Adapted from The New Moody Atlas of the Bible. Copyright © 2009 The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago.

1:1–3. Paul (v. 1) is universally seen as the author of this epistle, and only the most radical scholars deny this. Called refers to the urgent summons with which God appointed Paul with his apostolic office. Sosthenes is mentioned in Ac 18:17, where he is called "the leader of the synagogue," and may have either been a Jewish believer at that time, or became one later (cf. the comments there). The church of God (v. 2) should probably be understood as a genitive of possession. That the church belonged to Him may reflect Paul’s discussion in chaps. 1–4, where he rebukes the factions some were forming around themselves to the exclusion of God. Grace to you and peace (v. 3) reflects a combination of greetings. The Greco-Roman world generally offered greetings of grace and the Jewish world offered greetings of peace, indicating Paul’s uniting of both cultures as the Jewish apostle to the Gentiles. Through the cross, God has granted undeserved forgiveness (grace) as well as both personal wholeness and reconciliation to God (peace) by overcoming the spiritual enmity between humanity and God. Furthermore, the Corinthians also needed a serious dose of internal peace, which would come only as they appropriated God’s grace (on grace as an ongoing power in the believer’s life, see the comments on 1Co 15:10).

1:4–9. Paul described the blessings that were possessed by all the believers in Corinth, not just a select few, and began even here to address the divisions in the church. For the grace of God … given you (v. 4) forms the basis for Paul’s thankfulness for them. Grace here means "a favor," "being treated better than one deserves." That (v. 5) expands on the nature of the grace Paul mentioned in v. 4. Enriched … in all speech and all knowledge refers to the rich endowment of various kinds of spiritual gifts in the church. Paul’s comment here may have a tinge of irony in light of the enormous problems generated by their gifts. Even as the testimony … was confirmed in you (v. 6) suggests that the spiritual gifts served to confirm the truth of the message concerning Christ. The revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ will take place at the rapture. Confirm ("complete legal security") and blameless ("being innocent of the accusation of committing a crime"; Col 1:22) were used in judicial contexts. This is probably a reference to believers’ righteous standing before God in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the OT (cf. Jl 2:31; 3:14; Zph 1:14–18), the "day of the Lord" was a time of eschatological upheaval and judgment. In the NT, it appears to follow the rapture of the church (cf. the comments on 1Th 4:13–5:11), and refers to a time from which the Church is delivered (1Co 5:5; 1Th 5:4–5, 9–10; Php 1:6). Paul called it the day of our Lord Jesus Christ possibly because the authority with which God will judge the world has been delegated to Jesus (2Th 1:7–10), and possibly because Jesus rescues His people from the tribulation period on that day.

1:10–17. Now (de) (v. 10) could be translated "but," and signals that the introduction is over, that Paul’s discussion of the glorious benefits of being a believer is over, and that he will begin to address serious issues in the church. Divisions (schisma, from which the Eng. word "schism" is derived) means "dissension and division as a result of incompatible ambitions." Paul wants them to be made complete, a verb that meant "to adjust something so it is set in order." It was sometimes used for setting a broken bone, or even for reconciling political factions. Paul was informed about the strife there through Chloe’s people (v. 11) of whom nothing is known—where they lived or what their social status was—but apparently they traveled to Ephesus and notified Paul of the problems in Corinth. Quarrels means "bitter, contentious discussions that resulted in divisions." Paul explained what contentions he meant in v. 12. It is not clear if some group was a follower of Paul, others of Apollos and Cephas, or if Paul used the names of these leaders instead of the names of those leading these factions in order to avoid giving them any publicity.

Most of what Paul wrote in the remainder of chaps. 1–4 is to correct this problem (cf. 3:5–9, 21–23). His basic point is that the entire church should enjoy all of God’s remarkable servants and glorify Him—not the servants—for them. I of Christ was true of every Corinthian believer, but this group was sanctimonious, thinking of themselves as the only ones truly following Christ by not following human leaders or teachers. The problem seemed to be that some refused to submit to or profit from the benefits Paul, Cephas, or Apollos could provide, and refused to fellowship with those aligned with those leaders. Has Christ been divided (v. 13) could be paraphrased, "Has the resurrected and authoritative Christ, who belongs to all believers, been apportioned to only one group?" Paul worked to steer attention away from himself so that the allegiance of all would be given to Jesus. Crispus (v. 14), which means "curly," is probably the synagogue ruler converted early in Paul’s Corinthian ministry (Ac 18:8). Gaius may be the same person mentioned in Rm 16:23. Romans was probably written from Corinth, and Gaius was renowned for his generous hospitality to Paul and the believers in Corinth. Stephanas came from Corinth to Ephesus where Paul lived when he wrote 1 Corinthians, and may have reminded the apostle that Paul baptized him. That Paul was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel indicates that Christian baptism is not an essential, saving part of the gospel. Cleverness of speech (v. 17) is literally "wisdom of words," and with this phrase Paul launched his discussion against those who sought to win a following through their impressive verbal and intellectual skills (see the "Excursus on Chapters 1–4" below). So that the cross of Christ would not be made void indicates that Paul was convinced that people needed to embrace the cross on the basis of its own merits, and not because of the rhetorical cleverness and manipulative techniques with which many rhetoricians made their living. Paul’s intent when he evangelized the Corinthians was that he would never eclipse the power or wisdom of the cross by his own brilliance, for doing so would cause it to become void ("to cause the power or significance of something to dwindle").

Considerable debate exists regarding the cultural background that evinced Paul’s discussion in 1Co 1–4. It is possible that Paul was reacting to Jewish wisdom traditions, in which case some of the Cephas party may have campaigned for Moses and the law versus Christ and grace. Possibly Paul reacted to Gnosticism whereby some in the church boasted of their possession of spiritual knowledge vis-à-vis those without it, resulting in these cliques. A better explanation of the background of chaps. 1–4 is found in Greco-Roman rhetoric. "Rhetoric" is roughly synonymous with "sophistry," and "rhetors," those who taught rhetoric, is roughly synonymous with "sophists."

Success in political, religious, legal, and business settings demanded that one be trained in rhetorical skills. Sophists set up schools to teach rhetoric, which involved a combination of training in eloquence, argumentation, persuasive techniques, the development of vocal timbre, and even entertainment. Rhetors could establish these schools only if they were able to impress the citizens of a town, who would subsequently send their sons to them for training and pay considerable sums for the privilege. Those trained by a particular sophist became his "disciples" (mathetes, same word for the disciples in the gospels) and would typically imitate his master in a number of ways. A disciple was expected to defend and support his teacher against all others, and on occasion verbal and physical fights resulted between the proponents of competing sophists.

Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthian factions involved several strategies. He denied that he was a sophist, seeking to impress people with his "cleverness of speech" (lit., "wisdom of words," 1:17) or "superiority of speech or of wisdom" (2:1)—terms often applied to Greco-Roman sophists—so they would follow and support him. As a result, they should not be overly zealous in backing their Christian heroes, which resulted in the church’s disunity (4:6). He urged them to quit acting "like mere men" (3:3), like those in the secular world of Corinth, and to recognize that the Christian leaders were a gift for the entire church (not just parts of it; 3:21–22), that these heroes were nothing more than servants of God (4:1–5), and that God alone deserved the kind of zeal they gave to their mortal champions (3:6–9). For information on sophistry related to 1 Corinthians, cf. Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 31–43; Idem, Philo and Paul among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002); Idem, "Rhetoric," in A Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne et al. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 820–822; Jeffrey S. Lamp, First Corinthians 1–4 in Light of Jewish Wisdom Traditions: Christ, Wisdom and Spirituality, SBEC (Lewiston: Mellen, 2000), 81–115; Duane Litfin, St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1–4 and Greco-Roman Rhetoric, SNTMS (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1994), 109–243.

1:18–25. For (v. 18) develops Paul’s explanation of the power of the cross (v. 17). Foolishness was sometimes used in secular Greek for what was insipid or dull, and even for the sluggishness of animals in winter. Crucifixion was viewed with universal disgust in the first century, and it was considered a faux pas to mention it in polite company. "Disgustingly stupid" gets at the sense of the word. Yet in this foolish cross is the power of God. For (v. 19) introduces a proof from Scripture to the effect that the cross is the power of God whereby He destroys the worldly wisdom of leaders. Isaiah 29:14 has eschatological and messianic overtones (cf. the use of "wondrously" in Is 29:14 in connection with the messianic prophecies of Is 9:6, "Wonderful Counselor"; 28:29) (see Roy E. Ciampa, and Brian S. Rosner, "1 Corinthians," in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007], 697–98). The word wisdom (sophia) as a noun occurs 51 times in the NT, 28 times by Paul, 16 times (plus 10 uses of the cognate adjective sophos) in 1Co 1–4. Though this is debated, Paul seems to connect wisdom with the rhetorical skill of sophists, which they employed to win a following. Some in the Corinthian church appeared to be using similar skills to advance themselves in the church. But Paul also employs wisdom in reference to God, Jesus, and his own gospel message (e.g., 1:21, 24, 25, 30; 2:6, 7). "Impressive ability" is the sense of sophia, and this translation works well both in reference to secular wisdom (rhetorical skill) and God’s wisdom.

Wise man (v. 20) is further defined by two terms, one for Jewish and the other for Greek wise men. Scribe is probably the Jewish legal expert who had expertise in the more technical aspects of the law and who taught the Pharisees especially. Debater (syzetetes) was often used for the professional debaters and quarrelers who were common among Greco-Roman sophists. God has turned their impressive abilities into foolishness. For (v. 21) introduces a detailed description about God making foolish the world’s impressive abilities. Since explains why God made worldly wisdom foolish (because the world did not acknowledge Him), and the phrase God was well-pleased … to save those who believe presents how He made worldly wisdom foolish (through the foolishness of the gospel message). For indeed (v. 22) further expands upon the idea of how the world of unbelieving Jews and Gentiles acknowledged neither God nor His gospel. It is because Jews ask for signs. They believed that the arrival of the Messiah would be accompanied by signs and miracles and that He would do more spectacular works than even Moses did. Perhaps they were hoping for something like the constellation Ursa Major running to bite Orion on the leg, or the Big Dipper tilting the other way. They refused to recognize the signs Jesus performed, or to acknowledge the validity of the greatest sign, the resurrection. Jesus’ death was a stumbling block for them (v. 23), for how could one who was crucified as a criminal be their Messiah? Greeks search for wisdom indicates why Greeks did not acknowledge God. A crucified carpenter is foolishness (v. 23), not impressive! But (v. 23), in contrast to what those in the world sought, Paul preached Christ crucified (v. 23). In His life, death, and resurrection is manifested the power of God and the wisdom [impressive ability] of God, against all human estimations. With because (v. 25), Paul confirmed that the gospel preached was the power and wisdom of God. C. K. Barrett writes, "What God has done in Christ crucified is a direct contradiction of human ideas of wisdom and power, yet it achieved what human wisdom and power fail to achieve. It does … deliver man from his bondage.…" (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, HNTC [New York: Harper & Row, 1968], 56).

1:26–31. For (v. 26) begins an illustration of God’s powerful "foolishness" and "weakness" (v. 25) which are wiser and stronger than men. The very makeup of the Corinthian church, for whom God had done great things and through whom He was doing great things, is an indication of His power through those whom the world considers weak. Verses 27–28 indicate God’s design, which is to shame ("to confuse," "to disgrace") the wise and strong by choosing, using, and blessing the weak and foolish so that no man may boast before God (v. 29; cf. v. 31). God alone gets the credit (v. 31). Part of the reason Paul emphasized this was to cause the Corinthian faction leaders to quit drawing attention to themselves as secular sophists did, and recognize the supremacy of God in the world and the church. They were joined to Christ Jesus (v. 30) by His doing, not through any impressive ability of their own. Because of that connection with Jesus, believers recognize in Him God’s wisdom, His "impressive ability," and receive His righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Righteousness (God’s own moral excellence and virtue given to believers; see the comments on Rm 1:17; 3:21–31) comes to the believer because of being "in Christ." Many deny the concept of "imputed righteousness," and while Paul never used the exact term, he has a category for it (2Co 5:21; Php 3:9). Sanctification means "the status of being set apart and consecrated to God" with a life, it is hoped, of practical holiness that accompanies it. Redemption is "effecting the release of a slave or a prisoner of war by paying for that release." Theologically, it refers to the deliverance of sinners from sin’s penalty and power by the blood of Jesus.

2:1–5. And (v. 1) takes up the thought of 1:18–25 that God’s "weakness" is stronger than the world’s strength. For superiority of speech or of wisdom, see "Excursus on Chapters 1–4" at 1:18. In vv. 2–5, Paul pointed out that his intent was to deliver the message of the gospel in a straightforward, unembellished way, and thereby he proved to be an anti-sophist. For demonstration of the Spirit and of power, see the note on 1:6. If he evangelized them using rhetorical techniques, they may have embraced Christ because of the techniques, not because of the wonder of the cross itself.

Paul’s main point in this section emphasizes that all believers enjoy the illuminating work of the Spirit, to counter the boastful and elitist mentality of their cliques.

2:6–13. Yet (v. 6) corrects the possible misunderstanding that Paul was saying God had no wisdom at all (1:25). Mature refers to all believers, not to a few who are insightful. It is possible that by the word mature Paul means "mature or spiritual Christians" as opposed to carnal believers, but there are only two categories of people found in 2:1–14, namely those who are purely secular (the rulers of this age, v. 6; the natural man, v. 14), and those who are Christians (see the many first-person pronouns and verbs found here). In addition, it is highly unlikely that Paul would withhold spiritual truths related to Christ from immature believers. Mature here is the term he used for the category of all those who believe in Jesus Christ vis-à-vis the world. Mystery (v. 7) means "an undisclosed secret that has now been divulged." Often when Paul uses it in a theological sense, mystery refers to the contents of the gospel message forecast (predestined) in the OT but requiring historical fulfillment and the illuminating work of the Spirit to be fully understood. God did all this for our glory, to provide the profound salvific benefits that accrue to believers. While believers (the mature) grasped the wisdom of God in Christ, the Roman and Jewish rulers did not (vv. 6, 8), a situation foreseen by Isaiah (cf. Is 64:4 and 65:17 cited in 1Co 3:9). The Spirit knows all about God’s plans in Christ and not only reveals their true significance to believers, but persuades them to embrace Him (vv. 10–12). The Spirit did not do this for the rulers, but they are still culpable for their actions (for the interchange between divine responsibility and God’s sovereignty as it relates to sin, see the comments on Rm 9:22–23). This Spirit provides factual content (He helps believers know the full significance of the facts about Jesus) and the desire to act on those facts (to accept those things, unlike the natural man, v. 14). The difficult phrase combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words (see the helpful summary by Archibald Robertson, and Alfred Plummer, First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 2d ed. ICC [Edinburgh: T&T. Clark, 1914], 47) probably means something like "combining spiritual content (i.e., the message of the gospel) with spiritual (non-rhetorical) methods or forms for conveying it" (cf. Litfin, St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation, 218). Paul made it clear that his presentation of the gospel did not use worldly methods, but was straightforward, producing the intended spiritual results.

2:14–16. But (v. 14) signals a contrast between believers and the natural man (psuchikos here means "one whose mindset or behavior is natural, governed by purely human impulses" rather than by the Spirit). Spiritually refers to the help rendered by the Spirit. Appraised is "to make a decision based upon careful investigation." Spiritual (v. 15; "one who has and belongs to the Spirit") refers to every believer (see the comments on 2:6). Paul will begin to discuss a third category of individuals in 3:1, that of carnal believers. But here his point seems to be that all believers (he who is spiritual, v. 15), in contrast to unbelievers (the natural man, v. 14), have access to and the ability to comprehend the spiritual truth related to Christ because of the illuminating work of the Spirit for believers. He himself is appraised by no one means, most likely, that unbelievers do not have the capacity to understand adequately why believers think as they do. The mind of Christ (v. 16) in this context involves the knowledge concerning Christ, made known by the Spirit to believers, that Paul has emphasized (cf. 2:6–13; Is 40:13). Isaiah described God’s inscrutable plans to rescue Israel through the Servant (Is 40:1–11, 15–17). The Corinthian cliques would be less problematic if they recognized that every believer receives these benefits from the Spirit.

3:1–4. Paul had to treat the Corinthians as if they did not have the mind of Christ (2:16) because of their carnality. Spiritual men (v. 1) are characterized by the Spirit, but Paul maintained that this church was conducting itself more like men of flesh (sarkinos), i.e., like unbelievers. Paul sometimes used infants in reference to unbelievers (Rm 2:20; Gl 4:3), but he qualifies the word with in Christ to indicate that he knew they were saved, though acting like unbelievers. Milk (v. 2) refers to the basic facts of the gospel that saved them. Solid food is probably the weightier implications of that same gospel, which would help them be less like the world and more united (cf. Php 2:5–11 where Jesus’ sacrifice [the milk] is an example of serving others [solid food]). Fleshly (v. 3) means "to think or behave as an unregenerate person under the control of the sin nature," and is parallel to walking like mere (unsaved) men, a phrase Paul used to describe a purely secular mindset (Rm 3:5; 1Co 9:8; 15:32; Gl 1:1).

3:5–9. Here Paul sought to temper their overinflated view of their church heroes. The key to the success of Apollos and Paul was the Lord who gave opportunity to each one (v. 5). Paul used the imperfect tense in the phrase, was causing the growth (v. 6), to emphasize God’s role in their progress. But he also used aorist verbs (planted; watered) to understate the significance of the human servants, a point made explicit in v. 7. Paul and Apollos were one (v. 8), probably a reference to sharing the same level of relative (un)importance for the church’s development. They have a similar status, but will receive distinct rewards (reward means "payment earned for work one has completed"). Serving God to gain eternal rewards is a legitimate motivation, and neither Jesus nor Paul discouraged it (Mt 5:12, 46; 6:1, 4; 1Co 9:17; Rv 22:12). Part of Paul’s and Apollos’s similar status (v. 8a) included them being fellow workers employed by God (not "they both work alongside God as He works"). God is the employer, the owner of the farm and the building.

3:10–15. Those who worked on constructing God’s building (the church; v. 9) will be held accountable for it. Paul attributed his ministerial success to God’s grace ("exceptional effect produced by [God’s] generosity," roughly synonymous with God’s power; cf. BDAG, 1080) (v. 10). A master builder (architekton) was both a building’s designer and construction supervisor. Paul laid the right foundation, Jesus Christ (v. 11), but he warned the strident leaders at Corinth to be careful about how they built on it. Gold, silver, precious stones (v. 12) in the context of 1Co 1–4 refers to ministry that produces harmony. Wood, hay, straw refers to practices that lead to personal aggrandizement and widespread disunity. In the day of the Lord following the rapture of the Church, God will demonstrate that He is aware of those negative influences (v. 13) and will evaluate them negatively. Fire serves as a symbol of God’s judgment that consumes what is not acceptable to Him (cf. Zch 13:9). Those whose toil resulted in strife will be saved (v. 15), but barely (yet so as through fire describing a narrow escape from some catastrophe). He or she will suffer loss of rewards. The reward (v. 14) probably includes expanded opportunities to serve Jesus with profound satisfaction in a glorious setting (His kingdom), and hearing the commendation, "Well done, good and faithful servant" (see the comments on Mt 25:21, 23; 1Co 4:5). Cf. the comments on Rm 14:10–12; 2Co 5:10, and James Rosscup, Paul’s Teaching on the Christian’s Future Reward, with Special Reference to 1 Corinthians 3:10–17 [Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Aberdeen, 1976], 464–465.

3:16–17. You are a temple (v. 16) is about the corporate church as the place where God and His Spirit dwelt, not vices that harm an individual Christian’s body. Both occurrences of destroy (v. 17) mean "to cause harm," "to ruin," "to cause severe damage." If they damage the church by fomenting discord, God will damage them with rigorous discipline, though by this Paul does not mean that they will face eternal condemnation.

3:18–23. Wise in this age (v. 18) refers to the kind of impressive abilities that typified the sophists but which had no place in the church. To become wise in God’s opinion required rejecting the brilliance applauded by the world and becoming foolish in the world’s eyes. In v. 19, Paul cited Jb 5:13, which expresses the inevitability of God reversing the fortunes of the cunning (Jb 5:12) who seek their own advancement by oppressing the poor (Jb 5:15), similar to the Corinthians’ situation. He cited Ps 94:11 (v. 20), which stresses God’s judgment of the proud and wicked who crush His people (cf. Ps 94:2–7, 9–11). Likewise, the arrogant in Corinth will give an account of their troublemaking. One of the ironies in Corinth was that every believer could profit from each of the leaders whom God gave to bless the entire church (vv. 21, 22). All believers belong to Christ (v. 23), not to Paul, Apollos, or Cephas, and their allegiance should be directed to Him. But Christ belongs to God. Paul described Jesus’ functional subordination to God, but his words do not mean that Jesus’ nature was less than divine. Paul’s point may be that Jesus humbly served God in dying on the cross, and He is a model for the Corinthians who apparently had little time for either humility or service.

4:1–5. Paul turned from the privilege each of the Corinthians had in all of their leaders to discussing how the leaders should be viewed by the church. They were servants ("helpers," "assistants") and stewards (slaves who had authority in their master’s households) (v. 1), workers whose lower positions garnered little respect outside of their connection to their superiors. And this was Paul’s point. The Corinthians mistook the slaves for the Master. Trustworthy means "one who is reliable" (v. 2). While accountable to the church (1Tm 5:19–20), the church leader is primarily accountable to God (1Co 4:3–4), and his job is to please Him, not to impress the churchgoers. Paul was reluctant to engage in too much self-evaluation because only God can know objectively how a minister is performing, though on occasion he analyzed his own performance and was conscious of nothing against himself (v. 4). The tendency of those who serve Christ is either to be too hard on themselves or too lenient, and surely both are problematic. A comprehensive and objective evaluation of one’s own ministry, and certainly that of another’s, should be left to the Lord in that future day (cf. the comments on 3:10–15). God will commend one who serves Him faithfully, in a way conducive to church unity. This commendation constitutes part of the believer’s future rewards (see the comments on 3:14).

4:6–7. The party leaders in Corinth needed to listen less to their admirers, and their admirers needed to jettison their gratuitous zeal for their leaders. It is not at all clear what Paul meant by what is written (v. 6), but it may refer to what Scripture teaches about the need for humble servant leadership. No Corinthian party was superior to any other, at least not in God’s estimation. These believers and their leaders were not the source of their own spiritual enrichment, and they had no reason to boast (v. 7).

4:8–13. Filled (v. 8) was a common term for the arrogant, and the wise man was thought to be as privileged as a king (for the ancient references, cf. David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, BECNT [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003], 137). Kings probably does not indicate that they thought their great wisdom and numerous spiritual blessings signaled that the kingdom had arrived for them. Paul’s reaction to them in vv. 9–13 suggests that their problem was that they were "living like kings," at least in terms of their inflated self image and desire for followers, while he and the other apostles were treated like the world’s riffraff (scum and dregs, v. 13). (Paul’s statement gives an indirect indication that the Church is not the full-fledged kingdom of God in this age as many maintain. Believers will rule with Jesus in the future millennial kingdom [Rv 3:21], but Paul says here that they are not ruling now. Cf. also 15:50.) Christians must be humble servants, willing to get their hands dirty (working with our own hands, v. 12) for others, rather than seeking to build their own little kingdoms in the church and scrambling to win popularity contests in order to revel in their own importance. Furthermore, they need to be willing to be dismissed, or worse, assaulted by the world (vv. 12–13). Serious servant leadership is generally not glamorous.

4:14–21. Paul uses one more metaphor with the Corinthians (along with the metaphors of Paul being a field hand [3:6–9], builder [3:10–17], and household servant [4:1–5]). He likens himself to their father (vv. 14–15). Tutors (v. 15) means "chaperones." In wealthier Greco-Roman homes, a young adult male slave often accompanied the male children wherever they went to make sure they did not cause or encounter trouble. But Paul was more like their father through the gospel, and had the authority to push for change. Just as children tend to resemble their parents, so Paul urges them to follow his example (be imitators of me, v. 16). For this reason (v. 17)—so that they could better follow Paul’s pattern—Paul sent … Timothy to them while Paul was in Ephesus (Ac 19:22), but apparently he had not yet arrived (1Co 16:10). Some had become smug thinking that they could further their own agendas without fear of recourse from Paul (v. 18). But he planned to visit them when God permitted, and when he did, he intended to find if the "wise" had any power, i.e., if they had accomplished anything worthwhile, or if they were just windbags (v. 19). Verse 20 does not mean that the Church equals the kingdom of God. The Church manifests some of the spiritual effects of the kingdom during the present era, but the kingdom awaits a climactic future arrival (cf. 1Co 6:9–10; 15:50; Gl 5:21; Eph 5:5; Col 1:12–13; cf. Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993], 106–110). One of those effects was the spiritual progress of Christians through the work of Paul and others, and which should have been evident in the ministries of the Corinthian leaders and their fans. Paul hoped that they might change their arrogant ways so that his visit might be less confrontational (v. 21).

In chaps. 5 and 6, Paul responded to reports from Chloe’s friends (1:11) or other visitors (16:17) about another problem, this time pertaining to arrogance and immorality in the church (chaps. 5–6).

5:1–2. Paul dealt with arrogance in 4:18–19, but here the arrogance manifested itself in their smug willingness to harbor immorality, specifically a man sleeping with his stepmother (5:2). As does not exist is not found in the original text, and instead supplying "as is not tolerated" better fits the evidence that this sin was known but not condoned in the ancient world. The law forbade this relationship (Lv 18:8; Am 2:7). The church had become arrogant (v. 2) by not dealing severely with this sin.

5:3–5. For (v. 3) begins an explanation of removing the immoral man. Present in spirit is probably a reference to Paul’s own spirit rather than the Holy Spirit (v. 4 lit., is "when you and my spirit are assembled"). Paul was "backing them up" as an apostle, thinking of them, praying for them, wishing he could be there as they performed the discipline. I have decided (v. 5) is not in the Greek text, and "You should all decide …" fits better what Paul wanted them to do. Deliver such a one to Satan (v. 5) means "remove this man from the church and put him into Satan’s realm, the world" (1Tm 1:20). Flesh in Paul often refers to the sin nature, which the believer still possesses (Rm 8:13; 13:14; Col 3:5; and see the comments on Rm 7:5–6). The destruction of his flesh probably refers to this man curbing his fulfillment of the desires of the flesh, thereby figuratively "destroying" the flesh, as a result of the discipline. Satan’s role may be to inflame the man to sin even more, but in the end Paul hoped that he would burn out or become weary of sinning and repent. So that his spirit may be saved probably speaks of the immaterial part of a person that is favorably disposed toward God when made alive by the Spirit. Satan could not touch this man’s redeemed spirit (Jn 10:28–29), but if he failed to repent it may indicate that he was not actually redeemed, and Paul does call him a "so-called brother" (v. 11). For the day of the Lord Jesus, see the comments on 1:8.

5:6–8. Paul picked up the theme of boasting from v. 2. Leavens the whole lump (v. 6) is similar to the proverb, "One bad apple can spoil the whole lot." The mention of leaven led Paul to compare the church to the celebration of Passover. The Hebrews would clean out the old leaven (v. 7; cf. Ex 12:15–19; 13:7) in preparation for the feast, and the Corinthians needed to "clean house" as well. You are in fact unleavened indicates that Paul viewed these Corinthians as truly born again, though their behavior sometimes brought doubt upon their true status. Verses 7–8 denote that, in Paul’s analogy, the Passover celebration had already started and they were in danger of missing the feast. That is, if their community was infected with the leaven of malice and wickedness, they would forfeit their celebration of the Christian life and their delight in Him. Paul concludes his illustration by reminding them that Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed, a reminder of the pure and spotless lamb that was offered as the way of escape from the bondage of Egypt (Ex 12:1–13, 28–29). Just as the Israelites placed blood on the doorposts of their houses and God passed over judgment, so believers apply the blood of the sinless Messiah to their hearts by faith, and God passes over eternal judgment.

5:9–13. Regarding the letter in question, cf. the introduction to 1 Corinthians. They were not to associate with any so-called believer who was immoral (pornos, "one who engages in sexual immorality"), covetous ("those who would like to have more" and act unethically to get it), a swindler ("those who are ravenous" and extort to obtain something), a reviler ("those who speak rudely of others, who malign others’ character"), or a drunkard (abuse of alcohol was a major social problem in the ancient world). Associate (v. 11) means "to join with others in shared social activities," and Paul defines this further as not even to eat with such a one. Church discipline is always intended to be redemptive and involves breaking fellowship—it is hoped for a short time!—with those involved in scandalous sin. Do you not judge those who are within? (v. 12) indicates that Paul expected them to be willing to judge these kinds of believers for these kinds of sins. For the relationship of church discipline to Jesus’ command not to judge, see the comments on Mt 7:1–2. Excuses abound for not conducting church discipline, but ultimately, it can be an important tool in maintaining the purity and potency of the church.

6:1–8. The Corinthians should judge an immoral believer but should not have the secular courts judge their petty litigations. The saints will participate with Jesus in the one-time judgment of the unbelieving world and the angels following the second coming (vv. 2–3; cf. Rv 2:26–27; 3:21; 20:4; Mt 19:28; Rm 16:20) which, in Paul’s mind, makes them capable of settling their own legal disputes (a better translation than law courts, vv. 2, 4). The absence of any wise man (v. 5) who could settle disputes was proof that they did not have as much wisdom as they thought. The Corinthians should have been willing to be wronged and defrauded ("to be deprived of something through fraudulent means") in order to avoid besmirching the name of Christ by attacking a fellow believer in secular courts (vv. 7–8).

6:9–11. Here Paul developed the theme of believers’ superiority over the secular legal authorities in judging their own affairs. The unrighteous (v. 9) refers to non-Christians who will not rule and reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom. Their characteristics are given in vv. 9–10, including those who are effeminate ("men who fill the sexual role of the female" in homosexual activity) and homosexuals (lit., "males who take other males to bed"; cf. Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice [Nashville: Abingdon, 2001], 303–332). For covetous, revilers, drunkards, and swindlers, cf. the comments on 5:11 where they describe those who are saved but worthy of church discipline. Such were some of you indicates the unrighteousness that typified the Corinthians before they trusted Christ. Since they were no longer in the same category as the unrighteous, including unrighteous pagan judges, they were better suited to settle disputes between the righteous redeemed than the secular courts were. You were washed (v. 11) is a middle voice verb, here probably suggesting the enthusiastic consent of the Corinthian believers to undergo baptism. Baptism does not save an individual, but it serves as the profound sign of the prior work of God who cleanses one from the corruption of sin at the time of salvation (for the significance of baptism, see the comments on Rm 6:3–4). Sanctified here means "one who has the status of being separated from sin and set apart to God." Paul can speak of being sanctified in a practical sense in which the believer cooperates with the Spirit, separates himself from sin, and grows in personal holiness (see Rm 6:19, 22). But he can also speak of "positional" sanctification in which God separates the believing individual from sin unto Himself at the time of salvation (Rm 15:16; 1Co 1:2, 30). Because of the sorry spiritual condition of the Corinthian church (Paul next addressed their immorality in 6:12ff.!), sanctified here has the positional sense (note the "divine" passive voice—were sanctified, i.e., by God). Unlike the heathen judges, the Corinthians were set apart from evil unto God, and this makes them more capable of being in tune with Him so they can better settle their own disputes. Justified indicates the Corinthians were themselves declared righteous by God (see the comments on Rm 3:24 for the force of justified); this term also suggests that they were better able to reach righteous decisions in their legal wrangling than non-Christian judges. The appalling frequency in current society with which Christians sue other believers is an indication that Paul’s injunction is either completely ignored or inappropriately domesticated.

6:12–20. Paul looked at one aspect of immorality as it affected the church in 5:1–13, and he looks at a different aspect here. All things are lawful for me (v. 12) probably reflects Paul’s belief as one who was no longer under the constraints of the law (Rm 7:1–4), but was wrongly used by some of the Corinthians. The rich viewed their wealth as providing an opportunity for doing "all things that are lawful," especially satisfying one’s culinary and sexual appetites. Food is for the stomach … but God will do away with both of them (v. 13) probably refers to death, though in the resurrection one will have both a stomach and the capacity to eat (cf. Lk 24:41–43). The body is not for immorality, even though in Paul’s day much of the unbelieving Greco-Roman world thought it was. The financially elite commonly had banquets called convivia that included the services of prostitutes, and it was not unusual for a father to throw a party and hire a prostitute for his son when he turned 18 (a rite of passage called toga virilis) (cf. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 76–93). The body of a believer is intended for serving and enjoying the Lord. Members (v. 15) means "bodily appendages," "limbs," and suggests that Christians are His arms and legs (Rm 12:4–5; 1Co 12:12–14), i.e., they belong to Him. It is wrong to take away the members that belong to Christ and give them to a prostitute because that does the unthinkable. It involves Jesus in harlotry. Paul cited Gn 2:24 in v. 16, not to suggest that when one is involved sexually with a prostitute he is married to her. Paul’s point is that the sexual relationship in marriage is a physical manifestation of the sharing of a common life. Having relations with a prostitute shares life with her rather than with the Lord, with whom one shares a spiritual bond (vv. 16–17). The believer must flee (pheugete, as in "fugitive") (v. 18) in the face of immorality. The immoral man sins against his own body should be understood in the context of Paul’s statements that a believer’s body is for the Lord (v. 13), that he is one of the members of Christ (v. 15a), and that he should not take away the members of Christ and give them to a prostitute (v. 15b). The sin against a believer’s own body is keeping it from being available to Jesus for serving and glorifying Him, and giving it to a prostitute instead (so Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987], 262–263). Paul’s point in v. 19 is that believers belong to God who indwells them through the Spirit, just as the Greco-Roman gods owned and resided in their own temples. God "owns" believers. They are "bought and paid for" with the blood of Jesus (v. 20). He requires that each glorify God (live to enhance God’s reputation in the world) in his physical body. Many today say that use of a prostitute constitutes evidence of not being saved, but Paul assumes the authenticity of the Corinthians’ faith and so exhorts them based on their connection to Christ instead.

7:1–7. Paul responded to their questions about marriage in chap. 7, but there is a thematic carryover from immorality in chap. 6. Marital relations can help one avoid immorality. Some of the Corinthians, however, favored asceticism over sexual fulfillment in marriage. The most likely reason for their ascetic leanings comes from hardships Paul mentioned in 7:26 (see the comments there). Times were hard enough for Christians that some thought marriage was inadvisable for the single, and sex too distracting from the Lord for the married. It is good for a man not to touch a woman (v. 1) was probably a Corinthian slogan because Paul did not condemn sex within marriage (7:2–6, 28, 36). He agreed with the slogan in part, but qualified it in v. 2. To touch a woman is a euphemism for sexual relations (Gn 20:6; Ru 2:9; Pr 6:29), in this context relations within marriage. Have (v. 2) is a euphemism for "have sex with" (Mk 6:18; Jn 4:18; 1Co 5:1; 7:29), and does not mean "to acquire" a wife. Fulfill his duty to his wife (v. 3) is remarkable because in that culture sexual satisfaction was considered the man’s prerogative, not the woman’s. But Paul insisted that each partner be available to the other, and neither was entitled consistently to deprive the other of conjugal rights (v. 4). Abstinence was appropriate for a temporary and mutually determined time to pray (or engage in any other spiritual discipline), but abstinence was not mandatory on those occasions (v. 6). Verse 7 refers to being content to be single, as Paul was. Gift is synonymous with self-control (v. 9), but can hardly be called a "spiritual gift." According to Paul, whatever a person’s status, either contentedness to be single or being married, it is a gift from God.

7:8–9. Paul expanded the theme of singleness introduced in v. 7. Unmarried (v. 8) refers to all categories of single people (divorced women and implicitly men in v. 11; those who were never married, or who were single again because of divorce or widowhood in vv. 32, 34), and Paul emphasized widows since there was considerable social pressure on them to remarry. Paul wished they would remain single (v. 9), but marriage was no sin, and Paul did encourage younger widows to remarry in 1Tm 5:14 if they could not control themselves. To burn is "the fire of inward lusts in conflict with conscience" (Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on First Corinthians [Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1977 reprint of the 1889 T&T. Clark Edition], 331). For those who are single, but not by choice, Paul would sympathize with their loneliness and sexual frustrations, and seek to reassure them that God would provide the strength they needed to remain pure, and to find their joy in Him.

7:10–11. Paul turned his attention to Christian couples (v. 10). Not I, but the Lord points to Paul’s awareness of Jesus’ teaching on divorce (cf. the comments on Mt 5:32; 19:1–9) but in no way implies that the apostle’s own words were not inspired or authoritative. It was unusual for a woman to leave ("divorce"; Lk 16:18) her husband (v. 10), but not unheard of (Mk 10:12). If a woman did divorce, she was required to remain single the rest of her life or until the death of her husband (Rm 7:1–4; 1Co 7:39), or be reconciled to him. Probably Paul required the same from the husband (v. 11).

7:12–16. In this paragraph Paul instructed believers not to divorce their unbelieving spouse (vv. 12–13). The believers in these mixed marriages probably came to faith after they were already married (cf. the comments on 7:39). Paul was not aware of any teaching on mixed marriages given by Jesus, but as an apostle inspired by God, Paul’s words are binding (v. 12). For (v. 14) explains why the marriage should remain intact. Sanctified through his wife probably refers to the unbelieving spouse, and children, being "set apart" (sanctified) for special blessings from God, short of salvation, because of the tie with the believer. Unclean means "that which is not brought into contact with the divine" (BDAG, 34). However, if an unbelieving spouse physically and geographically (not just "emotionally") abandons the marriage, God no longer considers the believer married. Based on this principle, it is reasonable to allow divorce and remarriage for a Christian spouse who is abandoned by a believer as well. The verb bondage (douloo) was used widely in Paul’s day as a metaphor for marriage (see Anthony C. Thiselton, 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006], 303), so that not being in bondage was equivalent to being free (v. 39) as a virtual widow or widower. In this case, the believer who is abandoned is free to divorce and remarry. But God has called us to peace (v. 15) could be understood pessimistically ("Do not force an unbeliever to stay if he wants to leave. Divorce will bring peace."). Paul did permit divorce and remarriage if the unbeliever left (v. 15a, b, c), but his primary desire was for them to remain married, to live in peace with each other (v. 15d) (see vv. 10–13, 17, 20, 24, 27). Another reason to stay married (v. 16) was because the unbelieving spouse might come to trust Christ through the believer’s influence.

7:17–24. The main point of vv. 18–23 is not remaining circumcised or enslaved, but remaining married. As in v. 15, they were to remain in whatever condition (married or single) God called them (see called in vv. 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24). When Paul wrote he is not to become uncircumcised (v. 18), he was probably referring to the minor surgery whereby a Jewish man who adopted Hellenistic values could reverse his circumcision to be more palatable to the Greco-Roman society. Paul’s point was that if God called one as a Jew, he was to continue to be Jewish (albeit having trusted Christ), and if as a Gentile, he was to stay that way also. Paul qualified this directive, however, in v. 21, when he urged slaves to become free if they could, though that choice belonged to the master (cf. Murray J. Harris, Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ, NSBT [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999], 59–61). The command Do not become slaves of men (v. 23) disproves what critics say about the Bible condoning slavery.

7:25–31. Here Paul turned his attention to the needs of unmarried men and women (virgins, v. 25). On Paul’s opinion, see the comments on 7:12. The present distress (v. 26) may refer to no less than three periods of acute grain shortage in the Mediterranean region from the mid AD 40s to early 50s, and more than one serious earthquake in AD 51 (for a detailed discussion of these conditions, see Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 215–232). These conditions may have been the hardships that led some of the Corinthians to maintain that life was too difficult for the single to become encumbered with the obligations of caring for a spouse and children, and for the married to become distracted away from the Lord by sexual relations. Wife (gune, v. 27) can often mean simply "woman" (Mt 9:20, 22; 15:22, 28; Mk 14:3; 1Co 7:34), and, because Paul was writing to the unmarried in vv. 25–26 and 28, bound to a woman in this context refers to betrothal. The time has been shortened (v. 29) means that God will not permit the present age to continue forever. It will come to an end (v. 31), along with marriage (cf. the comments on Mt 22:30). As though they had none is Paul’s way of urging those who are married to avoid being distracted from God by their spouse. If married believers serve and nurture their spouse "as unto the Lord," then their focus remains on God while simultaneously caring for their spouse. Paul does not forbid the pursuits of vv. 29–31, but his words warn the Corinthians against becoming so involved in the affairs of life that they are swallowed up by them. It is permissible to marry, weep, rejoice, buy, and use the world, but not to the extent that they ensnare the believer.

7:32–35. Singleness is not only an advantage during hard times (v. 26), but it can help avoid worry. The woman who is unmarried (v. 34) includes widows and divorcees (cf. the comments on 7:8), with the virgin as the primary focus of these verses. It was not Paul’s intent to deprive them of the opportunity to marry (v. 35), but to ensure complete devotion to the Lord (devotion is "single-minded focus upon and service for another").

7:36–38. These verses refer to a hypothetical situation in which a betrothed man was considering remaining single (so RSV; TNIV; NIV; ESV), not to a father who was debating marrying off his daughter (NASB). Several points support this view. First, any man, in the context of the instructions to those who are single in vv. 25–35, is probably someone who is unmarried. Second, acting unbecomingly, when used in the ancient world for relationships between men and women, overwhelmingly referred to sexual misconduct, making it unlikely that v. 36 refers to a father’s deliberations. Third, the NASB’s if she is past her youth is better translated "If he is sexually awakened" (RSV, "if his passions are strong"). The adjective huperakmos, translated wrongly by the NASB as past her youth, actually meant "sexually enlivened," or "to be sexually mature and feel the effects of it," and does not refer to old age in either gender. Consequently, fourth, the subject of the verb is in the phrase "if he is sexually enlivened" (once again, mistranslated by the NASB as if she is past her youth) should be understood as "he" and not "she." Paul was addressing the betrothed man in v. 36 (he is acting … his virgin) so that "he" is the more likely subject of "is" than "she." Fifth, if it must be so, if the betrothed man cannot control himself and sexual impropriety is imminent, then he should do what he wishes, and apparently what he wishes is to have sexual relations with his fiancée, for which marriage is a happy prerequisite. Sixth, let her marry is based on an inferior manuscript tradition, and the better reading is "let them marry" (RSV; TNIV; NIV; ESV). This fits the "betrothed young man" view better, as Paul might have written "let her marry" if he were addressing a father mulling over allowing his daughter to wed. Seventh, v. 37 reflects this man’s resolve to remain single, a resolve not coerced by the anti-marriage advocates or by Paul (for the Greco-Roman background on this passage, see Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 243–49). Eighth, to keep his own virgin was a phrase that meant "to safeguard a woman’s virginity," and expresses the decision not to marry and have relations (cf. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 353–54). The verb gamizo (NASB gives … in marriage) has a causative sense ("to give in marriage," "to have someone marry") elsewhere (Mt 24:38), but verbs with "-izo" endings were losing their causative force in Hellenistic Greek, and gamizo probably is synonymous with gameo, "to marry, take in marriage" (BDAG, 188).

7:39–40. Paul once again instructed widows here (cf. before, v. 8). A widow is free to remarry, but only in the Lord (v. 39), i.e., to another believer. This is the strongest NT verse supporting the idea that Christians should marry only other Christians. She is happier if she remains as she is for reasons given by Paul in vv. 26, 28, 32–35. On the gravity of Paul’s opinion as a Spirit-inspired apostle, see the comments on 7:12.

8:1–3. Paul addressed another question from Corinth, namely, the eating of things sacrificed to idols (vv. 1, 4). Food offered to the gods often was eaten as a sacred meal in their honor. If one was invited to such a meal he was expected to go, and spiritual, social, and business ties were strengthened at these times. To decline such an invitation consistently was considered antisocial and could result in commercial suicide. It is understandable why the Corinthians would insist on continuing to go though they no longer worshiped those gods.

Paul’s main concern was to steer the Corinthians away from idolatry, though they insisted on theological grounds that they had the freedom to go to the temples. In Rm 14–15, on the other hand, Paul confronted the divisions between Jewish and Gentile believers over eating kosher food (see the comments on Rm 14:1–9). Verses 1 and 4 were probably Corinthian slogans with which Paul agrees in part. Their knowledge related to the recognition that gods do not exist, and they believed that it was no sin to eat a meal offered in honor of a non-god. True knowledge is tethered to love and does not lead to arrogance but to the edification of others (v. 1). Verse 3 implies that a believer’s love for God is preceded by God’s elective love for him, and both rule out any flirtation with idolatry.

8:4–6. The Corinthians understood rightly that the Triune God is the only true God and idols do not exist. But this did not mean that going to a temple and eating an idol’s food was permissible. While idols do not exist (i.e., there is no such being named "Zeus"), false religions are promoted by demons, and to venture into a temple and eat a sacred meal in honor of a non-god nevertheless involved them in "partnering with demons" (cf. the comments on 10:20).

8:7–13. Some of the Gentile believers in Corinth still closely associated visiting a temple with the worship of idols, just as they did before their conversion. Food will not commend us to God (v. 8), but the thought requires serious caveats. Eating the food of idols was not a neutral activity; the weak could be led into idolatry by the influence of the knowledgeable ones (v. 10). Paul never urged the weak to become "strong" precisely because he approved of their weakness, which motivated them to stay away from idolatry. Ruin (v. 11, ruined) often means "to damage," "ruin," or "harm" (Mt 9:17; Lk 21:18; Jms 1:11), and in these chapters the ruin is reduced effectiveness in ministry (9:19–27), possible death as a disciplinary act from God (10:1–13), and partnering with demons (10:20) who oppose God. Harming one with a weak conscience was a sin against Christ (v. 12) inasmuch as it harmed a part of His body. I will never eat meat again refers to eating meat offered to idols, and is a different situation from eating non-kosher food (implied in 1Co 9:19–23; cf. Rm 14:14; Gl 2:11–14) which was permissible. Causing my brother to stumble (v. 13) does not mean annoying one who objects to the legitimate exercise of my Christian liberty. A weaker brother stumbles when he is influenced to violate his conscience by the direct or indirect inducement of another believer. Paul forbids this.

9:1–7. Paul explored the need for the Corinthians to cease any activity that might be harmful to others (8:9–13), and he used himself as a prime example of that in chap. 9. Paul was an apostle (vv. 1–2), yet surrendered the privileges that an apostle deserved (vv. 4–6). Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? gives an important, though implicit, qualification of an apostle. Without a face-to-face encounter with Jesus, one could not be an apostle, a point that makes it difficult to believe that apostles are present in the Church today (see also the comments on 1Co 15:1–11). Verse 5 does not mean that Paul was married at the time he wrote 1 Corinthians (see 7:7–8), but it is possible he was a widower. Rabbis and Sanhedrin members were usually married, but it is not certain that Paul was either. Paul compared his right to support with a soldier, farmer, shepherd, and priest (cf. v. 13), each receiving provisions from his work (v. 7).

9:8–14. Paul used the Law (v. 8) to justify his right to receive support from his converts, not human arguments. Deuteronomy 25:4 (LXX) (v. 9) enforced kindness toward animals used for farming, but is found in a broader context dealing with benevolence to the poor or those who worked the fields (Dt. 24:19–22). Since Paul "planted" the church (1Co 3:6–9), he should enjoy some of the proceeds from it. God is concerned about oxen, but the main point in Deuteronomy, and with Paul, was receiving compensation for one’s work. Paul expressed this concept explicitly in vv. 10–12a. Then, finally, in v. 12b (and v. 15), comes Paul’s main point. He surrendered these privileges to avoid hindering the spread of the gospel. The Corinthians, however, had a more self-indulgent attitude. In addition, Paul referred to the priests who served in the temple (v. 13; cf. Nm 18:8–24). They kept a portion of the various sacrifices and offerings brought to the temple for their sustenance. Verse 14 is sometimes understood as enjoining a preacher to "practice what he preaches," but Paul’s contention is that one who ministers the Word should be supported by those he serves. A church should remember that the pastors have the same goals for their income as they do (to provide for his family’s needs, to prepare for emergencies, to establish financial security, to plan for retirement).

9:15–18. Paul would rather die than be counted among those who ministered just for the money (v. 15). The noun boast (kauchema) (vv. 15 and 16) has the connotation of "rejoicing" in 2Co 1:14; Gl 6:4; Php 1:26; 2:16; Heb 3:6. Paul’s policy of ministering without compensation was the grounds for great delight. There is a sense in which he discharged that work because he was under compulsion (v. 16) from God to do it. But he was not under compulsion to do it for free. Verse 17 could be paraphrased, "If I volunteered to preach when I was not required to, then I might be extraordinary and should be rewarded for my preaching. But actually I was drafted by God against my will. I am His household slave and have no choice but to work for Him. There is no reward given under those circumstances." What then did Paul do that was worthy of reward (v. 18)? It was his offer of the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. Robertson and Plummer wrote, "[It is as if Paul were saying] What is the pay that I get? Why the pleasure of refusing pay" (1 Corinthians, 190).

9:19–23. In vv. 19–22, Paul provided personal illustrations of 9:18 (he did not make full use of his rights). Win (v. 19) means "to acquire by investment or gain," and appears to be synonymous in this context with save (v. 22; cf. also 1Pt 3:1). Jews (v. 20) looks at Jewish people from the standpoint of their ethnicity, and under the Law from the standpoint of their religion. For not being myself under the Law, see the comments on Rm 6:14; 7:1–4. Those … without law (v. 21) refers to Gentiles. While Paul was no longer under the 613 commandments of Moses, he was under the law of Christ (v. 21) (cf. the comments on Gl 6:2). The weak (v. 22) were not weak Christians (cf. 8:9–13), but non-Christians (Rm 5:6), whether Jews or Gentiles, that Paul was trying to win to Christ just as in vv. 20–21. Paul practiced "contextualization," never changing the contents of the gospel but adapting its communication to the culture of his audience. This remains the model for missions and evangelism today. To become a fellow partaker of the gospel (v. 23) means that Paul did not want to be alone in possessing and enjoying the benefits of the gospel. He intended to take as many people as possible with him to heaven. Fellow partaker means "one who shares mutually with another a possession or relationship," with the emphasis on what both have in common. Paul did not mean that he hoped to obtain salvation by evangelizing people, which is salvation by works and an unlikely reading of this verse.

9:24–27. Paul sets up an analogy between the need for surrendering one’s rights for the sake of others and athletic competition. Paul may have had in mind the Isthmian Games, held every third year in Corinth, second in prominence only to the Olympic Games in Athens. Contestants had to provide proof that they trained for ten months, had to exercise in the gymnasium for the 30 days before the games started, and only then could they compete. Only the winners received a reward, a perishable wreath (v. 25) which, in the first century, was made of celery and would wilt as soon as it was awarded. Paul never just ran laps or slapped at the air (v. 26). Everything he did was calculated to make gains for the gospel. The Greek word translated discipline (v. 27) means "to deliver a knock-out blow." Make it my slave may reflect the practice of the victor leading his beaten opponents around the arena amidst the applause of the spectators. Paul determined to subdue his body (who he was inside and out) to be most effective in serving the Lord. So that … I myself will not be disqualified does not mean that Paul feared losing his salvation if he did not adequately control himself. The disqualification here refers to forfeiting the chance to serve effectively in the great gospel mission. Effective service involves self-surrender, self-control, and self-sacrifice, and none of these typified the Corinthian believers. Self-indulgent Christians should not expect to be effective in serving the Lord.

10:1–5. For (v. 1) links Israel’s disqualification to that mentioned in 9:24–27. All is used five times in vv. 1–4, stressing that every Jewish person participating in the exodus enjoyed its blessings. Under the cloud (Ex 13:21; 14:18, 24) and through the sea suggest supernatural guidance and deliverance. Baptized into Moses (v. 2), the spiritual food (v. 3; manna), and the spiritual drink (v. 4) parallel Christian baptism and the celebration of communion. God did these remarkable things for the Israelites, but His kindnesses were not a guarantee that He would refrain from disciplining them if they strayed. The scriptural record indicates that they did sin and He did discipline them. Baptized (v. 2) does not mean "to identify with," nor does it have a sacramental sense, because the Israelites remained dry when they crossed the Red Sea. Passing through the Red Sea was an indication of their dependence on Moses, just as Christian baptism points toward Jesus Christ as the one who saves (cf. the comments on Rm 6:2–4). Paul called this a "baptism" to enhance the parallel with the Corinthian church. Spiritual (vv. 3–4) designates the origin of the food and drink, not its constitution. Water came from a rock at the beginning and end of the wilderness sojourn (Ex 17:6; Nm 20:1–13), though there is no mention that the rock moved. Paul was probably drawing attention to God’s constant provision of water throughout their desert experience, which ultimately came from Christ. In Ex 17:5, God stood on the rock in front of Moses and Aaron at Horeb, and in Nm 20:6 the glory of the Lord appeared to them immediately prior to Moses striking the rock. Paul may have understood these as Christophanies, preincarnate OT appearances of Jesus. Both the Israelites and the Corinthians experienced deliverance through Jesus. Nevertheless (v. 5) introduces the "punch line." In spite of all that God did for them, the Israelites were laid low in the wilderness. Paul did not explore the issue of their eternal destiny. It is enough for him to say that the people of Israel who went too far in their behavior died due to God’s retribution and, obviously, were disqualified from any opportunity to serve Him (cf. 9:24–27).

10:6–13. Now (v. 6) is literally "but," and demonstrates that Paul hoped for an outcome for the Corinthians different from that of the Hebrews. Paul cited four sinful events for which God chastised Israel: the idolatry with the golden calf (Ex 32:4–6) (v. 7), immorality with Moabite women (Nm 25:1–9) (v. 8), testing the Lord when the serpents attacked them (Nm 21:4–9) (v. 9), and grumbling in response to God’s severe treatment of Korah (Nm 16:1–50, esp. 16:41) (v. 10). Numbers 25:9 says that 24,000 died in the plague, but Paul’s number refers to those who died in one day, just as he wrote. Instruction (v. 11) means "an admonishment regarding the consequences of unwise or sinful actions." The ends of the ages have come, and God has typologically connected the ancient Hebrew Scriptures and the situation faced by the Corinthians as part of His sovereign plan. Because God has drawn these connections, the Corinthians might fall (v. 12) just as the Jewish people fell. The temptation (or possibly "test") facing the Corinthians (v. 13) involved returning to the temples in order to avoid the social, political, or financial ostracism that might result from refusing to go (cf. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 357; 467–68). God is faithful to ensure that the tests He ordains are commensurate with the strength He provides to pass them. Note that the escape is not the complete removal of the test, but is the ability to endure it. The Corinthians would feel the ongoing pull to return to the temples, but God would help them to do what was right, which, in this context, is to flee from idolatry (v. 14).

10:14–22. Paul continued his warning by comparing the effects of communion and partaking of the sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple with the effects of a meal in honor of a Greco-Roman god. The elements of communion enhanced fellowship (sharing, koinonia) with Jesus (v. 16), and with other believers (v. 17), just as eating what was offered in the Jerusalem temple forged closer fellowship with God (altar is used as a metonymy for "God"; cf. Dt 14:22–27) (v. 18). Likewise, eating with pagan friends in the temple of a false god formed ties with them and it. Paul denied that these false gods actually existed (v. 19; cf. the comments on 8:4–6). But demons (v. 20) deceived worshipers into believing that the gods were real (see Dt 32:17). When these Christians went to the temples, they became sharers ("one who shares in some task or venture with another," "a partner") with demons (v. 20), perhaps by inadvertently promoting the worship of the false god, as the demons did, by their presence there. This was an act of idolatry. Or (v. 22) if one insisted on going to the temples, was that person trying to make God jealous? That will not work. For a husband to feel jealous about his wife, she has to have some sway over him, so that he would feel fear about being replaced in her affections by another. But Paul’s point is that believers do not have that kind of influence over God, and when God becomes jealous because His people are spiritually adulterous, He punishes them (Dt 32:21–24). Paul’s directives here dovetail well with the decisions of the Jerusalem Council and the letter sent in the wake of it (cf. Ac 15:23–29), which forbade idolatry for Gentile believers (including "things [including food] sacrificed to idols" and cultic sexual activity, Ac 15:29).

10:23–30. Here Paul wrote about the proper circumstances when meat offered to idols could be eaten. For v. 23, see the comments on 6:12–13. For v. 24, see the comments on 8:9–13. For conscience’ sake (v. 25) refers to the believer’s conscience, but in vv. 27–29 an unbeliever’s conscience is in view ("If one of the unbelievers invites you," v. 27; v. 29 indicates that vv. 27–28 are about the unbeliever’s conscience). In vv. 25–30, Paul gave four guidelines regulating the eating of meat offered to idols. First, a believer, in his own home (not in the temples; see the comments on 10:6–22 above), could eat meat sold in the markets (v. 25). If he did not know it had been offered, he should just eat it and not ask questions about it, for the Lord provided it (v. 26). Second, in v. 27, a believer could eat idol’s meat in an unbeliever’s home, but not in a temple. Third, in v. 28, if an unbeliever informed a believer that the meat was offered to an idol, the believer should abstain for the sake of the unbeliever’s conscience. An unbeliever’s conscience might be harmed or his spiritual progress impeded if he felt the Christian’s quasi-idolatrous action justified his own, or if he felt the believer was hypocritical or lax on his belief in the existence of one true God. Fourth, if a Christian might be condemned (judged, perhaps as a hypocrite) by an unbeliever for eating, the believer should abstain (v. 29). In v. 30, Paul gives the reverse idea to the thought of v. 29: "If I give up my freedom to partake with thankfulness, I will not be slandered concerning that for which I give thanks." To summarize vv. 23–30, Paul maintains that a believer can eat meat offered to idols, though not in a temple. But if there was any chance anyone would be harmed by eating this food, the believer was to abstain—and thus Paul goes full circle back to chap. 8. For this approach to these verses, see Garland, 1 Corinthians, 497–99.

10:31–11:1. To do something for the glory of God is to act in such a way that people see Him in action and that His reputation is enhanced (Mt 5:16). If the Corinthians acted more like Paul (11:1) around unbelievers (10:32), many more may be saved (v. 33). Sometimes believers insist on pastimes that may actually be contrary to the Word (risqué movies, using resources to pander to creature comforts and appetites) that may make them vulnerable to evil influences, and will make them so self-absorbed that they are ineffective in serving others.

11:2–9. Starting in 11:2 and running through chap. 14, Paul began to address new concerns related to problems associated with their church gatherings. They could improve the extent to which they imitated Paul, but on the whole they embraced the traditions he taught them when he was in Corinth (v. 2). But (v. 3) signals their need to adjust yet another area of subpar performance. Head could refer to the extremity of almost any object, the physical head of a person, and the leader of a group. Some claim that it means "source" (cf. Catherine Kroeger, "Head," in A Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne et al. [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993], 375–377; Berkley Mickelesn, and Alvera Mickelsen, "What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?" In Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986], 97–110; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 502–505), but there is no unequivocal use of the word with this sense in Greek, and it makes little sense in this passage. For example, in order to claim that "head" refers to "source," "head" must be assigned three different meanings in the same verse, so that Christ is the creating source of the biological and spiritual life of all people (every man), man is the substance from whom woman was fashioned by God, and God is the sending or incarnating source of Christ. This is semantically unlikely. It is better to understand head metaphorically as "one who has authority," "leader" (for these and other points, cf. the articles by Wayne Grudem: "Does kephalē (‘Head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority Over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples," Trinity Journal 6 NS [1985]: 38–59; "The Meaning of kephalē: A Response to Recent Studies," Trinity Journal 11 NS [1990]: 3–72; reprinted as an appendix to Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991] 425–468); "The Meaning of [kephalē] ["Head"]: An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society [March 2001]: 25–65). The man is the head of a woman speaks of male leadership and female subordination, in this context, in the Church. Man and woman does not refer to "husband" and "wife" (contra the ESV). Paul is speaking of a corporate church setting (vv. 4–5), and husbands and wives do not originate from each other (vv. 8, 11). God is the head of Christ in that the Father exercises authority over the Son (cf. Jn 14:28), and the Son submits to and accomplishes the will of the Father (Jn 5:30; 6:38; Heb 10:9), while sharing all of the Father’s divine attributes. Roman men covered their heads when they worshiped their gods, and for a Christian man to do so disgraces his head (Jesus), for it implicitly put Him in the same category with Roman idols. On prophesying, see the comments on 14:1–3. But (v. 5) introduces a discussion of how a woman should pray or prophesy in a church gathering. Respectable women covered their heads with a piece of their garment or a shawl in virtually all public settings, and it signaled that they were attached to a man (whether a husband, father, etc.), and were morally respectable. Like immodest clothing today, the lack of a covering announced a woman’s willingness to entertain advances from men. To come to church in such a suggestive manner could sully (disgrace) her head (her male leaders) by causing them shame, just as a destructive teenager who harms others can cause his parents to feel shame. Why did these women remove their head coverings? Since Paul began this discussion with a reference to men’s headship in the church, and since men were to worship with uncovered heads, it is possible that by removing their head coverings the women were seeking to establish equality with the men. But by doing this, they put themselves in the same category as the woman whose head is shaved, with one who earned a reputation for being immoral (for the ancient sources, see Garland, 1 Corinthians, 521; Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 128–29). For (v. 6) lends further support to the strong statement that an uncovered woman looked like an immoral woman. The husbands of adulterous women often had their wives’ hair cropped. If the women wanted to remove their coverings to be more like the men, they ended up looking more like disreputable immoral women. They might as well go further, shave their heads, and settle the issue. But if they were not willing to go that far, then they should replace their coverings and act like respectable women. For (v. 7) launches the basis for the man being uncovered (vv. 4–5). Both Adam and Eve, as the representatives of the genders, were made in the image of God (Gn 1:26–27). The man, however, was assigned the task of cultivating and keeping (or better "worshiping and obeying" Him) (see comments at Gn 2:15), so that the man’s task was specifically oriented toward God in a way that the woman’s was not (Gn 2:18). She was created to help the man as he performed those tasks. The man is the image and glory of God, i.e., a man functions to serve God as His agent (His image) on earth, ruling and reigning over it with Him to bring Him honor (glory). "Honor" is probably the sense of glory here because in 11:14–15 "dishonor" is the opposite of "glory" (cf. Thomas R. Schreiner, "Head Coverings, Prophecies and the Trinity: 1 Corinthians 11:2–16," in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991], 133). Since God has no superiors, the man, who represents Him, should therefore worship without a cultural sign of subordination, that is, without a head covering. But the woman is the glory of man indicates that a woman functions to assist the man and thereby honors him, and should have the sign of subordination (cf. v. 10). For (v. 8) introduces the first of two explanations as to why the woman is the glory of the man (v. 7). The order of creation—the man first, the woman second and derived from him—suggests that the man has priority in leadership (see also 1Ti 2:13). For indeed (v. 9) gives the second explanation, namely, the purpose of the genders. The woman was created for the man’s sake (Gn 2:18), to come to his aid, not vice versa, suggesting also the priority of male leadership.

11:10–16. Therefore (v. 10) points back to the reasons Paul gave in vv. 6–9 for a woman to cover her head. The words "symbol of" are not found in the Greek, and to have authority over (the verb echo, "to have" + the noun exousia, "authority" + the preposition epi, "over") elsewhere means "to have control over" something (Mk 2:10; Lk 5:24; 19:17; Rv 11:6; 17:18; 16:9; 20:6). The phrase means that the woman is to exercise control over her physical head and keep it covered. Because of the angels is cryptic, but probably refers to angels who might be offended by the symbolically insubordinate act of the Corinthian women. Perhaps because of Satan’s act of rebellion along with other angels, the good angels have become acutely interested in proper submission in the Church. It would be a mistake to think Paul saw women as unimportant in vv. 7–9, and he addressed that in vv. 11–12. Women need the men in the church, and men need the women. This is in keeping with the divine design of the human race by the Lord (Jesus, v. 11) and by God (v. 12).

Verse 13 introduces a new argument for women being covered, this one drawn from nature (v. 14). Nature probably means "the regular or established order of things" (BDAG, 1070) as reflected in cultural conventions. It was a dishonor for a man to have long hair in first-century Corinth. If a man had long hair, he was perceived negatively as attempting to feminize himself. It was expected that women would have long hair (vv. 5–6) (cf. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 531, for the ancient sources). Long hair is a glory to her in that it is a mark of her respectability (see the comments on vv. 5–6) and femininity. Her hair is given to her by God as (not "instead of") a glorious covering, which was not intended for men. For a woman to reject this God-given sign of respectable femininity was to reject her identity and role as a Christian woman. Someone might object that long hair was not always a dishonor for men, as in the case of the Spartan warriors and Nazirites. But Paul was not writing to Spartans and Nazirites. In cultures where hair length is not tied to a specific gender, believers should embrace their culture’s symbols of masculinity and femininity whatever they might be, and not blur or diminish them.

The question arises: "Should women who participate in a church setting be covered today?" The answer is "No, not unless one’s culture expects it" (as in the case of the Amish and conservative Mennonite communities). Respectable women in the first-century Greco-Roman world were always covered in public, and they were to be covered in church as well. Today, if women should be covered in church, then to be consistent they should be covered at all times. How should the passage be applied in a setting where head coverings are not expected? Perhaps the most defensible application is that a woman should dress modestly to avoid the appearance of questionable morality, and in a feminine way as a demonstration of her deference to the male leadership of the church.

11:17–22. From 11:17–34 Paul addressed a second problem associated with their church assemblies, namely abuses of the Lord’s Table. Divisions (schismata, v. 18) means "dissension and division as a result of incompatible ambitions" (cf. 1:10). Factions (v. 19) means "the dividing of people into opposing groups." These problems with unity arose in God’s providence so that the church could recognize the believers who promoted concord and who were thus worth following. When the church met together auspiciously for communion (v. 20), their behavior actually denied what the Lord’s Table represented. They did indeed have a feast, but it could hardly be called communion. For (v. 21) justifies Paul’s evaluation of their pseudo-communion in v. 20. Each one takes his own supper first … hungry … drunk (v. 21) may reflect a common Greco-Roman occurrence when dinner parties were held. Often the best food and drink were reserved for and consumed by the party’s host and his high-ranking guests whom he was trying to impress for the sake of his own social enhancement, and the rest got inferior provisions. Furthermore, excessive drinking often followed the feasting (cf. Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995], 191–193; Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 890). The hungry in the Corinthian church were those who have nothing (v. 22), referring to the poor or perhaps the slaves who may have been detained in their duties and who found that there was no food for them when they arrived at the assembly because the others had eaten first (v. 21). A potluck associated with communion was not the place for gluttony, and the thoughtlessness exhibited against the poor was inexcusable (v. 22).

11:23–26. For (v. 23) explains why Paul could not praise them (v. 22). From the Lord indicates that Jesus originated the words Paul is about to cite, but whether they came by direct revelation to him or through Christian messengers is not clear. For vv. 23–25, see the comments on Mt 26:26–29, Mk 14:22–24, and Lk 22:19–20. For (v. 26) gives Paul’s inference from the facts of communion. Proclaim … until He comes asserts that communion is an enacted proclamation of the atoning death of Jesus. Although believers must engage repeatedly in the Lord’s Table, Jesus would not until He joins them in the consummated kingdom. The Lord’s Table is a profound memorial (note not "just" a memorial!), and conveys sanctifying (not saving) grace, strengthening believers who reflect upon the tortured body and spilled blood of the Son of God.

11:27–34. Therefore (v. 27), because communion is such a profound ordinance, believers must be careful in how they approach it. The unworthy manner and being guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord, in this context, according to Thiselton (1 Corinthians, 890) is "the sin against Christ of claiming identification with him while using the celebration of the meal as an occasion for social enjoyment or status enhancement without regard to what sharing in what the Lord’s Supper proclaims" (emphasis Thiselton’s). But (v. 28), in order not to partake unworthily, one must examine himself to determine if he is entering into communion with the proper focus and intention. For (v. 29) strengthens Paul’s admonition in v. 28 about self-examination. Judgment does not refer to eternal condemnation, for it is unlikely that Paul would understand that a blood-bought believer who inappropriately participated in communion would face eternal condemnation. Paul appears to think that there is a happier outcome than that for these believers (vv. 31–32). The body is a synecdoche (a part that stands for the whole) for the two elements of communion that are symbolic of "the body and blood" of Jesus offered in His death. Body probably does not refer to the church as the body of Christ because the nearest antecedent use of body in v. 27 refers to communion. Coming to communion with the proper aim, however, does not preclude caring for the members of Christ’s body, the church. For this reason (v. 30), i.e., because some abused communion they drank judgment upon themselves, a judgment that included physical illness and death (for sleep as a euphemism for death, see 1Th 4:13–15). If one were careful to examine his motivation in gathering for communion and partook correctly, he would not be judged (v. 31; cf. also v. 28). But (v. 32) in the case of those who did not partake correctly and were judged, that judgment was different from that of the unbelieving world. God judges unbelievers for their sin even in this life (cf. the comments on Rm 1:24–32), and this leads to eternal condemnation as well. But when believers are "judged" by God in this life (evidenced by them becoming weak, sick, or dying, v. 30), His action is remedial and redemptive (we are disciplined), not purely punitive (condemned, as is the unbelievers’ present and eschatological end). There were other places for satisfying one’s hunger and seeking one’s social delight or enhancement, but to do this at communion was wrong (vv. 33–34).

12:1–3. Paul continued addressing problems in their church gatherings. Spiritual gifts (lit., "spirituals," pneumatikon, v. 1) means "that which pertains to, is caused by, or corresponds to the Spirit" (see BDAG, 837). The word is probably neuter ("spiritual things, activities") because Paul discussed gifts and their respective ministries. Unbelievers might say Jesus is accursed (v. 3), but the test of genuine Christianity is the sincere confession, Jesus is Lord not necessarily speaking in tongues. The confession is as much a pneumatikon as the exercise of the most miraculous spiritual gift.

12:4–11. All true Christians confess Jesus’ lordship (v. 3), "but" (better than now) that does not mean that there are no distinctions between them. Varieties (vv. 5–6) means "that which is divided and distributed on the basis of certain implied distinctions or differences" (L&N, 1:567). Gifts (charismaton, v. 4) emphasizes God’s gracious role in the assigning of these gifts, a point that might curtail the arrogance of some Corinthians regarding their gifts. A "spiritual gift" is a special ability (not just a ministry or function) God gives to believers to strengthen the church so that it accomplishes His will in the world. Ministries (v. 5) describes the tangible acts of service rendered to others as believers used their gifts. Effects (v. 6) means "the accomplishment of an act with an emphasis on the power to do it." All of the gifts, not just the miraculous ones, are graciously given, are intended to serve others, and are driven by divine power. Verses 4–6 reflect Paul’s belief in the Trinity who are the source of all the gifts and the fruit of those gifts (God … works all things, v. 6). The Corinthians could not boast in their own abilities or productivity. But (v. 7) establishes the single intent of the gifts, the common good (13:1–7; 14:4, 6, 12, 17, 19, 26). The gifts are not designed primarily for one’s own edification. Paul taught that each believer had a spiritual gift, called here the manifestation ("a detailed disclosure") of the Spirit. One of the ways the Holy Spirit makes Himself known is through believers using their spiritual gifts. For (v. 8) confirms v. 7. The word of wisdom may be the Spirit-revealed insight into God’s redemptive program through Christ (cf. 1:30; 2:6–13). The word of knowledge may be a revelatory gift whereby one knew facts only through divine revelation, facts regarding the true nature of the world and spiritual truth (see the connections between knowledge and tongues, prophecy, and revelation in 13:2, 8–12; 14:6). Peter may have known of the deception of Ananias and Sapphira (Ac 5:1–11) by means of this gift. But not enough is known about these gifts to be certain of their characteristics (see Fee’s comment on the word of knowledge, 1 Corinthians, 593, as an illustration of the lack of certainty). Faith (v. 9) is an intense trust in Him to accomplish the impossible (cf. Mk 9:23; Mt 17:20; Ac 27:25; 1Co 13:2). The plural gifts of healing may indicate that there were different kinds of healings that different individuals could do at different times. The effecting of miracles (v. 10) probably overlaps with healing, and includes nature miracles and exorcisms. For prophecy, cf. the comments on 14:1–3. The distinguishing of spirits is the ability to determine if an utterance or miracle had demonic origins. For kinds of tongues cf. 14:1–3. On the interpretation of tongues, see 14:27. The Spirit gives gifts to each believer (v. 11) based on His sovereign determination (not on the believer’s asking). Regarding the question of the permanence of the miraculous spiritual gifts, see the comments on 13:8–13.

12:12–13. On v. 12, see the comments on Rm 12:4–5. For (v. 13) describes how believers become part of the body. The phrase by one Spirit … baptized occurs in Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:33; Ac 1:5; 11:16, where Jesus is the one doing the baptizing and the Spirit is the "element" into which Jesus immerses the believer, not the baptizer. Baptized is used metaphorically. As the believer is placed in water at baptism, so Jesus spiritually places the believer into the Spirit at the moment of conversion, causing the believer to be joined to the one body of Christ. The three occurrences of all in vv. 12–13 indicate that every believer has been baptized by Jesus in the Spirit. This verse makes the idea of a post-conversion baptism by the Spirit implausible. Made to drink refers to the indwelling of the Spirit, whose reception elsewhere is likened to the intake of water (Jn 14:13–14).

12:14–26. Each believer enters the body the same way (v. 13), but this does not preclude diversity (v. 14). The foot and the ear are not as adept as the hand or eye, but mobility and hearing are essential. One’s hands and head are usually uncovered, but the less honorable parts (perhaps the trunk and thighs) receive the "honor" of being clothed, as are the less presentable members (perhaps one’s private parts). Thomas writes, "Since the habit with the physical body is to take the ‘behind-the-scenes’ parts and devote special effort and attention to them, how much more should this be true in the spiritual body?" (Robert L. Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Verse-by-Verse Study of 1 Corinthians 12–14, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999], 52). God honors even the members that others view as inferior (v. 24).

12:27–31. Now (v. 27) applies the analogy of the human body (vv. 14–26) to the body of Christ. All the gifts are necessary (vv. 14–26), but they are not all equally beneficial (vv. 28–31). First … second … third (v. 28) ranks the first three gifts according to their benefit to the church. Apostles were men who had some personal contact with Jesus, saw Him in His resurrection (1Co 9:1–2; Lk 24:48; Ac 1:8, 21–23), and were appointed by Him to their office. It was a group of undetermined size as indicated by the early church’s struggle with false apostles (2Co 11:13), a struggle that would not have existed if one could say, "He is not one of the Twelve and therefore is not a true apostle." They carried enormous authority over the entire Church as opposed to having localized authority. Based on these qualifications, it is unlikely that they are present in the church today. Sometimes "apostle" is used in a non-technical sense for messengers or missionaries sent by churches (Php 2:25; 2Co 8:22–23), but this is not Paul’s sense here. On prophets, cf. the comments on 14:1–3. Teachers grasp previously revealed truth (perhaps from the OT or from the apostles and prophets) and systematically impart knowledge of it to the church. Then indicates that Paul continued to rank the gifts, but the ranking becomes more generalized and shifts to functions rather than individuals. On miracles, see v. 10. On healings, see v. 9. Helps refers to different kinds of relief provided for those who suffer. Administrations means "the ability to lead," the capacity to accomplish scriptural goals through the assistance of others. On kinds of tongues, see the comments on 14:1–3. In vv. 29–30, Paul asked a series of rhetorical questions, each anticipating a negative response. All believers have been baptized by Jesus in the Spirit (v. 13), but not all speak with tongues (v. 30) so that tongues cannot be the sign of the baptism in the Spirit. Earnestly desire (v. 31a) is a command in light of 14:1, 12, but does not contradict vv. 11, 18. As a collective group they were to look for believers with high-ranking gifts (v. 28). If Paul were determining the individual value of love and gifts, love would win (v. 31b). Paul does, however, connect the two in chapter 13.

13:1–3. In vv. 1–3, Paul shows the necessity of love to make the employment of spiritual gifts constructive. Tongues of … angels is sometimes cited in support of tongues being a "heavenly language," but whenever angels are recorded as speaking, they use an earthly foreign language. Love is "a spontaneous inward affection of one person for another that manifests itself in an outgoing concern for the other and impels one to self-giving" (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB, vol. 32 [New Haven: Yale, 2008], 489).

13:4–7. Paul presented the characteristics of love in this paragraph. See the major commentaries for word studies on these characteristics.

13:8–12. Here Paul taught the permanence of love compared to spiritual gifts. For a discussion of prophecy and tongues (v. 8), see the comments on 14:1–3. Knowledge is the "word of knowledge" (12:8). Will be done away means "to be brought to an end," "to cease," "to be abolished," and is found in vv. 10 and 11 as well. In part (v. 9) indicates the incompleteness of the content or the comprehension of the gifts. The perfect (v. 10) could be the believer’s death, the completion of the canon, or conditions following the second coming. A preferable view is "a relative state of maturity" for the Church. The perfect (to teleion) is used neither for death nor perfection following the second coming, and the Corinthians would not have understood it as a reference to the canon. Paul often used the word for relative maturity in contexts where it is contrasted with childishness or immaturity (1Co 2:6 with 3:1; 13:10 [perhaps]; 14:20; see especially Eph 4:13–14 in a context of spiritual gifts and the Church’s maturity; cf. Heb 5:13–14) (Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts, 123–32; F. David Farnell, "When Will the Gift of Prophecy Cease?" BibSac 150 (April–June 1993): 191–95). When the Church reached a point of relative maturity, tongues, prophecy, and knowledge ceased. Paul did not say precisely when this would happen, but Chrysostom (d. AD 407) and Augustine (d. AD 430) said the miraculous spiritual gifts had ceased, and around their time several important councils settled some critical issues for the Church. This may be the arrival of "relative maturity" for the Church, but this is purely conjectural. In v. 11 Paul compared the Church’s maturation with his own. His childhood parallels the time when the partial exists (i.e., when tongues, prophecy and knowledge are present in the Church). I did away with is the same verb as in both vv. 8 and 10. For (v. 12) explains why the "childhood" things (the three gifts) are done away with. Dimly probably means "indistinctly, unclearly," and is synonymous with the partial (see v. 10). After the Church reaches its relative state of maturity, Paul anticipated that the understanding of the content of these gifts would be clearer. A mirror was made of highly polished brass and at best provided an imperfect reflection. Face to face is almost universally interpreted as "seeing God face to face" (Gn 32:30; Ex 33:11; Dt 5:4; 24:10; Jdg 6:22; Ezk 20:35). But God is not mentioned in v. 12, and Paul is continuing the metaphor of v. 12a into v. 12b, c, d. When one looks into a mirror he sees himself, not God, and in Paul’s day one’s reflection was blurred. Paul is saying that someday the image will be as clear as if one were actually looking at himself without a bad mirror. Just as I also have been fully known refers to knowing how one looks with the same accuracy that others know him, i.e., without a flawed reflection from an imperfect mirror, but it does not speak of God’s knowledge of the believer. Exodus 33:11, a "face-to-face with God" passage, also speaks of friends speaking "face-to-face," and that is the sense of v. 12c, d. Some accuse this position of trivializing v. 12, but this is question-begging. It only trivializes it if one assumes that v. 12 is about "perfection," seeing God face-to-face, and the state following the parousia.

13:13. But introduces a contrast between the permanence of faith, hope, and love in v. 13, and the temporary nature of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge in v. 8. But now (nuni de) usually carries a temporal sense in Paul’s letters (see the phrase in Rm 3:21; 6:22; 7:6, 17; 15:23, 25; 1Co 15:20; 2Co 8:22; Eph 2:13; Col 1:22; 3:8; Phm 9; 11; though 1Co 12:18 and 15:20 may be exceptions), now signifying the current Church Age (for a similar use of now, cf. Rm 11:30–31). Faith, hope, and love abide (they "remain," "stay") throughout the entire age in contrast to tongues, prophecy, and knowledge, which cease at some time during the Church Age. See the chart at the top of the following page for a graphic depiction of 13:10–13. Love is the greatest of the three virtues both from the standpoint that it is the most important for driving the use of gifts and from the standpoint that love for one another and for God lasts into eternity, while faith and hope are realized and will not.

14:1–3. Excursus on Prophecy and Speaking in Tongues. Chapter 14 deals with the inferiority of tongues, prized by the Corinthians, in comparison to prophecy. The gift of prophecy involved immediate divine inspiration of the spokesperson. The gift provided exhortation and encouragement (1Co 14:3), and shared elements in common with the gift of teaching. It incorporated prediction of the future into its function. It entailed a degree of authority that was less than that of the OT prophets and the NT apostles, but some kind of authority was inferred. A prophet could discern the validity of other prophecies, and had an ability to perceive the thoughts and motives of other persons. Most often prophets were residents of a single locality, but some were also itinerant. Most NT prophecy was oral, but some was written. The gift of prophecy was temporary, and is probably no longer present in any kind of widespread sense in the Church today (see the comments on 13:8–13) (adapted with modifications from Robert L. Thomas, "Literary Genre and Hermeneutics of the Apocalypse," The Master’s Seminary Journal 2 [Spring 1991]: 82–85). A growing number of scholars substantially redefine prophecy to include, first, a lower level of authority than OT prophets; second, fallible or erroneous messages, and third, an ongoing presence in the Church today (see D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14 [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987], esp. 91–100; Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today, 2nd ed. [Wheaton: Crossway, 2000]).

Return to Bible Study Materials

Return to Home Page 返回主頁