The “fruits” by which false prophets could be discerned from the true were not miraculous signs and wonders. The “fruits” were the application of God’s Word in their lives so that God, rather than idols, was worshiped and served (Deuteronomy 13) and so that rather than being rejected, Jesus was submitted to as Lord and Christ.
The lordship of Jesus Christ is the dividing line between false prophets and the true, and between false spirituality and the true. Ultimately, it does not matter how spiritual we appear to ourselves or to men. It does not matter whether seemingly miraculous evidences of power can be displayed. What matters is whether Jesus Christ is worshiped and served as Lord.
The test in 1 Corinthians 12:3 should not be viewed as distinguishing a false spirit from the Holy Spirit; it should also be seen as the basis for unity among believers. We Christians are a divided lot. Calvinists separate themselves from Armenians; dispensationalists wage war with amillennialists; charismatics are often at odds with non-charismatics. While Christians must be very careful to discern false prophets and false religion, we should be very earnest in our desire to express the unity of the saints by embracing as brothers and sisters all who submit to the lordship of Christ in sincerity and truth. While verses 1-3 point out the need for the Corinthian saints to keep their distance from the false spirituality they once practiced, verses 4-31 urge them (and us) to maintain the unity of the Spirit, which spiritual gifts are designed to necessitate and facilitate.
If Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 12:1-3 contain a warning about false spirituality, and perhaps even false spiritual gifts, they seem to imply a more general warning: Christians should distrust anything they bring with them to Christianity which was a part of their pagan past. I often hear people say, “If that person ever came to faith in Christ, they could do a lot for the cause of Christ.” I don’t think so. If you look at Paul’s view of his religious past as a devout Jew, he does not seem to bring anything with him which contributes to his calling as an apostle:
1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. 7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him, and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on in order that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold if it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (Philippians 3:1-14).
Sometimes I fear old vices or characteristics of our flesh are “baptized” into our Christian life by giving these vices new, Christian names. A man or woman who is self-confident (even arrogant) and assertive is sometimes called an evangelist because he or she constantly badgers the lost with the gospel. A person who likes to hear himself (or herself) talk may be called a “teacher” or an “exhorter,” when he or she is simply continuing the bad habit of giving others their opinion on matters. If I understand Paul correctly in 1 and 2 Corinthians, he does not seek to minister out of the strengths he once employed in his unbelief, and which the world finds impressive; he ministers out of weakness (see 1 Corinthians 4:11-13; 2 Corinthians 2:14-17; 4:1-15; 10:1-18; 12:1-10).
Spiritual gifts are given to believers in Christ because we are incapable of producing spiritual fruit in the power of the flesh. Thus, the Spirit of God empowers each of us so that we may participate in and contribute to the maintenance and ministry of the body of Christ, the church. Spiritual gifts and spirituality are not about what we have brought with us into the faith but about what we have left behind (mortified, put to death), and what the Spirit of God has bestowed upon us in His sovereign grace. Thus, there is no basis for pride or boasting in the gifts which we have been given. Paul has much more to say about this in the following verses. May God grant us understanding and application of these things to His glory.
4 Who have said, “With our tongue we will prevail; Our lips are our own; who is lord over us?” (Psalm 12:4)
8 “For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8; see Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5).
36 “The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)” (Acts 10:36).
24 “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands” (Acts 17:24).
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him (Romans 10:12).
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:11).
14 “These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful” (Revelation 17:14).
9 That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved (Romans 10:9).
5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake (2 Corinthians 4:5).
15 But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15).
162 “This debate, however, has probably narrowed the options too rigidly.” Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.), 1994, p. 153.
Several years ago a friend of mine orchestrated a very casual, unstructured weekend retreat for a number of Christian leaders, where all were free to exchange ideas and concerns. As the weekend progressed and it became obvious the gathering was profitable, someone suggested this become a regular event. Immediately, my friend responded that he had purposefully planned this to be a one-time event. “Why?” someone asked. “Because if you fellows thought there was going to be another meeting like this one, you would begin to assert yourselves to gain a position of leadership and power.”
This is an amazing but true statement. We may think pastors and Christian leaders are so spiritual they would never compete with one another for position and power. But those who travel in these circles know better. It is a part of our fallen nature and the very spirit we see evidenced by the scribes and Pharisees. Worse yet, it is evidenced by the disciples themselves!
The Corinthian Christians are no different. They are status seekers who judged themselves and others on the basis of their spiritual gifts. We know from the early chapters of First Corinthians that divisions existed in the church. In light of what Paul writes in chapters 12-14, it would be difficult to believe that spiritual gifts were not the basis for some divisions in the church. The Corinthians divided over different leaders, and probably the leaders who seemed to possess the most highly regarded gifts were the ones with the largest followings. Paul writes to the Corinthians to clarify the relationship between spiritual gifts and true spirituality. The Corinthian church is highly gifted, for Paul tells us they did not lack any of the gifts (1:7). Yet these saints are far from spiritual. Paul informs them that they are so fleshly he is hindered from teaching them all they need to know (3:1-3). In the course of chapters 12-15, Paul corrects many misconceptions regarding spiritual gifts and their relationship to spirituality. These words were needed in Paul’s day as well as in our own. Nearly every church, denomination, and Christian organization has its own spiritual “pecking order” regarding spiritual gifts and spirituality. Each of us needs to hear what Paul has to say on this subject. Let us study then with open hearts and minds, not to confirm what we already believe, but for correction in those areas where we may be uninformed or disobedient.
Let us begin with a preliminary definition of a spiritual gift:
A spiritual gift is a supernatural ability sovereignly bestowed upon every Christian by the Holy Spirit, enabling him or her to carry out their divinely assigned function as a member of Christ’s body, the church.
In short, a spiritual gift is the supernatural ability to carry out the work of Christ through his church.
Texts which Enumerate the Spiritual Gifts
1 Corinthians |
1 Corinthians |
Romans |
Ephesians |
1 Peter |
word of wisdom |
apostles |
prophecy |
apostles |
serving |
word of knowledge |
prophets |
service |
prophets |
speaking |
faith |
teachers |
teaching |
evangelists |
|
effecting of miracles |
miracles |
exhortation |
pastors/teachers |
|
prophecy |
healings |
giving |
||
distinguishing spirits |
helps |
leading |
||
kinds of tongues |
administrations |
mercy |
||
interpreting tongues |
various kinds of tongues (interpretation, v. 30) |
In Romans 12:3-8, Paul introduces the subject of spiritual gifts immediately after he has called upon every Christian to present their bodies as a living sacrifice, the reasonable service of worship of every Christian (12:1-2). At Romans 12, Paul begins to apply the doctrinal truths he has set down in the preceding 11 chapters. Spiritual gifts are the divine enablement which empower the Christian to worship God through serving Him as a part of the church, the body of Christ. The gifts enumerated in verses 6-8 are largely the “bread and butter” gifts, those gifts necessary for the on-going ministry of the church. Paul exhorts every Christian to exercise their spiritual gift, to do what God has equipped them to do. He also indicates the dangers which accompany each of several gifts.
In 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, Paul seems to focus on the more unusual spiritual gifts. These gifts probably represent those gifts most highly valued by the Corinthian saints.
In 1 Corinthians 12:28-30, Paul provides us with another list of spiritual gifts, not identical with the list given in verses 8-10. Apostles, prophets, and teachers seem to emphasize a particular function or office in the church, while there are the more unusual gifts of tongues and interpretation of tongues, miracles, and healings named as well. In verses 8-10, Paul names gifts which some have, while in verses 28-30 Paul stresses that while some may possess a particular gift, not everyone does, nor should they be expected to possess it. Each gift listed is a possibility for all and a reality for some.
In Ephesians 4:11, Paul again writes about spiritual gifts. This short list of gifts is given in the midst of Paul’s exhortation for Christians to walk their talk, to practice their position and possessions in Christ (4:1ff.). In the context, Paul emphasizes Christian unity and its corollary, humility. The gifts of “apostles,” “prophets,” and “evangelists” refer to offices or functions which could be for the benefit of the church at large and are not restricted to a particular local church. Billy Graham, all would likely agree, is an evangelist. He lives far from Dallas, Texas, but his church membership is in the First Baptist Church of Dallas. No one expects his primary ministry to be in this church because his gift has a broader sphere of ministry. The gifts mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 are not those “bread and butter” gifts (like those in Romans 12), which enable the church to live out the life of Christ on a daily basis, but are those gifted men whose gifts God uses to equip the saints for the work of the ministry.
In 1 Peter 4:10-11, Peter speaks of the gifts in two major categories, those which are speaking gifts and those which are serving gifts. Peter emphasizes the need for all who exercise their spiritual gifts to do so by divine enablement and not in the power of the flesh. Those who speak are to speak as though their words are the utterances of God. Their words should be God’s words and not their own. And those who serve should serve in the strength which God supplies. It is very easy to serve in the strength of the flesh and not by the power of the Spirit. If spiritual gifts are to produce spiritual fruit, they must be functioning by means of God’s power and not our own strength. Spiritual gifts, whether speaking or serving gifts, are a stewardship. We should employ these gifts as that which belongs to God, entrusted to us to be used for His glory, and for the advancement of His kingdom. Remember that Peter’s epistles are written in the context of suffering persecution for the sake of Christ. Peter urges his readers to live out Christ’s life and His sufferings (1 Peter 2:18-25), and this is done, in part, as we exercise those spiritual gifts He has given us through His power and to His glory.
These are the only texts which actually list certain spiritual gifts. There are other texts (e.g., Acts 4:36) which refer to certain gifts individually. Paul’s words to Timothy are instructive to us on this matter of spiritual gifts. In 2 Timothy, Paul has at least three lessons for Timothy and for us. First, in 2 Timothy 1:6, we learn that spiritual gifts must be developed and maintained. Since spiritual gifts are sovereignly given, we are responsible to employ them in the most beneficial and efficient way. Second, in 2 Timothy 2:2, we see that spiritual gifts are to be reproduced. Timothy was to commit himself to faithful men who would also be able to teach others. Third, spiritual gifts are not an excuse to sidestep our responsibilities in areas where we are not gifted. I take this principle from 2 Timothy 4:5, where Paul instructs Timothy to “do the work of an evangelist.” Some might argue that Timothy was an evangelist. Perhaps so, but it seems that teaching was his primary gift. If Timothy had been a little slack in employing his spiritual gifts (1:6), he may have been slack in other areas which were not the area of his gifts and strengths. Nevertheless, evangelism was important and necessary, even if it was not his gift.
Allow me to digress a moment to develop this thought a little further before concentrating on our text. The command to develop and exercise our spiritual gifts must never be used as an excuse for failing to obey the commands of Scripture which are given to all. Because I do not have the gift of giving, I am not excused from the commands of Scripture to give (see Romans 12:13; Galatians 6:6, 10). Because I do not have the gift of evangelism, I am not excused from sharing my faith with others (cf. Colossians 4:5-6; 1 Peter 3:14-15). Those who possess these gifts not only contribute to the body of Christ in an extraordinary measure in the area of their gifts, they also serve as mentors to the rest of the body, helping to encourage and equip us to do better in those areas in which we are lacking.
Our brief survey of the New Testament teaching on spiritual gifts thus far allows us to make some observations regarding spiritual gifts. No list of the spiritual gifts includes all the gifts mentioned in the New Testament. Each list of gifts includes some of the gifts mentioned elsewhere but has its own unique elements. There are significant differences in the way gifts are viewed, even by the same writer (i.e., Paul). In every listing of the spiritual gifts where tongues is included, it is listed last. If this does not prove that tongues are the least important gift (a conclusion a number would embrace), it at least sends an important signal to those who think tongues is the most important gift. Finally, it seems the spiritual gifts listed in the New Testament are not a complete list but only a partial listing.
If there may be other spiritual gifts than those specifically identified in Scripture, how would we know them? What sets a spiritual gift apart?
(1) Spiritual gifts are spiritual gifts in that they are given by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). These abilities are not native within us; they are transmitted to us. I know some speak of a close relationship between natural abilities and spiritual gifts, but I am unconvinced by their arguments. Spiritual gifts are given to us to enable us to do what we cannot do in and of ourselves. How frequently we speak of those who could do so much for the Lord if they were saved. They seem to think the natural abilities of men are simply baptized into one’s spiritual ministry. I see the human “strengths” of spiritual men like Peter and Paul who were set aside (perhaps even crucified) so that they ministered out of their weaknesses rather than out of their strengths (see 2 Corinthians 12:1-13).
(2) Spiritual gifts are divine enablement for service to and through the body of Christ. Spiritual gifts are not given primarily for our own edification but for the edification of the body of Christ. Spiritual gifts are divinely bestowed strengths through which we may minister to the weaknesses (and needs) of others.
(3) Spiritual gifts are spiritual in that they produce spiritual results. Spiritual gifts may be exercised through rather normal and mundane activities, but they differ from natural abilities in that they produce spiritual fruit. Spiritual gifts build up the body of Christ. A family may be facing a time of crisis or sorrow, and spiritual gifts may be exercised in ministering to them in their time of need. Someone may go to their home and clean; another may visit in the hospital; another may mow the grass. But the difference with ministry inspired and enabled by spiritual gifts is that a spiritual result occurs. Granted, the family could call a commercial lawn service to tend the yard, but the spiritually-inspired ministry of a Christian mowing the grass may produce encouragement for a Christian family or may result in evangelism if someone is unsaved. Spiritual ministry may look much the same as mere human service, but the result of spiritual service is spiritual.
(4) A spiritual gift is also a divine enablement which goes beyond the enablement the Holy Spirit gives other saints not gifted in the same way. Jesus said, “apart from Me, you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Apart from the miraculous working of God’s Spirit in us, we can do nothing. In this sense, nothing any Christian does will have a spiritual impact apart from the Spirit’s enablement. So when any Christian shares the gospel, the only way the unsaved person will be saved is by the working of God’s Spirit. Every Christian then has a certain measure of enablement in every area of his or her Christian duty (i.e., keeping our Lord’s commands). Those spiritually gifted in an area show a greater measure of enablement than those who are ungifted in that area. And some seem even to be more gifted than others. It may well be through the prayers of a Christian who does not have any particular gift in this area that one dying of an illness may be cured. In the ungifted person’s life and experience, a healing would be an unusual event. We should expect the one who has the gift of healing to see healings more often. It may be that this is why we find “healings” in the plural in 1 Corinthians 12:30.
(5) A spiritual gift is the divinely provided enablement to carry out a task which God has given us. I suspect that most of us have been taught that the first order of priority is to discover our spiritual gift(s), then to develop them, and finally to find a place of ministry where these gifts can be put to use. It may be the opposite in some, if not many, cases. In the Old Testament, men were divinely gifted to carry out the task God had given them to perform. Bezalel and others whom God designated to be craftsmen for the construction of the tabernacle and its fixtures were gifted by God to carry out this task (Exodus 31:1-11). The 70 elders, who were to help Moses judge the people of God, were given a portion of his (Moses’) spirit to enable and equip them for their ministry (Numbers 11:25). Elisha was given a double portion of Elijah’s spirit (2 Kings 2:9-15). Saul was chosen by God and designated as the king, and then he was endowed with the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Samuel 9:15–10:13). The same could be said of our Lord on whom the Spirit of God descended and remained at His baptism, equipping Him for His messianic ministry (Mark 1:9-13; Luke 3:21-22; 4:1, 14; John 1:29-34).
We will be greatly helped in understanding Paul’s teaching on spiritual gifts if we pause to reflect on the Corinthians’ problems in this area. We know the Corinthians are proud and arrogant (1 Corinthians 1:18-31; 4:7-13, 18-21; 5:2; 8:1; 2 Corinthians 10). From what Paul has to say in chapters 12-14 (see 12:21), we can be quite certain some of the Corinthians’ pride lay in the possession of certain gifts or the following of some with those esteemed gifts. We do know the Corinthians prize certain gifts and disdain others. This resulted in many seeking to obtain gifts God had not given them and those possessing certain “lowly” gifts feeling they had no contribution to make at all. Those possessing the visible, verbal gifts seem intent upon showing these gifts off in the church meeting (see 14:26ff.). Those with the “best” gifts feel independently self-sufficient and do not sense their dependence on less visible members of the body (12:21). Paul has some well-chosen words for these carnal Corinthians about the relationship between spirituality and spiritual gifts, words which knock the props out from under their pride and self-sufficiency.
In chapter 12, Paul stresses the nature of spiritual gifts and the necessity of each and every gift for the proper functioning of the church, the body of Christ. Diversity of gifts must not become the cause of disunity but must promote the unity and interdependence of Christians. Paul shows that the Corinthians’ assessment of the gifts is incorrect and that a wide diversity of spiritual gifts is God’s plan and purpose. Those who promote certain gifts above others fail to understand that all are not meant to possess any one of the gifts.
In chapter 13, Paul moves from the gifts themselves to our attitude as we exercise them. Chapter 13 is all about love. Without love, even the greatest gifts are of diminished value. Love is most lacking in Corinth and causes the great wealth of giftedness in the church to be nullified or at least greatly hindered. The Corinthians valued the gifts more than love, but Paul shows that while the gifts (all of them!) are temporary, love is permanent.
In chapter 14, Paul focuses on two gifts in particular: tongues and prophecy. Here he introduces a guiding principle for the exercise of any and all gifts—the principle of edification. Gifts exercised in love are those gifts exercised with a view to edifying or building up others. Tongues which are not interpreted are not edifying, for no one knows what was said. Prophecy, on the other hand, does not require an interpreter, and thus it is the more profitable gift, unless tongues are interpreted. The principle of edification Paul sets out in the earlier verses of chapter 14 should be applied in the context of the church meeting (14:26-40). In these closing verses of chapter 14, Paul lays down specific guidelines for public participation in the church meeting to be sure that the edification of others is achieved.
Chapter 15 is not unrelated to Paul’s teaching in chapters 12-14 (or earlier, for that matter). In chapter 15, Paul sets out to correct some false teaching regarding the resurrection of the dead. Spirituality is closely related to the Christian’s view of the future. Many of the errors in the church, then and now, are related to a misconception regarding the relationship of “then” to “now.” The false prophets deny that there will be a “then,” urging their followers to indulge themselves in fleshly lusts “now” (see 2 Peter). Other sincere but erring brethren believe the blessings of “then” are for us “now.” They minimize or deny that we live in a fallen world where sin will not be completely overcome until the coming of Jesus Christ, and who refuse to accept that the world in which we live is characterized by “suffering and groaning,” until the coming of that which is perfect (see Romans 8:18-25; 1 Corinthians 13:9-13).
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.
The Corinthian church has been short-changed, buying into the error that really significant ministry occurs on a very limited band width. The important ministries are apparently those carried on by a very few of the elite leaders whose gifts everyone else covets. Less than a handful of gifts, and the same number of ministries, are considered significant by the Corinthian Christians. If any Corinthian Christian wants to play an important role in the ministry of that church, he or she will have to imitate the gifts and ministries of a very small group. The end result is a large group of people discontent with their gifts and ministries, who seek to emulate or imitate the gifts and ministries of those most highly regarded in the church (and I don’t mean Paul or other true apostles).
Verses 4-6 are meant to knock the props out from under those with an elitist view of spirituality and ministry. Paul contends that the gifts of God which equip men and women for ministry are many-splendored things. There are diversities of gifts (verse 4), diversities of ministries (verse 5), and diversities of effects (verse 6). Let us pause to reflect on each of these focal points of diversity.
There are, Paul writes, “varieties of gifts.” I have always understood this expression to mean that there are different gifts, and so there are. But I now understand these gifts to be not only many in number but also numerous in kind. Consider this illustration of what Paul means. We know that in the days of Moses, God “gifted” Bezalel as a master craftsman so that he could oversee the task of fashioning the furnishings and equipment for the tabernacle (see Exodus 31:1-5). This man was a master craftsman with skills that surpassed any other living craftsman. Another gift in the Old Testament would be prophecy (see Numbers 11:25). Kings like Saul were given gifts of the Spirit to equip them for their ministry (1 Samuel 10:10-13). In the New Testament lists of gifts, we find some gifts are linked with official functions like apostles, prophets, and evangelists (see Ephesians 4:11). Some gifts are spectacular and are not necessarily on-going gifts or ministries (apostles, prophets, miracles).163 Other gifts, like the gift of helps, may seem more mundane but are very much needed.
I am suggesting then that a very wide range of gifts is possible, and not all of these gifts may be included in the lists provided in the New Testament. I further suggest that Christians may possess more than one spiritual gift and that our gifts may in fact be a blend of gifts. This means there can be an almost infinite manifestation of “gifts” in the church. We can surely agree that sugar is distinct from salt or from flour. So these ingredients, like spiritual gifts, are quite distinct: flour, sugar, cinnamon, eggs, milk, vanilla, shortening, salt, baking soda. But if you get out the cook book, you will find that in different proportions, these ingredients will produce a very wide range of delightful eating. So it is with spiritual gifts. Christians, I believe, are bestowed with a unique blending of gifts which perfectly equips them to serve in the body of Christ where God has placed them.
Finally, I am inclined to understand that some spiritual gifts may be evident at one period of our life but not necessarily another. One may not appear to possess a certain gift at the present time, but may suddenly manifest that gift at a later time when that ability is required. Our Lord trusted in His Father from the beginning, but He was not empowered by the Spirit until the time had come for His ministry to commence (see Luke 3:21-22; 4:1-21). Paul was called as an apostle in eternity past, but he did not begin to function as an apostle until a number of years after his salvation. Not until the Holy Spirit set Barnabas and Saul apart for their apostolic ministry (Acts 13:1ff.) did Paul begin to function as an apostle. The Spirit came upon Him in a unique, unexpected way, and from that time on, Paul was designated as the leader (see Acts 13:6-13). Was Paul gifted by God to be an apostle at the time of his conversion (it seems he could have been)? But his gift was not evident until the time came for him to function as an apostle years later.
There are more than a few gifts and, when given to us in a wide variety of blends, no two Christians look or function alike. There is great diversity among Christians regarding their spiritual gifts. But, in spite of this broad diversity, there is one Spirit who empowers all, and He is the basis for the unity which we all should expect and experience in this great diversity of giftedness.
Not only is there a broad spectrum of gifts and giftedness, there is also a very broad spectrum of the ministries in which these gifts are deployed. All too often the gifts are stereotyped, usually in terms of a characterization which fits a well-known evangelical personality (and not necessarily because this individual wants it that way). When we think of the gift of evangelism, we think of Billy Graham or Luis Palau. When we think of the gift of teaching for instance, we think of Chuck Swindoll or John MacArthur. When we think of mercy, we may think of Mother Theresa. When we think of faith, we think of men like George Mueller (although he denied this). These individuals may indeed possess these gifts, but there are an infinite variety of ways in which a particular gift may be employed. The spiritual gift is the God-given ability; the ministry is the sphere in which our divine enablement is exercised. Evangelism need not occur in a large stadium and need not be practiced by a one-time exposure. It may occur in a living room, around a coffee table, and over a sustained period of time. Teaching may be done formally or informally. It does not always happen in a classroom or from behind a lectern. Not only is there a wide diversity of spiritual gifts, there is also an even broader range of ministries through which these gifts are exercised. But in the midst of this diversity, it is the same Lord who orchestrates our lives so that each of us ends up exercising our gifts in the context which He has purposed and provided.
I think it is safe to say that our ministries may change over a period of time. Certainly this was true for the apostle Paul who ministered effectively for years before functioning as an apostle. Not until after his first missionary journey did Paul begin to exercise his gifts through writing epistles, for example. Joseph appears to have been given the gift of administration. It begins to emerge when he is still a youth of 17, working for his father back home, and far surpassing his brothers in skill. His administrative skills emerge in the household of Potiphar and in the prison and finally in the service of Pharaoh. Not only does my ministry differ from that of others who have similar gifts, but my ministry ten years from now may be very different from what it is at this moment.
Finally, there are varieties of effects (verse 6). I have always understood the meaning of these words in terms of success in the past. Some teachers draw larger crowds and seem to be more effective at communicating the truth than others. Some evangelists see thousands saved in one exposure; others but a handful. There are different levels of effectiveness or success, and these levels have nothing to do with our natural skills or abilities. They are the result of God’s sovereign will, who determines how successful we will be. And this “success” has little or nothing to do with our spirituality. Jonah was one of the most “successful” prophets who ever lived; Isaiah was one of the least successful. But I think we must agree that Jonah was not “spiritual,” and Isaiah was.
I now understand “effects” more broadly. “Effects” not only refers to the success of a particular person and ministry but to the nature of the result. Follow me carefully here, for this is a very important distinction. We think far too simplistically here. We suppose the gift of teaching takes place in a ministry where there is a class, a classroom, and a podium. The “effect” of this gifted teacher’s ministry is learning, we suppose. I no longer believe it is quite that simple. The goal of instruction is not just learning, but obedience (see Matthew 28:18-20). In addition, Paul links teaching or instruction with love (see 1 Timothy 1:5; Philippians 1:9-11). Evangelism is not some special way of presenting the gospel as much as it is the proclamation of the truth of the gospel. As I look at the ministry of our Lord, I see Him teaching, not “evangelizing.” Paul tells the Ephesian saints they did not “learn” Christ in a fleshly way (Ephesians 4:17-20). In the ministries in which I have been involved, many of those saved have been saved through a teaching ministry.
I well remember an incident years ago at Believers Chapel where my friend, Bill McRae, had been teaching systematically through the Book of Romans. After Bill finished his lesson, a lady turned to the young man sitting next to her and initiated a conversation. Eventually she asked, “How long have you been a Christian?” The young man looked down at his watch and responded, “Well, about 10 minutes.”
In 1 Corinthians 14, we read these words: “For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted” (1 Corinthians 14:31). The gift and ministry of prophecy produces “learning” and “exhortation.” I would have expected the gift of teaching to produce “learning,” and the gift of exhortation to produce “exhortation.” The function of a particular gift may produce a result and effect which we would expect to be the result of another gift. The gift of helps may result in evangelism or at least significantly contribute to it. We have a man in our church who carries a gas can in his car so that he can stop to help stranded motorists and, hopefully, share his testimony with them. The gift of giving and helps may produce the effect of encouragement. The gift of evangelism may “teach” those of us less gifted in evangelism to evangelize better. The Holy Spirit gives each and every Christian spiritual enablement. This spiritual gifting may be expressed in a vast number of ministries. And the end result of our gifts and ministries may be quite different than we expect. Did anyone say God was predictable? They have never read much of the Bible. Who would use a Jonah to save Nineveh? Who would want to save the Ninevites? Who would choose a Saul to become a Paul?
Do the Corinthian saints suppose that there are a select few spiritual gifts employed in very predictable ministries with cut and dried results? They are wrong! Spiritual gifts make every Christian like a snowflake—no two are alike. Every single Christian is unique by virtue of his or her blending of gifts, divinely directed ministries, and supernatural effects. How then can these saints stereotype the “spiritual Christian,” so that one or two gifts are considered significant and only a handful of ministries? We hear the expression, “You can’t compare apples and oranges.” You cannot compare them because they are not alike. And you cannot compare Christians (to determine who is most spiritual) because no two are alike. But in the face of all these distinctions, there is a fundamental unity, because behind gifts, ministries, and effects, there is One God manifested in three persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. Our unity comes from the very nature of God. So too does our diversity.
7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.
Paul began his instruction concerning spiritual gifts by indicating these saints are ignorant of a number of truths which they need to know and which these verses are to supply. Before considering what Paul wishes to say, let us also note what Paul does not say. Paul is not endeavoring here to convince the Corinthian saints that there is no gift of tongues, or gift of interpretation of tongues, or faith. Paul is not trying to distinguish between so-called “temporary” and “permanent” spiritual gifts, because all of the gifts are evident in the Corinthian church in that day (see 1 Corinthians 1:7). I know debate rages here and now between charismatics and non-charismatics. But we must not let this debate dictate the interpretation of this text. This text is not about temporary and permanent gifts; it is about misconceptions regarding all gifts. Cessationism was not an issue at Corinth in Paul’s day.
Paul has already set down some very important principles regarding spiritual gifts. Now he sets down additional principles which we shall enumerate:
(1) Spiritual gifts are divinely bestowed upon every Christian. No one is “ungifted” in the church of Jesus Christ, for each Christian has been individually given certain gifts (“each one,” 12:7; “individually,” 12:11). The work of the body of Christ is a supernatural work, and every believer has a place in the body and the spiritual enablement to perform their ministry.
(2) Spiritual gifts are for the “common good” (verse 7). Spiritual gifts are divine empowerment for service to and through the body of Christ. They are not primarily for the benefit of the one gifted by God. It is not our glory but His which we seek. We do not strive for our edification and building up through the exercise of spiritual gifts, but for the building up of the whole body of Christ (12:7; Ephesians 4:11-16). Those who seek certain gifts for the benefit they gain have already fallen short of the mark. Self-edification may be a fringe benefit, but it is not the major focus.
(3) Spiritual gifts are a manifestation of the Spirit (verse 7). By direct statement or inference, Paul is clear that every spiritual gift possessed by the Corinthians is one given “through the Spirit.” It is the Spirit of God who lives out the life of Christ in and through us. Spiritual gifts are not an evidence of our spirituality but an evidence of the Spirit’s presence in our lives.
(4) Spiritual gifts are a manifestation of divine grace. In verse 1, the expression “spiritual gifts” is a translation of the original term meaning “spiritual.” Whether this means “spiritual things” or “spiritual people” is a matter of discussion, but the term “spiritual” is translated “spiritual gifts” in the NASB. When Paul gets to verse 4, however, he leaves the term “spirituals” behind and employs the Greek term whose root is Charis, the word for “grace.” Spiritual gifts are spiritual “graces.” They are not an indication of our merit or worth, but a manifestation of God’s sovereignly bestowed grace. There is never any basis for boasting in those things which are by grace, other than in the God Who graciously gave them (see 1:30-31; 4:7).
(5) In verses 8-10, Paul seems to list those gifts in which the Corinthians are most likely to take pride. The fleshly Corinthians are into wisdom and power. The gifts Paul sets down in verses 8-10 almost certainly reflect those manifestations of the Spirit in which the Corinthians take pride. Paul does not seek to precisely define each of these “gifts.” Some gifts are not mentioned elsewhere, and we could only conjecture as to where some of them may be illustrated or exemplified. If Paul did not find it necessary to precisely define each gift, I do not feel guilty for not doing so either. But there are many who would have us believe they know what each of the gifts named are. In particular are those two gifts, the “word of wisdom” and the “word of knowledge” in verse 8. I frankly do not have a handle on these two gifts (and some others). But I would point out that wisdom and knowledge are very important to the Corinthians. Perhaps Paul is simply reminding the Corinthians that whatever words of “wisdom” or “knowledge” they may seem to possess, they are the evidence of God’s gracious gifts sovereignly bestowed upon some of the saints.
(6) Paul does not attribute the possession of any of these gifts to the recipient, but to the sovereign will and purpose of God the Spirit. These gifts are not described as the “gift of God” which results from agonizing hours of seeking on the part of the one thus gifted. No, these gifts are sovereign graces bestowed upon the believer “just as He wills” (verse 11).
While Paul will have more to say on the subject of spiritual gifts, let us reflect on what he has said thus far.
First, spiritual gifts must not be used as a benchmark of spirituality. Spiritual gifts do not reflect on the spirituality of the one who is gifted but on the One who has given the gifts. Spiritual gifts are graces sovereignly bestowed not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of sovereign grace. Samson was chosen as one of Israel’s judges, and he was a man of great power. But he was not a man of spiritual maturity. He was a man dominated by the flesh. If the Corinthians measure spiritual status (spirituality) by the gifts bestowed, they are wrong.
Second, for the same reason, spiritual gifts are not the basis for pride. We cannot boast in that which we have not earned. Gifts are given. We cannot boast in what we have received (1 Corinthians 4:7). If we must boast, let us boast in the Lord, Who has chosen the weak and foolish things of this world to confound the wise and powerful (see 1 Corinthians 1:26-31).
Third, spiritual gifts are the basis for unity and are not intended to be the cause of division. How sad that in Paul’s day, as in our own, spiritual gifts are a divisive issue. The unity of the Godhead (the Trinity) in the midst of diversity is a pattern for the body of Christ. Spiritual gifts are given to the church so we would have to depend upon one another. Let us seek to preserve the “unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3) in using our gifts, and be careful not to destroy or divide that unity.
Fourth, spiritual gifts should be viewed more broadly, for there is an infinite variety of gifting evident in the body of Christ. Some may possess the same gifts but not in the same measure and not with the same mixture of other gifts. In addition to the wide range of gifts manifested in the church, each Christian has a unique ministry and fruit appointed for their ministry (compare John 15:16).
Fifth, we must revise our thinking concerning spiritual gifts. Most often the subject of spiritual gifts is taught in this way: We all have a spiritual gift or gifts. We are to study the Scriptures to find out what the list of options are and how each gift is defined and recognized. Then we must determine what our gifts are and develop them. Finally, we are to find a ministry where our gifts can be put to use.
While there is some truth in this view of gifts, it does not seem to square entirely with what Paul teaches about spiritual gifts. If all of the spiritual gifts are not listed in the New Testament, there must be other gifts as well. All of the gifts are not neatly defined (e.g., the “word of wisdom” and the “word of knowledge” in our text). Further, the form these gifts take (ministry) and the fruit (results, effects) are not the same for those who have the same gift(s).
I suggest we reverse some of our thinking and reject much of the remainder. God has given us a number of clear commands such as those outlined by Paul in Romans 12:9-21. Let us begin by focusing on these commands, and obey them in whatever circumstances God brings our way. In the process of obeying His commands, we will discover that God has given us a ministry, a place of service. Rather than waiting to know our gifts and then seeking to serve God and His church, let us do the things God has commanded, trusting Him to empower us and produce supernatural results through His Spirit. We should give priority to those aspects of ministry which God has given us in which the power of His Spirit is evident. This does not always mean “success” as the world defines success. It is where spiritual fruit has been produced, where the gospel has been proclaimed, and where God has been glorified. Let us not agonize over the name or the label of the gift, but let us strive to develop the gifts God has given us (2 Timothy 1:6), and employ them as good stewards of the grace of God (1 Peter 4:10-11). Let us never take credit for what God has accomplished or take pride in God’s work in us or measure spirituality by one’s gifts.
Let us be confident that if we are a Christian, God has an important place of service for us, and He will provide us with all the means necessary to fulfill our calling. Spiritual gifts assure us that the body of Christ needs us and will suffer without us. Spiritual gifts enable us to do what God requires of us.
If you have never received Jesus Christ as your Savior, as God’s provision for the forgiveness of your sins and for the righteousness required to enter into His kingdom, I urge you to receive the gift of salvation God offers to you only in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
7 There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink.” 8 For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. 9 The Samaritan woman therefore said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?” (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.) 10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water” (John 4:7-10).
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law (Romans 3:21-28).
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned 13 for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. 18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20 And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 5:12-21).
163 I am not here arguing for a cessationist point of view—the position which holds that certain gifts cannot exist today. Those who try to defend this position may find themselves disregarding specific commands, such as those recorded in 1 Corinthians 14:39 and 1 Thessalonians 5:19-20. I am arguing that some gifts are necessary for the on-going work of the ministry while others may not be. I am inclined to the viewpoint that those gifts which are vital on a day-to-day basis are those which can be linked to a general command to the church, regarding that function. For example, we are not all commanded to speak in tongues or to perform miracles or healings, but we are all commanded to encourage (exhortation), to teach, to give to those in need, and so on.
Body Language
12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. 19 And if they were all one member, where would the body be? 20 But now there are many members, but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; 23 and those members of the body, which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our unseemly members come to have more abundant seemliness, 24 whereas our seemly members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, 25 that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way.
Not very long ago a man was cutting down a tree when, instead of falling the way he expected, the tree ended up on his leg, pinning him to the ground. Realizing that help could not arrive in time, he knew he must free himself. After much effort to move the tree, he reached for the chain saw, started it, and proceeded to cut off his leg with the saw.164
My mother is an amputee, having lost her leg in a hit-and-run car accident years ago. I can assure you she did not willingly give up her limb. Only in the most dire circumstances does one make the choice to remove a limb or some other member of the body. The Corinthian Christians seem not to have seen it this way. In a spiritual sense, they are a “leg” cutting off the remainder of the body. They effectively cut off every member of the body except those who had a certain kind of gift and ministry. The Corinthians do not esteem all of the spiritual gifts, but seem to fix upon only one or a very few gifts and disdain the rest. As a result, those who do not possess the prize gift(s) conclude they have nothing at all to contribute to the church body. Others who do possess the highly regarded gift(s) feel smugly independent of the rest of the body. Paul has much to say to both in verses 12-31 of chapter 12, likening the church, the body of Christ, to the physical body and showing us that every single gift, every single saint, is indeed vitally important to the body.
The entire section of chapter 12:12-31 might be summed up by the title, “Body Language” or, “Principles of Body Life.” The term “body” is introduced in verse 12 and then repeatedly employed by Paul some 17 times throughout the remainder of the chapter. In verse 12, Paul indicates that the church is Christ’s body and that this imagery is instructive as to the nature and function of the church. In verse 13, Paul reminds his readers that individual members are “baptized” into this one body, the body of Christ, the church. Our membership in Christ’s body begins at the time we are saved, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit, who baptizes us into the church by identifying us with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection (see also Romans 6:1-11).
On several occasions in the Book of Acts (chapters 2, 8, 10-11, 19), the baptism of the Holy Spirit is dramatic and visible. What Paul emphasizes about this “Spirit baptism” is the unity which God brings from such great diversity among those united with the church, the body of Christ. As he describes much more fully in Ephesians 2, Paul indicates that the baptism of the Holy Spirit unites Jews and Greeks, slaves and free. The “one Spirit” of which believers partake unites them. This is the “unity of the Spirit” to which Paul refers in Ephesians 4:3.
After repeating that the “body is not one member, but many” in verse 14, Paul goes on to illustrate how this truth can be denied in verses 15-17. Those who view a particular gift as the touchstone of spirituality might wrongly conclude that because they do not possess this gift, they likewise have nothing to contribute to the church body. In body parts terminology, the foot says, “If I can’t be a hand, I’ll not consider myself a part of the body at all—I have nothing to contribute.” The ear feels similarly about not being an eye. In verse 17, Paul presses his readers to consider how ludicrous the body of Christ would be if Christians could have their way. In physical terms, can you imagine the whole church being an eye? It might see very well, but it would have great difficulty smelling anything without a nose. The body needs many different members with many different functions, because the body has a great many needs.
The members of Christ’s body each have a specific place and function in the body of Christ, and the One in charge of God’s “placement service” is the Holy Spirit. Each and every member of the body of Christ has been ordained165 to serve in a particular way by the Holy Spirit. Our placement in the body of Christ is not a matter of chance nor a matter of our choice; it is by God’s sovereign will (verse 18). If the Corinthians have their way and everyone possesses the same gift, where would the body be (verse 19)?
Getting back to reality, Paul reiterates again that while there are many different members with different gifts and ministries in the church, there is nonetheless but one body. The members are many, but the body is one (verse 20). In verses 15 and 16, Paul deals with those who seem to suffer from a spiritual inferiority complex. If they cannot be what others think they should be, and what they themselves desperately wish to be, then they will not consider themselves a part in the first place. They will pick up their marbles, so to speak, and leave. But what of those who do possess the spiritual gifts which are thought to be most spiritual and most significant? Some who appear to possess the most coveted gift(s) may begin to disdain those with different gifts. They should not think their gift is to their credit, or that their gift frees them from the interdependence which God designed for His church described by Paul in “body” imagery (verse 21). Contrary to a popular misconception at Corinth, it is much truer to say that the so-called “weaker members” of the body are indeed quite necessary (verse 22).
From the way we treat our own bodies, we can see that seemingly inferior parts of our body are not written off as non-existent. Rather, those parts of our own bodies we deem less honorable are those for which we compensate. We give “more abundant honor” to these apparently “lesser” members (verse 23). And so some people paint their toe nails or manicure their nails. Ladies put lipstick on their lips (they may think they are too plain otherwise), they lengthen their eyelashes, they put make-up on their faces. The most important members of our bodies do not need such compensation because we know they are vital (verse 24a). God has designed the “body” (the church) in such a way that the lesser members receive a greater honor or prominence to compensate for their inferior status, while the really important members do not need such compensation (verse 24b).
God designed the church as a body with many members and each with its own unique function. Every member of the body has an important role to play in the body. All the members of the body are interdependent, and none can be independent. The purpose for God designing the “body” of Christ in this way is to promote unity, not dissension and divisions (verse 25). God has created the “body” with various members, none of which can function without the support of the rest of the body. All the members of the body should thus have the same care for the other members of the body. Whatever affects the body as a whole affects each member of the body. When one member of the body suffers, the whole body suffers with it; when one member is honored, all the members should rejoice with it (verse 26). The church, the body of Christ, is designed in such a way that each member is interdependent upon all the other members. Every member of the body should be highly esteemed, because each makes a unique and valuable contribution to the whole body, and thus to all the other members.
The Corinthian believers (the “you” of verse 27 is plural) are Christ’s body, and every individual Corinthian saint is a member of that body (verse 27). God has placed every member of that body. First comes apostles, then second prophets, third teachers, then follow miracles, gifts of healings, helps, administrations, and various kinds of tongues (verse 28). This order seems quite different from the Corinthians’ “pecking order” (order of significance). Indeed, it may almost be a mirror image reversal of the Corinthian order of importance. It seems quite clear that the apostles are losing status in the minds of the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 4:6-21), while the up and coming false apostles are gaining in popularity (2 Corinthians 11).
The way the Corinthian saints view it, there are very few gifts which really count for anything. Their teaching—by inference, if not by direct statements—is that everyone who is really spiritual should possess the gift(s) they value so highly. Paul constantly stresses that the body has many different members, each sovereignly appointed by God. Now he confronts them with the facts: Everyone is not an apostle, is he? Nor is everyone in the church gifted and appointed as a prophet, teacher, miracle-worker, healer, tongues speaker, or interpreter. In each case where Paul asks a question, the form of his question indicates he expects an answer in the negative. Of course all are not apostles, prophets, or teachers! Yet this is precisely where their teaching and practice ends up (verses 29-30). Everyone is forsaking their gifts and ministry to obtain the “best,” or “most spiritual” gifts, or ministry as the Corinthian status-seekers perceive them.
For the life and health of the entire congregation, the church should covet the better gifts, but these “better gifts” are not those the Corinthians think to be better (verse 31). Rather, they seem to be the gifts many of the Corinthians disdain. As I understand his words, Paul is not instructing individual Christians to seek after the better gifts, but rather he instructs the whole church to desire those gifts which are most profitable for the church. We shall soon begin to see which “gifts” these better gifts are, if we have not already done so. There is a far better way to go about the Christian walk and ministry than the Corinthians have been doing it, and Paul sets out this better way in chapters 13 and 14. In chapter 13, Paul shows that love is the key to employing spiritual gifts in a way that is edifying to all, and in chapter 14, he shows how the principle of edification is intended to regulate our use of spiritual gifts.
So that we may focus on the major implications and applications of Paul’s words in verses 12-31, let us highlight four major “body life” principles which Paul applies to the Corinthian church and to us.
One of the serious problems facing the Corinthian church is disunity. Paul does not hesitate to bring up the problem of factions in the first chapter (1:10ff.). These divisions are certainly related to allegiances to certain leaders (1:12, etc.), but they are also tied to what we might call strengths and weaknesses (1:18-31). Divisions are so intense they have even resulted in lawsuits brought before secular courts (6:1ff.). There is a kind of rugged individualism which then, as now, prompts many to seek their own interests even at the expense of their fellow-believers. The Corinthian Christian who thinks he is wise and knows so much is the one who believes he is free to participate in heathen idol worship ceremonies. And this he does, without any concern that his doing so might cause another saint to stumble (8:1-13).
Paul wants the Corinthians to stop thinking and acting as rugged individualists and to begin to act with a sense of corporate identity and responsibility. In athletic terms, Paul wants the Corinthians to begin to think and behave like a team, rather than like some kind of spiritual “Lone Ranger” or, in more contemporary terms, a Christian Rambo. In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul introduces the imagery of the body to correct the Corinthians’ misconceptions concerning spiritual gifts.
Many images are employed for the people of God. The people of God, Old Testament and New, are referred to as a priesthood, a race, a nation, and a temple (see 1 Peter 2:4-9; Ephesians 2:11-22). God’s people are referred to as a vine or a vineyard, which is to produce fruit (Isaiah 5; John 15, etc.). The people of God are described as the bride, or wife, of God (see Isaiah 62:5; Jeremiah 2:32-35; Hosea; Revelation 21:2, 9; 22:17). We are also likened to a flock of sheep, of which God is the Shepherd (see Psalm 23, John 10; 21:15-17), and elders are under-shepherds (1 Peter 5:1-4).
It is the apostle Paul alone who speaks of the church, the people of God, as a body.166 The church of Jesus Christ is His body. Every believer, whether Jew or Greek, slave or free, is joined to the body of Christ by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (verse 13). There is one body into which every saint is baptized. There is but one people of God. The distinction between Jew and Gentile is abolished in Christ:
11 Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:11-22).
The concept or imagery of the church as the body of Christ underscores the unity of all believers (Ephesians 4:3-6). It shows how evil and counter-productive the divisions in the Corinthian church are. My identity is found in Christ, because I am a part of His body. My righteousness is Christ’s righteousness. His death is mine; His resurrection and new life, mine (see Romans 6:1-11). I dare not think only of myself as an individual Christian; rather, I must perceive myself as a part of the church, the body of Christ. To identify with Christ by faith is also to identify with His body, the church. No wonder Paul so quickly joins himself to fellow-believers (see Acts 9:19, 26). As a wife merges her identity with her husband, becoming one flesh, so the believer merges his or her identity with the body of Christ, the church. Those who fail to identify themselves with the body of Christ are disobedient in so doing (see Hebrews 10:25).
The Corinthian church is blessed with the full spectrum of spiritual gifts (see 1:4-7). Yet, in spite of this very broad range of gifts granted to this church, only a very select few gifts are valued. It is certain that paramount in the minds of most of the saints is the gift of tongues. It seems as though those who possess the “greater gifts” (in their minds) are those who dominate the church’s ministry and the church meeting (see 12:21; chapter 14). Those who have gifts which are considered “lesser” gifts seek to hide them and to obtain the greater gifts (12:15-17).
If the church has its way, the entire body would be only one organ, but Paul shows how foolish this would be:
17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired (1 Corinthians 12:17-18).
Repeatedly throughout chapter 12, Paul emphasizes that the body is one, but the members are many (see verses 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 27).
Christian unity does not flow from uniformity. God has not made us “cookie cutter Christians.” While there is but one body, there are many different members, many different limbs and organs, each of which has a unique role to play in the body. Paul emphasizes that while there is but one body, there are many different members, each with a unique role to play, a role essential to the health and ministry of the body, the church. The body is not composed of one member (one gift or ministry), but many (verse 13).
As a member of the church, the body of Christ, we find we are a part of a much greater whole—we belong to an organism whose “head” is Christ and whose function is to represent Christ to a fallen world. As a member of the church, the body of Christ, we also find our true identity as an individual. The body imagery illustrates the individuality of every Christian. Each believer is, in body terms, an individual organ or member. Each believer is uniquely gifted with a blending of spiritual gifts and is given a particular function within the body. No two saints have the same place in the body. Thus, each believer is unique. In one sense, the Christian is inseparably joined to the whole body, and in another, each believer is absolutely unique in the body. We have our identity with Christ’s body and in His body.
The body is not composed of one member (one gift or ministry) but many (verse 13). And the placement of each member of the body in the body of Christ is by the sovereign appointment of the Holy Spirit (verse 11, 18, 28). Our unique place and function within the body of Christ is not a matter of our choice. It is not a matter of merit on our part, but a matter of sovereign grace. God has placed us within the body to perform the function for which He has divinely enabled us (verse 18).
Notice how this union with Christ’s body shapes Paul’s view of his own ministry, particularly of his sufferings:
24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body (which is the church) in filling up that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. 25 Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, 26 that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations; but has now been manifested to His saints, 27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28 And we proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in Christ. 29 And for this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me (Colossians 1:24-29).
Paul sees himself as inseparably joined to the body of Christ. He views his ministry as Christ’s ministry. He views his sufferings for Christ as Christ’s sufferings. He sees his message as that of Christ and the power by which he ministers as His power, manifested through him. Paul sums up this matter in his own words to the Philippians:
19 For I know that this shall turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, 20 according to my earnest expectation and hope, that I shall not be put to shame in anything, but that with all boldness, Christ shall even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain (Philippians 1:19-21).
Most of the Corinthian Christians want to be something they are not. The “foot” wants to be a “hand” (12:15); the “ear” wishes it were an “eye” (12:16). The matter of spiritual gifts and placement in the body of Christ is not a matter over which we have control. Our spiritual gifts, our place of service in the body, and the results of our ministry are all divinely determined (12:4-6). In particular, our placement into the body of Christ occurs as a result of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (12:13), and our place in Christ’s body is the sovereign choice of God through the Spirit:
11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills (1 Corinthians 12:11).
18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired (1 Corinthians 12:18).
28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:28).
When one is discontent with the gift(s) he or she is given, that individual’s protest is against the Holy Spirit of God, the sovereign Giver of gifts. To question either the Spirit’s goodness, or His infinite wisdom in giving us our gifts, is like an Army Private questioning the orders or the battle plan of the Commander-in-Chief. The Spirit knows what the whole body needs far better than we.
Spiritual gifts are “graces” sovereignly bestowed upon believers. Spiritual gifts, like salvation, are not a matter of merit. Gifts are not earned; they are sovereignly graced upon us. Because of this, those who take pride in their gifts reveal their own foolishness and ignorance:
7 For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? (1 Corinthians 4:7)
Those who mistake gifts as an evidence of spirituality or of status are wrong, and those who mistake their gift as a symbol of insignificance are just as wrong and demean the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
This sovereign gracing is amply evidenced in the Book of Acts. Where are gifts ever given as a reward for service? Where are particular gifts granted because men sought them? In Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, and Acts 19, the baptism and the gifts of the Holy Spirit were not sought; they came as a surprise to those who are granted them. I do think that because the Corinthians highly value a very few gifts and disdain the rest, these prized gifts are sought and perhaps even falsely pretended. I see Christians today trying desperately to obtain certain gifts, and I have to ask why. If they are sovereignly bestowed, why must men strive to get them?
Only recently a memorial service was held in Oklahoma City due to the bombing of the Federal Building there. Billy Graham was one of the speakers. To the degree that Dr. Graham was able to proclaim Christ and hold forth the Word of God, every Christian should rejoice. My grandmother and many like her have faithfully made small monthly contributions to his work. Does she not share in the fruits of his labors? Do we not all share in them? Then why should any be jealous of his prominence? Why should we spend great effort to criticize certain aspects of his theology or methodology, which are not matters of fundamental truth?
The Oklahoma City disaster was revealing in many ways. Less than 200 lives were cruelly snuffed out by cruel and violent men. But at the same time, hundred of thousands of people are dying in the more distant land of Africa, and there is not the same concern and reaction. Why? Because we feel some kind of identification with those in Oklahoma City, but not with those in Africa. When we truly begin to appreciate the intimate union which exists between all the saints, we will begin to care more for one another and to think more corporately than just individually. The body does not exist primarily to “meet our needs”; the body is the body of Christ, God’s appointed means by which the church lives out the life of Christ in the world today. Our task is to meet the needs of the body which God has gifted us to meet, so that the body of Christ can reach maturity (Ephesians 4), and so the work of Christ is carried out through His body.
Here is the real surprise of our text! The imagery of the body amazingly illustrates that the most visible, most attractive parts of the body are not the most important. The “body principle” overturns the value system by which the Corinthians appraise the significance of spiritual gifts. The gifts most prized in Corinth are those with fleshly and worldly appeal, gifts which give the appearance of wisdom and power (see chapters 1 and 2), not gifts which are humbly received and employed in sacrificial service to others. The most prized gifts are visible, verbal, and sensational. This is the way, the Corinthians suppose, that the presence and power of God is most clearly demonstrated.
Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 12:22-24 surely come as a slap in the face to the status-seeking saints at Corinth. He turns their value system upside-down. The body illustrates what he is teaching. Those members of the body which are of the least importance are those to which we devote the most attention and effort. We paint our toenails, put rings on our ears (men, too!) and noses! We put rings and jewelry on our fingers. But the truth is we can live without ears (or hearing), eyes (or seeing), fingers, hands, legs, toes. The least needed members of our body are the ones which are most visible and to which the most “glory” is given. And yet, they are the lesser gifts. Those gifts which are most visible, most vocal, most glorified in the Corinthian church are, in reality, the least important gifts. These Corinthians have been storing up sand in their safety deposit boxes and using gold for stepping stones.
As the body illustrates, just the reverse is also true. The most important gifts, like the most important organs, are those which are not visible or spectacular, those of which we are the least conscious. You cannot see my spleen, my kidneys, my liver, or my heart, but I cannot live without them. They do not get a lot of attention. I have never seen “pancreas powder” or “heart highlighter.” I do not have to glorify these organs. They do not need any compensation. They are, in truth, the most vital members of my body, whether I see them or not and whether others value them or not.
Paul assures his readers that “to a much greater degree, the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary” (verse 11; note marginal note here). The Corinthians disdain Paul because of his apparent weakness, while, in their minds, they are so strong (see chapter 4). But it is out of Paul’s weakness that the power of God is revealed (chapter 12). Those gifts which seem weak only appear to be weak. Those gifts which appear to be powerful and impressive are not as significant as they appear. The most necessary gifts are those which we might be least likely to desire or to appreciate.
Elijah’s thinking was just like the Corinthians’. He wanted to do something sensational to manifest (or perhaps even to force) God’s power. This appears to be why he prompts the confrontation with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel. But you may recall that when God speaks to Elijah, he is depressed because his scheme for a spectacular revival of his people, the Israelites, has not worked. God speaks to Elijah, but not by a great and mighty wind, or by an earthquake, or by a fire. God speaks to Elijah in a still, small voice (1 Kings 19:9-12). We are impressed with the spectacular and with what is seen. God loves to work through what is unseen and unspectacular.
Look at our Lord. He was not outwardly impressive either:
1 “Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations. 2 He will not cry out or raise His voice, Nor make His voice heard in the street. 3 A bruised reed He will not break, And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice. 4 He will not be disheartened or crushed, Until He has established justice in the earth; And the coastlands will wait expectantly for His law” (Isaiah 42:1-4).
1 Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. 3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him (Isaiah 53:1-3).
44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46 And Nathanael said to him, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see” (John 1:44-46).
The Jews of Jesus’ own country rejected Him as Messiah, because He was too common:
3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. 4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household” (Mark 6:3-4).
Our Lord’s disciples had nothing to brag about either. They were mere Galileans, who were uneducated and untrained:
73 And a little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Surely you too are one of them; for the way you talk gives you away” (Matthew 26:73).
11 And they also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).
7 And they were amazed and marveled, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?” (Acts 2:7)
13 Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John, and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were marveling, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus. 14 And seeing the man who had been healed standing with them, they had nothing to say in reply (Acts 4:13-14).
And so it is with us:
26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, 29 that no man should boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:26-31).
1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4 And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).
Many think of Paul as a man whose abilities God “baptized” into the faith. They believe that since Paul was a “fireball” as an opponent of the gospel of Jesus Christ, all God had to do was to turn him around so that he became a “fireball” for Christ. They think the same about people today: “Why, if ___ would only get saved, what a work he or she could do for Christ!” Paul does not revel in what he was as an unbeliever; he renounces it in no uncertain terms:
2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. 7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ (Philippians 3:2-8).
God did not utilize Paul’s strengths to make him the great apostle he was; rather, God used his weaknesses. And these very weaknesses caused some of the Corinthians to look down upon him:
1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4 And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).
8 You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and I would indeed that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. 9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. 11 To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; 12 and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; 13 when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now (1 Corinthians 4:8-13).
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the surpassing greatness of the power may be of God and not from ourselves; 8 we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body (2 Corinthians 4:7-10).
7 And because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me—to keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I entreated the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Corinthians 12:7-10).
Paul’s use of “body language” here (as elsewhere) gives us what might be called “the anatomy of spirituality.” Let us then consider several avenues of application for the “body principles” set down by Paul in our text.
(1) The concept of the church as the body of Christ should change our way of thinking of ourselves and of the church. We are far too individualistic in our thinking and not nearly as collective in our thinking as we should be. We are far too competitive in our thinking and actions, so that the advance or success of others is viewed as a personal setback for us. We must begin to think cooperatively, realizing that the success of other saints is our victory, and, more importantly, our Lord’s victory. We need to strive not only for our own growth in Christ, but for the corporate and collective growth of the entire church (see Ephesians 4:11-16).
(2) The concept of the church as the body of Christ should cause us to think in terms of the local church, but also beyond the local church. The “church” is the body of Christ, but in the New Testament the “church” is often bigger than just one local church. Paul speaks of “the church” as those believers in a certain political or geographical setting (e.g., the seven “churches” of Asia in Revelation 2 and 3). In contemporary terms, there are many local churches in Dallas, Texas, but we might also think in terms of the church that is in Dallas, the entire body of believers living in Dallas. We speak of the church “in America” or “in Russia” or “behind the bamboo curtain.” In prison ministry, we speak of the church “behind the walls.”
Just as individual believers think and act competitively, so local churches can fall into the same error. There should be ways in which we, as individual believers and as a local church, express our identification with the larger “church.” For example, when the Federal Building was blown up in Oklahoma City a couple months ago, many individuals in Dallas were greatly concerned and sought to help in some way. Less than 200 people were killed in that explosion, as terrible as that is. But at the same time, hundreds of thousands are dying of a terrible virus in Africa, yet there is not the same degree of concern or involvement. Why? Because we do not feel a part of those dying in Africa. In the case of the Oklahoma City tragedy, we are thinking of ourselves, “That could have been me, or one of my family, or a friend.” If the whole body benefits from the success of one member, or suffers from the hurt of one member, then you and I ought to be very concerned about fellow believers around the world. They are a part of the body of Christ. They depend upon us, as we upon them. There must not be such a thing as isolationism in the church of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(3) While there is a sense in which the body is to support and provide for the needs of each individual member, let us never forget that this is not the primary purpose of the church. Too many people attend church to have their “needs met.” Too many people leave churches, complaining that the church has not met their needs. The church is to build up itself in love, but the goal of the church is to live out the life of our Lord Jesus Christ, to His glory. We, the church, are the body of Christ. This means we, as the church, are to carry on His ministry in the world today. The church ministers to itself, to build itself up so that it may carry out its mission, and that mission is living out Christ in a fallen world. We have become so preoccupied with the church’s ministry to us as individuals that we have failed to concentrate on the church’s mission to the world, and our obligation to sacrifice ourselves in ministry to and through the church to the world. The question is not, “What is the church doing for me?” The question is, “What can I contribute to the church to participate in its fulfillment of its mission and calling?“
(4) Christians who are a part of the church, the body of Christ, need to understand that while differences may be the basis for division and strife in the world, these differences are by divine design and are intended to enhance our dependence upon one another, and thus to illustrate true Christian unity. Unity is not evidenced by uniformity but by harmony and interdependence as each individual saint carries out his or her unique function in the body. That which results in division in the fallen world in which we live should be the occasion for unity and harmony in the church. We should not all want to look alike or function alike, but each should function as God has made him or her, so that the body is benefited by our presence and ministry. As God made Jews and Gentiles, slave and free, male and female, one in Christ, we need to demonstrate this unity in diversity, because we are one body.
(5) Our text and the concept of the church as a body calls into question one of the important operating principles of the modern day “church growth movement.” Years ago, a brother from India told me that while he appreciated many of the contributions of the church growth movement, he had serious concerns with their principle of homogeneous grouping. The principle goes something like this: Birds of a feather flock together. People are more comfortable around “their kind.” It just so happens that the churches which are growing the fastest are those whose membership is largely of the same racial, social, and economic class. And so the church of today is encouraged to appeal to, or target, a particular segment of society, and, rather than apologize for this, to enjoy the fruits of success. It seems to me that the principle of homogeneous grouping flies in the face of the imagery of the church as the body of Christ, and indeed in the face of the gospel itself. Let us not seek to all be alike, look alike, think alike, and serve alike. Let us be different, as God intended, each contributing our unique gifts and ministries which He has given, to the edification of the church and to the glory of God.
After I delivered this message one Sunday, one of the men in our church came up to me with this song which he had written a few years ago after hearing a sermon on this same text. I think you will enjoy it.
You are a hand
And you are grand.
You can type or sew or write,
And play guitar all night.
But I’m just a foot, A lousy foot.
Wrapped in this smelly sock,
And stuffed in this dirty shoe,
O, how I wish that I were you.
Well I’ll never get to shake feet with my neighbors
Or paint a pretty picture or hang it on the wall.
But I guess you’d never find your guitar
If you didn’t have me to take you down the hall.
So I guess we really need each other
To do what the Lord has planned for us to do.
‘Cause if He didn’t want us, brother,
I know He would have never stuck me here with you.
You are a mouth,
And what a mouth.
You can talk or eat or sing,
In fact, do ‘most anything.
But I’m just an ear,
Covered by people’s hair.
And mothers make kids wash behind there
‘Cause I’m full of lots of goo-ooh!
Oh, how I wish that I were you.
Well, I’ll never get to sing at Christmas,
Or kiss my pretty sweetheart, or tell her I’ll be true.
But I guess you’d never know she loves us,
If she ever whispered those same words to you.
So you see, we really need each other
To do what the Lord has planned for us to do.
‘Cause if we didn’t work with each other,
The Lord will find some others to replace me and you!
164 A friend told me he had read this story too, and that the man actually cut off his leg with his pocket knife!
165 I am not at all sure why the translators of the NASB failed to use the same English word to translate the identical Greek term in verses 18 (“has placed”) and 28 (“has appointed”).
166 Only Paul employs the “body” imagery, but he does so frequently in his Epistles: Romans 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12-20, 22-25, 27; Ephesians 1:23; 2:16; 3:6; 4:4; 5:23; Colossians 1:18, 24; 2:19; 3:5.
1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
I love one particular scene in the movie, “Crocodile Dundee.” A folk hero from the outback country of Australia, Crocodile Dundee visits New York City for the first time. While accompanied by a female newspaper writer, he finds himself cornered by a gang of young thugs. When Dundee does not immediately produce his wallet, one young hoodlum pulls out a switchblade and threatens Crocodile Dundee. Nonplused by such aggression, Crocodile simply reaches behind his back with the words, “That’s not a knife,” suddenly producing the largest knife I have ever seen, “This is a knife!” Quickly disarmed, the hoodlums run for their lives.
As I read the thirteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, I see Paul somewhat like Crocodile Dundee. His words seem to say, “That’s not love … this is love!” I find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe the Corinthians deliberately chose to abandon Christian love. I believe they are so caught up in certain spiritual gifts that they have unconsciously abandoned true love. They are something like Samson after Delilah cuts his hair. Samson leaps to his feet, fully expecting to be able to handle the Philistines, not knowing that God’s power has departed (see Judges 16:18-21). The Corinthian church is like the church at Ephesus which had lost its first love (Revelation 2:1-7).
This thirteenth chapter of the Book of 1 Corinthians is about love. Since few subjects are more important, let me remind you of some of the reasons love holds such importance.
(1) The whole Old Testament Law is summed up by the one word, “love” (see Leviticus 19:17-18; Matthew 19:19).
(2) Love sums up the Christian’s responsibilities in the New Testament (Romans 13:9).
(3) Love is the capstone, the crowning virtue, the consummation of all other virtues (Galatians 5:22-23; 2 Peter 1:5-7; Colossians 3:12-14).
(4) Love is the goal of Paul’s instruction (1 Timothy 1:5).
(5) Love is the distinguishing mark of the true Christian (John 13:35).
(6) Without love, the value of spiritual gifts is greatly diminished (1 Corinthians 12:1-3).
(7) Love is greater than any of the spiritual gifts and is even greater than faith and hope (1 Corinthians 13:13).
(8) Love endures suffering under persecution, and Christians will be persecuted (Matthew 24:10; 2 Timothy 3:12).
(9) Love is easily lost, without one’s even being aware of it (Revelation 2:1-7).
(10) Love is misunderstood and distorted by the unbelieving world. Recently, an acquaintance handed me a copy of Betty J. Eadie’s best seller, Embraced by the Light. In her book, which is dedicated “To the Light, my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to whom I owe all that I have,” Betty Eadie speaks of her early childhood, when she was raised by Catholic nuns and later the Wesleyan Methodist Brainard Indian Training School. She was taught that she was a sinner and that God would punish sinners for all eternity. However, as a result of an “after death” experience, she came to view God in an entirely different way. She now sees God as a warm and “loving” God, for whom such things as hell and eternal torment are abhorrent. There are many who wish this view of God were true. Unfortunately, Betty Eadie’s definition of God’s love sets aside the biblical declarations that God sent His beloved Son to die for our sins and to suffer God’s divine wrath so sinners could be saved. Love then is something everyone talks about, but about which they know little.
(11) Love is vitally important to Christians, for it should govern our relationships with other Christians, especially those with whom we strongly disagree. In the Corinthian church of Paul’s day, and in the evangelical church of our own day, strong polarization exists between charismatic Christians and non-charismatic Christians. Listen to these words by D. A. Carson:
In the entire range of contemporary Christian theology and personal experience, few topics are currently more important than those associated with what is now commonly called “the charismatic movement. … As the charismatic movement has grown, so also has it become more diversified, thereby rendering many generalizations about it remarkably reductionistic. But it is probably fair to say that both charismatics and noncharismatics (if I may continue to use those terms in non-biblical ways) often cherish neat stereotypes of the other party. As judged by the charismatics, non-charismatics tend to be stodgy traditionalists who do not really believe the Bible and who are not really hungry for the Lord. They are afraid of profound spiritual experience, too proud to give themselves wholeheartedly to God, more concerned for ritual than for reality, and more in love with propositional truth than with the truth incarnate. They are better at writing theological tomes than at evangelism; they are defeatist in outlook, defensive in stance, dull in worship, and devoid of the Spirit’s power in their personal experience. The noncharismatics themselves, of course, tend to see things a little differently. The charismatics, they think, have succumbed to the modern love of ‘experience,’ even at the expense of truth. Charismatics are thought to be profoundly unbiblical, especially when they elevate their experience of tongues to the level of theological and spiritual shibboleth. If they are growing, no small part of their strength can be ascribed to their raw triumphalism, their populist elitism, their promise of short cuts to holiness and power. They are better at splitting churches and stealing sheep than they are at evangelism, more accomplished in spiritual one-upmanship before other believers than in faithful, humble service. They are imperialistic in outlook (only they have the ‘full gospel’), abrasive in stance, uncontrolled in worship, and devoid of any real grasp of the Bible that goes beyond mere proof-texting.
Of course, both sides concede that the caricatures I have drawn admit notable exceptions; but the profound suspicions on both sides make genuine dialogue extremely difficult. This is especially painful, indeed embarrassing, in the light of the commitment made by most believers on both sides to the Bible’s authority.167
But, while all Christians now share in the “unity of the Spirit” (Ephesians 4:3; compare 4:5; 2:14-22; 1 Corinthians 12:13), we do not all share in the “unity of the faith” (Ephesians 4:13). This is because we only “know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9-12). We Christians disagree, in part at least, because our knowledge is partial and incomplete. We tend to disagree over those things we do not fully know, even though we may believe we do know. Love is the means God provided for us to live in harmony and unity, even though there is a diversity of doctrine in matters which are not fundamental. Paul’s instruction on love then becomes absolutely vital to our Christian walk and to our Christian unity.
One more thing must be said about our study of “love,” and I will again quote D. A. Carson as he has said it better than I could:
Before going on, we must pause to ask what is distinctive about Christian love, and to recognize firmly that the meaning of love described in this chapter is not intrinsic to the noun … (agape) or its cognate verb … (agapao). Of course, this verdict is contrary to popular opinion, which often suggests that this word is chosen in the Scriptures over other words for ‘love’ because only this word group captures the determined love of God that seeks the other’s good. Linguistically that is not true: the development of the various terms for love has been well and amusingly chronicled by Joly, and cannot be retraced here. In the Septuagint, if Amnon incestuously loves his half-sister Tamar, the verb can be … (agapao; 2 Sam. 13:1). In John’s Gospel, we are twice told that the Father loves the Son: one passage using … (agapao) and the other … (philio; John 3:35; 5:20 respectively). When he details that Demas has forsaken him because he loved this world, Paul does not think it inappropriate to use the verb … (agapao; 2 Timothy 4:10). These examples could be multiplied. My point is simply that there is nothing intrinsic to a particular word group that makes its version of love particularly divine. On the other hand, that is far from saying that there is nothing distinctive about God’s love or about Christian love. There is; but if we want to discover what that difference is, we shall find it less in a distinctive semantic range of a particular word group than in the descriptions and characteristics of love given in the Scriptures.168
Dr. Paige Patterson adds another profitable comment:
Careful scholarly analysis of the concept of love, for example, benefits the church. Such arduous research and thought will inevitably enhance our understanding of the nature of God’s love and the love required of believers. But even in the absence of such noble research, an obvious sense of the nature of love can hardly be missed by even a cursory reading of the Bible.169
There are times when the study of Scripture from the original languages is profitable. But in many cases, a less sophisticated study of an English word, like love (or a biblical doctrine or concept) can be just as profitable. The same can be said for systematic theology. At times, distinguishing fine subtleties may have real value, but the truth of God’s Word was not written for the academic elite; it was written for every Christian. The most important truths should be very clear to all believers, and those subtleties recognized only by the scholarly are probably not earthshaking in their significance. The ability to be able to use the original languages or to delve into theological mysteries, may, in the minds of some, be like possessing the “best” spiritual gifts. The possessor of that gift can become puffed up with pride and have a sense of disdain for the unscholarly (see John 7:45-49), and it may also cause the non-scholar to feel that personal Bible study is futile. This is simply not the case. Carson, a very fine scholar, points out that while the Bible does give us a very full description and definition of love, it will not be found by restricting our study to just one of the Greek (or Hebrew) words for love. To understand biblical love, one needs to look to the teaching of the Bible as a whole on this subject.
I am going to the extreme in saying all of this because of the many times I have heard preachers and teachers say, “To understand love, one must realize there are three Greek words employed for love, yet only one of those words refers to the kind of love which God requires of us.” As Carson points out, this is simply not the case.
Paul’s approach to teaching us about love is very different. He does not instruct us about the importance of distinguishing between Greek words for love. He begins in verses 1-3 by showing that spiritual gifts have only minimal value, unless they are exercised in love. In verses 4-7, Paul does not attempt to give us a very technical definition of love; instead, he describes love in a way which makes it very clear what biblical love looks like. And his description makes it glaringly evident that the Corinthians have indeed lost their first love, even more quickly than the Ephesian saints (compare Revelation 2:1-7). If verses 4-7 contrast the behavior of true love with the conduct of the Corinthians, verses 8-13 contrast love with all spiritual gifts, showing that while all of the spiritual gifts are temporary, Christian love is eternal, outlasting even faith and hope. If we measure the value of something by how long it lasts, love comes out on top. Love is the “better way” (see 12:31).
1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
Before looking at each verse separately, several observations should be made concerning verses 1-3. The structure of verses 1-3 is very clear, setting these three verses apart from the rest of the chapter. Each verse begins with an “if,” indicating Paul is speaking here of a hypothetical possibility.170 To press the hypothetical dimension even further, it seems clear that Paul is using hyperbole here.171 The statements Paul makes in all three verses hypothetically take a particular gift to its ultimate expression. In verses 1-3, Paul takes spiritual gifts to the Super Bowl. He seeks to demonstrate that any gift, exercised to its highest level of performance, is of greatly diminished value if that gift is exercised without love. In my opinion, Paul did not intend for us to assume that any of these hypothetical possibilities were even remotely possible.
Since some look to verse 1 to find a redefinition of the gift of tongues, this would not be the most forceful example of hyperbole. Let us look then to verse 2, where Paul speaks of faith that is able to remove mountains and of the gift of prophecy such that Paul can know all things. These words are written by the greatest apostle of all times. Few would dare to claim greater knowledge and revelation than Paul. And yet Paul goes on to say that we “know in part, and we prophesy in part” (verse 9). “That which is perfect”—knowing fully—will not come until Christ comes, and then we shall “know fully” (verse 12).
In verses 1-3, Paul speaks in the first person: “If I … .” There is not the accusatory “you” which there most certainly could have been. The gifts Paul selects are the greatest gifts, whether by the perception of the Corinthians (tongues), or in truth (prophecy, faith). It seems safe to say that all of the gifts Paul mentions in verses 1-3 are gifts Paul actually did possess and, to a degree, which far surpassed any of the Corinthian believers (see, for example, 14:18). Paul writes in the light of his own giftedness and points to the necessity of love for his gifts to be of benefit to others or to himself.
In these first three verses of chapter 13, a different time frame seems to be in view in each verse. In verse 1, Paul says, “I have become … .”172 In verse 2, he says, “I am … .” In verse 3, he writes, “it profits me nothing.” In verse 1, Paul seems to suggest that in living a loveless life, I become less than I was. The Corinthians are not the better for their lack of love; they are the worse. Worse yet, they are becoming something vastly inferior to what they once were. In verse 2, Paul speaks of a loveless saint in terms of his present state—“I am nothing.” In verse 3, Paul looks to future rewards for one’s sacrificial service. Seemingly great acts of sacrifice may win man’s approval, but they will not win us God’s approval. Love is essential for eternal rewards.
Paul takes what are considered to be the greatest gifts anyone could possess, starting with tongues (the “ultimate gift” for the Corinthians), and grants that each could be exercised to the fullest possible extent. Even then, these spiritual gifts would be of limited value unless exercised out of a heart of love.
In verse 1, Paul first turns to the gift of tongues. Here is the gift at least some of the Corinthians prize most. Tongues is the ability to speak in unlearned earthly languages as seen in Acts 2. To the Corinthians, the ultimate in tongues was to be able to speak in a language which was not earthly. And so Paul grants the hypothetical though unreal possibility that one could speak every human language, and even in the tongue of angels.173 But, Paul declares, if this were done apart from love, it would not be profitable to men: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.” Gongs and cymbals do have something in common, for they are at their best when employed in concert with other instruments. Cymbals are not “solo instruments”; they sound good only in the context of a musical piece along with many other instruments. I must confess, however, I played the trumpet probably because it was a solo instrument. I struggled to obtain first chair in band because I wanted to play the melody line and not a harmony part. Cymbals were not for me, because I wanted to be able to play alone and not be confined to a band or orchestra.
Can you imagine listening to a cymbal or a gong hour after hour? I actually can because one of our neighbors had a son who played the drums. Hour after agonizing hour we heard those drums pounding away, and, it was unpleasant, to say the least. Some instruments are not good alone. Rather than being enjoyable, they can be irritating. A tongues speaker without love could speak long and loud, enraptured by the sound of his own voice, but apart from interpretation, there would be no value to those who hear or even to the speaker (see 14:14-17). Exercised in love, and in accordance with the restrictions set down by Paul, tongues could be edifying. But without love, tongues would be irritating. I can just see brother or sister Jones standing up in the church meeting, as they did every meeting, and the whole church knowing what is about to happen. Eyes roll, and people silently mutter to themselves, “Oh, no, not again!”
What has been said in verse 1 in terms of the gift of tongues can be said for any other gift as well. Any gift exercised primarily for the benefit of the one who is gifted is a prostitution of that gift, and the end result of that kind of “ministry” is not edification but exasperation. Love seeks to serve others to their benefit and at the sacrifice of the one who serves in love. This kind of ministry blesses others. Self-serving, self-promoting ministry is a pain to others, something to be endured at best.
In verse 2, Paul turns to the two vitally important gifts of prophecy and faith. “And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.”
In the first verse, the gift of tongues is selected by the apostle Paul. There he focuses on the benefit of the ultimate gift of tongues for others—when exercised without love. Now Paul turns to the gift of prophecy and its personal benefits to himself—if exercised apart from love. The gift of prophecy, as described here, is the ability to know mysteries and to gain knowledge. Prophecy is the divine ability to know what we would not be able to know apart from divine revelation. In the Bible, a mystery is a truth which is at least partially revealed, but which is not understood. According to Paul, the meaning of marriage was a mystery. Now we know that the truth about Christ’s union with His church is illustrated by a Christian marriage (see Ephesians 5:22-33). Old Testament saints were saved by faith, and they worshiped God, but they did not think of themselves as one with God, through Jesus Christ. The union of Jews and Gentiles in the church was also a mystery in the Old Testament. Passages spoke of the Gentiles as recipients of divine grace, but no Jew fully understood the truth which Paul revealed in Ephesians 2. Gentiles and Jews are brought together in Christ as “one new man” (Ephesians 2:15-18).
Prophecy is the ability to receive knowledge from God by divine revelation, and it explains those matters which were formerly mysteries, even to the saints. Carried to its ultimate possibility, the gift of prophecy would enable one to know all knowledge and to understand every mystery. Even if this could be the case, such a gift of prophecy without love would contribute nothing to the one possessing the gift. The Corinthians wrongly measured their own significance by the gifts they possessed. Were this false assumption granted even for a moment, Paul shows that without love, the greatest gift, exercised to the fullest measure, really makes one a nobody.
Luke 7:36-50 illustrates this truth. There, everybody who was considered important seems to have gathered at the dinner Jesus attended at the home of Simon the Pharisee. A woman regarded as a “nobody” came, uninvited, and washed the feet of our Lord. Simon the Pharisee took note and, in his heart, thought less of Jesus because He allowed this woman to touch him. He thought, “If Jesus knew who she was and what a sinner she was, He would have nothing to do with her.” But Jesus turned the tables. This woman went away forgiven and saved. She who was a “nobody” was a “somebody” in the kingdom of God, simply because she loved her Lord. The one who was least, but loved, was the greatest. Those who were the greatest, without love, were the least.
Do we not see the truth of verse 2 in the Old Testament? Look at Jonah, the prophet. He enjoyed the kind of “success” of which the prophet Elijah could only dream. Elijah wanted to convert a nation, the nation Israel. He “failed” because this was not God’s purpose for him. So, too, Isaiah “failed” by secular standards of success. But when Jonah preached, the entire city of Nineveh repented. It was a success Jonah did not want. It was a success that made Jonah angry with God. Who could leave the Book of Jonah liking this loveless prophet? He was nothing because he lacked love. Other prophets, like Balaam, also come to mind.
In addition to the gift of prophecy, Paul speaks of the gift of faith. Faith, exercised to the ultimate measure of success, would be a faith that could not only move mountains but remove them (compare Matthew 17:20; 21:21). If one had this kind of faith, yet lacked love, he would be a nobody. If I possess the greatest of gifts and exercise them to the fullest degree, yet without love, I am nobody. I am nothing. These words must have struck the Corinthians with considerable force.
In verse 3, Paul speaks of gifts in terms of the greatest imaginable sacrifice. “And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.” Quite frankly, I do not have a clue what gifts Paul refers to in verse 3, and I do not think it matters. He is surely speaking of great personal sacrifice, the appearance of which would gain one much favor and approval by his peers (compare Matthew 6:2-4). The ultimate sacrifice is made, either by giving up all of one’s possessions for the sake of the poor, or by the giving up of one’s life as a martyr. Because love is sacrificial (see Ephesians 5:25), some might be tempted to conclude that “great sacrifice” (giving up all one’s possessions or one’s life) was proof of great love.
Paul does not grant this assumption. People give away their possessions for any number of reasons, and many of those reasons can be self-serving rather than sacrificial. For example, I may leave all my wealth to a charitable organization, but I cannot take my money with me anyway. I might even do this to spite my children and deprive them of any inheritance. People have set themselves on fire, and I have yet to read of one instance in which love was clearly the motive. Ultimate sacrifices can be made apart from love, and if they are loveless, they are of no eternal benefit to the one making the sacrifice.
In verse 1, Paul speaks of the loveless exercise of the ultimate gift of tongues, showing that it would not edify others but irritate them. In verse 2, Paul speaks of the ultimate gifts of prophecy and faith, saying these gifts, exercised without love, leave one worthless. In verse 3, Paul speaks of the ultimate sacrifices made without love, showing that these sacrifices did not benefit the giver. However, others may benefit from my “loveless” sacrifices. The Ninevites were saved, whether Jonah loved them or not. They benefited from his ministry even though that surely was not his intention. The hungry may eat because I have given away all my possessions. But such acts of sacrifice do not really benefit me.
Benefits and blessings may occur through the loveless exercise of spiritual gifts, but these benefits are greatly reduced when love is lacking. And so in these first three verses of chapter 13, Paul shows the importance of love. The Corinthians are obsessed with the value of spiritual gifts, equating the social status of the gift with the significance of the one who possesses it. Paul seeks to elevate love, the fruit of the Spirit, above the gifts of the Spirit. Did the Corinthians think themselves spiritual because they possess seemingly important spiritual gifts? In verses 4-7, Paul shows that the measure of a man or woman of God is not determined by the gift(s) they possess, but by the love they practice in the exercise of those gifts.
4 Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Paul declines giving a technical definition of love; instead, he provides us with a description of love, one especially pertinent to the Corinthians. The first two statements describing love in verse 4 are general. Paul then advances to things not characteristic of love. These just happen to be some of the characteristics of the Corinthian saints. Finally, Paul concludes in verse 7 with four characteristics of love, none of which are selective or partial. The Corinthians’ conduct in these areas was partial and incomplete. And so in these four verses, we learn what love is like, and we also learn that the Corinthians are seriously lacking in love.
Paul begins his description of love in verse 4 with the words, “Love is patient.” The King James Version renders it “suffereth long” (“suffers long,” NKJV). W. E. Vine indicates that longsuffering is the most frequent meaning of the term in the Bible, and he distinguishes “longsuffering” from “patience” in this way:
Longsuffering is that quality of self-restraint in the face of provocation which does not hastily retaliate or promptly punish; it is the opposite of anger, and is associated with mercy, and is used of God, Ex. 34:6 (Sept.); Rom. 2:4; 1 Pet. 3:20. Patience is the quality that does not surrender to circumstances or succumb under trial; it is the opposite of despondency and is associated with hope, 1 Thessalonians 1:3; it is not used of God.174
Leon Morris adds this comment: “First, love is long-suffering. The word Paul uses indicates having patience with people rather than with circumstances (as William Barclay notes). In fact, Paul’s word is the opposite of ‘short-tempered,’ it means—if we may invent a word—‘long-tempered.’”175
In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:4, Matthew Henry says of the term longsuffering:
It can endure evil, injury, and provocation, without being filled with resentment, indignation, or revenge. It makes the mind firm, gives it power over the angry passions, and furnishes it with a persevering patience, that shall rather wait and wish for the reformation of a brother than fly out in resentment of his conduct. It will put up with many slights and neglects from the person it loves, and wait long to see the kindly effects of such patience on him.176
We should not be surprised to find that God is described by the term “longsuffering”:
6 Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth (Exodus 34:6).
4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? (Romans 2:4)
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? (Romans 9:22)
16 And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life (1 Timothy 1:16).
20 Who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water (1 Peter 3:20).
9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. … 15 and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you (2 Peter 3:9, 15).
David exemplifies longsuffering. King Saul persistently seeks to kill David, once he knows he will someday replace him as king of Israel. David not only endures this persecution graciously, refusing to take the king’s life when given the chance, he actively seeks to do good to Saul. David is both longsuffering and kind.
For the Christian, longsuffering is not optional. Longsuffering is named as one of the “fruits of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:22). We are commanded to be “patient” or to manifest “longsuffering” toward others:
2 With all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing forbearance to one another in love (Ephesians 4:2).
14 And we urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with all men (1 Thessalonians 5:14).
The Corinthians must have cringed as they read these words since they clearly fell far short of what God required of them regarding longsuffering. The Corinthians found it unbearable to wait for those who could not arrive before they started to eat the meal at the church’s weekly gathering. Paul had to command them to wait for one another. Had love been present in Corinth, it would have prompted them to wait (see 1 Corinthians 11:17-34). And when one Corinthian Christian irritated another, the response was, “I’ll see you in court!” (see chapter 6). This is not patience!
Before we begin to feel too smug, we are not doing all that well either. Christians in our part of the world are not inclined to endure ill-treatment from anyone. How often do you hear, “I wouldn’t put up with that!” Putting up with ill treatment is what longsuffering is all about. We are to put up with one another: “Bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you” (Colossians 3:13). We should silently endure ill treatment from unbelievers and believers alike, even as our Lord did (1 Peter 2:18ff.; see also Matthew 17:17; Acts 13:18). Let us not forget all that Paul put up with from the Corinthians (see 4:6-21).
James Dobson wrote a book on the subject of “tough love,” an expression I hear often these days. Certainly there is a need for tough love in the sense that we must “get tough” with those whom we love, like our children and other family members. I would suggest we also need another kind of tough love. We personally need the kind of love which makes us tough enough to handle the grief others give us. Years ago a man preparing for the ministry shared with me a bit of advice someone had given him: “Brother,” he said, “if you’re going to minister in these circles, you’d better have rhinoceros hide.” He was right. We do need to be thick-skinned when it comes to the hurts others impose on us. Christians are so thin-skinned and touchy they fall apart at a raised eyebrow. Let’s get tough, so we can suffer long at the hands of others and thereby demonstrate Christian love.
The word “abuse” is one of the great “excuse” words of our day. Let me be very clear that there are certain kinds of abuse no one should put up with, such as sexual abuse. However, the categories of abuse seem to multiply daily. For example, there is verbal abuse and mental abuse. But now, Christians seem to think that whenever the “abuse” word arises, every Scriptural command is put into a different category, one which does not apply. Turning the other cheek is out because that would be tolerating physical abuse. And yet Peter speaks of our Lord’s silent enduring of verbal abuse as a pattern for all Christians (1 Peter 2:18-25). On and on it goes, but somewhere Christians must make up their minds to suffer at least certain kinds of abuse from others. In a day when our individual rights seem to have the highest level of priority, longsuffering does not seem to be a very popular characteristic, and yet it is one of two terms Paul uses to sum up the conduct of love.
If longsuffering (or patience) is the passive side of love, kindness is the active side. Kindness is: “… a word suggesting goodness as well as solicitousness. They are interested in true goodness, actively interested in the welfare of those about them. Obviously these people are doers; they do not claim good intentions but then plead helplessness because of weakness or apathy.”
Kindness is the opposite of “having a chip on one’s shoulder.”177 A chip on one’s shoulder predisposes one to hostile action with only the slightest provocation. But kindness in one’s heart predisposes one to helpful action which only requires the hint of a need before it takes action. The “good Samaritan” did not need to be prodded into action nor did he seek to find a “way of escape” from his obligation as a neighbor. When he saw the man lying in the road in need, he willingly did all in his means to help (Luke 10:30-37).
David is one of the most striking examples of kindness. He loves Jonathan, one of his closest friends. After Jonathan dies, David wishes to demonstrate his love toward his deceased friend. Since Jonathan is dead, the only way to show kindness to Jonathan is through his offspring. David is delighted when he is informed that Jonathan has a living heir. His surviving son, Mephibosheth, is crippled in both feet. In one sense, this is even better for David’s purposes, because this man’s handicap presents a need David can meet. By David’s decree, Mephibosheth would now eat regularly at the king’s table (2 Samuel 9). David’s love manifests itself in kindness, a predisposition to do good to others.
Kindness is characteristic of God and should thus characterize the Christian as well:
35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men (Luke 6:35).
4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? (Romans 2:4)
7 In order that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:7).
32 And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you (Ephesians 4:32).
4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:4-7).
24 And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged (2 Timothy 2:24).
8 To sum up, let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit (1 Peter 3:8).
The Christian is commanded to be kind (Ephesians 4:32), and thus, failing to show kindness is disobedience. Kindness is also a fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). Paul reminds the Corinthians of the kindness which he manifested toward them even though they were unkind to him (see 1 Corinthians 4:6-21; 2 Corinthians 6:1-13). Kindness was surely lacking in the Corinthian church.
Kindness is not the spirit which produces strife and divisions in the church (chapters 1-3). It was not the response of many Corinthians toward Paul or the other true apostles (chapter 4). It surely was not kindness that caused the church to embrace a man living in sin (chapter 5). Neither is it kindness which compels two believers to square off with each other in a secular law court (chapter 6). Kindness does not cause one spouse to withhold sex from the other (chapter 7). Kindness did not prompt one believer to assert his or her alleged rights to the detriment of another (chapter 8). It was not kindness that motivated some Corinthians to indulge themselves before their brethren arrive (chapter 11). Nor did kindness make one believer look down upon the gifts of another (chapter 12) or cause certain individuals to assert themselves in the church meeting for their own personal gain (chapter 14). When the Corinthian saints are described, kindness is not the first word which pops into one’s mind!
According to Paul, love is demonstrated by two general characteristics: (1) longsuffering in the face of adverse treatment by others and (2) kindness toward those who abuse us. Longsuffering endures ill treatment without responding in a retaliatory fashion, and kindness seeks to do good to those who delight to cause us harm. That is what love is like. Now, in the second half of verse 4 through verse 6, Paul lets us know what love is not like. If these characteristics exist in Corinth—or in our church—we need to confess our lack of love.
My wife and I were driving in our Pinto station wagon one day when a flashy Corvette pulled up along side us as at a traffic light. Instinctively, I knew what he was about to do. He would gun his engine, catapult past me, and then cut into my lane in front of me. This was not a spiritual moment for me. I gave that Pinto everything it had, and more, and my performance was pathetic. As the Corvette shot by, cut in front of me, and sped on, my wife turned with a gentle rebuke, “You were racing him, weren’t you?” “Yes,” I admitted, “and the worst of it is that he never even knew it.”
I was jealous of the man who drove that car. There I was in my puny Pinto, and there he was in his sporty Vette. At the very least, I would have enjoyed watching him get pulled over for speeding, while I drove by smiling in my gasping Pinto, still not even up to the speed limit. That, my friend, is jealousy. Jealousy is a term which conveys “earnest desire.” It can be a good desire or a bad desire. In our text, the desire is bad. We might define jealousy here as “a sadness or sorrow on my part, due to the success of another.” Jealousy causes me pain when someone else feels pleasure. It is the kind of feeling a person feels when his or her competitor wins.
Perhaps it is the feeling a Miss America Pageant contestant has when, as one of the top finalists, she hears the girl standing next to her pronounced “Miss America.” Both girls, not to mention their parents, have sacrificed many years for this moment. Music lessons, diets, exercise, contests, clothes have all played a significant part in her life. She has made many sacrifices to win this coveted title, only to have the girl next to her win. All the other contestants manage the semblance of a smile on their face and kiss the winner, but it is hard to believe there is not the feeling of jealousy, a regret that the other person has succeeded, at their expense.
Asaph confesses his jealousy of his fellow Israelites in Psalm 73, and David warns of being jealous of the wicked in Psalm 37:1. Cain is jealous of Abel’s acceptance (Genesis 4:1-8), and Haman is jealous of Mordecai’s success (Esther 6). Saul is jealous of David and his success (1 Samuel 18:7), so much so that he seeks to kill him. The scribes and Pharisees are jealous of Jesus’ popularity and power over the people (Matthew 27:18). Peter is concerned about John’s fate in comparison with his own (John 21).
Jealousy is incompatible with love for a very good reason. Love seeks the benefit and well-being (edification) of another, so much so that it is willing to make a personal sacrifice to facilitate it. When others prosper at our expense, this is precisely what love intends. Jealousy is not consistent with love. Jealousy would rather prosper at the expense of the other, and so when another prospers, jealousy results where love is absent.
The gospel is the supreme example of love, in contrast to jealousy. God made the ultimate sacrifice in the death of His Son, to bring about our salvation. The Lord Jesus sacrificed Himself for our salvation, paying the ultimate price His own blood. If this kind of sacrifice was required to bring about our salvation, how can we regret God’s blessing on others? Ironically, because Christians are a part of the body of Christ, the prosperity of one member is not at the expense of the rest of the body, but for the benefit of the whole body (see 1 Corinthians 12:26).
Someone might protest, “But isn’t God jealous? Why can’t Christians be jealous if God is a jealous God?” There is a great difference between our jealousy and God’s. God is jealous over that which belongs to Him. We are jealous over that which belongs to someone else and not to us. God is jealous over what He has; we are jealous over what we do not have that someone else does have. There are times when we can exemplify godly jealousy (see 2 Corinthians 11:2), but this is not what Paul has in mind in our text.
Jealousy is quite prevalent in the church at Corinth. The Corinthians are jealous of the gifts and ministries of their fellow-believers. Some despise their own gifts and calling and wish to have the gifts and ministries of others. They seem to be jealous of those visible and verbal ministries. They even seem to be jealous of Paul’s time which he spends in ministry to others. In both 1 and 2 Corinthians, Paul has to speak to the issue of his absence which some seemed to resent: “If Paul really cared about us, he would spend more time with us.”
Sadly, Christians today manifest the same kinds of jealousy. We are jealous of the (apparent) success of others in business and in the church. Some can be jealous of those who are given a leadership position in the church. We can be jealous of those who appear to be (or at least claim to be) more spiritual than we are. I see a great deal of jealousy in the ministry. We may be jealous of the success of others in ministry, of their radio ministry, or the opportunity to speak in the Bible conference circuit. We may be jealous of the salary, the prestige, or the size of church others might have. All of this betrays a lack of love and the sacrificing, servant spirit which love engenders.
Jealousy may be among us in other ways. First, we may be guilty of provoking people to jealousy by distorting the gospel which we preach and share with others. Consider these words of the apostle Paul:
3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. 6 But godliness actually is a means of great gain, when accompanied by contentment (1 Timothy 6:3-6).
Paul specifically identifies envy as one of the evils in this text (verse 4). I believe Paul establishes a connection between envy and greed and a distorted gospel. People may come into (or at least along side) the faith because they are given false expectations of what their conversion will produce. Some approach the Christian faith as a means of “getting ahead” in life, seeing the gospel as a “means of great gain.” This is certainly possible when one listens to the “health-and-wealth gospeleers” who abound today, trying to lure people into the faith (or into their congregations or list of supporters) by promising them prosperity if they join their ranks.
When Jesus invited men to follow Him, He did not make sweeping promises of prosperity. Instead, He sought to dispel any misconceptions about His ministry by stressing discipleship and its cost, and by talking in terms of “taking up one’s cross.” Some in churches today who envy the success of others may have been tempted to do so by those who promised them prosperity rather than the forgiveness of sins and eternal life through Jesus Christ. Let us preach the gospel as Jesus did and never seek to lure people into the faith with unbiblical bait (see 1 Corinthians 4:1-2; 2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:1-2).
Second, we should view the “how to” books on Christian bookstore shelves in the light of jealousy. Why do those who are apparently successful write books so the rest of us can be successful too? Why are the “how to be successful” books so popular, outselling books of real substance and value? I fear that the answer is “jealousy.” As we buy or read these books, why do we wish to be “successful” like the author? Perhaps it is because we are hopeful of the same success.
Buying or reading “how to be successful like me” books can be wrong for several reasons. We must carefully consider whether we are doing so out of jealousy (of that person’s success) rather than out of a sincere desire to be faithful to our Lord and good stewards of our gifts and calling. It is also wrong if we are trying to be just like someone else, to duplicate their ministry rather than to fulfill the unique role God has given us. It may be wrong because we assume that another’s success is the result of their “method,” rather than the sovereign blessing of God upon His work. Let us beware of trying to imitate others to be as successful as they appear to be.
Arrogance and boasting are the reverse side of the coin. Jealousy is my sinful response to the prosperity of others. Arrogance and boasting are my sinful response to my own prosperity. Arrogance (or pride) takes credit for my “success,” as though it were due to my own merit or superior efforts. Boasting is letting other people know about my success in a way that tempts others to be jealous of that success.
Arrogance and boasting are not Christian virtues; humility is a virtue. Arrogance is a character trait of Satan. In Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, political potentates are rebuked for their arrogance in a way that suggests a close kinship to Satan himself. It is not possible to take pride in that which we are given, apart from merit or works. We cannot boast or take credit for the gift of salvation, and neither do we dare be proud of our spiritual gifts or ministries: “For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” (1 Corinthians 4:7). Grace pulls the rug out from under pride and boasting. Paul once took great pride in his performance as a Pharisee, but not after he was saved. As a Christian, Paul saw his contribution to the work of God in a new light:
1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision; 3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh, 4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless. 7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death (Philippians 3:1-10).
Our calling in this life is not to “enter into the glory” of our Lord, the glory yet to come; rather, we are to enter into His sufferings:
24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body (which is the church) in filling up that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. 25 Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, 26 that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations; but has now been manifested to His saints, 27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28 And we proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in Christ. 29 And for this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me (Colossians 1:24-29).
12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you; 13 but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing; so that also at the revelation of His glory, you may rejoice with exultation. 14 If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you (1 Peter 4:12-14).
The Corinthians were arrogant179 (1 Corinthians 4:6, 18, 19; 5:2; 8:1; 2 Corinthians 12:20) and boastful (1 Corinthians 1:29, 31; 3:21; 4:7; 5:6; 9:15-16; 15:31; 2 Corinthians 7:4, 14; 8:24; 9:2-3; 10:8, 13, 15-17; 11:10, 12, 16-18, 30; 12:1, 5-6, 9). But how does pride and boasting manifest itself in the church—our church—today? Let me suggest some areas where pride might be found.
Pride and boasting are found wherever the most coveted gifts and ministries are present. People who mean well may compliment those with outstanding gifts, and their words may become flattery; the thoughts of those so praised may produce arrogance. One area of pride is the family. Those who may have prayerfully and diligently (though not infallibly) sought to raise their children in the “discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4) may be broken-hearted because of the outcome, at least as judged at the moment. And those whose children appear to have turned out “right” may, without knowing it, be inclined to take credit for these results. In truth, good parenting is never a guarantee of good children. God is sovereign in the election and salvation of our children, and He is under no obligation to save them because of any work or merit on our part. When our children walk with the Lord, it is solely due to the grace of God and not to our good parenting. We, as parents, are obligated to be faithful in the rearing of our children, just as we are to be faithful in proclaiming the gospel. But faithful parenting, like faithful proclamation, does not assure us of the results.
The most pious forms of pride and boasting seemingly give God the credit for our works. I have heard preachers say: “I have learned how easy it is to evangelize (or whatever) through the power of the Holy Spirit.” Evangelism is not easy; it is impossible! We cannot convince or convert anyone; this is God’s work, for it is He who opens men’s hearts and gives them faith to believe (see Acts 13:48; 16:14). How subtle the sin when we praise God in a way that reflects well on us.
Many of us have discovered that we have nothing worth boasting about in ourselves. We know we are not the Billy Grahams or the Chuck Swindolls of Christendom. But we nevertheless find ways to boast in a second-hand manner. The Corinthians, for example, boasted in their leaders: “I am of Paul, Apollos, …” etc. We can do the same: “I go to _________’s church.” Or we can boast in our church or denomination: “I go to a New Testament church that teaches the Bible.” “Our church is serious about Bible study or Bible doctrine.” “Our church believes and teaches the full gospel.” Many of these statements may be desirable and even true, but our attitude can be one of pride, our speech boasting.
Advertising is yet another difficult area. I have yet to hear a radio commercial for a church that says anything negative about that church. Can you imagine hearing a local Christian station advertisement: “We are nothing really special. We are not all that successful. In fact, our membership has declined over the past ten years, our budget has slipped, we are giving less to missions, and we’re becoming liberal in our theology.” Our Christian radio station advertisements offer invitations to attend the church where “things are happening,” where “the Lord is at work,” where “the Spirit of God is blessing as never before … .” If we were to believe our own publicity, we would be proud, and if we actually advertise in this way, we are boasting. Jesus never found it necessary to send a promotional team ahead of Him, to have radio spots, full-page advertisements, or other propaganda devices. In fact, Jesus often commanded those for whom He did miracles to keep quiet about them and not to advertise Him. Would that the power of God were so evident in the church today that no advertising would be needed.
Parenting today seems to operate on just the opposite premise as that set down here by the apostle Paul. Many parents seem to think that in order to be loving parents they must tolerate bad behavior from their children rather than insist on good behavior. Children throw screaming fits, and parents helplessly shrug their shoulders, as though they were powerless to change things and as though they have forgotten what Proverbs says about disciplining a child. Wives and husbands seem to think that if their mate really loves them, they will put up with their bad behavior. Paul turns the tables. He informs us that love requires us not to behave badly.
The Corinthians are not behaving themselves very well. There are divisions and factions. There is immorality, even such that pagans are shocked (chapter 5). There are lawsuits (chapter 6), and some are actually participating in heathen idol worship celebrations (chapters 8-10). Some Corinthians are not waiting for the rest, before they begin to observe the Lord’s Supper (chapter 11). All in all, the Corinthians are behaving badly. This is not what love is all about. Love is about behaving in an appropriate manner. It is about conduct befitting the circumstance. The Book of Proverbs has a great deal to say on this subject of appropriate behavior.
I cannot go on without pointing out some ways Christians behave badly, all in the name of “spirituality.” Often “spiritual considerations” become our “lion in the road,” not only excusing bad behavior, but, in our minds, demanding it.181 One way is found in evangelism. Many of us use the gospel as an excuse to be pushy or overly aggressive with others. We confront, buttonhole, badger and bully others, all in the name of soul-winning. Who can fault the faithful “soul-winner”? But Jesus never intruded, never forced Himself upon an unwilling, uninterested victim. Soul-winning is no excuse for running over people rough shod so we can put another notch on our evangelistic gun: “Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person” (Colossians 4:6).
Being “Spirit-led” is another pretext for bizarre behavior. Not long ago I received a phone call from someone very early in the morning, who told me the phones were not supposed to be used at that hour and were normally turned off. Since this person had gone to the phone and found it working, they just “knew” this was the Holy Spirit telling them to call me. Much of the conduct of the Corinthians in the church meeting was not Spirit-led but merely compulsive self-assertion. Let us never blame God for our bad behavior, and if we are those who truly do love God and others, let us not act badly, whether excused by pious language or not. Love does not act unbecomingly. Love is that kind of conduct which is winsome, which draws people to us, and which prompts them to ask us about our faith (see 1 Peter 3:13-15).
Love is not self-seeking or self-serving. Morris explains this characteristic in this way:
… love ‘does not seek its own,’ which might be understood to mean ‘Love is not selfish’ (so the TEV has it), or ‘does not insist on its own way’ (the RSV). Though these two things are different, they are both born of self-centeredness—and it is this that love rules out. Love is concerned with the well being of the loved ones, not with its own welfare.182
I like what Fee has to say about this characteristic of love:
This is the fifth consecutive item that specifically echoes earlier parts of the letter, this time 10:24 and 33. … In some ways this is the fullest expression of what Christian love is all about. It does not seek its own; it does not believe that ‘finding oneself’ is the highest good; it is not enamored with self-gain, self-justification, or self-worth. To the contrary, it seeks the good of one’s neighbor—or enemy (cf. Phil. 2:4).183
The Corinthians are completely self-absorbed. They measure themselves by their gifts and ministries and do not think of themselves as a part of the body of Christ. They have marvelous “self-esteem,” but they disdain Paul and the other apostles (see chapter 4). They are so self-centered they are willing to demand the freedom to practice their alleged liberties, even if it destroys a weaker brother (chapter 8). They assert themselves in the church meeting with little or no regard for others and for edification.
The church of our day is hardly different. The word “self” is found often on the lips of professing Christians. We are told that our first priority is to love ourselves so that we can then love others. My friend, that is not only unbiblical, it is illogical and foolish. How can we be so gullible as to embrace this kind of error? Love is a matter of prioritizing. I am to love God above any and all others; He has first priority. I am to love my wife above all mankind, just as Christ has set His love on His church. I am to love my neighbor and even my enemy. That is, I am to put the interests of others above my own (see Philippians 2:1-8). If I love myself first, I cannot love my neighbor, because loving my neighbor means putting him first. I am to love my neighbor as myself; that is, I am to love my neighbor in the same ways I find it natural to love myself (see Ephesians 5:28-30).
Some Christians see self-love for what it is, but there are other forms of self-absorption, and some people are self-centered in other ways. Some put themselves first by continually leveling blame or guilt toward themselves, rather than accepting and appropriating God’s forgiving grace. Others wallow in the mired waters of self-pity, constantly meditating on the ways others have abused them. Any preoccupation with self is self-centered and contrary to the way of love. Let us not forget that ours is the way of the cross; the Christian life is about dying daily and the mortification of the flesh. Too many Christians try to coddle that which needs to be crucified.
This Greek term, rendered “provoked” in the NASB, is used in Hosea 8:5 and Zechariah 10:3 to depict provocation to anger. The term is by no means used only with a negative connotation. In Acts 17:16, it describes how Paul’s spirit is so provoked within him that he begins to preach to the idol-worshiping inhabitants of Athens. In Hebrews 10:24, the writer urges the saints to “stimulate one another to love and good deeds.” Here in 1 Corinthians, Paul uses the term to describe a short-fused person who is easily and quickly provoked to take action which is not edifying to either party. Love does not “blow its cork,” “lose its cool,” or “blow a fuse.” Love does not have a chip on its shoulder, looking for some tiny straw of offense so it can ventilate all its anger and hostility.
The Corinthians are obviously provoked in a number of areas. Some are provoked enough to take their brethren to court (chapter 6). Others seem provoked to divorce their mates (chapter 7). Still others are provoked to go on ahead with the Lord’s Supper without waiting for all to arrive (chapter 11). Often today, Christians are provoked by minor offenses and leave the church or take some form of retaliatory action. Some are provoked by their mates and act in a destructive way to their marriage. Parents may be provoked by their children or children by their parents (see Ephesians 6:4). There are all too many abusive parents or mates, whose explosive anger cannot be predicted or avoided but only dreaded.
Having warned of being very careful about becoming too quickly provoked, I must add that some saints really need to get upset about what they see. In the supermarket, and even in the church, I see children throwing temper tantrums while their parents look on helplessly as though they can do nothing. There is something they can do, and if they cannot remember what it is, I suggest they read the Book of Proverbs. We ought to be angered at sin, but in our anger, we should act appropriately and not explosively (see Ephesians 4:26). There is a time for righteous indignation, but let us be certain it is truly righteous wrath and not just human anger with a pious label:
19 This you know, my beloved brethren. But let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God (James 1:19-20).
13 Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. 15 This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. 18 And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace (James 3:13-18).
Paul tells us that love “does not take into account a wrong suffered.” I like what Morris writes on this point: “Paul’s next point is that love does not, so to speak, go around with a little black book making a note of every evil thing. ‘Love keeps no score of wrongs,’ says Paul (the NEB translation). We find it hard to forget it when people offend us, often storing up such grievances.’”185 Some saints seem to have photographic memories when it comes to offenses against them. One little irritation brings to mind an entire file of previous offenses, carefully annotated and documented. This kind of mental bookkeeping186 only serves to fuel resentment and certainly does not facilitate true reconciliation.
Finding out what a person enjoys—what gives them pleasure and causes them to rejoice—may be very revealing about the character of that person. All too often, I find myself enjoying something not really righteous. For example, an off-color joke may be funny or enjoyable—but not righteous. Paul says love looks to the truth of God’s Word (and secondarily to truth in general) to define that which it can enjoy, that over which it can rejoice.
Secular entertainment offers a good illustration; many movies set us up to take pleasure in that which is not righteous. Often the villain is characterized by incredible violence and cruelty. All through the movie, he does things designed to cause us to hate him with a passion. We don’t want him to be caught and sent to prison. We don’t want him to be convicted and given the death penalty. We want this person to die in the worst conceivable way. And so, in the end, the individual gets his reward, dying the most painful, violent death the film writer can conceive. And we find ourselves watching this man die with great pleasure, rejoicing in that which is far from righteous.
Christians reject a great many movies for explicit sex, violence, or filthy language, and rightly so. But these blatantly offensive or evil films tend to desensitize us toward films which are evil in a more subtle way. We breathe a sigh of relief when we find a movie with a “G” or perhaps a “PG” rating. Here is a movie we can take the family to see. But some of these movies may tempt us to rejoice in unrighteousness without even realizing it.
A few years ago, we saw a family film which started with a woman taking off her wedding ring and leaving it with a note to her husband. As the movie went on, the woman was portrayed as a caring woman who developed a special relationship with a handicapped child. She met a warm, sensitive doctor with whom she “fell in love.” The calloused, insensitive husband then appears, and as the drama concludes, the husband is sent packing as the woman, the doctor, and the young girl are brought together—a supposedly happy ending which makes the viewer feel good. You find yourself thinking the husband deserved divorce, and the woman deserved “happiness.” But there is a problem: there were no biblical grounds for divorce. From the standpoint of biblical revelation, the woman and the doctor were committing adultery. And so, in what seems like a “good, clean, family film,” we rejoice over that which is not righteous.
Gossip is yet another area where most all of us fail to live up to in the standard Paul sets for us. Many Christians actually take pleasure in gossip. Suppose someone in the church has gifts or a ministry we covet. If we think this person’s success is at our expense, then the failure of that person is something in which we could take pleasure. Someone comes along and shares a rumor: “Did you know so and so was supposed to have … ?” We are too quick to believe the worst. We want to take pleasure in that person’s moral assassination. And so we gladly listen to the rumor and even pass it along to others. If we wish to look especially pious in the process, we share it as a “concern” or a “prayer request.” All the while we take great pleasure in the process, which is unrighteous (see 2 Corinthians 12:20; compare Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Timothy 5:19-20).
8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things. 9 The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you (Philippians 4:8-9).
Here is the way to unity. Love dwells on what is right and then does what is right. This is the way to peace.
7 [Love] bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
In this one verse, Paul speaks of four different qualities of love, all linked to each other by the word rendered “all things.” This rendering, “all things,” seems to fall short of communicating what Paul is saying. Love does not, for example, believe everything.188 It is not “love” for a mother to believe her child when he denies getting into her freshly made pie, when the meringue has formed a mustache around his mouth. Paul has just written that love “does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth” (verse 6). How can he now inform us that “love” accepts everything as truth, believing whatever one is told? For these reasons, some translations have chosen to render Paul’s words differently:
7 “There is nothing love cannot face; there is no limit to its faith, its hope, and its endurance” (The New English Bible).
7 “Love knows no limit to its endurance, no end to its trust, no fading of its hope; it can outlast anything” (Phillips).
7 “It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (New International Version).
7 “It covers up everything, has unquenchable faith, hopes under all circumstances, endures without limit” (Berkeley Version).
Love is always characterized by certain qualities, without exception. Throughout history, man has sought to excuse disobedience or sin by convincing himself that his situation is an exception. Jesus was asked if a man could divorce his wife for any reason at all (Matthew 19:3). His response was a refusal to dwell on the exceptions and to focus on the rule. He knew that for the Pharisees, the exception had become the rule. This is why Paul has already excluded any “loopholes” in the Bible, by insisting that whenever we succumb to temptation, it is not because we had to (“There was nothing else I could do … after all, I’m only human …”), but because we failed to act upon God’s divinely provided “way of escape”:
13 No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it (1 Corinthians 10:13).
And so Paul informs his readers that there are four things love never ceases to possess and to practice, four things which can always be expected from genuine love.
(1) Love always bears up under adversity (“bears all things”).
Love “patiently accepts all things” (NCV)
Love “always supports” (TNT)
Love “never gives up” (GNB)
… here the apostle seems to be saying something about the endurance of love, its ability to go on no matter what the opposition.189
Edwards points out that the Greek term employed by Paul has two senses:
The term used here by Paul “… means originally ‘cover over,’” … then, “contain as a vessel.” From this latter meaning two metaphorical uses of the word are derived, either of which may be here adopted: (1) that love hides or is silent about the faults of others; (2) that love bears without resentment injuries inflicted by others.190
I do not believe we are forced to one choice or the other. It is completely within the realm of possibility that Paul meant us to understand this word in terms of its broader range of meaning. If this is so, we can see two major dimensions to love’s consistent capacity to “hold up” rather than “fold up.” First, love bears up silently; that is, love covers sin with a cloak of silence. Sin is shameful, and love does not wish the sinner to be shamed more than necessary. Noah’s son, Ham, broadcast his father’s shame to his brothers when Noah was drunk and naked in his tent. His brothers “covered” Noah’s nakedness in a way that prevented them from viewing his shame (Genesis 9:20-23). Peter reminds us that Jesus suffered silently, not responding verbally to the abuses hurled upon Him, and that this pattern of silent suffering is to be followed by all the saints (1 Peter 2:18–3:15; 4:8).
Matthew’s Gospel sheds further light on this matter of our silence when Jesus teaches His disciples about church discipline (Matthew 18:15-20). We are to go privately to a brother who has sinned against us, and if he repents as a result of our rebuke, the matter is settled, never to be made public. If, however, this wayward brother resists and refuses to repent, then the matter once dealt with in the strictest privacy must now be dealt with in a way that becomes more and more public. After all efforts to turn the wayward brother from sin have been rejected, the whole church must be notified of his sin, and he must be publicly ex-communicated. Love always seeks to keep the sin of a wayward brother as private as possible, but this does not mean we cannot and should not be confronted publicly, if all private efforts have failed.
(2) Love always bears up, no matter how great the persecution, suffering, or adversity. Job’s wife “tempted” him to sin by urging him to “curse God and die,” thus bringing his suffering to a conclusion. Love never caves in or collapses under duress. Love always holds up. Should we attempt to deceive ourselves by thinking otherwise, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 10:13 jolt us back to reality.
(3) Love always has faith (“believes all things”). Love never forsakes faith. The word translated “believes” in this verse is a verb, and the noun which shares the same root is very often translated “faith” in the New Testament. Of all the many times Paul employs the verb found here in our text, virtually every time it is used in a context which indicates the one who “believes” is the one who “has faith.” It is often used of those who have come to faith, those who have become “believers” (see 1 Corinthians 1:21; 3:5; 14:22). Only once in Paul’s epistles does this verb refer to a belief in something other than the truth of the gospel, and that is in chapter 11:18, “For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it” (1 Corinthians 11:18, emphasis mine).
Love always believes; it always has faith, even when life seems to be crumbling about us. Adversity is never an occasion for unbelief. Paul, imprisoned and awaiting a verdict from Caesar, was filled with faith, trusting that his death would either bring him into the presence of God or that his life would be used to draw others nearer to God (Philippians 1). Suffering is not an excuse for the failure of faith; rather, it is an occasion where love and faith may be demonstrated.
I know that faith, hope, and love are often mentioned together or are found in very close proximity to each other. But in contemplating Paul’s words here, I have come to appreciate the very close association that exists between love and faith. When Jesus summoned the four fishermen, Peter and Andrew, James and John, why did these men leave their nets, their boats, and even their father to follow Jesus? Was it because of their faith? Partly, perhaps. But I think we would also have to say they were drawn to Jesus out of love—His love for them and theirs for Him. These disciples did not understand a great deal about Jesus and His gospel until after His death, burial and resurrection. What kept them following Him before these things were clear in their minds? Faith, in part, but also love.
Love always has faith. Our love for God and our trust in His Word should give us unlimited faith in Him. Those men and women whom we love we must also trust, but within limits. We dare not believe everything we are told. In Deuteronomy 13, Moses warns the Israelites concerning those who would lead them astray. Included among those who might mislead us are those we call our “loved ones” (see 13:6-10). Love is never a license to uncritically accept all we are told. The love we find in the Bible is based on the truth:
9 And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, 10 so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ (Philippians 1:9-10).
5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith (1 Timothy 1:5).
It may be difficult to imagine a husband loving his wife and not trusting her. Our faith, however, must not be in our fellow man, but in God. No matter how bad things may be, no matter how much grief others may dish out to us, we should have unlimited faith in God. We should have faith in His promises to sustain us, to keep us from falling, and to perfect His work in us. We should have faith that God is using our trials and tribulations to strengthen our faith (Romans 5:1-11; James 1:1-18) and to bring about our good and His glory (Romans 8:28). Paul found great consolation in his sufferings for Christ’s sake because it enhanced his sense of identity with Him and his love for Him (see Philippians 3:8-11; Colossians 1:24-29).
All too often one sees a kind of cynicism in Christians, which is hardly compatible with faith. Of course, we believe in the depravity of man. We know this world is passing away and that the unbelieving world’s efforts to bring about the improvement of man’s moral and spiritual nature are doomed. We know a genuine and permanent peace will never be negotiated or brought about on this earth, apart from the return of our Lord and the establishment of His kingdom. Nevertheless, we can have faith that God will bring about His purposes for this earth and that He can save those who are seemingly hopelessly lost in their sins (such as Saul of Tarsus). We can be optimistic about what God will accomplish through us in this world. Love, true love, always manifests faith.
(4) Love always has hope. Faith is believing in what is ultimately real and true but not immediately seen (see Hebrews 11:1). Faith believes God is going to give us that which our eyes do not and cannot see but which God has promised to us. Hope is our longing and desire for those things which are future, which by faith we believe we shall receive.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one also hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it (Romans 8:22-25).
I may receive a telephone call informing me that my mother and father are flying down to visit us in a week. Faith believes they are coming. Hope eagerly anticipates their arrival as that which I strongly desire.
The concept of hope is frequently found in the writings of the apostle Paul.191 Hope enables the Christian to face even the most adverse circumstances, hoping for the promised blessings which will follow. “Hopeth all things is the forward look. The thought is not that of an unreasoning optimism, which fails to take account of reality. It is rather a refusal to take failure as final. Following on from believeth all things it is the confidence which looks to ultimate triumph by the grace of God.”192
We can fairly readily grasp the relationship between faith and hope, but what is the relationship between hope and love? It seems to me that we hope for what we really love. When I was a boy, so many years ago, I began to drive when I was 12. I did not drive on the highway. Our property was large enough that I could do a lot of driving on our own roads without breaking the law. I loved to drive. I could not wait until I was 16 when I could legally drive on the highway. I had hope I could and would someday be able to drive. I longed for what I loved.
I think we see this same kind of hope in the life of Jacob. When Jacob fled from home (really from his brother Esau), he went to live among his relatives in Padan Aram. Finding his uncle Laban, Jacob stayed with him, falling in love with his younger daughter, Rachel. Jacob worked for seven years to earn the dowry for Rachel, only to discover that Laban had given him Leah instead. It took another seven years of labor before Jacob had paid the dowry for Rachel. And yet we read these words concerning Jacob’s attitude toward the delay in obtaining Rachel for a wife: “So Jacob served seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her” (Genesis 29:20). Jacob’s love for Rachel gave him both hope and endurance.
Of course there is a sense in which our love for others should give us hope for them. We love the children God has given us, and as they grow up, we have hope that God will save them and that they will grow up to be true disciples of Jesus Christ. Our hope, however, is not in them so much as it is hope for them. We have hope for our children because ultimately our faith and hope are in God. We have hope that God will accomplish certain things in them.
Many of the Corinthian Christians were Paul’s spiritual children (1 Corinthians 4:14-15). In spite of all the abuse he had taken from these, his children, Paul had great hope for them:
4 I thank my God always concerning you, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus, 5 that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge, 6 even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you, 7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, 8 who shall also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord (1 Corinthians 1:4-9).
7 And our hope for you is firmly grounded, knowing that as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comfort (2 Corinthians 1:7; see also 2 Corinthians 9:11-15; 13:6-14).
If there is anything this world lacks, it is hope. Paul put it this way:
12 Remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world (Ephesians 2:12).
Man’s hope may be wrongly placed (see 1 Timothy 6:17), but the only true source of hope is God, and particularly the Lord Jesus Christ (see Psalm 33:17; 1 Peter 1:21; Psalm 31:24; 38:15; 42:5, 11; 2 Corinthians 1:10; 1 Timothy 1:1). Christians should be characterized by hope in the midst of adversity, and it may well be this hope which opens the door for sharing our faith with others: “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (1 Peter 3:15). True love is characterized by a consistent hope. Love always hopes.
(5) Love always perseveres (“endures all things”). Some have been troubled that the first description of love (“bears all things”) is too similar in meaning to Paul’s last description (“endures all things”). I believe these two things are related, just as “faith” and “hope” are related. I see the “bearing” of things related to the intensity of the trial or offense. “It was more than I could handle,” someone says by way of excuse. “How much am I supposed to put up with?” another asks. Perseverance or endurance do not focus so much on the intensity of the trouble as the duration of it.
Love, Paul tells us, does not run out of time. Love lasts. This point will be taken up in the following verses. No matter how difficult the trial, love bears up under it; no matter how long the trial, love perseveres. This was not the case when the Corinthians divorced one another (chapter 7) or when one believer took another to court (chapter 6). There is a world of difference between a Christian asking the question, “How long?” and the Christian throwing in the towel with the excuse, “Too long!”
This, by the way, is what marriage vows are all about. When a man and a woman love each other and enter into marriage by the taking of vows, they promise to love each other, no matter what. And when they repeat their vows to each other, they commit themselves to loving their mate, “until death do us part.” Love does not put time limits on its own existence, even when things get rough.
8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul sets out to show the superiority of character to charisma; specifically, he wants us to grasp the superiority of Christian love to our possession of the gifts of the Spirit. In verses 1-3, Paul has stated that even the most highly prized gifts, exercised to the ultimate level of success, but without love, are of little value to the one who is gifted or to the one who is the recipient of his ministry. In verses 4-7, Paul describes love in a way which defines it in very practical terms and also shows the Corinthians’ lack of love. Now in verses 8-13, Paul adds his final, finishing touches on this chapter. He reasons that love is superior to all the spiritual gifts because love outlasts them. Love never fails; spiritual gifts do fail.
The statement, “love never fails,” nicely links Paul’s words in verse 7 with those which follow. Love “never fails” in that it always bears up, it always has faith, it always hopes, it always endures (verse 7). Furthermore, love “never fails” in the sense that it is eternal. That is what Paul is saying in verses 8-13.
The word “fail” is the translation of a word which literally means to fall. This same word is used to describe the fatal “fall” of the young man from the third story window while Paul was preaching (Acts 20:9). Ananias and Saphira both “fell” dead when confronted by Peter (Acts 5:5, 10). Paul employed this term when he spoke of the 23,000 who “fell” dead in the wilderness due to their immorality (1 Corinthians 10:8; cf. Exodus 32:28). In other words, love does not die; it does not come to an end. I am reminded of the battery commercial that frequently runs on television. Love is like that battery that keeps on going and going and going …
In contrast to love, which does not come to an end, Paul declares that spiritual gifts do come to an end; they fail. He writes of the demise of the three spiritual gifts considered most valuable by the Corinthians. Gifts of prophecy will be done away with; tongues will cease; knowledge will be done away (verse 8). Paul gives the reason for the “passing away” or the “failure” of the spiritual gifts in verses 9 and 10. Knowledge and prophecy in this age are partial and incomplete. But when “the perfect” comes, this will render the “imperfect”193 obsolete.
The spare tire found in the trunk of many new cars may not be as big or as substantial as a full-sized tire, but when a flat occurs, that tire is more than adequate to get us back on the road for a limited period of time. That “imperfect” spare is taken off and put in the trunk as soon as a “perfect” tire is available.
Paul says that while love remains and does not fail, all the spiritual gifts (even the greatest ones) will fail. Some emphasize that certain so-called “temporary” gifts fail, yet they seem to gloss over that Paul is contrasting the permanence of love with the temporary nature of all the gifts—not just some of them. Often, the gift of tongues is singled out because of a subtle distinction in the Greek text. One Greek word is employed to refer to the passing of prophecy and knowledge, translated in the NASB by the expression “done away.” The cessation of tongues is depicted by a different term, rendered “cease” in the NASB. While the verb employed for the passing of prophecy and knowledge is passive in voice, the term used in reference to tongues is middle in voice. This subtlety is interpreted by some to mean that tongues will cease after the days of the apostles before the cessation of prophecy and knowledge. A. T. Robertson, the great Greek scholar of the past, writes of tongues, “They shall make themselves cease or automatically cease of themselves.”194
All Christians should be knowledgeable and honest enough to say that the so-called “cessationist” position (certain gifts—especially tongues—came to an end at the close of the apostolic age) is based upon inferences rather than upon clear statements. It is one thing for the Bible to say tongues will cease; it is quite another to say tongues have ceased. It is my conviction that doctrine based upon clear, uncontradicted statements is to be held more dogmatically than doctrine based upon inference.195 I too hold certain beliefs based upon inference, but I desire to acknowledge them as inferential. In 1 Corinthians 14:39, Paul pointedly prohibits us from forbidding others to speak in tongues. This is not an inference but a command. We dare not casually set aside biblical commands based upon inferential arguments.
My alma matter, Dallas Theological Seminary, teaches that 1 Corinthians 13:8 is proof that tongues were a temporary spiritual gift to be experienced only in the early days of the New Testament church but not today. When I applied to the Seminary, now nearly 30 years ago, a doctrinal statement was included along with the application form. Among other things, it declared that certain spiritual gifts like tongues and healing were temporary and were not to be experienced today. I signed that statement, with a small asterisk and a statement that, while I was not a charismatic Christian, I did not see how 1 Corinthians 13:8 proved the cessation of tongues. The Seminary graciously allowed me to attend in spite of my doubts concerning their cessationist position. I assumed further study would convince me that the Seminary’s position was iron-clad. This has not been the case.
Having indicated I do not embrace the cessationist position, I should further say I also believe God is not obliged to give the gift of tongues today either. It should be pointed out that there are certain vital and necessary functions in the church, for which there are accompanying general commands. All are commanded to give, to help, and to encourage. All may not be gifted in these areas, but it seems necessary that there be some who are thus gifted. All are not commanded to prophesy or to speak in tongues, and I believe there may be reasons for inferring that some gifts may have ceased. I must further state in clear terms that while I must grant the possibility of tongues, I do not grant the necessity of tongues, as is the practice of some Christians. Not all that is called tongues is biblical tongues, and much of what is practiced as tongues (whether genuine tongues or false) is not practiced as the Scriptures require.196 In spite of this, a blanket rejection of the possibility of tongues cannot be biblically sustained in my opinion.
In verse 8, Paul shows love to be superior to all spiritual gifts in terms of permanence. Value can be measured in terms of how long something lasts. Love lasts forever; spiritual gifts do not. Now, in verses 9 and 10, Paul goes on to explain why spiritual gifts must be temporary. Spiritual gifts are not permanent because they are not perfect. Spiritual gifts are partial. We know in part, and we prophesy in part. Prophecy is never wrong or inaccurate; it is simply incomplete. Peter writes of the prophets of old, who spoke of the sufferings and glories of the Messiah who was yet to come and whose own writings puzzled them because they were incomplete (1 Peter 1:10-12). Paul was privileged to fill in some of the gaps of the Old Testament Scriptures by unveiling certain mysteries (see Ephesians 3:1-13). Nevertheless, his revelations were partial. He did not reveal all that we would like to know. Because of this, his Epistles raised unanswered questions, and false teachers were quickly on hand to distort his writings (see 2 Peter 3:14-16).
The prophets of old were used of God to reveal all that God wanted us to know—but not all there is to know nor all that we would like to know. When “the perfect” comes, the imperfect will no longer be necessary. The imperfect will be done away with. I do not think that one can support the conclusion that “the perfect” which will come (13:10) is the completed canon of Scripture. The text seems to require that we must think of that which is perfect as the kingdom of God for which we eagerly wait. Only then will we know fully, just as we are now fully known (see verse 12).197
I am writing this message on a computer, which, although not perfect, is vastly superior to the IBM Selectric typewriter on which I first typed my manuscripts. We sold that typewriter, so helpful in its day, at our last garage sale, quickly casting it aside for the powerful computer and laser printer now available. Just so, the prophetic word, so crucial in the days of our ignorance and spiritual blindness (see chapter 2), will be obsolete and unnecessary when our Lord comes to establish His kingdom, for then we shall see all things as they are.
In verses 11 and 12, by the use of an analogy, Paul puts spiritual gifts into perspective and indicates how we should view them. Paul tells the Corinthian Christians, and us, that we should view spiritual gifts as we do the toys of our childhood. Recently my wife Jeannette and I went to a friend’s home to celebrate one of their children’s fifth birthday. This lovely little girl joyfully opened a gift of several packages of “stickers,” those little stick-on things children love to attach to things. She also received some dolls and a play cash register. A few years from now, those gifts will hold little attraction in light of those adult “toys” which will come with future birthdays. Childish toys are great when we are children, but they should hold little attraction for adults.
Paul’s illustration teaches an important lesson to the Corinthians and also serves as a gentle rebuke for their pride and arrogance. Do they think they are wise? Of course, they do (see 4:6-21)! But their wisdom and understanding are partial. In the light of eternity, such knowledge will be set aside as imperfect. Do the Corinthians believe they see things clearly and that their perception of matters is accurate? Then let them know their knowledge is sketchy, especially compared with the perfect knowledge which is to be ours in eternity.
In verse 12, Paul likens our perception of truth and reality to looking into a mirror which only imperfectly reflects reality. This analogy loses some of its punch for us since mirrors today are so much better than those of Paul’s day. The mirror of Paul’s day was probably like the “mirrors” at a highway rest stop. Because glass mirrors are frequently smashed by vandals, many states use metal “mirrors” in their restrooms. One look into one of those mirrors will help us appreciate what Paul is saying, because it is impossible to see as clearly as you would like. The Corinthians did not see as clearly as they thought, either. At best, their knowledge was partial. They should not cling to their spiritual gifts with pride and think too highly of themselves. Rather, they should possess and appreciate all the gifts as temporary provisions of God, seeing them as partial and inferior to what eternity holds for us.
Paul goes one step further in verse 13, declaring that love is not only better than any or all of the spiritual gifts, but that it is even greater than faith and hope. Spiritual gifts fail, while love lasts. Faith, hope, and love all “abide” (verse 13). If love is greater than spiritual gifts which do not last, love is greater than faith and hope, which “abides” and “endures.” I am not certain just how Paul can speak of faith and hope as abiding, when they seem to be unnecessary in heaven. Faith, as written in the Epistle to the Hebrews, is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (11:1). Hope too seems to be temporal: “For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one also hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it” (Romans 8:24-25).
Since Paul does not trouble himself to explain, I suspect we should not agonize over this matter either. Certainly faith is necessary in reference to future things, things not presently seen. But does faith cease to exist when these things are seen? Will men cease to trust (to have faith) in God once in heaven? Will men cease to have hope in heaven? In the first year of eternity (speaking in terms of time), will we have no joyful anticipation for the years to come? Faith and hope, like love, may be appropriate for both time and eternity. Paul’s point here is to claim the superiority of love even over things as vital as faith and hope. He wants everyone to clearly understand that love is not something to look down upon as inferior to spiritual gifts and wisdom; rather, it is something of the greatest value.
Something of such great value must not only be esteemed, it should be sought. In His teaching, Jesus tells the parable of the “pearl of great price” (Matthew 13:45-46). When the merchant finds the one pearl of great value, he gladly sells all he has to purchase it. Paul tells us that love is that “pearl of great price.” It is the thing of great value. The Corinthians, knowingly or not, sacrificed love in their pursuit of certain spiritual gifts (see chapter 8). Paul shows this to be contrary to eternal values, since love is the greatest. One does not wisely sacrifice that of the greatest value for something of lesser value.
The first verse of chapter 14 is Paul’s “bottom line,” the application he wants his readers to accept and accomplish. In saying love is the greatest, Paul is not belittling spiritual gifts. He merely seeks to put spiritual gifts into perspective. Spiritual gifts are a gracious provision of God, but they are never to be pursued or practiced at the expense of love. Love is to be pursued as the “pearl of great price,” but the spiritual gifts are not to be neglected. Love is the attitude of heart which adds value to the gifts.
I must confess I have difficulties with a song quite popular among Christian artists and Christians at large. It is the song about the “old violin” which is being auctioned off. This “old violin” is about to be sold for a pittance when an old master takes it up and makes it play beautiful music. It is then sold for a great sum of money. Bad violins make bad music. Even good musicians don’t make bad violins into good violins merely by playing them. To be accurate, the violin would have to be a “good violin” to demand a high price. In the hands of a novice, a good violin will sound horrible (I was once in high school band; I know!). In the hands of a gifted artist, a good violin will make beautiful music.
Spiritual gifts are like the violin. They are not bad; they are good. When employed by immature, carnal, self-seeking Christians, however, spiritual gifts produce an unpleasant sound (noisy and clanging?). When spiritual gifts are employed by spiritual Christians, those who walk in love, the gifts they exercise are beautiful; they are edifying to others. That is what Paul is trying to say. Love is one ingredient that can never be absent without being noticed. The Corinthians may profess to pursue and practice love, but they are surely lacking in love. And so this church, so marvelously gifted by God (see 1:7), falls desperately short of the mark. Paul’s words in chapter 13 are intended to challenge us to give love its proper place and to pursue it in practice.
A great deal could and should be said about love, but Paul’s teaching on love can be summarized by two main statements: (1) Love is to be our priority; and, (2) Love is to be our pursuit. Let us consider the implications of these two important principles as we conclude our study of 1 Corinthians 13.
Paul interrupted his teaching on the practice of spiritual gifts in chapters 12 and 14 to underscore the priority of love over spiritual gifts. One can hardly miss this truth in Paul’s teaching, here and elsewhere. Spiritual gifts have little value apart from love. Spiritual gifts do not abide, while love does. Love is even superior to faith and hope, which do abide.
This truth is not unique to Paul. The teaching of the entire Old Testament and of our Lord Jesus Christ can be summed up by one word—“love.”
34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they gathered themselves together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:34-40).
8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:8-10).
In the last words of our Lord to His disciples, recorded in John 13-17, Jesus spoke repeatedly of the importance of love. Love was to distinguish His disciples from others:
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:34-35).
12 This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends (John 15:12-13).
17 This I command you, that you love one another (John 15:17).
Love was the goal of Paul’s instruction:
5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith (1 Timothy 1:5).
Love is a dominant theme in Peter’s epistles and in John’s. Peter refers to love as the highest level of Christian growth, and Paul speaks of it as the basis for edification.
22 Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, 23 for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God (1 Peter 1:22-23).
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another (1 John 4:7-11).
5 Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge; 6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness; 7 and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love (2 Peter 1:5-7).
1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, entreat you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing forbearance to one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace … 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love (Ephesians 4:1-3, 14-16).
Few would even attempt to debate that love is to be a high priority for the Christian. But if love is so important, it is also so quickly and easily lost. Certainly love was lacking in the church at Corinth. The church at Ephesus all too quickly lost its first love and did not even seem to know it:
1 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: The One who holds the seven stars in His right hand, the One who walks among the seven golden lamp stands, says this: 2 ‘I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot endure evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false; 3 and you have perseverance and have endured for My name’s sake, and have not grown weary. 4 But I have this against you, that you have left your first love. 5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you, and will remove your lamp stand out of its place—unless you repent’” (Revelation 2:1-5).
Love is not automatic. It is quickly lost, and it comes about only when we make it our priority and our pursuit. How does one pursue love? Let me summarize briefly that about which God’s Word has so much to say. In short, we should pursue love as Paul indicates in 1 Corinthians (and, of course, elsewhere). We begin by reading God’s Word and meditating upon it. This epistle was written not only to the saints at Corinth but to all the saints, including us (see 1:1-2). The first thing we gain from God’s Word is an accurate definition of love. The word “love” does not mean to the world what the Bible says it is to mean to us. The Bible is the only source of truth which defines what love is and does.
As the Word of God speaks to us of love, we should recognize our lack of love, and repent of it. Surely as Paul’s description of love’s conduct begins to unfold in verses 4-7 of chapter 13, it became increasingly clear that the Corinthians lack love. As we meditate on these verses and many like them in God’s Word, our lack of love must be recognized and repented of as the serious sin it is. This is what our Lord called for in His letter to the Ephesian saints in Revelation 2. It is what He requires of us as well.
Having recognized our lack of love and repented of this deficiency, we must now look to God alone as the source of love. Love does not originate within us. We love as a result of God’s love for us. We are to keep ourselves in this love.
19 We love, because He first loved us (1 John 4:19).
20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life (Jude 1:20-21).
If we are to keep ourselves in the love of Christ, we must never stray from the cross of Christ, for there on the cross of Calvary was God’s love for us outpoured:
3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. 6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:3-8).
The love we have received from God came in the form of a cross—sacrificial love. That is the kind of love we are to manifest toward others:
13 Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13).
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; 26 that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless (Ephesians 5:25-27).
The way we demonstrate love toward God and toward others is by obeying His commandments. This is why the Old Testament law can be summed up in two commandments, both of which are the expressions of love. Legalism is man’s attempt to keep God’s law without love. Love is that state of heart which seeks to please God by keeping His commands. In chapter 14, verse 1, Paul instructs his readers to pursue love, and the rest of the chapter tells us how that is to be done. We pursue love by exercising our gifts in a self-sacrificial way that endeavors to edify others. If, as we shall see in our study of chapter 14, most of the church today ignores the instructions Paul lays down here, we may well conclude the problem begins with a lack of love, toward God and toward others. Love is not so much a warm and fuzzy feeling as the grateful disposition to please God and others at our expense, by keeping His commandments as initially laid down in the Old Testament and clarified in the New.
I have been speaking throughout these lessons on chapter 13 primarily to Christians because this epistle was written primarily to Christians. Let me now say a word to those who have never yet acknowledged their sin and trusted in the sacrificial death of Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. You cannot express the love of God until you have first experienced it. Love, Christian love, is impossible for those who have not yet accepted the love of God in the person and work of Jesus Christ. I urge you to consider the awesome reality of God’s love, expressed toward you in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ. Even while we were sinners, Christ died for us, to bear the penalty for our sins, and to give us His righteousness, as we place our trust in Him by faith. May you trust in Him this very hour and thus come to experience His love.
167 D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), pp. 11-12.
169 Paige Patterson, “The Meaning of Authority in the Local Church,” chapter 14 in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton, Crossway Books, 1991), p. 257.
170 After what I have said previously, I feel guilty pointing out this is a third condition clause in the Greek text, which means that the outcome is not assumed and that a hypothetical statement is being made.
171 Hyperbole is a form of literary exaggeration, used to emphasize a point, but in such a way that the reader recognizes it as such.
172 I was pondering the expression “I have become …” when I came across this statement by Carson: ‘I have become only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal’—as if my action of speaking in tongues without love has left a permanent effect on me that has diminished my value and transformed me into something I should not be.” Carson, p. 59.
173 I never really thought about this before, but it would seem necessary for angels to speak in some language. Since earthly languages were confused at Babel (see Genesis 11:1-9), we would not expect angels to be speaking in any human language. There must actually be an angel language by which they communicate one with the other. This is not to say that angels are not able to speak human languages, for they often communicated with men in the Bible. Even if it were not a human language, an angelic language would be a language, and not the mindless repetition of mere syllables.
174 “Longsuffering,” Vines’ Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words.
175 Leon Morris, Testaments of Love: A Study of Love in the Bible (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981), p. 244.
176 Vines’ Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 13:4, Matthew Henry adds, “It is benign, bountiful; it is courteous and obliging. The law of kindness is in her lips; her heart is large, and her hand open. She is ready to show favours and to do good. She seeks to be useful; and not only seizes on opportunities of doing good, but searches for them.”
177 Perhaps malice is the biblical term for the opposite of kindness; see Ephesians 4:31-32.
178 “The verb zhlow is a ‘middle term,’ referring to a human attitude that can either be base or noble. When noble, it ‘earnestly desires’ something nobler for oneself; when base, it ‘jealously longs’ for the betterment of oneself to the detriment of another.” Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1987), p. 637, fn. 9.
“Envy may be defined to be a spirit of dissatisfaction with, and opposition to, the prosperity and happiness of others as compared with our own. The thing that the envious person is opposed to, and dislikes, is, the comparative superiority of the state of honour, or prosperity or happiness, that another may enjoy, over that which he possesses.” Jonathan Edwards, Charity and Its Fruits (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, [reprint] 1978), p. 112.
I am using jealousy and envy in a way that is nearly synonymous. The Greek term Paul employed in 1 Corinthians 13:4 is translated by both “envy” and “jealousy.” Vine’s Dictionary does insist on a distinction: “The distinction lies in this, that envy desires to deprive another of what he has, jealousy desires to have the same or the same sort of thing for itself.”
179 “He uses this verb half a dozen times in this epistle and only once elsewhere (no other writer in the New Testament uses it at all). Evidently he thought it was especially applicable to the Corinthians and their situation, but because pride comes easily to most of us, the warning has broader application. We must remember that agape gives where pride asserts itself. But love casts out the spirit of pride.” Morris, p. 245.
180 “The basic idea appears to be that love rejects what is not according to proper form (schema; the verb is aschemoneo). This leads to the translation of the Authorized Version: ‘Love doth not behave itself unseemly.’ More recent translations prefer something like ‘Love is not rude’ (the RSV, NEB, and the NIV) or ‘ill-mannered’ (the TEV). Because the word has a wide range of meanings, we should not try to tie it down too closely or rigidly. Paul is simply saying that there are many ways of behaving badly, and that love avoids them all.” Morris, p. 246.
“… the verb (aschemonein) is that rendered ‘not behaving properly’ in 7:36. P. 46 reads the antonym euschemonein; this can only mean ‘love does not behave in an affected manner’ (assuming a fine outward appearance which does not express the inward reality).” F. F. Bruce, I and II Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1971), p. 126.
181 See Proverbs 26:13. There, the sluggard justifies his not going to work by saying, “There is a lion in the road! A lion is in the open square.” To us, this seems foolish, almost amusing. But if you lived where lions do, it would be a compelling reason not to go outside. We all have our “lions in the road,” our compelling reasons for doing (or not doing) what we really want (or don’t want) to do.
184 “Love is also even-tempered. We have already seen that it is ‘long-tempered’ (v. 4), and here is a related characteristic—that it is not easily provoked. Phillips translates this as ‘It is not touchy,’ which gives us a good idea of what Paul means. It is easy to be so concerned with getting our own way that we become irritated with people, well-meaning and otherwise, who frustrate our best intentions.” Morris, p. 247.
185 Morris, p. 247. Morris then cites Smedes: “‘… Resentments keeps enemy lists, files on every person who has injured us’ (Love Within Limits, p. 69).” Morris, p. 247, fn. 53. Bruce adds , “… [Love is not] resentful: lit. ‘does not reckon up evil’ with a view to paying the offender back in his own coin (the Gk phrase is a quotation of Zechariah 8:17a, LXX, where the idea seems to be rather that of plotting evil); cf. Rom. 12:17ff.” Bruce, p. 127.
186 “The verb is logizomai, which means ‘to calculate.’ William Barclay says that the word ‘is an accountant’s word. It is the word that is used for entering up an item in a ledger so that it will not be forgotten.’” He points out that ‘so many people nurse their wrath to keep it warm; they brood over their wrongs until it is impossible to forget them. Christian love has learned the great lesson of forgetting’ (The Letters to the Corinthians, p. 136).” Morris, p. 248, fn. 54.
187 “The second occurrence of rejoices is a more intensive form (Gk synchairein) than the previous one (chairein).” Bruce, p. 127.
188 “But love is always ready to believe the best about people. It assumes, if there is any room for the assumption at all, that people are not as bad as they are said to be. … This does not mean that love is gullible, … . Love is clear-sighted, able to recognize wrong as easily as the shrewdest evaluator of human nature. What Paul is saying is that love will always give the benefit of the doubt, because it can never assume that the worst is true.” Morris, p. 250.
190 T. C. Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.) p. 347.
191 “Paul frequently writes the verb to hope, which appears in his epistles nineteen times out of a total of thirty-one occurrences in the New Testament.” Kistemaker, p. 462.
193 I am using the terms “perfect” and “imperfect” in the sense of “complete” and “incomplete.” The spiritual gifts are not imperfect in the sense that they are to be disdained, but imperfect in the sense that they are incomplete, and thus will be gladly put aside when the perfect arrives.
194 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931), IV, p. 179.
195 For example, the practice of infant baptism, held and practiced by many evangelical Presbyterians, is strongly held in spite of the fact that it is based solely upon inference and has no clear New Testament command or example of its practice.
196 To be specific, tongues are often spoken audibly by many (not just two or three), at the same time, by men and women, and without interpretation, in blatant violation of Paul’s instructions laid down in 1 Corinthians 14.
197 There is a subtle message contained here. While we do not know fully in the present, God does. At this point in time, when we lack fully knowledge and understanding, God fully knows us. That is what gives us comfort and hope in these days of our imperfect knowledge.
When Community Bible Chapel began to meet as a church, the leadership decided to publish a pamphlet, which would convey the doctrinal position and philosophy of ministry of the church. One of the most difficult tasks related to that pamphlet was to construct a statement on spiritual gifts. We knew that people would want to know where we stood on the charismatic movement. Let me quote that initial attempt to state our position:
The ministry of Community Bible Chapel is one in which every Christian is encouraged to exercise his or her spiritual gift for the profit of the church (Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12:7). We do not practice the charismatic gifts of tongues or healing.
Our intention in this statement was to accurately reflect our practice as a church regarding spiritual gifts. We did not wish anyone to think that we were a charismatic church in the usual sense of the term. On the other hand, we were unwilling to go so far as to dogmatically state that certain gifts, which are found in the New Testament could not, under any circumstance, occur in our day. While our experience would incline us not to expect certain gifts, the Scriptures do not, in our estimation, clearly forbid them. To us, the temporary nature of certain gifts is, at best, an inference of Scripture, not an imperative. Neither are the elders of Community Bible Chapel convinced that just because a gift is present in the New Testament it must be present today. It is, after all, the Holy Spirit who sovereignly bestows these gifts (1 Corinthians 12:11).
In later publications, the elders have chosen not to make any statement on the exercise of disputed gifts such as tongues and healing. This is not because our position has changed, but because we do not wish differences on this issue to divide Christians or to keep a charismatic Christian from attending our services and fellowshipping with us. Nor would we appreciate a zealous but insensitive charismatic Christian attempting to impose his gifts or convictions on our body. That would surely not edify the saints. Regardless of one’s personal convictions concerning certain gifts, we would insist that the church meeting follow the guidelines given us by the apostle in the later part of chapter 14.
I say this by way of background to the passage which we will be studying in 1 Corinthians 14:1-25. Tremendous tension and polarization exists today between charismatic and non-charismatic Christians. Divisions and church splits over the charismatic movement have become all too common. Conditions in the church today hardly differ from those in the Corinthian church of centuries ago. Because of this polarization, few Christians are without strong feelings on this issue. Frankly, I believe there is error on both sides. Because of this, my teaching on 1 Corinthians 14 will probably not satisfy those who hold a strong position on either side of the issue. And, regretfully, each side will try to read more into what I say than what I mean.
The Corinthian church was both charismatic and carnal. They lacked in no gift (1:7), yet they were immature (cf. 2:14–3:3) and evidenced a lack of love (chapter 13). The gifts, which the Corinthians esteemed most highly, primarily tongues, were those which Paul referred to as the lesser gifts (12:22-24, 31, 14:1ff.). If the Corinthian church overflowed with charisma, it was void of the kind of Christian character which would deal with open immorality (5:1ff.), judge between disputing Christians (6:1ff.), and surrender the use of a liberty which would cause a fellow Christian to stumble (8:1ff.) or hinder the gospel (9:1ff). Spirituality, Paul insisted, cannot be measured by the presence of any gift, including (and perhaps especially) tongues (cf. 13:1-2).
Chapter 12 has shown us that setting certain gifts above others is spiritually unhealthy for several reasons. First, God is the sovereign Giver of gifts, so we cannot feel any the better or the worse because of the gifts we have been given (verses 4-6, 11). Second, spiritual gifts are all important because each has a special role to fulfill, and without it the whole body suffers (verses 14-19). Third, our estimation of the value of the gifts is frequently the opposite of God’s. The gifts, which are the most essential, may be the least appreciated (verses 22-24).
Chapter 13 teaches us that just as the Corinthians were wrong for placing the more spectacular gifts above the others, so they were wrong in placing excessive emphasis on gifts in general. They were more interested in manifesting charisma than character. Paul showed that love was the preeminent virtue because it enhances the value of spiritual gifts (verses 1-3), it enhances the unity and relationships of the saints (verses 4-7), and it endures for all eternity, in contrast to the temporary nature of all gifts (verses 8-13).
In chapter 14, Paul will show us how the quality of love is related to the gifts of tongues and prophecy and how love can be manifested in the exercise of these gifts.
Previously Paul has stated that some gifts are superior to others while implying that tongues are inferior. Now he will say so very clearly by contrasting tongues with prophecy, and he will give us the reasons why, under normal conditions, prophecy is superior to tongues:
Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying (1 Corinthians 14:1-5).
The initial problem we face in this passage is the definition of both tongues and prophecy. Scholars are divided as to the precise nature of each. Regarding tongues, some tell us that this gift is the manifestation of the Spirit in such a way as to produce an “unknown”199 tongue which is not a human language, but an ecstatic communication with God.200 Others maintain that it is a foreign language, just as in Acts 2:3.201
First, I must point out that understanding the principle of edification is the most crucial issue of this passage, not the definition of tongues. Second, let me remind you that Paul was personally acquainted with the tongues phenomenon of Acts. In Acts 19 Paul witnessed the gift of tongues and prophecy being poured out on some disciples of John at Ephesus. The three-fold occurrence of tongues reported in Acts by Luke (chapters 2, 10, and 19) each seem to be identical in nature. The fact that each instance is identical shows that God has accepted the Gentile converts into the church on equal footing with the Jewish Christians (cf. 11:15-18). If the nature of tongues and prophecy had changed from what it was in Acts, would Paul not have indicated this change clearly? In my estimation, the tongues of Corinth are the same as those of Ephesus and Jerusalem.
Regardless of whether or not you accept this position, we should be able to agree on the characteristics of tongues, which Paul gives us in 1 Corinthians 14. Let me summarize them:
1. Tongues are an inspired utterance (12:3, 7, 10, 11, 14:2).
2. Tongues are primarily addressed to God (14:2).
3. Tongues are not normally understood by the speaker or the hearers, unless interpreted (14:2, 5, 13-15).
4. Tongues speaking is under the control of the speaker and is not an involuntary act (14:28, 32).
5. The content of tongues appears to be praise and adoration rather than revelation (cf. 14:2, 14-16; also Acts 2:11).
The definition of prophecy is also a matter of disagreement. In the Bible as a whole, a prophet is one who speaks directly for God, whether in foretelling the future or in forthtelling, proclaiming divine instruction for the present. In 1 Corinthians 14, it appears to be used a bit more broadly, but it would nevertheless be best to understand it as divinely inspired utterance, infallible and inerrant.
There were significant differences between these two gifts, differences, which under normal circumstances made prophecy of greater value for the edification of the church. First, prophecy was not addressed to God, but to men, while tongues was addressed to God (14:2, 3). Second, prophecy edified the church, while tongues edified the speaker (14:4). Third, tongues were unintelligible to the speaker and the hearer while prophecy was understood by both speaker and hearer (14:2, 3).
If verses 1-4 establish the superiority of prophecy over tongues, verse 5 seeks to clarify the matter. First, tongues are inferior to prophecy only when uninterpreted (“unless he interprets,” verse 5). It would appear that tongues were normally not interpreted in Corinth and thus were considered inferior to prophecy. But if interpreted, tongues would have equal value with prophecy. Thus, in verses 26ff. both tongues and prophecy have equal exposure in the church meeting (“two or no more than three,” verses 27, 29). Under ordinary conditions tongues should not be suppressed, but prophecy should be sought as the better of the two. When interpreted, tongues would edify as much as prophecy, but apparently this was seldom the case in Corinth. It is important to understand that the superiority of prophecy over tongues is qualified by the apostle.
Verse 5 ended by informing the reader that tongues will prove edifying to the whole church when they are interpreted. Verses 6-12 go on to illustrate the importance of interpretation by demonstrating the uselessness of sounds which have no clear meaning:
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. If then I do not know the meaning of the languages in the world, I shall be to the one who speaks as a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me. So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.
Graciously using himself as the example, Paul asks the Corinthians what profit he would be, even as an apostle, if he spoke to them in tongues that they could not understand (verse 6). Only as he spoke in a language they knew could he give a revelation, a word of knowledge, a prophecy, or a teaching.
Turning to musical instruments, Paul asked how they could produce a meaningful melody unless there was a distinction in tones (verse 7). Another important instrument was the bugle. It was commonly employed in warfare to broadcast commands to the troops. If the bugle did not produce distinct notes, the soldiers would not know whether to advance or retreat. (TV watchers know that the cavalry always used a bugle to signal the attack.)
Moving from musical instruments to the language of men, in verses 9-11 Paul showed that men could not have a meaningful conversation unless they spoke a common tongue. A man speaking in a different language had something to say, and his speech had meaning, but not to the one who could not speak or understand it. So, too, the one speaking in tongues had an important message to communicate, but unless it was interpreted, the congregation would not understand its meaning and would not be edified by it.
Verse 12 returns us to the point of verse 5. When love prevails, the principle of edification will govern both the pursuit and the practice of spiritual gifts. Let us seek, then, those gifts which will most benefit others and those which will edify the church.
Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I shall pray with the spirit and I shall pray with the mind also; I shall sing with the spirit and I shall sing with the mind also. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind, that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.
I know there are those who refuse to accept any private use of tongues, but these verses very evidently show that while the gift of tongues may edify the speaker in private, they will not edify in public unless they are interpreted. There are at least three indications in chapter 14 that there is a private use of tongues. First, in verses 13-15 the use is largely private, as we will note later. Second, in verses 18-19 Paul said that he spoke in tongues more than the Corinthians, yet there is no record of him ever speaking in tongues in public. In fact, he contrasts his private use of tongues with the public use (“however, in the church … ,” verse 19). Finally, in verse 28 Paul instructs the tongues speaker to “speak to himself and to God” if there is not an interpreter present. Just because one purpose of tongues may be public does not mean that there cannot be other purposes, although perhaps secondary.
Verses 13-15 seem to focus primarily (though not exclusively, cf. verses 16-19) on the private use of tongues. Paul’s premise, developed in the preceding verses, is that one can hardly be edified without the use of the mind.202
Some Christians seem to think of our faith as though it were mindless. That is not only tragic, it is untrue. The reason tongues speaking was not edifying to the church was that it was uninterpreted, and thus the saints could not understand what was said. When a prophet spoke, others were to judge what was said (14:29). How could this happen with the message spoken in tongues? It was even possible that the message might be blasphemous (12:2-3). If the gift of tongues were to be used in private, the one thus gifted would profit most if he could interpret what he said; otherwise he could not benefit except in knowing he had spoken words of praise to God. How much better to know what the Holy Spirit has inspired one to say.
In verses 13-15, tongues seem to have been spoken in private, rather than in the church meeting. Why would Paul encourage the tongues speaker to pray for the gift of interpretation of tongues if he were speaking of the church meeting? If one gifted to interpret tongues was present, he could interpret. But in the solitude of one’s prayer closet it is the tongues speaker who must have the gift of interpretation. While Paul in no way underestimates the benefit of this private use of tongues, he teaches that edification occurs when the mind is participating in the process.
Two inferences can be drawn from what Paul has said in verse 13. First, Paul assumes it is possible for the Christian to possess more than one gift. Otherwise why would he encourage the tongues speaker to seek the additional gift of interpretation? Second, it is implied that the Christian can pray and request certain gifts from God and that they may be granted. This tends to contradict the commonly held view that gifts are somewhat statistically given at the time of one’s salvation, never to change.
If tongues fail to significantly benefit the individual who speaks in tongues privately without being interpreted (verses 13-15), neither do they profit the group assembled in the church meeting without being interpreted (verses 16-19). Apart from interpretation, those who hear a man speaking in tongues have no way of responding to it since they don’t know what has been said. Praise and thanksgiving may very well have been offered to God, but who else knows it? It is extremely difficult to say “Amen” to what one has not understood. That is like signing a contract written in another language.
For two years we had a French student, Gerard Chalvet, attending our ministry group. He sang and played the guitar. Occasionally we would ask him to sing a song in French. As long as it was a tune that we recognized, we could recall the words as he sang. But when he sang an unfamiliar tune we had no clue as to what the words might be. We could not worship with him because we did not understand him. This was what seemed to be happening regularly in the church meetings in Corinth. Tongues were spoken, frequently and with fervor, but only God knew what was said.
What a shock it must have been for the Corinthians to learn that Paul himself spoke in tongues, and perhaps more than they (verse 18).203 Paul did not flaunt his gift as they did. Consequently, they might have thought he did not possess this gift. How could Paul know anything about tongues? He knew much if he spoke in tongues more than they. But he did so privately, preferring to speak in intelligible words when in the corporate gathering of the saints. Let tongues be reserved for the prayer closet unless an interpreter was present. Paul may have chosen not to speak in tongues even when there was an interpreter because of the exaggerated importance attached to the exercise of this particular gift.
Paul has saved the real bombshell until last. Those who prided themselves for speaking in tongues may have been reluctantly willing to admit that tongues were not edifying to the saints. But perhaps they still clung to the hope that even though tongues may not edify, they do evangelize. After all, wasn’t it tongues in Acts 2 which at least partly contributed to the salvation of thousands? In verses 20-25 Paul will show how shoddy this thinking was:
Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be babes, but in your thinking mature. In the Law it is written, “by men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to me,” says the Lord. So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign not to unbelievers, but to those who believe. If therefore the whole church should assemble together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God declaring that God is certainly among you.
The Corinthians have been told repeatedly that they were carnal, not mature, foolish, not wise. Their thinking on the gift of tongues typified their immaturity. While they should certainly be nave concerning evil, they must not be so simple regarding the purpose of tongues (verse 20). Paul turned to a text in Isaiah 28:11 (cf. also 33:19) to prove his point. Before Israel entered the land of promise, God warned the Jewish people of the danger of disobedience:
Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and a glad heart, for the abundance of all things; therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the Lord shall send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in the lack of all things; and He will put an iron yoke on your neck until He has destroyed you. The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down, a nation whose language you shall not understand, a nation of fierce countenance who shall have no respect for the old, nor show favor to the young (Deuteronomy 28:47-50).
Through Isaiah and many other prophets God had spoken words of warning to the Israelites in the simplest of words (cf. Isaiah 28:9-10). The response of the nation was to reject the messenger and the message (28:12ff.). Because of their persistent rebellion God now warned that He would speak to His people by another means, through “stammering lips and a foreign tongue” (28:11). This sign was not one that would bring repentance, however. In spite of this sign, Israel would not listen nor turn to God (1 Corinthians 14:21; cf. Isaiah 28:12).
Paul interprets the significance of tongues in the light of the Isaiah passage. Foreign tongues (notice these are known languages) serve as a sign to disobedient and unbelieving people. Prophecy, on the other hand, is for believers.204 Yet Paul does not mean to say that tongues is the better means of winning the lost. His citation says otherwise: “… and even so they will not listen to me” (verse 21). Signs normally do not save the lost. That is what our Lord said in Matthew 12:
Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answer Him, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.” But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:38-40).
For this same reason Abraham said to the rich man in Hades, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).
The fact that signs are intended for unbelievers doesn’t prove that signs save unbelievers. If the Corinthians thought that tongues were an effective evangelistic tool, Paul’s words in verses 23-25 would correct this misconception. For the moment Paul assumes that either tongues or prophecy will completely dominate the church meeting. He says that if an unbeliever attends a meeting where only tongues are spoken (without interpretation) he will go away convinced that Christians are crazy (verse 23). If, however, the meeting is solely prophetic utterance, the secrets of their hearts will be exposed, they will be convinced of their sin, and they will declare that God is present in the meeting (verses 24-25).
In evangelism as well as in exhortation, the gift of tongues is normally inferior to prophecy. It is true that tongues are a sign to unbelievers, but they are a sign of condemnation. The Israelites had rejected the clear teaching of the prophets. By the time God spoke through the foreign tongues of other nations, it was too late. The same principle applied when Jesus began to speak to the Jews in parables (Matthew 13:1ff.; Mark 4:1ff.). He did not use parables to make His message clear, but to make it obscure:
As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables. And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God; but those who are outside get everything in parables, in order that while seeing, they may see and not perceive; and while hearing, they may hear and not understand lest they return again and be forgiven” (Mark 4:10-12).
This quotation by our Lord was also from the book of Isaiah, chapter 6. Parables were not given to make the gospel clear, but to veil the truth from those who had plainly and repeatedly heard the claims of our Lord, yet rejected His offer of salvation (cf. Mark 3:20ff.). Tongues were a sign, but a sign of God’s impending judgment, not salvation. This is the force of Joel’s prophecy, which was quoted by Peter in Acts 2. While many were saved, most of the Jews persisted in their rejection of the Messiah. God’s plans and promises for the nation Israel would have to be set aside for a time. This was the conclusion Paul had reached (Acts 28:23ff.; cf. Roman 11).
Did the Corinthians believe that exercising the gift of tongues proved them to be more spiritual? Such was far from the case, according to Paul’s teaching in chapters 12-14. Did they suppose that the measure of a mature church was the predominance of tongues? Paul said that the Old Testament indicated that tongues were proof of carnality, even unbelief. They spoke not of spirituality, but of impending judgment. Once again the carnal Corinthians were ignorant.
I want to conclude by focusing on three principles, which are the foundation for Paul’s teaching in the first half of the chapter.
Principle One: Your mind matters. John R. W. Stott has written an excellent booklet entitled Your Mind Matters. In it he decries the mindless Christianity of our time. He cites three forms of this error. First is Catholicism, which has meaningless ritual. Second is radical Christianity, which stresses ecumenicalism and social action without regard to doctrinal essentials. Third, he says, is the charismatic movement, which has divorced Christianity from rationality.205
Paul tells us that edification is hardly possible, other than in a very minimal way, without the active participation of the mind. That is why tongues must be interpreted in order to edify. That is also why all must judge when a prophet speaks (14:29-31). Many Christians seem to think that spirituality has little to do with the mind. And yet Paul tells us in Romans 12:1-2 that it is the renewing of our minds that is key to Christian growth and worship. In the next verse in Romans 12 Paul used the Greek word for “think” four times. Our minds are essential to godly living.
Charismatic Christians have seriously erred when they have selectively focused on the statement of Paul, “Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies” (1 Corinthians 8:1). Paul is not setting knowledge against love; he is showing the danger of knowledge without love. Elsewhere Paul indicates the danger of love without knowledge (Philippians 1:9-11). So often I hear it said, “We worship Jesus, not the Bible.” Well and good, but which Jesus do you worship? The Jews of Jesus’ day believed they worshipped the true God, but in chapter 8 of the Gospel of John our Lord informed them otherwise (cf. verses 19, 42). Repeatedly the Lord told His opponents that they were ignorant of the Scriptures (cf. Matthew 22:29). One test of a follower of God is his obedience to the Word of God (John 8:32ff.). It is only by carefully studying the Scriptures that we can know God and serve Him as we should. Jesus said in His high priestly prayer, “Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth” (John 17:17).
A common characteristic of the cults is their emphasis on emptying the mind. Many forms of cultic meditation have the “worshipper” focus upon some simple object, emptying the mind of all else. Frequently simple, supposedly meaningless words are repeated. Worship that disengages the mind is exceptionally dangerous.
No long ago I heard a prominent Christian leader sharing about his devotional life. He said that he would go into a dark room, empty his mind, and then open himself to God’s speaking to him. What came to his mind he took to be divine communication. Now I realize that I have oversimplified what he meant, but that is dangerous. If we wish to know what God has said to us, let us study His Word. God can speak to us audibly, but He has most often chosen not to do so. Let us not sit in dark rooms, but let us open our Bibles and use our minds to worship Him.
In this regard, unbelief can be seen to be senseless. The atheist, the agnostic, and the religious pagan would have us believe that Christianity is foolish and that they are wise. But this is not true. The psalmist wrote, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no god’” (Psalm 14:1). It is the fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom (cf. Proverbs 1:7, 9:10, etc.). Men and women do not reject Christ because the evidence is insufficient. People do not go to an eternal hell because faith is irrational. Ultimately, Christianity is not an intellectual problem, but a moral one. Men will not believe because they choose not to; it is not for lack of knowledge. God has said that you are a sinner, worthy of eternal death. He has sent His Son to die in your place, to forgive your sins and to give you eternal life. Will you trust in Him? That is the choice God requires of you for salvation.
Principle Two: Spiritual gifts must be measured and governed by the principle of edification. The Corinthians had overestimated the importance of the gift of tongues because they had measured its significance in terms of its spectacularity. While it may be true that tongues are more spectacular than other gifts, the way they were practiced only edified the speaker, not the congregation. Gifts were primarily given “for the common good” (12:7). Without interpretation, those in the congregation were, at best, spectators, not participants in the worship of the speaker (14:16-17). In such situations the tongues speaker might become proud and his speaking profitless.
While the principle of edification was applied specifically to the gift of tongues, it also applies to the exercise of all other gifts. In 14:29-33 it will be applied to the gift of prophecy. Whenever the only person who gains is the one exercising his gift, the principle of edification is likely to have been violated. I know of instances where it appeared that a man participated publicly in worship only for the self-gratification of being heard. That violates the principle of edification. I know of times where a person has spoken and no one understood what he meant. That violates the principle, too. Everything that is done in the meeting of the church must be regulated by this principle. While a person may be personally edified, others may not be. Let us always be guided by the principle of edification.
Principle Three: Tongues may be an evidence of carnality, not spirituality. Paul has already warned us of the danger of attempting to assess one’s spirituality by the gift he possesses. The gifts we possess have been sovereignly bestowed by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:11), and we are stewards of them (1 Peter 4:10). We cannot take pride in them for they are a manifestation of divine grace (Romans 12:6; Ephesians 4:7). Those who would desire to measure the maturity and spirituality of a church by the presence of the gift of tongues should be warned by Paul’s words in verses 20-25, for it was immature thinking that led to this conclusion. Historically, tongues signified carnality and judgment. In point of fact, Paul has indicated that this was also the case in Corinth. Not only were the saints there carnal (3:3), but they were being judged for their unspiritual conduct (5:1ff., 11:27ff.).
May God enable us to desire the best gifts and to exercise them for the edification of the church, to His glory.
198 1 Corinthians 14 (Lessons 33 & 34) is from an earlier series.
199 The addition of the word “unknown” in verses 2, 4, 13, 14, 19 by the translators of the King James Version is unfortunate and without support in the original text. It seems to assume that the tongues of this chapter are not a foreign language.
200 “Verse after verse shows that speaking in foreign languages cannot be meant. Tongues were used in communing with God, and of course this was good for those who did so (verse 4).” Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1971 [reprint]), p. 306. Morris also agrees when he writes, “No man understandeth him makes it plain that the gift spoken of here is different from that in Acts 2, where all men understood.” Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966), p. 191. I must say that Morris’ argument is the weakest. In Jerusalem there were many Hellenistic Jews present from foreign lands, whose native tongue was foreign. They heard the “mighty deed of God” (Acts 2:11) in their own native tongue. In the Corinthian assembly we would not expect a large contingency of foreigners, such as in Jerusalem at Pentecost. Hearing anyone speak in a foreign language would mean that the Corinthian Christians would not comprehend the message. Why does this necessitate, as Morris suggests, that the language spoken not be a language? A language foreign to the listener is no less confusing to him than a non-language.
201 “The difficulty was in the language used, not in the absence of meaning, or in the fact that inarticulate sounds were employed. This verse, therefore, contains nothing inconsistent with the commonly received view of the nature of the gift in question. … The prophet spoke in the native language of his hearers; the speaker with tongues in a foreign language.” Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980, [reprint]), p. 280.
202 I do not mean to go so far as to suggest that the one who speaks in tongues privately gains nothing without the gift of interpretation. To some extent this person edifies himself (verse 4). But without the ability to interpret what he is saying, the tongues speaker cannot fully participate in what he is doing. Our Lord once summarized the first of the two great commandments this way: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37). To the extent that we worship God without our heart, our soul, or our mind, our worship is adversely affected. This is Paul’s point precisely.
203 “The emphatic position of panton perhaps means ‘more than all of you put together’: but ‘more than any of you’ is sufficient for the argument.” Robertson and Plummer, p. 314.
204 In my estimation the expression in verse 22, “is for a sign,” supplied by the NASV, is unfortunate. Paul specifically says that tongues are for a sign. Prophecy is for believers, who do not need signs.
205 John R. W. Stott, Your Mind Matters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1972), pp. 8-10. I heartily recommend this booklet to you.
After listening to sermons for many years, I have come up with a system for classifying preachers. Liberal theological institutions have produced the Aesops of the pulpit. These preachers are great storytellers. They are interesting and creative, but their content is more like a fairy tale than a word from God. When they do refer to the Bible, it is because they think the biblical author has been more creative in fabricating myth than they. An evangelical variant of this classification also exists in the pulpit. These preachers are born again, orthodox Christians, who believe the Bible is inspired, inerrant, and authoritative. The only problem is they don’t preach the Bible either. Their sermons are a string of related stories and illustrations, which they hope will prove a point. The goriest of their repertoire of war stories are usually saved for evangelistic sermons. Those who lack creativity are simply “one notes.” Every week the Scripture reading changes, as does the title of the sermon, but the message hardly changes at all. When you’ve heard this preacher once, you’ve heard it all.
To preserve my sanity and a measure of sanctification, I devised a method of surviving bad sermons—the five-minute plan. I learned that without fail, a preacher who did not get to the biblical text within five minutes would not get there at all. Rather than waiting patiently, hoping upon hope that he might give me some glimpse of the text, I decided to go to the text myself if he did not do so in five minutes. Initially, I would read the Scripture text for the sermon. After all, who could fault me for doing this? Later, I cast aside all pretense and studied a passage that was of particular interest at the time. I could leave church edified and not waste energy criticizing the preacher at the noon meal.
Before my five minutes have gone, let me assure you that whatever measure of frustration you have experienced in a Sunday service, it can hardly have been worse than the disappointment of worshipping with the saints at Corinth. From Paul’s description of the conduct of the saints at the Lord’s Table in chapter 11, we know that their meeting was disorderly and disgraceful. Discord and strife were routine (verse 18). The well-to-do did not wait for the poor, who could not come until later (cf. verses 21, 33). Some were overindulging, while others did without (verse 21). The overabundance of the rich was flaunted before the poor, who had little or nothing, thereby humiliating them (verse 22). Some were drunk and disorderly (verse 21). As a result, the Lord’s Table, which should have been the highlight of the gathering, was considered a matter of little significance and conducted in an unbefitting way (verses 20, 26ff.).
The worship portion of the Corinthian church meeting seems to have taken place either during or after the common meal of which the remembrance of the Lord’s death was a part. We may have come to the conclusion that verses 26-40 are Paul’s description of the Corinthian church service, but this cannot be so. These verses are a prescription for the worship meeting, which ought to occur in Corinth, not a description of what was happening. It is in chapter 11 that we gain insight into what these saints were doing. In 1 Corinthians 14:26-40, we are given Paul’s corrective instruction. From what we have been told thus far in this epistle, it is not difficult to imagine what actually happened when the saints attempted to worship together. Some who shared must have done so under the influence of alcohol rather than under the control of the Holy Spirit.207 The leaders of the various cliques must have spoken to impress their followers, to increase their ranks, and to promote their particular doctrinal emphasis. One speaker may have spoken too long, while others attempted to interrupt. The tongues speakers may have all tried to speak at one time. Can you imagine the confusion this created and the frustration of trying to get something edifying out of this kind of meeting? Verses 26-40 of chapter 14 will not only sum up Paul’s teaching on the use of spiritual gifts in public worship, but they will lay down some practical guidelines which are intended to reduce competition and confusion and to promote edification.
In chapter 12, Paul taught the principle of unity in diversity, showing that God has many gifts to bestow on Christians and that each one is essential to the life of the body of Christ. Chapter 13 teaches the priority of love. Love not only enhances the effect of the various spiritual gifts, it also enables diverse members to live and serve together in unity. Love and Christian character are superior to spiritual gifts because they abide for eternity, while all gifts are temporal. The first 25 verses of chapter 14 establish the principle of edification, by which all gifts should be governed. Love will seek to edify others, not self, and so love will only use a spiritual gift in a way that edifies others. In 1 Corinthians 14:26-40, these principles are applied specifically to the corporate gathering of the saints for worship and edification. Verses 26-36 provide guidelines for participation in the church meeting:
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and let one interpret; but if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?
The first words of verse 26 indicate the following verses will prescribe the practical outworking of verses 1-25. Verses 26-40 are not just a logical conclusion, but the practical application of the principles previously taught. This is indicated by the words, “What is the outcome then, brethren?” (verse 26).208 In order for the whole church to be edified in the church meeting, certain changes had to occur in the way the various gifts were publicly practiced. Certain guidelines are established here, which should govern those who speak in the church meeting.
Until now, I have always thought of verse 1 as an instruction rather than an introduction. I believed that Paul was encouraging every Christian to come to the church meeting prepared to speak. While I do believe that the Christian should come prepared to worship, I don’t think that is what Paul has in mind here. The expression “each one has … ,” repeated five times in verse 26, is more a statement of fact than it is a command or exhortation. The problem at Corinth was not that people were unprepared or that participation was inadequate. The problem was that all came ready to speak and were determined to do so. Most, if not all, of the Corinthian saints may have participated, but the results were far from edifying. Both the quality and the quantity of participation needed to be regulated. The principle of edification would serve as the standard for all that was spoken publicly in the meeting of the church (verse 26).
Paul mentions five kinds of participation for which they are prepared. All of these except having “a psalm” are spiritual gifts. Is it possible that this, too, is a spiritual gift, even though it is not identified as such anywhere else? Several meanings are possible for the term “psalm.” First, it may simply mean that someone read an Old Testament psalm or put one to music. Second, it may also mean that someone composed a psalm similar to those in the Old Testament. Bartels states that the Psalms “… constitute the back-bone of Jewish synagogue worship. Some individual psalms, or collections of Psalms, such as Psalm 105:1-15 and Psalm 96, comprised a daily form of prayer for the faithful Jew.”209
The Old Testament Psalms played a very significant role in Jewish worship. Often the psalmist would poetically recite a personal or corporate experience and from this highlight an aspect of God’s character, put this to music, and the whole congregation would participate in the worship, which it occasioned. It is my personal opinion that the Old Testament Psalms provide a pattern for contemporary psalms. Christians thus gifted (or talented, if you prefer) can poetically and musically reflect on the goodness and grace of God, enabling and encouraging the entire congregation to corporately worship God with praise and adoration. Such “psalms” would involve teaching, doctrine, and worship. If this is a spiritual gift, one can see the great value it would have in Christian worship.
In verses 27-36, the principle of edification is applied to three specific aspects of the church meeting. It was applied to the practice of the gift of tongues in verses 27-28, then to prophecy in verses 29-33, and finally to the participation of women in verses 34-36.
Since tongues was perhaps the most problematic gift in the Corinthian assembly, Paul began by prescribing how this gift could be used publicly so as to edify the whole church. Two, or at the most three, could speak in tongues. Those speaking in tongues must do so in order. It would appear that until now they had all spoken simultaneously. How could anyone interpret when three spoke at once?
The use of tongues in the church meeting was permitted as long as there was one present who was gifted to interpret. Only one interpreter was required (“… and let one interpret,” verse 27), not two or three. The one with this gift, like the prophet, the tongues-speaker, or the teacher, would be known to the body. One look about the assembly would inform any with the gift of tongues whether or not he could exercise his gift publicly at this meeting. If no interpreter was present, the tongues speaker must remain silent. This would not prevent him from silently speaking in tongues and thus personally benefiting from his gift. I might also add that women who had this gift could always privately praise God in tongues. Personal edification was thereby unhindered. But without interpretation, the public use of tongues would not edify the congregation.
It is very important to note that Paul assumed that the tongues speaker had full control of this gift. No doubt, some must have given the impression that they could not help but speak; that they were overcome by the Holy Spirit and could do nothing but speak. This is not the case with any gift. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are under our control. Our gifts do not control us, nor do they compel us to violate the guidelines that Paul lays down here for their public exercise. If one spoke in tongues in the church in a way that violated the Word of God, it was due to the lack of self-control of the speaker, not the compulsion of the Spirit.
Self-control and silence were not required only of the tongues speakers in Corinth. Even prophecy, the gift so highly valued by Paul, was restricted. Under certain circumstances the prophets, like those with the gift of tongues, were to remain silent. It may surprise us to learn that Paul had more to say about the use of prophecy than he did of tongues. While only two verses are directed to the tongues speakers, four are given to regulate the gift of prophecy.
There is a principle underlying verses 29-33 which I somehow have overlooked in my study of this passage until now: every spiritual gift, including prophecy, is subject to misuse. I have to confess that I somehow felt that the gift of tongues was subject to great abuse, while prophecy was exempt from such dangers. Why, then, would Paul need to lay down such specific regulations for the use of prophecy in the church meeting in such a way as to prevent discord?
Since this may be a new thought, let me suggest some of the ways this gift might have been misused in Corinth. One prophet may have tended to dominate the meeting, taking too much time and not allowing others the opportunity to speak. This would especially be true if a prophet had a particular theme, which he was inclined to stress above others. For example, one prophet may have emphasized the sovereignty of God, while another the responsibility of man. With all the petty strife and division in Corinth, it was possible that the leaders of the competing cliques may have been prophets. Could a prophet not be tempted to filibuster by deliberately extending his message? Why allow the opposition a chance to be heard?
Another temptation for a prophet would be to speak with wrong motives. The preeminence of this gift, along with the prestige it might gain the speaker, might tempt the prophet to use his gift to gain prestige and prominence in the church. Besides this, it would be very easy to intermingle one’s personal opinions with divine revelation. This may sound far fetched, but those of us who speak with a measure of authority are tempted to authoritatively present our own opinions as though they were a word from God.
Two or three could prophesy,210 while the rest of the congregation211 passed judgment. There were not as yet any New Testament books available (aside from 1 Corinthians) to which these prophecies could be compared. The Spirit of the prophecy, however, could be tested (1 Corinthians 12:1-3). The content of any new revelation must be consistent with the Old Testament Scriptures, as well as with any revelation given through the apostles, such as Paul (cf. 4:1ff., 15:1ff.). Those who had the gift of distinguishing spirits (12:10) would also have an important role to play here. The important thing to notice is that the congregation was to be active, not passive, by mentally interacting with what was said. If it was necessary to judge what was said by a prophet, how much more should we judge what is taught in our churches today?
In verse 30, Paul teaches that a prophet who is speaking must yield the floor to one who receives a revelation.212 This is a rather perplexing situation. Is the prophet who is speaking not also sharing a revelation he has received? Why would God give two prophets a revelation simultaneously? And why should the one speaking be interrupted?
From verse 26, it appears that most came to the church meeting prepared to participate, including the one with a revelation. It was not necessary for a prophet to receive a revelation in the church meeting. Perhaps it was more often the case that a prophet would receive a revelation during the week, giving him time to reflect on the message and its application to himself and to others. The prophet who is standing and speaking to the church might thus be the one who has been given a revelation in the past and who is expounding and applying it to the congregation. The second prophet, who receives a revelation (verse 30), may have received a message, which is directly related to what has just been said or done in the meeting. His message is viewed as having greater relevance and urgency than the first, and so he indicates in an appropriate manner that he has something to share. The first, recognizing that God has something to say through another, yields the floor. I doubt that Paul means the first prophet is to stop in mid-sentence, but that he is to bring his message to a close as quickly as possible.
I believe we would be mistaken to assume that the only purpose of prophecy is to enable a person to speak in the church meeting. This gift, like the others, might have greater importance and value outside their weekly gathering. In this way, the fact that there were also prophetesses poses no problem, for possessing the gift of prophecy in no way presumes that the revelation received must be shared in the church gathering. Perhaps some prophets had lost sight of this.
I am extremely uncomfortable in admitting this, but prophets of old, like preachers of our day, had trouble stopping. Not only is it necessary to restrict the number of prophets who speak, but also to suggest that there is a limit to how long one should speak. When another prophet receives a revelation, it is time for the first to be still. This would be a very practical and much appreciated guideline in Corinth where pride and presumption were so common.
Three reasons underlie the instructions given to prophets in verses 31-33. First, in due time, all will have their opportunity to share the revelation God has given them (verse 31). Believe it or not, even divine revelation can wait. After all, we have the entire revelation of God in our Bibles, but we don’t attempt to preach the entire Bible on any given Sunday. We are selective in what we share because there is more to share than time will allow. The same was true then. Each prophet seemed intent on sharing what God had revealed to him in that meeting. Paul tells them to relax, for in due time they will all have an opportunity to speak, and thus all will be exhorted.
Isn’t it amazing that every time we gain a new insight into the Word of God we feel we must not wait to share it? Paul says that even divine revelation can wait. Perhaps a week or two later it will be even more beneficial. The events of the following week may make his message even more timely. The theme of what is shared at some later meeting may make his revelation more appropriate. Waiting until another meeting will at least give the speaker more time to contemplate his message. Few messages lose their impact over time. Some, after more careful thought, are set aside. There is a point where the saints are saturated with truth and need time to assimilate what they have heard. This is what Paul is teaching, I believe.
What was implied by Paul in verses 27 and 28 above is clearly stated in verse 32: “The spirits of the prophets are subject to prophets.” Some prophets may have supposed that since they had received a revelation, they had no choice but to share it. After all, when God speaks, men must hear. The gifts of the Spirit do not overpower us, compelling us to speak whether we wish to or not. Even a gift as valued as prophecy must be restricted. Two or three revelations are all that the saints can digest in one sitting.
Furthermore, God is not the author of confusion and chaos. A failure to observe these simple guidelines would result, yea had resulted, in utter pandemonium in the Corinthians’ church meetings prior to Paul’s epistle. Give God the credit though you may; confusion and disorder are not His work (verse 33).
Many scholars believe the last words of verse 33 are actually the beginning of verse 34. The NIV, for example, renders it this way: “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.” In my estimation this translation is preferred to that of the NASV, as cited above. Since the last part of verse 33 is not universally accepted as introducing Paul’s teaching on the role of women in the public gathering of the church, let us set it aside and look at what else Paul says on this subject.
In verse 34, the women are commanded to remain silent and not to speak publicly213 “in the churches.” Paul’s instruction here is not just for the Corinthian church, but for the churches. Those who would tell us that only the Corinthian women were to refrain from publicly participating in the church gathering overlook other Scripture which is equally clear on this subject. Paul instructed Timothy to teach the women to remain silent in Ephesus (1 Timothy 2:11-15). In this Corinthian epistle, Paul claimed that his teaching was not provincial, but universal. His practice conforms to his preaching, and his preaching is consistent in every place (4:16-17), even with regard to the role of women (11:16).
That women should remain silent in the church meeting is no new revelation, unique to Paul’s teaching. This practice is not based upon special circumstances in the Corinthian culture, but on the biblical principle of submission. How common are the attempts to brush Paul’s teaching aside, as though it was some idiosyncrasy of his, some quirk, some chauvinistic hang-up that is inconsistent with other biblical revelation. Yet the silence of women in the churches is not a new revelation, based upon some set of circumstance unique to Corinth and unrelated to 20th century Christians. The practice that Paul requires is based upon the principle of submission. This principle is so generally recognized as being taught in the Old Testament that Paul does not even find it necessary to cite a particular passage.214
If verse 34 is difficult to accept, verse 35 is even more so. It would almost seem that Paul is “rubbing salt in the wound” here. A woman cannot even ask a question in the church meeting, but she must ask her own husband at home because it would be disgraceful215 for her to speak in church. Why would God forbid a woman to ask a question in the church meeting? What would be the harm of a simple question?
Questions are seldom neutral. While some are sincerely asked to gain information or insight, many are posed for other reasons. Satan, for example, commenced his conversation with Eve with a question (Genesis 3:1). He was not trying to learn from Eve, but to deceive her and tempt her to sin against God. The opposition which our Lord faced from the scribes and Pharisees frequently came in the form of an apparently innocent question (cf. Matthew 22:15ff., 23ff., 34ff.). Many who ask questions are really trying to make a point or to challenge the position of the one being questioned. I saw this frequently in my seminary days (and probably was often guilty myself). The power to question is the authority to lead and to correct, and thus it should be exercised by the men, whom God has appointed to exercise and illustrate headship in the church (1 Corinthians 11:3ff.).
Since the principle of edification underlies this passage, there should be positive reasons why the Scriptures prohibit women from asking a question in the church meeting. This prohibition will prove to be edifying to the men in two ways. First, the men will be stimulated to more serious study and diligent leadership when their wives look to them for the answers to their biblical questions. So long as the wife looks to someone other than her husband, he will not feel the weight of his responsibility as a husband and leader in the home. That is why Paul says, “… let them ask their own husbands at home.” Second, the husband will not be threatened or put on the spot publicly if he is asked at home. If he does not know the answer, he will be able to investigate the matter more fully and without embarrassment.
Having the women ask their questions at home builds up the men, but it also edifies the women. The woman who understands that it is shameful for her to exercise authority by publicly addressing the meeting of the church will certainly be reluctant to question anyone aggressively in the meeting of the church. If the answer she is given is vague or inaccurate, she will not be able to pursue the matter further without instructing the men or challenging their teaching. Paul therefore instructs the women to ask their questions of their husbands at home. There they will have the freedom to probe, to discuss, and even to challenge until they are satisfied with the answer they are given. I believe this is why Paul chose to employ an intensive form of the verb “to ask,” which might be rendered, “to interrogate.” This will be far more edifying to the women than trying to ask a question with the limitations placed on them in the church meeting. In other words, Paul does not forbid women to speak so that the church gains at their expense, but that all will gain, the women included.
This truth is so important I want to take the time to illustrate it. There was a godly woman in my home church who was as good a student of the Scriptures (and possibly better) as any man. One Sunday she was asked to open the adult class in prayer. She very graciously declined by saying that she would rather not. She did not explain why. The reason she did not explain declining to pray was that she would have had to teach men in order to do so. She was willing to allow someone to conclude that she might be “out of fellowship” in order to be obedient to the Word of God. So, too, a truly submissive woman would find it difficult, even impossible, to interrogate without violating the principle of submission.
I believe that verse 36 must apply most directly to women rather than to the Corinthian church at large. After all, this is the context of verses 34-36. I have yet to read a commentary which interprets verse 36 as I do, so perhaps I am wrong. And yet whom is Paul addressing here, and why is he so forceful if it is not those women in Corinth who have tasted some of the liberties of the women in that day and found Paul’s teaching unacceptable?
I can almost hear a prophetess or perhaps a woman with the gift of tongues protesting that unless she can speak in the church meeting, the church will suffer for it. How can the church get by without my tongue, without my revelation, without my teaching? If Paul’s words are addressed to a woman such as this, no wonder they sting. “Are you really so ignorant as to think that the Word of God (especially the Old Testament Scriptures) was revealed by a woman” Paul asks. In other words, what Old Testament book can be named which has a woman as its author? True, there were women prophets in days of old, women like Deborah, but the Scriptures make it clear that her leadership was to be a reproach to weak men, such as Barak:
Then Barak said to her, “If you will go with me, then I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go.” And she said, “I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the honor shall not be yours on the journey that you are about to take, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hands of a woman” (Judges 4:8-9).
If it is to the strong-willed and contentious women of Corinth that Paul is speaking in verse 36, he has turned their attention to the way God spoke to men in the past. God had chosen, with few exceptions, to speak through men. Men, not women, were the priests and the kings. Such was also the case in the ministry of our Lord. He chose no women to be His apostles, nor did He send women forth to preach. While Jesus esteemed women highly, much more highly than His contemporaries (cf. John 4:9, 27), He withheld from them the task of leadership in the church and public preaching.
But the arrogance of such women who would challenge Paul is not yet fully exposed. Paul goes on to say, “Do you think God can only speak through you?” If there is a protest by women because they cannot address the entire church, Paul simply asks if God is thereby restricted. It is a presumptuous and arrogant spirit which supposes that God can speak only through oneself. And this is not just a problem for women. That is why Paul has spoken to the prophets already. They did not all have to speak at any one meeting. Their revelation could wait. Neither did they have to speak too long, for God wishes to speak through others as well.
While I am inclined to think that verse 36 applies specifically to those women who would object to Paul’s teaching, it certainly has application to men and to the church corporately. Any church that begins to think of itself as the sole custodian of the truth has very serious problems. There is a sense in which autonomy is an unbiblical attitude, whether in a church or in an individual. It is diametrically opposed to the mentality of the servant.
The Corinthian conception of spirituality was greatly deficient and distorted. While these saints thought of themselves as spiritual, Paul called them carnal. Many seemed to assert their authority by challenging Paul’s. For those who would resist Paul’s teaching, he informs them that their response to his teaching is a measure of their maturity and spirituality: “If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized” (1 Corinthians 14:37-38).
I want to remind you of the context of these verses. Paul is teaching concerning the conduct of Christians in the church meeting. In other words, we are talking here about the doctrine of “ecclesiology,” the doctrine of the church. While most evangelicals would go to the wall for Paul’s doctrine of salvation (soteriology), they are all too willing to set aside his teaching on the church. In the immediate context, Paul has been giving instructions about the participation of women. I mention this because Paul says that his words are not just his, they are “the Lord’s commandment” (verse 37). The implication should be obvious: If you would set aside Paul’s teaching on the role of women or the principles of the New Testament church, you would set aside the Lord’s commandment. Why is it that we try so hard to set aside what Paul teaches as though it is only his narrow-minded viewpoint, limited in its application and duration?
Those would-be spiritual giants of the Corinthian church are put on notice. So far as the Lord and Paul are concerned, spirituality cannot be measured by a man’s gifts nor his prestige or position, and certainly not by his pronouncements, but by his submission to the revealed Word of God. Paul began chapter 12 by establishing the test of the spirit which inspired utterance (verses 1-3). The one who is inspired of the Holy Spirit submits to the lordship of Christ. The one who is otherwise inspired rejects Christ and His lordship. Now, in these closing verses, Paul gives another standard: The test of one’s submission to the lordship of Christ is the degree to which he submits to the teachings of the apostles (such as Paul) as the commandment of the Lord.
Have you seen the common thread which runs through verses 26-36? The most obvious thread is the theme of edification. The restrictions which are placed on the tongues speaker, the prophet, and the women are designed to maximize the edification of the church. But the second thread is that of silence. In the case of the tongues speaker (verse 28), the prophet (verse 30), and women (verses 34-35), it is silence that is required. I am tempted to entitle this message “How to Edify the Church by Not Saying a Word.” Not until now has it occurred to me that I may edify others more by my silence than by my speech.
Why is it that we have seen only the silence required of women in this passage when Paul does not forbid women to speak until after he has also shown the need for silence in regard to tongues and prophecy? Here, in my opinion, were the three major areas of abuse in the church meeting. The gifts of tongues and prophecy, being both prominent and public, were exalted in such a way that no limits were placed on their exercise. The result was that other gifts, less prominent but just as important (12:22-24), were excluded. Since the church cannot function well unless all the members are carrying out their assigned tasks (12:12ff.), Paul limits the more prominent gifts to make room for those less prominent. The women were urged to be silent so that the men could assume the more prominent role, thereby reflecting the headship of Christ (11:1ff).
Paul wants the Christian to understand that love is demonstrated when public participation in the church meeting is regulated by the principle of edification. We are not to exercise our gifts to exalt ourselves over others, but to edify others. And we will edify others when our gifts are exercised publicly in accordance with the regulations Paul has set down in these verses.
The guidelines provided in verses 26-36 are designed to promote the edification of the whole assembly. They are based upon several principles which it is important to underscore.
1. The Principle of Proportion. Simply stated, the principle of proportion informs us that enough is enough. All too often we have what I like to call the “vitamin C” mentality. If one pill is good, then ten pills are ten times as good. Consequently, we find that everyone with the gift of prophecy wanted to participate in every meeting. The same was true of tongues and other gifts, too. The principle of proportion is the outgrowth of Paul’s teaching in chapter 12 where he stressed that there was great diversity of gift and function within the body of Christ, and by divine design. To the extent that some gifts are unduly exalted and other gifts squelched, the body of Christ suffers. The principle of proportion requires that two or three manifestations of any one gift in one meeting is enough. This allows opportunity for other gifts to be exercised also.
The principle of proportion also seems to have been applied to the length of the participation of any one speaker. The prophet who was tempted to speak too long was urged to yield the floor to another who also had something to share with the church. Variety, not only in the kinds of gifts exercised, but also in the individuals who speak, is, if you will pardon me for saying so, the “spice of church life.”
It is almost amusing to hear the outcry of those who react to the biblical imperative that women keep silent in the church as though this stifled a great deal of participation. If we would get upset, let us do so because most churches are structured in such a way that neither men nor women have any opportunity to exercise their spiritual gifts. While some criticize our church for forbidding women to take public leadership in the church meeting, most churches, week after week, have only a few professionals dominating the entire meeting. Where is the outcry? The principle of proportion demands that the opportunity to share and to speak should not be monopolized by the few. The meeting of the church, as we observe it in this local assembly, allows any man to pray, to teach, to exhort, or to lead in any number of ways, so long as his participation falls within the guidelines established here by the apostle.
2. The Principle of Priority. Exegetically, I am probably on very thin ice, but I am going to suggest this principle for your consideration. Those Corinthians who possessed the more spectacular gifts seemed to think that participation was required when they felt like sharing. When they “felt the Spirit moving,” they got up and spoke. If someone else was speaking at the time, it seems that they got up anyway. I have gotten the impression from a number of years of observation that some men today feel it is time to talk when they have something that has personally blessed them and there is a momentary silence.
Opportunity does not mean obligation, nor does silence necessarily call for our speech. The principle of propriety requires that what we want to share is appropriate to the occasion. Sometimes we are so intent upon teaching that we ignore the fact that several have already taught before us. We can, of course, excuse ourselves by rationalizing that what we are doing is exhorting, not teaching. But even when it is possible for us to teach, let us ask whether we are sharing because we feel like it or because it is appropriate to what is going on. I have seen someone stand with an urgent prayer request, only to be followed by another with a superficial testimony, totally ignoring the need to respond to the request for prayer. If we would speak in the church meeting, let us not only ask if it is possible, but if it is profitable to speak at this time.
3. The Principle of Self-Control. Spontaneity is not synonymous with spirituality. We frequently act on impulse rather than on biblical imperatives and prayerful reflection. We equate the urge or desire to speak with the leading of the Holy Spirit, whom we believe to be prompting us to speak. The silence which Paul’s guidelines require can only result from spiritual self-control.
Let’s be honest with one another. Have you ever considered it necessary to exercise self-control in the public exercise of your spiritual gift? I really hadn’t until studying this text. From our study in 9:24-10:13, I knew that I must exercise self-control in satisfying my physical appetites. But never have I seriously contemplated the need for me to exercise self-control in my public participation in the church meeting. What may have greatly blessed me in my private devotions may not be edifying to the whole church. Why is it that we feel we must share everything that blesses us? The prophet and the tongues speaker have to restrain themselves, so why shouldn’t all of us? What blesses us may not bless others. Let us discipline ourselves in our speaking as well as in our eating and drinking. Of all the New Testament writers, James has the most to say about restraining our tongues:
This you know, my beloved brethren. But let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger (James 1:19).
So speak and so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty (James 2:12).
Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment (James 3:1).
Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother, or judges his brother, speaks against the law, and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law, but a judge of it (James 4:11).
4. The Principle of Christian Liberty. We have already studied the chapters which deal with Christian liberties, especially related to marriage (chapter 7) and meats offered to idols (chapters 8-10). Public participation is not a matter of liberty for women, but it is for men. The meeting of the church has been so designed to give every man the opportunity to participate and to lead. In this sense, public participation in the church meeting is a matter of liberty for men. We have already learned, however, that having a liberty does not imply the exercise of it, unless it edifies others and promotes the gospel (chapters 8 and 9). Let us use this liberty in such a way that it will edify others and not exalt ourselves.
There is another dimension to the principle of Christian liberty. Liberties will always be abused. In instances where this occurs, we are tempted to resort to law and legalism in order to solve the problem. If meat offered to idols is a problem, forbid it. If eating a meal at the Lord’s Supper presents problems, do without it. If an open and relatively unstructured church meeting has excesses, structure it, confining participation to a select few. If tongues speaking causes trouble, ban it.
Legalism and suppression is the most efficient way of solving problems, or so it would seem. But Paul never resorts to it. He did not forbid marriage, nor meat, or a meal at the Lord’s Table, nor the freedom for men to share in the church meeting, nor the gift of tongues. He taught principles to guide us and laid down precepts to regulate our activities, but he did not forbid the freedoms God has given us. That is not the easy way, but it is the right way.
As parents, we are frequently tempted to do things the easy way. My wife is teaching our girls how to cook. Often their first efforts leave something to be desired. And there is usually a terrible mess in the kitchen. The easy way to solve the problem is for my wife to do all the cooking and to ban the girls from the kitchen. But that is not the right way. We must be willing to give our children, and the saints, enough freedom to fall. Rather than refusing rights or restricting them excessively, we must give guidelines and principles; we must be willing to teach, to correct and to encourage. That is the way of liberty.
The spirit of this passage is not condemning or restricting. Paul is encouraging the Corinthians to worship in a way that is for their best interests. Self-control and silence are two requisites. There are certainly others. My prayer is that we will understand and apply this passage as Paul meant it to be taken—an encouragement to edification through the practice of love in the public meeting of the church.
The ideals put forth in this text will never be fully realized in this life. They will never be adequately experienced apart from the enablement of the Spirit of God, Who bestows various spiritual gifts and also gives self-control so that they may be used to edify others. If you have never trusted in Jesus Christ, the Spirit of God is not in you. This passage only portrays lofty and impossible ideals. I urge you to acknowledge your sin and to trust in the death of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will become a member of His body and you will be equipped to serve Him and to edify others.
206 Chapter 14 (Lessons 33 & 34) is from an earlier series.
207 I have come to view Ephesians 5:18-19 (“And do not get drunk with wine, … but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns …) in an entirely different light. Until now, I had thought of the reference to being drunk with wine only as a literary device to contrast the control of the Spirit with the control of the spirits (wine). In the light of 1 Corinthians 11:21 and this text, I am inclined to think that drunkenness was not just a problem at Corinth. The singing of the saints should surely be different from that which occurs in a tavern, with slurred words and sluggish minds.
208 In 14:6-12, Paul has shown the uselessness of a sound, which has no meaning or a language which is unknown to the hearer. Verse 13 is the logical conclusion of verses 6-12: “Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.” But verse 15 introduces the practical outworking with the same words which are in verse 26: “What is the outcome then?” If in verse 13 Paul concludes that one should seek to interpret, verse 15 shows what would thus occur: “I shall pray with the spirit and I shall pray with the mind also; I shall sing with the spirit and I shall sing with the mind also.” So, too, verse 26ff. shows what will happen when edification becomes the standard for all public participation in the church meeting.
209 K. H. Bartels, “Psalmos,” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), III, p. 671.
210 Godet sees in the differences between the limits placed on tongues speakers (“let two or three prophets speak,” verse 29) an inference that tongues were tolerated, but prophecy was encouraged. Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on First Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications [reprint] 1977), pp. 738, 730. Godet could be correct, but such fine nuances need to be held tentatively.
211 Some understand Paul to mean that only the other prophets were to judge. This is possible, but not likely. Why aren’t all believers able to judge the content and the spirit of what is said? Certainly Paul stresses the need for all to be mentally involved in what is said (cf. 14:13-19).
212 Hodge suggests another interpretation here. He believes Paul may mean that the second prophet should wait until the first is finished, rather than to interrupt him. Cf. Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, [reprint] 1980), p. 302.
213 Some have tried to weaken Paul’s teaching here by suggesting that the term “to speak” may refer to idle or silly chatter of women rather than to public participation of a serious sort. This falls short of the facts. The verb (Greek: laleo) is used more than 20 times in this chapter, and never with such a meaning.
214 In chapter 11 Paul based the principle of headship on the account of the creation of Eve in Genesis 1 and 2. Some understand Genesis 3:16 to be referred to in 14:34. My contention is that it is these passages and others, the whole tenor of the law, to which Paul is referring.
215 The word “improper” is the same term used by Paul in 11:6; it is there rendered “disgraceful.”
A rather quick and easy way to judge the orthodoxy of any preacher, I have concluded, is to listen to a funeral message he has delivered. Usually, in less than a half-hour, one can know with considerable certainty where he stands on the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have attended funerals where the most profound thing the preacher said was, “Even God is crying” (it was raining at the time of the funeral). I have heard a preacher assure his audience that the tragic death of a young mother was “not the will of God,” as though her death was the result of some tragic, administrative mix-up in heaven. I have heard deceased atheists and pagans spoken of as though they were charter members of the kingdom of God. The promises of eternal bliss, given to believers in the Scriptures, are doled out as if they are the right of all who are in attendance, whether or not they are Christians. Most certainly, it is thought to be politically incorrect for any preacher to even refer to “hell,” much less the possibility of anyone spending eternity there.
For years I have said I would much rather conduct a funeral than a wedding. Quite honestly, at a wedding, one can say almost anything (and believe me, some do), and people will tell you it was a “beautiful ceremony.” A wedding is such a happy moment; no one is really hurting. One could recite, “Mary had a little lamb” and get compliments. But a funeral is different. The reality and finality of death is all too obvious. There are many things which can be said at a funeral, but there is only one message which gives hope, and that message is the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is because the gospel of Jesus Christ has as its central theme and message the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and the resulting hope of resurrection and eternal life for every Christian. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul deals with the subject of death and the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. In so doing, Paul gives one of the clearest, most concise definitions of the “gospel” found anywhere in the Bible. He shows how a denial of the resurrection of the dead is a denial of the gospel itself, and how believing in the gospel gives one hope for the next world as well as for the present.
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
Verse 12 discloses the problem which prompts Paul to write this chapter: some of the Corinthian saints are saying there is no “resurrection of the dead.”216 Denying the resurrection of the dead is seen in several different forms in the New Testament. The Greek pagans denied the resurrection of the dead, as we can see from the Book of Acts. In his sermon to those in the market place of Athens, Paul preached these words:
30 “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” 32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this” (Acts 17:30-32).
The Greeks may have believed in the immortality of men, as spirits, but they did not seem responsive to the teaching that God raises the dead so that they may stand in judgment before God.
The Jewish Sadducees did not embrace the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead either:
6 But perceiving that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, Paul began crying out in the Council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” 7 And as he said this, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. 9 And there arose a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly, saying, “We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” (Acts 23:6-9)
The Pharisees did believe in the resurrection of the dead, and in spirits and angels, but the Sadducees did not. Basically, the Sadducees were anti-supernaturalists—they did not believe in miracles. It would almost seem the Sadducees were farther from the truth (at least about the resurrection of the dead) than the Gentile pagans.
There were those in the church who professed to believe in the resurrection of the dead but who insisted that this “resurrection” had already taken place:
16 But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, 17 and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some (2 Timothy 2:16-18).
This “resurrection” was a present possession rather than a future hope. It must therefore have been some kind of mystical or spiritual “resurrection” rather than a literal, bodily resurrection. In saying that there has already been a spiritual resurrection, these heretics were denying that there was a future bodily resurrection. And for this they receive Paul’s indictment that they have “gone astray from the truth” (2 Timothy 2:18). The error is so serious that it “upsets the faith” (verse 18) of those who embrace this error.
We are not told exactly what form the denial of the resurrection of the dead took at Corinth. I am inclined to think it was the same kind of error Paul exposed in Ephesus (2 Timothy 2:16-18), where Paul told Timothy that such error would “lead to further ungodliness” (verse 16). We can see some forms of ungodliness this doctrinal deviation took in the earlier chapters of 1 Corinthians. While the theological error regarding the resurrection of the dead is not exposed until chapter 15, the fruits of this error are everywhere apparent in chapters 1-14.
In the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians, Paul deals with the divisions and factions which had disrupted the unity of the church at Corinth. These divisions were based upon the pride which some took in certain leaders and their teachings. The Corinthians were puffed up because their leaders “were the greatest” and their teachings were so “wise.” Their esteem for these leaders resulted in a corresponding disdain for Paul and the other apostles:
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. 7 For who regards you as superior? And what do you have that you did not receive? But if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? 8 You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and I would indeed that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. 9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. 11 To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; 12 and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; 13 when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now (1 Corinthians 4:6-13).
Paul’s gospel (which was one and the same with the gospel proclaimed by the other apostles) was disdained because it was too simplistic, too naive, too foolish. The “new gospel,” proclaimed by the Corinthians’ new leaders, was much more sophisticated, much more acceptable and appealing to the pagan culture of that day.
Just what was the problem the Corinthians had with Paul, his theology, and his practice? The key is found in the word “already” in verse 8.217 The Corinthians seem to be claiming that they have already arrived, spiritually speaking. Christianity has three dimensions or tenses: past, present, and future.218 We were chosen in Christ in eternity past, and 2,000 years ago, Christ died, was buried, and was raised from the dead for the forgiveness of our sins and our eternal salvation. We are now being saved;219 we are currently being sanctified, daily being transformed into the image and likeness of Jesus Christ. Our final salvation comes when our Lord Jesus Christ returns to the earth, and when we, with glorified and transformed bodies, live eternally in His presence.
Difficulties arise whenever we confuse these three tenses. Some Christians live as though Christ’s atoning work at Calvary (in the past) has no great impact on our day-to-day living in the present. Such people live out their lives naturalistically, as though the supernatural power of God has no practical relevance to daily living. They go about their daily living little different from atheists. They employ merely human methods and mechanisms. They raise funds, for example, using the same methods as the Red Cross or the United Fund. They seek to sanctify and utilize secular marketing techniques to evangelize and to produce church growth. They use human management techniques to run the church and Christian organizations.
Other Christians go to the opposite extreme. They confuse the future blessings, which Christ has promised and purchased, with His present blessings. In short, they think the Christian can and should experience heaven on earth. They believe no one needs to be sick (or perhaps even to die), because of the atoning work of Christ at Calvary (see Isaiah 53:5). According to this version of “spirituality,” we should expect to be happy, healthy, and wealthy now. They claim the future blessings of Revelation 21 and 22 as their present rights, and they tell us that if we do not experience these blessings now it is due to our lack of faith.
This health and wealth doctrine does not find its origin in the Scriptures, but in the wishful thinking of those who do not want to face up to a life of suffering, a life that is lived out in a fallen world. The context of 2 Timothy 2 and 3, the teaching of the Book of Hebrews and 1 Peter, and the example set forth by Paul and the apostles points to a different view of spirituality in the present age (see also Romans 8). The Scriptures speak of our identification with Christ in this age through our participation in His sufferings (see Philippians 1:12-26; 3:10; Colossians 1:24-29; 1 Peter 4:12-19), rather than in our escape from them.
No wonder the “spiritual” Corinthians looked down upon Paul. They had already arrived; Paul had not. They were kings; Paul was homeless. Paul and the apostles were a disgrace, and the proud Corinthians were ashamed of them. The apostles did not look nor act like royalty, but like the “scum of the world” (1 Corinthians 4:8-13). To speak of the resurrection of the dead as a future certainty meant they had not already arrived, that the kingdom of God had not yet come. It meant that they must identify with Christ in His earthly humiliation and rejection and not in His triumphant reign. And so they set aside the literal bodily resurrection of the dead, embracing in its place some kind of spiritual resurrection which already brought them into their kingdom, a kingdom of this age and not the next, a kingdom which the apostles and their gospel would not embrace or sanction.
Everywhere we look in 1 Corinthians we can see the fruit of this doctrinal error of rejecting the resurrection of the dead. In chapters 1-4, we are not surprised to learn that the Corinthians have formed cliques based upon the pride they took in new mentors, in their new message, and in their new methods. These “new messengers” will eventually prove to be “false apostles,” as Paul will indicate in 2 Corinthians 11. Their message will not be the foolish and weak message of Christ crucified (1:23-24), but one which appeals to the pride and arrogance of lost men. Their method was not a simple proclamation of the truth of the gospel; it was the same kind of methodology the heathen used to market everything from fish to philosophy (see 2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:2). Paul’s method was to simply proclaim the truth of the gospel and then to depend on the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit to enlighten men’s minds and to convince them of the truth (1 Corinthians 2:1-5, 10-16).
In chapter 5, Paul exposes one professing Christian at Corinth who is living in such a degraded fashion that even the pagan Corinthians blush at his behavior (5:1-2). The Corinthian church, on the other hand, is not ashamed at all, but proud (5:2). How could they be proud? Just as the Corinthians distinguished between a spiritual resurrection and a bodily resurrection, they also distinguished between a “spiritual” spirituality and a bodily “spirituality.” It seems as though many of the Corinthians thought they could be spiritual in spirit but immoral and self-indulgent in the flesh. And so they not only tolerated shocking sexual immorality among their membership (chapter 5), they practiced all kinds of sensual and bodily indulgences themselves (chapter 6).220
In addition, the Corinthians are taking one another to court (6:1-11). The Scriptures teach that the literal, bodily resurrection of all men is prerequisite for divine judgment which follows (Acts 17:30-32; 24:14-16, 21, 24-25; Revelation 20:11-14). The false teachers are the ones who deny or minimize the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead because they wish to comfort themselves with the deception that there will be no future judgment (see 2 Peter 3:3-4). If we truly believe there is a resurrection of the dead and that the wicked will be punished, we can abandon our desire to have revenge and leave retribution to God (Romans 12:17-21; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10; 1 Peter 2:12). But when our vision concerning the resurrection of the dead is dimmed, we will want justice here and now, and if that means taking our case against a Christian brother before a pagan court, so be it. So it was in Corinth.
The Corinthians seem dull to the dangers of indulging their bodily appetites in spite of the lessons they should have learned from their predecessors, the Israelites (1 Corinthians 10:1-13). They feel free to participate in the pagan idol-worship rituals, even though this might cause a brother to stumble (chapter 8), and in spite of the fact that participating in this meal meant involvement with the demonic powers (10:18-22).
They are so enticed by the thought of eating a festive meal that they disregard all the dangers associated with doing so. When it came to satisfying their bodily appetites, the Corinthians just couldn’t say “no” (see 9:24-27).
Even at the Corinthians’ celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the most sacred part of their gathering together, they do not wait for their brethren to arrive, and so indulge themselves that they become drunk, making their celebration an abomination (11:17-34). The same excesses are evident in the exercise of their spiritual gifts at the meeting of the church (chapters 12-14). The Corinthians indulge themselves by exercising their gifts in a disorderly and chaotic fashion so that the edification of the church was set aside. And in the midst of this, they seem oblivious to the fact that divine judgment is causing many to become sick and a good number to die (1 Corinthians 11:30). We have no monopoly on being the “now generation.” The Corinthians minimized the future and majored on the present moment. Their motto: “Seize the day!”
In chapters 1-14, Paul uncovers much of the dirty laundry of the Corinthian church and deals with each problem in particular. Now in chapter 15, Paul introduces the subject of the resurrection of the dead, not as an entirely new subject, mind you, but as the root problem underlying the sins he previously discussed. Is it any wonder that in chapter 14 Paul upholds the gift of prophecy as the greatest of the gifts for the church? I think not. Prophets fulfilled many roles and carried out various functions, but who would dispute that one of the tasks of a prophet was to speak of future things—to prophesy? Is the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead not a matter of prophecy? If, as I have assumed and alluded, the Corinthians have exalted the gift of tongues and minimized the gift of prophecy, is it surprising that Paul first extols the virtues of the gift of prophecy and then presses on to a particular element of prophecy—the resurrection of the dead?
In chapter 15, Paul approaches the denial of the resurrection of the dead indirectly at first. In verses 1-11, Paul lays a foundation by reiterating the role of the bodily resurrection of our Lord in the gospel message and in his own conversion. The resurrection of our Lord is a doctrine with which every Corinthian Christian heartily agreed. Then in verses 12-19, Paul exposes the real problem, the denial of the resurrection of the dead. If one believes there is no resurrection of the dead at all, then this means that Christ could not have been raised from the dead at all. If Christ was not raised from the dead, then the apostles are deceivers and the Corinthians are deceived and to be pitied, for their faith is futile. But in verses 20-28, Paul returns to the certainty of our Lord’s resurrection and plays out its implications. Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead was the first fruits of resurrection, and other resurrections will follow as a divinely-purposed result. The first to rise will be those who have trusted in Him, followed later by those who have not (15:23-25). It is only after death is finally defeated by the resurrection of all men that the kingdom can be handed over to the Father. Any hope of the kingdom of God has as a prerequisite the resurrection of the dead (15:26-28). The practice of some of being baptized for the dead (verse 29) and the dangerous living of Paul (verses 30-32a) make sense only if there is a literal resurrection of the dead. Otherwise, one might just as well “grab all the gusto he can get” if we only “go around once” (verse 32b). The source of the Corinthians’ error regarding a bodily resurrection is revealed in verses 33 and 34. Illicit fellowship has caused them to become soft on sin and thus vulnerable to doctrinal deviation, which tended to validate their sin.
In verses 35-49, Paul takes on the objections which some have raised concerning the resurrection of the dead. Do they wonder how the dead can be raised? Are they perplexed that the bodies we place in the ground decay and that an imperishable body resulting from this decay seems scientifically untenable? Let them simply refresh their memories as to how, with grain, new life sprouts from the “death” and “decay” of the seed that is buried or planted in the ground. The physical body must come first and then be replaced by the spiritual. The objections to the resurrection of the body are simply the result of a lack of faith in the God who is the Creator of all “bodies” and who raised our Lord from the dead. Adam’s sin brought about bodily death and decay; Christ’s righteousness produces life and bodily transformation.
In verses 50-58, Paul builds to a triumphant climax. Physical death and the setting aside of our mortal bodies is a necessity, because these earthly bodies have no place in heaven. The bodies of those saints who have died and been buried will be resurrected as transformed bodies, and the mortal bodies of those alive at Christ’s coming will also undergo the same transformation, so that both will be clothed with bodies fit for eternity in the presence of God. All of this removes the sting of sin and of death and assures the saint of victory. In the light of this truth of the resurrection from the grave, we know that our earthly toil and labor is not in vain but is an eternal investment.
1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
I am writing this message on an IBM compatible computer operating under Windows 95. This new operating system requires a new anti-virus program, which I would be foolish not to install. A virus can enter my system through an on-line connection (via my modem and the phone line connected to another computer) or through a corrupted disk. Viruses are hidden; their authors do not want them detected until after they have achieved what they were written to accomplish. Viruses are not all meant to destroy; some are simply a sick joke, which causes strange things to happen in the program one is running or silly messages to appear on our screen. But there are viruses which are meant to destroy work by attaching themselves to certain executable files, to memory, or to certain locations (e.g., the boot track of your hard disk). An anti-virus program is designed to discover and eradicate these destructive hidden programs before they can do damage to programs or data (in some cases, wiping your hard disk clean of all program and data files). Every file or program which requires your computer’s attention is scrutinized to make sure it does not contain a destructive virus.
Paul’s devotion to the Word of God and to the good news of the gospel causes him to be as alert and vigilant as an anti-virus program. There is one “file” (so to speak) which is always searched out by the virus of false teaching, and that is the “gospel” file. Every action, every teaching, is scrutinized by Paul to make sure it does not seek to modify or set aside the “gospel file.” Thus, when certain teachers insist that Gentile converts must be circumcised and required to keep the Law of Moses, they find immediate opposition from Paul, who would not allow men to corrupt the “gospel file” (see Acts 15:1-1). When some insist that Titus be circumcised, Paul will not allow it, for the sake of the gospel (Galatians 2:1-5; see 5:3). And when Peter stops sitting at the Gentile table and begins to sit with the Jews, Paul publicly rebukes him (and those who followed him) for his (their) hypocrisy, because his actions imply that Jewish Christians are better than Gentile Christians—and this Paul recognized as a corruption of the gospel (Galatians 2:11-21).
It should come as no surprise then that before Paul takes on the error of the denial of the resurrection of the dead, Paul first lays a foundation for his argument by reiterating the gospel. Whatever practice or teaching Paul might encounter, he always judges it by the gospel he and the apostles preach. That gospel must never be corrupted or altered in any way. Several characteristics of the gospel are emphasized in verses 1-11, which we can summarize.
(1) The gospel is not a message devised by the minds of men, but a revelation from God, received by the apostles and delivered to men by them (see 15:1, 3, 11).
(2) The gospel is the only message by which men are saved and by which they stand (15:1-2).
(3) The gospel is “good news” concerning the grace of God, which informs men concerning the only way they, as undeserving sinners, may experience the forgiveness of their sins (15:3, 9-10).
(4) The gospel is the message which is based solely upon the person and work of Jesus Christ, the One who died for our sins on the cross of Calvary, who was buried, and who was literally and bodily raised from the dead on the third day (15:3-4).
(5) The sacrificial death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ are events which were prophesied in the Old Testament, foretold in the Gospels by our Lord, and then fulfilled by Him as God’s promised Messiah.
(6) The gospel is the message which is of the highest magnitude of importance (15:3).
(7) The gospel saves and keeps only those who receive it and hold fast to it by faith (15:1-2).
(8) The gospel is false and our faith is vain if any element of it is proven to be false (15:2; 12ff.).
(9) The gospel is established on the literal, bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, as witnessed by more than 500 people.
When Jesus spoke of His sacrificial death on the cross of Calvary, He always spoke of His resurrection as well. The enemies of our Lord knew this, and from the day of His resurrection attempted to pass it off as a deception perpetrated by His followers (Matthew 27:62-66; 28:11-15). Paul wants his readers to remember that the resurrection is based upon the most irrefutable evidence possible—the eyewitness testimony of over 500 people on various occasions and over a period of time.
We all observed the acquittal of O. J. Simpson when the jury finally rendered its verdict. Many people have very strong opinions about the trial, about the verdict, and about the guilt or innocence of Mr. Simpson. In spite of strong differences of opinion concerning this trial, all of us should be able to agree on one thing: Mr. Simpson’s guilt or innocence had to be determined on the basis of circumstantial evidence. One credible eyewitness, who saw the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, would have radically changed the entire trial. Paul does not appeal to circumstantial evidence to prove the resurrection of Christ from the dead but rather to the testimony of more than 500 eyewitnesses, most of whom are still alive at the time he writes this Epistle to the Corinthians. Few facts in history have been so well attested. The Corinthians should be reminded of the firm basis which the resurrection of our Lord has in history. Luke, the great historian, sums it up in these words: “To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3).
The resurrection is a matter of great import to the apostle Paul. Few men can claim to have been more impacted by the resurrection of our Lord than Paul. First, the resurrection of our Lord was the means by which Paul was converted from an enemy of Christ to a true believer. Three times in the Book of Acts (chapters 9, 22, and 26) Paul’s conversion experience on the road to Damascus is reported. This appearance of the risen and glorified Christ blinded Paul, stopping him in his tracks, and led to his conversion. No wonder Paul saw the resurrection of our Lord as such a significant event. It turned Paul’s life upside-down.
The resurrection was important to Paul in yet another way—the resurrection appearance of our Lord to Paul on the road to Damascus was the means by which Paul was qualified to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. You will recall that Judas, the disciple who betrayed our Lord, killed himself, leaving a vacancy among the apostles (see Matthew 19:28; Acts 1:15-26). The disciples chose not to wait for “what the Father had promised” (Acts 1:4) and went ahead to select two men who seemed qualified as candidates to take the place of Judas (Acts 1:12-26). It is my opinion that it was not Matthias whom God had appointed to this position, but Paul. I believe Paul’s words in our text (15:7-11) indicate that he was appointed as the replacement for Judas.
Who would have ever imagined such a thing? The apostles were those whose task it was to be witnesses of our Lord’s resurrection (Acts 1:22; 2:32). How could Paul (or anyone else who had not been with the eleven disciples) possibly qualify? What seemed humanly impossible was possible with God. He arranged a private resurrection appearance for Paul. It was as a result of our Lord’s post-resurrection appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus that Paul was qualified to be an apostle.
Just how important was the resurrection of our Lord to Paul? It was not only the basis for his salvation and apostleship, it was a constant theme in his preaching (Acts 17:30-31; 24:15, 25). It was the reason for Paul’s imprisonment and trial before Caesar (Acts 23:6; 24:21; 26:6-8; 28:20). No wonder Paul is so emphatic about the resurrection of our Lord and about the error of those who say there is no resurrection of the dead. The gospel is the starting point and standard for all Christian teaching and practice. Paul takes us back to our origins to reinforce the vital role which the resurrection of our Lord plays in our salvation and Christian life.
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
It was not the resurrection of our Lord which was denied by some at Corinth, but rather the resurrection of the dead, the resurrection of men. The denial of the resurrection of the dead is a denial of Scriptural teaching:
1 “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. 3 And those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever” (Daniel 12:1-3).
24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures, or the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken” (Mark 12:24-27).
28 “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs shall hear His voice, 29 and shall come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28-29).
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).
Paul does not turn us to these texts or others like them, but rather to the gospel which he has just declared and which the Corinthians have received. Paul reasons from the resurrection of our Lord. If Christ has indeed risen from the dead, then how is it possible for anyone to reason that there is no resurrection from the dead? To say that there is no resurrection of the dead, and yet to affirm that Christ rose from the dead, is a logical impossibility. If there is no resurrection of the dead, then we must also conclude that Christ did not rise from the dead either.
The Corinthians who denied the resurrection of the dead are wrong on many counts. Paul chooses to begin with the most significant error in verses 12-19. He reasons that a denial of the resurrection of the dead is, of necessity, a denial of the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Since God has provided undeniable proof for Christ’s resurrection, and since Paul and more than 500 others are witnesses of His resurrection, no one can logically say that there is no such thing as the resurrection of the dead. The Corinthians are logically wrong because they hold two contradictory statements to be true at the same time. First, they hold the resurrection of Christ from the dead to be true. Second, they hold the resurrection of anyone from the dead to be false. They must choose one or the other. Logically one cannot affirm and deny the resurrection of the dead at the same time. In denying the resurrection of the dead, some of the Corinthians are wrong, dead wrong!
The conclusion they reach—that the dead are not raised—is not logical, given the resurrection of our Lord from the dead. Furthermore, the implications of such a conclusion are astounding. Paul first rejects their conclusion as illogical; now he challenges the implications of their conclusion that the dead are not raised. What if Christ had not been raised from the dead? What would the implications of this conclusion be? In a word, they would be horrifying.
If Christ was not raised from the dead, then the gospel, outlined in verses 1-11, is false. The resurrection of our Lord was proclaimed by Paul and the apostles as one of the foundational truths of the gospel. Further, since the apostles221 preached Christ crucified, buried, and raised again from the dead, their ministry would be vain if Christ did not actually rise from the grave (verse 14). It would be vain in the sense that these men risked their lives and made monumental sacrifices for a message that was false and which had no saving power. Both the message of the apostles and their ministry would be rendered useless if the proclamation of our Lord’s resurrection were proven false.
Not only would the apostles’ preaching topple if the resurrection of Christ had not occurred, but the faith of those who believed their message would also be undermined. The gospel Paul preached at Corinth is the gospel which proclaimed Christ’s resurrection. It is also the gospel the Corinthians received, by which they are being saved, and in which they stand (14:1-2). If Christ did not rise from the dead, their faith is without foundation; it is empty and useless.
As Paul’s argument unfolds, it gets worse. Up to this point, the apostles’ ministry and message have been shown to be worthless. Now in verse 15, Paul shows that the denial of Christ’s resurrection puts the apostles in an even more serious dilemma. If the gospel they have been preaching is a false gospel, then these men are actually in serious trouble with God. They are “false witnesses.” They have misrepresented God, making false claims about Him by proclaiming that He raised the Lord Jesus from the dead. They have defamed God. From an Old Testament point of view, the apostles would be exposed as false prophets (Deuteronomy 13 and 18:14-22), and this they would be, if Christ had not risen from the dead.
Things get worse for the Corinthians, as well as the apostles, if indeed Christ did not rise. Their faith in Christ would be worthless, for they have trusted in a dead man, a man who staked the integrity of His ministry and message on His resurrection (see Matthew 12:38-40; 27:62-64). If Christ was not raised from the dead, then His death on Calvary was meaningless, and the Corinthians are still condemned sinners. Take away the resurrection and you pull the rug out from under the atoning work of our Lord. It is not merely the death, but the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord which saves sinners. To deny the resurrection of our Lord is to condemn men as sinners, without hope of forgiveness and eternal life. And so those saints who have already “fallen asleep” (verse 18) have no hope beyond the grave. They are dead and gone. In this sad state of affairs, brought about if Christ did not rise, Christians should be pitied for their stupidity, not persecuted.
20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all.
The argument Paul plays out in verses 12-19 is a purely theoretical one. His “If … then …” argument was simply to show the folly of rejecting the resurrection of the dead, a claim which directly contradicts the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Now in verses 20-28, Paul takes up the truth of Christ’s resurrection, a truth he has already set down in verses 1-11. Verses 1-11 point out the historical authentication of the resurrection of Christ. Now, Paul sets down the logical implications of His resurrection. The resurrection of the dead is not only consistent with Christ’s resurrection, it is a certainty which flows out of His resurrection. There are no “ifs” here, but only the much stronger term “since” (verse 21).
“Christ has been raised from the dead” (verse 20) is the premise of Paul’s argument in these verses. As the risen Christ, He is the “first fruits of those who are asleep.” In other words, whatever happened to our Lord is sure to happen to those who have fallen asleep, those who have died trusting in Him. In the Old Testament, the “first fruits” are the first offspring or crop to be obtained by the farmer. It was proof that there was more to come. Christ’s resurrection is our proof that more resurrections will follow.
How do we know that Christ’s resurrection guarantees a resurrection for others? The answer to this can be seen when one understands the unique relationship which exists between Adam and our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom Paul later refers as the “first Adam” and the “last Adam” (15:45). By his sin, Adam brought about death for himself and the whole human race. Christ, by His righteous life, substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection, brings about life for mankind.222 Adam brought death upon all men; Christ will make men alive.
As some falsely taught (2 Timothy 2:18), this resurrection of men from the dead has not already occurred but is yet to come. Christ’s resurrection will actually bring about a sequence of resurrections, with the last and final resurrection abolishing death altogether (verse 26). Everything must occur in its proper order, as ordained by God (verse 23). Christ has already risen from the dead, and His resurrection is but the first fruits of the other resurrections yet to occur. The next resurrection mentioned is that of those who have trusted in our Lord for salvation, which occurs when He returns to this earth to defeat all His enemies and to establish His rule over all the earth (verse 23). Then, finally, the last resurrection will take place, the resurrection of the unbelieving dead.223
Paul speaks here of two “reigns”, the “reign” of Christ, during which time all of His enemies are defeated, and the “reign of the Father,” when Christ hands the kingdom over to the Father, in submission to Him. The reign of Christ is, I believe, the millennium, described in Revelation 20. The reign of the Father is the eternal kingdom of God, forever and ever, described in Revelation 21 and 22.
Are there those who deny the resurrection of the dead and thus also (by implication) the resurrection of our Lord? They cannot be those who look for the coming kingdom of God, for the last and final victory of Christ is His victory over death, a victory achieved by the resurrection of the unbelieving dead and the banishing of death to the lake of fire. The kingdom cannot come until all of our Lord’s enemies are defeated, and His last and final enemy is death itself. The final stage of resurrection, the last fruit of our Lord’s resurrection, is the resurrection of the unbelieving dead. When this final enemy is defeated, the kingdom of our Lord is secured, and it is at this time that our Lord subjects the final “thing” to God—Himself—by handing the kingdom over to the Father. The resurrection of the dead is not only a vital part of the gospel, it plays a crucial role in the establishment of the kingdom of God. Who would dare to deny it?
29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? 30 Why are we also in danger every hour? 31 I protest, brethren, by the boasting in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32 If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. 33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.” 34 Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.
I do not know for certain how many different interpretations have been offered for verse 29, but I know they are numerous. Before trying to interpret this text, we should attempt to set the stage.
First, there is no other passage in the Bible which indicates that Christians should be baptized for the dead. It is never commanded. We never see this practiced in the Book of Acts or elsewhere in the New Testament. This is a unique occurrence in Scripture.
Second, we would surely be foolish to build a doctrine on this one obscure reference, when it is not clear who is being baptized, by whom, or for what purpose. We do know from Peter’s own words that the false teachers were those who seemed to major on twisting the obscure elements of Paul’s teaching (2 Peter 3:14-18).
Third, Paul speaks of “those who are baptized for the dead.” He speaks in the third person. Contrast this with the first person pronouns employed in verses 30-32. We are not told that Paul has ever been baptized for the dead or that anyone in particular in the church has done so. Somebody is being baptized for the dead, but we do not know who. It seems safe to say it is somebody other than the apostles.
Fourth, we are told by Luke that many in Corinth believed as a result of Paul’s teaching and that many were baptized (Acts 18:8). We also know that very few were actually baptized by Paul (1 Corinthians 1:16), a fact which pleased Paul in retrospect. In this same passage at the outset of this epistle, it does seem evident that baptism was one of the things in which some took pride and over which some took sides. Baptism then did seem to be a problem at Corinth. It seems to have played too important a role to some. It may have been more than a symbol and thus became a “work” in which some took pride.
Given all of these observations, I am inclined to understand verse 29 as follows. Baptism had taken on too much meaning for some at Corinth. Some looked upon baptism as the Judaisers looked upon circumcision, as a “work” performed by men which was necessary to salvation. If baptism was wrongly considered necessary for salvation, then surely those now dead, who may not have been baptized when they were saved, would be thought to be in trouble. How could this problem be remedied? By a vicarious baptism, a baptism enacted on behalf of the one who had already died without being baptized. Paul is not advocating this kind of baptism; he is showing the inconsistency of this behavior apart from a belief in the resurrection of the dead. If those who were being baptized for the dead were also those who rejected the resurrection of the dead, Paul is showing how inconsistent their practice is with their doctrine. If those being baptized for the dead believe that the dead are not raised, what value is there in (wrongly) being baptized for one who has already died? Their behavior (baptism for the dead) is not consistent with their belief (there is no resurrection of the dead).
In verses 30-32, Paul turns our attention to his own example, showing that his behavior is consistent with his belief in the resurrection of the dead. Paul’s conduct makes no sense, unless there is a resurrection of the dead. No one can dispute the fact that Paul lived dangerously. Almost from the moment of his conversion, his enemies were trying to kill him (Acts 9:23-25; 14:19; 21:31; 22:22; 23:12). And some of those who may not have wished Paul dead certainly did want to do bodily harm to him (see Acts 16:22-23; 19:23ff.; 22:25). Wherever Paul went, he risked his life for the sake of the gospel. This would be a most foolish thing to do, unless of course there is such a thing as the resurrection of the dead. Suffering for Christ, and taking up our cross in this life, makes perfect sense if there is a crown awaiting us after the resurrection. His belief in the resurrection inspired and enabled Paul to live as he did (see Philippians 1:12-26; 3:7-14).
On the other hand, if there is no resurrection of the dead, then a very different lifestyle would be justified: “If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE” (verse 32b). Hedonism is the logical outcome of denying the resurrection of the dead. We all know the contemporary beer commercial, which goes: “You only go around once, so you’d better grab all the gusto you can get.” Once one denies the resurrection of the dead, this slogan seems entirely logical. But since Christ was raised from the dead, and since His kingdom culminates in the defeat of death, we actually “go around twice.” And knowing this, Paul’s lifestyle is the only way to go.
Verses 33 and 34 link behavior and belief in yet another way. Just how could some of the Corinthians come to the place where they denied the resurrection of the dead? How could such an unbiblical and illogical conclusion be reached by Christians? Paul gives us the answer in verses 33 and 34. Normally helpful to us in his paraphrase of the New Testament text, J. B. Phillips seems to miss Paul’s point entirely:
Don’t let yourselves be deceived. Talking about things that are not true is bound to be reflected in practical conduct. Come back to your senses, and don’t dabble in sinful doubts. Remember that there are men who have plenty to say but have no knowledge of God. You should be ashamed that I have to write like this at all!
I think Phillips reverses Paul’s meaning. His paraphrase indicates that entertaining discussions of doubtful things is the cause of immorality and sin. I think it is just the reverse. I grant that our doctrine should work itself out in our behavior. We see this taught throughout the Bible. Many of the New Testament epistles begin with doctrine and conclude with our conduct. But the sad truth is that for most of us, our morality determines our theology. Proverbs says it this way: “An evil doer listens to wicked lips, A liar pays attention to a destructive tongue” (Proverbs 17:4). We listen to those who tell us what we want to hear, and what we want to hear is that which justifies what we are doing (or want to do). Elsewhere, Paul puts it this way:
1 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths (2 Timothy 4:1-4).
This is the very thing about which Paul had warned the Ephesian elders:
25 “And now, behold, I know that all of you, among whom I went about preaching the kingdom, will see my face no more. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God. 28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:25-32).
The Corinthians, so wise as they are (1 Corinthians 4:7-10), have really been deceived. This is the reason they came to reject the resurrection of the dead. The Corinthians had entered into fellowship with those who were rotten apples, spiritually speaking. They had failed to separate themselves from the pagan culture in which they lived. They began to esteem and emulate those who spoke with worldly wisdom (chapters 1-3). They looked down on Paul and other apostles (chapter 4). They not only tolerated those who lived in immorality, they proudly embraced a man whose conduct shocked the pagans (chapter 5). They looked to worldly courts to settle their disputes (chapter 6), and they felt so spiritually invincible that they did not hesitate to participate in heathen idol worship (chapters 8-10). They embraced the feminist thinking of their day (1 Corinthians 11:1-16), and they had no reservations about hastening on with the Lord’s Supper so as to exclude some members of their fellowship, in the process conducting themselves as heathen (1 Corinthians 11:17-34). The exercise of their spiritual gifts is such that it appears dangerously similar to their “spiritual rituals” as unbelievers (12:1ff.). Are we surprised, then, if the Corinthians have come to embrace sinners as saints, that their doctrine suffers in the process?
Paul challenges the Corinthians to “sober up” and face up to their folly. They need to straighten up in their thinking and then stop sinning. They need to get their doctrine straight and then consistently apply their beliefs in godly behavior. They need to realize that some among them have no knowledge of God. These are those whom Paul will later expose as false apostles, as messengers of Satan (2 Corinthians 11:12-15). Those who have been led astray by such false teachers must also admit their lack of knowledge, repent, and return to the doctrine of the apostles.
35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?” 36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; 37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, 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 also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
In verse 35, Paul asks two questions which the opponents of the resurrection of the dead apparently employed to justify their error.224 These two questions appear to be two parts of a whole. They are not two independent questions then, but two intertwined questions. The second question merely repeats the first in different words, words which more clearly expose the doubts of the questioner. The first question, “How are the dead raised?” is followed up by the second, “With what kind of body do they come (back to life)?” The first expresses doubt about the resurrection of the dead; the second indicates why.
Suppose for a moment that our house burns to the ground, and all that is left is rubble and ashes. Suppose also that we have absolutely no insurance, no means, and no materials with which to rebuild our house, other than the remains that are left. If I attempted to assure my wife Jeannette by saying to her, “Honey, using what remains, I am going to build you an even better house than we had before,” she might very well say to me, “Bob, how are you going to rebuild this house? What do you think a new house will look like built out of this rubble?” She’s really asking the same question, isn’t she?
So it is, I believe, with the resurrection of the dead. The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is the truth that God will take the decaying and disintegrating remains of those who have died and create from them a new body, one fit for the kingdom of God. The objector might well ask, “How can the dead be resurrected when the remains are in a constant process of deterioration? What kind of monstrosity do you think this ‘resurrected body’ would amount to?” I am reminded of Shelley’s Frankenstein, where the parts of various corpses are brought back to “life” in a grotesque and horrifying way. With these two questions, Paul expresses the unbelief of some Corinthians in any resurrection of dead bodies.
No wonder we find Paul’s words in verse 36 harsh—they are! A number of translations attempt to soften Paul’s indictment in verse 36:
“How foolish!” (NIV)
“A senseless question!” (NEB)
“Now that is talking without using your minds!” (Phillips)
You will remember that our Lord had a strong word of warning for those who would call another a fool: “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell” (Matthew 5:22).
It should be pointed out that the word used by our Lord in Matthew 5:22 is not the same word that Paul employs in our text. The difference in meaning between these words is not that great. Our Lord Himself uses the same word Paul employs in our text to rebuke the Pharisees for their foolish fetish with ceremonial washings (Luke 11:40). He uses it again in Luke 12:20 to describe the “rich fool,” who presumed his life would continue on as usual and as he built bigger barns to warehouse his wealth. The word Paul uses is also found in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1).225
Other texts are very helpful in further defining the characteristics of a “fool,” and unfortunately they rather accurately depict some of the characteristics of the Corinthians.226 Suffice it to say that the term “fool” is often employed to refer to the folly of an unbeliever. This is the case in Psalm 14:1 and 53:1. It is also the implication in Ephesians 5:17 and 1 Peter 2:15. I believe that when Paul uses this strong rebuke, it is because anyone who rejects the resurrection of the dead must also reject the resurrection of Christ. To do this, one must reject the gospel and thus place himself in the company of those who deny God. Do the Corinthians take this heresy casually, embracing those who hold it as they proudly embraced the immoral man in 1 Corinthians 5? I think it is likely, especially in the light of these words from the pen of Paul in his second Epistle to the Corinthians:
1 I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin. 3 But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. 4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully (2 Corinthians 11:1-4).
Paul uses strong words (“you fool”) to shock the Corinthians because they are necessary and appropriate.
Paul responds to the questions which have been raised, turning first to nature, to God’s creation, to make several very powerful points.
(1) Death and physical decay are not an insurmountable barrier to resurrection life, but rather the means to it. Would we suppose that death and decay are some kind of insurmountable problem for God, rendering Him incapable of resurrecting our bodies from the natural processes of corruption and decay? We need only to look at the realm of nature to see the folly of such logic. If we reason that death and decay renders resurrection impossible, all we need do is trace the steps of the farmer, who every year sows seeds in the soil to undergo the process of “dying” so that a new plant can be produced through its “death.”
(2) There is a transformation process which occurs in nature so that the seed which dies comes to life in a different and vastly better form. This is a most important point. There is a direct connection between the seed that is “buried” and the plant which results from the “resurrection” of that seed. Wheat seeds produce wheat plants; rye seed produces rye plants, and so on. But in the process of dying and being “resurrected” as a plant, the once “naked” or “bare” (verse 37) seed becomes something much more beautiful. There is nothing particularly beautiful about a grain bin filled with wheat seed, but there is great beauty in a wheat field!
(3) God is the giver of bodies. The grain of wheat which “dies” in the ground and comes to life in a new resurrected “body” comes to life in a body which God Himself has given (verse 38). It is important to notice that in the question raised in verse 38, God is not mentioned: “How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?” I do not think the Corinthians dared to ask the question the way they should have: “How can God raise the dead? And what kind of body does God give those He raises?”
It is better for the skeptic to reject the resurrection of the dead as a natural phenomenon. And yet Paul uses “nature” as an example of just such resurrection. But when he does so, he specifies that the body which is given is the body God has given. Paul goes even further, indicating that the body God gives is just exactly the body He wishes to give. Would anyone dare to deny the resurrection? Then let them dare to deny that God raises the dead. Would anyone dare to question the quality of the body God gives those whose corpses He raises? Then let them hear that God gives them just the body He wants!
(4) God is the Creator, the giver of all life. God created not only the plant world, but the animal kingdom as well, and beyond this, the heavens above. Does the mention of plants, each containing their own seed, of mankind, of beasts, of birds, of fish, and of heavenly bodies not take us back to the first two chapters of Genesis? Surely Paul has the first creation in mind. The God who called creation into existence is surely the God who can cause a decaying corpse to come to life. To put it a little differently, God created man from the dust of the earth. Death turns man back to dust. And out of this “dust,” God can create anything He purposes and promises to fashion.
(5) God, the Creator, is the One who gives each form of life its own distinct and unique body, and each body is perfectly suited for its function and environment. Think back on the creation account in Genesis. God created the heavens and the earth. He created man. He created birds and fish and beasts. Each of God’s creatures has its own beauty and its own glory. Birds fly, and so a part of their “glory” is that they have a lightweight structure with hollow bones. Whales live deep beneath the sea. Their glory does not come from their light weight, but from their design which allows them to endure the pressures of the depths. Each member of the animal kingdom has a body whose glory is found in relationship to its domain and function. Seeing this glorious design in the bodies God made in the first creation, do we dare to doubt the glory of the bodies God will create in the new creation? We can be assured that our resurrection body will be the perfect body, the glorious body which ideally suits us for heaven.
Paul applies the principles he has established from nature in verses 36-41 to the issue at hand, the resurrection of the dead, in verses 42-44. The resurrection of the dead is like the death of the seed and the new, resurrected life of the plant which springs forth from the earth due to the germination of that seed. Thus, Paul speaks of the “sowing” of our earthly bodies, linking verses 42-49 to verses 36-41. There is a direct link between the earthly body that dies and decays in the earth and the new, resurrected body. The resurrected body comes forth from the body that died. The resurrection body is superior to the old body in several important ways, which Paul indicates:
(1) The former body is “sown” in a perishable state; the resurrected body is raised as an imperishable body. Our physical bodies are “perishable,” which is why they are subject to aging, disease, and death. Our resurrected bodies are imperishable. They are not subject to corruption or death.
(2) The physical, earthly body is “sown” in dishonor; the resurrected body is raised in glory. There is nothing very noble about the process of dying or about death itself. With few exceptions, we put dead bodies away from us, out of sight. For the Old Testament Israelites, contact with a dead body made one unclean. Death was defiling. The resurrected body is characterized by glory, not dishonor.
(3) The physical body is “sown” in weakness; it is raised in power. The frailty of the human body may be concealed for a time, but as we age it becomes harder and harder to hide. Our body dies because it succumbs to deterioration and disease. It is weak. Our resurrection bodies are characterized by power. The resurrection of our bodies testifies to the greatness of that power. The more impossible resurrection appears to be, the greater the evidence of God’s power in raising us from the dead.
(4) The physical body is “sown” a natural body; the resurrection body is raised a spiritual body. The physical body is a natural body, while the resurrected body is spiritual. The physical body is an “earthy” body. As such, it is an earth-bound body. Our present bodies suit us well for living on this earth. Our earthly bodies do not suit us for heaven, as Paul will soon point out. Our resurrected body is a “spiritual” body. Neither the meaning nor the implications of this fact are immediately clear, but they are very important.
(5) The origin, nature, and destiny of both the natural body and the spiritual body can only be understood in terms of their relationship to the “first Adam” and the “last Adam,” Jesus Christ. Verses 42-44 contrast the nature of our earthly, physical bodies with that of our heavenly, spiritual bodies. Verses 45-49 link our earthly bodies with the “first Adam,” and our heavenly resurrection bodies with Jesus Christ, the “last Adam.” This connection which we have with Adam and with Christ is a crucial one.
Both the “first Adam” (the Adam of Genesis) and the “last Adam” were men (this is the meaning of the word Adam) who were prototypes. The actions of both men impact all men. How can the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ affect all men? The answer: The same way Adam’s sin and death affected all men. The “first Adam” became a living soul; the “last Adam” became a life-giving spirit. The “first Adam” was a natural man; the “last Adam” became a spiritual man. The “first Adam,” through his sin and death, brought sin into the world and caused all men to be under the sentence of death. Jesus Christ, the “last Adam,” through His righteousness, death, burial and resurrection, has brought about resurrection for all men.227
Salvation is all about our identity or our identification. By virtue of being human, we are identified with Adam in his fallen humanity, in his condemnation, and thus in his death. Jesus Christ came to the earth as the “last Adam” so that men might be saved by identifying with Him in His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension. By acknowledging our sin and the condemnation we rightly deserve, and by trusting in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in our place, we enter into a new identity. The gospel is the good news that we can change our identity by faith in Jesus Christ. It is by identifying with Him by faith that we are saved from our sins and enter into eternal life.
In noting the contrast between the “first Adam” and the “last Adam,” we should not overlook the comparison. Both Adam and Christ are alike in that they are both “Adams.” In order for our Lord to reverse the effects of the fall, brought about by Adam, the Lord Jesus had to identify with Adam. The Son of God took on human flesh, a natural body. In His life and in His death, our Lord revealed His identification with man in his humanity. Did Adam have a natural, fleshly body? So did Jesus Christ. Did Adam have a perishable body? So did our Lord Jesus Christ. This is why He was able to die on the cross of Calvary. Is the natural body of Adam characterized by weakness? So was the earthly body of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord knew hunger (Matthew 4:2; 21:18) and fatigue (John 4:6). He was so weakened by His torture that another had to carry His cross (Luke 23:26). Does the natural body die in dishonor? There is no more dishonorable way to die than crucifixion. Our Lord identified with our dishonor in death.
In reflecting on these characteristics of the natural body, it suddenly dawned on me that these same characteristics of the natural body with which our Lord identified are those which characterized Paul’s ministry as well:
1 And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4 And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).
9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. 11 To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; 12 and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; 13 when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now (1 Corinthians 4:9-13).
4 But in everything commending ourselves as servants of God, in much endurance, in afflictions, in hardships, in distresses, 5 in beatings, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in sleeplessness, in hunger, 6 in purity, in knowledge, in patience, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in genuine love, 7 in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the left, 8 by glory and dishonor, by evil report and good report; regarded as deceivers and yet true; 9 as unknown yet well-known, as dying yet behold, we live; as punished yet not put to death, 10 as sorrowful yet always rejoicing, as poor yet making many rich, as having nothing yet possessing all things (2 Corinthians 6:4-10).
23 Are they servants of Christ? (I speak as if insane) I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. 24 Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. 26 I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; 27 I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure (2 Corinthians 11:23-27).
8 Concerning this I entreated the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Corinthians 12:8-10).
When one stops to ponder this, these “weaknesses” of Paul are the very thing which cause the Corinthians to disdain him. They are so wise; he is foolish. They are so strong; he is so weak. They are already reigning; he is the dregs of humanity. What is wrong with the Corinthians?
If Christ identified with man in his natural, weak and dishonorable condition, and Paul is similarly characterized, what does this tell us about the Corinthians and their denial of the resurrection of the dead? I think it tells us a great deal. The Corinthians are trying to be “spiritual” in the present with what Paul and the apostles tell us is a future “spirituality.” True future spirituality means a new, “spiritual” body that is incorruptible and imperishable. That comes at the resurrection of the dead, which takes place when our Lord returns to the earth to establish His kingdom. At that time, we will be able to identify with the risen Christ by the possession of our new, resurrected bodies that are free from sin, corruption, sickness, and death.
True spirituality in the present is our identification with our Lord’s earthly body. We must identify with Him in His weakness, in His dishonor, in His death, and (partly) in His resurrection. This is why Paul speaks of his ministry in terms of dishonor and weakness. This is the calling of the Christian: to identify in body, soul, and spirit with the Lord in His earthly coming, in His rejection, weakness, shame and death. Spirituality cannot be separated from what we do in and with our bodies:
12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body. 14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? May it never be! 16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body with her? For He says, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body (1 Corinthians 6:12-20).
We are to identify with our Lord in His sufferings:
1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus (Romans 6:1-11).
9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you (Romans 8:9-11).
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. 24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one also hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it (Romans 8:18-25).
8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:8-11).
24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body (which is the church) in filling up that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions. 25 Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God, 26 that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations; but has now been manifested to His saints, 27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28 And we proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, that we may present every man complete in Christ. 29 And for this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me (Colossians 1:24-29).
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. 19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a man bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. 21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22 who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. 25 For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls (1 Peter 2:18-25).
Some of the Corinthians wanted to reject the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead because they wanted to deceive themselves into thinking they could be spiritual by entering into our Lord’s future blessings by identifying with the glories of our Lord now, rather than His sufferings now. They did not want to identify with His weakness and dishonor but with His power and glory. To reject a future resurrection, with a spiritual and glorified body was (in the minds of some) to open the door to a spiritual existence now which permitted bodily indulgences and which assured them of peace and prosperity, health and wealth now, without having to endure the sufferings and shame of our Lord in this life. For those who wish to avoid pain and suffering and shame for Christ’s sake and to label self-indulgence as spirituality, the rejection of the resurrection of the dead was a great pretext. But Paul has shown it up for what it is, a denial of the gospel by which we are saved and by which we are to live (see Colossians 2:6).
50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.
I like the way the New Revised Standard Version begins verse 50: “What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: … .” In other words, Paul is now getting to the bottom line. All of what Paul has been saying boils down to this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The expression, “flesh and blood,” is found only five times in the New Testament (the expression is not found in the Old).228 It consistently refers to men (mankind), and in the context of our passage, it refers to the natural human body. The last half of verse 50 simply repeats the same truth in different words: “Perishable bodies cannot dwell in an eternally imperishable environment, where perishing is not permitted.”
Many restaurants have a sign in the front window, which reads something like this: “No shoes, no shirt, no service.” This means that one’s appearance and attire has to meet certain standards, or they are not welcome. That is the way heaven is. Heaven is a place where there is no pain, no sorrow, no sickness, or death. These mortal bodies which we possess here on earth are not suited for heaven. The death and burial of our earthly bodies is not an unfortunate circumstance; it is a necessity. Recently, we watched the movie “Apollo 13.” The lunar module (LM), Aquarius, which helped keep the astronauts alive in outer space, had to be abandoned before the astronauts could reenter the earth’s atmosphere. The Aquarius was simply not designed for reentry. It was designed for outer space and specifically for a lunar landing. Our earthly bodies were not designed for the kingdom of God. They have to be left behind, because they are not suited for eternal habitation.
For us to dwell eternally in the presence of God, we must have different bodies. As Paul repeats in verse 53, “this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality” (NRSV). We cannot dwell in heaven in these bodies. It is just that simple. If we are to dwell in God’s presence for all eternity, we must have imperishable, incorruptible bodies, and that means we must trade in these earthly, perishable bodies.
For those who have died, this will happen at the resurrection of the dead. That is what Paul has been saying in verses 35-49. At the resurrection of the dead, our natural bodies are exchanged for spiritual bodies; our earthly bodies are transformed into heavenly bodies; our perishable bodies are transformed into imperishable bodies. The resurrection of the dead is the means by which bodies unfit for heaven are miraculously transformed into bodies which are perfectly suited for heaven.
But what of those who are alive at the time of our Lord’s return? In verses 51 and 52, Paul adds yet another category, those who are alive at the time of Christ’s coming. The resurrection of the dead is a truth which was revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures (see Job 19:25-27; Psalm 73:23-24; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:1-2). What was not so clearly revealed was the transformation of those who are alive at the time of our Lord’s return. This is what the Bible calls a mystery. A mystery is not a secret which no one has ever heard about before, but something about which some information has been given without being understood.229 If our earthly bodies are not suited for the kingdom of God, then it is not just dead bodies that need to be raised. We need a transformation of our earthly bodies, whether living or dead.
This is the mystery which Paul now reveals. We shall not all “sleep” (die). Paul uses the term “sleep” just as our Lord did (see John 11:11, 13) because death is not a permanent state. Just as those who sleep “wake up,” so those who die will rise again. But not all men will die. The kingdom of God begins with the return of our Lord to this earth. Those alive at the time of His return will not “sleep,” Paul says, but we shall all be changed. This word is not the word usually rendered “transformed,” but it is a fascinating word. In Romans 1:23 and Psalm 106:20 (105:20 in the Greek Septuagint), the word is rendered “exchanged.” I believe it could be thus rendered in Psalm 102:26 (101:26 in the Septuagint) and Hebrews 1:12. Our bodies will be “changed,” and in fact they will be “exchanged.” Those who are alive get an instant trade-up.
Paul employs two expressions to describe the speed of this change which those living at the time of our Lord’s coming will experience. The second is one with which we are all familiar, the “twinkling of an eye.” The first expression is even more graphic and dramatic. Those of us who are fascinated with computers compare various pieces of hardware in terms of their speed. My first hard drive had an access time of something like 70 milliseconds. The one I now use is right around 10 milliseconds (thousandths of a second). The speed of memory is measured in nanoseconds, billionths of a second. Now that is a very small piece of time. But the word Paul employs is that word which we would transliterate “atom,” and my lexicon defines it as an indivisible moment of time. That’s so small it cannot get any smaller. And that’s how fast the change will occur for those living at the time of our Lord’s return. There will be no one waiting in line for this change!
The sequence of events is spelled out in verse 52. It will begin with the sounding of a trumpet, the “last trumpet.” There is a great deal of discussion about which “trumpet” this is. Dispensationalists think it is a very different trumpet than do the non-dispensationalists. For the moment, let us agree that there is to be a trumpet blast. This blast is something like the starting gun at a race. When the trumpet sounds, things begin to happen. Our Lord returns to the earth (although this is not specifically mentioned here). The dead in Christ are first raised from the grave, the old body being transformed as it is raised so that what was sown as a natural body rises as a spiritual body. After the dead in Christ are raised, those alive at this time are instantaneously changed in body so that their perishable bodies are now imperishable, their natural bodies are now spiritual bodies. In but the twinkling of an eye, Paul says, we become just like those whose bodies have been raised from the dead.230
54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; 57 but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
When these transformations take place, Old Testament prophecy is fulfilled. Paul turns to the prophecy of Isaiah to show that the resurrection of the dead and transformation of the living is, indeed, the same victory over death which he spoke of in verses 20-28. The last enemy to be defeated and abolished by our Lord is death (15:26). This is accomplished by the resurrection of the dead and the transformation of the living. And thus Paul sees this as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy in chapter 25:
6 And the Lord of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, And refined, aged wine. 7 And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples, Even the veil which is stretched over all nations. 8 He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord God will wipe tears away from all faces, And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; For the Lord has spoken (Isaiah 25:6-8).231
Isaiah 25 is about the coming of the kingdom of God. What refreshing and welcome news this would be to those who were about to be sent into captivity in a foreign land. The first 5 verses of chapter 25 describe the defeat and judgment of those nations who have rejected God and persecuted His people. Beginning at verse 6, Isaiah begins to describe the restoration of the nation Israel at the commencement of the kingdom of God, brought about by the return of Messiah. The kingdom is described as a lavish banquet set before the people of God. On the mountain (which looks like Jerusalem) where this banquet is served, God will “swallow up the covering which is over all peoples” (verse 7). This covering may well be a shroud like that which is put over a dead body. If so, this is a symbolic way of saying what will be clearly stated in verse 8, that God is going to swallow up death by His victory. No wonder Paul speaks of death being swallowed up in victory; this is just as Isaiah prophesied.
The distinctive of the prophecy to which Paul refers is that in this text, Isaiah not only speaks of the resurrection of the dead (as we see in 26:19), he speaks of the end of death. Death is done away with. Death is exterminated. Thus, Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in the events Paul describes.
But wait, there’s more (as the television commercial goes). Paul now turns our attention to the words of the prophet Hosea: “I will ransom them from the power of Sheol; I will redeem them from death. O Death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting? Compassion will be hidden from My sight” (Hosea 13:14).232 Isaiah’s words indicate that the coming of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead (including as well the transformation of those who are alive at the time of our Lord’s appearing) is the final defeat of death itself. Paul then uses Hosea’s words to convey the believer’s triumph due to this victory our Lord has won.
This victory will not be understood until we first grasp the grip which death has over men. That death grip is depicted in the second chapter of Hebrews:
14 Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. 16 For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham. 17 Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted (Hebrews 2:14-18).
Of all the obsessions and fears named these days, one almost never hears of the fear of death. Yet it is this fear which makes virtual slaves of all men. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that the devil has a grip on men through their fear of death. Death is the destiny of all men. The Son of God took on humanity, flesh and blood, at His incarnation, and then by His death and resurrection rendered death and the devil powerless. Those who have trusted in Christ need no longer live in fear of death. Death and the fear of death have been swallowed up by the triumph of our Lord over them.
Paul’s taunt seems to reverse matters. Paul asks death where its victory is and where its sting is. Isn’t it just the opposite? Doesn’t Paul elsewhere write that the “wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23)? Yes, this is true, but this is not Paul’s point here. Death is the final enemy of our Lord, and ultimately for us. Does death have the last word? For the Christian, the answer is a resounding “No!” Death has lost its sting and its victory. Death is as frightening for the Christian as a scorpion whose stinger has been plucked out or a deadly viper whose fangs have been removed. This is because our Lord “de-fanged” death in at least three ways.
First, Christ died for our sins.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3).
21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:21-26).
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).
17 Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. 18 Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:17-21).
We need not suffer the penalty of death which our sins deserve because Christ suffered that penalty in our place. He died for us, paying the death penalty for our sins. Death has no claim on us because our debt has been paid, by the Lord Jesus Christ.
Second, Christ died to sin. Christ died for our sins, taking our sins, their guilt and punishment, upon Himself and thus freeing us from the penalty for sin—death. Christ also died to sin, so that all who are in Him by faith have been freed from sin’s power:
3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin, once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace (Romans 6:3-14).
Sin has no power over a corpse. Sin overpowers those who are alive (see Romans 7). By dying to sin in Christ, we are delivered from sin’s power over us. Death owned us through sin, our sin. But by faith in Jesus Christ, we have died to sin in Him. Death has no power over us. Death has no claim on us. Death has no victory over us. Death has no sting for us. Think of it. Death no longer owns us; in fact, we own death:
22 Whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you (1 Corinthians 3:22).
Death cannot keep us from the love of God (see Romans 8:31-39). The only thing death can now do is to hasten the day when we are forever in His presence. Death actually does us a favor:
1 For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven; 3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, shall not be found naked. 4 For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, in order that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 5 Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge. 6 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:1-6).
21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. 23 But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better (Philippians 1:21-23).
Third, Christ died to the law. If a police officer pulls us over, he cannot write us a ticket for breathing or for humming along with our radio. This is because there is no law against breathing or humming. The only power a police officer has is that power which is given to him by the law. Death’s power likewise comes from the law. The wages of sin is death, and the law defines sin. Thus, to break the law is to be in death’s power. But if there is no law, there is no crime, no sin.
“The power of sin is the law,” Paul has said (verse 56). The law is “holy, and righteous, and good” (Romans 7:12). Nevertheless, sin abuses the law in such a way that it is used to condemn us to death. The good news is that Christ died to the law, and thus those who are in Christ have died to the law in Him—and to its power to condemn us: “Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God” (Romans 7:4).
I must remind you that this freedom from death, sin, and the condemnation of the law is only true for the Christian. Death does own the one who is outside Christ, who has never acknowledged his sin and trusted in the work of Christ on Calvary. Think of the rich man in Luke 16:19-31. While death ended the earthly suffering of Lazarus and brought him into eternal blessings, death ended the earthly bliss of the rich man and brought him into eternal torment. Death now made this man an eternal captive, whose plight could not be reversed (see also Hebrews 9:27). And even resurrection was of no use to this man or to his lost family members (Luke 16:27-31). Death had a sting for this rich man; death had a victory. It is only those who are in Christ by faith who can taunt death as Paul does, for it is a defeated enemy.
58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.
Paul’s concluding sentence contains some very important applications. Let us briefly consider them.
First, the comfort which Paul communicates on the basis of our Lord’s death and resurrection is intended to comfort only Christians. Paul’s sentence begins, “Therefore, my beloved brethren, …” And then he says that their toil is not in vain “in the Lord.” One of the saddest things to observe at a funeral is a preacher giving comfort to non-Christians by using Bible texts addressed to Christians. These words are addressed to Christians, and the hope which Paul speaks of is for Christians only. Death has no power, no sting, to those who are “in Christ.” I must ask you, my friend, do you know for certain that you are “in Christ,” and that you will spend eternity in the presence of God? If not, then receive God’s gift of salvation in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who suffered, died, and rose again in your place.
Second, true doctrine (the doctrine of the gospel, of the resurrection of Christ, of the resurrection of the dead) gives us stability, even in the midst of troubled times and in the face of false teaching. False teaching destabilizes Christians; true doctrine stabilizes us:
3 A man will not be established by wickedness, But the root of the righteous will not be moved (Proverbs 12:3).
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall” (Matthew 7:24-27).
1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2).
14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming (Ephesians 4:14).
Third, true doctrine inspires diligent service, while false doctrine leads to passivity. The teachings of Scripture related to the second coming (not to mention the remainder of biblical truth) are intended to stimulate our service. There are those who abuse doctrines (such as the sovereignty of God and the second coming) by making them an excuse for passivity. Paul concludes this chapter, devoted to prophecy, by encouraging diligent and persistent service. Let us take these verses in the spirit in which they were intended, which is to motivate us to diligence.
Fourth, the certainty of the coming of the kingdom of God in the future assures us that what we do “in the Lord” in this life is not in vain. The reason we can diligently serve God in this life is that we know that in so doing we are “laying up treasure in heaven.” To die is not vain, but gain. To live is not vain, but gain. If we are “in Christ,” we are willing to suffer any earthly loss, because of the heavenly gain which awaits us:
16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. 17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:16-18).
7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:7-11).
Several other applications of this chapter come to mind, which I would like to share with you in conclusion.
Faith in Jesus Christ frees us from the fear of death and thus from our slavery to the devil. This truth comes to us from our text in 1 Corinthians 15, as well as from the second chapter of Hebrews. We need no longer be held hostage by the fear of death. Death is a defeated foe.
Death is the way to life, and it is to be the way of life for the Christian. I was initially inclined to think that Paul’s words in this chapter gave us permission to put death out of our minds. We should certainly not worry about death or fear it, but we should not cease thinking about it. Death really is the way of life, both for the apostle Paul and for our Lord.
Let us begin with Paul. Notice how much death and dying is imbedded in his thinking, motivation, and ministry:
9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men (1 Corinthians 4:9).
31 I protest, brethren, by the boasting in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily (1 Corinthians 15:31).
9 Indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves in order that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead; 10 who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He on whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us (2 Corinthians 1:9-10).
10 Always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. 11 For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death works in us, but life in you (2 Corinthians 4:10-12).
9 As unknown yet well-known, as dying yet behold, we live; as punished yet not put to death (2 Corinthians 6:9).
23 Are they servants of Christ? (I speak as if insane) I more so; in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death (2 Corinthians 11:23).
20 According to my earnest expectation and hope, that I shall not be put to shame in anything, but that with all boldness, Christ shall even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain (Philippians 1:20-21).
24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24).
9 The great multitude therefore of the Jews learned that He was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might also see Lazarus, whom He raised from the dead. 10 But the chief priests took counsel that they might put Lazarus to death also; 11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going away, and were believing in Jesus.
12 On the next day the great multitude who had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, 13 took the branches of the palm trees, and went out to meet Him, and began to cry out, “Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel.” 14 And Jesus, finding a young donkey, sat on it; as it is written, 15 “Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your King is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.” 16 These things His disciples did not understand at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and that they had done these things to Him. 17 And so the multitude who were with Him when He called Lazarus out of the tomb, and raised him from the dead, were bearing Him witness. 18 For this cause also the multitude went and met Him, because they heard that He had performed this sign. 19 The Pharisees therefore said to one another, “You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him.”
20 Now there were certain Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the feast; 21 these therefore came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and began to ask him, saying, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” 22 Philip came and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip came, and they told Jesus. 23 And Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 He who loves his life loses it; and he who hates his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal. 26 If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there shall My servant also be; if anyone serves Me, the Father will honor him.
27 “Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify Thy name.” There came therefore a voice out of heaven: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The multitude therefore, who stood by and heard it, were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, “An angel has spoken to Him.” 30 Jesus answered and said, “This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. 31 Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. 32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:9-32).
This passage is worth a great deal more consideration than given in this lesson, but it illustrates very beautifully how our Lord saw death as the means to the completion of His calling, and to the completion of the calling of those who would be His disciples. In chapter 11, Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead. Many had witnessed this miracle, and many others had heard of it. This caused the enemies of our Lord to seek to solve the problem He posed for them by putting both Lazarus and Jesus to death! But when Jesus made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, many of those who hailed Him as Messiah did so because of the raising of Lazarus (see 12:9, 17-18). Jesus was, at that moment, at the peak of His popularity.
It was at this point in time that some Greeks approached Philip wanting an audience with Jesus. No doubt these Greeks were God-fearers, those who believed that “salvation was of the Jews.” They sensed that Jesus might be the Messiah, and they wanted to meet with Him. Philip and Andrew didn’t know what to do when these Greeks asked to see Jesus. They did not yet understand the role that death would play in our Lord’s earthly ministry. And so they went to Jesus with this request. I wonder if they thought to themselves, “Wow, this may be our big chance to go international!”
Our Lord’s answer is fascinating, all the more so because of its similarity to Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:36-38. In answer to the Greek’s request for an interview, Jesus replies that it is time for Him to be glorified. And then He goes on to say that a grain of wheat cannot bear fruit until it falls into the earth and dies. Afterward, it will bear much fruit. Jesus then applies this principle to His disciples. “He who loves his life loses it; and he who hates his life in this world shall keep it to life eternal. If any one serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there shall My servant also be; if any one serves Me, the Father will honor him” (John 12:25-26). After God speaks from heaven, Jesus goes on to say, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:32).
Do you see it? It looked as though Jesus would draw the Greeks to Himself by meeting with them in Jerusalem. Jesus refused to do so. Jesus indicated that the way for Him to bear fruit was to die. And then He applied this same truth to His disciples. Those who love their lives will lose their lives; those who hate their lives in this world will keep them eternally. The way Jesus would “draw all men to Himself” was by being lifted up on the cross of Calvary. Jesus taught that the way to life was the way of the cross. By means of His death, burial, and resurrection, we have been given life by faith in Him. Now, as Christians, we are to apply the same principle to our earthly life. We are to take up our cross, to hate our life, to die to self, and in this way, we will obtain life eternal. Here is an entirely unique approach to life. It is one you will never find originating from unbelievers, but you will find it repeatedly taught in the Word of God. Death is a defeated enemy; indeed death is our friend, and our way of life. To God be the glory!
216 In this case, the denial of the resurrection of the dead was verbalized (“how do some among you say … ?”). At Corinth, the denial of the resurrection of the dead was a doctrine consciously held and openly professed to others. There are times when the gospel is unconsciously denied. For example, when Peter ceased to eat with the Gentile saints and moved to the Jewish table, he was unconsciously denying the gospel, and for this he was strongly rebuked (Galatians 2:11-21). This denial of the resurrection of the dead at Corinth was not unconscious, but deliberate.
217 Essentially the same error is found in 2 Timothy 2. The context in 2 Timothy is the suffering and hardship God calls us to endure in this present age in order to enter into the eternal blessings of the next (see verses 3, 10-12). Those who insisted that the resurrection had already come were those who maintained that Christians should be presently experiencing all of the pleasures and blessings of eternity and should not be suffering.
218 All three tenses of our salvation are referred to in 1 Peter 1:3-9.
219 Actually the verb translated “saved” in verse 2 is in the present tense, and thus the New Revised Standard Version renders it, “you are being saved.”
220 Paul’s belief in the resurrection of the dead is evident in 1 Corinthians 5:5, where he indicates that church discipline may result in the physical death of the sinning saint, and yet this one thus judged will ultimately be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. This can only happen if the dead are raised.
221 “Our preaching” in verse 14, followed up by “we” in verse 15, must refer to the apostolic preaching of the gospel. It is not just Paul’s gospel which falls if the resurrection of our Lord did not happen; it is the gospel proclaimed by all the apostles.
222 Here, the focus may be on the “life” which our Lord gives to believers, but it seems to me that we must see Christ’s resurrection as the ground for the resurrection of all men, whether believers or unbelievers.
223 There is, I know, considerable discussion as to what Paul means by “the end” in verse 24. Regardless of whether Paul here refers to the resurrection of the unbelieving dead, it is clearly taught in Revelation 20 and elsewhere. I think Paul’s point here is that the “the end” is the destruction of death, the last enemy, by the final resurrection of unbelievers. It is at this point in time when death and Hades are cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14).
224 The two questions raised in verse 35 may well be hypocritical, something like the question the Sadducees put to the Lord Jesus in Mark 12:18-23. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead; nevertheless, they asked a question concerning the marital status of a woman in the resurrection. The error of the Sadducees, as exposed by Jesus, is virtually the same as the error which Paul now seeks to correct at Corinth. First, the resurrection of the dead is rejected because men do not understand the power of God. Second, people have problems with the way things will be in the resurrection because they do not understand the nature of the resurrection body.
225 To be technically accurate, in the Septuagint, it is Psalm 13:1 and 52:1.
226 See, for example, Proverbs 14:16; 15:5; 18:2; 20:3; Isaiah 32:5-6; Hosea 9:7.
227 I believe the atoning work of our Lord was both “limited” and “unlimited” in its scope. While our Lord died as an atonement for our sins, only those who receive the gift of eternal life by faith will obtain this forgiveness. In this sense, the benefit of His atoning work is limited to the elect. But our Lord’s resurrection from the dead is also the basis for the resurrection of all men from the dead. Some will be raised for eternal condemnation, while believers will be raised for eternal blessing. Thus, the work of our Lord has both a limited effect (salvation and blessing for only the elect) and an unlimited effect (the resurrection of all men from the dead).
228 See also Matthew 16:17; Galatians 1:16; Ephesians 6:12; Hebrews 2:14.
229 See Daniel 2:18, 19; Romans 11:25; 16:25; Ephesians 1:9; 3:3, 9; 5:32; Colossians 1:26; 4:3; 1 Timothy 3:9; Revelation 1:20; 10:7; 17:5, 7. Daniel 2 is a good illustration of a mystery because the “mystery” was Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. He knew what his dream was, but he did not know what it meant. This revelation was a “mystery,” which Daniel revealed to him.
230 Paul uses the term “we,” which certainly allows for the possibility of Paul and those living in his day being those who were alive at our Lord’s return. Allowing for this possibility does not mean that this was a necessity and that Paul wrongly assumed he would be alive at our Lord’s return. Our Lord had made it clear to His disciples that it would be some time before the kingdom of God was established (see Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21; John 21:15-23).
231 Notice also the prophecy concerning resurrection which follows in chapter 26: “Your dead will live; Their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, For your dew is as the dew of the dawn, And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits” (Isaiah 26:19).
232 Translators differ as to how this verse should be translated. A later edition of the NASB translates Hosea 13:14 this way: “Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting? Compassion will be hidden from My sight” (Hosea 13:14). Paul employs these words as a triumphant taunt. Death is mocked, because it has lost its grip.
The April 1982 issue of Money magazine contains a report on how various churches responded to increasing costs and decreasing donations from members. Entitled “The Squeeze on Churches and Synagogues,” I would suggest another more appropriate title: “Shaking Down the Sheep.” After I have mentioned a few of the fund-raising methods this article cites, I think you will agree with my proposed title.
A synagogue in suburban Minneapolis took some of its members to court to collect their unpaid pledges. The judge ruled that their pledges (ranging from $167 to $1,000) were legally binding, even though these people had left the congregation. A Catholic Church board asked its members to contribute half of the savings gained from a recent federal income tax cut.
Bake sales, bazaars, and bingo games have all become accepted means of providing the church with additional funds. Professional fund-raisers are often employed, and denominational headquarters supply their clergymen with fund-raising kits (one can only guess what these kits contain). A few have even resorted to blackmailing some of the wealthier “black sheep” in their congregations. Fund-raiser Francis Harvey put it this way, “Priests give them a chance to do a little good with the money they gained by doing so much bad.” Some may think twice before confessing their sins again. Because some of the members drop out due to the high cost of worship, recruiting new members has become a science, making the efforts of door-to-door salesmen look amateur and half-hearted. Some churches even lower their “rates” to attract new members.
The words above were written in 1982 in my introduction to a sermon which I preached on this same text in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4. Since then, some new twists have been added to the fund-raisers’ bag of tricks. One that many Christian colleges employ is hiring students to contact parents of present and past students, along with others, to ask for contributions. If they were raising funds for their students, I would hardly quibble over the fact that they are soliciting help for the poor. But the latest and most irritating fund-raising scheme is the one which suggests you change your phone service to a particular vendor so their organization will receive a certain percentage of your payment. I wonder what they will think of next.
Believe it or not, the mail just arrived, and I know what they will think of next. A Christian institution sent us two cards, with a bar code and the name of a certain chain of supermarkets. Now, whenever we go to the checkout counter (this assumes we will now do our shopping there), we simply have the clerk run our card past the scanner, and this institution will receive a small portion of the total purchase amount.
All of these kinds of fund-raising are the reason so many think Christians are a bunch of hucksters, simply trying to hustle people out of their hard-earned money. I must admit I too have become skeptical. A few years ago, my wife and I and some other folks from our church attended a banquet held by a Christian institution. At the end of the banquet, cards were passed out, the lights were turned down low, and we were asked to make a financial commitment—a generous one. I felt used. Every time some people reach out to pat me on the back, I wonder if they are only finding an excuse to get their hand closer to my wallet.
The apostle Paul was not reluctant to talk about money. He was not even reluctant to ask for money, but Paul would hardly be a member of any charitable fund-raiser’s group—nor would he be invited. Paul’s method of fund-raising is a far cry from what most of us have come to expect. Before we consider Paul’s instructions concerning a charitable contribution, let us first consider the kind of man Paul was, especially in relation to money.
Let’s face it, one of the reasons we have become cynical about religious (and other) fund-raising is that there are a lot of crooks hiding behind their Bibles or clerical collars. If ever there was a man who had the right to be heard when it comes to money, it is the apostle Paul. His mentor (to use a contemporary term) was a man named Barnabas. Barnabas was a most noble saint, who set an example for the church in Jerusalem when it came to giving: “And Joseph, a Levite of Caprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means, Son of Encouragement), and who owned a tract land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet” (Acts 4:36-37).
This is the man who took Paul under his wing when Paul was first saved, when none of the apostles wanted to have anything to do with him (see Acts 9:26-27). When Agabus and other prophets came down to Antioch from Jerusalem to announce that a great famine was about to come upon the inhabited world, the newly formed church at Antioch took up a collection for the saints in Judea, and these funds were sent with Barnabas and Saul (Paul, Acts 11:27-30) to the saints in need.
Paul knew full well that, as an apostle, he had the right to be supported financially by those to whom he was ministering. Paul chose to waive this right, preaching the gospel at no cost to the Corinthians so that the gospel might not be hindered (1 Corinthians 9:1-23). Thus, when Paul came to Corinth, he worked as a tentmaker along with Aquila. And when Paul finally ministered full-time to the Corinthians, it was because of the financial support he received from the Macedonians (Acts 18:1-5; see also 2 Corinthians 11:7-9; Philippians 4:15, 18). This practice was not the exception, but the rule. Paul purposed not to be a burden to the churches where he served by requiring them to support him. In the midst of warning the Ephesian elders of false teachers, Paul reminded them that his hand was never in their pockets:
33 I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothes. 34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with me. 35 In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20-33-35).
It was not Paul who had gotten fat from the Corinthians. If anything, the Corinthians were taken advantage of by the false apostles (see 2 Corinthians 11:20). Paul, on the other hand, was “poor” in their midst:
8 You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and I would indeed that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. 9 For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. 11 To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; 12 and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure. 13 when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now (1 Corinthians 4:8-13).
1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2 On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come. 3 And when I arrive, whomever you may approve, I shall send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem; 4 and if it is fitting for me to go also, they will go with me.
Joe Bayly, a fine Christian writer who passed away a few years ago, wrote a book on death, based somewhat on the tragedies which had come to his own family. The book was first released with the title, The View From a Hearse. That’s not the kind of title which sells books, so when the second edition was published, it came with the new title, The Last Thing We Ever Talk About. Death, the title indicated, was the last thing we ever talk about. If Paul were the author (as he is of 1 Corinthians), the title would have to be, The Next to the Last Thing We Ever Talk About. The last thing Paul talked about was money. Some Christians and others seem to wish we would never talk about money, especially when it comes to our responsibility toward others. These verses are here because the Corinthians needed to hear them, and I suspect we need to hear them just as badly. Let us listen then, and learn about giving God’s way.
Verses 1-4 of chapter 16 flow very logically out of Paul’s teaching on the resurrection in chapter 15. Paul concluded by assuring the Corinthian saints that due to the resurrection of our Lord, and thus the resurrection of the dead, our labor and toil is not in vain in the Lord. No wonder Paul can now speak to his readers about making a contribution to the poor. This is one of the ways the Christian can “lay up treasure in heaven” (see Matthew 6:19-21). Furthermore, the contribution to the saints, which Paul has instructed the Corinthians to prepare for, is that which will be delivered after he arrives at Corinth, so Paul’s discussion of his travel plans logically follow in verses 5-9. Giving to the poor is an eternal investment, which will be delivered to the saints after Paul has returned to Corinth.
There are all kinds of people seeking contributions. We do not have to drive very many blocks before we find men (and sometimes women and children) sitting or standing beside the freeway with signs announcing their need for money. But the need which occasions Paul’s instructions is a special one. Since our text does not give us a great deal of detail about this need, let me turn your attention to those texts which give us more insight about the need in Jerusalem.
First, we know from other texts the need was that of the Jewish church in Jerusalem and Judea. Paul, as he stood before Felix, told the governor why he had gone to Jerusalem:
17 Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings (Acts 24:17).
23 But now, with no further place for me in these regions, and since I have had for many years a longing to come to you 24 whenever I go to Spain—for I hope to see you in passing, and to be helped on my way there by you, when I have first enjoyed your company for a while— 25 but now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints. 26 For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution to Jerusalem for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem (Romans 15:23-26).
Second, we know from the early chapters of Acts that the saints in Jerusalem gave generously of their means to meet the needs that existed among the poor among them (see Acts 2:43-47; 4:32-37; 6:1-6). The stoning of Stephen brought about a persecution which forced many to flee from Jerusalem (see Acts 8:1-2). The means of meeting the needs of the poor saints in Jerusalem had been depleted in the church that was there.
Third, it appears that at the same time things were becoming tough for the Jewish saints in Jerusalem, things were also becoming very difficult for Jews elsewhere. The famine which Agabus and other prophets predicted took place during the reign of Claudius (Acts 11:28). It was Claudius who, during his reign, ordered the Jews out of Rome (Acts 18:2), which is why Priscilla and Aquila met up with Paul in Corinth. Jewish believers elsewhere in the world were having hard times of their own, so they were not able to do much to help their brethren in Jerusalem and Judea.
This text from the Book of Hebrews (written to Jewish saints) seems to best describe the situation in Jerusalem and Judea, which created the need for outside help from Gentile churches:
32 But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings, 33 partly, by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated. 34 For you showed sympathy to the prisoners, and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and an abiding one. 35 Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward (Hebrews 10:32-35).
(1) Paul was not reluctant to speak about money more than once. As you read verses 1-4 of chapter 16, it is quite obvious that this is not the first time Paul has spoken to the Corinthians about money. Paul’s words in these four verses assume prior knowledge. He speaks of “the collection for the saints” in verse 1, but he does not say which saints or what the need is. This strongly suggests that Paul’s words in these verses are a follow-up to something he has already said to the Corinthians about this collection. From Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 5:9, we assume that Paul has already written one epistle to the Corinthians, before 1 Corinthians. And, in Paul’s next epistle to the Corinthians, he will speak much more thoroughly on this matter (2 Corinthians 8 and 9). Paul speaks of giving more than once, and we might safely say that Paul spoke to the Corinthians about money every time he wrote them. I fear those who do not want to hear preachers talk about money very much are often those who do not give very much. I would also say I have probably not spoken very much about money, perhaps because I know how unpopular this subject is.
(2) Paul is open and direct when he speaks about money. Is there any question what Paul is talking about in these verses in 1 Corinthians? Is there any doubt that he wants the Corinthians to give money? All too often people after our money today do not tell us up front what they want. We may have a strong sense of suspicion about what is coming, but they do not tell us. Paul is direct and up front about what he expects of us concerning giving.
When Dr. Haddon Robinson, a friend of mine, lived in Dallas, he was associated with several Christian organizations. He would sometimes be involved in fund-raising for one or more of these organizations. I always respected how open and above board Dr. Robinson was about what he was doing. He would call a man and say something like: “Hello, Fred, I’d like to invite you to breakfast, and I’m going to pay. But I’ve got to warn you that I’m going to ask for some of your money.” That’s honest. Paul was direct and open about money.
(3) Paul is speaking about only one area of giving here, but I believe the principles we find here apply to all Christian giving. Paul is not writing to help raise the annual budget for the church at Corinth. He is not writing about missionary support, although he could have (see 3 John 5-8). He is not seeking to enhance the building fund. He is not even writing about our giving to the poor in general. Paul is writing to the Corinthians about a specific church, the church in Jerusalem, which is greatly impoverished. Paul is writing to instruct the Corinthian saints to give money to the saints in Jerusalem. The Jerusalem saints are not specifically identified here, but they are elsewhere (see Acts 11:28; 24:17; Romans 15:25-32). Paul does not name the Jerusalem saints because these Corinthians already know about what collection Paul is writing. Paul has given more details to them earlier (see number 1 above).
(4) Paul’s instructions here apply more broadly than just to the Corinthians. This epistle, while specifically written to the church at Corinth, was also addressed to the Christian community at large (1 Corinthians 1:1-2). What Paul commands here, he teaches elsewhere as well (1 Corinthians 4:16-17; 11:16; 14:33-34). Specifically, Paul indicates to the Corinthians that his instructions on giving are the same as those he has already given the churches of Galatia (16:1).
(5) Paul’s instructions concerning our obligation to our poor brethren are consistent with a long tradition of biblical revelation on this matter. The Old Testament Law required the Israelites to contribute to the needs of their brethren and others (Leviticus 19:9ff.; Deuteronomy 15:7-11). Psalms and Proverbs had much to say on this matter (Psalm 112:9; Proverbs 14:21, 31; 19:17; 21:13; 22:9; 28:27; 31:20). The prophets had a great deal to say about Israel’s duty to the poor, and their oppression of the poor was one of the reasons God brought judgment upon Israel (Isaiah 10:2; 58; Jeremiah 2:34; 5:28; Ezekiel 16:49; 18:12, 17; 22:29; Amos 4:1; 5:11-12; Zechariah 7:10). Our Lord also taught about our obligation to the poor (Matthew 19:21; Luke 14:13; 19:8), as did the apostles (Romans 12:13; Galatians 2:9-10; 6:10; James 2; 1 John 3:15-18).
(6) Paul’s instructions regarding this collection for the poor were given as a command. Paul says he is instructing the Corinthians to do what he “directed” the Galatians to do. The word “directed” is a strong word, used of military orders (Acts 23:31; 24:23), of the instruction of our Lord (1 Corinthians 9:14), and of the directives of Paul with full apostolic authority (1 Corinthians 7:17; 11:34; Titus 1:5). There are two imperatives (commands) in our text; one in verse 1 (“so do you also”), and the other in verse 2 (“let each one of you put aside and save”). This matter of giving to the poor brethren in Jerusalem was not an option, but a duty.
(7) Here Paul’s instruction to give is to every single Christian believer. Some things are optional for Christians, but this is not. Some things are presented as a matter of personal conviction; this is not. The instruction given to the churches is that “each one of them is to put aside and save” (16:2), to be able to contribute toward the needs of the saints in Jerusalem. Most churches would not have a lack of funds if all of their members gave, even if some could not give much.
When considering that Paul commanded every Corinthian saint to set aside funds for the poor, I was reminded of two texts in the Book of Acts describing the generosity of the saints to the poor:
44 And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. 46 And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart (Acts 2:44-46, emphasis mine).
32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them. 33 And with great power the apostles were giving witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34 For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, 35 and lay them at the apostles’ feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need (Acts 4:32-35, emphasis mine).
Notice the unity and charity which characterized the first church in Jerusalem. The generosity was all-inclusive. What one saint did, all the saints did. And no one was excluded who was in need. That which Paul commands in 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, the early church spontaneously practiced in Acts 2 and 4. Participation was 100 percent in the early church, and Paul called for the same participation at Corinth and elsewhere.
(8) Paul did not set down a rule as to how much each must give. There are no numbers or percentages given which must be met—no quotas. Paul left the amount to be given up to each saint. The Corinthians were not instructed to give what they did not have but to give out of their prosperity.
(9) Paul expected the collective total of all the gifts to be substantial. This is implied by the fact that they were given a period of time to save up for this contribution. It is further implied by the fact that some Corinthian men were expected to accompany this gift to Jerusalem.
(10) Paul instructed the Corinthians to consider their contribution consistently and to determine what they would give on the “first day of every week” (16:2). A friend commented to me after this message that if you set aside a certain amount on the “first day of the week,” you will not spend it later on in the week. It is often sadly true that we spend all we want with the promise to God that He can have all that is left. The “first day of the week” was the day our Lord was raised from the dead (see Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2) and also the day on which the church met (Acts 20:7; see Revelation 1:10). I do not think that they were to decide what to give at church so they could put money in the offering plate. They were told to set the money aside at home. I believe Paul wants them, and us, to make our decisions regarding our responsibilities to our poor brethren in the context of the cross of Christ, of His gift of salvation, and of our worship and praise. What better day to decide how to use the money God has entrusted to us than the Lord’s day?
(11) Paul refused to employ pressure or persuasive tactics to increase the amount the Corinthians gave. Paul wanted the monies to be saved up so that no collection would be made in his presence. They were not giving to Paul but to God. He instructed the Corinthians to give, but he did not use gimmicks to motivate giving. Saving up to give over a period of time not only allowed the Corinthians time to give generously, it also gave them time to give this money purposefully. Our law now gives us three days in which to change our minds regarding a purchase we have made. Paul gave these believers weeks to think about what they were doing so their charity would be purposeful and not something they would later regret.
In reflecting upon Paul’s fund-raising methods, it occurred to me that Paul raises funds in the same way he preaches the gospel—in a way that the world would call foolish and ineffective. The world would change the gospel message to make it more appealing. They would employ persuasive techniques and worldly wisdom to obtain better results. Paul preached a “foolish” gospel in “weakness and fear and trembling,” so that the results would have to be the work of God (see 1 Corinthians 1:18–2:5).
Think about it for a moment. What is the most difficult sales pitch to reject? It is the face-to-face presentation of someone we know and love. We find it a little easier to say no on the phone, and it is quite easy to throw a sales-oriented letter into the trash. Paul wrote a letter so they would not have to give when he arrived and saw them face-to-face. Paul really wanted their decision to give to be divinely prompted, rather than prompted by human persuasion. Paul set aside the means and methods which the world knows to work well in fund-raising.
(12) Paul employed every possible means for assuring the Corinthians that the monies given would be used just as represented. Unfortunately, many funds which are raised for charitable purposes are used for less noble causes. Candidly, too much of the monies raised goes into the pockets of those who raise the funds. Some who are corrupt simply pocket the money they have raised under false pretenses. (This is the case, I believe, in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, when Tom and Huck come across a huckster who is merely “missionarying.” The con man they come across is allegedly raising funds for the “salvation of the heathen,” but in reality, he is simply ripping off gullible souls.
Paul’s intent and desire was to raise funds and then distribute them in a way that avoided any appearance of impropriety. Speaking of Titus in 2 Corinthians 8, Paul indicates how important it is that donated funds be handled in a seemly manner:
17 For he not only accepted our appeal, but being himself very earnest, he has gone to you of his own accord. 18 And we have sent along with him the brother whose fame in the things of the gospel has spread through all the churches; 19 and not only this, but he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work, which is being administered by us for the glory of the Lord Himself, and to show our readiness, 20 taking precaution that no one should discredit us in our administration of this generous gift; 21 for we have regard for what is honorable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men (2 Corinthians 8:17-21).
I understand Paul’s words in our text to assure his readers that none of the donated funds will ever go into his pocket, even when being transported to Jerusalem. When the gifts are gathered to take to Jerusalem, some men of the Corinthians’ choosing will take the funds, and Paul will send a letter of introduction and explanation with them. If deemed appropriate, Paul will accompany them. Paul’s method minimizes the dangers which arise when larger amounts of money are collected. Each one stores up his or her own contribution at home. When the funds are gathered, a delegation of trusted men take the funds and transport them personally. These men do not let the funds out of their possession until they have handed them over to the church leaders who will distribute them (see Acts 11:30).
Money is not the most important thing; in fact, it is a very little thing (Luke 16:10). But how we handle money as a stewardship determines how much responsibility we will be given in the really important things (Luke 16:11-12). As a church, we have attempted to implement the principles set down by Paul and others in the Bible. We have a printed position paper on contributions at Community Bible Chapel, and we endeavor to follow it consistently. In the past few weeks, we have been reviewing the way that monies are handled in our church so that there might not be even a hint of any possibility of impropriety in this area. I would also say that those people who handle the funds in our church are men and women of the highest character and who conscientiously and meticulously maintain financial records. At the same time, it has always been our policy and commitment to maintain the highest level of confidentiality, so that who gives, and how much is given, is not known by me nor by any of the elders.
You will observe that in our teaching hour, no offering plate is passed. This is because we believe the offering should be taken at the worship hour, our meeting of the church. We believe our giving should be a part of our worship. If you are a Christian, we urge you to give, not only for the benefit of this body and its ministry, but for your own benefit (see Philippians 4:17). If you are not a Christian, we urge you not to give.
There is nothing you can do to earn God’s favor or to contribute to your salvation. Spiritually speaking, we are bankrupt and have nothing to offer God but our debts. Jesus Christ paid our debt on the cross of Calvary. If we acknowledge our debt (our sins), and receive God’s gift of salvation through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we are forgiven our debts and given eternal life. Our sins are forgiven by His death and resurrection. His righteousness is transferred to us. We are born again. That is the gift of salvation which we offer to you.
10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water” (John 4:10).
24 Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24).
15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ (Romans 5:15-17).
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 6:23).
15 Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift! (2 Corinthians 9:15)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8).
Our text sets before us several challenges as a church and as individuals. Let us consider several areas of application. In one sense, these four verses place before us a very unique situation. These Gentile believers at Corinth had the privilege and responsibility of giving to their Jewish brethren in need. This Jewish church was the instrument through which they heard the gospel and were saved. They received a spiritual blessing from the Jerusalem saints, and they could respond in gratitude with a material gift (Romans 15:27). There is no way we can precisely reproduce that which Paul set before the Corinthians.
Nevertheless, we do have opportunities to respond to Paul’s instructions. The church is not just the “local church,” but the body of Christ. The body of Christ certainly includes those who profess faith in Christ around the world. At this very moment, Christians are living in very similar straits to the Jewish saints of Jerusalem and Judea in Paul’s day. Amazing as it may seem, in this age of instant communications, we are less aware of our impoverished and persecuted brethren than were those in Paul’s day, for whom the speed of our current mail system (which e-mail users now refer to as “snail mail”) would boggle their minds. We are obligated to be aware of the needs of our brothers and sisters in distant places and to minister to their material needs. In my personal opinion, this is a weakness in our church and in most other churches. Let us pray and ask God to forgive us and show us how we can minister as we should in this area of responsibility.
Paul’s challenge to every believer to set aside and give is one we should take seriously. First, if you are one who has falsely assumed that others should carry your financial obligation here, you are wrong. I urge you to repent and to purpose before God to give something regularly no matter how small the amount. For most of us, Paul’s words about saving up to give sound strange. No wonder! We are all so dependent upon credit and so deeply in debt we think we do not have anything to give. Some Christian organizations have taken their cue and are now accepting contributions by credit card contributions. Let us consider whether our indebtedness is furthering the kingdom of God, and give thought to beginning a savings account for the purpose of meeting needs. I have to tell you that when I think I do not have anything to give, I tend to look the other way when needs are before me. If you and I had a savings account designated for meeting the needs of others (and if there were money in this account), we would begin to look for needs rather than to look the other way. May God use Paul’s words in these first four verses to convict us, and better yet, to change us, so that we gratefully comply with Paul’s instructions.
5 But I shall come to you after I go through Macedonia, for I am going through Macedonia; 6 and perhaps I shall stay with you, or even spend the winter, that you may send me on my way wherever I may go. 7 For I do not wish to see you now just in passing; for I hope to remain with you for some time, if the Lord permits. 8 But I shall remain in Ephesus until Pentecost; 9 for a wide door for effective service has opened to me, and there are many adversaries.
Paul turns very naturally to his travel plans, since he has just given instructions concerning the gift the Corinthians were challenged to make to the poor in Jerusalem. He indicates in verses 2 and 3 that when he arrives in Corinth, he does not want to have a collection taken, but rather that their gift be set aside in advance of his arrival. On his arrival, he would compose letters to accompany the gift and the Corinthians who carried it to Jerusalem. And so, having given his instructions concerning this gift, Paul writes next of his travel plans.
Paul had other reasons for telling the Corinthians about his plans for the future. For one, Paul’s absence was a point of contention, as we can see from these passages in 1 and 2 Corinthians:
18 Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out, not the words of those who are arrogant, but their power (1 Corinthians 4:18-19).
15 And in this confidence I intended at first to come to you, that you might twice receive a blessing; 16 that is, to pass your way into Macedonia, and again from Macedonia to come to you, and by you to be helped on my journey to Judea. 17 Therefore, I was not vacillating when I intended to do this, was I? Or that which I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yes, yes and no, no at the same time? 18 But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no (2 Corinthians 1:15-18).
23 But I call God as witness to my soul, that to spare you I came no more to Corinth. 24 Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy; for in your faith you are standing firm (2 Corinthians 1:23-24).
3 And this is the very thing I wrote you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from those who ought to make me rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy would be the joy of you all (2 Corinthians 2:3)
Paul’s opponents made a great deal of Paul’s absence. Just as the enemies of our Lord sought to deny the certainty of His return (see 2 Peter 3:3-4), so some of Paul’s enemies insisted that he wasn’t coming back to Corinth (1 Corinthians 4:18-19). Paul’s words about his travel plans make it clear that, while he does not know exactly when he is coming, he is coming.
There seems to be yet another reason why Paul talks about his travel plans. Some of the Corinthians think of themselves as “super-spiritual” and Paul they consider as “carnal” (see 1 Corinthians 4:6-13; 2 Corinthians 10:1-2). I have the impression these “super-spiritual saints” gave the impression they constantly walked on cloud nine. I can almost hear them saying in connection with their every action and with their future plans, “Oh, yes, the Lord told me to … .” I believe Paul’s approach to the guidance of God and future events is the standard, a standard by which we can discern the normal from the exceptional and the truly spiritual from the pseudo-spiritual.
If anyone had a “direct line” to God (as far as guidance is concerned), it would have to be Paul. On a number of occasions, God gave him special revelation. Certainly the appearance of our Lord to Paul on the road to Damascus was dramatic (see Acts 9:1-19a; 23:1-16; 26:2-18). At the time of his conversion, Paul was told, in general terms, what he had been called to do and assured that the Lord would appear to Him again:
15 And I said, “Who art Thou, Lord?” And the Lord said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But arise, and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; 17 delivering you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, 18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified in Me” (Acts 26:15-18; see also 9:13-17; 22:14-15).
In the Book of Acts, Paul receives a revelation from the Lord on several occasions. In addition to his initial vision of the risen Lord on the road to Damascus, Paul is given the “Macedonian vision,” whereby he and his traveling party are directed to cross over to Macedonia (e.g., Philippi; see Acts 16:9). Then at Corinth, the Lord appears to Paul in a vision after opposition from unbelieving Jews forces him to cease his ministry in the synagogue and move next door to the house of Titius Justus:
9 And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; 10 for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, for I have many people in this city.” 11 And he settled there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them (Acts 18:9-11).
And when it seemed that Paul and his shipmates would perish in the storm, an angel of God appeared to him with a word of encouragement:
21 And when they had gone a long time without food, then Paul stood up in their midst and said, “Men, you ought to have followed my advice and not to have set sail from Crete, and incurred this damage and loss. 22 and yet now I urge you to keep up your courage, for there shall be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship. 23 For this very night an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I serve stood before me, 24 saying, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar; and behold, God has granted you all those who are sailing with you.’ 25 Therefore, keep up your courage, men, for I believe God, that it will turn out exactly as I have been told” (Acts 27:21-25).
To these personal revelations can be added the prophecies of others pertaining to Paul and his ministry (see Acts 11:27-30; 13:1-3; 20:23; 21:10-11). The great and grand revelation to which Paul refers is his “near death” experience recorded in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. If anyone could boast in visions, it was the apostle Paul. And yet a careful reading of the Book of Acts and Paul’s epistles seem to send a clear signal to us that these visions and divine appearances were not normative but exceptional. Paul’s every decision was not made on the basis of an unusual revelation. I believe verses 5-9 of our text in 1 Corinthians 16 indicate the way in which Paul normally made his decisions and plans. This is the more normal way that Paul found divine guidance. The way Paul dealt with his plans regarding his return to Corinth provides us with a pattern for discerning the guidance of God.
Consider the following observations from our text which are instructive for us:
(1) We would do well to remember that Paul is in Ephesus as he writes this letter. Ephesus is in Asia Minor, across the Aegean Sea from Macedonia where the cities of Philippi and Thessalonica are located. Largely south of Macedonia is the Roman province of Achaia, where the cities of Athens and Corinth are located. Paul could not get from Ephesus to Corinth without considerable travel and without crossing the Aegean Sea. A number of factors entered into Paul’s travel plans. For example, sea travel was only safe and available during certain seasons.
(2) Paul gave thought to the future. Paul made tentative plans for the future. Some might suppose that our Lord’s words, “take … no thought for the morrow …” (Matthew 6:34, KJV), indicate that we should not even think about the future. It is clear in the context (and other translations) that what Jesus forbids is undue worry about how our needs will be met in the future. Paul does think about the future because he is seeking to be a good steward of the time and opportunities God has given him. As he considers the future, he is not consumed with anxiety because he knows that whatever happens, God’s will will be done, for His glory and his (Paul’s) good (see Philippians 1:12-26). Peter likewise is looking to the future as he writes words that remind his readers of crucial truths, even after his death (see 2 Peter 1:12-15).
(3) Paul did not claim to have received any direct divine guidance which communicated God’s travel plans for his next visit to Corinth. The supernatural guidance Paul occasionally received was not normative. Paul’s words here do not indicate any sense of need for such guidance on his part or any distress that such guidance was not given. Paul speaks as though he is confident that he will know when and how to reach Corinth when it is necessary.
(4) While not stated clearly, it seems that Paul expected to be guided progressively concerning his next visit to Corinth. I realize I am reading this into the text, but this is the way God guided Abram to the promise land. He did not tell him where he was going but led him along the way. And when he was there, God informed him this was the place of promise (see Genesis 11:27–12:9). The guidance which brought Paul to Corinth on his first visit was similar. Many Christians want to have God’s guidance in advance, something like the trip pack the American Automobile Association (AAA) provides on request to its members. God expects us to walk by faith, and thus He leads us progressively as we obey what He has already given us to do.
(5) Paul knew and communicated his desires and intentions regarding his future visits. While Paul does not have any fixed plan for his next visit to Corinth, he does inform the Corinthians of his desires and intentions. These not only assure the saints at Corinth that he intends to come, but that he cares about them and wants to come. His expressed desires and intentions tell the Corinthians he cares about them. The fact that he does not want his visit to be too short (verse 7) conveys the same affection. After all, who wants to stay for a long visit with people you do not like?
(6) As secure and certain as Paul’s eternal future was (as indicated in chapter 15), Paul did not presume upon God concerning the certainty or the safety of his plans in the temporal future. Paul’s teaching on the resurrection, and its relation to the coming kingdom of God, was intended to instill a confidence and certainty in the second coming. While Paul is absolutely confident about his safe arrival in the kingdom of God, he does not presume to know all the particulars of God’s plan for his temporal future.
(7) Paul did not make commitments regarding the future which he was not sure he could keep.
(8) Paul did not presume upon the future but kept his plans subject to the will of God. This is consistent with the warning given to us by the apostle James, who wrote:
13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow, we shall go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” 14 Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. 15 Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and also do this or that.” 16 But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil. 17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin (James 4:13-17).
The future, our future, is in God’s hands. We know Him who holds our future, but we dare not presume to know our future. We therefore must not plan in such a way that we deny the sovereignty of God over history and over our own personal plans.
(9) Paul’s refusal to make detailed plans for the future was based upon his belief in the sovereignty of God over history and of our human inability to predict God’s plan for our future. Paul would not agree with the theology of a song by Doris Day popular a few years ago: “Whatever will be, will be.” This is true, but in a sense different from what the songwriter meant to convey. He probably saw life as a series of unpredictable events which happened by chance rather than by design. Paul’s view of the future is that history is in the hands of a sovereign God. The reason he does not presume to know the future is because the sovereign God who controls history is known to be One whose plans and purposes are vastly above our own mental grasp. We could not begin to even imagine what God will do or how He will do it:
8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).
33 Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? (Romans 11:33-34).
6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature, however, not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; 7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written, “Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard, and which have not entered the heart of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:6-9).
When it was revealed through various prophets that Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem would lead to his arrest and confinement, his Christian friends sought to dissuade him from continuing on to Jerusalem. What they did not understand was that it was God’s plan to use Paul’s arrest and appeal to Caesar to facilitate the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles and to kings, just as He had indicated at his conversion (Acts 9:15; see Acts 20:22-23; 21:10-14; 21:27ff.).
(10) Paul delayed his visit to Corinth because he was convinced that God’s will was for him to remain on at Ephesus. There was a great need and opportunity for him where he was, in Ephesus. A “wide door for effective service” had been opened to Paul (verse 9), and thus he was not about to leave Ephesus at this time in order to visit Corinth. I find it interesting that Paul did not say, “God has opened a wide door for effective service.” I think this is what he believed and what he wants us to understand. For Paul, it was not necessary to say that God led him to do this or that every time he made a decision. It seems that Paul is careful not to credit God with one of his decisions unless he is certain it was God who directed him.233 Too many Christians give God credit for their own decisions, some of which are not always good ones. When we have made a decision for which we do not have clear divine guidance, let us take credit for that decision personally and not try to sanctify it by saying God told us to do it that way.
A few years ago, I had a friend who was not a Christian. He liked to hunt, and so did his brother-in-law who was a Christian. The two went on a moose-hunting trip, and they had agreed to be gone for a certain number of days. When those days ended, they still had not killed a moose. And so they had to decide whether to give up and go home or to hunt longer. My non-Christian friend told me that his brother-in-law went back down the trail a way and prayed about whether to go home or to keep hunting. (Incidentally, he then decided God wanted him to keep hunting. They each ended up with a moose.) My friend said to me, “Why couldn’t he just decide whether he wanted to keep hunting or not? Why did he have to pray about it?” I know that he was not a believer, but he raised a good point. Sometimes we want divine guidance when we simply ought to make a decision ourselves. And sometimes we claim divine guidance (“God wanted me to get that moose!”) when we did make the decision ourselves.
The “wide door for effective service” for Paul was not what we might have expected. The “wide door” was opened for Paul at Ephesus. Paul has already indicated to us something about his ministry at Ephesus:
30 Why are we also in danger every hour? 31 I protest, brethren, by the boasting in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32 If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die (1 Corinthians 15:30-32).
His ministry in Ephesus bore much fruit, but it also brought about much opposition and danger as we can see from Luke’s account in Acts 19. And so we must derive from this opposition and danger our next principle.
(11) God’s guidance is not only evidenced by opportunity but also by opposition. Too many Christians seem to think God’s will is evident in that which is successful, fulfilling, warm and fuzzy. There was a great opportunity at Ephesus and a great need for Paul’s ministry. But that opportunity included opposition. Where God is at work, we can expect Satan to be as well. God is directing us toward godliness, and godliness leads to difficulties (see 2 Timothy 3).
(12) When Paul cannot personally come as soon as he hopes, he does see to it that others will come, so that the Corinthians are not left without godly ministry (see vss. 10-12). We will take up this matter in the next verses, but suffice it to say that Paul’s concluding words indicate that when he could not be in Corinth, he encouraged others to go so that these saints would be taught and encouraged in their faith.
10 Now if Timothy comes, see that he is with you without cause to be afraid; for he is doing the Lord’s work, as I also am. 11 Let no one therefore despise him. But send him on his way in peace, so that he may come to me; for I expect him with the brethren. 12 But concerning Apollos our brother, I encouraged greatly to come to you with the brethren; and it was not at all his desire to come now, but he will come when he has opportunity.
Jesus spoke these words to His disciples, shortly before His betrayal and crucifixion:
20 Remember the word that I said to you, “A slave is not greater than his master.” If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me (John 15:20-21).
If they were true (and they surely were) in relation to Jesus and His disciples, they would also be true in principle in relationship to Paul and Timothy. Timothy was Paul’s “child” in the faith. If the Corinthians thought little of Paul, then most certainly they would think no better of Timothy. No wonder Paul has instructions regarding the Corinthians’ reception of Timothy, who came in Paul’s place.
How different these two men appear to be. Some think Timothy lacked confidence and was somewhat reticent to act or speak decisively. This may not necessarily be true.234 Apollos appears to be a powerful and dynamic speaker. He was, we are told, “mighty in the Scriptures” (Acts 18:24; see also verse 28). Timothy was an assistant to Paul, going where Paul sent him (see Philippians 2:19ff.; 1 Timothy 1:3). Apollos was much more independent of Paul in his ministry. Paul, who encouraged Timothy not to let anyone “look down on his youthfulness” (1 Timothy 4:12), now writes to the Corinthians instructing them not to despise him. Paul expects the Corinthian saints to receive Timothy as they ought to receive him, and they should likewise send Timothy on his way (verse 11), just as Paul hopes to be sent on his way by them (verse 6).
While Paul could direct Timothy to visit Corinth, and it would very likely happen,235 this was not the case with Apollos. Paul and Apollos were brothers in Christ and fellow-apostles. There is no evidence of any personal friction between these men, but their ministries were independent. Just as Barnabas felt that Paul was needed to minister to the church at Antioch (see Acts 11:25-26), Paul now felt that the ministry of Apollos at Corinth might be profitable. And so he informs the Corinthians that he urged Apollos to accompany other brethren who were on their way to Corinth (verse 12). Paul indicates that he urged Apollos as strongly as he could (“I encouraged him greatly,” verse 12). He also indicates that Apollos felt, just as strongly, that it was not the time for him to go to Corinth. And so, Paul writes, Apollos will come when he has the opportunity.
Two things strike me about these verses concerning Timothy and Apollos. The first is the strong sense of unity and cooperation between Paul, Apollos, Timothy, and others. This is in contrast to the factions and competition which existed among leaders and followers alike in Corinth (see chapters 1-3). Rather than undercutting the ministry of others, Paul stayed on where he was and encouraged other men to minister at Corinth. Rather than criticize or cut down these men, he commends them highly to the church at Corinth. What a contrast to the Corinthians! Were the leaders at Corinth seeking to build their own empire? Did they find it necessary to undermine the ministry of those they considered their competitors? Not so with Paul. What more could Paul have said or done to enhance and strengthen the ministries of men like Timothy and Apollos?
The second thing that strikes me about Paul’s reference to Apollos is Paul’s respect for other Christian leaders and their perception of God’s leading in their lives. We have already witnessed that Paul did not claim miraculous or spectacular guidance with respect to his plans to visit the Corinthians in the future. He expressed his desires and intentions but with a sensitivity to the fact that God’s will might not confirm to his plans, and that his plans would have to change. Here, Paul indicates his humility in reference to the plans of Apollos. He thought a visit by Apollos would be good; Apollos disagreed. Paul accepts the judgment of Apollos as God’s leading. He is not so arrogant as to assume that his sense of what Apollos should do is God’s will. The Corinthians seemed to love to be told what to do, to be pushed around by their power-hungry leaders. Paul was not like this; Paul would not be like this.
13 Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. 14 Let all that you do be done in love.
These two verses may not seem to say much at first glance, but they appear to sum up the application of all that Paul has been saying in this epistle. The resurrection of the dead assures us of the second coming of our Lord (chapter 15). Just as our Lord warned the disciples to be on the alert and not to be surprised by His return, so Paul gives the same admonition.
42 Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. 43 But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. 44 For this reason you be ready too; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will (Matthew 24:42-44).
2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. 3 While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly like birth pangs upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. 4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief; 5 for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness; 6 so then let us not sleep as others do, but let us be alert and sober (1 Thessalonians 5:2-6).
One could hardly say the Corinthians were “on the alert.” Some were denying the resurrection of the dead. They were surely not living as though the Lord’s return was at hand and as though He would judge men according to their deeds. They did not even recognize God’s judgment among them at that time (see 1 Corinthians 11:17-34). They were tolerant to one living in shocking sin (chapter 5), taking one another to court (chapter 6), and participating in heathen idol-worship rituals (chapters 8-10). It was time for them to wake up.
The Corinthians were challenged by Paul to “stand firm in the faith.” It is all too obvious that false teachers were among them. The gospel message, by which they were saved, was being looked down upon as something less than the new “wisdom” that had been introduced (see 1 Corinthians 1-4; 2 Corinthians 11). Fundamentals of the gospel (i.e., the resurrection of the dead) were being forsaken (chapter 15). Another gospel was tolerantly accepted (2 Corinthians 11:4). These saints needed to stand firm in the faith which Paul and the other (true) apostles had delivered to them.
The Corinthians were challenged to “act like men.” Now this is a most interesting and enlightening statement. What does Paul mean by this? It is not hard to grasp in the light of chapters 11-14. There was a role reversal going on in Corinth. Women were casting off the symbols and the substance of their femininity (see chapter 11). At the same time, it looks like the men were relinquishing their roles and responsibilities as men. I think Paul is challenging the men to assume their God-given responsibilities and to assume the leadership in the church and in their homes.
Also, the Corinthians were encouraged to “be strong.” How ironic. These Corinthians despised weakness. This is what they did not like about the gospel or Paul (see 1 Corinthians 1:18–2:6; 4:6-13; also 2 Corinthians 11-12). God uses the weak things to demonstrate His strength. By thinking and acting like those who were “strong,” the Corinthians were showing themselves to be spiritually weak. Paul was urging them to “be strong” in the Lord, and this would mean forsaking their human, culturally-approved “strengths.” These people, who thought themselves strong and Paul weak (2 Corinthians 13:9), were the ones who needed to be strong.
Finally, Paul exhorts the Corinthians to do everything they do in love (verse 14). Here we find one of the vital ingredients of the Christian life obviously missing in the church at Corinth. Paul had to devote an entire chapter to its description (chapter 13). These saints were obviously lacking in love, toward God and toward men. Love would radically change the church at Corinth. Wow! Here is 1 Corinthians in a nutshell.
15 Now I urge you, brethren (you know the household of Stephanas, that they were the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves for ministry to the saints), 16 that you also be in subjection to such men and to everyone who helps in the work and labors. 17 And I rejoice over the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus; because they have supplied what was lacking on your part. 18 For they have refreshed my spirit and yours. Therefore acknowledge such men.
The church at Corinth was divided, and one of the principle reasons was because of its leaders. We believe in plurality of leadership, but not like the multiple leaders at Corinth. There, each leader had his (or her) own little following. The church should be led by a plurality of leaders, but they should operate in unity and harmony, governing the whole church and not little segments of it. In his next letter to the Corinthians, Paul is going to reveal the shocking fact that some of its leaders are “false prophets,” who are actually serving Satan:
12 But what I am doing, I will continue to do, that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds (2 Corinthians 11:12-15).
If the church at Corinth has the wrong kind of leaders, Paul will not end this epistle without first pointing out to them the kind of leaders they need. Verses 15-18 focuses on three particular leaders, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, as the kind of men who should be in leadership in Corinth. It seems fairly evident that these men were not among those who were in official leadership positions. Or, if they were, they were not typical of the others who were in leadership there. And so Paul turns his attention to these men, commending them to the Corinthians as leaders who should be acknowledged as such. Consider briefly the things Paul commends about these men.
(1) These were men who were among the first to be led to the Lord through Paul’s ministry at Corinth. Paul called these men the “first fruits of Achaia” (verse 15). This would mean, among other things, that these were the oldest believers at Corinth, not necessarily in terms of their age but in terms of their “spiritual age.” Paul could be much more certain about these men, who were converted and discipled under his ministry, than about others whose spiritual births may never have occurred at all. In setting down the qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy, Paul restricted new converts from leadership roles. They were too immature and too inclined to be puffed up with power and pride, just like Satan (3:6). The men Paul recommends are the oldest saints in the city.
(2) The leadership of Stephanas was demonstrated within his own household. Paul speaks not only of Stephanas but of his household. It would seem they have all come to faith. It would further seem from Paul’s words that they, like Stephanas, have devoted themselves to ministry to the saints (verse 15). In both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, we find that Paul requires elders and deacons to be evaluated in terms of their leadership within their own homes (see 1 Timothy 3:4-5, 12; Titus 1:6). The “household” of Stephanas was evidence to the apostle Paul that this man was a spiritual leader in his home, and thus he had proven his ability to lead in the church.
(3) The leadership of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus was servant-leadership. Paul commends these men as leaders because they have served the church at Corinth, just as they have served him. They are men who help and labor in the work of ministry to the saints. The pseudo-leaders helped themselves, and they made their followers serve them (see 2 Corinthians 11:20-21).
(4) These men, whom Paul commends as true leaders, served the church and Paul by coming to him in Ephesus. They may, in their coming, have brought gifts to Paul in Ephesus. What we do know is that by their coming to Paul, they “refreshed his spirit,” just as they had “refreshed the spirits of the saints in Corinth” (verse 18). The pseudo-leaders at Corinth were undermining the spiritual health and vitality of the saints there; not so with these men. These men edified the saints at Corinth. I wonder also if these men did not come to Paul with the questions Paul answered in his epistle and with the problems Paul referred to and sought to correct (compare 1:11).
When Paul tells the Corinthians to “acknowledge such men,” I believe he is nominating, as it were, not only these three men but others who were like them. The term “acknowledge” is literally the word “know.” The same word is employed by Paul in 1 Thessalonians:
12 But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, 13 and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13, emphasis mine).
Appreciation and respect are certainly due such men, but Paul seems to have more in mind. I believe that he is indicating to the church that these men should be formally recognized as leaders. It is the Holy Spirit who makes men elders (Acts 20:28), but it is the church which formally recognizes this divine appointment (compare Acts 13:1-3). Here is the kind of leadership the Corinthian church needs. Here is the kind of leadership every church needs, and it is our task to identify and recognize such men.
19 The churches of Asia greet you, Aquila and Prisca greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. 20 All the brethren greet you. Greet one another with a holy kiss. 21 The greeting is in my own hand—Paul. 22 If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed. Maranatha. 23 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. 24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.
When Paul gives his closing words of greeting, he speaks for himself and for others. He is in Ephesus, a city of Asia, and so he greets the Corinthians for the Asian saints. Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla) are present with Paul in Ephesus, as they were with Paul in Corinth (see Acts 18:1-3), and so Paul includes a special words of greeting to the Corinthians from them.
I find Paul’s words in verse 21 amusing. We might very easily pass them by as insignificant, but I believe they are important. If his words were paraphrased in the terminology of our culture, he would be saying, “I, Paul, greet you with my own handwriting, and not by the use of my word processor.” Of course, there were no computers or word processors in his day, but there was a human equivalent, called an amanuenses. These were ancient secretaries who took dictation from the writer. I believe Paul writes with his own hand (as he often indicates) to validate his epistle as coming from him personally. He expects them to recognize his handwriting as his own. Furthermore, I believe he does so to show them how much he cares for them. There is something about a personal note that no fax, e-mail, or mail merge letter can reproduce. Paul has gone to considerable effort to communicate with these saints, because he cares deeply about them.
Lest anyone think this is just a “warm fuzzy” closing, let them take note of the somber words of verse 22: “If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed.” Paul very clearly distinguishes between saints and unbelievers. The difference he indicates here is that saints “love the Lord,” and (by inference) the rest do not. Upon those who do not “love the Lord,” Paul pronounces a curse. Since he is writing to the church at Corinth, I do not think he is cursing the unbelievers of Corinth in general; I believe that Paul is pronouncing a curse upon those who falsely claim to be saints but who in reality are unbelieving sinners. These are the ones living in sin and promoting it in the church.
Paul’s pronouncement of a curse on those who do not love the Lord are virtually the same words found in his Epistle to the Galatians:
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:6-9, emphasis mine).
Let all such people find no comfort in Paul’s epistles or in their “ministries.” They are under the curse, as the Scriptures clearly indicate (see Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Peter 2 and 3; Jude 1:1-16).
Some think it matters little whether you attend one church or another. Paul’s words should be sobering. There are those, even within the local church, who do not know our Lord, and who seek to lead others astray from following Him. Paul cannot pronounce a blessing on such people, but a curse, and so he does.
Upon those who are of the household of faith, Paul pronounces this blessing: “The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you” (verse 23). For those who have trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation, there is the blessing of God’s grace. That grace is initially experienced in the forgiveness of our sins, and it is subsequently to be experienced by the Christian every moment of every day. And it is with this blessing and the assurance of his love that Paul concludes this epistle.
233 I would remind you of these two very different statements both made by Paul. “But this I say by way of concession, not of command” (1 Corinthians 7:6). “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord …” (1 Corinthians 7:10). Let us be as clear in what we claim as divine guidance as Paul is.
234 I recently listened to a sermon by my friend, Tom Wright, who challenged this perception of Timothy, and so I am less inclined to belittle Timothy.
235 Robertson and Plummer do question whether Timothy actually ever reached Corinth. They point out that while we can read of the visit of Titus to Corinth in 2 Corinthians, there is no mention of Timothy’s visit. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1971 [reprint]), pp. 390-391.