Introductory matters

A letter for all seasons

Although 1 Corinthians was originally written with the needs of the Corinthian congregation in mind, Paul aimed his words at 'all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, theirs and ours' (1:2). Because 'theirs and ours' connects dir?ectly with 'in every place', the reference is almost certainly to all the churches in which he had an influence. This claim flies in the face of much modern scholarship. For example, it has been claimed with regard to 1 Corinthians that '? it is crucial ... to recognize that Paul is not writing a timeless tractate. His witness is addressed to a specific historical situation and participates in the contingency of that movement... To the extent to which historical critical research can aid in illuminating Paul's witness, it provides an invaluable interpretative tool' (B. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction. London: SCM Press, 1984, pp.273-4). Childs works on an 'either/or' rather than a 'both/and' basis.

The apostle needed to remind over-assertive Cor?inth?ians that they were only a part of the universal body of Christ and therefore were in no position to define or manipulate the faith (14:36). Further, Paul must have been aware that his letter was an inspired document meant for all believers: if he wrote for the Corinthians, he also wrote consciously for all of us, without reference to where and when we live. In truth, when we read the epistle, we feel that the Lord of glory is speaking to our hearts.

The commentary offers its own translation, slightly more literal than dynamic, of the Greek text, italicized words in parentheses transliterating those Greek words which are quoted.

Jerusalem, Corinth and Rome

Look at a map of the Roman Empire as it was in the first Christian century, a time when the empire was almost at its zenith. You will notice that it wrapped itself around the Mediterranean Sea. Rome ruled the waves between Spain and Syria, and between the Adriatic and Alexandria. Men were able to travel from east to west and from north to south, and back again. Nowhere else in the whole world could journeying by sea have been more convenient; storms rather than marauders remained the main threat.

It came about that the international politics of the age helped to signpost the way ahead for the first missionaries: westward. Paul even planned to journey from Judea to Spain, and who can say that he did not succeed in this enterprise? Rom. 15:24,28; cf. 1 Clement 5:7.

This man was remarkable. Apart from his Jewish upbringing in Jerusalem and his origins in a major Greek university city, Tarsus, he was also a Roman citizen. In these respects he was superbly qualified to be 'a teacher of the Gentiles'. Acts 16:37; 22:3,25; 1 Tim. 2:7.

Rome, the fourth beast of Daniel 7:7,19 and the beast from the sea seen by John (Rev. 13:1-2), had given peace, but at an appalling cost to her subjects. For many centuries, the power of Rome remained like the shadow of an eclipse over much of the known world. It cannot be forgotten that it was a Roman, Pontius Pilate, who, against the claims of reason and justice, had authorized the death of Jesus in an attempt to keep the peace as well as his position. Matt. 27:24; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:25; John 19:12-16; Acts 3:13.

Perhaps it would not be too much to say that the New Testament concerns itself largely with a conflict between two cities: Jerusalem and Rome. Certainly, the Acts of the Apostles begins in Jerusalem and finishes with Paul residing in the imperial city. He had been told on two occasions at least that it was essential for him to go there, Acts 23:11; 27:24; cf. Acts 19:21. a summons that was given to no other apostle, even though Peter may possibly have made the journey, as might be suggested by 1 Peter 5:13. Revelation 17 - 21 portrays vividly the downfall of 'Babylon', almost certainly a code name for Rome, and the ultimate ascendancy of the eternal city of God, the new Jerusalem.

In war, many battles may have to be fought before final victory comes into sight, and if the heart of an empire is to be pierced, other less important areas must first be reduced. It was something like this in the early days of the gospel. Paul was a soldier on active service for the noblest of all kings, which is why in retrospect he acknowledges that his had been a 'good fight', by which he means a righteous cause (2 Tim. 4:7).

It was also an intelligent conflict for which he identified his strategy at an early period, keeping to it in detail as the years passed: prior to his assault upon Rome by testifying to Nero Caesar (A.D. 54-68), he purposed to advance steadily and slowly ? sometimes, he must have thought, too slowly ? proclaiming Christ in certain key centres. Before he could penetrate Rome, Paul had to be sure that his arms had triumphed in every lesser theatre of war.

Nor was he disappointed. By the grace of God, Corinth became the scene of a famous victory in that a numerically large church was established (Acts 18:10). Indeed, the Epistle to the Romans was written at Corinth and conveyed to them by Phoebe, a 'servant' of the fellowship at adjacent Cenchreae (Rom. 16:1). The letter shows that when he resided at Corinth the apostle contemplated his anticipated visit to Rome in the sure knowledge that the good news was saving Jews and Gentiles alike (Rom. 1:15-16; cf. Col. 1:6). Further, what the Lord had done in a sink of depravity like Corinth he could and would do in the metropolis itself. Of this Paul was assured.

There were, it was true, cities larger than Corinth dotted around the north-east Mediterranean ? Ephesus comes to mind immediately. But when Paul sailed from Asia to Europe on his second missionary journey, it was not yet the time for this centre of population and its satellite towns to receive the gospel from his mouth (Acts 16:6-10). That would happen, but not just yet (cf. Acts 19:10). Leapfrogging Asia, the apostle settled upon Corinth as an essential stepping stone in his long-range ministry. When established, the indigenous church received letters from him, including the epistle that is the subject of this book.

About the city of Corinth

Take another look at a map of the Roman Empire and consider the northern and eastern shores of the Mediterranean. Paul knew this region intimately. You will notice that Corinth lies about halfway along an almost dead straight line, some 2,300 kilometres in length, connecting Rome and Jerusalem.

Now look at a map of Greece. Corinth was situated near the bottleneck connecting the Greek mainland and a large near-island, the Peloponnese. It is not hard to see that in early times the area must have been an important focus for the movement of men and materials between the eastern and western halves of the Mediterranean, and also in a north-south direction.

Josephus, a Jew (c. A.D. 37-97), mentions that after failing in their hopeless struggle to defend Jerusalem against the Romans in the war of A.D. 66-70, young, able-bodied Jewish captives were sent to the 'Isthmus' to dig a canal. He assumed that his readers would understand that he meant land ad?jacent to the city of Corinth. Josephus, Wars 3.540.

Because the site was favoured with an abundant water supply, possibilities for settlement soon became realities. Sightseers, traders, envoys, passing travellers and religious pilgrims flocked to the place. A saying current in Paul's time noted that Corinth was the 'prow and stern of Greece', meaning that the city seemed like a merchant vessel plying between the Greek mainland and the Peloponnese. Dio Chrysostum, The Corinthian Oration 4.8.36.

Rather than attempt the risky voyage around the southern island, merchants and the military often transported their goods, men and hardware, and even their ships, overland. In peacetime, the city of Corinth controlled this lucrative traffic. Dio Chrysostum (c. A.D. 40-120) mentions that 'large numbers gathered at Corinth on account of the harbours and the [Greek] hetaerae' because the city was situated 'at the crossroads of Greece'. Dio Chrysostum, On Virtue 4-5. Hetaerae were women of low reputation.

Corinth was served by the ports of Cenchreae, east of the Isthmus, and Lechaeum, to the west, making the city a wide-open boom-town vibrant with people. Pausanias, Corinth 1.5.

In 147 B.C., war came. According to Dio Cassius (c. A.D. 155-235), the Roman commander 'sold the inhabitants, confiscated the land and demolished the walls and all the buildings'. Dio Cassius, Book 21. A ruined heap was left. But in the last year of his life, Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.) introduced a project for the reconstruction of old cities, including Corinth. These sites were to be colonized with veteran soldiers and poor subjects from Italy. Corinth was to rise. Dio Cassius, Books 21, 43.

There were many other settlers besides Romans. Philo (c. 15 B.C. - A.D. 50), who like Josephus was a Jew, claimed that Jerusalem was virtually a mother city to most of Greece, Corinth included, and recorded that many of his own people settled there. This is borne out by the discovery of a broken door lintel bearing the inscription 'Synagogue of the Hebrews'. It now resides in the site museum. Philo, The Embassy to Gaius 281; J. Murphy-O'Connor, 'The Corinth that Saint Paul saw', Biblical Archaeologist, 47:3 (1984): 147-59 (153).

Greek remained the principal language in Corinth, where numerous religious cults proliferated. Wealth and commerce, a transient population and a long tradition of immorality meant that inevitably the infant church would be at risk.

In the words of Sir William Ramsay, 'The people of Corinth were a typically European people, familiar with every device and invention of an over-stimulated civilization, essentially a worldly and material set of persons, seeking money and pleasure and success, excellent representatives of the worst side of rich ?civilized? society, with little of the highest elements of Greco-Roman civilization.' W. M. Ramsay (ed. M. Wilson), Historical Commentary on First Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), p.10.

Paul's experiences before he wrote 1 Corinthians

During his second missionary journey, the apostle was beaten and imprisoned at Philippi. Then, chased out of Thessalonica by hostile Jews, he went to Berea, again to be opposed by his fellow-countrymen. From Berea, probably travelling alone by sea, Paul went on to Athens (Acts 16:22 - 17:15).

It is possible that his experiences there compelled him to ponder certain matters. His address on Mars Hill seems to have attracted little more than polite scepticism, although there were a few significant conversions, showing that the mission was by no means unfruitful. He soon moved on to Corinth, eighty kilometres distant (Acts 17:33-34; 18:1).

Deeper impressions made upon the apostle following his departure from Athens might be reflected in 2:1-5: 'you' and 'your' occur five times in as many verses, as Paul reveals how he had planned his work in what for him was new territory.

In retaliation for the conduct of the Jews, Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, was beaten (Acts 18:17). His assailants were either Jews or anti-Jewish Greeks who resented his failure to secure Paul's indictment, or both. If this is the man who is mentioned in 1:1, two Jews, Sosthenes and Paul, both of whom had persecuted Christians, put their names to a letter written for a church made up largely of Gentiles, people described in 10:1 as the spiritual descendants of the Israel of the Exodus. Ancient barriers were tumbling.

In spite of being brought before Gallio (proconsul of Achaia, A.D. 52-53; executed by Nero's order in A.D. 65), Paul stayed in Corinth for eighteen months (Acts 18:12-17).

In time, a congregation was formed. Then, when he felt that it was right to move on, Paul sailed for Syria. After a stay at Antioch, he commenced his third missionary journey, travelling west by the overland route through Galatia and Phrygia, and eventually reaching Ephesus (Acts 18:19 - 19:1).

He arrived just in time to miss Apollos. The latter came from Alexandria in Egypt and had stayed for a while at Ephesus, where he was assisted in his understanding of the faith by Aquila and Priscilla. Then he was encouraged to journey to Achaia and to the infant Corinthian church (Acts 18:24-28).

During his second and longer visit to Ephesus (Acts 20:31), Paul must have received information, much of it sad, from Corinth (1:11; 7:1; 16:17). The family, or associates, of Chloe, a lady who may have been a member of the church, although we cannot be certain about this, informed him about serious divisions within the fellowship. It is also likely that he received a dele?gation from the church in the persons of Stephanas, one of the few at Corinth whom Paul had baptized personally (1:16), Fortunatus and Achaicus (16:17), and these men may have conveyed a letter from the church (7:1). Rom. 16:5, according to some manuscripts, refers to Epaenetus as the 'first fruits of Achaia'. But the reading is questionable. The visitors possibly brought more disappointing news.

It was then that Paul wrote to the Corinthians another letter which has not been preserved (5:9-11). Furthermore, perhaps towards the end of his stay at Ephesus, the apostle made a second visit to Corinth, a visit that caused him much grief (2 Cor. 2:1) and which induced him to rearrange the third missionary journey (16:5-8). The time of the painful visit to Corinth is controverted. Much would depend on an identification of the 'sorrowful letter' of 2 Corinthians 2:3-4. This commentary takes the view that this passage refers to 1 Corinthians, and that the sorrowful visit (2 Cor. 2:1) may have occurred before that letter was written (See P. Naylor, A Study Commentary on 2 Corinthians. Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2002, vol. 1, p.14). Following his return to Ephesus and probably responding to Corinthian uncertainties about various sensitive issues, Paul may have written the epistle we call 1 Corinthians in the summer of A.D. 55. The 'Delphi inscription' helps to date Paul's time at Corinth. See, e.g., L. Morris, The Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians: An Introduction and Commentary (London: Tyndale Press, 1966 [first published 1956]), pp.14-15.

1. The introduction to the letter
(1 Corinthians 1:1-9)

The epistle opens with 1:1-9, verses 1-3 being a greeting and 4-9 a statement of thankfulness to God for what has been achieved at Corinth. Paul asserts his authority, making plain that he has been called directly by the Lord to be an apostle without, it is implied, ordination by any church or churches (1:1).

The Corinthians have been set apart by God together with all other believers, a hint that they are not in isolation and that they should not consider themselves as arbiters of the faith (1:2; cf. 14:36). Not only has the good news been 'confirmed' among them (1:6), but their 'faithful' God will also 'confirm' them so that in the 'day' of Christ they will be found blameless (1:8,9). In this way, Paul displays his confidence in the church, a shrewd tactic.

Although the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this section, he has been sent to the Corinthians 'in Christ Jesus' (1:2). It might be that the absence of any explicit reference to the Third Person of the Trinity is due to a desire to emphasize the centrality of Christ in the scheme of salvation, his name and title being mentioned nine times in as many verses. Because of an overemphasis upon manifestations of the Spirit, particularly tongues (cf. 12:30-31), Paul sets the tone for the whole letter: the church needs to give much more consideration to the Lord, as expounded by the apostle, than they are wont to do.

Greetings
(1 Corinthians 1:1-3)

Paul commences by introducing his own name and that of a colleague, Sosthenes, then that of the recipients and, finally, greetings. Although at that time such a form of introduction was conventional, Select Papyri II (Loeb), pp.548-601, demonstrates the point. But 'secular' greetings usually focus upon the somewhat terse caivrein, 'be glad'. Paul packs more than this into a salutation. the apostle's words are clearly selected with care in order to express his confidence in the genuineness of the Corinthians' faith (they are a 'church', 1:2), yet indicating gently that they have problems which he proposes to address.

Paul offers himself by name as the writer, then identifies the recipients of the letter and adds words of greeting. Although the format is conventional, he transforms the secular into the sacred, his address being distinctively Christian.

As sole author, Paul nevertheless associates himself with 'Sosthenes', a Christian who would have been respected by the Corinthians. Mentioned nowhere else in the letter (but cf. Acts 18:17), it may be that the apostle introduces him here because he wants the Corinthians to understand, before he dives deep into a weighty epistle, that what he writes comes with the approval of a mutual friend who has the care of the church on his heart. Paul shows that he is not some remote personage given to dispatching missives from the solitude of an apostolic ivory tower.

He stresses that he has been called to the office of 'apostle ? through', or by means of, 'the will of God': Paul is what he is because of the divine purpose. An 'apostle' (apostolos) was someone sent as a messenger (cf. Phil. 2:25), and in the New Testament the word usually applies to those of the immediate followers of Christ who were chosen and sent by him, whose teaching was inspired and infallible, and who became the founders of the church. See 3:10-12; 2 Cor.12:12; Eph. 2:20. The qualifier, 'of Christ Jesus', probably means that the working out of the decree that Paul should be an apostle flowed immediately from the Lord.

In that he was summoned directly to office, there has never been any question of personal ambition. Cf. Gal. 1:1,15; 2:7; Acts 13:2-3. According to Acts 13:2-3, at Syrian Antioch Paul and Barnabas were seconded by the Lord for the work of mission. When hands were laid upon the two men, all concerned were conscious that they had already been called by the Holy Spirit: 'Separate for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have summoned them.' Even so, the two did not begin their labours until the Lord spoke to the church and until the fellowship responded to the commission. When reading 1 Corinthians, we understand why Paul felt it necessary to open with such a claim.

The Corinthians to whom he writes are 'sanctified', or set apart, in that they have been 'called' by God to be 'saints' (or 'holy people'). There may be a deliberate play on the word 'in': their new situation is that they are 'in Christ' even though they remain as residents 'in Corinth'. In the words of Ephesians 2:17, Christ 'came and preached peace to you who were far off and to those who were near'. Equally, there could also be a play on 'called'. Does the term refer to initial conversion (spiritual calling) or to vocation (what one does to earn one's bread), or to both? Possibly both, in that Paul always summons his readers to be holy people living in a distinctly unholy society (cf. 7:34 ? 'that she [an unmarried girl] may be holy both in body and spirit').

It is to be noted that Paul addresses 'the church of God ? in Corinth', whereas earlier letters to the Thessalonians had identified the latter as 'the church of the Thessalonians in God' (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1, emphasis added). The reversed order could be an artful hint that the Corinthian church belongs to God and to no one else, and certainly not to the local culture, and that the people ought not to think too highly of themselves. With acknowledgments to Fee, First Corinthians, p.31. Furthermore, no mention is made of elders and deacons (contrast Phil. 1:1), possibly because problems in the church involve the leaders.

The terms 'church', 'sanctified' and 'saints' are dramatic. In the Septuagint (the third - second century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament, often referred to by the abbreviation LXX, standing for 'seventy'), ekklesia, the standard New Testament term for 'church', often points to Israel as God's assembled people. The first occurrence is in Deuteronomy 4:10, where Moses recalls Yahweh's instruction to him to convene the people at Horeb. Similarly, 'sanctified' and the related plural noun 'saints' (respectively, hagiasmenois and hagioi; cf. Exod. 19:6 ? 'you shall be ? a holy nation') point to the status of Israel in distinction to the profane world: not only have the Corinthians been set apart, they will remain God's people. By his careful choice of words, Paul is probably introducing what is to be one of the dominant themes in this letter: the fact that there is a direct link between the Israel of the old covenant and the Messianic Israel of the new. Cf. 'saints' in Dan. 7:18,27. It would be an error to expound ekklesia by means of a simple etymology ('called-out').

So, when the Corinthians came to faith, they entered into new life, which is why they are said to be among those 'in every place' who are 'calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ'. In the Old Testament, the people of God are described nearly ninety times as those who call upon the name of Yahweh, or who are required to do so. The earliest Christians, too, are often portrayed by the New Testament as those who call upon Christ. cf. Acts 2:21; 7:59; 9:14,21; 15:17; 22:16; Rom. 10:12-14; 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Peter 1:17. In addition to implying that the man Jesus is Yahweh incarnate, there can be no doubt that this terminology is intended to bring to the Corinthians' notice the continuity between Old Testament Israel and the emergent churches.

And this emphasis is a necessary foundation for the epistle: unlike unbelieving Jews in their synagogues, Christian disciples ? many of them converted Gentiles ? are seen as the members of the true Israel of God. Cf. Gal. 6:16; Eph. 2:19. Their faith is rooted in the remote past so that it might yield an inheritance stretching into the eternal future.

Paul insists that the Corinthians and all other saints ('in every place', 1:2) are in a blessed relationship with God their 'Father' in that 'Jesus Christ' is their 'Lord'. The statement is a needed corrective, bearing in mind the Corinthians' vanity (cf. 14:36-37). Like so many others, they have experienced the 'grace' of God, that is, his unmerited favour and all that it brings. Moreover, 'peace' is mutual: because God delights in them, their renewed hearts ought to rejoice in him.

'Peace', a word with a rich Old Testament background (Hebrew, shalom), implies that the believer possesses every conceivable benefit. This is the case even when he is not sure that it is so: he is truly prosperous because he is the direct object of the grace of God. Further, because grace and mercy lead inevitably to peace, all believers possess shalom. The world does not give it and the world cannot take it away (cf. John 14:27). Nor will the Lord remove it.

Application

These verses declare boldly that the Lord's people are in prin?ciple one in Christ, whatever their various backgrounds and whoever they might be. In turn, this unique solidarity means that within the whole community of the faithful there can be no theoretical estrangement between Jews and Gentiles, nor even between those who knew the Lord before his first coming and those of us around the globe who have been born and born again since Christ came. Abraham, about four thousand years ago, and the last sinner to be converted in future time belong to each other because they both belong to the Lord Jesus. Indeed, every convert belongs to the collective seed of Abraham, Christ himself being the nucleus (Gal. 3:29).

Thankfulness to and confidence in God
(1 Corinthians 1:4-9)

Paul confides that he remains thankful to his God for the Corinthians (1:4) and for the exceptional range of spiritual gifts being vouchsafed to them (1:7), and expresses his certainty that they will remain in the faith until 'the day of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1:8). Reading between the lines, we see that he tells them that their needs are exceptionally important to him.

This is remarkable if it is borne in mind that the church has caused him no little pain, and that one of the principal problems is their abuse of the gift of tongues, for them perhaps the most coveted of all spiritual blessings. At the outset, then, of what will be in some respects a grievous epistle (cf. 2 Cor. 2:4; 7:8), Assuming that the 'sorrowful letter' is our 1 Corinthians. Paul manifests tact and patience. Aware that within the congregation there is confusion about temporary manifestations of the Holy Spirit, he prepares the way for the counsel to be given in chapters 12 - 14. As has already been noted, the apostle swiftly brings the church back to basics by referring again and again to the Lord rather than to the Spirit.

The Corinthian church has been granted a range of remarkable spiritual gifts, and the apostle shows that he is truly grateful to God. As elsewhere, his thanksgivings are 'always' directed heavenwards, and for specific reasons. Cf. Rom. 1:8-10; Phil. 1:3-6; Col. 1:3-8; 1 Thess. 1:2-10; 2 Thess. 1:3; 2 Tim. 1:3; Philem. 4-5. It is significant that Paul is thankful that the congregation is being endowed so liberally in spite of the fact that their spiritual gifts have become objects of abuse (see chapters 12 - 14). Dr Fee makes the helpful point that, unlike today's churches, which may tend to remove troublesome matters from discussion, Paul draws a distinction between, in this case, genuine spiritual gifts and the inadequate attitude to them shown by too many Corinthians. Fee, First Corinthians, p.36.

The Father is expounded as 'my God': in trouble and in joy, the apostle turns to the one who belongs to him just as much as he belongs to God. Bearing in mind the problems which these people have caused him (cf. 1:11), this admission is impressive, and it may be suspected that when dictating these words to his scribe, Paul realized that an explanation would be called for ? which is why it is now provided.

Firstly, the 'grace [charis] of God' has been 'given' to the Corinthians 'in Christ Jesus'. Paul's gratitude is not so much for the church as for the transforming work of the Spirit of Christ among them, a graciousness manifested by the bestowal of spiritual gifts. This is a pre-emptive strike: whereas the Corinthians exult in their charismata (meaning 'favours', unmerited benefits), the apostle revels in the graciousness of the God who has bestowed them.

Paul continues to redirect the enthusiasm of the Corinthians. He is thankful because they 'have been enriched in everything', that is, 'in all speech and in all knowledge'. The selection of 'enriched' is pointed: whereas elsewhere (4:8; 2 Cor. 8:9; 6:10) Corinthian enrichment consists in the experience of salvation, here the restricted sense, which may reflect a tender sarcasm, acknowledges that their capacities, rather than their spirituality, are remarkable.

The benefits given to the Corinthians since their conversion are also 'in him', that is, in Christ. Paul tells them, in a manner both kind and insistent, that they ought not to congratulate themselves because of their abilities. Rather, they are to bless their Saviour.

'Speech' (literally, 'word', i.e., logos) refers to gifts of utterance such as tongues-speaking (sometimes referred to as 'glossolalia', an English word deriving from glossa, 'tongue', and lalia, speech), prophecy and the interpretation of tongues, all of which are considered in detail in chapters 12 - 14. 'Knowledge' (gnosis) would have been equivalent to a 'word of knowledge', a prophetic gift (12:8; cf. 13:2).

Thus, the church has been 'enriched' in spectacular fashion ? hence, 'all speech', 'all knowledge' ? by the Spirit in order to confirm to them either the apostolic 'testimony of Christ' or the witness to God given by Jesus himself through the apostles (1:6), or both. The association between 'confirmed' and 'testimony' (martyria) is striking, suggesting a courtroom scene in which a deposition is solemnized by oath: Paul's ministry had been authenticated by God.

This needs to be compared with 1:7b-8: 'our Lord Jesus Christ, who will confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus' (cf. 2 Cor. 1:21). Not only has the gospel been established firmly by God in the minds and affections of the people, but they are strong in Christ, and will be made yet stronger by God the Father, the implied subject of the action. The apostle does not write that the Cor?inth?ians abound in spiritual benefits; rather, they have been made wealthy. Without Christ they were once truly poor; now they are prosperous. Their gifts, although amazing, are far less important than their status.

There is more. The Corinthians entertain a radical yet true understanding of the future course of world history, living in expectation of the ultimate 'reve?lation of our Lord Jesus Christ' (1:7). This means that as the days pass they rest in the assurance that Christ will return to this world, and eagerly await him. But Paul's words do not mean that two millennia before our time they believed his appearance to be imminent. Nor do the apostle's letters ever indicate as much (cf. 2 Thess. 2:1-12). He teaches that when the Lord does come, he will for the first time be displayed in his majesty to the people of God, his arrival being altogether unlike that of, say, some visiting celebrity whose face is already known.

The statement that the Corinthians do not 'fall short in any gift' (1:7) might imply that they are as gifted as other believers elsewhere, or, better, that Paul repeats negatively what he has indicated positively in verse 5 ? namely that, being enriched in all utterance and in all knowledge, they lack nothing within the range of benefits bestowed by the Spirit.

Further, the apostle links the manifestation of spiritual gifts to the church's anticipation that the Lord will return: expectations for the future are stimulated by present experience. He implies that were the charismata not present, the people would not lift their hearts to await the Lord from heaven. In the light of 15:12 ? 'How do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?' ? Paul is now declaring his confidence in them: notwithstanding their severe problems, they are an authentic church, blessed by the manifestation of the Spirit and awaiting the revelation of their Lord.

Spiritual gifts and Christian hope

A charismatic approach to 1:7, as represented by Dr Gordon Fee, should not be overlooked. Fee, First Corinthians, pp.42 and 46 respectively. He implies that it is unlikely that contemporary Christians will be eager to say, 'Come, Lord Jesus' (Rev. 22:20), unless they acquire the spiritual gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12 - 14. It has to be admitted, of course, that this perception might be tolerable were Dr Fee writing for charismatically inclined Christians of his own persuasion. But he is not because, as has been mentioned, the volume which contains these remarks is part of the New International Commentary on the New Testament series which, together with its companion series, the New International Commentary on the Old Testament, is a major contribution to contemporary exegesis of Scripture. For this reason, among others, the approach merits a critique.

Firstly, is it the case that, armed with his Bible, today's believer who does not hold a charismatic view of the gifts may lack an eager expectation that Christ will appear for him? Dr Fee claims too much.

Secondly, does not his approach elevate alleged modern gifts to a status equal to that of the Bible? The former, he seems to declare, can grant a spiritual verve otherwise unobtainable. That is to say, charismatic experience without Scripture appears to be potentially more dynamic and authoritative than a prayerful study of, say, Hebrews or the Apocalypse, books which were almost certainly not written when 1 Corinthians was penned.

Thirdly, if, as this commentary will reason, See the comments on 1 Corinthians 13. present-day charismatic manifestations are not genuine, Fee's thesis collapses.

Finally, if chapter 13 predicts that spiritual gifts would be phased out in favour of a complete Bible, and if some since the first century A.D. may have failed to believe in the final advent of Christ, their problem must have originated elsewhere.

In sum, much of the issue between charismatic believers on the one hand and other Bible-loving Christians is not just about whether the gifts of the Spirit do or do not remain until the Second Coming: the conviction that the Bible is the churches' sole authority in all matters of faith and practice is being tested. Admittedly, although many charismatic and Pentecostal brethren would not admit this tension, loving logic insists that it must be so: given that we are blessed with the sixty-six books of Holy Scripture, do we need first-century charismata?

The sentence beginning at 1:4 now concludes. 'To the end' probably means until death, as with Paul's affectionate plea in 2 Corinthians 1:13-14. There, 'to the end' would seem to point to the end of the Cor?inth?ians' lives, Paul seeking to repair bridges between them and him: because all are one in the Lord, when Christ is revealed he will be seen by both Paul and the Cor?inth?ians as their common Friend. By analogy, 1:8 would predict that the Corinthians may expect their God to uphold them as they anticipate final glory. 'Blameless' develops the courtroom nuance of verse 6: God's testimony has been confirmed among those who remain guiltless.

Paul insists that there is a basis for this hope: 'God is faithful.' In the Greek text, 'faithful' (pistos) comes first for emphasis (cf. 1 Thess. 5:24). The apostle must have had in mind Deuteronomy 7:9 and 32:4, where Yahweh is said to have been faithful in calling Israel and then keeping them safe in the desert. It is the same for the Corinthians, who 'through' God, the sole agent of their salvation, have been summoned to share in the 'communion' (koinonia) 'of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord'. This world's wilderness will not engulf them.

'Communion' may not mean simply that each Cor?inthian has been called to union with Christ. As a body of believers, they have been led by God to share together in Christ, fellowship possessing, so to speak, both vertical and horizontal components. If this is Paul's meaning, he would seem to be launching into his condemnation of divisions in the church (1:10 onwards). His logic is that it must be wrong for there to be functional disunity where there is a God-given oneness.

Application

Like the Corinthians, all believers have been 'called to be saints', 'saints' translating hagioi (1:2). Herein lies a problem in that in our culture sainthood may be understood in more than one way.

The reality is that 'saints' are such because the triune God has graciously purposed to detach us from a dying world, whence it follows that separation is sainthood. Therefore, if you do not refer to Charles Haddon Spurgeon as 'Saint Charles' ('Mr Spurgeon' might suffice) or even to your own minister as 'Saint ...' (!), why speak about 'Saint Paul' or 'Saint Peter'? That Spurgeon, now in heaven, and your local evangelical minister are saints is beyond doubt. But you, patient born-again reader of these pages, are also a saint. Consider your status in the light of, say, 1 Peter 2:9.

2. Divisions
(1 Corinthians 1:10 - 4:21)

In the Corinthian church there were quarrelsome souls and party divisions. Many were conceited, in part because of their spiritual gifts (1:7; 4:6,18-19), and were rallying around personalities such as Paul, Apollos and Cephas (1:12; 3:4-5,22), boasting in a species of 'wisdom' other than that of the cross (1:29-31; 3:21). This was despite the fact that most were of humble origins (1:26) and that had Paul never come to them they would have remained in their sins (cf. 6:11).

When reviewing the situation, the apostle must have been aware that if matters were not rectified and if Corinth were to become out of bounds for him, so to speak, his ministry everywhere would be imperilled.

The task, then, of this part of the letter is to mend the rift between the church and their father-in-God (4:14-15), and this as the precursor for addressing serious problems. The latter burden is discharged from 5:1 onwards. But for the moment first things must come first: until Paul can show the Corinthians that their essential problem is that they have veered away from the Christ whom he preaches, and consequently from his appointed messenger, he can do no more for them. This is the rationale behind chapters 1 - 4.

There are, perhaps, five principal sections: 1:10-17; 1:18-31; 2:1-16; 3:1-23 and 4:1-21.

The need to be of one mind
(1 Corinthians 1:10-17)

Paul informs the Corinthians that he has been told about their divisions: they cluster around prominent individuals such as Apollos and Cephas, not to mention the apostle himself. To aggravate the confusion, there are also some who purport to follow Christ rather than men (1:12), an allegiance which on the surface seems admirable but which hints at an underlying spiritual snobbery.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence to suggest that the church has split into opposing factions, or that any particular individuals have allowed themselves to become figureheads. Nor, unlike the anonymous proponents of incipient Judaism alluded to some six months later in 2 Corinthians, See. e.g., 2 Cor. 11:13-14,22-23. are there at this point any pseudo-apostles bent on defaming Paul.

The problem is much more simple ? or more subtle: although they are 'saints', too many in the church are spiritually and emotionally immature. Dragging their feet, they find it difficult to respond to the moral demands of the gospel and are reluctant to abdicate the cultural norms of their city in favour of commitment to the scandal of a crucified Messiah (cf. 1:23). A glance at a concordance will show that 'wisdom' (sophia) and 'wise [man]' (sophos) occur far more frequently in 1 Corinthians, and particularly in the first three chapters, than elsewhere in the New Testament, and this raw statistic may provide an indication of the Corinthians' mindset. In 1 Corinthians sofiva occurs seventeen times, compared with eleven times in the remainder of Paul's writings; sofov? occurs ten times in this epistle and five elsewhere.

Although some commentators think that internal tensions at Corinth revolved around the nature of divine wisdom (sophia), E.g. Fee, First Corinthians, pp.8,48. this book adopts the less sophisticated view indicated above. Even so, it is not unlikely that some within the church were over-keen on rhetoric (the art of persuasion) and philosophical traditions. Consistently with this, in 2 Corinthians Paul inveighs against those who may have expected to be paid for their services as speakers, these souls capitalizing on the convention that orators were worthy of their hire. With this practice Paul would have nothing to do (cf. 2 Cor. 10:10-12).

Concerning 1:10-17, the apostle shows himself aghast at the state of the church, conscious that among those who are being elevated as figureheads there are no disagreements: all are immune to rivalry and flattery (cf. 15:11). It follows that there is no reason for the Corinthians to enthuse about some at the expense of others. Paul is thankful that the Lord has ordered his circumstances so that it is obvious that he has never aspired to be an empire builder.

Paul, having expressed his confidence in the church, outlines an unpleasant situation which is symptom?atic of the core issue addressed by the letter: div?isions among the people indicate their lack of spirit?uality; they do not know Christ in sufficient depth.

In reality the Corinthians are united because they have been called by God to participate in Christ (1:9). But, sadly, within their church this oneness is well disguised. This is why Paul brings in 'but' or 'now': 'Now 'Now', from dev. ... I appeal to you, brothers.' They need to be one in practice because they are one in principle. In the light of 1:13, which may be intended to remind them that they had been baptized in the name of Jesus, it is possible that Paul's exhortation 'through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ' teaches that because they belong to the Saviour, they should be working hard at practical fellowship.

Although they ought to be saying the 'same thing', they are not doing so: 'splits' are developing. As is sometimes the case in church life, the spectacle of Corinthian tensions must have been more obvious than its root causes. Paul reveals his awareness that the church has fragmented into splinter groups, each apparently adopting someone's name as a sort of slogan for where it thinks it stands, mutual exclusiveness possibly revolving around the merits of individuals such as Paul, Apollos and Cephas.

Because it is all so petty, not descending to the murky depths of doctrinal or moral error, the apostle appeals to them to be 'knit together'. The verb which he employs, katertismenoi, means 'to repair' or 'to make good'. Some other examples of its use in the New Testament are the mending of fishermen's nets and help given to someone in a church who has fallen into sin. Matt. 4:21; Mark 1:19; Gal. 6:1. The Corinthians will be in good repair when they cease to place some leaders on pedestals and stop looking askance at others.

Not only are there divisions in the church, the pres?ent verse shows that there are 'quarrels'. How unlike our Lord, who could and did disagree with other men, yet never involved himself in word battles and never lost his temper! (Isa. 42:2; Matt.12:19).

It seems likely that at Corinth the people were given to shouting at one another, the strife being disclosed to Paul by 'those who pertain to Chloe' (literally, 'those of Chloe'), by which might be meant her family. Nor is it certain that she was a member of the church, although the people evidently knew her. Ramsay goes so far as to claim that '??the representatives of Chloe? are quoted as being in themselves good and sufficient witnesses, and therefore they must have stood outside the factions as external observers. Chloe, therefore, was not a Corinthian.' Ramsay, Historical Commentary, p.31. He may be right. She is mentioned, along with those of her household, because Paul, who refuses to deal in anonymous gossip, reveals his sources; it is only fair to the church that they should know the origin of the criticisms laid against them.

Although Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus had apparently visited Paul in Ephesus as appointed delegates of the church (16:17), the apostle does not mention that they have reported to him the state of affairs there, although this does not prove that they remained silent. The absence of any such report suggests, once again, that, whatever problems there were, the three-man team did not believe that the church was in danger of collapse.

This verse reveals that Paul seems to accept as true what he has heard from Chloe's people ? hence the observation that 'each of you says'. Some have let it be known that they entertain preferences for leaders such as Paul or Apollos or Cephas (Peter), while others pick up the trait. Apparently, the problem is endemic, even though the repeated 'I' ? not 'we' (as, for example, in 'I am Paul's') ? may hint that the difficulty has more to do with a love for disputation and less with parties.

But why have these leaders become involuntary stereotypes? We are not told. Fee focuses speculatively upon Apollos and his Alexandrian (and Philonic?) background as an indicator as to why some Corinthians clustered behind him. Enamoured with sophia, they felt that Apollos suited their tastes (First Corinthians, p.56). But the thesis does not rise much above the level of supposition. Concerning those who assert that they belong to Christ, rather than to Peter, Paul or Apollos, their boasting is as dismal as that of the others. On the other hand, this disclosure might anticipate 2 Corinthians 10:7, which may possibly point to those of Paul's detractors who actually heard Jesus during his earthly ministry. Cf. 2 Cor. 5:16. Anyway, there is such a group, as pernicious as their possibly less sophisticated competitors.

The New Testament does not suggest that the pillars of the churches named here ever disagreed about their beliefs. Peter's lapse into functional Judaism (Gal. 2:11-14) is not evidence of a fundamental disagreement among their ranks. From this it might be inferred that these cliques did not derive their energies from doctrinal differences.

Rhetorical questions are raised in order to expose the absurdity of splintering within the church, a device that occurs frequently throughout the letter. See 2:11; 3:4; 4:7; 6:1,15; 9:1,7; 10:22; 11:22; 12:17; 14:36; 15:12.

Paul asserts that because Jesus is the 'Christ', the Lord cannot be 'divided', or apportioned out in different measures to different individuals. It follows that no assembly of believers confessing the risen Christ can in principle be partitioned within itself.

Secondly, the assertion of some that they belong, say, to 'Paul' ? he introduces his name rather than his office ? means that these adherents have come to regard him as their master, suggesting that the apostle died to be their saviour and that in principle they had been baptized 'into' his name ('into', eis, implying allegiance). Paul argues in reverse: because this was not the case, he should not be made a hub around which naïve Corinthian satellites revolve.

The allusion to baptism, suggesting that the Cor?inthians have forgotten the significance of the rite, is subtle in that it affords Paul a platform for explaining his true role as an apostle (1:14-17).

To sum up, 1:13 shows that the divisions at Corinth are unnecessary, unreasonable and sinful.

To highlight the folly of divisiveness, Paul clarifies his own relationship both with the Corinthians and with Christ. When he was in their city for the first time, he baptized only a few, including 'Crispus' and 'Gaius', the former probably being the leader of the Jewish synagogue, and the latter possibly Paul's host when in later days he stayed in Corinth and there wrote the Roman letter (Acts 18:8; Rom. 16:23).

These circumstances were providential, and the apostle remains 'thankful' to God. Had the Lord not raised up other men to administer the rite, undoubtedly many Corinthians would exult that they were 'baptized' into Paul's 'name'. Truth to tell, at no time has he taken any initiative to become the Cor?inth?ians' patron and guardian, and God has preserved him from such vanity (cf. Acts 10:48).

When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, some years had passed since the first mission. He recollects that he also baptized 'the house of Stephanas'. By comparing with 16:15, it transpires that Stephanas and his family were the first converts in Achaia, all remaining within a church in which he became a recognized leader and, latterly, a member of the three-man delegation sent to Paul at Ephesus. In that the apostle claims not to 'know' if any other baptismal candidates had passed through his hands, he states obliquely that the identity of the person carrying out a baptism is irrelevant as long as the rite is performed adequately. With acknowledgements to Fee, First Corinthians, p.63. Here, the logic of Paul's words is that what does not come to mind is unimportant. Deprecating triumphalism rather than downgrading baptism, he implies that only one man has been appointed as the Corinthians' apostle, and that he, Paul, is that man.

His commission is defined with precision and emphasis: 'For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to evangelize ? not with wisdom of speech, so that the cross of Christ might not be rendered void.' By 'wisdom of speech' (sophia logou) might be meant a structured programme of belief, in this case a worldly-wise system acceptable to the unconverted, and possibly related to native philosophical lore. 'Greeks', Paul remarks, 'seek wisdom' (1:22). The apostle will soon contrast this form of declamation with 'the word [or, 'message'] of the cross' (1:18), a coherent syllabus presented simply (cf. 2:4, 'not in persuasive words of wisdom') and which, through no fault of its own, is abhorrent to society.

Paul shares with his readers the conviction that had his ministry among them taken the format of Greek philosophical dialogue, he would have been ineffective. Of course, even then he would no doubt have referred to Jesus of Nazareth, and possibly to the 'Christ' who had died at Calvary, but there would have been no exposition of the meaning of Jesus' death and no call to the Corinthians to repent and believe. The cross would almost certainly have been put forward as an event lacking decisive significance.

In reality, one of the blessings from the Spirit has been 'the word of wisdom' , 'the logos of sophia' (12:8; cf. 1:5), this benefit being the exact antithesis to worldly 'wisdom of speech', 1:17 reversing the word order to bring out the point. The divine purpose has been expounded by Paul and others (2:13) with God-given words, rather than in terms of stale human wisdom articulated in uninspired language, a message and a medium incapable of saving anyone.

In this fashion, Paul distances himself from those scrambling to be his disciples. What would be the consequences had he taught the church to rely upon him? These converted saints would remain as they once were ? sinners.

Application

Divisions within churches often have less to do with differences about doctrine and more to do with ill behaviour (1:10). Neither ought to be. Uncouth Christians can wreak havoc.

Paul had no time for figureheads (1:12). Of course, he must have known that some men were better preachers than others. Nor was there a problem about this. As far as we are concerned, let us never make any minister our ideal or our idol. Let Christ be our ultimate role model.

With regard to baptism (1:13-14), although some speak about being baptized into the church, is it not better to refer to being bap?tized 'into Christ'? Let the Lord remain at the heart of the matter.

One temptation against which Paul must have struggled was that of expounding a spurious gospel incorporating Greek ideas about knowledge (1:17). Cf. Acts 15:1,5; 17:32; Gal. 1:8-9; 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 4:3. Had he enmeshed himself, he would have been fatally compromised. In the churches, every sermon should be centred upon the Christ of the Bible.

Wise folly; strong weakness
(1 Corinthians 1:18-31)

In 1:17, Paul contrasted a worldly 'wisdom of logos' (i.e., speech / word) with the cross of Christ as proclaimed by him. Here, the dissimilarity is expounded, the apostle conceding that his teaching gives the impression of being weak and foolish, both in content and in presentation, appropriate for Cor?inth?ian believers who stem from the lower strata of society. Outwardly, his mission appears to be a folly: obscure people of little account latch on to a weird story told by Paul, a wandering foreigner ? a Jew ? about an unfortunate fellow-countryman who had suffered his just deserts by being crucified.

Yet Paul claims that he has no regrets: the Lord planned it this way so that believers might have nothing for which to be glad, apart from the grace of God (1:31). Foolishness is wisdom; weakness, strength. Values are reversed because God's ways are not men's. He therefore urges the Corinthians to reconsider the apostolic Christ, even if in so doing they discover that they have to repudiate traditional values.

'For' indicates that the theme introduced by 1:17 is being expanded. From the viewpoint of the sophisticated Greek, the gospel is foolishness, Paul's ministry having little to do with bustling Corinth.

Yet for those who have come to faith there is a different conviction. Almost a formula, 'the word of the cross' draws attention both to the effective manner in which the apostle preaches and to the content of his message. Paul refuses to employ ornate language to flaunt his capacities, and his style may be compared with the speech of the lawyer Tertullus (Acts 24:2-8), whose flourish amounted to nothing.

Paul's astonishing claim is that those who put their minds to his message divide into two groups: those who 'are perishing' and those who 'are being saved': the cross brings to light the irreconcilable gap between believers and the surrounding world. Both have their criteria, considering some matters to lie at the heart of wisdom and others to be folly, yet disagreeing about what is wise and what is absurd. Paul has been able to see beneath the surface: since the unbeliever's wisdom is folly and cannot save him, such a person passes from the scene. But for the believer, the apostolic explanation of Calvary has become nothing less than 'the power of God': the discerning saint knows that his life has been transformed both by what Christ did for him at Calvary and by what the Lord has effected within him by the Spirit. The problem at Corinth is that not all give evidence of such discernment.

For it has been written:

'I shall destroy the wisdom of the wise,

And the intelligence of the intelligent I shall set aside.'

Paul's analysis of the Corinthian scene is reinforced by what is probably a reference to the second part of Isaiah 29:14. The Septuagint, which is behind his quotation, could be translated: 'And I shall destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I shall hide.' 'I shall hide' (krypso) is replaced by the apostle with the more vivid 'I shall set aside' (atheteso).

The prophet denounces the leaders in Jerusalem, claiming that they repeat errors committed during an earlier crisis. In the time of Ahaz, the house of David obtained Assyrian military help when attacked by a Syrian-Edomite-Philistine coalition. Because they did not turn to Yahweh for help, they brought distress upon themselves. 2 Kings 16:7-20; 2 Chr. 28:16-25; Isa. 7:1-25. Now, when threat?ened by Assyria, Jerusalem seeks Egyptian assistance. Isaiah insists that because this policy is folly, it must lead to disaster. Yet the self-ruination of Judah will induce some to turn to God because they know that the Egyptians cannot ward off the Assyrians.

Paul universalizes the principle: nothing in this world can deliver men from sin and bring them true peace; their every effort must be thrown down by the Lord because they refuse to look to him.

Rhetorical questions introduce more allusions to the Old Testament, probably to Isaiah 19:11-12 and 33:18-19 (and possibly to Isaiah 44:25-26 and Job 12:17-18), in order to demonstrate the folly of human wisdom. Paul realizes that the Corinthians will be unable to contradict him.

Isaiah 19:11-12 asks where are the 'wise' leaders of Egypt, 'the princes of Zoan', at a time when Egypt is to be engulfed by Assyria. The reader is expected to admit that they have disappeared. In addition, the ravager will be ravaged, and Isaiah 33:18-19 predicts the downfall of Assyrian forces operating within the borders of Judah. The Septuagint's 'scribe', probably a foreign official receiving tribute from the Jews, vanishes.

For Paul, the world's wisdom is personified by the typical 'wise man', by the 'scribe' (grammateus ? now, the learned man) and by the 'debater'. At least the third ? and probably all three ? is said to belong to 'this age', an age already perishing. The 'debater' (syzetetes) would be a non-serious enquirer, albeit one with some sort of philosophical bent (cf. 2 Tim. 3:7).

The Corinthians are expected to reply in the affirmative to the first three questions, agreeing that the 'wise man', 'scribe' and 'debater' pass into oblivion. But why are they being overthrown? Hence a fourth question which also demands assent: 'Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?' In the light of the wisdom that sent Jesus, must not the church admit that man's attempts to resolve his problems, the chief of which is that of self-alienation from God, and to seek happiness are folly? For Paul, the tragedy of Hellenic culture was that it had ignored the one God in favour of idolatry (cf. Acts 17:23). This being so, the Corinthians are mistaken if they downgrade apostolic preaching: traditional wisdom never brought them to God. Paul challenges those who will hear the letter read out to them to disagree ? if they dare.

Paul explains how it is that the apparent folly of his ministry has achieved what is beyond the reach of the world, leading with 'For since, in the wisdom of God the world through wisdom did not know God ?' One possible interpretation is that although men are 'in', or surrounded by, the revealed wisdom of God, both in creation and in the providential ordering of all things, they deem it wise not to recognize God, Cf. Acts 14:15-17; 17:23-29; Rom. 1:20-28; Eph. 2:12. atheism or idolatry becoming their synthetic and preferred wisdom. Alternatively, the first part of the verse may flow into the second, which states that 'God was pleased through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who believe.' Because of man's non-wisdom, the Lord has acted unexpectedly 'in' his own unique wisdom, setting up an instrument which achieves what from man's point of view is the undesirable and the unexpected.

And there is an oscillation between past and pres?ent tenses: whereas the world has resolved not to know God, he has activated an apparently foolish scheme which saves all who believe (= 'are believing': pisteuontas), the present tense, 'believe', indicating that there are those who accept the content of Paul's preaching, and that only those who persevere in their faith can be saved. Cf. Matt. 24:13; Mark 13:13; Heb. 3:6,14; 6:11-12.

In sum, the apostle shows that his gospel, his modus operandi and those who believe all challenge the world and its false values ? and that the Lord planned it this way for three reasons. Not only had it been his intention that his word should never resemble any of the traditions esteemed by men, it had also been decreed that the gospel should expose the false values of the world for what they are: unable to save, sanctify or satisfy. Thirdly, the message of the cross is designed to lead God's people to trust Christ and experience the power of the Lord in their own lives.

The thrust of 1:21 is now extended: it is not true that the message of the cross helps none yet offends all. Because the world goes its foolish way, God does as he pleases through his servants, and does it with effect.

Initially, Paul divides the people of 'this age', alias 'the world' (1:20-21), into two classes, the Jews and the Greeks, verse 22 flowing into verses 23-24. The assumption is that although Jews and Greeks are different in so many ways, all redefine God, albeit according to their distinctive preferences. The common factor is that revealed truth is bypassed.

Although it was not necessarily wrong for the Jews of Paul's time to seek signs, their problem was that they usually thought that God should operate in the same fashion as he had done, say, at the Exodus: delivering Israel from foreign oppression. E.g. Exod. 4:8-9. What they neither expected nor desired was the 'sign' of a crucified and then resurrected Messiah. Cf. Matt. 12:38-39; 16:1,4; Mark 8:11-12; Luke 11:16; John 6:30.

As for the Greeks, Ramsay notes that 'The strength and at the same time the weakness of the Greek intellect lay in its acuteness, its capacity for making delicate distinctions and refinements, and its philosophic subtlety. The Corinthians shared in this Greek characteristic, and their habit of discussing and philosophizing about the doctrine of Christ was distracting their view from realities to unimportant distinctions ... they lost sight of the one and only reality in it [Paul's preaching] ? the cross of Christ.' Ramsay, Historical Commentary, p.22.

Yet what the Jews demanded and what the Greeks sought, Paul proclaims boldly. But what is God's 'sign', and what is his 'wisdom'?

Thus to the insult of Calvary. Three constituencies are mentioned: 'we', that is, Paul and his colleagues; 'Jews'; and 'the nations' (ethnesin; cf. 'ethnic'), equivalent to the 'Greeks'. 'Scandal' means something that, when confronted, induces horror and causes harm. 'Crucified', couched as a Greek perfect participle (estauromenon), indicates that the Jesus whom Paul preaches remains permanently the crucified, albeit risen, Messiah.

Most Jews, not reading Scripture prayerfully and carefully, Luke 24:27,45-47; cf.1 Cor. 15:3. chose to believe that the Messiah would be a species of political saviour (as in Luke 19:11). Conversely, crucifixion was for them the final proof that the victim had been abandoned for ever both by God and men (cf. Gal. 3:13; Deut. 21:23). Therefore, the proclamation of a crucified and allegedly resurrected Messiah was deemed a blasphemy (cf. Acts 13:45; 18:6).

For non-Jews, on the other hand, the proclam?ation of a crucified but allegedly living Jewish 'king' (cf. Acts 17:7) was moria, 'foolishness', that which stemmed from a despised race. E.g. John 7:35; Acts 19:34; 21:28. And Paul's message would have been regarded as irrelevant by any hard-nosed Roman administrator. Thus Pliny the Younger to Trajan c. A.D. 112. See H. Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church (London: Oxford University Press [The World's Classics, 495], 1959), p.5. And, in the New Testament, cf. Pilate and Gallio.

Here there may be a recall of Hosea 14:9 and Isaiah 8:14-15, each dating to the late eighth century B.C. Both passages teach that those who decline to put their trust in Yahweh must collapse. Paul's appli?cation is that if Christ is not our wisdom, he must be the judge before whom sinners fall. Cf. Acts 10:42; 13:41; 17:31. Even so, he indicates that some, both Jews and Greeks, 'those who are [being] called', stand apart, attracted to Christ by the message of the gospel and by the internal operation of the Holy Spirit. Cf. 1:2; Rom. 1:7; 8:28; Jude 1; Rev. 17:14. They recognize that the Lord is powerful because by him their lives have been transformed ? as will be made explicit in 1:30. Secondly, for them Christ has become 'the wisdom of God'. This is not a Christological statement but an assertion concerning the believer's experience of salvation. Previously, certainty escaped them in that they desired no body of truth upon which to depend. But when confronted with the gospel, they embraced it and were given cause to marvel. Further, implies Paul, ancestral hatreds have in principle been abolished: Christ has become the same Saviour for all believers, whether Jews or Greeks. Cf. Eph. 2:11-22.

Paul rejoices in 'the foolishness of God', likening the message of a crucified Messiah to an apparent aberration: Greeks would say that if God ? should there be only one God ? did send Jesus to die, he made a fool of himself. Nevertheless, this magnificent folly remains 'wiser than men'. Uniquely, it has identified man's basic need ? peace with God ? and has provided the cross as the answer.

Similarly, this gospel is 'the weakness of God'. As the world sees things, God acted ineffectively when he sent Christ ? that is, men might say, if, he did send him. Jews would want to know why their God could not have done something truly impressive, like clearing the Romans out of their land (cf. Acts 1:4-6). For his part, Paul has seen that this weak, insipid thing, the good news of Jesus, is always 'stronger than men'. He has also perceived another aspect of the truth: neither can the world rival the gospel in diagnosing its predicaments and supplying a therapy, nor can legislation ? not excluding that of Sinai ? relieve guilt and purge sin. Christ excels.

Paul has asserted that traditional wisdom never achieves anything truly good, and has alluded to two Israelite prophets to reinforce his claim. He has also stated that the gospel he preaches is uniquely effective. But there is a missing component to his argument: an assertion concerning those who have been transformed by Christ. Hypothetically, had the church contained as a majority group those esteemed by the world as great and wise, the thesis of the previous section would disintegrate, the perception being that heaven had accommodated to their status. This is why the Corinthians are counselled to look at themselves. 'Calling' probably retains a double sense in that the Lord had summoned these people, for the most part of low secular 'calling', to faith (cf. 7:17-18). At Corinth, those who might have been complacent about their standing in society have, for the most part, been passed over by God ? and many whom the world might disdain have received mercy.

Although all sections of society are represented in this community, the apostle comments that in the main the Corinthian church is composed of those who, according to conventional standards (kata sarka = 'according to the flesh'), are neither 'wise' nor 'powerful' nor 'well born'. How dismal! Yet the apostle leaps into the next verses with 'but' (the strong alla, meaning something like 'on the contrary'); God has intervened.

Paul glories, revealing why God has stocked the Cor?inthian church mainly from the lower social strata, those who, in the view of most people, constitute 'the foolish things of the world', 'the weak things of the world', 'the ignoble things of the world' and 'the despised things', categorizing these as 'things that are not'. This is rhetoric, Paul gazing, so to speak, at the church through the spectacles normally worn by 'the world' (kosmos) in which these saints have their being. Thinking sociologically, the apostle acknowledges that for the most part they remain nonentities. But what of it?

Firstly, God will 'disgrace' the wise and the mighty because, secondly, he has already purposed to 'bring to nothing things that are'. The strategy is that all opposition to the good news must collapse.

'Bring to nothing' translates katargeo, which occurs also in 2:6; 6:13; 13:8,10,11 and 15:24,26, in each case pointing to the outworking of the plan of redemption. Thus 1:27-28 is eschatological: the selection of the lowly at Corinth has contributed to the overthrow of all that is mighty and malignant. As in Old Testament times, so now (cf. Ps. 31:17).

Verses 27-29 repeat 'so that' (hina) three times, the three being followed by 'in order that' (hopos):

'? so that he might disgrace the wise' (1:27a);
so that he might disgrace the strong' (1:27b);
so that he might bring to nothing things that are' (1:28);
in order that all flesh may not boast before God' (1:29). It might be unwise to suggest a semantic difference between i{na and o{pw?; nor do F. Blass and A. Debrunner seem to make the attempt (A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. R. W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961, p.186).

The three hina clauses ('so that') reveal the divine tactic: as long as 'this age' (1:20) is operative, the worldly wise, the apparently strong and the well-born ? 'things that are' ? are progressively shamed and reduced to nothing. Yet this is no more than a pre?para?tive, leading to an ultimate resolution of the tension between an evil world and God in Christ.

Thus 'all flesh' ? mankind in its fallen state ? must acknowledge the reality of God. In verse 29 the negative attaches to 'boast', giving, as suggested in the translation, 'so that all flesh may not boast before God', rather than 'so that no flesh may boast'. The apostle's meaning is that whereas all men are unceasing in their attempts to justify themselves before God, they will never be in a position to display personal merit and thus gain his approval. Let the world, then, look at these unlikely people whom God has rescued. Let the Corinthians cease to frown on Paul. Eventually, the gospel will be vindicated and a boastful world will cease to be.

'Boast' figures often in Paul's letters, and particularly in 1 and 2 Corinthians, occurring in this verse for the first time and in connection with the citation in 1:31 of part of Jeremiah 9:24. The statistics for kaucavomai-kauvchsi?-kauvchma seem to be fifty-five for Paul out of a total of fifty-nine in the New Testament; and of these fifty-five, thirty-nine are found in 1 and 2 Corinthians. Most are pejorative. Given the tensions at Corinth, the apostle feels it essential to specify the proper object of trust and delight.

Paul now considers the Corinthians' status ('you', 1:30a) and that of all believers generally ('us', 1:30b): Christ has 'become wisdom for us', but a wisdom other than that to which some immature saints are still addicted. Again, he reveals an underlying confidence in the church.

In that our Lord is presented as 'Christ Jesus', the occasion when he became 'wisdom' would have been his incarnation, life, death and glorification, all considered as a single event leading in time to the Spirit's application of his blessings to the Cor?inthians. This being so, they ought to appreciate that they are 'from' God (ek = 'out of') and that Christ is their true wisdom because of their acquired 'righteousness, holiness and redemption'. As in 1:24, Paul is not expounding Christ as the wisdom of God. Rather, the spotlight falls on the Corinthian situation in which the Lord, as true wisdom, topples worldly criteria. This verse is essentially, though not explicitly, Trinitarian.

And all this has come about because the Corinth?ians are ' in' Christ Jesus, implying a oneness destined to eclipse a fading order.

'Righteousness' carries a legal sense: negatively, believers are deemed by God to be without guilt; positively, they are robed with righteousness ? that of Christ. Because their day of judgement was the Friday when Jesus died for them, their crisis is past.

'Holiness' (cf. 1:2) tells us that Christ transforms sinners so that they desire to love God. Not a con?dition of salvation, obedience to divine commands is a fruit of grace. Should there be no such fruit, it must be because there is no spiritual root, whence it follows that if alleged 'saints' (1:2) live in sin they need to consider where they stand before God.

And Christ has become 'redemption'. Because of the final position of this word, it probably points to the end of the world: although redemption considered as liberation from the penalty and the dominion of sin is a present experience, believers will finally be released from all sin's dire effects. Cf. Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14; 4:30; Heb. 9:12.

Thus interpreted, these three terms tell us that the believer is justified and sanctified, and that he has been given a firm hope for the eternal future.

And Christ has 'become' each and all of these for the Corinthians, as for others ('us'). Therefore, the Lord should be the sole object of boasting. Whereas conventional wisdom is valueless, that of God brings salvation. In 1:31 Paul brings in the Old Testament yet again, this time to expound the principle.

The purpose to be achieved by God in Christ is now summed up, using a quotation from Jeremiah 9:24 (cf. 2 Cor. 10:17). The prophet, distraught because of the imminent Babylonian invasion of Judah, stood almost alone in that few believed that the land would be ravaged as a divine judgement (Jer. 9:11-12). His message is that those who consider themselves wise and affluent are not to wallow in complacency, and this because their security is short-term. He insists that the only basis for personal congratulation is if a man has come to know Yahweh; here alone is safety. Whereas the people cannot save themselves from Babylon, they have the promise of God that he will aid them if they turn back to him.

The apostle indicates that a principle true for Jeremiah and his constituency remains valid for the Corinthians and, indeed, for all time. The single ground for self-congratulation, then, is when a man or woman has come to know Christ as Lord and Saviour: only then will God grant peace and security.

In Hebrew, Jeremiah 9:24 refers to 'Yahweh', translated by the Septuagint as Kyrios, meaning 'lord'. Paul terms Jesus Kyrios, intending his readers to reach a conclusion about the person of the Saviour.

Application

We need to keep our eternal prospects before our eyes, when 'this age' (1:20) will be behind us and when, raised from the dead, we shall be with the Lord in glory. If we do look ahead, covetousness will shrivel because the only wisdom worth possessing ? salvation in Christ ? is already ours.

If we are free from material want and are mindful of the mercies of God, let us strive to be free from conceit. But what if we have been denied a good education, if our resources are slender and if we are not brimming with fitness? Even so, we should bless God: our situation is happy beyond our understanding. Not only are we truly wealthy, but we possess insight unattainable by any human discipline (1:26-28). The greatest of all teachers gives us comprehensive tuition, the costs of which have been met. And resurrection is ahead. It is time to rejoice.

True wisdom
(1 Corinthians 2:1-16)

In this earlier part of the letter Paul seeks to build bridges (1:10 - 4:21). Through no fault of his own he has fallen out of favour with some Corinthians. Unless he acts he will be unable to deal with import?ant issues that have arisen, and which in fact are dealt with from chapter 5 onwards.

The present section highlights the gap between worldly wisdom and the seemingly paradoxical wisdom of God. This wisdom, as proclaimed by Paul, had been blessed by the Spirit to the Corinthians. Having sketched popular, negative perceptions both of his message and of the church (1:18-31), he now expounds the wisdom and power of the gospel, revealing that when he first arrived at Corinth he never attempted to sway his hearers with frothy oratory. Nor did he need such a ploy because the Spirit's presence was evident (2:1-5).

Paul makes clear that the wisdom he has com?muni??cated is no innovation. Earlier, it was encapsulated in the person of Jesus and had confronted those evil and ignorant men who crucified him (2:6-9). Now, God's wise plan of salvation, an entity beyond human comprehension, has been made known to Paul by the Spirit (2:11-12), who also grants him the exact words with which to divulge it to others (2:13).

It follows that Paul's words are to be heard. In that he has proclaimed the counsel of God unerringly, those who are spiritual will discern this to be the case. None the less, he concedes that many have spurned his ministry. This is because the 'natural man' (2:14), someone who refuses to convert to Christ, is averse to the truths of the gospel. Nevertheless, this reluctance never upsets the plan of God; those whom he calls always come to accept a ministry delivered to them by men who 'have the mind of Christ' (2:15-16). In this fashion, the apostle delivers a body blow to some who have been baptized yet who persist in downgrading him.

In 1:18-20, Paul took the Corinthians back to the Old Testament. Then in 1:26-31 he invited them to ponder their own lowly calling. Now he asks them to recall his opening ministry in their city (Acts 18:1), the emphatic, 'And I', reminding them of his presen?tation: not only was his message apparently a weak, insipid thing, and not only were most Corinthians socially insignificant, Paul himself had also come across to many as being an individual of little consequence. Yet weakness proclaimed by the weak among the weak has achieved much. This being so, how foolish are those who delight in conventional, worldly 'wisdom'! What has it ever done for them?

Paul concedes that he lacks a superficial 'super?ior?ity of speech or wisdom'. 'Or' suggests that some of his hearers had hoped that if his manner was ordinary, perhaps what he had to say might appeal. But in the event he was held to have failed on each count, many concluding that both format and content were something of a fiasco.

In spite of this, the apostle's methods have never been modified, his message always controlling the medium. After all, Paul came to Corinth to announce 'the testimony of God' 'Mystery of God' is offered by some Greek manuscripts, but, notwithstanding 2:7, is unlikely to be original: Paul is concerned to put on display what God has done (cf. 1:6; 2 Thess. 1:10). (by which he means 'the testimony about God'); he had to make known the way of salvation rather than indulge in speculative rhetoric.

Consider for a moment how such self-effacement must have appeared to Jews and Gentiles eager to make an impression in their busy world. 'What,' the former might have thought, 'will the synagogue think if I am converted?' 'How,' contemplated the Greek devotee of Poseidon, the sea god, 'will belief in this ?Christ? affect family and business ties?' The answer was obvious, and the majority backed off (cf. 2 Tim. 1:8).

Having explained that he has never indulged in oratory for its own sake, Paul now reveals that when he commenced his work at Corinth he had already made a judgement both about what he would not and about what he would declare. The verse contains a striking double negative: 'For I did not decide ... apart from', which in effect yields a positive. Fee suggests that the negative ouj embraces the whole clause, giving: 'I decided to know nothing ... apart from Jesus Christ' (First Corinthians, p.92, n.17).

Firstly, he discloses what he did not decide. Perhaps there were times when he was tempted to indulge in an emotional, demagogic airing of crowd-pulling issues (cf. 1 Thess. 2:5-6). But even assuming that immediate pressures never whispered that he should revise his style, he recommitted himself to complete silence other than a resolve to expound the cross of Christ accurately and relevantly: he would continue as he had begun (cf. the earlier Gal. 3:1).

As in 1:23, 'crucified' indicates an accomplished event (estauromenon, perfect passive participle). 'Jesus Christ, and him crucified' is therefore almost a formula presenting at least three related truths: that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, that he had been disgraced at Calvary, and that the cross is the centrepiece of the plan of salvation.

'And I' resumes the touch of autobiography commencing at 2:1, as Paul reveals his state of mind following labours in northern Greece and in Athens (Acts 16:9 - 17:34). So D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2nd edition, 2001), p.134. This and earlier experiences reminded him that he would never lack opposition. Upon arrival at Corinth, he trembled; obstacles to be overcome and the superficial foolishness masking what he had to say dissolved any lingering self-confidence.

At the time he reminded himself that he dare not rely upon his abilities (cf. 2 Cor. 12:10). Obviously, Paul was not in the habit of flinching. On the contrary, the New Testament insists that he was characterized by enterprise (cf. Acts 16:28; 17:22; 27:21; 28:3). Yet being a Roman, a rabbi and a scholar would be insufficient for the task given to him. Therefore his knees shook: when he was with the Cor?inthians, both before and after they were converted, Cf. 16:10, which refers to Timothy's possible fears when staying with the Corinthians. he experienced 'weakness and fear, and ... much trembling'. If 'weakness' alludes to his reaction to suspicious townsfolk and possibly to ill health, Cf. Gal. 4:13-14; 2 Cor. 4:10; 12:7. he is saying that he would not project himself. Rather, he restricted his ministry to the accurate presentation of his Master, one who would be with him (cf. Acts 18:10). How unlike Corinthian rhetoric!

For these reasons, both Paul's 'word' (logos) and his 'proclamation' (kerygma) ? possibly the format of his presentation ? were meant to persuade, yet achieving this with what he terms the 'demon?stration of the Spirit and of power'. Because he had a message, he proclaimed it with authority: Paul wanted men to respond ? and trusted in the Lord to make his words effective.

'Demonstration' (apodeixis) means attestation. Cicero, Acad. 2.8. Paul, who was no demagogue employing 'persuasive words of human wisdom', The expression 'persuasive words of human wisdom' is not without difficulty. Fee gives a thorough discussion (First Corinthians, p.88, n.2). could appeal to the presence of the Spirit in his ministry, a presence which had led to the conversion of the Corinthians; where the Spirit operates, there is power. It may be that the evidence provided by the Spirit of God consisted in part of signs, wonders (2 Cor. 12:12) and various gifts (1:7; 12:6-10). It is true that when it suited him Paul did employ earnest rhetoric (cf. 1:20), and his hearers and readers knew that they were being targeted (cf. Acts 26:28; 2 Cor. 5:11). The burden, then, of 2:4-5 is that his expressiveness has been dissimilar to that of Greek oratory, which he downgrades as futile.

All this being so, how can some in the church revert to 'the wisdom of men', the sour philosophy of a decadent society? 'The power of God' ? by which is meant the cross of Christ plus all that it achieves ? has been conspicuously evident in the apostle's ministry, and it is this that ought to remain in the minds of the Corinthians. Many have been guilty of wrongdoing in ganging up against Paul (cf. 4:1).

The section 2:6-16 is almost a parenthesis, inserted to respond to at least three semi-hostile arguments anticipated by Paul. Like an intelligent fighter, his sixth sense has told him where the next blow might fall. Firstly, he expects that some within the congregation will want to know why worldly wisdom (in the form of, say, Greek philosophical speculation) is deemed to be of no account. Secondly, why did Roman and Jewish authorities in Jerusalem act in concert to put Jesus to death? Not devoid of acumen, could both they and the populace behind them have been wrong? Were an ancient and sophisticated people in error about the Nazarene? Lastly, since the real world has not shown any enthusiasm for Paul's message, why is he determined to continue?

His response is that whereas worldly know-how and wisdom are worthless in that they neither recognize nor satisfy man's basic need, peace with God, divine sophia has done so. This was why Jesus was put to death by profoundly ignorant Jewish and Gentile authorities: knowing neither who he was nor the enormity of their action, they furthered the divine plan. Yet the apostle and his colleagues comprehend the wisdom of God because the Spirit has revealed it to them. Therefore they persevere.

Paul is asserting that this sophia remains unknowable unless revealed by God, being in essence a programme of salvation based on Christ's death (1:24,30). At this stage he discusses the appointed medium of communication of God's wisdom, insisting that only those who possess the Holy Spirit can appreciate sophia, and that only those who accept the apostolic gospel will receive the Spirit, a chain of argument which must have cut some Corinthians to the heart. In effect, Paul appeals to them to be reconciled to him in his office as apostle.

His apologetic is introduced by 'for', connecting with what has gone before, yet developing the argument: on the one hand there is 'the wisdom of this age', which Paul disregards, and on the other there is 'the mysterious wisdom of God' (2:7), the proclamation of which is his concern and that of his colleagues ('we').

In 1:18 - 2:5 Paul drew attention to specific Old Testament situations, to the opposition shown him by both Jews and Gentiles, to the Corinthians as a church and, finally, to his own ministry. He did this in a somewhat negative fashion to show that the message of the cross neither incorporates the burnt-out wisdom of the world, nor depends upon popular methods of presentation. Now he is aggressive: his failure to applaud conventional wisdom does not mean that he lacks understanding. Far from it. Paul asserts that God has always had a wisdom reserved for his true people, and that the apostle and his colleagues, in comprehending it, are declaring it to them.

In the Greek text, 'wisdom' commences the flow of words to give emphasis: 'Wisdom, nevertheless, we are speaking among those who are mature.' Paul proclaims a divine sophia superior to all competitors.

The 'mature'?

The allusion to the 'mature', or 'grown-up' (teleioi), those who are in a certain sense 'perfect', draws a distinction between such folk and some, perhaps many, in the Corinthian church. In supposing that Paul did not snatch the term teleioi out of thin air, this commentary would suggest that not only does he employ some clever and intelligible wordplay when he juxtaposes the metaphors of infancy and adulthood in appraising the Corinthians (3:1; 14:20; cf. 13:10-11), but also that the Old Testament is in mind in 2:6 when he refers to those who are 'mature'. A further discussion of tevleio? occurs in the context of 'the perfect thing' (see commentary on 13:10).

In the Septuagint there are several terms which describe certain individuals (for example, Job, Noah and Abraham) who were either receptive to the will of Yahweh or who were required to adjust their lives accordingly. Abraham was told to be amemptos, 'blameless' (translating the Hebrew tamim, meaning 'perfect' or 'complete'), that is, to obey the Lord (Gen. 17:1). Indeed, it is said that Yahweh himself is teleios with regard to the one who is likewise teleios (this Greek word also translating tamim), meaning that the God of Israel commits himself to his faithful servants (e.g., 2 Sam. 22:26-27; cf. Ps. 18:25). For Noah, see Gen. 6:9; for Job, see Job 1:1; 2:3. R. E. Brown writes that '? this meaning of tevleio? fits very well with the LXX use of it as a translation for Hebrew µl«v; in the expression ?keeping one's heart perfectly true to the Lord?', and cites 1 Kings 8:61; 11:4; 15:3,14 ('The Semitic Background of the New Testament Mysterion' (I), Biblica 39 (1958): 426-48, especially p.438). Given his reliance upon the Old Testament, it is hard to imagine that Paul did not have this conceptual background in mind when he contemplated Corinthian 'wisdom'.

If so, the one who dedicates himself to the Lord is perfectly situated, lacking no good thing. He certainly will not rest content with the false wisdom of the prevailing culture. What Paul is probably saying, then, is that he and others ('we') have been communi?cating true wisdom, the message of Christ crucified, and that it has been well received by the Lord's humble people, those who stand in direct succession to the saints of the Old Testament. In principle, therefore, the spiritual Christian is ideally placed because he trusts in the long-promised Messiah ? even if he may lack a developed understanding (cf. Phil. 3:15). He calls on the Corinthians to become what some other unidentified Christians already are.

'The rulers of this age'

The 'wisdom' that Paul and his colleagues proclaim is not 'of this age'. The same word, 'age' (aion), appears in 1:20; 2:7-8; 3:18; 8:13 and 10:11, and stands for the world of mankind with its castles of cards, rather than the created universe. The apostle declares that not only do men not generate such wisdom, but it most certainly has not been devised by 'the rulers of this age'.

The 'rulers' (ton archonton) are exemplified by those men immediately responsible for the death of Jesus, rather than malignant spiritual powers. There are three reasons for this interpretation. Firstly, in the New Testament the Greek archon usually refers to human authorities. There are thirty-five occurrences of a[rcwn in the New Testament, apart from this verse, twenty-six with reference to men and eight to demonic powers. Cf. Rev.1:5.
The eight 'demonic' uses of the word are all in the singular. There is no evidence for the plural of a[rcwn, as found in 2:8, having a demonic reference, whereas the sixteen occasions of the plural form refer to human rulers. Of these sixteen, thirteen allude to the authorities involved directly in the historic death of Jesus. See T. Ling, 'A Note on 1 Corinthians ii.8', Expository Times 68: 1 (1956): 26. Secondly, Acts 4:26 quotes Psalm 2:2, which states that 'the rulers take counsel together against Yahweh and against his Anointed' because they are devoid of true wisdom (Ps. 2:10). It is likely that 2:8 has this in mind. Thirdly, the New Testament shows that whereas the satanic powers knew who Jesus was, men were ignorant. E.g. Matt. 8:29; Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; cf. Acts 16:17; 19:15.

In that the Jerusalem authorities were representative of the rulers 'of this age' ('this' implying the reality of 'that' eschatological age), they were admittedly powerful leaders who nevertheless did not exercise ultimate control over the kingdom of God. Nor were these men other than blind to the background reality of the truths since proclaimed by Paul. The Corinthians, then, must beware lest they continue to undervalue his ministry among them.

At a second level, 'the rulers of this age' would stand for all human authorities of whatever period who throughout history are progressively 'being brought to nothing': God does not permit them to endure (c.f. Isa. 14:3-23; Ezek. 28:1-19). Paul's meaning is that because the world, as represented by its greatest and its best, is temporary, it cannot possibly be the wellspring of eternal truth. The apostle displays his awareness that the world maintains an implacable antagonism to the wisdom inherent in Christ crucified.

Paul explains why it is that the 'rulers of this age', represented historically by the Jerusalem leaders (2:6), do not comprehend divine wisdom, and what the latter would not have done had they known it.

The reasoning is that if the wisdom communicated by Paul to the Corinthians is not the child of this age, it must have had a different provenance ? an origin which the apostle proceeds to disclose. This is why 2:7 opens with a strong word, 'but' (alla): 'But we speak the mysterious wisdom of God', juxtaposing this world's values and those of heaven. The divine sophia is described in each of three ways.

Firstly, it is 'mysterious' (en mysterio), a term which is adjectival rather than adverbial: Paul does not speak 'mysteriously'. The latter interpretation would suggest that he was in the habit of whispering esoteric wisdom to a select few, no doubt the teleioi, behind closed doors. But it was never his practice to confide cryptic formulae to privileged hearers. The meaning of 2:7 is that Paul has preached openly, making known a secret now revealed publicly by God (cf. Eph. 3:4-5). With acknowledgements to W. C. Kaiser Jr., 'A Neglected Text in Bibliology Discussions: I Corinthians 2:6-16', Westminster Theological Journal 43 (1981): 301-19 (312). Cf. Col. 1:26-27; 2:2; 4:3; Eph. 1:9; 3:9; 6:19.

In making this claim, the apostle shows his dependence upon the Old Testament. There, as in 2:7, a mystery is a formerly 'concealed' element within God's plan for his people that would have remained unknown had Yahweh not disclosed it. E.g. Dan. 2:18-47; 4:9; cf. Rom. 11:25; 16:25; Eph. 1:9; 3:3-4,9; 6:19; Col. 1:26-27; 2:2; 4:3; Rev. 1:20; 10:7; 17:7.

Further, this wisdom was 'predestined before the ages for our glory'. 'Predestined' is found also in Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:5,11 concerning the ultimate destiny of the people of God. Translating proorisen, it means decreeing the end of a programme before it has begun. When movement occurs, it is because the designer, now his own agent, is bent on achieving his initial purpose. Paul understood that the plan inherent in the divine sophia, a wisdom planned 'before the ages', was being realized by the proclamation of Christ (kerygma, 1:21; 2:4): the one who died and was raised has become 'the [published] wisdom of God' (1:23-24) and will eventually be revealed openly (1:7).

Paul's letters sometimes maintain, and at other times imply, that the 'new covenant' operates for the sake of the glory of God. Cf. 2 Cor. 1:20; 3:9,18; 4:6,15; 8:19,23. But here the apostle insists that the manifestation of divine wisdom has been put into effect for 'our glory', penning this almost certainly with a view to encouraging the church. Notwithstanding their weaknesses, Christ will not let them slip from him.

Although this wisdom was not 'known' by the men who consigned 'the Lord of glory' to the cross, the fact remains that Jesus is the divine Lord, the God of Israel who is all glorious. Cf. Ps. 24:8-10; Acts 7:2; Eph. 1:17; James 1:17. Paul implies that had they known, those who killed him would not have laid a finger on him (cf. Acts 13:27-28). But they were unaware that Jesus had come from heaven (cf. Luke 23:34). Cf. John 18:38; Acts 3:17; 13:27.

Yet, it may be asked, how could 'the [divine] Lord of glory' have been slain? How was it possible to kill someone who remains 'the Prince of life'? (Acts 3:15). Paul does not stop to explain because he is concerned to stress that there is a basic incompatibility between the wisdom of this age and that of God, and that the former remains completely ignorant of the latter.

So the principle behind 2:8 is that because Jesus remains one person, not two, the cross is an anti?nomy, a mystery transcending the intellect of men: 'the Lord of glory', the Majesty from heaven, perished as a criminal (cf. Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5).

How, then, can the Corinthians be so foolish as to transfer their affections to the ethos of their fading culture, an ethos which is no more than a local expression of the pseudo-wisdom which led to the death of their Saviour? Their stance is as sinful as it is illogical.

But, even as it has been written,
'What things the eye did not see and the ear did not hear,
And what did not arise in the heart of man,
What things God has prepared for those who love him' ?

In spite of their ignorance, the blunder committed by the rulers, Jewish and Roman, in Jerusalem in A.D. 30 or thereabouts was not unplanned. Paul's work has been to publish a programme anticipated by the Old Testament, 2:8 being a parenthesis between 2:7 and 2:9. The sequence may be: 'But we speak the mysterious wisdom of God, that which has been concealed, which God predestined before the ages for our glory ... but even as it has been written, ?What things the eye did not see ...?' (2:7,9). The Old Testament allusion (or quotation) in 2:9 appears as the remote object of 'we speak' in 2:7, with 'but' at the opening of 2:9 reiterating 'but' in 2:7. Fee disagrees strongly (First Corinthians, p.108, note 41). The purpose of the recall is to reinforce Paul's insistence that the ways of God are beyond man's comprehension unless heaven reveals them.

Nowhere does the New Testament suggest that the initiative of God in ordaining Calvary cancelled out the guilt of those who effected it; the death of Jesus was their responsibility and theirs alone. Cf. Acts 2:23; 3:14-18; 4:10; 5:30-31; 7:52; 13:28. Even so, the cross to which they dispatched the incarnate God was a vital element in working out 'what things God has prepared for those who love him'.

There are two possible interpretations of the 'things' that God has prepared: either benefits for the Lord's people now, in this world, or the blessings that will follow the return of Christ (cf. John 14:3).

Before a decision is reached, it needs to be asked what part or parts of the Old Testament are recalled when Paul claims 'it has been written'. Isaiah 64:4 (LXX, 64:3) comes near, Cf. Isa. 65:16, where the Septuagint has: 'and it will not arise in their heart'. as does Jeremiah 3:16, and it is likely that the apostle makes these selections because they tell us that it is not possible for men to search out the secret things of God. This passage appears in the so-called 'Ascension of Isaiah', dating to the second century A.D., or earlier, which might suggest that Paul cites from a not unknown collection of texts. See J. H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983/85), vol. 2, p.176.

Isaiah 64:1-3 travels back to the events of Sinai, 64:4 then declaring:

For since the beginning of the world,
Men have not heard nor perceived by the ear,
Nor has the eye seen any God besides you,
Who acts for the one who waits for him.

Isaiah prays that Yahweh might work for his people just as he had done at the time of the Exodus. Jeremiah 3:16 then anticipates the coming of the Messiah, when the old dispensation must be eclipsed: 'They will say no more, ?The ark of the covenant of Yahweh.? It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made any more.'

Paul appears to state that both the answer to Isaiah's prayer and the fulfilment, at least in part, of Jeremiah's prediction are to be found in the first advent of our Lord, together with all its consequences. If this is the better interpretation, it follows that the 'things God has prepared' include the blessings which believers possess now (cf. 1:30).

Three related assertions are made about the wisdom of God in ordaining the death of Christ.

Firstly, this wise plan of salvation has never been made apparent within the created universe: 'the eye did not see' the like in nature. Although the heavens declare the glory of God and the stars proclaim his handiwork, they do not reveal Christ. Only apostolic preaching can do this (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 10:18).

Further, 'the ear did not hear' it. The plan of God has never been a theme of oral tradition; men have never detected anything of divine wisdom in the folklore, myths and religions inherited from previous generations. Divine sophia has never been handed down by parents to their offspring, the reason being that the former could not have received it from their own forebears.

Finally, the undoubted creativity of mankind has been unable to contrive such an amazing plan, the doctrine of Christ crucified always remaining beyond the 'heart' of any.

This triple statement expands 2:8, which asserts that the sin committed by Pilate and the Jews was perpetrated in ignorance of their victim's identity. It follows that because Greek wisdom cannot benefit the Corinthians, the church ought to attend to Paul.

The sentence beginning at 2:9 continues: 'things' established by God have been 'revealed' by him to the objects of his choice. In that Paul does not specify what these 'things' are, it may be that he is more interested in the fact of revelation than in its content, the marvel being that the Spirit is explaining to the prophets and apostles of the church ('to us'; cf. Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11) the significance of the cross.

The revelation has been granted 'through the Spirit' because he alone 'searches' or discovers 'all things, even the deep things of God'. Cf. Rom. 8:27; Rev. 2:23. 'Searches' (erauna) is what is sometimes called a 'timeless present', indicating that the Spirit never goes around, as it were, trying to find out yet more and more truths about God. Having the measure of everything, he penetrates the depths of the divine mind with a view to disclosing them.

An analogy brings into relief the nature of the Spirit's understanding: we all accept that the human 'spirit' within an individual can alone plumb the secrets of his heart. Similarly, it is 'the Spirit of God' who 'has known' the otherwise unknowable thoughts of the personal God. The perfect tense behind 'has known' (egnoken) means that the Spirit has comprehended the purpose of God in Christ, that he retains this knowledge, and (the verse presumes) that he has all along been prepared to reveal it.

All of which, though true, is coded language, Paul implying that his message has led directly to the conversion of the Corinthians in that his gospel came from God, rather than being his, or anyone else's, brainchild. No man could have been sufficiently ingenious to devise the scheme, let alone powerful enough to have put it into operation. In the event, although a scandal to Jews and a folly to Gentiles, God's wise plan, centred upon Calvary, has been explained by the Spirit to Paul. All the apostle has done is to communicate this to the Corinthians ? without embroidery or embellishment.

The assertion of 2:11 concerning the activity of the Spirit in exploring and then divulging 'the deep things of God' is expanded. Paul does not place two 'spirits', that 'of the world' and that 'from God', in opposition, but claims that the Spirit has come to him and others with a view to explaining the divine wisdom (2:6-7). He issues this statement to refute Corinthian pretensions to being wise (cf. 3:1,18).

Tying ends together, Paul has indicated that although he, in common with all believers, has received the Holy Spirit (cf. 6:11 and 12:13), In the New Testament, the reception of the Spirit is associated with conversion. See, e.g., Acts 1:8; 2:38; 8:15,17,19; 10:47; 19:2; Rom. 8:15; Gal. 3:2,14; 1 John 2:27; cf. 2 Cor. 11:4. he and other selected men, a subset within the churches, have been uniquely endowed by the Spirit so that they might understand (2:10,12) and then expound (2:13) these benefits.

Not all would agree with this interpretation, some commentators reasoning that because the Cor?inthians, just like the apostle, have received the Spirit, 'we' signifies both Paul and his readers. Therefore, all ought to depreciate secular wisdom. So, Fee, First Corinthians, p.112, n.63. But although Paul summons the Corinthians to revalue his ministry, the latter approach may miss the point. The apostle's call is for the church to spurn the wisdom of the age ? but not on the ground that all have received the Spirit. His assertion is that the wisdom proclaimed by him is from the Spirit who revealed it to him, and that if the Corinth?ians are sensitive ? which apparently many are not (3:1) ? they will accept this to be the case.

This is why there is a 'we-you' tension running throughout 2:6-16. In detail, the apostolic 'we speak' in both 2:6 and 2:7 anticipates 'to us' in 2:10, this precipitating a further apostolic 'we' in 2:12. Indeed, 2:4-5 may foreshadow 2:12 in declaring that Paul's initial ministry at Corinth evidenced the presence of the Spirit so that his converts might entrust themselves to 'the power of God'. Finally, if 'we' embraces both Paul and all his (Christian) readers, 2:13 must mean that all are in a position to utter words given by the Spirit, an approach which would seem to be refuted by 12:29-30. See Kaiser, '1 Corinthians 2:6-16', p.315.

The sentence commencing at 2:12 continues. Paul assumes that although he has been granted an understanding of the divine wisdom, it does not follow that he, unaided, is able to explain it to others. If anything, the reverse must be the case: reading between the lines, we discern Paul lamenting that he, a man still infected with sin (cf. Rom. 7:24), is unable to explain definitively a marvel that he could never have discovered by himself. To be a relay, or second?ary transmitter, of the wisdom inherent in Jesus Christ, Paul has needed, and has been granted, words supplied by God.

Looking at the issue in retrospect, would an ex?pos?ition of the divine sophia have been entrusted to men who, however able, were left by heaven to their own devices to fulfil the task? Paul was conscious of a distinction between revelations to him from the Spirit and the proclamation of those revelations by him: he appreciated that disclosures from God were by themselves unable to assure infallible communication to other men.

Building on the statement of verse 12 that he and some others have been granted an understanding of the wisdom of God, Paul now makes a further dis?closure: he has been granted exactly the right words with which to expound this mystery (cf. 2:7). 'We speak' occurs twice in 2:6-7, implicitly in 2:9, and again in 2:13: 'which things we speak, not in words taught [us] by human wisdom, but in words taught [us] by the Spirit'. Then appears a qualifi?cation: when the apostle unfolds the gospel, he does so 'explaining the spiritual by the spiritual'.

An alternative translation of the first part of 2:13 might be: 'We speak, not in instructive words of human wisdom but in instructive words of [= from] the Spirit', that is, with words given by the Spirit to equip Paul as a communicator. The crux is what is meant by the Greek didaktois here ? whether it is active ('teaching' or 'instructive'), or passive ('taught' or 'instructed'). But either way, of course, each alternative declares that apostolic pronouncements are from God.

Didaktos appears in John 6:45 (citing Isa. 54:13) and also in 1 Thessalonians 4:9. These parallels would suggest that the word retains a passive sense. Another example is a remark of Josephus concerning the Roman army: soldiers were 'trained' or 'taught' (didakton) in peacetime to prepare for war. Josephus, Wars 6.38; cf. qeodivdaktoi in 1 Thess. 4:9; Barnabas 21:6. C. Hodge takes the 'active' view (A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974 [1 Corinthians, first published 1857], p.40); R. C. H. Lenski the 'passive' (The Interpretation of I and II Corinthians. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963 [first published 1937], p.112), as does Fee, but without comment (First Corinthians, p.114). On this basis, Paul's claim would be that the Spirit, having instructed him in the mystery of salvation, has also taught him the exact words with which to make it known.

In this verse, 'explaining' (sygkrinontes) means interpretation, Paul certainly being aware of the occurrences of the word in the Septuagint. The Septuagint of Gen. 40:8-22; 41:12,13,15; Num. 15:34; Dan. 5:12,16; cf. 2 Cor. 10:12. His claim, then, must be that he has made spiritual realities understandable by means of Spirit-given words (cf. 2 Sam. 23:2; Amos 3:8). Cf. 2 Peter 1:21.

Some commentators take the second occurrence of 'spiritual' in 2:13 to indicate spiritual people. If so, Paul writes that he delivers spiritual truths to pious saints. However, the burden of text and context is the authority of the words which the apostle has been given, rather than the calibre of his hearers.

Inspiration and infallibility

In sum, 2:12 anticipates the evangelical doctrine of inspiration. By his Spirit, God has imparted wisdom to, among others, Paul. In 2:13 the apostle is specific: the Spirit has spoken to his mind and heart in language which he understands and with which he must relay divine truth. Total accuracy, both historical and in every other necessary respect, is presumed.

Paul makes these assertions to remind the Cor?inthians that they should attend his exposition of divine sophia rather than look back to the prevailing culture with its predilection for hollow rhetoric.

Surely, the apostle must have realized when writing this letter that he was the human author of a part of sacred Scripture (cf. 14:37). J. Barr, in commenting upon 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:19-21, asks, 'Why, after all, did St Paul not include a strong statement on divine inspiration in his letters to the Romans and the Galatians, as a modern fundamentalist Paul would certainly have done?' (Fundamentalism. London: SCM, 1977, p.67). But a virtual 'strong statement', although veiled in humility, does appear in 2:12-13.

Although the mind of God has been revealed to Paul by the Spirit and then explained by him in words granted by the same Spirit (2:12-13), there is a negative aspect which he has to mention: the 'natural man' (psychikos anthropos) does not 'accept' these 'things' but rebuffs them. By 'natural man' is meant an unbeliever, psychikos possibly being employed because in the Septuagint psyche usually translates the Hebrew nephesh, meaning a 'soul' considered as a rational individual. 'Natural' occurs again in 15:44,46 as a description of our present human bodies.

The reason for this negative response is that the 'natural man' ponders what he hears, concluding that these inspired words and their message are, as far as he is concerned, 'foolishness'. This sombre word denotes a perverse desire to evade all matters divine (cf. Deut. 32:6) on the basis that life is better without God.

And it is asserted that such a person 'is not able to know' the truths of God in that 'they are examined spiritually'. Devoid of the Spirit, he cannot come to terms with them. 'To examine' (anakrino) means to evaluate, and 'spiritually' (pneumatikos) is adverbial, equivalent to 'by means of the Spirit'.

It may be that Paul elaborates the statement in 2:8-9 of the misperceptions of those responsible for the death of Christ because he is seeking to place his finger on the problem of so many in the church: although it is not denied that they are 'saints' (1:2), the Corinthians have not grown in the faith, as suggested by their failure to assess the apostle's words spiritually. This analysis explains why a discussion of 'spiritual things' in 2:13 leads logically to remarks about 'spiritual people' in 2:15. This criticism, to be developed in 3:1-4, could not be more pungent, and is Paul's apologia for the estrangement between the congre?gation and himself.

On the other hand, 'the spiritual person' (ho pneumatikos) can evaluate 'all things', being able to appreciate spiritual realities and discern the con?dition of the men of 'this age' (2:6), who do not possess the Spirit. That he 'himself is examined by no one' means that, for their part, they do not recognize him for what he is.

As noted earlier, the apostle is preparing for chapter 3, where he will bring to light the superficiality of many: because the Spirit has revealed much to him, and because some give scant evidence that they are spiritual, they are in no position to appreciate Paul's ministry.

The principles set out in 2:14-15 are reinforced by an allusion to the Septuagint version of Isaiah 40:13, which translates with something like this: 'Who has known the mind of the Lord, and who has become his counsellor ? who will counsel him?' But Paul modifies rather than cites, omitting the central 'Who has become his counsellor?' and applying Isaiah's question in a Corinthian context. The expected reply to both Isaiah and Paul is 'No one'. For the apostle, this means that the person who lacks the Spirit can discern neither the wisdom of the gospel nor the status of its heralds. Sadly, although the Corinthians are believers, they tend to behave as if they are not. Paul is here anticipating 3:1, where he addresses them as 'brothers', yet in almost the same breath declares that they are 'fleshly' and 'infants in Christ'.

The implication is that if they cannot appreciate the divine sophia, how will they be able to accept Paul as an authorized transmitter of wisdom? (cf. 4:1-5). Because they are incompetent, their usually derogatory opinions of the apostle are irrelevant and they need to take care.

'Mind' (nous) signifies 'intention', 'plan', 'purpose', or even 'agenda' or 'programme'. Cf. the apocryphal Judith 8:14. Paul cites Isa. 40:13 in Rom. 11:34 also, but for a different purpose. Paul has been enabled to comprehend the divine nous, alias sophia, a programme centred upon the Lord: 'But we have the mind [nous] of Christ,' 'Christ' being substituted for the Septuagint's Kyrios and the Hebrew's Yahweh, and 'we' referring to Paul and (presumably) other inspired men.

This is a plea to the Corinthians to rethink the apostle's exposition of Christ. Even as no one has been able to instruct Yahweh, no one other than the Lord is in a position to enlighten Paul; as it is, Christ through the Spirit has disclosed his mind to him.

Application

The Lord, and all things to do with him, must be the heart and substance of any pulpit ministry (2:2). Because Paul's message was all-important, his tactic was to appeal to his audiences as reasonable people who, he hoped, would not be moved by empty rhetoric (2:4-5). Today's preacher should not be a showman. We need pulpits rather than stage platforms, portable lecterns and clapping.

Concerning Christian maturity (2:6), if we are determined to follow Christ we are in principle 'perfect' even though sin still contaminates us and we may know relatively little (cf. Col. 2:10).

Paul states in 2:7 that the Lord predestined his secret wisdom to bring about the final salvation of the (predestined) church (cf. Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:5,11). Christians must be conveyed to glory because the gospel, our superb vehicle, cannot break down (cf. John 14:6).

Corinthian favouritism
(1 Corinthians 3:1-23)

The root problem at Corinth was not just that some were behaving as if they were unbelievers ? which they were not (cf. 1:2,30) ? but that a lingering addiction to Hellenistic traditions undermined their appreciation of the wisdom of the cross, a wisdom transcending personalities and cultures. One consequence was that they drew harmful distinctions between acknowledged ministers of the gospel.

Having insisted that his ministry is Spirit-given both in content and presentation (2:1-16), Paul shows that patronage of some of the Lord's servants at the expense of others demonstrates superficiality and that it places the church at risk. This is why he projects Apollos and himself as friends and fellow-workers, albeit with differing ministries, who should be held in similar esteem (3:1-9). Nevertheless, because Paul and not Apollos has laid the foundation of the church (3:10-11), certain unnamed individuals who bask in the light of their mentors need to be cautious about how they handle apostolic doctrine. Paul seems to have in mind emerging leaders, although it is likely that he fans out his verbal missiles to impact the whole church. Either way, he indicates that should those concerned injure the shrine of God, they must give account (3:12-17).

Contrasting two mutually hostile wisdoms, that of 'this age' and that of the cross, Paul shows that the Corinthians' pride reflects a poor understanding of the gospel (3:18-23). His insinuation is that the concern of some to applaud certain leaders while bypassing others is no more than a ruse designed to enhance their prestige in the church. They have adopted this cul-de-sac route because apparently they remain oblivious to the truth that both this world and the age to come, plus death and the afterlife, the link between the two, exist solely for the benefit of all the Lord's people, failing to realize that party agit?ation must be sterile. Since Paul, Apollos and their like are no more than servants to the churches because they are servants of God, why are some at Corinth bent on treating these men as figure?heads? Because their attitude is perverse, he urges all concerned to return to the wise folly of the gospel. In so doing, they will see Paul and Apollos in their true light.

In 2:1 the apostle revealed his innermost thoughts when he was first at Corinth. Now he discloses his impressions after having lived there for a time (cf. Acts 18:1-18).

When he dictated these words, Paul was faced with the trauma that can be the lot of every minister of the gospel: the presence in his church of those who have professed the faith but who seem to display little evidence of spiritual growth. Why is this? Pos?sibly because they do not appear to comprehend that daily living should be based upon Christ crucified and glorified. Among the Corinthians there were some who resembled unbelievers, and it is to such 'brothers' that Paul addresses his remarks, refusing to give up on them. He recalls previous occasions when he 'was not able to speak' with them 'as to spiritual people', his desire to open their minds being stifled by their insensibility. As a consequence he has been compelled to consider them as 'fleshly', virtual unbelievers.

'Fleshly' (sarkinoi) means that although the Cor?inthians do not fall precisely into the category of the 'natural man' (psychikos, 2:14), someone unwilling to receive the 'things' of the Spirit of God, they are 'infants in Christ', unlike the teleioi, those 'mature' believers referred to in 2:6. In Paul's letters there is another word, teknon, meaning 'child', which he often employs to denote his relationship with eager converts. E.g. 4:14; 2 Cor. 6:13; Gal. 4:19; 1 Thess. 2:7,11. Here, 'infants' (nepios) implies naïvety. E.g. 13:11; Gal. 4:1,3; Eph. 4:14.

After the Corinthians had been baptized and formed into a church, Paul knew that he would need to teach them in an elementary fashion, rather like a nursing mother feeding her baby with milk.

There is nothing wrong, of course, with teaching the Bible in an appropriate manner to Christians both young and old, experienced and inexperienced. A comparison of Paul's words in Acts 20:20 and 27 shows that what was 'profitable' to the Ephesians was nothing less than 'the whole counsel of God': the apostle had taught them a comprehensive syllabus, and it would not have been otherwise at Corinth.

As far as the situation in the latter place is concerned, Paul's chief worry is that some in the congregation are not like healthy babies, who may reason?ably be expected to develop. With the passage of time he has perceived that it is still difficult to offer them an expanded syllabus, material which he likens to 'food'. He remarks bitingly that '? you were not yet able. Indeed, you are still not able.' He employs irony: he is not 'able' to speak to them as he wishes (3:1) because they are not 'able' to hear him. Worse still, this mutual inability has persisted, their inertia, rather than his eagerness, inhibiting progress. Nevertheless, Paul remains optimistic, his 'yet' and 'still' giving notice that the day may come. Cf. Heb. 5:12,14.

And he displays his confidence that there is no insufficiency either in the elementary 'milk' he has administered or in more advanced nourishment. The basic problem is that these infants in the Lord are spiritually unhealthy, unable to digest solid material.

All of which raises a question: did Paul retain a syllabus for the teleioi, 'the mature', something other than the teaching given to babes in Christ? One thing, however, is certain: he could not have had one programme for young converts, holding back higher truths to impart at some later stage to those whom he deemed to have made the grade, and perhaps even more mysterious matters to share with those reckoned to be super-spiritual saints. There was one gospel for all.

In short, this letter disproves the notion of anything resembling a twin-track programme. If, as an exercise, we were to catalogue all the doctrines that appear in 1 Corinthians, we would end up with something like an index to a systematic theology. All that is meant by the contrast between 'milk' and solid 'food' is that basic principles, simply expressed, ought in time to be given detailed explanation as and when believers are ready to hear. Paul was aware that church is like school, a congregation including, so to speak, a number of classes, some younger and others older, some higher and others lower. Thus, if very young but capable children learn their alphabet, they will be ready for spelling tests and grammar, and, later on, for the joys of reading, one stage leading to another and then another. When he wrote 1 Corinthians, although Paul felt that his readers' progress would be slow, he did not abandon these squabbling, 'fleshly' people, but continued to give them as much as their sickly frames could digest. One problem with the 'milk = solid food' hypothesis is that it reads too much out of the text. How can it be shown that Paul is using what Fee terms 'their [Corinthian] language'? (First Corinthians, p.125). It is true that the apostle contrasts secular and divine wisdoms (e.g. 3:18-19), but the fact that the wise were foolish and the foolish wise (1:22-24), depending on their reaction to the preaching of Christ crucified, is an almost peripheral issue. This is the case also with respect to 4:8, concerning what is deemed to be valuable and what is not. In that milk and solid nourishment are foods, though differently constituted, Paul's objective 'milk' and solid 'food' seem to have differed 'in form rather than content', according to C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: A. & C. Black, 1971 [reprinted 1987]), p.81.
Fee, among others, holds that the 'milk' was solid 'food', in the same way that Paul's 'foolishness' (1:18) was 'wisdom' (2:6). Although the Corinthians thought that they were 'rich', the apostle's sarcasm implies that they were poor since they did not appreciate his ministry (4:8). In terms of the dietary metaphor, they considered that they were mature and that what Paul had to say was milk. Yet Paul was aware that his ministry was suited to all because it was nourishing (First Corinthians, p.125). The approach is almost conventional ? hence this extended note.
According to Fee, the Corinthians did 'not need a change in diet but a change in perspective', coming to realize that there was more to Paul's ministry than appeared at first sight, it being less of a liquid and with more solid content than they had at first suspected. But was this so? Upon consideration, the 'antithesis' approach poses a problem: Paul does assume that the church had responded to initial evangelism in that the converts did 'believe' (3:5). In the light of the problems presented later in 1 Corinthians, it is reasonable to assume that 'food' alludes to developed teaching geared to problems within the church.

But the hoped-for day has not arrived: '? for you are still fleshly.'

Their inability to grapple with detailed teaching has been reflected by 'jealousy and quarrelling among you' (cf. 1:11). Glaring at one another, they are unable to contemplate the things of God.

Although 'jealousy' is not always an evil, it was so at Corinth. For jealousy as a virtue, cf. John 2:17; 2 Cor. 7:11; 9:2; 11:2; as an evil, cf. Rom. 10:2; 13:13; 2 Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:20; Phil. 3:6; James 3:14,16. 'Fleshly' (sarkikoi, cf. 3:1) is brought in twice for emphasis because the readers' behaviour has given the lie to their sense of superiority (cf. 4:7). How can they be wise when they lead their lives 'in a human way' (kata anthropon), as those void of any understanding of Christ. Paul's 'are you not ??' demands an affirmative reply. The Greek oujciv expects 'Yes, it is so.'

Paul's analysis of weaknesses within the church began at 1:10-11, where it was revealed that Chloe's people had divulged that the Corinthians were setting up Paul, Apollos and Cephas as figureheads. Now it draws to a conclusion. The apostle mentions Apollos and himself only, omitting Peter, possibly because these two men, rather than the latter, have ministered in Corinth (see 3:5; Acts 18:27). Paul is bold, assum?ing a role akin to that of a prosecuting counsel in court who subjects a reluctant witness to a hostile cross-examination: the Corinthians must answer. Is it not the case, he asks, that they give the appearance of being 'men', unregenerate folk lacking the fellowship of the Spirit? Is not this so when, for example, one protests that he is 'Paul's', and another that he is 'of Apollos'? As in the previous verse, the expected answer is 'yes'. The implication is that if the Corinth?ians are following either Paul or Apollos, they are failing the Lord. Further, their attitude is tantamount to a depreciation of men who are Christ's agents and who neither need nor desire any other recognition.

Verses 5-9 introduce two metaphors, the first from agriculture and the second from construction, to show that Apollos and Paul should be considered as servants of the 'Lord', that is, of Christ. With regard to the first image, God in Christ is the freehold farmer and everything belongs to him: the land (the city of Corinth), the workers (Paul and Apollos), the fruit of the field (the Corinthian church) and, unlike human farmers, the ability to give growth.

Not only is subservience to Paul and his colleague wrong, it is unnecessary: 'What, then, is Paul?' and 'what is Apollos?' Notice 'what?' rather than 'who?' Should star-struck Corinthians cluster around such men? Although some Greek texts read tiv? ('who'), tiv ('what') gives better sense. The apostle compels the church to admit that it has been hard for him to discern the work of the Spirit in their lives.

And he squashes the notion that either man is an empire builder. Such a perception may have origin?ated within the church, but not with two friends who are no more than 'servants through whom' the Corinthians have 'believed'. Moreover, the sovereign Lord 'gave' fruitful ministries both 'to' Apollos and to Paul. If, then, the apostle states that the Corinth?ians have been granted as converts 'to' him and his co-worker, it was with a view to shepherding them (cf. 1 Peter 5:2-4). In short, the two remain well aware of their commissions, Paul acknowledging that it was not their efforts alone that turned the church to Christ.

Now enters the agricultural metaphor. Firstly, Paul allows that he and Apollos have differed in their allotted tasks: whereas he has, as it were, 'planted', the latter has 'watered', their joint efforts leading to the establishment of a congregation of believers.

Paul concedes gladly that Apollos and he have complemented each other, even as a hired planter and an employee who irrigates are both needful in a field, particularly if the church at Corinth ? the said field ? has been exposed to the heat of Greek idol?atry. Nevertheless, although Paul's green shoots required water, and although Apollos' watering would have been futile without apostolic green fingers, it was God who 'caused growth'.

Paul draws out the application: 'So neither' the planter 'nor' his colleague 'who waters' is 'anything', in that they cannot bestow life. The truism is repeated: only God 'causes growth'. Although God needs no particular individuals to plant and irrigate, no labourer can succeed without him. The Corinth?ians should not idolize dispensable servants.

The agricultural metaphor is developed: Paul and Apollos 'are one' because they have served in the cause of the same Lord even though at Corinth they did not perform the same task. But each has fulfilled his charge with no desire for adulation on the part of the Corinthians.

This being so, it is wrong for the church to follow the apostle at the expense of Apollos, or vice versa. Both servants will be rewarded on the basis of their 'own' individual 'labour', by which is meant their grinding toil (kopos), but not because they have been allocated specific functions. Paul teaches that a contrast should not be drawn between the usefulness of men with different gifts and offices but who work equally hard.

'For' introduces a summary of the argument: Apollos and Paul remain 'fellow-workers' in God's service. The apostle is almost certainly not declaring that at Corinth he and Apollos had co-operated with God (contrast 2 Cor. 6:1): the flow of thought concerns God's field, harvest and labourers. This is why Paul emphasizes that because he and his friend are the property of God, they have never considered the Corinthians as clients. Further, '? you are God's field.' Let them ponder their own exalted standing.

Georgion, 'field', means cultivated land rather than a meadow left to grass. The principle is that in God's acres something of value has been grown, something not in the ownership of either Paul or Apollos. Neither man has been helped by Corinthian adulation.

Now the metaphor changes, preparing the way for the imagery of the shrine in 3:10-17. In that the Corinthians are 'God's building', they are wrong in treating brethren-in-service as if they are their property and therefore proper objects of praise or censure, reward or forfeit: God should be their sole object of veneration. Servility is veiled condescension and possibly an indication of a desire to manipulate. Sensing this, Paul reacts by taking ministers and church out of each other's pockets.

Within 3:10-17 the building metaphor is developed: the church is a shrine being erected by local men upon Paul's foundation. It is these unnamed individuals who are warned about apparent mismanagement of the church. The sequence of pronouns ? 'another' and 'each person' (3:10), 'no one' (3:11), 'anyone' (3:12), 'each person's' and 'each man's' (3:13) and 'somebody's (3:14,15) ? shows that Paul is anxious because the leadership is at fault. Because those who err will be held to account by the Lord (3:15-17), their duty must be to apply apostolic teaching, abandoning the spurious 'wisdom of the world' (3:18).

If, then, the church is God's building, Paul possesses the rank of a 'wise master builder', the word architektos meaning a senior director of works rather than an overlord. Josephus, referring to his super?vision of the Jewish defence of Tiberias against the Romans in the war of A.D. 66-70, notes that he instructed the 'architects' to put in hand the construction of the town walls. Josephus, Life 156. In that he is a 'wise' (sophos) director, the apostle contrasts himself with those in the church who consider that they are wise.

Similarly, although Paul works hard, he has never considered himself a proprietor. Nor has he elevated himself to a position of ultimate seniority. Always a man exercising authority because he is under author?ity (cf. Luke 7:8), he operates because of 'the grace of God given me', 'grace' pointing to his appointment as an apostle. He knows that the Lord could have chosen someone else.

When Paul entered Corinth there was no church in the city; when he left there was such a com?munity. Nor was it tiny (cf. Acts 18:10). So, when he wrote 1 Corinthians, he was mindful that he had already 'laid a foundation', yet was conscious, too, that others would continue after he departed, men required to build on his infallible teaching. Sadly, not all his immediate successors were exhibiting wisdom.

It is for this reason that Paul appears to target Cor?inthian workers: 'let each person watch how he builds up.' The servant should always scrutinize his work, asking if it squares with the apostolic platform.

This 'foundation' is defined as 'that in place ? who is Jesus Christ'. Christ crucified and exalted, the true sophia, has been set in position by Paul as the only basis upon which the Corinthians can build successfully, the implication being that if they do not utilize apostolic doctrine, they must fail. 'In place' translates keimenon, meaning to be situated. So, Fee, First Corinthians, p.139, n.24. The Lord, as expounded by Paul, remains in position.

Unquestionably, the apostle has in mind some sort of scissors-and-paste modification of his teaching. In effect, a warning is opening up for those who might aspire to revamp the God-breathed truths being deposited with them (cf. 15:12).

Paul, in some trepidation, introduces a subordinate metaphor. He has accepted that some Corinthians might, indeed, build upon his doctrinal foundation, their variations being epitomized as 'gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay or reed'. Yet with what consequences? The issue is that of durability: precious metals, hewn stone and even some species of wood may endure for centuries, whereas shacks made of stubble or reed are unable to resist a storm. Attractiveness, or the lack of it, is not the primary factor: what counts is the potential of a construction to survive the ravages of time. By 'hay' and 'reed' Paul doubtless means 'the wisdom of this world' (3:19) because it passes away.

In this depiction of the church as an enduring shrine for the Lord, the idea may be that of materials employed in Solomon's temple (3:16-17), 1 Kings 6:6-8; 1 Chr. 22:14,16; 29:2; 2 Chr. 3:6; cf. Hag. 2:8. an edifice for which only the best was good enough.

The sentence beginning at 3:12 continues. If anyone builds on a secure foundation, the quality of his workmanship will in time become obvious. Therefore, the warning of the last part of 3:10 should be given attention by Corinthian church-builders.

Maybe Paul travels beyond the real world at this point, asking his readers to imagine houses built completely, say, of gold or of silver. Be this as it may, the metaphor is of a cluster of buildings which stand next to one another. They range from the palatial and built-to-last through to the fairly expensive and the ordinary, down to the mediocre and, at the bottom end of the scale, to shanties. Then as now, luxury and squalor were frequent neighbours.

Notwithstanding this diversity, each hypothetical structure is assumed to rest on the foundation of Paul's gospel and represents an application, good or bad, of what he teaches. A stone building does not easily burn down. And fire is to be expected: the occasion must arrive when the labours and materials of every Christian servant will be exposed.

The specified occasion is 'the day of our Lord Jesus' (1:8), the Old Testament 'day of Yahweh'. Further, 'it' in the phrase, 'because it reveals itself in fire', is probably the 'day' rather than Christian service, a day which will unveil itself as a conflagration, 'it reveals itself' probably being in the middle rather than the passive voice (cf. 2 Thess. 1:7). Or, ajpokaluvptatai might be present passive: 'the day is unveiled in fire', the certainty of the future event being such that it can be described as already happening. The prediction is utterly solemn.

The statement that '? the fire will prove each man's work, what sort it is' means that it will not be terminal judgement Unlike, say, Deut. 4:24; Mal. 3:2; Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17; 2 Thess. 1:7-8; Heb. 12:29; Rev. 14:10. but a scorching assessment.

Two alternative consequences of testing by fire are outlined. Positively, 'if' a servant of God employs adequate materials ? good teaching and good practice ? and strives to build something worthwhile, he will receive 'payment' (cf. 2 John 8), Or, in some Greek texts, 'what we have accomplished'. although it is not stated what the recompense will be. But 'if' activity proves to have been poor, it will be 'burnt up' and the worker 'suffer loss', zhmiwqhvsetai means suffering loss rather than punishment (cf. Acts 27:10,21; 2 Cor. 7:9; Phil. 3:8). seeing much or all for which he strove reduced to ash.

The meaning is that although our salvation is sure, as Christians we are accountable. Cf. Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-27; Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10. In glory, the saints will enjoy varying degrees of blessedness, depending upon the calibre of our stewardship in this world. Although Paul's words had Corinthian church leaders in mind, what we read applies to us.

What, then, of a Corinthian leader who has been supplied with a true foundation yet has erected a tawdry building, emphasizing cultural sophia at the expense of Christ crucified? 'He will be saved, just as through fire.' Cf. Amos 4:11 and Zech. 3:2, which refer to partially burnt branches saved from the flames. Although the individual will not forfeit salvation, the King will, so to speak, decline to issue an enthusiastic 'well done'. Matt. 25:21,23; Luke 19:17. The imagery is that of a man who, trapped in a burning house which he constructed with his own hands, beats his way through a curtain of flame and then escapes. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities 7.264, concerning the Roman assault on the Jerusalem temple: 'By pushing their way through the fire, wherever it left room for them [they] got possession of the treasury where the sacred funds were kept.' He leaves all behind him as a smouldering heap.

This teaching has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory. The Roman Catholic A Catechism of Christian Doctrine (London: Catholic Truth Society, revised edition, 1971), p.19, mentions this verse specifically in order to justify the doctrine. The fire anticipated by Paul is to break out at the day of evaluation, a day when glory lies ahead for believers, not excluding those who will be judged as relative disappointments. Painful though it is, in that flame will expose folly, it is in no sense a preparatory cleansing. Nor can the fire be literal. The metaphor concerns the approval or disapproval of Christ within paradise.

Paul is now more sombre. Having drawn attention to the subordinate status of Apollos and himself, and having asserted obliquely that the church needs to operate according to apostolic specifications (3:5-15), he depicts the congregation as 'the shrine of God' ('shrine', from naos, the inner sanctuary within a temple complex). He reminds the Corinthians that the Spirit has been pleased to indwell them in order to confirm their standing, God himself thereby denying the validity of all other faiths (cf. 14:25). Cf. Mark 14:58; John 2:19-22; Acts 6:13; 7:48-50. It is evident that the early church considered that there would be a terrestrial divine shrine other than that within the Jerusalem temple.

This tactic is meant to impress on them the serious?ness of the work to which Paul and they remain jointly committed. He asserts that although their city is thoroughly idolatrous, within its boundaries there is a true shrine for the one God: the church. It follows that if anyone ? probably a reference to the purveyors of Greek sophia ? harms this shrine, its divine occupant will react. Perhaps Paul also implies that, considered as God's shrine, the Corinthian church is part of the Messianic Israel (cf. Eph. 2:12-13; Gal. 6:16). Such an intimation would be consistent with much that is to appear in the remainder of the letter.

The rhetorical question in verse 16 may be mildly sarcastic. Because 'Do you not know that ? ?' occurs no less than ten times in this letter, yet only once in Paul's other correspondence, he could be urging sluggish readers to admit the truth of what he writes. So 3:16; 5:6; 6:2,3,9,15,16,19; 9:13,24; Rom. 6:16; cf. Rom. 11:2; James 4:4.

Privilege, then, is accompanied by peril. The emphatic 'for the shrine of God is holy ? which you are' gives the rationale for prudence. The Greek verb behind 'ruin' (phtheiro) means to 'corrupt'. Cf. 15:33; 2 Cor. 7:2; 11:3; Eph. 4:22. With the possible exception of 2 Peter 2:12, the New Testament never employs this term with reference to eternal destruction, from which it seems to follow that Paul is not suggesting that unwise church builders are at risk in that they could lose their salvation.

Consistently with 3:15, what he does assert is that if local leaders attempt to build up their church, God's shrine, with materials supplied by their culture rather than by him, they must be disabled: 'If someone ruins the shrine of God, God will ruin this person.' In Old Testament times, someone who defiled the sanctuary exposed himself to the extreme penalty (Lev. 15:31; Num. 19:20), and here the prin?ciple of complete loss, other than that of sal?vation, remains.

The two verses end with an expression of confidence: whatever their problems, the church is God's shrine Taking 'which you are' as descriptive of 'shrine' rather than 'holy'. and the people need not despair. All the same, it is time to rethink and reform.

The Corinthians, probably quarrelling about the nature of wisdom, parade behind various banners, each of which bears a favoured name. Further, the leaders appear to have disregarded Paul's foundation teaching. Now he ties ends together: if the church belongs to Christ and God, the people must not reduce themselves to the level of party members, since to do so would be a species of self-deception.

Irony intrudes: 'If anyone ... supposes' occurs again in 8:2 and 14:37 with reference to problems of attitude. Cf. 11:16; Gal. 6:3; Phil. 3:4; Heb. 4:1; James 1:26. In addition to being wise, many Corinth?ians mistakenly imagine that they possess knowledge and that they are spiritual. Yet their sophia is a child of 'this age', 'in' (en) meaning that it reflects local traditions. But their problem is that whereas 'this age' (cf. 1:20,27-29; 2:6,8) cannot endure, Christ, the 'wisdom of God' (1:24), is to be revealed in glory (1:7). Therefore, the Corinthians must become fools, re-embracing the apostolic Christ in order to acquire wisdom. Paul writes 'might become wise' rather than 'might be wise': there needs to be a radical transformation of outlook (cf. Rom. 12:2).

In 1:18-23 Paul expounded the negative principle that divine wisdom, as encapsulated in the cross, is foolishness as far as the world is concerned. But disparagement operates in two ways: to back up the imperative of 3:18, Paul now states that worldly 'wisdom' is deemed to be 'foolishness with God'. As viewed by the Almighty, traditional sophia is an evil folly because it disregards him. Because the Lord refuses to be ignored, this supreme unwisdom brings disaster upon its enthusiasts.

And, indicates Paul, the tension between the two wisdoms was not unknown in Old Testament times, as we see from references to Job 5:13 and (in 3:20) Psalm 94:11 (Ps. 93:11, LXX). Not the first to endure the tension of such a confrontation, the spiritual Corinthian who applies the demands of the gospel to his own life must not be dejected if he is considered a buffoon.

According to Job 5:13, Eliphaz informs Job that (in Paul's adaptation) God 'catches the wise in their trickery'. The significance for the Corinthians would be that, in God's providence, the wise and powerful of this world tend to tie themselves up with the cords by which they aspire to entangle others. Let the church take comfort ? but be careful.

Psalm 94:11, as sculpted by the apostle, declares that the 'thoughts' (logismous) of the apparently wise enemies of God's people are 'futile'; such adversaries have never been known to survive. Although this is the only occasion in the Corinthian letters in which the term 'thoughts' occurs, elsewhere in the New Testament it denotes the sinful opinions or plans of godless men. Cf. Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21; Luke 9:47; Rom. 1:21; James 2:4. Paul draws out the application: if the Corinthians continue to devalue his ministry, they will in practice identify themselves with earlier, worldly-wise enemies of both God and the saints. They will be in peril.

Verses 21-23 conclude the present paragraph, 3:18-23, with a train of encouragement: exhortation or application ? 'So'; theology ? 'for all things are yours'; and a crescendo which is a virtual doxology ? '? and Christ is God's.' So Fee, First Corinthians, p.152.

The exhortation of verse 21 is preceded and followed by explanation, Paul rendering his argument watertight. Because the wisdom of this world is folly, and because the apostle's apparently foolish ministry radiates divine wisdom, the Corinthians must not 'boast' in figureheads who are no more than frail 'men'. If boasting presupposes a sense of security, and if they cling to favoured individuals, they render themselves insecure: those before whom they grovel are not absolutes. Yet paradoxically they are secure in that there is nothing that is not theirs: they are the property of none, and certainly not of Paul, Apollos or Peter. On the contrary, they possess 'all things'. To cluster behind men is symptomatic of a flawed appreciation both of the Lord's servants and of true sophia.

But what are 'all things'? The central part of the next verse expounds, and 3:23 will explain why it is that 'all things' sustain the Corinthians.

In that 'Cephas' is mentioned for only the second time (cf. 1:12), it may be that those enthusing over him are not influential. Paul indicates that instead of the Corinthians belonging, say, to Peter or to 'Paul' or to 'Apollos', in reality these three belong to the church. As far as the 'I-am-of-Christ' faction is concerned (1:12), it may be that its members speak more truly than they understand: they do belong to Christ (3:23), which may be why the apostle's comment bypasses them.

Paul broadens his exhortation, bringing in 'life', 'death', 'things present' and yet 'to be' (cf. Rom. 8:28): there is nothing to which the Corinthians are in servitude, either voluntarily or otherwise. This being so, party strife must stop ? they need fear nothing. Conversely, although they have no propri?etors apart from God, if they persist in upgrading traditional wisdom at the expense of the gospel, they will find that the fears gripping the world will infect them. In principle, because he is 'in Christ' (cf. 1:2,4,30; 3:1), the believer has overcome death and awaits the Saviour (1:7).

To expound this, Paul employs 'whether' and 'or', each translating the Greek eite. Strikingly, he brings in these words often in the Corinthian letters to show that there are some matters which, contrary to appearances, are not dominant. 8:5; 10:31; 12:13 (twice); 13:8; 14:7; 15:11; 2 Cor. 1:6; 5:9,10,13; 8:23; 12:2,3. Cf. Eph. 6:8; Phil. 1:18,20,27; Col. 1:16,20; 1 Thess. 5:10; 2 Thess. 2:15; 1 Peter 2:13-14. Here he probably bewails being the favourite of some because he knows that he is no more than a servant. And the same is true for all other persons and phenomena in the list. Look where they will, 'whether', say, towards Paul now 'or' heaven tomorrow, all things serve the Corinthians' interests.

The imperative and its explanation commencing at 3:21 climax in triumph. Beginning at 1:10, Paul has shown that the Corinthians' problems are fourfold. Firstly, they are bestowing their allegiance upon one or another leader (1:12; 3:21); secondly, their tendency to split generates strife (1:11; 3:3); thirdly, although they have received the Spirit (1:7; 6:11; 12:13), they conduct themselves as if they had never responded positively to the gospel (3:3-4); fourthly, they might well be gloating in their retention of a sophia other than that of Christ crucified, and this in spite of the fact that not many of them are, by worldly standards, 'wise' (1:26; 3:18). So, the issue concerns who possesses what, or whom.

Further, Paul has made it clear that the Cor?inthians, far from being subjugated to others, own 'all things' (3:22) because they are the possession of Christ. In turn, Christ belongs to God. Theology and doxology merge, the security of the believer resting in the crucified and now triumphant Jesus who has been acknowledged by the Father. Cf. 15:25; Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:17.

The observation that Christ belongs to God is not a flat, monochrome statement about relationships within the Trinity. As elsewhere in the letter, our Lord is presented as the obedient servant of his Father with respect to the salvation of the church, Cf.1:3,4,9,24,30; 8:6;15:27-28. the eternal relationship between the Son and the Father not being under consideration.

Paul's logic is devastating. In that believers are one with the Saviour, they belong to God the Father. Therefore, everything serves them. Masters of the universe, they are the minions of none. If, then, the Corinthians allow themselves to be led by men, they will scorn their own liberty (cf. 7:23).

Application

That the apostolic Christ as set forth in Scripture is the only authentic foundation for any church (3:11) is a principle that cannot safely or rightly be ignored. The reality is that doctrine decides the day, and we ought to be thankful that it is so. In time, a church that abandons the Bible must be bypassed by God's true people.

Further, if 3:11 condemns any redefinition of the Christian faith, 3:12-15 is no less scathing about men who claim to be more or less evangelical yet who implicitly reserve the right to criticize or modify Paul's teaching. In these verses, the apostle, assuming that his doctrine is understandable, insists that it is not to be altered in any way.

Paul's words in 3:22-23 are food and drink for the Christian: 'All [things] are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.' Everything ? yes, everything ? serves our true interests, the reason being that we belong to him who belongs to the Father Almighty. When life seems worse than difficult, we need to recognize that there is a master plan in action on our behalf and for our lasting good; when life is sweet, we should see this as a means to an end, giving us space to serve the Lord according to our capacities and situation. It is only 'the fool' who tries to convince his 'heart that there is no God' (Ps. 14:1; 53:1).

Stewards
(1 Corinthians 4:1-21)

This final section of Paul's examination of divisions in the church majors upon the deterioration in his relationship with the Corinthians. This sad state of affairs has to be dealt with before he can launch into the main body of the letter and the weighty issues to be addressed there. Strangely, tension between him and the church has stemmed from his pioneering work in Corinth. If, for example, some enthrone Apollos as their hero (4:6) as well as being at loggerheads among themselves, they downgrade Paul's ministry. Acting on the principle that it is impossible to follow two leaders at the same time, he instructs the church to follow none but the Christ whom he has proclaimed.

It follows that the Corinthians should not judge him, who is God's servant rather than theirs, as if they know more than he does about the gospel. Paul remains their spiritual father (4:15) and his relationship with the church is unique and authoritative. In any event, even if they do look askance at him, their ill-informed opinions do not matter too much. Nor is any self-assessment in which he, theoretically, might indulge of any importance. What the church needs to remember is that the Christ who scrutinizes them all will one day pronounce his infallible verdict (4:1-5; cf. 3:13).

In a lovingly sarcastic manner Paul reveals the lowliness of his circumstances, showing that how he lives from day to day is more in keeping with the gospel he proclaims than their high-and-mighty attitude to him and to some of their own. Whereas the Corinthians reckon that he ought to appreciate their status if he wishes to merit their attention, they ought to take to heart his demeanour and the stringencies of ministry (4:6-13).

This is followed by a plea to the church to be willing to learn: focusing upon Paul's gospel, they should accept the stigma which accrues from commitment. Thus far, specific sins have not been mentioned by the apostle, since the church's fundamental problem is a supercilious attitude both to the message of Christ crucified and to its apostolic herald. He warns that if during his absence they do not strip away their arrogance, his next visit will display unprecedented disapproval (4:14-21); the slide must not continue.

Having described himself as an 'apostle', a 'servant' and a 'master builder' (1:1; 3:5,10), Paul introduces two more terms to clarify his status and that of some others: 'agents' (hyperetas), meaning subordinates, Commentators often note that originally uJphrevth? may have designated a rower in a lower deck of a trireme, but eventually the term came to be descriptive of anyone who held a subservient position. Although the common meaning of the word in Paul's day would not have reflected its root, the apostle seems to be saying that he has been placed under the authority of Christ. See Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, p.29. and 'stewards' (oikonomous), persons accountable to their superiors (cf. Erastus, Rom. 16:23). Because Paul and others are answerable to Christ, they are not to be reckoned as lackeys at the beck and call of the church. Thus, 'a man' ? each and every person ? must deem Paul to be subordinate to the Lord and one to whom has been committed the administration 'of the mysteries of God'.

To recapitulate, a 'mystery' is a revelation from God about the otherwise unfathomable programme of redemption (see 2:7), although why the plural 'mysteries' is brought in here is uncertain. Some have thought that the term 'mysteries' contrasts Paul's ministry with the pagan 'mysteries', of which the Corinthian church would not have been unaware. This is speculation. Perhaps Paul is tantalizing his readers: he has so much more to share that lies beyond the Corinthians' ability, given their immaturity. Either way, he claims that because he and certain others are authorized transmitters of what the Lord had made known to them, they will not be deflected from their task, whether by fear or flattery.

Although, unlike Apollos, Paul is an apostle, the two men are equally assistants and stewards. From this it can be inferred that Paul presents his friend and himself as typical ministers of the gospel. The implication is that every elder finds himself in the situation of these servants; administrative status demands hard work. Cf. Peter's observations (1 Peter 4:10; 5:1-4).

'Here, moreover', meaning something like 'in this context', is placed tactically at the beginning of the verse to stress the importance of 'trustworthy' service for Christ. In modern terms, the metaphor might be that of a senior executive who is always under the critical scrutiny of his chairman and who has the best interests of his business at heart. Paul implies that he is being assessed continuously by the Lord who misses nothing (hence, 'it is required'). In the event, both Master and manager are aware that the latter is reliable because the agent never neglects his commission (cf. 11:23; 15:1). Paul writes this as an introduction to the next verse, which disparages any downgrading of his ministry.

In the Bible there is a close connection between faith and faithfulness (e.g. Abraham, Neh. 9:8). Because Paul is an executive accountable to his superior, he declines to worry overmuch about what others think about him. Indeed, only Christ is qualified to make an assessment.

To be 'examined ... by a human day' should be understood in the light of 1:8; 3:13 and 4:5. Although Christ is appraising Paul, the Lord will not publicize his evaluation immediately but will declare himself at the end of time (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10). In the present verse Paul reveals that he senses the hostility of opponents who enjoy their 'day' when they criticize him and seem to prevail. Cf. Acts 18:12; 22:30; 24:2; 25:23. However, when the Lord has his own day in his own court, the servant's labours will be given proper credit.

And because human assessments are invidious, Paul dares not estimate his own worth: his policy is just to keep going. This is not irresponsibility (cf. 11:28). In that the apostle operates in the light of the advent of Christ, he will entrust the last word to him.

Apparently, when in Thessalonica Paul had been impugned as dishonest (cf. 1 Thess. 2:3). With regard to the Corinthians, he will soon remind them that, unlike many, he handles the word of God honestly (2 Cor. 2:17).

The apostle stresses that he remains unaware that he has sullied his commission. Nevertheless, if others are in no position to query his integrity, it follows that he, too, has no right to evaluate himself: if he does so, he will deny Christ his prerogative. So he claims that he has 'not been justified' even though he is 'conscious of nothing' in himself, 'Conscious of nothing' derives from suvnoida (whence the noun suneivdhsi? = 'conscience'), meaning 'to know something unpleasant about oneself', 'to feel guilty'; cf. 8:7,10,12; 10:25-29 and Job 27:6 (LXX), a text which the apostle might have had in mind. Job protests that because his conscience is pure, he refuses to listen to his critics. Paul was similarly placed. acknowledging that 'He who examines me is the Lord.' Under observation by Christ, this eminent servant of the gospel refuses to inform his Master that he deserves the divine accolade.

The paragraph beginning at 4:1 concludes with an application: the Corinthians are to cease weighing up the validity of Paul's ministry, although this does not mean that they must refrain from judgements in other directions (cf. 5:12; 6:5). But does he mean that when Christ comes the Corinthians may pass judgement upon him? Almost certainly not. His meaning is that the Lord will exercise a perfect judgement and that the Corinthians will have no choice but to acquiesce in the divine verdict.

The central part of the verse, reflecting the Bible's awareness of God's omniscience, E.g. 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chr. 28:9; Ps. 139:1,11-12; Jer. 17:10; Matt. 6:4,6,18; Luke 16:15; 1 Thess. 2:4; Heb. 4:12-13; 1 John 3:20. is possibly a Semitic parallelism in which two elements of a poetic statement are almost synonymous. If so, Paul the Hebrew pours himself out to Corinthian Gentiles: whereas they are unable to search the recesses of his heart, or that of any other man, Christ will. Moreover, the Lord will 'make apparent' what he discovers. Let the church wait, then.

There is more. It is not only Paul who expects to receive a terminal assessment: all believers are to be caught up in the judgement process (cf. 3:13; Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10). For the Corinthians, the prin?ciple has a double application. Firstly, if they wish to examine anyone they should rectify evil 'counsels' in their own 'hearts'. In so doing, they will receive 'praise ... from God'. Secondly, there is a warning: if 'the hidden things of darkness' remain in place, Christ, who is light (cf. 2 Cor. 4:6), will 'illuminate' those things ? and neither the Lord nor anyone else, either angel or glorified saint, will smile.

As it is, the Corinthians' censorious attitude usurps the lordship of Christ and renders grave injustice to Paul. Let them put their house in order.

The apostle, who believed that God is the ultimate judge of men, claims here that Christ has been appointed to assess us. Herein lies a deliberate implication about the person of our Saviour. Cf. Acts 10:42; 17:31.

In the preceding verses Paul employed various figures to show the church how wrong they are to cluster behind one leader or another: that of workers in a field under cultivation (3:5-9), that of builders developing a foundation (3:9-15), and that of a shrine (3:16-17). Now he tells them that in his mind's eye he has 'transferred' each of these metaphors to Apollos and himself, and that he has done it 'because of you', 'you' (plural) meaning 'all of you'. 'Transferred' (from metaschematizo) means changing the outward appearance of something while retaining the substance, Cf. 2 Cor. 11:13-15; Phil. 3:21. indicating that Paul intends the church to read the two men's names into his imagery.

Further, the absence of a reference to Cephas might suggest that some have tended to group behind Paul, and yet others behind Apollos, and that the adherents of the one are strident in criticizing the others' principal. Hence he writes 'that in us [i.e. in him and Apollos] you might learn ?Not beyond the things that have been written?' so that they will renounce divisions.

Although it seems that there is an allusion to the Old Testament here, As indicated by the neuter article, tov, often employed to introduce quotations. the apostle may not have any particular book in mind; he may simply be summing up the thrust of all Scripture in teaching the need for humility. However, a better interpretation might be that the formula 'have been written' See 9:9; 10:7; 14:21; 15:45; cf. 15:54. points the church to those sacred writings which Paul has already brought to bear upon the local situation in 1:19,31; 2:9 and 3:19-20. Thus, the Corinthians should not try to seem wise or clever (1:19), should be rejoicing in the Lord (1:31), ought to appreciate the many benefits granted through Christ (2:9), and must ponder the truth that God brings down those who are conceited (3:19-20).

Here, three rhetorical questions demonstrate that haughtiness is out of order on the part of the Corinthians.

Initially, 'Who makes you different?' Who outside their own circle thinks that they are special? No one. Therefore, they should see themselves as run-of-the-mill people utterly dependent upon the Lord. Let them accept others as their equals.

Secondly, 'What do you have that you did not receive?' Nothing. All that they possess has been given to them by God, for which reason they should be thankful.

Finally, if the Corinthians have received everything from God, 'Why boast as not having received?' Although many puff themselves up (cf. 14:36), why do they elevate themselves as the patrons of ministers whom they have neither called nor equipped? Deeply sardonic, this verse introduces a loving castigation (4:8-13).

Although Paul did not want to shame the church (as he states in 4:14), when considering these words he must have been aware that 4:6-13 would bring his readers up with a jolt. Superficially, his assertion might seem strange, bearing in mind that Corinth had sent a three-man delegation to him to seek his counsel (7:1; 12:1; 16:17). But the church was large and divisive. Perhaps names are not mentioned because Paul anticipated that his targets would be identified anyway.

'Already' is ironic, suggesting that the Corinthians are complacent because of their spiritual gifts: 'already' they are 'satisfied' and have 'become rich' (cf. 1:7; 14:12). Fee, in common with others, asserts that the Corinthians indulged in what he terms 'an ?overrealized? eschatology'. According to this view, Paul's 'already' indicates that they thought that the final reign of God had already begun, and that they were sharing in it (First Corinthians, p.172). But is not this too elaborate? It seems that many reckon that they have attained a spirituality superior to Paul's. But they still have a long way to go in that they are majoring upon their gifts rather than upon the Giver. It is possible that Paul is alluding to 3:4-23 and his reversal of their supposition: whereas the Corinth?ians make out that they have conferred themselves upon, say, him or Apollos as their clients, the reality is that Paul, Apollos, Cephas and all things belong to them.

Therefore they are satisfied, wealthy and kings ? although not in the way they imagine. Were they to see themselves from the apostle's perspective, they would 'reign' alongside Paul.

Paul's gentle mockery thickens, deployed because he will never humiliate (cf. 4:14). Although he reigns as a king in that he belongs to Christ, as do his readers (3:21-23), appearances suggest otherwise. In fact, the Corinthian letters do not indicate that that church endured persecution, unlike, say, churches in Macedonia (but see 2 Cor. 1:6-7). Phil. 1:29; 1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4. If, then, the Corinth?ians enjoy a relatively carefree lifestyle, it may be that they are uneasy about Paul, a man usually lacking money and seldom out of trouble.

Here, his assumption is that, paradoxically, there is strength in weakness and also a stench which is a fragrance (a recurrent theme in 2 Corinthians E.g. 2 Cor. 2:16; 4:7-11; 6:4-10; 11:16-33.), and that the message of Christ crucified has been displayed by the apparent folly of an impoverished apostle, even as, conversely, the foolish wisdom of the world is reflected by the upbeat attitude of some Corinthians who follow ministers rather than the Master.

'Endmost' (eschatous, whence 'eschatological') may suggest prisoners destined to perish in a stadium, or captives dragged behind a procession and whose prospect also is death. 'Death-sentenced' (epithanatious) tells us that Paul and some others are never far removed from a final blow to be struck by their adversaries (cf. 2 Cor. 4:9). In the Septuagint, Bel 31 describes as ejpiqanativou? those condemned to be thrown to the lions. And it is God who has planned it this way, so that Paul and his colleagues become a 'spectacle' (theatron, whence 'theatre') to the 'world' (kosmos) ? meaning the whole created order ? while 'angels' in heaven and 'men' on earth gape in astonishment.

It is likely that, because there is no qualification, the devil and his servants are not included in this statement, but that Paul is indicating that holy angels have witnessed the architects of the church becoming, by divine appointment, a crude entertainment for men in general and even for unthinking Christians (cf. 1 Peter 1:12). But although he may appear to be at the very bottom of the social heap, Paul is in fact on top of the world. Fee asserts that 'Paul has not in fact entered the time of reigning ... he sets forth in its starkest form the evidence that he and the other apostles have not yet begun to reign' (First Corinthians, p.174). This commentary takes a different view: Paul owns no master except God in Christ. In a subordinate sense he reigns.

The contrast between the Corinthian church and Paul is developed in three ways. To appreciate the irony, we need to recall 1:26-28, in which Paul reminded them that not many are 'wise', 'powerful' or 'well born', and that God has chosen the 'foolish things', the 'weak things' and the 'ignoble things', all 'of the world' ? which is what most of them are, in addition to being among the 'despised things', to 'bring to nothing things that are'.

Sadly, many consider that they are 'prudent in Christ', reckoning themselves to be knowledgeable believers, and that they are 'strong' and 'splendid', tending to appraise themselves as Paul's superiors (cf. 4:6). Lavish spiritual gifts and the occurrence of miracles among them (cf. 1:7; 2 Cor. 12:12) may have caused them to overlook their lowly origins. But although they are indubitably 'in Christ', the apostle has declared already that they are infants (3:1), unable to assimilate progressive ministry. Worse, they have regarded Paul and his colleagues as 'fools because of Christ'.

Although the Corinthians may not have said as much, he can read their minds. And even though the Lord has brought the apostle and his readers together, their appreciation of Christ has become markedly dissimilar from his ? and this has not been Paul's fault. Accordingly, the Corinthians have contrasted their own situation with that of the apostle, whom they reckon to be 'weak' and 'without honour', as indeed he is if considered from a materialistic point of view.

The irony of this verse rests on the fact that in a sense the Corinthians are indeed prudent, strong and splendid ? as is Paul: after all, they have accepted the apostle's gospel. Their problem is that they ought to realize this to be the case, accepting that it is their lot to be deemed preposterous by an unenlightened world. Sadly, they are confident in exact proportion to their ignorance.

Paul makes no attempt to justify himself. All he gives here is a black-and-white contrast between the tensions and pathos of his situation and the pleasant, complacent shallowness of the converts (cf. 2 Cor. 11:22 - 12:10).

In Greek, these three verses constitute one sentence. Irony fades. Paul outlines his lifestyle, implying that the Corinthians ought to see him as a man of afflictions. The latent thesis of the section is that those who suffer for their Lord reign with him ? and are therefore wealthy and wise.

'To this very hour' he and others have known 'hunger' and 'thirst' and have gone 'naked', lacking sufficient clothing (cf. Rom. 8:35; 2 Cor. 11:27). But his readers are 'satisfied' (4:8). Further, Paul has been 'buffeted', enduring physical abuse (cf. Matt. 26:67; 2 Cor. 11:24-25), and remains 'unsettled', having no permanent home (cf. Heb. 11:38).

There has also been toil: 'We labour, working with our own hands.' The apostle is aware that he ought to have been supported by the church. Sometimes money has changed hands ? but Paul never requests a fee, gifts flowing his way from elsewhere being unsolicited. Moreover, occasions for critical backlash are so many that he has long since realized it to be in everybody's interest for him to be seen to labour. That he should have received adequate pay ? see 9:6,11-12,17-18; Phil. 4:15; that he did work really hard ? see Acts 18:3; 20:34; 1 Thess. 2:9; 4:11; 2 Thess. 3:8.

Pathos continues. 'Reviled', he will 'bless' those who insult him. He has been 'persecuted', or chased, usually by malevolent Jews. But because he remains motivated, he will 'bear up'. A prime target for malicious gossip, the apostle, with others, is accustomed to 'exhort', abuse being countered with kind words instead of hot anger. Cf. Luke 6:28; 23:34; Rom. 12:17; 1 Thess. 5:15. Further, he and others have become the 'scum of the world, the offscourings of all until now'.

The Greek for 'scum' (perikatharmata) originally stood for an accumulation of dirt. Later, the term took on the meaning of filth that has to be removed by a cleansing agent. From this emerged the idea of purification through sacrifice (cf. Prov. 21:18, LXX). Philo remarks that an arrogant man will regard all others as 'scum'. Philo, On the Virtues 174.

The term translated 'offscourings' (peripsema) means much the same ? in this case the elimination of dirt by wiping a utensil, perhaps a dish, around its rim. Again, the idea of cleansing gave rise to that of sacrifice (cf. Tobit 5:19).

Paul possibly introduces these words because a disdainful world regards him and his colleagues as obscenities to be cleansed away if it wants to be whole. Nor, is it implied, has this attitude been foreign to some at Corinth, which is why they tend to walk away from the apostle. Of course, they are wrong because Paul's Saviour, and theirs, belongs to God and therefore controls all things (3:23).

The apostle brings his examination of divisions within the church (1:9 - 4:21) towards a conclusion, his analysis being that their problems reflect a failure to appreciate the wisdom of his gospel, which for some has almost become a folly. But at no stage does Paul imply that his readers are not genuine believers. Nevertheless, although they are 'in Christ', they acquit themselves as if they belong to the world.

In order to impress his message upon the church, Paul introduces the metaphor of the relationship between a father and his children: not only do the Corinthians need once more to embrace the gospel which he has brought to them, they must appreciate that their spiritual parent attained his apostolic status by the grace of God and that he desires no other standing.

Notwithstanding his irony and perhaps a gentle sarcasm, it is not Paul's intention 'to shame' the Corinthians, even though he believes that they have reason to be embarrassed. To 'shame' is not at all the same as to 'disgrace', as in 1:27; 11:4-5,22. They are, after all, his 'beloved children', and as a devoted father he writes 'these things' ? by which is meant the preceding paragraphs all the way from 1:10 ? with a view to 'admonishing' them. This is understandable: what affectionate father would want to witness his children squirming in humiliation because he reprimands them for their misdeeds? Paul's declaration is not contradicted by 6:5 and 15:34, where he expresses disgust in order to generate meekness.

The possibility remains that the Corinthians might abandon Paul in favour of one teacher or another. 'If' followed by 'you have' (ean + a subjunctive verb) can suggest 'what is expected to occur, under certain circumstances, from a given standpoint in the pres?ent'. Blass and Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p.188. Paul employs eja;n followed by a subjunctive many times in 1 Corinthians and frequently in his other letters. The apostle visualizes the people flying off in all directions because of a disinclination to give his ministry its proper respect.

Yet because office is not everything, Paul reminds them that even if they have 'ten thousand tutors' (from paedagogos, a guardian or a slave appointed to care for a freeman's children), they can never say that they have 'many fathers'. Because he is a father to his spiritual children, his relationship with them is uniquely authoritative.

But what sort of a 'father' is he? Paul defines the bond: 'in Christ Jesus' he has 'begotten' 'Begotten', from ejgevnnhsa. them 'through the gospel', meaning that there was a time when they heard him, believed what he said ? and turned to Christ: the Lord was bringing him and them together and at the same time stirring their hearts. Here occurs the sole occurrence of 'begotten' in 1 and 2 Corinthians (but cf. Gal. 4:23-29): for the Corinthians there can be no one else like Paul (cf. 4:17; Philem. 10).

Nevertheless, his concern is not that they might venerate him as some sort of patriarchal icon, but that they should remember that it was through his ministry that they came to faith. His words are Christ-centred: to the Lord be all the glory.

A good father will try to be a role model for his offspring, and so it is for Paul and his numerous children in the Lord. Because he is conscious that his manner of life reflects the standards established by Christ (cf. 9:21), he expects his converts to be his 'imit?ators' and, in particular, to share his perception of true wisdom (cf. 11:1; 1 Thess. 4:1). 'Become', or 'continue to be', suggests that to a point it is already so: 'Become', from givnesqe, present imperative 'go on being'. That Paul strove to be a pattern for his converts comes across again and again in his letters. Paul is optimistic.

So that they can be informed about Paul, he has sent Timothy from Ephesus, probably by the overland route and possibly to be met by the unnamed bearer of this letter, who would travel by sea (cf. Acts 19:22). 'I have sent' is not an 'epistolary' aorist (contrast Phil. 2:19). Timothy was not the bearer of 1 Corinthians, although he, too, was on the way to the church (cf. 16:10). Had he been Paul's 'postman', his name would probably have occurred in 1:1.

The younger man has been charged to remind the church about the apostle's 'ways which are in Christ Jesus', that is, the circumstances of his ministry, the implication being that Paul's behaviour is regulated by his faith. From a comparison of this passage with 16:10-11, it appears that he is uncertain whether his colleague will be given a friendly welcome: a church that busily examines Paul (4:3) might be even less charitable towards his associate. This is probably why Timothy is commended warmly: he is Paul's 'beloved child ... in the Lord' and is 'faithful' or reliable. We know that Timothy was converted through the ministry of Paul (Acts 16:1; 1 Tim. 1:2) and that the bond was always precious to the apostle. The younger man is therefore to be trusted by the Corinthians.

There is a mild sting in the tail of the verse: Tim?othy is to relay to the Corinthians the kernel of Paul's preaching elsewhere: 'just as I teach everywhere in every church'. The apostle asserts that he has been the same man at Corinth as with others. If the Cor?inth?ians continue to look askance at him, it is they who are the misfits. Cf. 1:2; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33,36.

Following the pioneering Corinthian ministry and then a time-consuming journey back to Caesarea and Antioch, and more labours in Galatia (Acts 18:11,22-23), Paul embarked on his third missionary journey, which involved remaining at Ephesus for over two years (Acts 19:8-10; cf. Acts 20:31). In that 16:5-8 suggests that 1 Corinthians was written towards the end of the lengthy Ephesian ministry, it is likely that by then the Corinthians had not seen Paul for some time, apart from his fleeting visit to them (2 Cor. 2:1). It may be that the misery, at least for Paul, of that occasion encouraged his opponents to believe that he would never return.

This verse would indicate that those who cluster behind Apollos, Cephas and ? strangely ? Christ, (1:12; 3:22) are by that token antagonistic to Paul and contribute to bad feeling in the church. Hence 'some', a minority puffed up because they think that he will not come back, probably disaffect the majority. For the first time in this epistle, Paul targets individuals whose identities are known both to the church and to him, even though they are permitted to remain anonymous. In his absence, they have been allowed by a foolish church to rule.

The apostle indicates that he remains steadfast. Neither Corinth nor anywhere else being forbidden territory for him, he has resolved to visit the church 'quickly', that is, as soon as possible ? but only 'if the Lord desires': the Lord may have other arrangements. Cf. 16:7; James 4:15. Therefore, if Paul does not arrive at Corinth, it will not be because he is scared. The details of the proposed schedule are mentioned in 16:5-7.

So, if and when Paul reaches Corinth, he will 'know' the 'power' (dynamis), the true capacity, of those who are 'inflated', rather than their 'word' (logos), and of those who retain an exaggerated opinion of themselves (cf. 2:4-5). Because those puffed-up individuals at Corinth who resist Paul claim to have their own distinctive ministry, upon arrival he will examine what they have to say. If they show themselves to be faithful servants of Christ, Paul will rejoice. He warns them to be prepared: should a confrontation occur, it will not be the apostle who will be discomfited.

The promise (or warning) of 4:19 is elaborated. As in 6:9-10, 'the kingdom of God' signifies the complete church on earth throughout this age rather than that in heaven or at the end following the return of Christ, 'kingdom' standing for the manifestation of Christ's power in the world at large (cf. 15:24). Cf. Acts 20:25; 28:23,31; Rom. 14:17; Col. 1:13; 4:11; 1 Thess. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:5. Paul implies that the churches, not depending ultimately upon their own resources, are maintained by their God.

It is possible that this reference to the 'kingdom' finds its roots in 4:8, where the Corinthians are said ironically to be 'kings'. Perhaps their perception of the kingdom of God was that it was like an earthly empire in which men typically vie against one another. Paul indicates that if they do not come to their senses, he will make them see matters in their true light: in the presence of their father-in-God, their superficiality will be unmasked.

The long section 1:10 - 4:21 closes with an appeal to all the Corinthians rather than to the 'some' of 4:18 who oppose him.

The 'stick' develops the father-children metaphor introduced at 4:14, but is not meant to imply that when Paul meets the church there will be anything other than love in his heart. In family life, when a father disciplines his children it may not appear to them that he loves them. Sadly, although he would rather play or talk with them at their level, for the moment the parent cannot. This is Paul's meaning. Thus, 'spirit' probably signifies the apostle's human spirit rather than the Holy Spirit (cf. 2:11). But contrast Rom. 8:15; 1 John 4:6.

The Corinthians need to ask themselves what they 'want'. What is true 'wisdom'? Paul warns them against coalescing behind personalities, or against some of them supporting Apollos in order to depreciate Paul. Let all accept that true strength is manifest through superficial weakness. The church must stop bickering. Paul will be with them soon. If they reform, there will be no recrimination. Which is it to be?

This first part of the letter (1:10 - 4:21) is both an introduction and a foundation, and, paradoxically, almost an apologia for what is to appear in the following chapters. Paul has asserted his office, his authority, his determination, his love and the centrality of Christ, the divine sophia, whom he has proclaimed at Corinth. Now he will particularize about volcanic issues which rock the church.

Application

The principle that ministers are no more than servants of the gospel (4:1) needs to be remembered in the ups and downs of church life. Suppose that you, an 'average' church member, are foolish enough to place a minister of the gospel known to you upon a pedestal. Oddly, you show that you do not appreciate the man for what he is. If he is discerning, he will not take too much notice; if he loves the limelight, he will be damaged.

When Paul refers to 'the mysteries of God' (also 4:1), he airs his conviction that the gospel as defined by him is a divine revelation. Looked at in another way, this means that for the apostle no other religion, however venerable or attractive, is from God. In our day, evangelicals accept ? or should accept ? that whereas all faiths other than that revealed by the Bible are of the earth, and earthy, the system of religion offered by Scripture is of the heavens, and heavenly. It follows that the study of the Word of God is to be a discipline of prime importance for us, and particularly because we live among traditional and some newer churches which do not endorse the inspiration, historical accur?acy and supreme authority of the Bible. It is this failure which is giving rise to so many obvious problems.

Is it far-fetched to suppose that since apostolic times no believer has had a conscience as innocent as that of the author of 1 Cor?inthians? (cf. 4:4). When we make mistakes we need to accept constructive criticism from others ? but only if it is offered gently. In particular, a congregation has the right to review its minister's teaching and conduct in the light of Scripture. Should he fail seriously, the people must act. 'Note those who cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them' (Rom. 16:17).

On the other hand, although he will be painfully aware that he is not perfect, no minister should allow himself to be upset by irresponsible sniping if he does his work to the best of his ability. The Lord did not call him to be a football to be kicked around.

Consciences can let us down, and sincerity and wisdom do not always go together (cf. John 16:2). Although Paul himself had been a persecutor, his misdeeds were perpetrated in ignorant sincerity (1 Tim.1:13). Because emotions can fail, we should never rely too much on them. Let the objective truth of the Bible be our light. Subjective feelings can topple the supremacy of Scripture.

The Corinthians were arrogant (4:8), partly because of their false appreciation of the role of spiritual gifts (cf. 12:31; 14:1). Paul's desire was that they might reign with him (not vice versa), the emphasis being upon growth rather than glory. For this reason they had much ground to occupy. If and when they took possession of it, they would have met Paul.

We live in a time when much emphasis is placed upon Spirit-given experiences, not all that we hear being good. It seems that the Corinthians had fallen into the same trap. It should not be forgotten that the ultimate experience of the Holy Spirit will occur when he raises our bodies from the dust (Rom. 8:11). As yet, none of us has travelled this far.

The apostles were not the last to be regarded as garbage (4:13). If we love the Lord, we shall identify with a unique and universally despised faith and with those who profess it. Read Matthew 25:31-46 and Hebrews 13:3, yet recall the courage of and consolation given to Ebed-melech (Jer. 38:1-13; 39:16-18).

3. Immorality
(1 Corinthians 5:1 - 6:20)

Although the shift from chapter 4 to chapters 5 and 6 seems abrupt, there is a connection: a lack of spirit?ual discernment has given rise to divisions, a depreciation of Paul's ministry and habitual ill-conduct. Arrogance is prevalent (4:6,18-19; 5:2). In this section of the letter consideration is given to three specific problems.

Having asserted his authority and the supremacy of the Christ whom he preaches, and having declared his concern for the church (chapters 1 - 4), Paul considers the situation of an individual known to have committed incest. The seriousness of the matter is that his activity has not shocked the church: they remain truculent notwithstanding the misconduct of the anonymous brother, a man not overwhelmed with remorse. The general verdict is that his action is not intolerable (5:1-13).

As far as Paul is concerned, this incest epitom?izes the weakness of the church, its integrity being prejudiced by continual arguments which, in turn, cut away any resolve to discipline the offending individual.

Secondly (6:1-11), although the apostle must have received information about discord within the church, details and names are not revealed. Apparently, there are disputations about material issues, those concerned refusing almost as a matter of course to strive for peace, resorting instead to the local courts to coerce, and even fleece, one another.

Further, Paul indicates his awareness that not a few Corinthians are prone to sexual misconduct (6:12-20). His pointed words are brief because he wants discretion to prevail. His condemnation of fornication is driven neither by the demands of conscience nor even by the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18), but is based on the reality of the spiritual union between Christ and believers. In this respect the apostle anticipates his ground-breaking remarks about being 'in the law of Christ' (9:21) and the redundancy of the Sinai covenant in all its parts (cf. 2 Cor. 3).

Discipline
(1 Corinthians 5:1-13)

It has been reported to Paul that a man within the church has been entertaining a sexual relationship with his father's wife ? his stepmother rather than his natural parent ? and that the congregation has taken no action.

In rejoinder, although Paul accepts that Christians cannot avoid meeting immoral people in the world, he insists that believers must sever contact with such individuals if and when they may emerge within the church. Furthermore, expulsion is remedial and in no sense a punishment exacted by the congregation: the offender might repent, with the result that at a later time he can be readmitted to the fellowship.

Paul makes the profound point that sexual sin is dangerous because it is highly infectious. When tolerated in a church, it is like leaven in dough: fermenting rapidly, it affects the whole lump. He shows that. just as the Israelites removed all leaven from their dwellings during the Passover feast, the Corinthians can only rejoice in Christ, their unique sacrifice, when they make every effort to be pure.

Paul turns to the church's failure to deal with scandal, outlining his decision about the matter and then clarifying what he had written in an earlier letter on the subject of sexual misconduct.

Although Corinth was an immoral society, the Christians there were 'saints' (1:2) and were expected to live accordingly. Even so, Paul was conscious that it was no light matter for some to break with the customs of those among whom they lived. The body can 'burn' where fuel is plentiful (7:9), and the church was exposed continuously to temptation.

One believer, unnamed although certainly known to both the apostle and the Corinthians, has disgraced himself. The problem has been aggravated because they have failed to expel him, a breakdown of the collective conscience which Paul perceives as being as much a danger to the church as it is a scandal.

Dismay has also been felt elsewhere ? 'actually' (holos) also means 'everywhere' or 'generally' (as in our word 'holistic'). The story has spread like wildfire.

Moreover, the offence is an unusually repulsive one. Paul implies that this form of incest was regarded as an obscenity even among 'the nations' (or, 'Gentiles' ? ethnoi). He rebukes the church because in this respect they have fallen beneath the normally very low standards of society: one of their own people has taken his father's 'woman' (gynaika), a literal trans?lation for the parent's legitimate wife.

The world in which Corinth found itself was broadminded about what the New Testament terms 'fornication' (porneia) ? meaning sexual activity beyond marriage ? but not always to this extent. Cicero (106-43 B.C.) comments disparagingly about Sassia, mother of one of his clients and a woman who had married a son-in-law. The lawyer assumes a mantle of righteous indignation: 'Oh! to think of the woman's sin, unbelievable, unheard of ... in all experience, save for this single instance!' Such incest was per?petrated by Reuben, was prohibited by Moses' law and became a device by which Absalom sought to discredit his father. Cicero, Speech in defence of Aulus Cluentius Habitus 5.6; Gen. 35:22; Lev. 18:8; 20:11; Deut. 22:30; 27:20; 2 Sam. 16:22; cf. Amos 2:7; Josephus, Antiquities 3.274; Philo, On the Special Laws 3.12-21. The Corinthians have excelled themselves by acquiescing in such folly.

In stating that the church has become the subject of adverse comment among the 'nations', Ramsay suggests that the Corinthians were not sinking beneath the pagan level, but that incest was condemned by Roman law, operative at Corinth, a colonia (Historical Commentary, p.36). Yet Paul indicates that the church condoned something which was usually taboo, even in that city. Paul implies, and not for the first time, that these non-Jewish Christians belong to the Messianic Israel.

This sordid relationship between a man and his father's wife is perhaps seen by the apostle as an intended marriage rather than an affair, as indicated by the delicate allusion to the fact that the trans?gressor 'has' the woman. Cf. 7:2,12,29; Matt. 14:4; Mark 6:18. It follows that the illicit partner, 'his father's woman', must be the offender's stepmother. Had she been his own mother, Paul would undoubtedly have said so. Further, if she was a member of the church, he would have mentioned it, from which it appears that the individual has consorted with an unbeliever.

To appreciate the sensitivity of the situation, 2 Cor?inthians 7:12 needs to be taken into account. Almost certainly, the reference there is to both the incestuous man and his outraged natural father. So P. E. Hughes, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988 [NICNT; first published 1962]), p.277. From this it would appear that the latter was still alive, thus aggravating a serious sin on the part of one who had been baptized.

The church is 'inflated', or puffed up, failing to react to one of their own who has entered into a form of marriage with his stepmother. Possibly they feel themselves, as allegedly Paul's superiors (cf. 4:7,19; 5:3), to be adequate arbiters of their conduct, with no need to be taught lessons in ethics. There is also the likelihood that, too scared to grapple with the matter, they have remained supine: if one cupboard is opened, how many more skeletons might eventually be found? (cf. Rom. 2:22).

Paul is able to speak candidly about such matters because his conscience does not trouble him about sexual matters. The whole fellowship ('you', plural) should have 'grieved', or 'mourned', this appalling act, he tells them. The man in question has in principle severed himself from the body of Christ as if by dying, even though the church will not face up to its loss. Had they lamented the person 'who committed this deed' (with emphasis upon 'this'), he would have been removed 'from your midst', from the heart of the congregation. But he remains in place in a community which fails to show disapproval.

Verses 3,4 and 5 constitute a lengthy sentence, the thrust of which is that action must be taken against the offender both in his own interest and in that of the church. The syntax bristles with problems, and commentators tend to disagree in their expositions. Here, then, is one more offering.

Since the Corinthians have refused to take action, Paul exercises his authority to excommunicate, as indicated by 'in the name of our Lord Jesus'. This is no new formula (cf. 2 Thess. 3:6). Cf. Acts 16:18.

Some commentators attach 'in the name of our Lord Jesus' to the subsequent 'when you and my spirit are assembled together', conveying the idea that the church, as Christ's executor in the matter, is obliged to act in his name (cf. Matt. 18:20). This could be the intended meaning, although the translation adopted here seems preferable, giving weight to Paul's insistence on his authority, now under challenge, in a stressful situation: 'I ... have already judged ... him in the name of our Lord Jesus.' See Lenski, I and II Corinthians, p.209, and Hodge, 1 & 2 Corinthians, p.83, for the former approach. Fee, who examines the alternative views in detail, notes that 'Paul is hereby speaking a prophetic judgement on the perpetrator of this deed; but his authority is not his own' (First Corinthians, p.207). This commentary would agree. If he remains silent, he will fail both the church and the Lord.

The underlying principle is that the Corinthians are to be in practice what they are in principle: 'saints' (cf. 1:30). Sadly, their association with a flagrant sinner is a denial of their standing in Christ. Taking the initiative, Paul constrains the church to follow his lead by initiating discipline that will be therapeutic for all concerned.

He asks his readers to imagine him as being in a sense present with them at Corinth (cf. Col. 2:5). In his absence, and before informing him about the matter, the church should have expelled the offender, but did not. Now, having been told all, Paul is unprepared to take the burden from their shoulders: they must bear their responsibility and show revulsion by exercising discipline as if he was with them in person. Cf. Josh. 7:1-26, particularly 7:25-26.

By stating that he is 'present in spirit', the apostle must have realized that the Spirit of God was prompting him to send this epistle, which we know as 1 Corinthians, to the church. He knows that when it is read to them not only will the Spirit be present, but Paul also, in that his exact words of instruction will be heard. So Fee, First Corinthians, p.205. He compares with 2 Cor. 10:11: 'what we are in word by letters when absent'.

Thus he reveals his verdict and explains how it is to be put into effect: the church must assemble. Further, his presence (via the reading of the letter) will be accompanied by the 'power of our Lord Jesus', meaning that the congregation will not be denied the presence of God in Christ. This being so, their only option is an implementation of Paul's requirement that the man who has 'effected' this atrocious act be committed, as a prisoner to his guard, 'to Satan'.

Occurring twenty times in Paul's letters but only twice elsewhere in the New Testament, 'effected' (katergasomenon, 5:3) conveys the notion of achievement. Paul suspects that the offender, and possibly his friends, may reckon the deed as an innovative challenge. With regard to 'commit', within the New Testament deliverance to Satan is mentioned in 1 Timothy 1:20, and the sense may be the same here.

A possible interpretation, then, is that the incestuous man, cast out by the church and moving in a world controlled by the devil, finds himself in a situ?ation resembling that of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). All restraints having been removed, he gives himself to unbridled sin. Nevertheless, he remains a believer in whom conscience makes itself heard. His excesses exhaust him and he is worn out and perhaps ill. If so, the 'destruction' of his 'flesh' hovers somewhere between metaphor and actuality. Either way, he repents and turns back to the Lord, ending the liaison with his stepmother, eventually to be readmitted to the church. That this may be what actually happened is suggested by 2 Corinthians 2:7-8. Ultimately, he will be 'saved in the day of the Lord' (cf. 1:8; 3:13).

Alternatively, Paul's meaning might be that the deliverance of the man to Satan will precipitate the providential infliction of a severe physical ailment, namely, the literal 'destruction' of the offender's 'flesh'. If so, it is anticipated that his health will come to ruin. He seeks the Lord before he expires, when he will be with Christ, and will finally be raised in glory (cf. 15:51-54). This interpretation would dovetail with what has already been written about believers confirmed permanently in the faith and about ministerial and other failures who do no better than slither into heaven (1:8; 3:15).

That grievous sickness and even death were inflicted upon some Corinthians is shown by 11:30. And there are other considerations which need to be taken into account: Satan was the divinely appointed agent of Job's sufferings, and Paul was afflicted acutely by the Evil One, as was a certain 'daughter of Abraham'. Ananias and Sapphira also come to mind. Job 1:12; 2:6; Luke 13:16; 2 Cor. 12:7; Acts 5:1-11. Such parallels might suggest that deliverance to Satan means illness and possibly decease. But against this, 'destruction of the flesh' does not obviously suggest death, and in any case it is apparently Paul's desire to see the offender reinstated in the church rather than consigned to eternity.

For these reasons it might be better to abandon the 'death' interpretation. Rather, the man must be ejected into the devil's domain, for which he has a transient love, there to endure some form of physical suffering preceding repentance and restoration.

The apostle is aware that the church might remain defiant when hearing the letter read to them: already they are 'boasting' about the manner in which, as Paul sees it, they are playing fast and loose with established standards, an assertiveness that is 'not good'. This is the emphasis of understatement.

Now comes a question to which the answer is obviously affirmative: do the Corinthians not realize that 'a little leaven' can affect a relatively large quantity of dough? The 'leaven' in the metaphor is probably not yeast as used by those who nowadays bake their own bread, but a small amount of old, fermented dough added to new dough to induce the leavening process. The Corinthians must have been aware of the procedure, and it might be that they also understood that old dough could become mouldy, thus contaminating a new batch. Perhaps there was a health motive involved in the annual removal of all leaven at the time of Passover (Exod. 12:14-20), and 5:7 might allude to this. With acknowledgements to Fee, First Corinthians, p.216. Seen in this light, Paul's metaphor teaches that the church is at risk in that one man's sin can infect them all: to condone means to sympathize ? and sympathy might lead to imitation, and imitation to condemnation.

Elsewhere in the New Testament leaven is a figure for either an amalgamation of bad doctrine and malpractice, or a profession of faith not backed up by holy living. Matt. 16:6-12; Mark 8:15; Luke 12:1; Gal. 5:9. Both apply here (cf. 15:33): the church has harmed itself through an indifferent attitude to Paul's gospel and to the sinfulness of sin.

The imagery of leavened and unleavened bread moves from a contrast between 'little' and 'whole' in the preceding verse to 'old' and 'fresh' (neon). If 5:6 adopts the metaphor of leaven in order to recall Moses' regulations for Passover, this would explain why Paul instructs his readers to 'cleanse out the old leaven', Exod. 12:15,20; 13:6-7. old because incest represents the world to which the Corinthians no longer belong. Practically, this means that the offender is to be denied fellowship. All concerned are to present themselves as 'fresh dough', making every effort to resemble unfermented bread.

In earlier chapters Paul both insisted and implied that the Corinthians are believers. So, here, they must make a new start because in principle they are 'unleavened loaves'. Because it is not beyond them, let them exhibit fruit (cf. John 13:10; Rom. 6:7). As everywhere in Paul's letters, ethical instruction is aimed solely at those who have come to faith.

The analogy of the Passover is rounded out: 'For Christ our Passover has been killed.' Paul moves from 'you' (plural) to 'we' because the Lord is his Saviour as well as the Saviour of the Corinthians. Although 'Passover' can denote the complete feast, here it signifies the paschal lamb (cf. John 1:29; 13:1; 1 Peter 1:19); the death of Jesus leads, via his glorification and then the gift of the Spirit, to the sanctification of the believer (cf. 1:24).

According to Exodus 12:39, on the occasion of the first Passover Israel left Egypt so rapidly that there was insufficient time for that day's quota of bread to be leavened. Had the people delayed in order to prepare their loaves they would have been held up, implying a desire to remain in Egypt. In the event, they came out of Egypt 'in haste' because they knew that this was their only sensible option (Deut. 16:3); they could not afford to waste time. Cf. Lot and his family (Gen. 19:17-26; Luke 17:32).

Paul asserts that if the Corinthians do not remove the leaven of sin, they will demonstrate that they wish to belong to the world from which their Passover Lamb has redeemed them. Contradicting their baptismal vows, they will attract divine displeasure.

Whereas the Feast of Unleavened Bread lasted for seven days in the year (Exod. 23:15; Lev. 23:6), the Corinthians are to rejoice unceasingly, 'let us feast' being cast as a continuous present tense.

And they are to feast neither 'with old leaven', meaning immorality (cf. 'old leaven' in the preceding verse), nor 'with malice and evil'. 'Malice' (kakia) suggests a heart that feeds on hatred, this leading to overt 'evil' (poneria). Positively, their diet is to consist of 'unleavened loaves of sincerity and truth', a disposition issuing in upright conduct. Perhaps Paul hints that boasting (5:6) masks dishonesty: not being straightforward, the Corinthians are challenging their apostle by tolerating the incestuous man.

Although 5:9-13 connects with 5:1-8 in dealing with incest, it concentrates upon queries submitted to Paul on a previous occasion (7:1), the church's letter probably referring to an earlier communication which he had sent to them but which has not survived. When Paul was composing 1 Corinthians, he faced the problem that some did not seem to understand his earlier counsel about sexual ethics and related issues.

Therefore, 5:9-10 gives clarification, reminding the Corinthians that they have been instructed 'not to associate with fornicators' (pornois). Whereas not all immorality is sexual, a fornicator is someone who is sexually active beyond the bounds of marriage. Fornication can be committed by unmarried people, when it is a sin other than adultery, or it can be perpetrated by two people who are married, though not to each other, in which case it is adultery. Here, Paul is concerned with fornication in all its forms.

It may be that some in the church were taking issue with his previous instruction. 'How,' they might have been saying, 'can we avoid immorality? Extramarital relationships in our society are an everyday occurrence. Paul is too straight-laced.'

But to judge by 5:10, earlier queries answered by Paul also concerned the problem of rubbing shoulders with those who are covetous, dishonest and idol?atrous. He makes plain that he did not mean what the Corinthians have chosen to think he said. 'Not at all' (ou pantos) indicates that not all contacts with an evil society are wrong, whence it follows that saints need not go out of their way to avoid impure men 'of this world'. To keep their distance from such, the church would have 'to go out of the world'. Rocketing away from the planet to land on another habitat, they would relax in sanitized seclusion. Paul explains that there is a tactic less drastic than extraterrestrial monasticism, and no less effective (cf. John 17:14-16).

'But now I have written' points to the present letter, the one we know as 1 Corinthians, and not to the lost document mentioned in 5:9. The church should not associate with 'anyone named a brother', that is, one of their own, who is known to be a 'forni?cator', or who has been perceived to be an 'idolater' or 'covet?ous' or 'abusive' or a 'drunkard' or a 'swind?ler'. They must not even eat with 'such a person'. Paul may possibly be alluding to the Lord's Table (cf. Jude 12). Such an individual is to be quarantined for the time being. Further, in the light of 2 Thessa?lonians 3:15, it is possible that the apostle also prohibits personal relationships unless and until there is reformation. That such unhappy tendencies were not uncommon in the church is suggested by the 'vice list' in 6:9-10.

By 'idolater' might be meant a believer prepared to eat pagan sacrifices, perhaps to cement family or social or business ties. Paul will enlarge upon this in 10:14-22. Here, the practice is condemned.

The apostle concludes the present section, the turn of phrase in verse 12a being peculiarly Jewish. Cf. Judg. 11:12; Matt. 8:29; Mark 1:24; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28; John 2:4. As elsewhere, Paul's Greek comes across with a Hebrew accent. Anticipating his argument in the next chapter, he asserts that it has never been his responsibility to adjudicate among those who remain in un?belief, those who are 'outside' (cf. Luke 12:13-15). Cf. Mark 4:11; Col. 4:5; 1 Thess. 4:12. Therefore, the Corinthians should look to themselves rather than endeavouring to probe the sins of others.

An explanation is given: God 'will judge' those who are 'outside', albeit in a tribunal in which the church will have some part (cf. 6:2). The difference between the future tense, 'will judge', and the present, 'judges', rests on accentuation and not upon orthography. It follows that because of what the Lord will do, the Corinthians are to commit the world to God, not being answerable for its misdeeds.

This is said in order to bring into bold relief the church's responsibility: are they not to continue to judge those who 'are inside', those who are their own? The question expects an affirmative answer, consistent with 5:5,7. oujciv presupposes 'yes' in answer to the question. Paul then cites from the Old Testament in order to hammer home his counsel: 'Drive out the evil person from among you' (cf. Deut. 17:7). Cf. Deut. 19:19; 22:21,24; 24:7. According to Moses' law, idolaters, slanderers and adulterers were to be removed from Israel by death. Although the sanction was punitive as well as a deterrent, that prescribed by Paul is remedial (see 2 Cor. 2:6-7), it being implied yet again that the Corinthians are within the Messianic Israel.

Because the apostle has in principle already delivered the incestuous man to Satan, the church must exclude him from their company. At the time of writing of this letter they had singularly failed.

Application

Expulsion from a church is a matter for the congregation; outsiders have no right to involve themselves or advise unless asked. With regard to the incestuous man at Corinth, Paul informs the Corinthians what they have to do.

Nor, if circumstances warrant, is excommunication optional. A church must respond in this fashion when a moral collapse is perceived, both in its own interest and in that of the offender. If action is not taken, a communion of saints can become a communion of sinners.

And 5:3-4 has much to say to us today. When Paul's words are read out in church, it is as if he is present. The principle would apply, too, to our Lord when the Gospels or, indeed, any parts of the New Testament, are read in public. The Bible is our only authority even though we ought to learn from the lessons that church history might teach us.

With regard to 5:7-8, there is no necessity for a Jewish believer to keep the annual Passover, an outdated anticipation of Messianic reality. His whole life is in principle a Passover feast because the Anointed One is his Passover Lamb.

When Paul insists that it is not his concern to judge unbelievers (5:12), he does not mean that there is nothing to say to the world about its sins. It was he, after all, who commanded the men of Athens to repent (Acts 17:30). Likewise, today's churches have a duty to turn from sin and then to condemn it, strictly in that order. But what we are not required to do is to try to coerce those who are 'outside'. Time was in England when men were penalized if they did not attend church. In that respect our laws were wrong.

Christians in secular courts
(1 Corinthians 6:1-11)

The letter passes without a break to the scandal of some Corinthians taking fellow-believers to court. Paul objects to such litigation because, although neither he nor the church is required to judge outsiders (5:12), they have a responsibility to act against offenders among their own number (5:3,7,13). How can he keep silent when some are carrying their disputes to unbelievers, now termed 'the unright?eous', for arbitration? (6:1). Paul shows that, if difficulties arise, they must be resolved by securing the mediation of experienced brethren (6:5). Further, if this proves impracticable, it will be better for aggrieved Corinthians to suffer loss rather than go to court for redress (6:7). Secular tribunals are inappropriate because they represent a world alienated from God (6:1). When they travel this route, the 'saints' show that they do not appreciate their standing and demean themselves before the world (6:2-3).

Further, it has been reported to Paul that some resort to the courts to take material advantage of others in the church, all the time knowing that they, the plaintiffs, are in the wrong (6:8).

He insists that because persistent sinners cannot enter the kingdom of God (6:9-10), the church needs to protect itself. Yet Paul encourages them. Whatever their problems, these people are the Lord's in that they have been washed, sanctified and justified (6:11).

Paul is shocked by further information which has been relayed to him: how can anyone descend to this new level of folly? He displays his indignation in question form, expecting that there will be red faces in the congregation. Fee remarks that a comparison with 5:1 indicates that Paul's tiv? ('someone', 'anyone') points to a single case which has affected the whole church (First Corinthians, p.231, n.8). Maybe, but 6:7 suggests otherwise.

'Venture' is a singular verb in the present tense (tolma), indicating that litigation of this type has occurred in at least one case, yet suggesting that it is becoming a tendency. In Paul's day, 'having a matter' (pragma echon) was almost a technical expression for being involved in a lawsuit. Cf. Josephus, Against Apion 2.177.

The Corinthian 'unrighteous' are unbelievers (cf. 6:6) in that men in general do not submit to what God reveals to them about himself and such men will not inherit the kingdom of God (6:9). They prefer to remain in the wrong about the most important issue of life: their duty to love and serve their Maker (cf. Rom. 1:21).

It follows that ' saints', those who are to participate in the judgement of the very people whom some Corinthians have foolishly appointed as their assessors (6:3), have no business to appeal to such tribunals. Paul's argument is not based on the notion that nothing succeeds like success, and that what might turn out to be a costly failure is therefore wrong for the believer. Nor does he warn the Corinthians away from the courts because they will do better to settle their own affairs among themselves, and do so fairly, rather than receive rough justice from the magistrates. Although prudence might favour private arbitration of quarrels over what are possibly no more than, in Ramsay's words, 'the trumpery details of common life', Ramsay, Historical Commentary, p.53. this is not his burden.

The author of this letter appealed to Nero Caesar on one memorable occasion (Acts 25:11), and we have come across this monster already. See 'Introductory matters'. Even so, Paul had no scruples about submitting what was in effect part of the Lord's business to such an evil man. See Suetonius, 'Nero' 34,49, in R. Graves, trans., Suetonius: The Twelve Caesars (London: Penguin Books,1989 [first published 1957]); Tacitus, Annals 15, in M. Grant, trans., Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome (London: Penguin Books, 1989 [first published 1956]). And in a courtroom scene the apostle admitted to one of his assessors, King Herod Agrippa II (c. A.D. 27-100), that the latter was 'expert in all customs and questions which have to do with the Jews' (Acts 26:3). But the monarch was also immoral, a petty princeling and a client of Rome. Further, at Corinth the apostle was prepared to answer for himself before Gallio, a man who could not have cared less about Jewish religion, or perhaps about any religion (Acts 18:14-15). It might appear that when it suited him Paul did not practise what he preached.

But in reality, when the apostle was hailed before judges, his disputes were never with other Christians. What Paul teaches in 6:1 is that when believers find themselves at loggerheads with their brethren, as can sometimes happen, they should work through their problems with, if necessary, the help of the church. This is because their difficulties are considered as in-house tensions and by no means the business of unbelievers who, because they do not know the Lord, will not be able to give effective counsel.

Not only are the Corinthians in the habit of evaluating Paul (4:3-5,7), but some are seeking legal judgements against one another, and this in spite of the fact that they have so far refused to act against the incestuous individual in their church (5:2). Even if we did not have, say, 1:10; 3:3; 4:6,19, the impression comes across that some are greedy, argumentative and hypocritical. Paul responds.

Elsewhere, he sometimes confronts his readers with the challenge, 'Do you not know ??' in order to impress important truths upon their minds, In this chapter, verses 2,3,9,15,16,19; cf. 3:16; 5:6; 9:13,24; Rom. 6:16; 11:2. and he does so here. The Greek for 'world' is kosmos, the ordered system that God has created, the apostle stating that there will be a time when 'the saints' will sit in judgement over their fellows and also over the angelic host (6:3). That the church will participate in the judgement of the world is a truth taught elsewhere in the Bible, and Paul must have been aware that he was not introducing a novel doctrine. Cf. Ps. 49:14; Dan. 7:22; Matt. 12:41-42; 19:27-28; Luke 11:30-32; 22:30; Rev. 2:26-27; 3:21; 20:4.

What follows is even more astonishing: 'And if the world is being judged by you, are you unworthy of trivial lawsuits?' Paul's ejn uJmi`n could mean 'by you' or 'among / before you'; i.e. 'in your presence'. 'Is being judged' (krinetai) is dramatic: Paul visualizes the judgement of the world (but presumably not of the angels), as already in operation, judges and accused having taken their places in court ? although not by church intervention in political and social issues.

The apostle's claim has its foundation in 6:1, in which it is stated that unbelievers are 'unrighteous' and that believers are 'saints'. But how can there be a process of judgement in the real world if, according to Paul's declaration, Christians cannot 'go out of the world' (5:10), and if the apostle has not been commissioned to judge outsiders? (5:12). How might the Lord's people sit in judgement on others when they live alongside them? But, claims Paul, they do judge unbelieving friends and neighbours.

The meaning must be that there is always tension when Christians come into contact with others. Because their values are opposed, the church being in principle in the right about God and unbelievers in the wrong, even the unassuming presence of a saintly 'saint' is a rebuff to an unconverted person. Perhaps, like some whose partners are Christians, or like the Philippian jailor, the unbeliever will be converted; perhaps not. 7:16; 1 Peter 3:1-2; Acts 16:29-30. What is definite is that there is tension: the Christian sorrows because the other does not receive the truth, and the unbeliever is resentful because he is being quietly challenged.

This is how it must have been in the Corinth of Paul's time. Those in that licentious city who had been washed and set apart (6:11), but who had no prospect other than that of staying in the place, were a permanent rebuke to their fellows. It was in this respect that the Corinthians were judging others, and it is in this respect that every believer who lives for the Lord condemns the society in which he lives (cf. Matt. 5:13-14).

Paul continues: if the world is being and will be judged by the church, are believers 'unworthy of trivial lawsuits'? He pleads for a negative answer. 'Trivial' could be rendered 'least significant', and 'lawsuits' might have been courtrooms. Cf. James 2:6, where krithvrion is translated by the NKJV as 'court'.

The sadness is that some Corinthians seem to have publicized their quarrels. But whatever the rightness of any litigation, it is 'trivial' in contrast to the gravity of the saints exercising, and being yet to exercise, a judicial role. Thus, if they are involved in the greater ? that of judging the unbelieving world ? they should not ignore the lesser ? that of resolving difficulties by applying to their own people for help. Even better, they ought to shun lawsuits.

Paul's argument develops: the Corinthians' predicted future involvement with mighty angels demands that they look to their own business, attending to the relatively trivial dissensions that exasperate them. For 'matters of life', biwtikav, cf. Luke 21:34.

In that 'angels' are mentioned without qualifi?cation (cf. 4:9), the reference must be to the holy angels rather than to the devil and his messengers. But in what sense are believers to judge these servants of the Lord? The answer could be that judging is almost equivalent to governing (cf. Matt. 19:28). If so, Paul indicates that the glorified church is to be given a status superior to that of the angelic host. 'Do' the Corinthians 'not know' this? The negative demands an affirmative response. 'Do you not know?', translating oujk oi[date.

The wrongness of the litigation in which some engage is brought out by a question. 'These who have been despised' are not an element less honour?able than other brethren within the church, but the society to which some believers foolishly resort in order to resolve their private quarrels.

Although the majority of the Corinthians are despised by the world (1:28), here Paul assumes that the feeling is mutual. His language is strong, echoing the perception of idolatry held by him and, it seems, by the church: those who commit this outrageous sin merit disgust. It is shocking, then, if such folk are employed to settle disputes within the congregation. 'Appoint' (kathizete) means 'to sit [in council]'. Cf. Josephus, Antiquities 13.75. But because unbelievers cannot 'receive ... the things of the Spirit of God' (2:14), there is no chance that they will be able to apply wisdom and love to reconcile warring saints.

Paul intends to shame the Corinthians (cf. 4:14), though not in order to justify himself. Here he is caustic: because the Corinthians take pride in their wisdom (e.g. 3:18), do they not have at least one 'wise man' who can adjudicate between 'his brothers'? 'Between his brothers' is given here for, in Greek, 'between his brother', which on the surface does not seem to make sense. But the meaning is clear. Cf. Sirach 25:18.

This verse can be taken either as a statement or as a question. The latter seems preferable in that Paul professes to find such malpractice incredible, even though he knows that it is in fact happening. Accordingly, many are at fault in that they seek settlement 'before unbelievers', automatically making themselves the subjects of gossip. The apostle wants to know how they can be confident that secular courts will give satisfaction, implying that there is no such certainty.

Apart from the fact that the Corinthians are prone to take their 'disputes' (krimata) to court, the impulse to tread this path has already become an 'utter defeat for you', irrespective of the outcome. 'Defeat' (ettema) occurs in Romans 11:12, where it is used to show that Israel had forfeited much by rejecting Christ. The Corinthians have lost personal dignity, and doubtless the divine smile, by quarrelling publicly with other believers. Because of their lack of wisdom, they have been unable to overcome the world.

Paul challenges: why should they not be content to be material losers? Should not they be big enough to absorb injuries without hitting back? In other words, they will help themselves by not bickering in court. Apart from the fact that litigation might not be cheap, the desire to take such action is wholly degrading. Therefore, non-retaliation will be far more effective. And the context suggests that Paul expects the Corinthians to sense that he is doing no more than reflecting the teaching of our Lord, Cf. Matt. 5:25,39-40; 7:1. from which it follows that their avarice is evidence of spiritual declension.

Paul has more to say about this misconduct, taking no pains to hide his dismay. Apparently, some are going outside the church, not only for redress of grievance, but to get their hands on the assets of other believers. Such behaviour is both despicable and unethical.

In 6:2-3 Paul reminded the church that the 'saints' are already judging 'the world' and will complete this activity at the end time. But might the Corinthians not want to know about the nature of terminal judgement? Possibly anticipating such a query, the apostle gives clarification, it being presumed that the church is aware of an identity between 'the world' (6:2) and 'the unrighteous'. Moreover, the 'kingdom of God', an entity that functions now (4:20), will metamorphose into the ultimate 'kingdom', to which these verses point (cf. 15:50). If, then, the wicked do not turn to the Lord, they will not share the churches' inheritance.

Although unbelievers are depicted as 'unrighteous' in 6:1, here the word is applied to those Corinthians who busily defraud their brethren, behaving like unregenerate men. Now comes an analysis of the church's low spiritual condition: whereas the Cor?inth?ians bask in self-esteem, reckoning themselves to be wise (4:10), in reality they remain largely ignorant of one of the first principles of true religion ? namely, that a tree is known by its fruit, and a man by what he does. Matt. 7:16,20; 12:33; Luke 6:43-44. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that a habitual sinner can be no child of God even though he may have been baptized. Because he has no Father whom he loves, there can be nothing of value for him at the end. The church, then, should not 'be deceived', or 'be led astray', insinuating that it is easy for impenitent Corinthians to imagine that they will enter heaven.

A representative list is given of those to be excluded from the eschatological kingdom should they not repent. In addition to the characterizations of evil given in 5:10-11, Paul mentions 'adulterers' (married people who break their vows), 'male prostitutes' (malakoi = voluptuaries; cf. Matt. 11:8; Luke 7:25), Cf. Philo, The Special Laws 3.37. 'homosexuals' (arsenokoitai = 'male coitus'), and 'thieves'. 'Idolaters' might be included here because Scripture tends to evaluate idolatry as immorality with a religious veneer, E.g. Num. 25:1; 31:16; Jer. 3:9; Ezek. 16; 23; Hosea 2:1-17; Rev. 2:14,20. such profligacy being almost endemic in Corinth. Apparently, arsenokoitai makes its first appearance in Greek literature at this point (cf. the slightly later 1 Tim. 1:10), and it may just be that Paul, if he is minting a new word, verges on the limits of good taste in order to galvanize the Corinthians.

Although the addressees of this letter are 'saints' (1:2) who will inherit glory (1:7; 3:15), the apostle does not contradict himself when he warns them. Because believers who live in sin are playing with fire, they need to ask themselves some basic questions.

Where possible, Paul ends a paragraph or section with encouragement, as he does here. Cf. 3:22-23; 5:7-8; 6:20; 10:13; 11:32; 15:58; 16:23-24. The verse is also subtle, being reminiscent of 5:7, in which he commands the people to be in practice what they are in principle. Having castigated his readers, he reminds them that there was a time when the Lord intervened in their lives, in this way intimating that they need to distance themselves from sin.

Whereas the previous vice list describes what 'some' Corinthians once were, Paul brings in the interjection 'but' (alla) to emphasize the astonishing change in their lives: 'but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified'.

'Were washed' almost certainly does not refer dir?ectly to water baptism, the reason being that the apostle never links the outward rite to the regenerating work of the Spirit (see the endnotes on 12:13). Nor does he refer elsewhere to baptism 'in' (en) the name of Jesus'; rather, he specifies 'into' (eis; cf. 1:13-15; Gal. 3:27). And, if he means water baptism, why does he not say so? The burden, then, of this verse is that the formerly sinful Corinthians have been washed inwardly and set apart, or 'sanctified', by the Spirit sent by God the Father through, or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ', and have been 'justified'. Apart from 4:4, where Paul refers to his personal integrity, this is the only occurrence of 'justified' in the two Corinthian letters, although it is common in Romans and Galatians. The believer, deemed by God to be guiltless, is the direct object of divine favour, and this because Christ died for him and now represents him in heaven. The apostle's statement, though not explicitly Trinitarian, is virtually a coded message telling the Corinthians that the Christ proclaimed to them by him has conveyed these benefits. Therefore, should they not listen to Paul?

The reference to 'the Spirit of our God' ? 'God' being the Father ? also reveals that some are grieving him, the one who is their God as well as Paul's ('our'). How can they do it?

It is also possible that the assertion that all the Corinthians have received the Spirit is intended to cool the church's hyper-enthusiasm for spiritual gifts. Further, Paul aims a shaft at those who are morally careless: if a believer is justified by God, he will strive to live a holy life (cf. 6:9). Justification and sanctification, although distinct, are inseparable.

Application

Isaiah 8:18 commands its readers to consider the prophet and his family, probably as types of the Christ to come and of the church (cf. Heb. 2:13): 'I and the children whom Yahweh has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from Yahweh of hosts who dwells in Mount Zion.' As signs, they were pledges of something yet to be accomplished, and as wonders, they were manifestations of the power of God in a sinful society. So, E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965-72), vol. 2, p.316. It is probably in this sense that Paul says to and about the Corinthians that 'The world is being judged by you' (6:2). The principle remains true for all believers: the Lord has been pleased to separate us for himself, and by means of our changed lives we are supposed to bring the world in which we live to an awareness that living without Christ is wrong.

One application is that when there are serious disagreements among Christians, aggrieved brethren ought not to apply to the law. (Years ago and when a recent convert, I once heard it said by someone in a church meeting that 'I shall be in touch with my solicitor'! I was baffled.) Why should we regard a fallen world as competent to arbitrate in matters that relate to the kingdom of God? In any case, the Lord knows about our problems and has a way of dealing with impossible individuals within the church. Let's give him space.

All too often, believers consider the world to come and its glories as if our normal habitat were here and now, in this world. In the light of Paul's announcement that 'we shall judge angels' (6:3), how much better to look at this scene as if we were really there, in the glory? (cf. Col. 3:2-3).

Like many others, Christians normally work hard for their goods and chattels. Nevertheless, in an absolute sense we possess nothing. Therefore, unless the Lord has been pleased to trust us with material wealth, how much better to seek to travel with a relatively light suitcase? As long as we are preserved from poverty and have enough for our needs and our Christian service, why try to keep up with the Joneses? Covetousness and jealousy are to be avoided (6:10).

By those who do not understand it, the cardinal doctrine of justification by faith has always been criticized as giving rise to moral licence (cf. Rom. 6:1-2). Yet, as someone once said, justification by faith alone and without respect to righteous deeds which we may imagine we have done is the mother and nurse of holiness. We loathe sin in order to please the Lord who has already begun to rescue us.

It follows that, as the apostle points out (6:9-10), if those who profess Christ embrace sin, they delude themselves. Let us not trust in baptism or church membership, but always flee to Christ. Water may cleanse a corpse but can never revive it. When we grieve the Lord, let us plead with him to grant us godly sorrow and true repentance. In any event, if we feel that we cannot come to him as saints, let us approach him as sinners. He will not turn us away because, were he to reject us, Jesus would strip himself of his own glory (see, e.g., Matt. 11:28; John 6:37). The thing is unthinkable.

Taking a lead from 6:11, ministers should ensure that warning and encouragement accompany each other in their preaching. Balance malady with remedy, but when in doubt give more space to the latter. The apostle both heartens and cautions the Corinth?ians by reminding them about what Christ has done for them. Careful meditation of such matters is a superb tonic.

Promiscuity
(1 Corinthians 6:12-20)

Strangely, the link between this section and 5:1-13, which deals with incest, on the one hand, and 6:1-11, concerning wrongful litigation, on the other, may have been the Corinthians' high opinion of themselves. Because of their spiritual gifts, their apparent wisdom and their relative affluence (1:7; 4:8-10), and because Paul's lifestyle seemed ignominious, they tended to make up their own rules about what or what not to do. It now transpires that some felt themselves free to resort to prostitutes under, it seems, the delusion that sex beyond marriage was not altogether prohibited by their pro?fession of faith. It is likely that they had forgotten how to blush.

Paul responds. He teaches that a Christian's body belongs to the risen Christ, for which reason he is not allowed to be promiscuous. Although a believer is not governed by dietary restrictions and is free to eat anything he chooses, it is otherwise with God-given sexual instincts: the human body has not been fashioned by the Lord with a view to extramarital intimacies; a free table does not imply free love (6:12-14). Paul then indicates that because intercourse with a harlot and oneness with Christ are mutually hostile, those who offend in this manner understand neither the sinfulness of the practice nor the glory of the Lord (6:15-17). Thirdly, every saint has been purchased by Christ's death in order to be a shrine for the Spirit, whence it follows that in its own unhappy fashion fornication is an ultimate evil, the body being transferred to an alien allegiance. Whereas other sins injure the shrine by exploiting materials imported from outside, sexual impurity utilizes components of the dwelling place of God (6:18-20).

Paul has learnt that some may be consorting with women of ill repute. His response is not just to condemn but to reason theologically. Some commen?tators think that the assertion, 'All things are permissible for me ? but not all things are profit?able,' repeated in 10:23, was a Corinthian slogan which the apostle repudiates. E.g. Fee, First Corinthians, p.251. Whether or not this is so, Paul shows that freedom is a relative matter: because 'all things' belong to the Corinthians, but only insofar as they belong to Christ (3:21-23), they have no right to abuse themselves sexually (cf. Rom. 6:1). The apostle knew that Christians sometimes seek room for manoeuvre when truth is hard to accept. Cf. 1 Peter 2:16; 2 Peter 2:19.

His point here is that if there are some who hold that their freedom in Christ is boundless, they will discover that there are two negatives acting against them. To show the way ahead, Paul speaks about his own attitude to certain matters, some of the latter being positively sinful and others morally indifferent.

The first negative is that the Corinthians are looking at sexuality in the wrong way: no relationship should be contemplated simply because it might be a source of gratification, but in the light of its inherent rightness or wrongness.

The second negative is timeless: when held fast, principles will always control those who retain them. If, then, the Corinthians are being driven by the fallacy that for them there are few sexual restraints, they will end up as slaves to sinful impulses (cf. Rom. 6:16). And slavery is never a happy state.

Because the principle of servitude applies even when an anticipated course of action is morally right, Paul points to himself, declaring that 'All things are permissible for me ? but I shall not be dominated by anything.' To illustrate, he would certainly have enjoyed a typically Jewish diet when eating with his fellow-countrymen, and would have accepted non-kosher food when with Gentiles (cf. 9:20). But an action which is right in itself could in some circumstances be wrong. For him, what other people thought was never unimportant.

Paul declares in effect that Old Testament dietary restrictions are no longer in force, Cf. Mark 7:15,19; Acts 10:15; Rom. 14:17. from which it follows that the Corinthians are at liberty to eat whatever they please, the plural, bromata, 'foods', meaning an unlimited diet. But cf. Acts 15:20,29. To this extent, the slogan (if it was such) that 'All things are permissible' (6:12) will hold good, although ? and this is the suppressed point ? not with respect to sexual licence. The Corinthians may have disregarded the distinction.

The apostle looks forward to the time when 'God will bring this and them to nothing'; eventually, neither the stomach nor food will exist. Yet sexual misconduct is another matter in that the body will never cease to be (cf. 3:16-17; 6:19), a truth to be unfolded in chapter 15. Cf. Rom. 8:11; 2 Cor. 4:14; Phil. 3:21; 1 Thess. 4:14. I must plead ignorance at this point: if in the resurrection state God will have done away with food and the stomach, how is 6:13 to be reconciled with, say, Luke 24:43 and Acts 10:41? Thus, '? the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord ? and the Lord for the body.' In body and soul, each believer remains the freehold property of Christ.

If, then, the Corinthians are part of the betrothed bride of Jesus ? a figure that Paul probably had in mind when formulating these words, Cf. 2 Cor. 11:2-3; Eph. 5:27; Rev. 21:2,9. how can they indulge in unholy relationships? Such conduct is wrong. No bride who loves her husband-to-be will do this.

Paul urges his readers to contemplate their long-term prospect, which is that the union between saints and their Saviour is to be consummated when Christ returns. Then, the God who 'has raised' Jesus 'will also raise us up through his power'. Cf. Eph. 1:19-20. Given the prospect of the resurrection of the body, nothing can be gained, but all may be lost, by habitual debauchery. The Corinthians must keep themselves to themselves.

There is a sting in the verse: because some deny resurrection yet remain within the community of the resurrection (15:12), the apostle, relatively early on in this letter, gives notice that God will raise 'us up' (the emphatic exegerei) ? that is, both Paul and believing Corinthians ? 'through his power'. He has granted the glorious precedent, Jesus (Rom. 1:4).

Again comes a question demanding an affirmative answer: do the Corinthians not realize that their bodies are 'members [or, 'parts'] of Christ'? Cf. 12:12-31; Rom. 12:1,4-5; Eph. 4:16,25; 5:30. The reasoning is that because God raised Christ, he will raise the believer (6:14), and because the latter's body will be transformed rather than replaced (15:37, 42-44,51), it is the Lord's and must not be made available to women in extra-marital relationships.

To emphasize the awfulness of this sin, Paul states what it would mean were he to engage in such activity. 'So, therefore', because all the elements of his body are 'members of Christ', will it be right for him to make them physically the 'members of a prostitute'? To act in this way must bring Jesus into an illicit union with someone who hires out her body. 'May it not happen' (me genoito; cf. Rom. 3:31 etc.).

Yet another question, to which an affirmative is required, is put to the Corinthians. Do they 'not know' that a man who has been 'joined [sexually] to a prostitute' becomes 'one body' with her? Perhaps Paul employs the present tense because he is aware that some Corinthians are misbehaving in this fashion.

He reasons that when a woman sells herself to a client, they become temporary partners driven by irreconcilable impulses: he by physical gratification; she by monetary gain. Therefore, the operation degrades God's gift of love to man and woman: sexual union was never meant to be like this. Paul reinforces his teaching with the introduction of Genesis 2:24 concerning a man leaving his parents. For the apostle, as for Jesus, they remain words from God. Matt. 19:5; cf. Eph. 5:31.

The principle is binding: when a man joins himself to his 'wife' (gynaika, as often in chapter 7, and liter?ally his 'woman'; cf. 5:1), they become 'one flesh' and belong to each other. And if a man obtains the services of a harlot, they find themselves in a virtual marital union rather than indulging in a furtive adven?ture for him and another money-making exercise for her. The two are now 'one flesh' and have fulfilled the terms of Genesis 2:23-24, albeit unwittingly and with no intention of staying together.

Probably recalling the command of Deuteronomy 10:20 for Israel to be joined to Yahweh their God, Paul insists that the believer 'is one spirit' with Christ. 'Spirit', not denoting the Holy Spirit, is a figure for the union between a believer and his Lord. And the apostle anticipates that the bond will lead to resurrection (cf. 15:22-23). So how can present reality and future expectation accommodate to improper sex? They do not because they cannot.

Therefore, the Corinthians are to 'flee fornication', holiness being mandatory. Strikingly, Paul does not appeal to the Old Testament's prohibition of adultery (e.g. Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18), the reason being that, for him, belonging to Christ involves submission to an imperative far outranging the demands of Sinai. See the comments on 9:20-21.

He elaborates on the awfulness of immorality, which for a unique reason is the worst of all faults: every other sin which a man might commit 'is outside the body'. But not this.

If a believer attaches himself physically to a woman not his wife, he degrades what is a 'shrine' (6:19) for God the Spirit. That is, 'he who fornicates sins against his own body,' with emphasis placed upon 'his own' (to idion), the wrongdoer redefines the use of his shrine, now accommodating it temporarily to a third party. Sins such as covetousness or lying are of a different order in that there is no unnatural physical triangle ? Jesus, the erring believer and a woman.

There may also be the consideration that other sins are stimulated from the 'outside' (e.g. drink, drugs or theft), whereas in sexual immorality the 'saint' employs his energies to violate God's shrine.

Paul declares that there are in Corinth numerous true shrines, each of them an individual believer in whom resides the 'Holy Spirit'. 'Your body' is probably a distributive singular standing for all in the church. Contrast 3:16 and cf. Rom. 8:23. Apart from 12:3, this is the only place in the letter where 'holy' is introduced as descriptive of the Spirit, as if to remind the Corinthians that their misconduct is an outrage.

If they do perceive that their bodies are shrines, how can they resort to women of ill repute? In the light of the important section 12:1 - 14:40, it transpires that the Corinthians are well aware of the Spirit's activity in their community, but lack discernment. Perhaps in anticipation, Paul employs their boasting as a weapon: because they 'have' 'the Holy Spirit' 'from God', they must honour their bodies and reject the notion that illicit sexual desire may be gratified.

This verse and 6:19 are implicitly Trinitarian: God (the Father) has given the Spirit to indwell the Corinthians, this transformation issuing from Christ, and his death the 'price' with which they have been 'purchased'. Nowhere else in the New Testament does the verb translated 'purchased' (hagorazo) attract the very emphatic 'at a price', a combination intended to show the Corinthians that Christ has bought them out with nothing less than his sufferings. Because they are purchased slaves, they are not at liberty to contravene the will of their Lord, their sole option being to 'glorify God' by being obedient. The singular 'body' stands for those of all in the church, as in 6:19, and 'in' implies individual response. Some English versions, deriving from relatively late Greek texts, add 'and in your spirit'. But the addition is unnecessary in that Paul is discussing the human body as such. See Fee, First Corinthians, p.249, note 6.

Although elsewhere in the New Testament, redemption is redemption from, E.g. 7:23; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Rom. 3:24; Gal. 3:13; 4:5; Eph. 1:7; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 1:18; Rev. 5:9; 14:3-4. here it signifies redemption with a view to: the believer has been acquired so that he might obey. And this is the only occasion in Paul's letters in which the Greek particle de, translated here as 'so', meaning something like 'now then', is employed. Cf. Acts 15:36. The matter is urgent.

Application

Whereas 6:12 teaches that no food is taboo, nowadays some believers shun alcohol, whereas others feel free to spend significant sums of money at the drinks counter. The truth is that because what we consume has no spiritual significance, it cannot be wrong to drink alcohol, albeit in moderation. Contrast the elaborate arguments for refusing alcohol put forward by P. Masters, Should Christians Drink: The Case for Total Abstinence (London: Wakeman Trust, 1992). Yet there is a qualification: because drunkenness is sinful, it might be wise for believers to renounce alcohol if it is a temptation.

When 1 Corinthians was written, extramarital sex seems to have been reckoned by some believers as not entirely wrong: if they were at liberty with regard to their diet, why should they not let themselves go sexually. Is this fallacy unknown nowadays? But liberty in the exercise of one natural function pertaining to the abdominal region does not mean that we possess unrestricted freedom (6:13).

The case which Paul levels against impurity relates to the saints only (6:14). Undoubtedly, for unbelievers fornication must be wrong and damaging, and it is true that being chaste often appeals to the consciences of non-Christians. Furthermore, purity avoids sexually-transmitted diseases, illegitimate children, broken relationships, divorce courts and a legion of other problems. Even so, the two approaches ? that of the New Testament and that of the world when it bends its mind to the matter ? have nothing in common. Christ 'in us' is not only 'the hope of glory' (Col. 1:27) but also our motivation and dynamic for sanctity now (cf. 1 John 3:3).

Is there a distinction between someone having an affair with an acquaintance and a man who engages a prostitute? (6:15-16). Not really, because if a Christian plays fast and loose, but not with a lady of the streets, is his sin the less offensive? The Greek for a female 'prostitute', porne, is the feminine variant of 'fornicator' (pornos, 5:9-11; 6:9; whence 'pornography'); one does not have to pay a professional to be a sinner of this type.

It is probable that the references in 6:15-16 to union with a harlot are an extreme example brought in to show what is always involved in extramarital sex, from which it follows that when Christians commit this sin they offend against this passage and the God who inspired it. And such intercourse is aggravated if the transgressor is married. In this case the Christian husband gives himself in temporary wedlock to another woman, rendering himself effectively bigamous, damaging his integrity, his marriage, his church and, worst of all, the honour of his Lord.

The irresistible logic of 6:20 is that because Christ's freehold acquisition is that of the whole man, Christians must glorify God with their bodies, having nothing to do with leasing or subletting these bodies to those with whom they have not been united in matrimony.

4. Marriage
(1 Corinthians 7:1-40)

Paul had written at an earlier date about contacts with immoral people (5:9). His letter may have been a response to an approach from Corinth for counsel about sensitive issues. Alternatively, it may have generated discussion, and even some disagreement, stimulating the church to write back to Paul, their letter possibly being conveyed by the three-man delegation mentioned in 16:17. Thus Fee, First Corinthians, p.267. Either way, he now replies to written queries (7:1).

To judge from the occurrences of 'concerning' (peri de) elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, questions have been raised about marriage (7:1,25), about meat sacrificed to idols (8:1,4), about spiritual gifts (12:1), about financial help for poorer Christians in Judea (16:1) and possibly about Apollos (16:12).

So it is that 1 Corinthians now moves into a new phase, in which Paul clarifies misapprehensions. Taking his cue from 6:12-20, which dealt with immorality, he launches into a discussion of matrimony in a chapter that seems to divide into eight sections.

Firstly, 7:1-7 gives guidance about married life. Then, 7:8-9 is directed to unmarried Christians and to those who have been bereaved. The delicate issue of divorce is raised in 7:10-11, and the situation of believers whose partners have not yet come to know the Lord is given attention in 7:12-16. The related but wider question of contentment is addressed in 7:17-24, a subject developed in 7:25-35 but with reference to those who have not married, to those who contemplate divorce and to divorcees who have in mind a further marriage. The father pondering the marriage of his daughter is considered in 7:36-38. The final verses, 7:39-40, concern the remarriage of widows.

Throughout the chapter there is an overarching motif: that the Corinthians ought to be content with their lot. The sequence is as follows:

verses 1-7: if married, stay married;
verses 8-9: if single, seek to remain un-married;
verses 10-11: stay married or, if separated, remain single;
verses 12-16: endeavour to maintain one's union with an unconverted husband or wife;
verses 17-24: the Christian is to be content with his station in life;
verses 25-35: contentment with one's lot is essential for serving the Lord;
verses 36-38: if possible, it is better for a father not to give his daughter in marriage;
verses 39-40: widows are advised not to aspire to remarriage.

Guidance about married life
(1 Corinthians 7:1-7)

It seems that, quite remarkably, some at Corinth may have been uncertain about the rightness of sexual intercourse within marriage (7:3). Paul points out that although matrimony is not evil, he would prefer his readers to remain in the same state as himself ? that is, single (7:1-2,7). He insists that although the physical aspect of marriage has to be honoured (7:3-5), it is vital for couples to make prayer a priority and to be careful to afford time for the discipline (7:5). In that he has not received from the Lord any directive about whether it is better to remain single or to marry, he gives his authoritative view, introducing the important word charisma (cf. 1:7). Because both marriage and the single state are blessings from God, he implies that single Corinthians should seek the mind of the Lord before deciding to marry (7:6-7).

'Good' means 'better', and 'to touch' signifies sexual relations. That 'good' means 'better', cf. 7:8,26; 9:15; Matt. 18:8-9; 26:24; Rom. 14:21. That 'touch' stands for sexual relations, cf. Prov. 6:29; Gen. 20:6; and Josephus, Antiquities 1.163. Unlike 7:8,11,32 and 34, the terms 'unmarried' and 'married' do not occur, possibly because the discussion focuses upon the intimacies of married life, Unlike English Bible versions, the translation offered here does not differentiate between 'husband' and 'man', or between 'wife' and 'woman'. The first pair of terms translates both a[nqrwpo? or ajnhvr ('man'), and the latter pair represent gunhv. 'touch' being introduced as an appropriate euphemism. Paul indicates that if possible, it is better to be single than married. Some (e.g. Fee First Corinthians, p.273) argue that Paul, quoting from the Corinthians' previous letter, agrees with their sentiments but not with their application. But their letter had raised more than one matter ('the things'), and it is fair to see 7:1 as leading into a complete response to these queries.

Given that he does not write as a misogynist, there have been various interpretations of 7:1. Here are two, which we shall call the 'pragmatic' and the 'ideological'.

Firstly, the 'pragmatic' view. According to Hodge, Paul considered the church to be like an army poised for battle. For believers in Corinth, a hostile city, it was no time to take husbands and wives. He holds that any other approach to chapter 7 must show that Paul estimated marriage as something like a union of animals. The apostle, he reckons, would never have discouraged matrimony unless the circumstances were inappropriate. In a manner not inconsistent with Genesis 2:18, which states that 'It is not good for man to be alone,' Paul directs his counsel to the fraught situation in which the church finds itself. Lenski takes a similar line: 'In Eden God spoke for the human race. Paul writes to Corinth, to the Christians only, and such as were living in the worst pagan surroundings.' Hodge, 1 & 2 Corinthians, p.112; Lenski, I and II Corinthians, p.273.

But does Paul really mean that when society is actively opposed to the Christian faith, the saints ought to postpone, or even repudiate, marriage? Would that not be a capitulation to the pressures of the world, inviting all manner of temptation? Peter, the other apostles and the brothers of Jesus were married, as were Priscilla and Aquila, and they all lived in difficult times. 9:5; 16:19; Matt. 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38. There is, of course, the possibility that they married before they became disciples and for that reason were in no position to match up to the 'pragmatic' interpretation of chapter 7 (cf. Matt. 8:14 and parallels). Even so, according to the Hodge-Lenski type of reconstruction, Paul would have held that it might have been better had these individuals never married, yet, given their circumstances, accepted that there was not a lot that they could do about it. The apostle saw his task, then, as that of guiding singles away from matrimony.

But this is difficult. Priscilla and Aquila, not to mention Peter and his wife, might not have taken kindly to such semi-concealed aspersions on their unions. In short, it does not appear that Paul's evaluation of the single and married states is defined by the sort of world in which many of the Lord's people then found and now find themselves. (This does not mean, of course, that circumstances are ever unimportant; cf. 7:26.) It may be concluded that marriage is not discussed at this pragmatic level.

The 'ideological' approach, which is supported by this commentary, holds that Paul's words apply to all Christians: unless one's situation suggests that staying single is difficult or impossible, the single believer should not make marriage a fixed ambition, to which principle there are no exceptions. F. F. Bruce insists that Paul was reacting to those at Corinth who preferred chastity, apparently approving their stance, yet surprising them with his 'nevertheless' in 7:2 (Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998 [reprint of the 1977 edition], p.267). Perhaps there was a pro-chastity group in the church (see notes on 7:3. Cf. Fee, First Corinthians, p.276). And this approach fits the theme of chapter 7: the Christian is to strive for contentment with his lot.

'But' is concessive: bearing in mind past 'forni?cations', by which is meant repetitive sexual misconduct, Cf. Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21. the Corinthians should see marriage as the only legitimate way by which to alleviate personal needs and thus avoid sin. So, let 'each man' and 'each woman' marry, 'have' implying sexual activity. To 'have' a woman implies a sexual relationship: cf. 5:1; 7:29; Exod. 2:1; Deut. 28:30; 2 Chr. 11:21; Isa. 13:16; 54:1 (LXX); Matt. 14:4; 22:28; Mark 6:18; 12:23; Luke 20:33; John 4:18. It might also be that in the light of the prohibition of 7:5, some married people, being denied by their partners, are in danger of looking elsewhere for gratification. If so, Paul does not merely give counsel but seeks to rectify actual or potential misconduct: if extramarital sex is wrong, so also is marriage in which sexual relations are withheld arbitrarily.

Further, in keeping with the original institution (cf. 6:16; Eph. 5:31), the apostle proffers monogamy as the only allowable standard. In approving marriage, 7:2 does not contradict 7:1 (see 7:32-35). Paul is actually calling for common sense: physical needs might be so pressing that matrimony becomes a priority.

This verse could be a response to some who held the strange belief that there should not be sexual intercourse within marriage (cf. 7:5). If so, the congre?gation may have included both libertines (cf. 15:32) and ascetics, a bizarre but not impossible meeting of extremes. Paul insists that a man and his wife have a mutual debt. Although, as Fee remarks, sexual activity may not constitute a primary duty, this aspect ought not to be forgotten, remarking that the emphasis is not on 'you owe me' but on 'I owe you'. Fee, First Corinthians, p.279.

'Authority' has occurred in 6:12, where Paul declares that he will not be mastered by any external influence. Now he indicates that a married person must allow him- or herself to be controlled to some extent by the spouse. Further, although the husband is the 'head' of his wife (11:3), in this matter he has no more than an equal right.

This verse needs to be placed alongside 6:20, where Paul shows that because a believer is the property of Christ, unauthorized sexual activity is wrong. Here, given that a believer's 'body' is the Lord's, and assuming that he is married, he has no right to deny his wife. To do so will deprive the latter of what is hers. Nor may she deny him. The appli?cation appears in the next verse.

Man and wife must not 'deprive each other'. 'Deprive' (apostereite), a stronger term than, say, 'abstain', which Paul might have employed, suggests that there is something dishonest about the severance of sexual relations within marriage, the present tense ('stop depriving') For 'defraud', cf. 6:7-8 and Mark 10:19. suggesting that some Cor?inth?ians are acting in this fashion.

But occasionally a married couple need to deny each other ' by agreement ? so that you might have leisure for prayer' ('leisure', from scholazo: cf. Matt. 12:44; Luke 11:25), peaceful prayer being of the foremost importance. Cf. Philo, On the Special Laws 3.1.

Yet abstinence is to be temporary because 'Satan', the devil considered as an enemy (cf. 5:5), will 'tempt' both husband and wife to contemplate some form of extramarital sexual activity. Paul, a bachelor, is aware that even God's good gifts can become unwitting instruments to bring down a married couple, and this because the adversary is unprin?cipled. Selecting his words delicately, the apostle indicates that where there is no physical satisfaction, immorality is possible, even the most mature believers being prone to a 'lack of control'.

The 'concession' mentioned here probably relates to 7:1-5 rather than only to 7:5. Paul does not mean that he has been permitted by the Lord to teach these things; rather, he prescribes marriage as one way ahead for the Corinthians, yet will not command it as a duty. He has no desire to see the church consisting only of married couples. The rationale appears in the remainder of the sentence.

The burden of 7:1 is expounded by a personal reference. Paul wishes all the Corinthians, men and women alike, to remain single. 'As I am' is emphatic, and he might be applying the earlier teaching of Christ (cf. Matt. 19:11): the ability to enter into a husband-wife relationship is a boon not necessarily granted to all. Paul, apparently, was not only single but was happy to keep it that way.

Thus he warns against entering into matrimony without careful thought, teaching that ultimately God overrules in such a manner that some believers elect happily to remain single, while others seek marriage, each disposition being an 'endowment [charisma] from God'. In that a charisma is a gift bestowed graciously and not because the recipient deserves it, In this letter, cavrisma occurs also in 1:7; 12:4,9,28,30-31. marriage and the single state are alike unmerited blessings. Therefore, to opt sensibly for either is no sin.

Application

To judge by 7:3-5, although Paul encourages marriage as a prophylactic against immorality, he implies that at Corinth some married couples were living as if they were singles. Although the apostle's teaching is understandable, it is not easy for us, two thousand years later, to read accurately between the lines.

Nevertheless, 7:1-7 lays down guidelines for today. According to 7:4, it appears that sexuality within marriage is to be regarded as an expression of love and not solely as the means of procreation.

Furthermore, prayer is to be taken seriously, to the extent that other matters ought to sacrificed in favour of this discipline (7:5). We have to ration our hours.

Singles ought not to feel that the world, or even the church, has put them 'on the shelf'. If they sense that they might not marry, let them pray that the Lord will diminish any desire to do so. And if he does not answer them in this way, let them take this as an indicator and keep on praying that he might lead them to the right person, and in heaven's own time. Either way, let us all allow the Lord to go in front of us rather than our going ahead of him. We need to try to identify our particular charisma.

This seventh chapter is based upon the assumption that all homosexual activity is unnatural and sinful, and that it was never part of God's plan for mankind (cf. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; Rom. 1:24-27). Churches which continue to deliberate about whether or not to receive homosexuals to communicant worship show that they do not take the New Testament seriously. The sad plight of the churches at Pergamum and Thyatira comes to mind (Rev. 2:12-16,20-25).

To the unmarried
(1 Corinthians 7:8-9)

Paul has drawn attention to himself as an unmarried man, Fee reasons that in context a[gamo? ('unmarried') denotes a widower, someone who had been 'demarried'. Accordingly, Paul is saying that those men who, like him, have lost their wives, should remain as they are (First Corinthians, pp.288-9): '? this passage suggests that formerly he very well may have been married' (p.288, n.7). The argument is plausible but inconclusive. But that a[gamo? can signify a widower as well as an unmarried person is suggested by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (London: Oxford University Press, 9th edition, 1968), p.5.
Ramsay is caustic: 'It would not be easy to find any justifi?cation for taking a[gamo? in the sense of one who, after being married, had lost his wife. Yet that sense has been championed in this passage by many commentators, who have been misled by the desire to make ajgavmoi? the masculine corresponding to chvrai?, the feminine' (Historical Commentary, p.72). a state bestowed upon him by God. Here, he focuses upon those who are unmarried: singles, widows and, no doubt, divorcees.

If marriage is not for all, nor is being alone, 7:9 enlarging upon 7:2. 'Now I say', which covers 7:8-9, points to a situation apparently not addressed by Christ during his earthly ministry (contrast 7:10-11).

According to 7:7, Paul would prefer the Corinth?ians, whether singles, divorced or widows, to remain unmarried, but accepts that to some God grants the need for marriage, yet to others gives contentment about remaining single. Here, his conscience allows him to offer himself as an example. S. Clark argues that the Greek behind 'unmarried' does in this instance refer both to those who have never married and to those in the church who, having been divorced but not having remarried, are in effect singles (Putting asunder: Divorce and remarriage in biblical and pastoral perspective. Bryntirion: Bryntirion Press, 1999, pp.279-85, n.35). The present commentary identifies with this view. For emphasis, this verse, possibly alluding to what the church had mentioned in its earlier letter, repeats the personal reference in 7:7, which is that it would be 'good' for such people to be 'even as I', their happiness being enhanced by remaining single: Paul concedes that the Corinthians have not been entirely wrong about preferring the single state. Bereaved women are given particular mention, perhaps because opportunities for second marriages might not have been remote (cf. 7:40).

Nevertheless, Corinthian perceptions are imperfect. The burden of 7:2 is amplified by the present verse, which admits that there may be times when unmarried people find self-control a problem.

Therefore, if needs insist, singles in the church should proceed to matrimony, '? for it is better to marry than to be inflamed.' If marriage is the only way by which an otherwise spreading fire can be put out, so be it.

Application

If we are happily single, we should thank God for granting us such a blessing. If we are married, we should be thankful to the Lord for his leading. This applies to each and every Christian. But Paul commands neither state.

If it is the case, as the present commentary supposes, that the 'unmarried' mentioned in 7:8 would have included believers who prior to conversion had been divorced ? and such would almost certainly have been present in the Corinthian church ? it follows that Paul allows that they may marry again. To express it another way, he does not issue a blanket denial of remarriage after divorce. Those who would deny that the apostle had divorcees in mind in his discussion need to prove their point, and this could be a difficult task.

Divorce
(1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

Attention is now given to those who are 'married', this verb translating gegamekosin, a participial form that normally indicates that a completed action has an enduring consequence. Paul informs the church that because the commitments undertaken by those who are married are for life, no wife should contemplate divorce. But if there has been a split, yet without adultery, an estranged wife is not to seek a fresh union. Paul takes as his authority our Lord's teaching during his earthly ministry.

A literal translation is offered: 'woman' being a wife, and 'man' a husband. Unlike 7:6, Paul does not inform 'married' believers (in contrast to 'the rest' in 7:12) about what they are permitted to do; he will 'direct' or instruct them (paraggello). Apparently, some were contemplating divorce.

The apostle relays to the church what Jesus had taught about marriage and divorce (Paul, clearly, was aware of the details of our Lord's ministry; cf. Acts 13:23-31; 20:35). Paul's directives about marriage and divorce are consistent with the Gospel data. May we not infer that the enigmatic statement of Luke 1:1 concerning the 'many' would-be biog?raphers of Jesus was not unknown to Paul? The requirement is that a married woman 'is not to be separated', by which is meant terminating her union with a view to beginning a new relationship. 'Be separated' takes a 'middle' sense, 'to separate oneself from', and does not necessarily mean that the other person had initiated divorce proceedings at the expense of the divorced partner. See W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2nd edition, 1979), p.890. She considers this radical step even though her husband, it seems, has not committed adultery. Had this occurred, Paul might have mentioned it, thus legitimating the woman's irreversible separation and allowing a second marriage. What he says, then, is that a wife is not to leave her spouse if he is innocent of immorality.

A marriage contract, dated to about A.D. 66, about a decade after 1 Corinthians was written, has been recovered from the sands of Egypt. The papyrus records that Chaeremon, a young husband-to-be, worked out with his prospective father-in-law, Sisois, who should receive what in the event of Sisois' daughter, Thaisarion, and he separating and then proceeding to a legal divorce. Separation was understood as the irrevocable end of the proposed union rather than a makeshift, temporary alienation. Loeb, Select Papyri, vol. 1, p.16; cf. Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, pp.290,2016. Clark makes the point that 'a woman's separating ... in Roman law constituted the act of divorce' (Putting Asunder, p.150). And Corinth was a Roman colony. It is this which is prohibited by 7:10 on the proviso that there has not been an irretrievable breakdown of the union.

Apparently, among the Jews it was not permitted for a woman to seek divorce (cf. Deut. 24:1). Cf. Josephus, Antiquities 15.259. But it was otherwise among non-Jews, and Paul addresses himself to a church composed largely of Gentiles.

Paul realizes that the circumstances of some women may have been leading them to consider divorce even though their husbands have not been unfaithful. His directive, consistent with Christ's teaching, is that if a marriage is deemed irreparable for reasons other than infidelity, the prospective ex-wife must 'remain unmarried': she is to launch out into the future as a single person. If an aggrieved wife were to leave her spouse because of his infidelity, she would, according to our Lord's teaching (Matt. 5:32; 19:9), be permitted to remarry, and Paul would not have written these words. 'But if she is separated' might just point to a regrettable possibility rather than to something that has happened. The apostle, looking ahead, indicates there is no question of her as a believer seeking a new union. So why not seek to 'be reconciled to the man' who married her and who has not cheated on her?

Why does Paul state that a woman who separates must 'remain unmarried', in apparent contradiction to the 'exceptive clauses' in the Gospels which allow remarriage after divorce? It may be that in a sense, because adultery has not occurred, the woman remains married in the sight of God although not in the perception of society (or, necessarily, of the church). This being so, she must consider carefully the possibility of returning to her spouse to try to make a fresh start. But if she finds that he is unwilling, she has to remain single: should she remarry, she will transgress the teaching of Christ as reflected by Paul. Mark 10:12; Luke 16:18. Because she is separated and is, so to speak, in a twilight zone, neither unmarried nor divorced, she may not seek a new union.

Paul then instructs a husband never to 'dismiss the woman': he is to exert himself to maintain his union until death supervenes (cf. 7:39; Rom. 7:1-3).

Application

It seems strange that in his prohibition of remarriage after divorce, the apostle directs his gaze initially to married women within the church rather than to husbands. Does this indicate that he knows more about the local situation than he says? The Corinthians must have been a difficult congregation.

These verses warn husbands and wives to be careful if their marriages grow weary. Sadly, it is not unknown for the people of the world to change their partners in order to bring excitement and a fresh start into their lives. Believers must not think like this.

Christians with unconverted partners
(1 Corinthians 7:12-16)

Corinthians whose partners are unbelievers are described as 'the rest' (7:12), probably because they are the only group in the church whose situation has not yet been reviewed (the unmarried, divorced and widows, 7:8-9; those who are married, 7:10-11). Because the subject of marriage is so important, and because no problems can be ignored, here Paul directs that the readers of the letter must endeavour to remain as they are.

It could be that the letter sent by the church to Paul (7:1) mentioned the situation which he now addresses. The apostle, ever positive, issues a challenge: a legitimate relationship which cannot be without strain may nevertheless be fruitful. Why, then, end it? His introductory 'I myself say' (7:12) indicates that he is probing a situation not addressed by Jesus during his ministry: tensions between Christians and unconverted partners. Therefore, he gives his inspired and authoritative view (cf. 14:37).

'The rest' would be those who came to know the Lord after they were married but whose idolatrous partners have not yet shared their faith. Therefore, these believers constitute a distinct group. There would have been a number of them at Corinth, and perhaps some were considering divorce as the next step.

Paul seems to have been aware that Jesus had said nothing about this type of problem, a view supported by the silence of the Gospels on the matter. But the apostle must have known that Christ proposed to complete his teaching ministry after his ascension (cf. John 16:13; Acts 1:1). And when he composed this seventh chapter Paul was conscious that he was reflecting the mind of the Lord, which is why he gives a definite instruction to a Christian man whose wife is 'unbelieving' (apistos = 'without faith'): the husband must honour the status quo if she is happy to do so, and is not allowed to disturb the marital bed, as implied by 'has' (cf. 7:2). If she has no wish to end the union and is not unfaithful, he must reciprocate.

Further, if a believing woman's husband is apistos, her sole option is to preserve the union ? if this is also his wish: '? let her not release the man.' But it is implied that if a non-Christian spouse wishes to end the marriage, the believing partner may acquiesce and, should it be desirable, remarry. Paul makes this point powerfully in 7:15.

And there is a reason for a believer honouring his or her union with a non-Christian: the marriage is honourable, and the children, if any, are legitimate. Clark says little about 7:14, yet states that it 'explains that, far from the believer contracting moral defilement from the unbeliever, the believer has a sanctifying influence upon his or her spouse and their children' (Putting Asunder, p.156). I would, however, suggest that husband and wife were set apart when they married, their sanctification having nothing to do with Christian influence subsequent to the wedding.

The Greek verb behind 'has been sanctified' is hegiastai, perfect passive from hagiazo, 'to separate' (cf. hagios: 'saint'): the 'unbelieving' partner remains set apart for the believing spouse. Paul teaches that the ruling principle for a Christian in this situation is that the unconverted partner is already 'sanctified' or rendered holy. Further, the means of sanctification was the believing spouse: 'sanctified' 'in the woman' or 'in the brother'.

'Since otherwise' (epei ara) is pivotal (cf. 5:10). Paul contemplates an impossible situation: had the union between the two not been holy when they were married, their issue would have been unclean at birth. But insisting that 'now' (meaning 'as things are') the offspring of such marriages ' are holy', or 'sanctified' (hagiai estin), the apostle argues that because the union must have been holy at inception, in that an unholy union could not have generated confessedly 'holy' children, it remains so. Therefore, if possible, the marriage is to be preserved.

But in what respect would such children have been 'sanctified', or 'holy', rather than being 'unclean'? Among Bible-loving Christians it seems that there have been three main views, which we shall designate respectively as, firstly, 'covenant', secondly, 'solidarity', and, thirdly, 'legal holiness'. This commentary will try to sketch each view, albeit over-simplifying, while opting for the third.

1. The 'covenant' approach

This is often held to provide some justification for the baptism of the infant children of Christian parents, it being argued that, in J. Murray's words, believing parents and their children 'share the ?holiness? connection and privilege. It is a ?holiness? that evinces the operation of the covenant and representative principle.' J. Murray, Christian Baptism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1974), pp.67-8.

But if infant baptism was practised at Corinth, why does Paul not mention the baptisms of the (sanctified) children to whom he refers? Further, and perhaps more importantly, would not this pattern of argument presuppose the baptism of an unconverted spouse on the ground that, according to this verse, he was deemed to be as 'holy' as his offspring?

2. The 'solidarity' interpretation

According to D. Kingdon, 'Positively, 1 Corinthians 7:14 does allow us to state that, even where there is only one believing partner in a marriage, the children who are born are in a state of privilege, for they come under the sanctifying influence of the Gospel.' He cites Romans 11:16 and Numbers 15:21 to establish the point. D. Kingdon, Children of Abraham (Hayward's Heath / Worthing: Carey Publications & H. E. Walter, 1973), p.90. See also Fee, First Corinthians, p.300; A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1956 [first published, 1907]), p.951. The meaning is that within the intimacy of their family units, the children and unbelieving partners of Christians are alike exposed to the gospel and therefore may come to faith (cf. 7:16; Rom. 10:14; 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15). Their situation is not that of so many who have no contact with the truth of God.

In response, whereas Romans 11:16 predicts the conversion of Israel (see Rom. 11:15,25), certainty does not feature in 7:14 and the immediate context, in which it is declared that a believing spouse might become the instrument of conversion of his or her partner (cf. 1 Peter 3:1). If, then, for Paul the children's sanctification is actual rather than possible, it would seem that he means something else.

3. 'Legal holiness'

The third approach focuses upon the marital unions of 'the rest' (7:12), couples who are not living sinfully, and upon the legitimacy of children born within wedlock. Thus John Gill (1697-1771) writes, 'These words are to be understood of matrimonial holiness, even of the very act of marriage, which, in the language of the Jews, is frequently expressed by being sanctified; the word vdq to sanctify, is used in innumerable places in the Jewish writings, to espouse; and in the same sense the apostle uses the word aJgiavzw ['to sanctify'] here, and the words may be rendered, the unbelieving husband is espoused, or married, to the wife, or rather, has been espoused, for it relates to the act of marriage past, as valid; and the unbelieving wife has been espoused to the husband.' J. Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity: Or A System of Evangelical Truths, Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures (Arkansas: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1995 [reprint of the 1839 edition]), p.907. Cf. Mishnah: Nashim ('Women'), Kiddushim ('Holy things').

According to 7:14, an unbelieving partner has been set apart, or 'sanctified', 1:2 employing the same term when defining the spiritual status of the Cor?inth?ians (hegiasmenois). Yet it may be argued that 7:14 must have something else in mind.

Whatever else Corinthian 'sanctified' unbelievers might be, they are just that ? unbelievers. Paul does not suggest that they possess (unwittingly), or will possess, any spiritual benefits conferred via believing partners.

Nor can it be supposed that the sanctification of the children is of a type other than the holiness of their unbelieving mothers or fathers. A shift in the frame of reference would lead to confusion, from which it may be concluded that the similarity of holi?ness between unbelieving parents and their children becomes the crux of the issue: the latter are not subjectively pure and forensically justified any more than their sanctified yet unbelieving parents. Rather, the sanctity of each child derives from being the offspring of its legitimately married mother and father, one now a Christian and the other still an unbeliever.

It needs to be remembered that 'sanctification' means being set apart for a special purpose, as in 1 Timothy 4:4-5, which refers to food on the table. There, sanctification cannot indicate salvation. Why not, then, a shift in reference from 1:2 to 7:14, Paul being versatile with words? If so, it appears that the latter verse assures those united to unbelievers that because their partners honour their marriages (cf. Gen. 2:24), there is no need to seek divorce (contrast John 4:18).

In sum, an unbelieving husband was sanctified (that is, separated for his wife) on the occasion of his wedding, rather than later, when his spouse was converted. Happily, her conversion has not induced him to end the relationship.

Now consider the union from the perspective of the married Christian woman with whom Paul's chain of reasoning begins. At her marriage she set herself apart for her husband. The fact that she subsequently came to know the Lord and that her partner remains in un?belief is in this context irrelevant, not detracting from the sanctity of their original union when they were both functioning idolaters. This is why their offspring remain holy: the latter were not conceived in uncleanness.

1 Thessalonians 4:3-7 appears to confirm this, Fee (First Corinthians) does not mention 1 Thessalonians 4 in his discussion of 7:14, thereby weakening his approach. 'sanctification' (hagiasmos) occurring three times in these verses, on each occasion signifying purity. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that 7:14 occurs within the same frame as the passage in 1 Thessa?lonians. The 'rest' (7:12) are reminded that the married believer, a co-parent with an unbeliever, is not living sinfully. Therefore he has no need to be worried about his marital status and about the legitimacy of the children.

Although Paul would not have rested his case upon rabbinic belief, Jewish tradition as well as his own thinking derived ultimately from the Old Testament. If so, the apostle's words may be interpreted in terms of what many Jews thought about marital sanctification (cf. John 8:41; Acts 15:29). Since children were deemed 'holy' when conceived and born within marriage, it may be imagined what kind of impact this verse would have had upon a church containing a not inconsiderable Jewish element (Acts 18:8). Nor would it have been a mystery to converted Greeks. Interestingly, Lenski holds that the unbelieving partner had been sanctified because he was 'party to a Christian marriage' and that the children were holy because they were born in 'Christian wedlock' (I and II Corinthians, pp.292-3).

Going back to 7:14, what remains true for the unbelieving husband and his Christian wife applies if the situation is reversed: the unconverted wife is also 'sanctified'.

The apostle considers marriages in which unbelieving husbands or wives are reacting adversely because their partners are Christians. In his mind's eye, 'the unbeliever separates'. By this is meant a permanent break or a separation leading up to it. Either way, the deserted Christian partner has a problem.

Thus, if the unconverted spouse does depart, the abandoned believer can do no other than acquiesce: 'let him [the unbeliever] be separated'. Let the unbeliever be allowed to go if this is his unalterable wish; the abandoned Christian need not struggle to retrieve the irretrievable. The union has been ended by someone who does not know the Lord.

The deserted 'brother' or 'sister' must not reckon that he or she has 'been brought into bondage by suchlike'. The Greek behind 'brought into bondage', dedoulotai, is a perfect passive verb which means being forced into permanent slavery. If the abandoned believer considers himself tied for the rest of his life to the vanished partner, the fictional marriage bond will be a 'bondage', a type of servitude.

Paul brings relief: the abandoned 'brother' or 'sister' need not conclude that he or she has been enslaved for ever to the departed partner: the marriage bond has been severed by desertion and (doubtless) by adultery and perhaps cruelty. To repeat, separation means the termination of a marriage rather than a couple living apart for a time with a view to possibly getting together again.

Further, although the two English words 'bond' and 'bondage' sound much the same, they have different meanings: whereas a 'bond' signifies union, 'bondage' is enslavement. Neither Paul nor the Bible generally teaches that the marriage bond is bondage. Here, the apostle's contention is that a bond existing in name only has become bondage. Therefore, the intolerable tie should be considered at an end.

It should be noted that Paul is concerned solely about a marriage ended by separation and presumed infidelity. Although for him a legal ratification of a divorce would have been a public recognition of what had happened to the union, his simple point here is that since permanent desertion is tantamount to divorce, Consistent with Roman law. See Clark, Putting Asunder, p.141. the Christian is unburdened and free to remarry, notwithstanding the preferred course outlined by 7:11. Fee reasons that if, according to 7:11, a divorcing woman who remains unreconciled to her husband must not marry again, so it must be for the innocent Christian whose unbelieving partner has departed (First Corinthians, p.303). But are the frames of reference the same? In 7:10-11, Paul refers the Cor?inth?ians to the teaching of the Lord, which for us is encapsulated in Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18. None of these passages refers either to the predicament of an individual spouse who has been abandoned, or to a 'mixed marriage'. The point is that, whereas the counsel proffered in 7:11 does reflect Jesus' directive, the situation presumed by 7:15 is not covered by the Gospels. Therefore, it seems precarious to employ 7:11 as a key to 7:15.
Further, although it is true that, as Fee remarks, for Paul 'Remarriage is not an issue at all', because the apostle is dealing with an immediate problem, this does not pre-empt a 'one-step-at-a-time' implication. Eventually, the abandoned and now unmarried believer will have to provide for the future. See P. Barnett, 1 Corinthians: Holiness and Hope of a Rescued People (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2000), p.118.

The conclusion to 7:15 makes clear what has been implied: God has 'called' his people to be in 'in peace'. Should the unbelieving spouse be compliant, the Christian must be comfortable with the union. But if the former departs, the latter need not be troubled about his revised status. The tie having been broken, he is not now a slave to the impossible and undesirable. In the wake of the trauma of desertion, the Christian will accept that it is not the will of God that he should stand in the way of the departing partner ? and the Lord will grant peace. Fee attaches 'God has called you in peace' (7:15) to 7:16, giving something like this: 'But God has called you in peace ? for what do you know, woman, whether you will save the man? Or what do you know, man, whether you will save the woman?' That is, the last phrase of 7:15 defers to the principal thesis of the section: that the Corinthians should be content and at peace if unbelieving partners are happy to stay (First Corinthians, p.304).
However, Paul is not discussing a situation in which an unbeliever desires to remain married to a Christian. He indicates that an abandoned believer may console himself with the awareness that God has called him to be at peace.

An added incentive is given for working hard at marriage with an unbeliever: if man and wife continue together, the Christian might become the means of the other's conversion. To 'save' is a relative term, a spouse who is a believer becoming an instrument of salvation. Cf. 9:22; Rom. 11:14; 1 Tim. 4:16; James 5:20; Jude 23. 'For what do you know?' might be a positive expression of hope. Cf. 2 Sam. 12:22; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9. Because nothing is too hard for the Lord, the Christian cannot be certain that he will not introduce his partner to the Saviour. Cf. James 3:18.

Application

This section, 7:12-16, is not concerned primarily about marriage following divorce. Paul is burdened about the believer whose unconverted spouse has left him or her. Let these verses be taken into account if and when the question of a further marriage arises ? but they are to be considered alongside the Gospels.

This commentary takes the view that Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 permit rather than encourage divorce on the ground of adultery, and that 7:12-16 does not contradict the teaching of Christ (cf. the exposition of 7:27-28).

Yet divorce because of adultery is not essential, an aggrieved spouse being under no scriptural compulsion to take this route. Perhaps it should also be said that neither a divorced nor a divorcing Christian ought to think quickly about a new marriage.

Furthermore, a church and its minister should be careful when invited to host the marriage service of a divorced Christian. Although it is not inadmissible, elders must not be manipulated.

It goes without saying (or does it?) that a church should be involved neither in the wedding of unbelievers nor of a Christian who marries a non-Christian (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14). The argument that a church setting may lead to conversion is unconvincing.

The interpretation of 7:14 offered here assumes that Paul believed that the marriage of one man to one woman, even when contracted in the darkness of unbelief, is not without sanctity. Today, as ever, when unbelievers wed they do so in the sight of God ? even though the Almighty may not be mentioned by the officiating registrar in a civil service.

Christian contentment
(1 Corinthians 7:17-24)

The key words in this section are 'calling' and 'called' (from kaleo), which occur in verses 17, 18 (twice), 20 (twice), 21, 22 (twice) and 24 (cf. 1:9; 7:15). Thus far in chapter 7, Paul has insisted that single Cor?inthians should, if possible, remain unmarried and that those who are married must work at maintaining their unions. Now he insists that, whatever their station in life, their standing in Christ has rendered social differences irrelevant (cf. 3:23).

To expound the principle, Paul remarks on Jewish circumcision, or the lack of it, and slavery, as opposed to being free. His concern in each case is primarily sociological rather than theological, which accounts for the dispassionate way in which he advances both contrasts. Being a Jew or a Gentile is no more important than being a slave or free, or being married or unmarried: the reality of life 'in Christ' towers over and controls everything else.

Verse 16 could be a parenthesis, with Paul floating the possibility of an unconverted spouse coming to know the Lord. If so, 7:15 declares that someone whose unconverted partner has abandoned him is to be comfortable about his de facto single state, while 7:17 informs the Corinthians that they are not to struggle to change their personal circumstances; each believer's vocation has been 'assigned' to him by 'the Lord'. If, then, God is in control of the Cor?inth?ians' lives (cf. 3:22), let them be content with providence even if they do not find themselves as favourably placed as others (cf. Acts 17:26-27).

Paul indicates that the call of God, previously issued to and received by the church, still holds, as indicated by the perfect tense, kekleken, 'has called'. This call would either be an inward summons to faith in Christ, as in 1:2, or, to judge by 7:20, the divine appointment to the real-life situations in which the Corinthians find themselves ? or perhaps both: God has called them to faith and also to where he has decided they will earn their bread. Therefore, they are obliged to live for Christ where they are, none being at liberty to complain that if his situation were different he would be a better disciple. 'No!', declares Paul ? and he offers an application in the next verse.

The apostle informs the congregation that 'I order' this principle 'in all the churches'. 'Order', from diatassomai, a verb in the middle voice and possibly suggesting personal involvement, is strong: Paul displays the authority given to him by Christ, warning the Corinthians that they need to be careful not to set themselves against other churches which do respect his ministry. Cf. 4:17; 11:16; 14:33; for other instances of 'order' see 9:14; 11:34; 16:1; Gal. 3:19; Titus 1:5. With an eye to upholding his office, he teaches his readers both what to believe and how they should behave.

Because the Corinthians are to be content with their lot, a circumcised Jew in the church is not to seek the surgical removal of the sign of circumcision. Cf. 1 Maccabees 1:15; Josephus, Antiquities 12.241. See D. Prior, The Message of 1 Corinthians: Life in the Local Church (Leicester IVP, 1999 [BST series, first published 1985]), p.131, note 47. Equally, if an uncircumcised man has been called by the Lord, he should not seek circumcision. Here, Paul may be reflecting upon converted Pharisees who had sought to convince baptized Gentiles to do just this. Acts 15:1,5; Gal. 5:3; 6:12.

Whereas Paul has allowed that single people may marry, and although a married person may have to accept that he is effectively single if his spouse has deserted him, and although the apostle will concede that a Christian slave may seek emancipation (7:21), there are no exceptions in this particular situation: the states of circumcision and uncircumcision are to remain. Were the apostle to have permitted an uncircumcised Greek in the church to undergo the rite, he would have exposed that individual to the warning of Galatians 5:2. And in the light of an imminent Judaizing threat which will be dealt with in 2 Corinth?ians, Paul would have ruined his ministry.

In short, converted Jews and Gentiles are to remain such, both circumcision and uncircumcision being 'nothing', lacking the status of divine law. At Corinth, what is essential is 'the observance of the commandments of God', as brought out by 'rather' (translating the adversative alla). For Paul, the command to Abraham and his children to be circumcised is not a requirement for male believers: together with their sisters in the Lord, such are the spiritual children of the patriarch, irrespective of race (cf. Gal. 3:29). But what are 'the commandments of God'? Paul, who apparently expects that the Corinthians will understand him, almost certainly means that the example of Jesus and the whole body of teaching being deposited by the Lord in the churches retain the force of law (cf. 9:20-21). A remarkable application of this principle has arisen already (6:14-15): in that Christ has redeemed our bodies, and because these bodies will be transformed by the Lord, Christians must not indulge in immorality. The Seventh Commandment (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18) lacks this rationale.

In the first century A.D. there was an almost insurmountable barrier of mutual loathing between Gentiles and Jews: the former were held in odium as unclean, and Jews were perceived as folk who kept themselves aloof but who did not always live in the way that their law demanded (cf. Rom. 1:18-32; 2:17-24). And when Paul first arrived in Corinth, he was confronted by Jewish-Greek tensions (cf. Acts 18:15,17). Now, he indicates that circumcision or the lack of it are unimportant, a sentiment which would have occasioned deep shock among many outside the church ? and perhaps to not a few within. For him, Jewish-Gentile tensions plus Old Testament ritual are in Christ totally dead and ought to be buried by all concerned.

Two emphases may rest upon 'calling' and 'called'. Although these words usually refer to the sovereign act of the Spirit in drawing men to faith, E.g. 1:2,9; Eph. 1:18; 4:1,4; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Peter 1:10. here 'calling' may mean vocation: to interpret it as referring to the call of the gospel would give the superfluous idea that believers should remain believers.

Let the Corinthian, then, work out his faith, to which he has been called, 'in' his day-to-day 'calling'.

Unlike 7:20, the call mentioned in this verse is almost certainly the call to faith: 'Were you called, being a slave?' The question accepts that even being a slave is an instance of divine vocation, whence it follows that the Christian bondservant is not to be too concerned about his lowly station, and is not to rankle beneath his burden: it is not impossible for him to live for Christ (cf. Philem. 12). On the other hand, if a slave can obtain his freedom, he ought to 'exploit' the opportunity. ma`llon, 'rather', is elative ? 'by all means'.

The principle that justifies acquiescence in remaining a slave is that the one who was such when originally 'called in the Lord', yet who is unable to achieve emancipation, remains 'the freedman of the Lord'. Still a slave, he has been released by Jesus from the bondage of sin. Cf. Rom. 6:6,17-22. 'Called in the Lord' is emphatic, stressing the dignity of the believing slave, a man knowingly at the bottom of the social heap.

Equally, the one who is free and has come to know the Saviour is now 'Christ's slave', his spiritual freedom demanding obedient service. Cf. Eph. 6:6; 1 Peter 2:16; Rev. 1:1; 22:3. He is not to reckon himself superior to the slave with whom he might break bread at the Lord's Table, and is not to allow his status to deflect him from service for the Lord.

The statement of 6:20 is repeated: 'You have been purchased at a price,' yet with another application. The concern of 6:20 was to show that because the Corinthian, once a slave to sin, has been purchased, he is not at liberty to abuse his body. But in the present verse Paul has in his sights both slaves and freemen: Christ's purchase of the believer is a matter of being bought out of an old situation and into a new relationship, two attributes of which are liberty and responsibility.

Thus, although Christian slaves are to aspire to manumission (7:21), free men ? now purchased slaves of Jesus ? are to struggle against becoming the property of others: 'Do not become the slaves of men.' They must not sell themselves, whatever the pressures and whatever the apparent advantages.

But would there have been some in the Corinthian church who considered selling themselves? We may never know. Perhaps, then, the prohibition is to be understood metaphorically. As Prior remarks, '? young, impressionable Christians were allowing ... their discipleship to become a matter of following accepted practices, certain patterns of behaviour, cultural shibboleths.' Prior, The Message of 1 Corinthians, p.131. If to be 'of Paul', 'of Apollos' or 'of Cephas' (1:12) implies an erring commitment, even a species of captivity, Paul may just have had this in mind.

In a near repetition of 7:20, the situation in which or perhaps to which the Lord has called an individual Corinthian is not to be disturbed, however irksome it might appear to be. What he is, what he has been called to do to earn his bread, and where he lives do not have an adverse effect on his relationship with the Lord. Indeed, his oneness with Christ is to be worked out where he finds himself.

'With God' means 'by God's side': the Corinthians are permanently near their heavenly Father. The Greek para; qew`/ means 'near' or 'beside' God. They cannot be more secure.

Application

The principle of contentment might appear strange (7:17,20,24). After all, what is wrong with wanting to be upwardly mobile, ever chasing a higher income and securing enhanced purchasing power? But Paul was sensitive to the perils of being too keen for an upward improvement in personal circumstances. Further, he was aware that wealth sometimes corrupts. E.g. Luke 16:14; 1 Tim. 6:9-10,17-19; 2 Tim. 3:2; Rev. 18:3,19 Climbing social and economic ladders was not for him necessarily beneficial. It follows that 7:17-24 should be an encouragement to those for whom advancement may be difficult. Wherever we are, the Lord is not far away.

Christians ought to ponder 7:23 b. In today's pressurized society some find themselves in jobs that offer excellent remuneration but demand much of their time, including the Lord's Day. If so, they should ask themselves what they need to do to breathe in the oxygen of regular worship among God's people. But if they have no alternative to working on the first day of the week, it is no sin.

And it is vital to make time for personal and family prayer and recreation. If we have young children, let us guard the fleeting years. Should we fail here we shall live to regret it. Furthermore, neither a married nor a single man or woman can experience contentment simply by having a more-than-adequate income. Nor should a reasonable standard of living be regarded as an end in itself. After all, because lifestyle ought to be seen only as a means, it is incumbent on each of us to work out for ourselves how we can balance our time, our family commitments, our pay and expenditure, and our active service for the Lord. We neglect Paul's advice at our cost.

First and second marriages
(1 Corinthians 7:25-35)

'Concerning' (peri de), which opens 7:25, extends the flow of thought of 7:8-16, which focuses upon single people (7:8-9), divorce (7:10-11) and believers with unconverted partners (7:12-16). A digression about the call of God to contentment has appeared in 7:17-24. Paul may now respond to the church's earlier letter to him (7:1), requesting counsel on various matters. Perhaps some Corinthians were identifying asceticism with purity and were under the impression that sanctity involved the repudiation of marital relations. With acknowledgements to Fee, First Corinthians, p.324. Although such an approach might be difficult to reconcile with the clear indication that there was immorality in the church (5:1; 6:18), such a paradox would not have been impossible (cf. 3:1-3).

Paul counsels rather than directs, even though, as an apostle in receipt of divine mercy, his advice is tantamount to instruction (7:25). An unmarried girl is blameless if she takes a husband, as is a divorced person seeking remarriage (7:26-28a). Nevertheless, Paul would like to 'spare' everybody the burdens which marriage must bring, given the state of the society in which the Corinthians live (7:28b prob?ably reiterating 7:26). The last part of the section, 7:29-35, is explanatory, setting out the reason that Paul proffers such advice: because this age must pass away, it is better to serve the Lord without distraction.

Counsel is directed to 'maidens', virgins who, in the light of the next verse, contemplate betrothal. It may be that Paul is responding to a query about marriage, in that the Greek text gives the definite article, 'the', before 'maidens' (peri ... ton parthenon), suggesting that the younger women at Corinth might have been the focus of his discussion. Concerning such, the apostle divulges that he does not 'have an injunction from the Lord', meaning that he has received no instruction from his Master about such individuals. Also, he seems to acknowledge that when the Lord was on earth, Jesus did not address this type of situation (cf. 7:10,12).

But the apostle has 'been pitied' in order to be 'faithful'. Therefore, he gives his 'opinion' (gnome), aware that Christ is speaking through him and that he, as one who has been the object of divine com?passion, will accurately reflect the mind of his Lord.

Yet why does he say it is an 'opinion', and not an instruction? It may be that Paul is being tactful in order to deflect the arrogance of those intent on raking up circumstantial evidence to show that he always wants his own way. If so, he employs irony to appeal to the Corinthians to agree with him: after all, the Lord has not found him unreliable. Secondly, in that marriage and the single state are voluntary, Paul, following the precedent set by Jesus, will not command.

'Therefore', as someone who had responded to the mercy extended to him, Paul gives his opinion. 'Good', meaning 'better', carries over from 7:8 and is repeated for emphasis, the apostle stressing that his advice will be to the advantage of the Corinthians. Just for the moment he floats before them one of the benefits of remaining single. 'Man' means 'person', whether male or female, all being targeted by Paul's counsel, and 'as he is' translates houtos, 'just so'.

'Compulsion' (anagke = distress exerting pressure) points to difficulties experienced by the Cor?inth?ians, or possibly to impending problems. Either way, a further consideration in favour of the single state is that matrimony might be hazardous, given the 'present' dangers facing the church. Cf. the same verb in Rom. 8:38; 2 Thess. 2:2; Heb. 9:9. In the light of present afflictions, will it be wise for a single person to assume such a responsibility?

From 7:26 alone it is impossible to ascertain what the 'compulsion' might have been. Perhaps Paul realized that the spread of the gospel must lead to persecution, of which he had much experience. Cf. 'compulsion' in 2 Cor. 6:4; 12:10; 1 Thess. 3:3-4. Although the Corinthians found themselves in the final, eschatological age (7:29-31), the pressure to which Paul refers seems to have been present rather than impending (cf. 3:22). One interesting suggestion is that the apostle, writing this letter possibly in A.D. 55, the year after Nero had become emperor, believed that Rome would soon hurl its fury at the churches (cf. 1 Peter 4:12). Clark, Putting Asunder, p.294.

The principle set out in 7:26 is applied to a married person, as also to a divorcee (cf. 7:18,21). If a Cor?inthian happens to be tied to a wife, he should not 'seek [or, should 'stop seeking'] release'. Because marriage is to endure until death parts the partners (cf. 7:39), weary husbands are not to try to end their unions. But if a marriage has been ended by divorce, the ex-husband ought to remain single: any search to attract a new partner must come to a halt.

The related Greek noun lysis and verb lelysai in, respectively, 'Do not seek release' and 'Are you released from a woman?' signify the cutting of a bond. Cf. Matt. 21:2; Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30. Paul's assumption is that a dissolution of the marital tie does not occur at death; rather, the two partners leave each other to go their separate ways.

Nowhere in the Bible does 'released' mean the conclusion of a marriage through the decease of husband or wife, the reason being that bereavement is not understood in such a superficial fashion. When the Lord took Ezekiel's wife from him, 'the desire of his eyes', the prophet was not released from her (Ezek. 24:16-18). See Lenski, I and II Corinthians, p.313. Arndt and Gingrich dispute the point, giving only two inaccessible, non-biblical examples (A Greek-English Lexicon, p.483). Liddell and Scott remain silent on the matter (A Greek-English Lexicon, pp.1068-9). Death is not an act. Although in surviving Greek literature 'release' is not a synonym for divorce, Paul introduces the term here with reference to those in the church who seek to untie their marriage bonds or to tie themselves yet again in marriage: With acknowledgements to Fee, First Corinthians, p.331. they need to rethink.

The concession that 'if you do marry, you have not sinned' qualifies 7:27, showing that Paul again offers no more than authoritative counsel (cf. 7:25). Not contradicting the directive that a divorced man, specifically someone 'released' by his former wife (7:27), will be wise not to remarry, he gives his consent to such an individual for a further union: if it does happen, it will not necessarily be wrong. Here Paul appears to assume that the man's ex-wife, rather than he, has adulterated their union. These comments will be unacceptable to those who believe that a divorcee may never remarry. But the burden of proof remains with them. Can it be proved conclusively that the divorced person mentioned in 7:27b is not being addressed in 7:28a? This is the nub of the issue, and it cannot properly be sidelined.

Apparently, the apostle writes in the awareness that during his ministry Jesus did not refer explicitly to such a situation. See Matt. 5:31-32; 19:9; Mark 10-11-12; Luke 16:18. As a trusted servant, Paul addresses himself to a Corinthian real-life situation.

Further, '? if a maiden marries, she has not sinned.' His negative attitude is due in part to an awareness that marriage will never lack stress. Probably restating the assertion of 7:26 concerning 'the present compulsion', 'such people' ? divorcees and unmarried younger women ? must accumulate 'trouble for the flesh'. By 'flesh' might be meant human nature rather than the body. Paul, convinced that any marriage must come under pressure and wishing to defend the church from difficulties, discourages matrimony: 'I am sparing you.'

Paul digresses (7:29-35), explaining his counsel: ' time' is 'limited', or 'shortened' (7:29-31), and he desires his readers to be without distractions as they anticipate the future. Such is the seriousness of either marrying or staying single that he cannot refrain from 'saying' so. The passive participle synestalmenos behind 'limited' occurs in another form in Acts 5:6, where the body of Ananias is said to have been wrapped up prior to removal. So here: available 'time', or, 'season' (kairos), will soon cease. Cf. Jer. 16:1-4; Matt. 24:22; Mark 13:20.

Further, because a 'time' can hardly be an event, it is likely that Paul points neither to death nor to the coming of Christ. Rather, he probably has in mind the vexed seasons through which the churches travel in this world (cf. 7:26). The Corinthians should not exaggerate the importance of marriage. Cf. Matt. 24:38 and Luke 17:27, concerning a world that disregards eternity and for which marriage is usually a priority.

Therefore, those with 'women' (meaning 'wives') are 'from now on' to live 'as those who have not', that is, as single people. As in 7:30,31, this is rhetoric and is not to be taken literally, the meaning being that Corinthian married men are to honour their unions, yet not considering marriage and family life as the substance of their existence. Their gaze ought to rest upon God in Christ, who has limited their time and who will soon usher in another order of being.

In rounding off 7:29, these verses do not claim that tears and joy are to be suppressed, nor that those who acquire goods must discard them, nor that the Corinthians are to refrain from making proper use of what the world has to offer. Paul's assertion is that when time runs out there will be no occasions for sadness, happiness and gain, katachraomai, the Greek word behind 'overexploiting' (cf. 9:18), suggesting preoccupation. The reason for detachment was proposed in 7:29 and is now repeated: ' ? for the form [schema] of this world is passing away'. Cf. 1 John 2:8,17. 'Form' means the appearance of a thing as it really is (cf. Phil. 2:7). Because this world fades, nothing is to be gained by being hyper-enthusiastic about joys that take their leave and by becoming emotional invalids because of sadnesses destined to vanish.

And there remains another reason for not marrying. But before considering it, we recapitulate what Paul has written thus far in favour of the single state: firstly, for some it is a charisma not to be disdained (7:7); secondly, it is appropriate for the impending distress (7:26); thirdly, marriage can bring trouble for the flesh (7:28); fourthly, matrimony is temporary (7:31).

Here, Paul expresses his desire that his unmarried readers 'be free from care' (amerimnos; cf. Matt. 28:14), released from the worries attendant upon married life. Positively, the single believer 'cares for the things of the Lord ? how he might please the Lord'. Contemplating the burdensomeness of duty, the apostle is consistent both with the teaching of Jesus (Matt. 6:25-34; Luke 12:22-31) and with his own teaching elsewhere (cf. Phil. 4:6): the Corinth?ians must not worry as if responsibility for self-maintenance is theirs alone and as if they have no God who is in control. They are to live as accountable disciples, but ? if at all possible ? the singles are encouraged to remain as such, putting both shoulders, rather than only one, to the Lord's interests.

A married Christian man has, by definition, assumed the duty of looking after his wife. Because this is how it is, he is 'divided' (7:34) and is in no position to give undisturbed attention to the Lord's work. memevristai, perfect indicative passive, from merivzw, 'I divide', suggests a past action with a lasting effect.This construction is preferable to linking 'divided' with 'unmarried woman' and 'maiden', also in 7:34b, such persons having no such distractions. Thus, caring for one's wife is one of those 'things' that pertain to a passing 'world' (cf. 7:31). Paul's meaning is that in principle the love that man and wife have for each other should not take priority over serving the Lord.

His estimation of marriage is shrewd: husband and wife are supposed to 'please' each other, which means more than living together, she caring for the home, he being the principal breadwinner, and both bringing up the children, if any.

In 7:32 reference was made to the single man. Here, the spotlight falls upon an 'unmarried woman', a lady in the church either widowed or divorced, and, in parenthesis, a 'maiden'. It is acknowledged that such a person will commit herself to 'the things of the Lord'. Paul accepts that a woman who has been bereaved or divorced or who has never married lacks domestic distractions and will be in an excellent position to separate herself for ministry.

Superficially, 'that she might be holy both in body and spirit' seems to suggest that marriage brings with it impurity and that, ipso facto, a single woman will be pure. But this cannot be the meaning. 'Holy' means to be consecrated, as in 7:14, where a married couple are said to remain in a 'holy' state in that their union is pure.

In the present verse Paul discusses undivided attention to the Lord's work, and it is here that unmarried women or girls may be competent in a manner that a married person cannot be. Because they lack preoccupations, they are 'holy' or separ?ated: with 'body and spirit' they can serve their Master. If they are more spiritual, it is not because they do not have husbands. This explains the last part of the verse: 'But she who has married cares for the things of the world, how she might please her man' ('man', meaning 'husband', from aner). Although family obligations are no sin, a wife cannot commit herself totally to the interests of Christ's kingdom, which is why marriage is said to pertain to 'the world' (cf. 7:33).

The section, 7:29-35, comes to an end with a personal statement: although Paul's words are designed 'for' the Corinthians' 'benefit', he advises rather than commands. Nor does he write in order to throw a 'noose' (brochos) around them, Cf. the Greek text of Prov. 6:5; 7:21; 22:25. tying them up to be led towards the single state. Because they are free, neither are they necessarily to remain single nor are they under compulsion to marry. His purpose is to outline a way for service that will be 'seemly' and 'for devotion to the Lord', eujpavredron is rare, meaning something like 'being near to', as a loyal servant to his master. the believer remaining Christ's constant attendant 'without distraction'.

The point that Paul makes is that because this world must end, being married or being single are not issues which should dominate the heart. If a believer is married or is convinced that he should marry, matrimony will be 'seemly' for him, providing ample opportunity for personal commitment to the Lord. He need not suspect that marriage must be wrong. Similarly, a single person who does not intend to wed can rest assured that being single is no less appropriate: he may consider himself absolved from any misgiving that he is missing out or has erred.

Application

These verses are essential reading with regard to whether or not a Christian who has experienced the trauma of divorce may contemplate a further marriage. Nevertheless, 7:25-35 must be considered in parallel with the Gospels, and it may be assumed that Paul was aware of what Jesus had taught on the related subjects of marriage, divorce and remarriage, and that the Lord's words had been relayed to the Corinthians.

It needs to be borne in mind that the apostle's teaching is also relevant to all Christians. If, say, a pastor is asked to give counsel to two unbelievers whose marriage is in difficulty, his first duty must be to share the good news with a view to their conversion. First things ought to come first, and secondary things, like marriage, second. Although the Lord's people will show every sympathy for those 'outside' if they are asked to listen, and will try to stand by and help as friends, as believers they are not thereby appointed as marriage guidance counsellors. Within a largely unchurched society which often still supposes itself to be Christian, it is important that we think this through clearly.

Paul's remark in 7:31, 'and they who exploit the world as not overexploiting ? for the form of this world is passing away', is of relevance to affluent Christians. Wealth, families and worldly status must pass away, and although none of these is inherently evil, such is the perversity of human nature that they can become diversions. Let us appreciate and use what we have been granted, yet not allow God's benefits to us to become criteria by which we accredit ourselves and assess others.

The believer who serves without being sidetracked by sec?ond?ary matters might be contrasted with 'distracted' Martha, a woman who was, as far as is known, unmarried. Concerned about many things, the lady made insufficient time for the one matter that was essential: listening to Jesus. Mary, her sister, was much wiser (Luke 10:39-40), from which it might appear that there is no primrose path to serenity in the Lord's work. Even so, the truth held out by 7:32-34 is that for the conscientious believer, remaining a bachelor or a spinster has its merits. Think about this if you are contemplating marriage ? but don't be tied up by Paul's preference.

Father or father-in-law?
(1 Corinthians 7:36-38)

These verses address a father whose 'maiden', a virgin daughter, is still his responsibility. It seems that the parent has been informed that the young lady desires to marry. Under some pressure, he thinks carefully before giving away a daughter and gaining a son-in-law. Fee argues that the man and 'maiden' referred to in these verses are a betrothed couple whose marriage has not yet been consummated (First Corinthians, pp.351-4). Crucial to his exposition is the meaning of gamivzw (usually, 'to give in marriage', 7:38; cf. Matt. 22:30; 24:38; Mark 12:25; Luke 17:27; 20:35). He suggests that it is probably synonymous with gamevw, 'to marry', observing correctly that gamivzw is not found outside the New Testament. Yet he concludes that the other New Testament occurrences which do mean 'to give in marriage' should not be allowed to 'fix' the sense in 7:38. But why not? The fact that a relatively rare verb retains a definite sense in five out of seven known occurrences, all within the New Testament, suggests that the other two are not exceptions. It is on this point of grammar that the 'father-daughter' interpretation of 7:36-38 stands or falls. In the absence of linguistic evidence bearing out the point made by Fee, it may be said to stand.
Clark takes much the same approach as Fee, electing to downgrade the gamivzw references in the Gospels, identifying the young man and his fiancée as the subjects of gameivtwsan, and the man and woman behind 'his maiden' (Putting Asunder, pp.296-7). But why should not Paul address fathers of marriageable girls? He must have been aware that they would have needed counsel. Ramsay observes that 'Paul does not there [7:38] say, ?it is good for a virgin to marry, but better for her not to marry.? What he says is very different: ?It is good for a father to seek out a husband for his daughter, but better not to seek out a husband for her. There is no reason why a father should regard it as his bounden duty to give her a husband: he is quite justified if he leaves her in her unmarried state. It is good, it is not wrong, for a woman to be unmarried.? In his day, Paul would not interfere with the convention that it was a father's place to seek a husband for his daughter; but he adds the proviso that there is no inexorable duty placed upon him to do so. Further, it is good if he tells her that he does not expect her to marry.' Ramsay, Historical Commentary, p.64.

Paul insists that a father must not give way too quickly to a suitor's request just because the couple have said that they desire marriage. Because the parent is still responsible for the girl's welfare even now, when she, a young adult, is able to make up her mind, he possesses the right of veto. And this must be exercised if he feels that marriage will be unwise.

'His maiden', rather than 'his daughter', repeated twice in 7:37-38, may be introduced to draw attention to the preciousness of the bond between father and daughter, emphasis being placed upon the vulnerability of the latter.

The strength of these words might be gauged by the contents of an old Egyptian papyrus letter, sent off by an aggrieved householder, Orsenouphis, to the local police chief, Serapion, about A.D. 29. In it the former complains that when he was away at work, a local jobbing builder came to his home to knock down a wall and in the process unearthed a jewel box. Apparently, the rogue transferred the contents to 'his virgin' to smuggle to his own house. Because of the theft, aggravated by the parental perversion of the seemingly innocent daughter, the shocked Orsenouphis demands that the police bring the thieving builder to justice. Loeb, Select Papyri, vol. 2, p.258; cf. Isa. 47:1; Jer. 14:17.

Paul employs the same expression to remind the Corinthian father that he must do what is right for his daughter. Because, presumably, the girl is a maiden, her father might be acting 'dishonourably' if he withholds consent. Perhaps, too, she might be goaded to do something wrong because her father obstructs a union which is obviously so right.

Thus, if the young lady is 'fully developed' (hyperakmos = surpassing in vigour or bloom), Although this word is otherwise unknown in the Greek of the period, its meaning can be deduced with accuracy. her aspirations are not to be denied and permission to marry must be given without ill will: 'let him do what he desires ... let them marry'. The father will not 'sin' if he assumes the mantle of father-in-law.

On the other hand, the father might perceive that a union will be unsafe, in which case he must refuse ? but only after he has pondered the matter. Firstly, he must stand 'firm in his heart'. Convinced that a refusal will be to his daughter's advantage, he will not be moved: her pleas avail nothing and, he hopes, may be short-lived. Secondly, there must be no external 'compulsion' thrust upon the parent. Paul is considering the situation of a father who is aware that there is no compelling reason for his girl to marry. Therefore, let him withhold permission. In practical terms, what might bring him to say 'no' is left to the imagination of the reader. Perhaps the father senses that she is an infatuated girl rather than a woman in love, not yet able to tell the difference.

The principle is also expressed in a reverse fashion. If the parent 'has control over his own will', that is, if he is convinced that marriage is inappropriate, he must feel free to say 'no'. In short, if he 'has judged this in his own heart: to reserve his maiden', he 'will do well'. In effect, a compliment is paid to the father who reaches an affectionate decision to keep his daughter rather than deliver her to another man's care.

The matter is summed up. The parent who gives permission for his daughter to marry 'does well', but if he refrains after due consideration, he 'does better'. In brief, it is preferable for him to put a stop to the romance before matters get out of control. The fathers of young Corinthian ladies are expected to read, mark and inwardly digest.

Application

Paul seems to have assumed that if a (Christian) father does not wish his daughter to marry, she will be willing to obey him. It may be asked: is this pattern of filial obedience true to life nowadays? It ought to be. But bear in mind the apostle's insistence that the parent has to take every consideration into account before he turns down a suitor: he must be disinterested, seeking her benefit rather than his own. Paul must have known that this could be a problem because then, as now, daughters were sometimes considered a liability, offspring to be married. The apostle shows that young women are a long-term responsibility, whether for fathers or for husbands. Concerning Jewish families at that period, J. Jeremias observes that a girl who came of age, although unable to be betrothed against her will, was subject to extensive paternal power and could be considered as a source of profit by being sold for marriage (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, trans. F. H. and C. H. Cave. London: SCM Press, 1969, p.364). Were Gentiles more advanced?

That daughter and suitor are presumably both Christians does not necessarily mean that they are suited to each other. Nor does Paul allow his readers to forget that being single has advantages. In sum, his counsel is timeless: a father must never assume that it is part of his duty to see his daughter 'married off' and that if she remains unwed, he has failed her.

Widows and remarriage
(1 Corinthians 7:39-40)

Having given consideration to every conceivable marital situation within the church, Paul has a little more to say, expanding his comment in 7:8 by giving further thought to the circumstances of a widow. Although unmarried and free to contract a new union, she is advised not to take this step unless convinced that it will be right, on the proviso that her husband-to-be is also a believer. The apostle's doctrine is consistent with the teaching of the Gospels about marriage, giving yet another indicator that Paul considered himself obliged to honour 'the law of Christ' (9:21). Again, Matt. 5:32; 19:3-9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18.

A wife 'has', by definition, 'been bound' to her husband. Tied to him on their wedding day, she remains attached for as long as he and she are alive (cf. Rom. 7:2). But if the husband 'falls asleep', his widow 'is free' to marry, provided the new husband (or, pos?sibly, the marriage) is 'in the Lord'.

When the Bible speaks about death as 'falling asleep' it does so with exclusive reference to the passing away of Christians. Unbelievers are said to die rather than slumber. Cf. 11:30; 15:6,18,20,51; Matt. 27:52; John 11:11-12; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Thess. 4:13-15; 2 Peter 3:4. But note Dan. 12:2. Here, it is assumed that the widow's first husband was a believer.

Further, when Christians 'fall asleep' their bodies decay and their souls enter the presence of the Lord with whom they enjoy a fully conscious relationship (cf. Luke 23:43; Phil. 1:23). This point needs to be made because some have held that at death the believer's spirit, too, remains in unconscious slumber until the resurrection morning.

Paul asserts by direct implication that a union between a Christian widow and an unbeliever is wrong. If the Lord does not contain, as it were, the husband-to-be as well as her, she must not present herself as a bride. Why, the apostle is really asking, should she venture upon a relationship which is destined to fade (7:31) and, moreover, in which two hearts would not be as one? That some Corinthians were not unwilling to fall into the trap is indicated by 2 Corinthians 6:14-16. There, although marriage under these conditions is not specified as an instance of the 'unequal yoke', it would almost certainly have been in Paul's mind.

The apostle states that a widow will be 'happier' if she remains single, asserting that his comment is no more than a private perception.

As in 7:25, concerning unmarried girls, and in 2 Corinthians 8:10, where he gives his views about planned giving to the Lord's poor, Paul deploys the emphasis of understatement to show his awareness that his counsel comes from the Lord. Let the Cor?inth?ians, then, read his words and disagree with him ? if they dare. 'Too' ? 'and I think that I, too, have the Spirit of God' ? is probably sardonic: Paul protests that he, no less than certain Corinthians who suppose that they are spiritual (cf. 1:7), does discern the will of God in such a sensitive area.

This 'postscript' to chapter 7 is possibly a window opened by Paul to allow readers other than the Corinthians to peer in and gauge the turbulence within that church. It may be inferred that a number in the congregation had few reservations about marrying idolatrous unbelievers, and that serving Christ wholeheartedly was not a priority.

Application

Although Paul's counsel was targeted at the Corinthians, it would be a mistake to limit his teaching to them only, given that the whole letter is addressed to all believers everywhere (1:2). It follows that we have no right to define the intended outreach of the epistle to those who were alive when it was written. It is far better to suppose that Paul realized that his counsel would never be redundant, the Corinth of his era epitomizing for him a vanishing world (cf. 2:6; 7:31). Even if, as noted in 'Introductory matters', some scholars would not agree with this view, it is not to be denied that what the apostle wrote is of perennial importance. Where would multitudes of Christians today be without 1 Corinth?ians 7?

Paul, while not counselling widows that the single state is better than a further marriage, insists that they will be 'happier', that is, 'more blessed' (makariotera) if they stay single. His concern was that the Lord's people would fix the coming of Christ as the unclouded object of their gaze, and service for him as the burden of their hearts. He knew that a light travel case is important. Although he, personally, could have married (9:5), and, being a man for all that, may sometimes have wished for a partner, he was clear in his mind that the single state was right for him, given his ministry. And the context of 1 Timothy 5:5, in a letter written towards the end of his life, indicates that Paul always retained a very high opinion of godly widows who elected to remain as they were: their usefulness to the Lord and the churches was considerable.

5. Food offered to idols
(1 Corinthians 8:1 - 11:1)

Not a few Corinthians were uncertain about how to relate to unbelievers in their city, most of whom would have been idolaters. Their earlier letter to Paul (7:1) had raised this issue, among others, as implied by Paul's use of 'concerning' in 8:1,4. Problems arising from such contacts have been touched upon in 5:10-11, and it must have been hard for some in the church not to be beguiled by ancestral paganism. Reading between the lines, it can be inferred that whereas some felt keenly about the matter and winced, others made light of it.

The immediate issue addressed by Paul is that association with idolaters, if taken too far, almost certainly involved eating meat known by all concerned to have been sacrificed to the gods. Some within the church, entertaining few qualms about this, displayed scant concern for the hesitations of those of their brethren who were uncomfortable with the practice. Why, the former let it be known, should the rest not follow them, the more sophisticated element in the church? (8:1). Why should others have a problem about what for them was clearly no dilemma at all?

And the issue involved a mass of tangled threads. Was it right to eat with idolaters within the precincts of a Greek temple? (8:4). Was it acceptable for believers to consume at home meat which they were aware had been offered elsewhere to the gods? (10:28). Could they accept the hospitality of unbelievers whose tables would have proffered such fare? (10:27). What about involvement in the business and social life of Corinth? What of associations with idolatrous loved ones?

The fact that chapters 8, 9 and 10 are dedicated to the whole issue indicates the sensitivity of the matter. Basically, two replies are given. Looking at the same problem from somewhat different points of view, each insists that believers should never eat within the precincts of an idolatrous place of worship, and that they should never accept food which they know to have been offered to the gods.

The first response (chapter 8) displays Paul's awareness that although the Gentile members of the church have renounced belief in the existence of the Greek pantheon, their new-found faith might wilt when confronted by polytheism. Because some sus?pect that the gods are not entirely unreal, they overreact, shunning anything remotely connected with them. Inevitably, their shocked, black-and-white approach makes them suspicious of fellow-believers who take another route.

Although Paul acknowledges that not everybody is prone to such suspicions, he realizes that even the relative maturity of the stronger element within the church generates problems, the head-knowledge of some not necessarily healing the heart-sickness of others. He teaches that those who (rightly) dismiss the gods of Olympus as nonentities must respect the reservations of less-aware brethren.

Suppose, the apostle indicates, that the more mature saint has eaten food previously sacrificed to a traditional deity. How might his action be interpreted by others when they hear about it? Will not rash participation encourage a less sophisticated believer to imitate him, but in the latter's case as an act of homage to ? let us suppose ? Poseidon or Athena or Aphrodite? Will not such a virtual apostasy turn out to be disastrous?

The Corinthian skyline was dominated by a centuries-old temple dedicated to Apollo, the city also being replete with many other shrines. Neither was it possible for anyone not to be exposed to idolatry, nor would it have been easy for a recent convert to dismiss those abominations as unreal. Could time-honoured traditions and the consensus of popular opinion have been in error? Paul shows that he never underestimated the power of inherited superstition.

Paul's second line of response is presented in chapter 10. Although the apostle accepts that the gods are mere fantasies, he teaches that demons and evil spirits do exist and are always present in temple worship, albeit invisibly. It follows that any sacrifice to non-existent gods is effectively, although unwittingly, an offering to demonic powers, a pitfall to be avoided at all costs. The sad precedent of Israel in the wilderness is introduced to establish the matter.

Chapter 9 bridges chapters 8 and 10 by introducing details about Paul's lifestyle, showing that the hesitations of others, rather than one's own preferences, ought to be paramount. He offers himself as a model of practical courtesy and consideration.

No reference is made in these three chapters to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). A few years before the gospel was proclaimed at Corinth this assembly had decreed that Gentile converts should refuse food previously dedicated to heathen worship (Acts 15:20,28-29). Cf. Acts 21:25; Rev. 2:14,20. So why does Paul not mention what was determined on that occasion? Part of the answer would be that the complexities of the situation at Corinth compelled him to expound basic principles.

Converted Jews never had problems in this area; for them avoiding idol food was an open-and-shut matter (cf. Dan. 1:8,16; Acts 10:14). But baptized Greeks, springing from a culture that had long been devoted to Olympus, and whose food, retailed in the local markets, was, as Paul saw it, polluted by pagan rites, had no such back-up. Whereas they had once enjoyed idolatrous fare, now they belonged to Jesus, from which it followed that the old routine had to alter. Yet how and to what extent?

Were these believers to become vegetarians, or had they to shun occasions when their families, friends and associates invited them to dine, with nominal respect being shown to the gods? Were the saints to decline commodities on display in the shops for fear that they might be spiritually contaminated? Ancient Corinth's central Agora is bordered on the north and south by rows of shops. See P. G. Themelis, Ancient Corinth: The Site and the Museum (Athens: Editions Hannibal, no date), pp.17,20. One can wander amid these ruins, conjuring up pictures of Christian wives asking retailers about their wares. Conversely, if they ? rightfully ? chose to eat anything they desired, why should they be stigmatized as libertines, unprincipled people? Some in the church must have been insisting that such boldness was a much-needed display of true Christian freedom, to be adopted as a guideline by less confident brethren.

Anyhow, because the Jerusalem Council did not touch on such matters in detail, Paul grapples with them. Remarkably, he indicates that when with Jews he would honour Moses' law to the letter ? but only for reasons of expediency and in order not to aggravate Jewish sensitivities. For him, a higher law, that 'of Christ', has supervened in place of that of Moses (9:21).

On eating sacrifices
(1 Corinthians 8:1-13)

Addressing those who are prepared to eat meat killed in honour of the gods, Paul denies that their monotheism has given them the right to eat anything they wish, his negative being tantamount to an insistence that they must abandon their liberty if circumstances demand. Positively, love for those who are less convinced than they are about dietary matters ought to induce the more knowledgeable to refrain from food which others regard as suspect (8:1-6).

The driving force behind Paul's directive is the awareness that those who are not sure that the gods of Greece are unreal are liable to fall into sin through following the lead of others. In consequence, a more sophisticated believer eating idol meat will offend Christ if his conduct encourages a less mature brother to abuse his conscience by emulating him.

In principle, Paul is allowed to eat all things, it being assumed that Old Testament dietary regu?lations have been abolished in Christ. Nevertheless, he is prepared to become a lifelong vegetarian if by so doing he can preserve a 'weak' Corinthian from stumbling into functional idolatry.

Paul may be responding to a query broached by the church in their earlier letter to him (7:1). In their minds was the awareness that 'knowledge' (gnosis) was a spiritual gift (1:5; 12:8; 13:2; 14:6), and perhaps they considered the charisma to be a licence for eating 'meats sacrificed to idols' (eidolothyta), knowing that because the gods did not exist, flesh killed in their honour could not have been accepted by them. Therefore, it was free from taint and could be eaten.

Even if this is not an exact reconstruction, Paul insists that the Corinthians are not to imagine that they have a monopoly of insight, and are to remind themselves that others, such as the apostle himself, also know that the ethnic deities are unreal ? 'we know we all have knowledge' ? and that others adopt a different approach to the matter of eating such food. 'We', then, would refer to stronger believers who, like Paul, allow their awareness of the non-existence of the gods to control their conduct, yet appreciate that others have problems in this area. That is, the former's gnosis is akin to common sense. And the apostle may be throwing a Corinthian slogan back into their faces: 'You have said that all have knowledge. Perhaps I agree ? but how you and I apply our gnosis is another matter.'

So he suggests that those who shrewdly perceive that others are less aware than themselves are unfeeling. 'Knowledge inflates', and it is in that spirit that they exercise what they consider to be freedom. Neither for the first nor the last time this harsh term is employed because Paul knows that conceit does damage. 'But,' he insists, 'love builds up' both the individual and the church.

Some in the church are smug because they are strong enough, as they suppose, to apply their beliefs in a sensitive area, yet they do so for their own gratifi?cation and with meagre concern for others. Paul puts his finger on the problem, which is that because they entertain the fallacy that gnosis is an end in itself, they do not know anything, their perception bearing no resemblance to a wisdom which yearns to meet the needs of God's people. The indifferent Corinthian has 'not yet known as he ought to know'.

The reference to being 'known by' God falls within a sequence of thought: the Corinthian who has come to faith knows the one God, In the manuscripts, the Greek of these verses tends to vary, but this commentary is based upon the United Bible Societies' text. which is another way of saying that he loves God. Knowing God in a vital way, he recognizes and loves his fellow-believers. His discernment springs from the fact that originally he had been chosen by the Lord. When the Bible says that God 'knows' his people, the meaning is that they are chosen (e.g. Exod. 33:12,17; Amos 3:2; Matt. 7:23; Rom. 8:29).

If this is the meaning, it is not hard to see that a challenge is being thrown down: it is only God's true people who love the church. If the Corinthians do not love, they need to ask if they have come to faith.

Following the assertion that knowledge without love is not authentic, Paul again picks up the question posed to him by the church. Principally, both he and they remain aware of two truths ? that 'No idol is in the world,' oujde;n is either attributive, 'no idol is in the world' (as here), or predicative, 'an idol in the world is nothing'. and that 'There is no other God except one.' Building bridges, he agrees in theory with those who abuse their gnosis: both he and they are in a position to consider the issue of eating idol meat because all are at one on basic matters.

By 'idol' (eidolon) is meant a deity as represented by its image. Like the Israelite prophets, Paul asserts that popular objects of worship are powerless and that there is just the one true God. Cf. Deut. 4:35,39; 6:4; Ps. 115:4-8; Isa. 41:24; 44:9-20; 46:1-2; Jer. 10:14. But how is this awareness to be worked out in church life?

The present verse flows into the next, in the form of a somewhat uneven sentence. Paul accepts that within the world at large most people pay lip service to 'so-called gods' that are said to exist 'in heaven' or 'upon the earth', or wherever. But the apostle goes further. Again taking the Old Testament as his platform, Cf. 10:20; Deut. 32:17. he asserts that although the Greek deities are sinful fictions, behind them lurk malignant and unceasingly active spiritual personalities: '? there are many gods and many lords.' Fee states that the 'gods' and 'lords' are subjective rather than objective realities; i.e. they are traditional yet non-existent deities (First Corinthians, p.373). But has not Paul said as much in the first part of the verse? He will elaborate in 10:19-20 (cf. Eph. 6:12).

Here the apostle is positive: '? yet for us there is one God, the Father'. Because God is the Father of Christ, he is the Father of those who are united to Christ ('for us'). Neither is he the Father of all men, nor are all his children.

Secondly, 'from whom' ? that is, from the Father ? 'are all things'. This means that the one God is the sole creator of the universe.

Thirdly, 'we [are] for him'. 'We', believers, are under obligation to worship the Father to the exclusion of all other beings.

The statement that only Christians are in a pos?ition to live for the Father does not mean that un?believers are not duty-bound to turn to Christ, should they hear the gospel (cf. Acts 17:30). The thrust of 8:6 is that because believers do have a heavenly Father, they are in a position to respond to him and must do so.

Fourthly, there is 'one Lord Jesus Christ'. That Jesus is the personal Lord of every believer is true, although the principle is not brought to the fore here. Paul declares that ultimate authority in heaven and on earth has been delegated by God the Father to God the Son: because Jesus is in overall control, there is no other master of the universe. Cf. 15:25; Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:16-17.

Fifthly, Jesus is said to have been the sole agent of creation, 'through whom are all things'. Cf. John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2. When he created the universe the eternal Son of God was not the man Jesus, and the cosmos was not brought into being by the incarnate Saviour. It was afterwards that the Word of God became the human Son of God.

This means that since Jesus' birth at Bethlehem, God the Father remains Father to his Son in two modes: firstly, within the eternal relationship between the divine Father and the divine Son; secondly, as the divine Father of a human Son, a relationship that began two thousand years ago (cf. Luke 1:35).

Thus, 8:6 considers Christ as one person, albeit with two natures, the one human and the other divine. For this reason Paul felt free to identify the man Jesus as the Creator. And he was right. If the Lord had been some sort of hybrid, two persons sharing a body, the apostle would have been in error. But 8:6 insists that the God-man is essentially one person who has brought 'all things' into being.

Sixthly, Christ alone has brought salvation: 'and we through him'. This is an elaboration of 1:4 to the effect that the grace of God has come to his people solely 'in Christ Jesus'.

The cumulative thrust of these six statements is overwhelming: if the Corinthians owe everything to God through Christ, they cannot be debtors to any spiritual beings, whether imagined or real. It follows that idol worship is to be abhorred and abandoned. Yet a question remains: are there circumstances in which the Corinthians might properly eat meat that has been offered to idols?

Paul qualifies what has been written thus far: in principle there are others beside himself who 'have knowledge' (8:1), yet, equally, there are situ?ations in which the faith of some Corinthians is tending to collapse: 'But knowledge is not in all.' Paul names no names. Apparently, some believers still believe, 'until now', that the temple food they eat is 'meat sacrificed to an idol', killed for the sake of, as they suspect, real deities represented by their images. Earlier superstitions still linger on. Paul may be hinting that he has heard that some have been visiting idolatrous shrines in order to participate.

The effect is that 'their conscience being weak' is 'defiled', or stained. Because they are not sure that what they do is right, they feel unclean, possibly regretting their action. Paul is aware that they usually take the easy way out, stifling their whimpering consciences and allowing themselves to be misled by others in the church.

This should be compared with 7:19: 'Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing ? rather, the observance of the commandments of God.' Cf. Gal. 5:6; 6:15. Paul seeks to defuse the situation at Corinth, indicating that if one man's meat can be another man's poison, both individuals should bear in mind that there are some matters which do not affect anyone's relationship with God, no principle being at risk. Nevertheless, such is the arrogance of some Corinthians that they flaunt their freedom in Christ by consuming sacrificed food, an action which they imagine will enhance their status. Conversely, those who retain scruples feel bruised, tending to walk away from their stronger brethren for fear of contamin?ation. Both sides are in error, which explains '? neither if we do not eat are we deficient, nor if we do eat do we abound.'

Taking the side of those who are uncomfortable about eating idolatrous 'food', Paul directs his remarks to those who reckon themselves to be relatively sophisticated: if they have the courtesy to decline what for them is harmless temple fare, they will not be worse off, but they might help someone for whom participation is far from innocent. Conversely, the stronger in the faith will never 'abound' if they insist on their rights, enjoying only a sense of anticlimax. Victory in argument seldom satisfies.

Paul does not disagree with those who consider themselves to be mature and who hold that they have a 'licence', or 'authority' (exousia), to eat anything. So be it, he concedes, 'but' they must 'watch' that their freedom does not become 'a stumbling block to the weak'. Perhaps some, happy that they do not have a problem with temple food, do not care that their behaviour might devastate others. Or they may suppose that their boldness might stimulate these others to imitate them and thereby obtain release from their misapprehensions.

When he wrote 1 Corinthians Paul was imbued with the conviction that sometimes it is essential to bow to the reservations of others in order to win them. And he probably suspected that forebodings arising in the minds of 'weak' brethren who were being shown up as silly would have generated further division. Avant-garde saints determined to apply their 'knowledge' (8:1) may be, at best, tactless.

One effect of such misplaced zeal is spelt out. Although Paul addresses a hypothetical individual ('you', singular), he targets the whole church: '?You? need to think carefully about a believer who suspects that the gods do exist. Perhaps he watches ?you'? with interest, ?you?, a knowledgeable brother in the Lord, actually ?seated in an idol's temple?. He observes that ?you? take your ease with idolaters in enjoying the food of the gods, and that ?you? will not be displeased if he enters and participates.

'And ?you? win the day. In consequence, the brother whose ?conscience? is ?weak? dismisses his scruples. Will he not be ?built up? (oikodomethesetai) in his delusion to the extent that he persuades himself that it is safe to follow ?you?? Yes. The irony is,' Paul claims, 'that ?you? also imagine that this de facto demolition of another Christian is a building-up process for him. After all, ?you? are where ?you? are to see and to be seen, and if a less convinced brother follows ?you?, ?you? are pleased with what ?you?, with your comprehension of the matter, do for him. But ?you? have not edified him in the way ?you? imagine.'

That it cannot be right to acknowledge the gods does not occur to the Corinthian with an unsteady conscience. If he has qualms, they are not allowed to trouble him. He eats. He sets his seal upon someone else's sacrifice and confesses someone else's god. He denies Christ. What he does is inconceivably awful.

The consequence of the immature Corinthian's partaking of idolatrous food is outlined. The question arises as to what is meant by 'being ruined' (apollytai ? present tense).

Hodge considers that Paul has in mind a naïve believer who, never having known the Lord, honours the gods by eating their meat. Because his apostasy is deliberate, his eternal destruction is certain. Hodge, 1 & 2 Corinthians, p.149. Fee takes the view that the immature Christian does know the Lord but forfeits his salvation. Fee, First Corinthians, p.387. But what about 10:9-10; Acts 27:34; 2 Cor. 4:9?

It is to be noted that the death of Christ is said to have occurred 'because of' the Corinthian 'brother'. The phraseology is stark, the Greek behind 'because of' (dia + the accusative) spelling out deliberate purpose. In fact, 8:11 is the only place in the New Testament where it is said that Christ died 'because of' an individual (but cf. Rom. 4:25; 1 Peter 1:20).

As Hodge sees it, Paul's claim is that the Lord suffered to secure benefits other than the man's redemption. Because the latter has never been brought to know the grace of God, he will not fall from it. Yet because he has been provoked by an unwise church member, he will, given time, gravitate towards the sinful world to which he has always belonged.

But is not this too complicated? Paul does not identify the weak man as an apostate. Further, he could not have believed that in the church there was a contingent of baptized yet unconverted souls who were potential idolaters, of whom this hypothetical individual was a specimen, and that such were to be encouraged to remain in active fellowship.

What is clear is that Christ died 'because of' this 'brother', a man who had been 'bought with a price' (6:20; 7:23), who had been 'sanctified' (6:11) and who would be preserved 'to the end' (1:8). Therefore, the functioning idolater is a child of God, one who by definition cannot forfeit his salvation. With respect to Fee, he may not take into sufficient account the vivacity of 'because of' (again, dia + the accusative), which omission could weaken his argument. Cf. 1:8; John 6:39-40.

Undoubtedly, Paul agonizes over the situ?ation to which some naïve Corinthians have come. Perhaps a brother who followed another's arrogant example is filled with remorse; perhaps not. What seems certain is that the weak believer has become confused about reality, is in peril of surrendering his profession of faith, and is liable to slide back to the world from which he had come and to which in principle he does not belong. If so, his usefulness is at an end. Unhappy and alienated from his church, his discipleship is to all intents and purposes ruined (cf. Rom. 14:15).

A student of human nature, Paul identifies with the weak brother, his indignation being hurled in the face of the person responsible for the calamity: his conduct has led to someone else's gross misconduct.

Furthermore, the saint at risk remains 'the brother ... for whom Christ died'. The clever believer armed with theoretical knowledge rather than love has damaged someone who is the reason for the death of Jesus. The significance of this is stated in the next verse.

But is this suggested interpretation real? Could it have happened? The present commentary would reply in the affirmative.

Hasty Corinthians are told that 'you' (plural) sin 'against Christ'. Although their action may not be wrong in itself, it has led others to offend the Lord. In this fashion, the instigators of other men's folly provoke him and are therefore in peril.

Paul had learned long before that to harm the church is to distress the Saviour. See Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:11,14; cf. Matt. 25:45. It is not difficult to see that the apostle felt for weak Corinthians. Nor was he without a concern for those who were wise in their own conceits (cf. Acts 7:60).

Paul ties ends together, revealing what he would do were he to suspect that what he ate caused a believer to stumble in the faith. Expressing himself delicately, he contemplates the horror of tripping up 'my brother', someone to whom he should be committed, thereby leading the man away from his relationship with the Lord. The thing must not be. Should the possibility arise, the apostle will 'never again' eat 'meat', remaining a vegetarian in order to avoid offence. 'Never again' translates eis ton aiona, 'into eternity'; Paul cannot be more emphatic.

In that the apostle declares his mind about what he would not do, he introduces the principle that it may be necessary to forego personal rights. In this way he prepares for the next chapter, in which he asserts his freedoms as an apostle (9:12-15). That this is so is suggested by the unqualified reference to 'meat' (krea; cf. Rom. 14:21) rather than to 'meat sacrificed to an idol' (8:1,4,7,10; eidolothyton), showing that the elimination of dietary restrictions rather than the refusal of idol offerings is uppermost in his mind.

Thus far, the argument against eating such meat is not a final statement of the case. For the moment, Paul confines himself to the situation of weaker brethren. Following the near parenthesis of chapter 9, in chapter 10 he will present a final imperative against the consumption of food offered to the gods.

Application

All believers have knowledge (8:1), yet no one has much of this precious commodity. Because the average congregation is fragile, elders should be firm yet gentle. The assertion that 'love builds up' means that victory in argument may be tantamount to defeat: when an opponent is shown to be in the wrong, he might be antagonized to the extent that in his embarrassment he refuses to come over to your position, seeing you as his rival. We should never reckon those with whom we disagree to be targets for our clever wit and wisdom. Building churches cannot get far without consideration for the feelings of others.

Although in 8:1-13 Paul appears to take the side of the weaker members of the church, he also shows his care for those who were offending these brethren. To be Christ-centred means to be properly concerned for all, yet not to be over-concerned for any.

Paul explains himself
(1 Corinthians 9:1-27)

This chapter is an essential bridge between chapters 8 and 10, the apostle developing the theme of meekness, especially when personal sacrifices are called for, and continuing to project himself as a pattern of humility (cf. 8:13). We can only be deeply moved when he remarks on the abdication of his right to be paid for services rendered, about his right to take a wife, about his understanding of what it means for him to be a servant of the gospel, and about his abandonment in principle of Moses' law ? which he considers to be obsolete ? in favour of an ultimate code of conduct (9:4-7,17-18,21).

Within the first thirteen verses of this chapter there are no less than fifteen questions, of which the implied answers, with the possible exception of that in 9:9-10, seem obvious. In Greek, the answers are almost explicit in view of the employment of oujk, which expects a positive response, and mh;, which anticipates a negative. Why, then, the rhetoric? It may be that at this relatively early stage in his re?lationship with the church (Paul had only stayed in Corinth once, albeit for about a year and a half, Acts 18:11) some were querying his apostleship. Although Jewish intruders bent on usurping his leadership had apparently not yet surfaced, an element within the church was resentful of his authority. Cf. 1:10; 3:21; 4:3,15; 2 Cor. 10:12; 11:5,13,22. This would explain the concession in 8:1 that 'We know that we all have knowledge.' Yet such people deployed the principle that there is only one God in a different way from that of Paul, which is why his presentation of himself as an example is intertwined with an apologia for his conduct as an apostle. If he, the Lord's steward, has been ready to forego the consumption of meat and a good many more rights so as not to give offence, the Corinthians must renounce eating sacrificed flesh, recognizing that their spiritual father (4:15) is what he has always claimed to be: an accredited apostle of Christ.

Paul insists that it has always been his policy not to aggravate others, whether Jews or Gentiles, the motive being that he seeks to win them for Christ (9:19-23). Doctrine, although of first importance (cf. 11:23; 15:1), can be imparted effectively only if he is personally inoffensive. Because those with whom he rubs shoulders are worldly-wise and suspicious, it is imperative to win their confidence, which means accommodating to their culture as far as possible. Furthermore, Paul has to preserve his own sanctity, the hardest task of all (9:23-27). Therefore, evangelism is not his primary concern, his desire to avoid the Master's frown coming first (9:27).

Rhetorical questions follow rapidly. Firstly, 'Am I not free?' The Greek ou, 'not', demands something like 'Of course' as a response. Paul has liberty to act according to conscience in any situation, without the need to be controlled by what others think ? although their opinions will never be disregarded.

Secondly, 'Am I not an apostle?' Yes, he is; his credentials cannot be faulted. Had he not 'seen Jesus our Lord' after the resurrection? Again, yes. But so had others, some of whom never became apostles. The point is that when the Lord revealed himself to Saul of Tarsus, vision was accompanied by commission (Gal. 1:12,16). For the essential qualifications for apostolic office, see Acts 1:22; 2 Cor. 12:12; cf. Acts 9:3-6; 22:6-10; 26:13-16. Although others might be reluctant to consider Paul an apostle, the Corinthians cannot deny a claim reinforced by the fact that he is the spiritual father of the church (4:15) and that they remain his 'work in the Lord'.

Although a ministry which brings men to Christ does not make a preacher an apostle, it would be hard for that minister to lie to his converts about his call. Similarly, Paul is truthful when reminding his children in the Lord that they themselves validate his office. Conversely, because they know him, what he is about to say will carry weight.

These words are enigmatic because we are not told about the 'others' who did not recognize Paul as an apostle. Does the allusion in 4:15 to 'ten thousand tutors' suggest that some were trespassing upon the labours of other workers? (cf. Rom. 15:17-22; 2 Cor. 10:13-16). Or had the Corinthians already remunerated other men for their services? (9:12). If so, Paul declares that because his relationship to the church is unique, they must give him a hearing: they are, after all, 'the seal' of his 'apostleship'. A seal displays authenticity, indicating that Paul's ministry and the church's response have alike been 'in the Lord' (cf. 2 Cor. 13:5).

It seems that some at Corinth had suggested that Paul was not an apostle because when he was with them he worked in order to support himself, refusing to accept a salary from the infant church, no doubt ? they may have said ? because he was shamefaced, knowing himself to be unqualified. Further, they must have been asking why it was that he, unlike other apostles, remained unmarried. For the moment, having affirmed his commission (9:1-2), Paul asserts that he possesses rights, of which examples will be given, and discusses the right that he has to dispense with them (9:3-11). The basic principle is that such freedoms have been sacrificed in the interests of the gospel (9:12-18): because the apostle is no man's client, he is at liberty to adapt to changing situations. Flexible yet never a libertine, his concern is to honour the will of Christ (9:19-27).

Paul indicates that 'this' ? what he is about to write ? will be a sufficient 'defence' (apologia) against those who choose to 'examine' him. Names are not given because he appreciates tact.

Not all would agree with this interpretation. Hodge argues that 'this' is retrospective, pointing back to 9:1-2, where Paul is said to defend his apostolic office. But he has made no such apologia, verses 1 and 2 being no more than a reminder of his official status. Hodge, 1 & 2 Corinthians, p.154. Although elsewhere Paul often points to his defence of the gospel, 9:3 is the only occasion where he justifies his personal actions. The rationale is that what he chooses to do sometimes seems so unusual that he needs to explain himself to his critics. For other instances of 'defence', cf. Acts 22:1; 24:10; 25:8,16; 26:1,2,24; 2 Cor. 12:19; Phil. 1:7,17; 2 Tim. 4:16.

The section is a massive overkill: because Paul has given up so much, should not the Corinthians respect him ? and consider what sacrifices might be incumbent on them in the interests of unity?

Although Paul ate and drank and no doubt enjoyed good food (cf. Acts 14:17), here his meaning is that as an apostle and as the founder of the church at Corinth he has a 'right', or 'authority' (exousia), to be supported when with them; yet he intimates delicately that he has elected not to charge them and will not do so on any return visit.

It transpires that, with the exception of Paul, not only were all the apostles married, but that the brothers of Jesus were not single men. For the families of Jesus and Peter, and Paul's contacts with some of them and with some apostles, see Matt. 8:14; 12:46-47; 13:55-56; Mark 6:3; John 2:2; 7:3; Acts 1:14; Gal. 1:17-19; 2:9-14. Cephas is mentioned, probably because he had become a figurehead for some (1:12; 3:22), and Paul contrasts his own situ?ation with that of Peter. It also seems that the travels of these personalities were known to the Corinthians, which is why they are mentioned.

'To take along' (periagein) suggests that the apostles and, it seems, the brothers of Jesus were accompanied by their wives on their journeys (here, a 'woman' is a 'wife'; cf. 5:1 and often in chapter 7), while 'sister' indicates that these ladies were believers. Paul, then, has authority to marry a Christian woman and to be accompanied by her wherever he travels, in which case she also will be a charge upon the Corinthians if the couple visit them.

But, it is implied, he has never sought marriage. In that Aquila and Priscilla, his first hosts at Corinth (Acts 18:2-3), were man and wife, some devious minds probably queried whether Paul, clearly the odd man out, was an apostle.

The double negative asks if these two men have been barred from claiming support, thus compelling them against their will to seek paid work. Of course not.

That Paul engaged in manual labour at Corinth is certain (Acts 18:3), though this is not the issue here. Rather, if the other apostles have been supported so that they have no need to generate their own funds, would it be right for Paul and Barnabas to be the exceptions, necessity compelling them to abdicate their right to give up secular work? If the church has been ready to maintain others (9:12), why should they not keep these two men in an adequate fashion?

In 9:4-6 Paul has asserted rights which pertain to him (cf. 9:1-2): to be financed by the churches, to marry and for his wife to travel with him, and not to be compelled to seek paid employment. Now appear more rhetorical questions, each a metaphor and each demanding an affirmative answer.

These questions all illustrate a single principle ? namely, that a worker may justly anticipate being sustained by his own labours. Although Paul refrains from making the obvious application, he expects the church to accept that since he serves the gospel, the fruits of the gospel ? the Corinthians, among others ? ought to maintain him. Notwithstanding 9:12, which states that he does not press his right to be paid, in theory he holds himself ready to do.

Firstly, what soldier has to provide for himself? The picture is by no means inappropriate: in those days, as since, armed men denied pay and provisions by their superiors would have been a menace to society (cf. Luke 3:14). Paul understood that Christ never intended his apostles to be vagabonds. Secondly, who plants a vineyard without enjoying its produce? (cf. Deut. 20:6; Prov. 27:18). Obviously, no one in his right mind. Thirdly, who will work as a shepherd if he cannot 'consume' (esthiei = 'eats') milk and cheese? It is unheard of. By implication, Paul, considered as a soldier, a planter and a shepherd, ought to be granted remuneration by the church.

Two further questions are introduced, the first demanding a negative response, and the second, a positive. Paul shows that payment for services rendered is not only a 'human viewpoint', a principle that makes the world go round, Cf. Rom. 3:5; Gal. 3:15. but that Scripture also has something to say about work and payment: does not 'the law' concur with the common-sense view?

By 'law' might be meant Genesis to Deuteronomy inclusive, or, better, Moses' legislation. Cf. 14:21,34. Here, Deuteronomy 25:4 is recalled, where Moses prohibits an ox being muzzled when it drags a threshing sledge over corn. Paul does not attempt to explain this verse in its original context but derives from it a lesson relevant to the Corinthian situation. We might compare this with 10:11, where he states that '? these things [i.e. the events of the wilderness journey] were happening to them [i.e. the Israelites] figuratively [typikos] ? and were written for our instruction, to whom have come the ends of the ages.' For the apostle, the Old Testament anticipated the Messianic era, which is why, when dealing with a sensitive situation, he feels able to draw upon the principle enshrined in this verse from Deuteronomy.

A rhetorical question is issued: if Scripture indicates that a beast of burden is to be sustained by its labour, are the Lord's servants to be worse off than an animal? No. Ministers 'matter to God'.

Paul applies the axiom: '? or doesn't he definitely speak because of us?' ('definitely' from pantos). Yes. It follows that God requires his apostolic servants to be sustained by their labours. Here, God is said to be speaking through this Old Testament passage rather than having spoken: Paul believes the totality of Scripture to be the never-silent word of the Lord.

The metaphor of the ox crushing the grain leads into two further pictures ? that of the ploughman and that of the thresher, men who 'hope' to enjoy the produce of the field. 'Is obliged' (opheilei) suggests that if they are to labour without expecting payment, they will be in the wrong, in that remuneration is both a necessity and a just anticipation. Cf. Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:14-15; Mal. 3:5; James 5:4.

Perhaps the references to the ploughman and the thresher show that every workman for the Lord, whether or not he is an apostle, is to be paid (cf. John 4:36); at Corinth, although the apostle planted, Apollos watered (3:6).

Paul applies the truth to the church, to himself and to his colleagues. Almost certainly, he is ironic, combating some who are dismissive of his labours: is it a 'great thing' if, having sown 'spiritual things' for the Corinthians, the workers 'reap' essential 'material' benefits? Cf. Romans 15:27, where 'spiritual' and 'material' things are contrasted. Paul and others are ploughing human soil and planting the gospel seed in hope of spiritual blessing, also expecting a material return. If God grants the one, the emergent congregation ought to ensure the other.

Now appears a veiled criticism: other ministers 'partake of this right over you'. 'This right over you' represents th`? uJmw`n ejxousiva?, taking the genitive as objective. Although these anonymous men did not establish the church, they have accepted proffered support as of 'right'. Harbouring no grudge, Paul asks politely if this should not be the case for him and his colleagues.

Now comes an anticlimax. The principle of pay for work is scriptural and has been endorsed by other apostles and some ministers. Nor will the world sneer at it. Further, it has been accepted by the church. Paul, too, has given his approval. Nevertheless, he continues, '? we have not employed this right.' Because the innovation must have seemed extraordinary, an explanation is forthcoming: 'Rather, we bear all things so that we might not give any hindrance to the gospel of Christ.' 'Hindrance' has the sense of cutting or severing (egkope): Paul is afraid that if he demands payment, he will cut back the advance of the gospel.

This explanation is, if anything, more astonishing than the practice itself. Could it have been in the interests of the gospel for Paul to disregard a proper condition of service? Further, it might not have been clear to the Corinthians that he had the right to do so. But, having done it, he may have conveyed the impression that he was not a genuine apostle. He prepares to clarify his policy statement.

But before he elaborates, Paul raises the temperature by commenting on the rewards that others have received. Are the Corinthians not aware that priests and Levites labouring in the Jerusalem temple eat from the sacrifices they offer, thereby sharing 'in the altar'? Cf. Lev. 6:16,26; 7:6; Num. 18:8,31; Deut. 18:1-8. Although it is possible that Paul is alluding to temple practice in the Graeco-Roman world, he probably confines himself to the Jewish ritual. Therefore, as a 'temple worker', he has a right to obtain his food from the Corinthian 'temple' (cf. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16).

Analogies from the world have been employed (soldiers, workers in a vineyard, shepherds), followed up with a reference to Moses' requirement for an ox, and this has been complemented by the example of priests and Levites obtaining their food from the Jerusalem temple. Now Paul shows that the prin?ciple of reward for labour was applied by Jesus to the seventy-two (or, seventy, Luke 10:7). Cf. Matt. 10:10; 1 Tim. 5:18. But how can the apostle renounce such a fundamental right? The moment has arrived for him to tell all.

All things cry 'amen' to the principle of payment. If, then, Paul were to claim a proper material reward, he could not be criticized. 'But,' he confesses, 'I have not employed any of these.' 'These' are the rights of marriage (9:5), of not working (9:6) and recompense for work, plus expected courtesies on a par with those granted to some unnamed ministers (9:7,12). The perfect tense inherent in 'have not employed' (kechremai) indicates that he has never insisted on these, his mind having been made up long ago. Further, he has no intention of exerting a touching moral pressure to push the church to hurry through overdue payments: 'I have not written these things that it may be so for me.'

Before disclosing why he writes in this way, he passes a further comment: 'Rather, it would be better for me to die than?' Here, Paul possibly breaks off his sentence in a display of emotion, then ending with an outburst: ' ? no one will make void my boast!' This 'boast', always his joy, is something he will not renounce: he would rather be dead.

Although we are not left in suspense for long, before all is revealed Paul explains that this ground for personal exultation is not evangelism. Nor does he swell with pride because of his office. Further, although he is faithful in proclaiming the gospel, he does so as a servant: a 'compulsion' to honour his commission bears upon him. This means that as time goes by the Lord reminds him that he has no option other than that of proclaiming the good news, from which it follows that the fulfilment of his ministry enables Paul to avert what is termed succinctly as 'woe', lamentation consequent upon the Lord's disapproval. Yet not even his fidelity is a cause for elation. Rather, if he does boast about his work, it is for another reason.

The ground for boasting is not revealed just yet, although we are being brought nearer. Whereas someone who works 'voluntarily' might be granted a 'reward' or wage, the case is different for somebody who acts 'unwillingly'. The latter, a conscript whose will is irrelevant, does not offer himself. Having been recruited, he cannot choose his activity: he yields ? or resists ? at his peril.

Paul, having yielded, has been 'entrusted with a stewardship'. This means that his office was neither his own idea nor dependent upon his endorsement of God's will: deemed to be reliable, he accepted the service imposed unilaterally upon him (cf. 4:1-2).

But he does not imply that he accepted his 'stewardship' (oikonomia) passively or that he has served with a grudge. He reveals elsewhere that, not only are his activities a personal offering to God (2 Tim. 4:6; cf. Rom. 15:16), but that they are remarkable by any standard (15:10). Here, he states that his labours have never been deemed by him a reason for self-congratulation for which the Lord ought to remain duly thankful (cf. Luke 17:7-10).

Paul explains why he has never demanded support from the church, nor will he do so. Positively, there has always been a hidden dimension to his ministry, something which has unfailingly yielded a 'reward': the practice of proclaiming the good news 'free of charge' at the point of delivery. His adequate compensation has not been the Lord's blessing upon his labours, nor even a heavenly smile of approval, nor yet an assurance that at the end he will be granted an accolade for faithful service ? although Paul has no doubts about this (cf. 2 Tim. 4:8). Rather, his payment has always been the joy of a clear conscience, knowing that there is nothing about his person that could be an obstacle to others. The Lord's senior steward reveals that, travelling far beyond the line of duty, he has pre-empted his critics from putting it about that he wants to fleece the churches.

In a sense Paul is in a 'no-win' situation. Some may have been saying that he turned down financial support because he knew himself not to be a true apostle. On the other hand, had he accepted money it would have been hinted that he was avaricious. Nevertheless, because he has always known himself to be an apostle, and because the church is aware of this (cf. 9:1-2), his set tactic remains that of material independence, a policy that has never failed to gratify. 'Right' (exousia) refers to a congregation's obli?gation to pay its minister, and 'overwork' (katachraomai = 'to make full use of', or even 'to misuse') indicates that had Paul insisted on being paid by the church, he would have stirred up a hornet's nest; they would not have understood. So he has refrained.

In summary, the apostle recognizes that serving his Master has been, and always will be, his reward ? even if he has had to engage in manual labour. And the way he has gone about his duties ought to provoke certain Corinthians to avoid distressing their church.

Because Paul's concern is to be an effective communicator of the gospel, he reacts wisely to the prejudices and hesitations of those with whom he comes into contact, both Jews and Greeks. Similarly, the Corinthians need to come to terms with the sensitivities of fellow-Christians. In this context, one signal difference between the apostle and the church is that whereas he has triumphed, they have failed. This is the issue he continues to address, asserting his freedom to dispense with what some might consider to be solemn obligations. Paul implies that the principle of flexibility always affects his attitude to those to whom he speaks about Christ, in this manner bringing the argument of chapter 9 full circle: if he is adaptable, yet always maintaining his integrity, why should his readers not imitate him?

To win Gentiles, Paul adopts their lifestyle, although never descending to idol worship; and to win Jews, it is essential for him to conduct himself as a Jew; such is the racial divide that he has no alternative. Nevertheless, a Jewish critic would have abhorred someone who had discarded his culture to live like a Gentile, and a Greek sceptic would have protested that Paul was a fervent Jew scheming to turn gullible Greeks into Hebrews. Cf. Matt. 23:15; Acts 15:1; Gal. 5:12; Phil. 3:2. To each, Paul seemed to be unprincipled, an entrepreneur ready to exploit the situations into which he injected himself.

At a deeper level, the apostle has to be alert to the accusation of assimilating his ministry to prevalent cultures, hammering out one gospel for Jews reared on the law of Moses, and another for Greeks who let themselves be guided by the relatively dim light of defective conscience (cf. Rom. 1:19-21; 2:14-15). This is why the present chapter, as indeed the whole letter, shows that his message needs, and asks for, no cultural modification.

In other words, Paul exhibits the truth that fixed principles give rise to flexibility in relationships, an adaptability that breaks no law. And he shows that where there is scant knowledge of the truth and little concern for one's neighbour, there can remain only a harsh and damaging rigidity.

The whole subject is addressed by 9:19-27, the apostle's policy being elegantly simple: in the task of evangelism he has been more than willing to accommodate to all, but will never allow himself to be dominated by the prevailing norms. Not only will he not revert to his former Jewishness by embracing Old Testament feasts, ceremonies and dietary laws as part of an outdated legislation, but he is unprepared to commit himself to being a Hellene, someone who, even if not a devotee of the gods, would be culturally non-Jewish. In short, he steps back from being perceived as essentially either a Jew or a Gentile.

So, following the Damascus-road conversion, there is now only one who is his Master (cf. Matt. 23:10): he is dominated by Jesus. This is why in 9:19 he expounds his commitment to freedom: because he remains 'free from all', maintaining his independence, he is no man's lackey and is under no obli??gation to conform to the demands of a paymaster. Further, because he is answerable to Christ, he considers himself at liberty to become 'a slave to all', meaning that it has long been his policy to identify with others, displaying friendship in order to 'gain the more' for his Saviour.

Here, Paul has in mind those who allow their 'knowledge' free rein, and who by eating sacrificed meat damage weaker brethren (8:1,10).

'And' develops the preceding verse: Paul behaves as a Jew when with Jews, observing the law of Moses 'as under law', although it is not now his final author?ity in matters of faith and conduct. Hence the rider: '(I myself not being under law)'. Cf. Rom. 6:14; 10:4.

The plan is that he might 'gain Jews', those who regard Moses' legislation as absolute. When with them Paul will adjust to their practices, though not accepting their convictions, so that they might comprehend Moses and abandon him in favour of the Messiah.

The apostle does not acknowledge his conduct to be irregular, the reason being that he believed that the law had never been more than a provisional apparatus in the plan of salvation. Cf. Rom. 7:7,12; 2 Cor. 3; Gal. 3:24 and the surrounding context. Although he never encouraged fellow-Jews to disregard Moses' legislation (cf. Acts 21:24), he regarded it neither as an instrument leading to justification nor as an ultimate rule for believers within the new dispen?sation. This approach is not quite that of many 'reformed' evangelicals, for whom J. F. Bayes may be taken as a spokesman: 'The believing life in Christ is not, however, divorced from the requirements of God's written law in the Decalogue' (The Weakness of the Law. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2000, p.206). Yet he was prepared to observe its stipu?lations, never wrong in themselves, in order to empathize with fellow-Hebrews.

And this is borne out by the book of Acts. For example, Sabbath days were normally the occasions when Paul preached to Jews in their synagogues, although the seventh day was never instituted as the churches' statutory day for