1 Corinthians Chapter 10

vs 1

Spiritual forefathers, of course - although there may have been a mix of Jews and gentiles at Corinth, I don't think Paul is discerning between them in the same way he does in Romans. To him, Christians inherit the history of Israel as much as anyone. He makes that pretty clear in Galatians I think.

So our spiritual forefathers were all under the cloud (that represented God's presence) and all passed through the Red Sea (which proved God's power and that he was looking after them).

vs 2

Paul even sees these things as a sort of baptism - a baptism into the covenant of the Mosaic law. Interesting to note, there, that in such a pattern it goes salvation (saved from Egypt), baptism (through cloud and Red Sea walk), and then discipleship (giving of OT Law).

vs 3-4

Why is vs 3 worthy of a verse on its own?

The point being that they were all sustained by God with spiritual food and drink (manna, quails, water from the rock). That rock was Christ, apparently. I'm not sure what Paul means there. Christ could have literally been the rock that followed them around and gave them water, I guess. But surely Paul instead must be drawing an allusion to our modern Christian lives. In that case, then Christ is the "living water" which we have all received as Christians.

vs 5

But look! Our spiritual forefathers, the Israelites, who were saved, baptised, discipled, and given God's food and drink, they were still not pleasing to God - most of them ended up dead in the desert because of their grumbling and their lack of faith. Not a good sign for us, is it?

vs 6

They are to be an example to us, so we can say "Don't make the same mistakes as those Israelites! Look at everything they had! It was so much more obvious to them that God was following them around, and they were still stubborn and stupid!" (no, I'm not anti-Semitic: the Israelites were a bunch of dullards thanks to their humanity, not their descent from Shem)

vs 7

Sounds like some sort of Mooby the Golden Calf was involved there. It really beggars belief how stupid we can be, when God has clearly revealed himself, and yet we just womble around going "derpy derp derp, I think I'll worship this calf that Aaron made. Why not - I mean, it is made of gold..."

vs 8

God commanded them to be sexually pure, so they had orgies. I mean, come on. But don't we do the same thing? I mean, I'm writing a sermon currently about being a radical disciple of Jesus, and, really, how well do we stack up to what Jesus asked us, commanded us to do?

vs 9

Snakes on the Plain!

Ok, that had to be done. So some people ignored God and were killed by snakes. So Moses makes that snake out of bronze and lifts it up, and it saves them, so what do they do? They make it an idol. I mean Moses must have been saying, "Oh, come on! You're killing me here!"

vs 10

And, as anyone who has read Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers knows, the Israelites never ever ever ever ever stopped complaining. Moses and Aaron must have been at wits' end by the time they reached the Jordan.

vs 11

All these are given to us as examples, so that we don't make the same stupid mistakes. Now, that doesn't mean that God did them all just so we could see them - God had a loving relationship with Israel, and wanted to save them too. But he's given us the records of it so we can look at them and not make the same mistakes. Did it work? Well... all I'll say is that God is perfect, and that we, like Israel, aren't.

1 Corinthians chapter 9

vs 19

Interesting that even though earlier Paul had said that once a Christian is free, they shouldn't go back to slavery,Paul now describes himself as a slave. The difference, of course, is that Paul isn't a slave for financial reasons - he is a slave for spiritual reasons. His service to people is also for the glory of God. And finally, he makes himself a slave because of the freedom he has in Christ.

vs 20

Is there a difference between a Jew and one under the law? I suppose so. I certainly have known several Jews who aren't all that faithful to the law, and I imagine that more Hellenized Jews would have been less legalistic too, especially outside of Israel. And in the other direction, you had people like God-fearers who weren't really Jews but put themselves under the Law anyway.

Note that Paul, who is a Jew, isn't under the law anymore, because he's a Christian, but he was prepared to become like them to reach them. He did not become one of them, and that's an important distinction. Christianity has a number of counter-cultural necessities that will prevent it from fitting in perfectly to any culture - Judaism included! But Paul would go as far as he could to reach these people.

vs 21

He would also completely change and become like someone who is not under the Law at all, for the same reason - to reach the lost. Paul doesn't care about his own identity - he knows who he is, because his identity is completely tied up in Christ and his kingdom. Just because he lives like someone who isn't under the law doesn't mean he ignores Christ's laws - Paul is secure in his faith and knows what he can and can't change.

vs 22

Paul will even become weak if it means winning some of the weak. God values the weak, so Paul will reach anyone by whatever means necessary for the sake of any that might come to repentance.

vs 23

Why does he do all this? For the sake of the gospel. I'm reading an interesting set of Bible studies at the moment that I'm going to run at my church, which talks about the kergyma - the group of teachings that the Apostles forms that is the gospel. Paul seeks that the gospel will be spread, sustained and maintained in as many areas as possible. He also knows that God will reward him in the future, but this verse could speak as much about the present blessings of serving the Lord and his gospel.

vs 24

And now Paul encourages the Corinthians to do the same thing - try and be the best damn Christian in the whole world, to reach as many people, to make the best Christian disciples, to do whatever it takes to serve God. Second place is the first loser.

vs 25

Even back then, rich patrons would sponsor olympic athletes to compete in the Olympic games - so professional athleticism has been around a long time. And they worked their asses off to win those games for their masters or patrons. Baul says that the prize they're running for is only temporary, and ours is eternal - surely we should run a little faster for an eternal crown?

vs 26

Paul certainly doesn't fight like it doesn't matter. He has a purpose, and he's going for it with both hands.

vs 27

Paul wants to make it clear that just preaching to others is not enough to win the prize. Not only do you have to be out there winning souls and discipling believers, you also have to deny yourself. You've got to beat yourself into submission, so that you are practicing what you preach, and so that you are eligible for the prize as much as all those people you are getting to join the race.

1 Corinthians Chapter 9

vs 10

God probably is concerned with oxen, but more because they can be a useful example to us in fairness. People who work crops expect a share in those crops, whether it be a portion of the crop itself, or payment from the crop's sale.

vs 11

And this goes for all work, not just farm labour (of course it was the most common labour around at the time). So even spiritual labour deserves a material reward, because a man has to eat! And if the Corinthians are gaining the spiritual benefit from Paul's work, then shouldn't they give him a material reward? Of course they should.

vs 12

And it seems that this isn't a moot argument, because this church already supports other workers! But somehow, Paul has been neglected. This may again point to the somewhat strained relationship between Corinth and Paul. It may also point to the fact that people don't think of paying for the gospel given to them.

Paul does go on to say that he didn't claim this right. If he didn't tell them about it, then it's fair for them not to know (except that any Jew or God-fearer should have known the ox-muzzle-grain thing). To Paul, the most important thing is the gospel of Christ being shared, and if him being paid is going to hinder that, then he'd rather not get paid.

vs 13

This is true of most temples at the time, not just the Jerusalem temple. The idea being, of course, that spiritual work gains a physical reward.

vs 14

Paul uses that analogy to say that there is a command of God demanding that preachers are paid for their work. Now, don't just think that Paul was an evangelist in the modern sense of the word: that he blew into Corinth, preached a couple of evangelistic talks, and then left, and that means that only evangelists fall under this rule. No, Paul did the evangelism bit, and then spent well over a year at Corinth, teaching people daily and discipling them, and building and leading the church. All those things are just as important and are included in "living from the gospel".

vs 15

But like Paul said, he doesn't want these things. Now he's also saying that he doesn't want the Corinthians to pay him either. Paul is using their shame against them, and he doesn't want them to get out of it just by paying him off. That's not what it's about. This does sound a little bit like a sulky message - as if Paul wants to hold this over them because they have treated him badly. But his real goal is always the spread of the gospel. And if money is going to come between him and the gospel being preached in Corinth, then he would rather die than have that happen.

vs 16

Paul can feel God's hand shoving him in the direction of constantly preaching the gospel. He feels so compelled that he dreads the idea of not preaching the gospel! We feel dread if we do preach the gospel! But his desire to serve God and his knowledge of God, along with God's words to him about his commission, compel him to preach this gospel.

vs 17

Paul has been given a duty to preach the gospel - if he does it, and willingly, then he is rewarded. But even if he does it unwillingly, then he is still doing the job God gave him, and that is both a good thing and a necessary thing.

vs 18

In fact, Paul sees his reward as being able to preach the gospel to anyone, for free. In these times, philosophers and other public speakers made money by going around and giving speeches. Remember - no TV! This was very popular in greek culture, and so people would come and pay to hear you speak. But Paul doesn't want to charge people to hear God's word. Instead of thinking of the world as his moneybag, he sees the world as his synagogue - God's given him a job, he just has to go and do it.

1 Corinthians Chapter 9

vs 1

Paul's asking a bunch of questions here. One is to do with his own freedom in Christ. One is to do with his authority as an apostle. Another with his position as one who saw Christ. One is his status as the one who brought the Corinthians to the Lord. You can see Paul is going on a two-pronged fork here - firstly he will have to defend his position as an apostle, and then he will use it to show that even though he is free, he doesn't do crazy things like they do.

vs 2

So even if Paul might not be considered an apostle by some, he must be by the Corinthians, because he brought them the message. He was sent to them, and as such they are the mark of his ministry as an apostle.

vs 3

I think his defense sits on both sides of this verse, but the verses to come are dynamite.

vs 4

They want to argue about food and drink, but while Paul was there he was given no such thing by them for his work.

vs 5

Did Peter have a wife? Or is Paul just saying that they have the right to have a wife? It seems odd to name him as one who "has a right" if he isn't exercising that right. Not sure about that one. That Paul claims this right, though, is showing that he doesn't have a wife (believing wife, anyway). But it's not just a right to marriage that Paul is talking about here - it is a right to support. He is arguing that he should be able to travel around with his wife, and that both be supported (as other apostles seem to).

vs 6

And yet for Paul and Barnabas, the Corinthians did nothing. They were forced to work for a living, and then do their Corinthian ministry in between the gaps.

vs 7

Paul uses these examples to show the folly of the situation that Paul found himself in to bring the gospel to the Corinthians. He is building up his list of rights and authorities to show them that even if they think they've got freedoms in Christ, surely Paul has more!

vs 8-9

And even the Law backs him up here, with a verse that he uses again in his letters to Timothy. And yet the Brethren dumped this idea of paying Christian workers (like pastors), but not on biblical grounds, merely because of a cultural situation they found themselves in at the time. Now, though, it has become entrenched, and it is only just beginning to wear down again to a more biblical model.

1 Corinthians chapter 8

vs 1

Don't ignore the idea that this verse is in answer to the letter the Corinthians are writing to Paul (there's a suggestion of it in the NIV footnote, but it's even implicit in the normal wording). Understanding the dynamic of this letter answering part of the book is important to understanding why Paul says what he says.

So the most probable reason Paul links eating idol-food and knowledge is because the Corinthians do so in their letter. One thing this suggests is that, contrary to normal understanding of 1 Corinthians, the Corinthian church didn't write to Paul with a bunch of questions for him to answer - their letter may have been somewhat more antagonistic, perhaps as if writing a corrective to Paul! Paul replies that while knowledge might sound good, all it really achieves is puffing the person up and making them arrogant. The Christian life is about love, and that builds people up and helps them. You can teach a child more usefully with love than you can with knowledge - contrary to modern educational philosophy, education does not change people. It just teaches them to do what they want more effectively. And if that is to hurt people, no amount of education will stop people from doing it.

vs 2

The simple lesson of philosophy has always been that if you think you know something, you don't really know anything. It's a lesson that the scientific community strayed from a few centuries ago. While it has allowed science to postulate on a lot of things (which means getting them wrong really), it has also given it a very arrogant attitude, which unfortunately has just been gobbled up by the masses.

vs 3

Instead, if you love God, then God knows who you are. Of course, God knows who everyone is, so what Paul means here is that he's got you on his list. He knows you from a bar of soap, as it were.

vs 4

Back to idols now. This sounds like a reply to the Corinthian letter, as if they said "we know that idols are actually nothing, because there is only one God, so what we do with them doesn't matter, because they are powerless". Paul also knows this.

vs 5

It sounds stupid to us, but of course the Roman God-Emperor cult was well into swing by the time you get to Paul's time. So when Paul says that there are lots of "gods" and "lords" in heaven and on earth, he's not joking. There had been a fairly high turnover of emperors, and all of them were supposedly a "god", as well as the pantheon of greco-roman gods too.

vs 6

Long verse! This verse is probably a bit of a hymn or something, in the way it repeats. For Christians, there's only one God, and that is God, and there is only one Lord, or Emperor, and that is Jesus. They created everything (which separates them from all the other false Gods) and they give eternal life too.

vs 7

So Paul is aware of the psychological power of idols over people. They've been using them for so long that they still feel like food or drink dedicated to them must be somehow corrupted.

vs 8

Paul seems pretty clear that it isn't, but that they think it is is a problem.

vs 9

And here is where knowledge must step aside for the sake of love. Sure, whoever wrote the letter to Paul knew that idols had no power and that only God is God, but for some people this is a real struggle. They have a weak faith about this, and seeing the leaders doing it might make them stumble.

vs 10

And even though they might be encouraged to go and eat (after all, if the meat is cheap, why not?) if they are having pangs of conscience about it, is it healthy for them to do so? See, this is less of a theological argument that the Corinthians are making - it's more an argument of "we want to eat meat, so we've worked out how our freedom in Christ lets us".

vs 11

Arrogant knowledge is destructive, and destruction is not the purview of the Christian. Love builds up, and so love should be your guiding principle in your Christian freedom, not knowledge.

vs 12

Ouch. Paul really wants to show them that the church body is more important than the individual believer's freedom. Oh, and if this is sounding a lot like Romans 14, that's because it's the same principle.

vs 13

Better to be a vegetarian and to keep your brothers and sisters in Christ spiritually healthy, than to exercise your Christian freedom and have it stumble them in their faith.

But don't think that Paul wants to give power in the church over to the weak and lame in the faith! Hell no! Love does not stop at preventing the stumbling of the weak. It is also our job to encourage those who are weak in the faith to grow stronger. This solution of Paul's, just as in Romans 14, is not a for-all-times solution, it is a stop-gap solution, to allow the poor in faith to become rich in faith. People should always be making the forward journey in their faith, and it is the job of the church to help them do that.

1 Corinthians Chapter 7

vs 29

It's little wonder that people said that Paul and the Christians were turning the world upside down. But Paul of course is not saying that you should ignore your wife, or that you should be looking for another wife and ignore your first wife. He' saying that there are more important matters than marriage afoot, and so you should focus on those and not on the worldly things happening around you.

vs 30

Paul's not saying that we shouldn't be happy or we shouldn't mourn, and he's certainly not saying to laugh at mourning people and be sad at happy people. That's for goths to do. No, what he is saying is that we are going to be living by a different mindset that, once again, does not conform to the worldly pattern. Time is running out - we don't have time to be stuck in the regular things of men. Even when you buy something, rather than thinking of it as an investment or something to pass on to the kids, we just think of it as something we won't be keeping. After all, we aren't going to be here all that long.

vs 31

There's a bit of a sting in this one - as if the Corinthians were a little materialistic, and Paul is saying to them that he would hope a realisation of the shortness of time would help them to stop being engrossed in all their stuff. A new world, a new kingdom, is coming, and we should be getting prepared for it.

vs 32

This is entirely true. Single people can focus on God-stuff a whole lot more. The whole celibacy thing that the Catholic church spawned is wrong, but that doesn't necessarily make it right for every pastor and preacher to be married either. Paul wasn't - whether he was widowed or divorced or whatever - and he did lots of great work. Paul's rule is that if you can handle being single, then do it. And there are people out there who aren't always thinking lustful thoughts and who are capable of living on their lonesomes. And their focus is usually much greater.

vs 33-34

Married people must divide their interests. Paul accepts that, and we can't neglect our spouses even for the sake of God. Even Billy Graham said his biggest regret from his whole ministry was not spending enough time with his family. We've got to understand that our service to our spouses is part of God's work, it just so often revolves around day-to-day earthly things.

Paul includes unmarried women here as well. An unmarried woman would have had a lot more problems in greek society, but even still Paul thinks they could focus more on the work of the church if they are single - assuming they can be content with their living standards, I guess.

vs 35

Paul's aim isn't to stop people from marrying - merely to show them that, despite their culture's enormous pressure to get married, they don't have to to please God. And in fact, singleness might even make you better at pleasing God.

vs 36

Paul wants to make this painfully clear, and so he has tried to cover every base in this matter - the married, the divorced, the widows, and now those yet to be married - so even if you are arranged to marry some little girl, and you think it would be wrong of you to break it off, then do it and marry her!

vs 37

But in the same way, if you're sure that you shouldn't marry her, then don't! And there's nothing wrong with that either. God will look after her I'm sure.

vs 38

The reason Paul words it this way is because the cultural imperative here would be that it is right to marry a virgin to whom you are arranged, but that it would be wrong to break off such an engagement because it is against the rules of the culture.

Paul flips this and says yes, it is right to do what the culture says and to marry the girl, but it is even better not to, because then you'll be able to focus solely on God!

vs 39

All these arguments about whether you can marry a non-Christian or not, and whether being "yoked with an unbeliever" is a business term or a marital term is a bunch of crap. Right here Paul makes it clear - marry whoever you want, but only if they're a believer. That's not even the point of this verse (Paul is instead pointing out that the laws of marriage only last as long as the married people are alive - when one dies the other is free) but you can easily extrapolate the other from this verse.

vs 40

She'll be happier if she stays single (Paul could be speaking from experience), but Paul doesn't then put his experience as the rule over everyone. I think we could all learn something from that.

1 Corinthians Chapter 7

vs 15

Now this is a slippery one. It may be reasonable to read that if you are married to an unbeliever, and that unbeliever leaves, then you are entitled to remarry.

It's not actually what it says though. What it actually says is that the believer in this case is not bound, or enslaved in this matter, because God has called us to live in peace. Paul has earlier in the chapter stressed that the Lord commands that a wife must not separate from her husband, and a husband must not divorce his wife. It's strong language, and it could indicate that this verse merely means that although a Christian cannot be an instigator of divorce, they can be divorced by an unbelieving party.

The simple fact, I guess, is that lots of people, Christians, will do it anyway (divorce and remarry), and no small number will probably use this verse as their escape clause for remarriage. I can imagine situations where both sides use it of the other! Because that's what happens with laws - we fudge them to suit ourselves.

vs 16

You can never be sure, just because you're married, that you will save your husband or wife if they are unbelievers. That probably goes double if you are a woman, and triple in an arranged marriage.

This verse is in stark contrast to the last one about sanctifying your unbelieving spouse. You just don't know if they will be saved through your work, and so therefore you shouldn't try and make it hard for them to leave if that's what they want to do. Giving them grief through the divorce courts isn't going to enamour them to Christianity either.

vs 17

The very important principle behind this "rule" that Paul lays down is that there is no social or religious situation that leaves you better off spiritually as a Christian than any other. Remember, in the pre-Christianised Roman empire, large scale social upheaval caused by Christian work could result in Christians becoming dead.

Now there are some situations that Christians would say "Oh, you should change that if you're becoming a Christian" - like if you are a prostitute, you would be counselled in changing your occupation, or if you are the high-priest witch doctor in your village, changing your social position is probably recommended.

vs 18-19

Now I'd be interested if someone can claim to know what Paul means by becoming uncircumcised. Does it involve a sewing kit? Anyway, Paul here is showing that there is no need to do some ritual to be better spiritually - therefore, just stay the way you were.

vs 20

Remember, when you can't underline words or put them in bold or italics, repeating them is the best way of making sure they get attention.

vs 21

Now, see, Paul doesn't want someone's slavery to trouble them, as if being a slave makes you a worse Christian. But he does give them the opportunity to get their freedom. So this rule is a bit more of a guideline than a rule.

vs 22

Paul shows that whether you are slave or free, it doesn't matter to God, because he is the Great Emancipator, and also the Master of all. So if you're one, you are also the other.

vs 23

But here is his call to the free - you should not now become a slave if you are free. So Christians should seek to remain free rather than turn to slavery when things get bad. Because remember, in Roman times, you could sell yourself into slavery to get out of debt or if you needed to support yourself and family. But God doesn't want his people to all be slaves (probably too reminiscent of Egypt).

vs 24

And a third time we have it repeated again.

vs 25

See, now we are talking about people who have not yet married. It's a different issue in this culture, because along with marrying someone off there is the question of bride-price, dowry, family and social arrangements and so on. Paul has no hard and fast rule for this situation, but instead offers his opinion. You see that he is making these delineations a fair bit, and probably because the Corinthians are trumping themselves up as being super wise, so he offers opinions for their consideration instead of just telling them what to do (where they might disagree and argue about it).

vs 26-27

But this whole issue is linked up with his previous issue of remaining as you are. Married? Don't divorce because you've become a Christian. Unmarried? Don't marry just because you've become a Christian. The present crisis, I assume, is either something specific to Corinth at the time, or the general crisis of humanity, which means we still see it today. But it isn't specified, so it's not worth really concentrating on.

vs 28

Marriage is troublesome, sure. But it's also wonderful. This might be Paul showing his own pain at his wife's death (or possibly a divorce?). But Paul wants to make it clear that marriage is fine as part of the Christian life, and that it doesn't change your relationship with Christ.

1 Corinthians chapter 7

Long chapter!

vs 1

This verse can literally mean two things. Literally, it says "Now about things of which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman". Seems easy, right? But the greek for "man" also means "husband", and the greek for "woman" also means wife. And the greek for "touch" can also mean "to adhere to" and was used to mean "marry" as well as "sex up".

It makes sense really - in greek society, and hell, in most societies back then, marriage wasn't nice, it was mandatory. You grew up, got married, and that was that. So "man" and "husband" were interchangeable.

So what was the situation in this verse? It is to do with the context of what the Corinthians wrote to Paul. Is this a quote from their letter? Did they say that this is good? There is a persuasive argument for this - after all, to just say "Now regarding what you wrote about - " without first outlining what they wrote about would seem odd.

But, he could be doing that, in which case the statement about remaining unmarried is his own. It's hard to say.

vs 2

But now Paul does speak, and he says that there is lots of immorality going on (and we assume at Corinth). And because of this, marriage is suggested.

vs 3

What says "marital duty" in english says "pay your debt" in greek. So really, husbands are indebted to their wives, and vice versa. You owe something to your other half.

vs 4

The NIV is quite nice in its translation of this, but the NASB is more correct. There is no suggestion in the greek that the wife or husband has any claim to their own body. It is a complete giving up of ownership of what is yours, and a receipt of what is not. One of the most damaging things in a marriage relationship is not letting your body be the property of your spouse. And this is not just about sex. It's about comfort, it's about showing love, and togetherness. Remember, a lot of people's primary love language is physical touch, and I doubt that for many it is the bottom 2 unless they have had some sort of bad experience as a child or something. Physical touch is a powerful thing - I don't remember who said it, but they said "If you don't believe me, just stroke the hair of the person sitting in front of you on the bus".

vs 5

Ok, so this is focussing more on sex methinks. Now, why you deny each other for prayer, I'm not actually sure. I think it's got to do with the fact that prayer was so much a bigger part of life back then, and we really have no idea. It is quite possible that this idea is like the idea of fasting, but with sex. Muslims still sex-fast during Ramadan. But Paul says don't do it too much, or else you might get tempted to break your sex fast somewhere with someone you shouldn't.

vs 6

I don't think Paul is saying the sex-fast thing as a concession - I think more the whole thing about marrying is a concession, considering what he says next. But this poses an interesting question - if Paul is saying this is not a command, do we need to follow it? Does it's status as "inspired" mean that even if Paul didn't mean for it to be a command, it is still a command for us?

Personally, I don't think so. I think that if it were meant as a concession to the Corinthian church, then it is meant as a concession for people in the same position. It is principles that apply, not dogmatic legalistic rules. And the principle here is not that everyone must marry, but that marrying, while being a concession to people because of the lack of purity, is the solution to the problem.

vs 7

Now, what was Paul exactly? It's pretty much impossible to believe that he was single. He never says that he was a member of any orders which denied marriage to their members (although there were a couple of Pharisaical groups that did, my understanding is that Paul was not a member of those groups), the Nazerites might have (not sure on that, but again Paul wasn't one... although Jesus might have been depending on who you ask - but again, you'd think someone would have mentioned it).

Most people think that Paul was a widower. There was a lot of pressure on people to marry, but not nearly as much on widows or widowers to remarry. In fact, Many people found that, once their spouse died, they had a freedom that they'd always wanted, especially women (of course, you had to be wealthy to do this - poor widows were just pitied).

Now I don't think Paul is saying "I hope all your spouses die". Instead, he is saying that each person is given gifts from God in different ways. Now the greek word charisma does usually connote some sort of divine gift of extraordinary power, but it doesn't always mean that. It can just mean a gift from God, like not having a wife. And I think that is how it must be read, because in context Paul isn't talking about spiritual gifts at all.

vs 8

Someone made a really excellent point to me about this passage a little while ago. They said "Ben, if it's true that the society in which the Corinthians lived expected people to marry, then it is understandable who the widows are, but who are "the unmarried"? Now you instantly want to answer "young single people", and I think people have said that for ages. But the simple fact is that as a group, they don't really exist. This person then went on to tell me about their experiences on the mission field, where they lived in a culture similar to the ancient one. He said unmarried people don't exist - they are called children (and even then they are spoken for usually). Widows exist, and their lives suck. But the "unmarried", in the culture he was in, were the worst off of all - they were the divorced. You see, we seem to think that because God said "don't divorce" that divorce doesn't happen. But this is a greek society, not a hebrew one. And that's a stupid distinction anyway, because plenty of Jews divorced their wives! Jesus speaks against it! The fact is that divorce happened back then, and those who were the divorced especially the women, were in a bad situation. The men were better off, but not heaps, because who wants to give you their daughter if you're only going to soil her then divorce her like you did your last one? It gets very expensive (in bride prices and the like).

Paul's message to these people is "stay unmarried".

vs 9

But, if you're going to get yourself into trouble, then you should marry. Simple, but effective.

vs 10

Now, here is a perfect example of the whole divorce thing - Paul is giving a command, and is careful to show that it is from God. And that command is not to separate from your spouse. This verse only says wife, but the next verse says husband too, so it does go both ways.

vs 11

Paul then says that if it does happen, then here's what to do! You know why? Because Paul knows that even though God says "don't divorce", people, Christians, will do it anyway! That's just a fact. But he then goes on to say that if you do divorce your wife or husband, then stay single, or get back with your spouse. Of course, plenty of Christians don't do this either - to be expected, because they ignored the first command anyway.

vs 12-13

Now we get to another of these cases where Paul is making concessions, not commands. This time though, he wants to go out of his way to say that these are his own thoughts, and did not come from the Lord (and they didn't - show me where Jesus says anything about this).

Paul's idea, then, is that you must not divorce a non-Christian person who is prepared to stay with you. So if you become a Christian, and you're already married to someone, and they don't mind staying married, then stay married. Again, it is the same for men and women.

vs 14

Now this verse, this is just a whole bunch of crazy. I tihnk we tend to ignore or minimise the idea of communal or familial salvation because we live in an individualistic culture. And so it's hard to say what Paul really means here without having a good understanding of that communal culture. But not only that, Paul is talking about holiness and uncleanness as a status that can be granted through relation. I mean, we spend all our time telling young church kids that they can't piggy-back off their parent's faith, and that they have to make it their own. But really that's only because we live in a society where children are allowed (and often encouraged) to believe things different to what their parents believe. It's a price of progress some would say.

To me, this verse represents the power of God's holiness. It is not squashed by only one parent being holy - instead, it is so powerful that it covers up the unholiness of one parent. And the kids don't come out unclean, as if it were the dominant gene. No, holiness is the dominant gene, and so the kids come out not half-holy, but wholly holy. That's what I think anyway.

1 Corinthians Chapter 6

vs 11

Although it is not stated, the implication is that because you were these things, but have since been washed, stop doing them! Interestingly, this is one of the statements Paul makes about sanctification that is in the past tense - must usually, sanctification is referred to in the present tense. Sanctify simply means "to make holy", and so in the theological progression of the Christian life, it is perfectly reasonable to talk of Christians being sanctified, as well as having been sanctified. We have a status of holiness because of our sonship, but we are also being worked into that holiness by the Holy Spirit.

vs 12

You will notice that these sentences have parts in quotation marks in the NIV - these are of course not included in the original greek, as greek doesn't have that sort of punctuation. But this is a supposed reflection on the writing of Paul, either quoting an oft-said statement, or in response to another letter, and the suggestion that these are quotes from that letter (depending on the scholar you ask). There are other parts of 1 Corinthians which people believe should have been in quotes (as part of the letter Paul is responding to) but haven't been done in the NIV.

Anyway, Paul's argument is that although we have freedom in Christ, that doesn't mean that by exercising it in any given way we will always benefit. Nor does it mean we are free from temptation or sinful mastery.

vs 13

You see here that Paul doesn't take on the "food" argument directly (because it's far less of an issue) aside from pointing out that such earthly things will be destroyed. Instead, he takes on the principle behind this argument by applying it to sexual immorality. You could say "sex for the sexual organs, and sexual organs for sex" and yet that is completely wrong.

Paul goes on to point out that in fact, if you want to look at what your body was created for, it was created for the Lord, and the Lord created it for himself to dwell in. This becomes an important point for Paul later in the book.

vs 14

Paul wants to remind the Corinthians that our bodies are an important part of our eternal lives. We are not only our souls, but our bodies also. And yes, we will be given perfect bodies, but there is going to be a bodily resurrection, so our bodies are important and do form a part of our identity in Christ.

vs 15

Not only are we as a church members of Christ, not only are we as people members of Christ, but our bodies are part of that. So when we take our bodies and do stupid things with them, it's as if we are desecrating that which has been sanctified.

vs 16

Paul is now using the sexual argument to show that sex is a little different from food - because the sexual act unites two people, and therefore you end up uniting your body with a prostitute if you have sex with them.

vs 17

But we have been united with the Lord, and as such we are of one spirit, rather than becoming one flesh.

vs 18

I'm not really 100% convinced that all other sins are outside the body. A hell of a lot are. But think about heroin use or something. Anyway, Paul is saying that by sinning sexually, you are actually harming your own body by using it as a tool in your sin.

vs 19-20

And since your body is a temple to the Lord because the Holy Spirit dwells there, and since God bought you, including your body, with Christ's sacrifice, you really can't just go whoring with his house.

1 Corinthians chapter 6

vs 1

This is proof perfect that this church was messed up. They had people sueing each other! There are just so many problems with this, and Paul is going to lay them all out for them. But his overarching idea is that judgement between two believers should be done by believers.

vs 2

And the reason for this is that the godly will in the end times bring judgement on the rest of the world. So if that is the case in the world to come, then why can't Christians sort stuff out between themselves today? I mean, when you compare things of eternal significance (which will be judged at the end) with things today, surely we can handle them?

vs 3

I wasn't aware of this, and I hope the Corinthians weren't either (that would make me feel better). But Paul seems to know this somehow. The idea being that if we will judge heavenly things, surely we can judge earthly things.

vs 4

There is a question as to whether this statement is in a questioning voice or a commanding voice. I think it would be more of a problem if the next verse didn't say that Paul was saying this to shame the Corinthians. Either way, I still think the interpretation that people of little account in the church should be able to make these judgements, because of all the facts that Paul has already brought up.

vs 5

The shameful thing is that if they are not solving their own problems, that points to the fact that no one in the church is smart enough to even be able to do that (as if the people outside the church are smarter by default or something). Of course this is a shame to the Corinthians, who have already been talking about how wise they are.

vs 6

Instead of following the laws of Christ in relation to how we treat each other, these Christians are appealing to secular law, which in fact makes it a "higher law" to them, and makes non-Christians think that this must be the only way to solve problems between Christians, because they can't seem to do it themselves. Remember, even Jesus said that it is best to solve a legal conflict before you get to court. Of course, that was to stop you getting owned by your opponent, but it's still relevant.

vs 7

Their very attitude towards this whole thing is incorrect. As a Christian, isn't it better to be wronged than to drag Christ's reputation through the dirt and through the courts? How are you showing the love of Christ when you are involved in a counter-claim against someone because they've already started a suit against you?

vs 8

Not only do these lawsuits mean that the Corinthian church is having internal division problemsn, and that they don't understand their positions in a heavenly sense, but it also means that people are doing things that are illegal! I mean, how Christian is that? No wonder Paul says they have already been defeated.

vs 9-10

You've really got to wonder why Paul feels the need to make this list so explicit. You'd hope that the people in the Corinthian church weren't these sorts of people. But you never know, really. The point of this statement, I guess, is to show that those people who are involved in evil stuff aren't the people God is looking for to judge the world. He's looking for the righteous, who don't need to be sued or to sue others, especially believers. I would go more exhaustively through this list, but I have actually done it before with one of these lists (not on here) and although the greek terms to us are fairly odd, the NIV translations of them seem pretty accurate. The NASB is more literal, but that's not a help when we don't really talk about "fornicators" as a technical term anymore.

1 Corinthians chapter 5

vs 1

When Paul is making this sort of accusation, you're thinking that he chose whip, right? But really, the presentation of a guy who has his father's wife (ewww!) is only the symptoms of a deeper theological problem with the Corinthians.

vs 2

They are proud! And I don't mean like "sin of pride" problem, I mean that they think that this sort of activity is in some way positive. Most likely, it is because the Corinthians are very much caught up in their freedom from legalistic living, and so they see this relationship as a proof of their freedom in Christ.

Paul doesn't see it that way. Instead, he sees that the church should have been filled with grief that such a thing was happening in their midst, and that they should have taken the drastic step of putting the person out of the church.

So, should we follow the same rule of booting people from fellowship if they do some heinous act? Not an easy one, is it? See, although we try to live as biblical Christians, we don't live in biblical times. We live way, way, way, way, way on the other side of Constantine and the flood of nominalism into the church. So the question then becomes, do we seek to reverse the cultural trend of 1600 years and try to separate the true believers from the nominal ones, or do we remain inclusive in the hope that we might rub off on them somehow? I'll leave you to answer that. For the time being.

vs 3

Is Paul literally there with them as some sort of floating spirit? I am fairly confident in saying no. I don't think I'm being eisegetical in saying that it's an idiomatic phrase. Paul doesn't need to talk to someone to know that sleeping with your father's wife is just plain wrong. I mean, even pagans don't do that sort of dirty.

vs 4

He is now starting to give a command on this subject. This verse gives the setting: when you're together, when Paul is there in spirit (so basically always), and when the power of the Lord Jesus is present. Do we take this in the same way as Paul being there in spirit (that is, that Jesus' power is always with us?) or do we assume that there is some cue that means you can tell when Jesus' power is with you and when it's not. I will go for the former, especially since it is right next to that bit about Paul being there in spirit.

vs 5

Satan almost provides a service for the church here - you give him people that are just so low, but who are unwilling to agree that their actions are not at all Christian, and the result is not what you expect. You expect Satan to take that person and turn them into a right abomination. But instead, this act of handover (when done correctly one assumes) results in the destruction of their sinful nature, and will actually allow this person to get over this problem and be saved.

Obviously Satan isn't the church's pal, and he's not doing this out of love. But God is able to use all things, even Satan, for good, and this is a great example of that. What is exactly meant by "handing the guy over to Satan" then? Paul, as always, doesn't go into it. He assumes the Corinthians know what he's talking about. The best we can guess is that he is referring to what he said earlier - kick his ass outta church.

Of course, if you've read ahead in 2 Corinthians, you'll know that Paul tells them to welcome him back once he's repentant.

vs 6

But now Paul gets off this specific problem of guy and father's wife, and gets back to the root problem - the boastfulness of the church in its incorrect freedoms.

The "little yeast" might be the actions of this almost-incestual guy. It might also be a reflection on the small beginnings that start the ball rolling in such a situation.

vs 7

Paul is getting a little Hebraic here - the bread without yeast being used at passover of course (and this sort of indicates that the early Christian churches, even greek ones like this, were still celebrating Jewish feasts like passover). So Paul is saying that since Jesus has been sacrificed as a passover lamb (once for all of course), then the church should take the part of being the holy bread without yeast.

vs 8

Assuming they are keeping the festival already, this is not a literal command to keep the festival, but instead a command to keep the spirit of the festival in the life of the church - the sanctity of their position as passover bread without yeast (malice and wickedness). Church should be bread of sincerity and truth. Mmm, good bread.

vs 9

Now here we get to a letter previously written by Paul. He is now clarifying what he meant for them. So he told them not to hang out with sexually immoral people.

vs 10

But the Corinthians obviously thought that Paul meant "don't hang out with those people outside the church, those dirty beggars. But hey, that guy who's sleeping with his father's wife, he's OK!"

Paul says that's stupid, and they're stupid. Instead, he meant the opposite - don't hang out with those sicko "so-called Christians" who sleep with various married relatives, but keep up with those non-Christians who really don't have any reason to act properly because they don't care what God thinks. If we were meant to leave this world, God would beam us up - it's certainly not beyond him - but instead he leaves us here for a reason.

vs 11

But that reason isn't to hang out with a person who calls themself a Christian, but acts like a complete non-Christian.

Here it is in black and white, but do we do it? Should we do it? If someone calls themself a Christian but they're doing all sorts of bad things, should we ditch them and not even have lunch? I think in our culture we tend to say someone either is a Christian (and they don't act that way) or they're not really a Christian (so it's ok to hang out with them too). That's because our super-Calvinist theology doesn't really accept the idea that people can be fallen-Christians. Perhaps it's just what I was talking about before, the acceptance of nominalism into the church, that has changed the way we think. I think it's probably a bit of both. So what's the solution? Beats me I'm afraid. Not a simple one.

vs 12

Christians aren't meant to judge non-Christians. So if someone doesn't even claim to be or pretend to be a Christian, no reason to judge them. Love them, sure. Witness to them, absolutely. But judge them, no.

vs 13

That's God's job. However, it seems we are to judge, and even take action against, those who claim to be Christian but who are not.

This is a really interesting point. Off topic a little, recently someone in our church was preaching on the letter to Laodecia in Revelation, where Jesus says he wishes the church was either hot or cold. Now I've always understood that as being useful one way or useful the other, and I know that some people interpret it as hot (on fire for God) or cold (against God), but I never really took truck with that because I think it's out of context there.

But reading this, I wonder. God doesn't want us to judge non-Christians. He'll do that himself. But people who claim to be Christians but don't walk the walk, them we can judge (or will judge in the future, unclear there), and even expel from fellowship! Is that God taking action on the lukewarm, prefering to hand them over to Satan to make the decision about whether to be hot or cold? Not sure. But it could be defended I think.

1 Corinthians Chapter 4

vs 11

I don't know how much Paul is haming this up, but if he were in prison at the time, he would not be stretching the truth on any of those accounts. Which is really putting the Corinthians to shame.

vs 12

It is very much a Christ-like picture that Paul is building. But it is also in opposition to the situation and attitude of the Corithians.

vs 13

How is it that while the Corinthians are kings of men and rich and happy, the highest ranking Christian authorities go around in rags as the scum of the earth?

vs 14

Well, Paul says he isn't trying to shame the Corinthians (although there's a fair amount to be ashamed of it seems), he instead calls it a warning. Which does put a little bit of a dampener on the sarcasm thing, because sarcasm usually seeks to put the other person down intellectually (at least in our culture - perhaps it meant something else in greek?) and to shame them, but Paul is actually wanting it to be a warning. And he now calls them dear children, an endearing title, which reminds us that sometimes you do have to warn children to change their ways, even if it means belittling them occasionally.

vs 15

I assume the guardians are something to do with angels. It could also be a reflection of the population of the church (globally, not in Corinth itself), but I think even then that might be conflated. Yet Paul doesn't dwell on it - he is more interested in the dynamic of the relationship between himself and the church. He calls himself their father (and now, corelate that with the verse that says to call no man "father"!) because it was he who brought them up in the gospel.

He's assuming a level of authority, demanding a level of respect, and building a level of relationship by calling himself their father.

vs 16

Because he's their dad, they should follow in his footsteps. Which lots of people did when they grew up, of course.

vs 17

So, because Paul can't go back to Corinth at this time, he'll send Timothy, who he knows will imitate Paul, and will be a good example to the church there. Timothy's life will remind them of Paul's life, and Paul's life agrees with his teaching. His teaching is the same all over the churches. But of course, every church isn't the same, with different situations and cultural settings. So what Paul teaches is principles, not actions. What he lives by is principles, not rules.

vs 18

Obviously in a church where individuals were so important that the church was going to split on which servant they followed, a visit from Paul would be a big deal. And yet he was probably delayed from visiting them by being locked up somewhere or beaten half to death or planting another church or something. But that doesn't satisfy some people, because some people think it's all about them.

vs 19

Paul is going to sort out these arrogant gainsayers when he gets there. But he'll only get there when God wills it, and that might not be for some time. Of course, in the meantime these gainsayers might gotten even more powerful. But he's willing to leave that in God's hands.

vs 20

Besides, he seems confident that, due to his position in the kingdom of God, he will be more powerful than them, and that they may just be all talk. Which is of no use to him, and will not protect them against his mighty God-powers.

vs 21

As we know, all children everywhere say "in love, in love!" But it does show the authority Paul has to threaten them. Now, he wouldn't have really gone with a whip (surely! right?) but it does mean that he is prepared to be harsh with them, and he expects that it is his right to do that if he must. But he would certainly prefer to come in love and gentleness, otherwise he wouldn't give them the option.

1 Corinthians chapter 4

vs 1

Paul wraps up his previous idea about the church not being divided over which servant of God they follow, and someone cunningly puts it in the next chapter.

vs 2

But now it seems he is going on to talk about his own faithfulness and accountability. This verse is more generally about all those entrusted with the message of Christ, but Paul goes on to be more specific about himself in the next verse.

vs 3

So judgement from humanity, whether it be by persons, by some sort of human authority like a court, or even by himself, is just not valuable to Paul. He's not working for those people, so he doesn't really care what they think. With regards to being accountable, anyway.

vs 4

Paul strives to do everything he can to serve God, because it is to God he is accountable. And he feels confident that he is in the right. Now, he doesn't necessarily feel that he is perfect and blame-free. Instead, he feels confident that it will be God who judges him for his wrongdoings, and not people.

vs 5

Long verse this one. On an aside, this verse sort of mentions that we will know the final judgements of people when Jesus returns, which is one more reason not to be an asshole - because it will be exposed to everyone at the end.

But the practical application of this verse is clear - that we should refrain from judging people, because God is going to do it at the end of time. And not only will he judge - he will also give praise.

vs 6

So Paul isn't just talking about himself - he is applying this stuff to Apollos as well (although Peter is absent here). He says that the idea is to teach them what he means when he says "Do not go beyond what is written", but I'm having a bit of a hard time getting what he means there.

I don't think that Paul is saying he is attributing these things to himself, and to Apollos, but not to the Corinthians. He does go on to jab them about thinking how great they are in the next verse, but I can't really see a correlation in that sense.

One thing I have read (though not recently) was a theory that Paul is referring back to the letter that he received in response to his first letter to the Corinthians. So either the Corinthians said something about "not going beyond what is written", or Paul said it in his first letter and is now explaining it more fully.

vs 7

They shouldn't be prideful of learning something from one person or another, because it doesn't make them cool. It just means that they are reliant on one person instead of another. Not really boastworthy, says Paul.

vs 8

Paul is now starting on a quite nasty condemnation of the Corinthians, who think they are so cool, and think they are so wonderful. This might be because of the assurance they have of being the children of God - so they think they are princes among men - or just because they are so darn smart because of what they've been taught. In any case, they have left Paul behind in this belief - perhaps they think that they have outgrown their childish ways and are now the masters and the teachers.

vs 9

But Paul is going to show them that being rich materially, and thinking you are cool, is not necessarily a blessing from God to show you how good a Christian you are. The Apostles, the best Christians by rank, have been treated like crap, and made an example of, both on earth but even in heaven. They are pitiful, dirty slaves captured as spoils of war. Paul is saying here that the Apostles know their position before God and are humbled by it. They are slaves to God, not kings! They humble themselves, and let Christ exalt them.

vs 10

I love that Paul uses sarcasm here. It makes me feel vindicated. I was just thinking this morning of university, when someone asked me "If God is all powerful, can he make a rock so big he can't move it". My snarky response would have been "Let me ask a question about who you worship - can you even make a rock?". I didn't say it, and I wonder if I should have. But Paul feels no qualms about pointing out the flaws of the Corinthians in sarcasm. My feeling is that the letter he received from them was fairly nasty, and so he feels ok with blasting them back a bit.

1 Corinthians Chapter 3

vs 12

What's the difference between hay and straw? I don't really think it matters. The point being that once the foundation of Christ is laid, it's up to us what we build on it. We can build valuable, costly stuff, or we can build cheap and nasty stuff.

vs 13

So at that present time, we might not be able to tell what other people's work is like. So we shouldn't go around judging other people's work. Instead, we should be worried about our own work. The "Day", of course, is the Day of the Lord, and fire is God's preferred tool of judgement post-flood.

vs 14

And this is the ultimate test. If what we have built on the foundation of Christ survives the Day of the Lord, then we will be rewarded. And what's going to survive the day of judgement? Only eternal things. Which basically means other people.

vs 15

Remember, we are talking about Christians here. You do have to have been building on the foundation of Christ. So this isn't a "save-all" passage. If what you've been building isn't eternal, then you'll lose it. You will still be saved though, and you'll feel it all the more it would seem, because you're being saved as if from a fire.

vs 16

So we were God's field, and then God's building. We've now been upgraded to temple. Now remember that this verse is not talking about your body - that verse is later in 1 Corinthians. This verse is not talking about individuals at all. It is addressed to the church. The church is the temple of God.

vs 17

These words become all the more pertinent when you realise that it's not some lovy-dovy verse talking about how much God loves the church. This is addressed to people in the church who are causing division. If you destroy the church because of your division, God will destroy you. Do we even take that seriously?

vs 18

If you measure wisdom by any other standard than a godly one, then you're being deceived. In our post-modern world, it is easy for people to set up all sorts of definitions about what any given thing is, including esoteric things like wisdom. But God's definitions aren't up for review, because they are an absolute truth. Anathema to our culture - you might seem "foolish" for believing in it - but by becoming a fool in the eyes of the world (for following Christ) you become wise. There are still fools that are just fools of course.

vs 19

Pertinent little verse from Job there. We have always got to be careful on this subject of wisdom, because we live in the "information age" and we can get very caught up in the latest thing, or even in old-school wisdom stuff. And the study of thought and the acceptance of reason are not bad things per se. I mean, I studied philosophy as a new Christian, and didn't lose my faith over it. But reason and thought must submit, like all other things, to God. It's funny of thinking of God as one who catches people out for being "too smart for their own good", but that's only half right. It's not like, by studying philosophy or eastern religion or post-modern thought or communist theory or whatever, you can somehow get so smart that God says "He knows too much, time to take him out!"

In fact, most wisdom of the world is simply a cunning twisting of the truth! Out and out lies are easy to spot, and so most people don't use them (or don't start with them anyway). No, you start with something that mimics the truth, and then you gradually move away from it. God knows that. He knows that there is a lot of his own good stuff in these other forms of "wisdom", but he catches them in their crafty twistings of the truth.

vs 20

In the end, thinking doesn't get you very far. Even spending all your time thinking and meditating about God is pointless, because God demands action from his people. Now I'm not speaking against academia here - Bible scholars who spend all their time learning about the intricacies of the Word of God, church history, etc are very valuable. But see, they are not just thinking - they are using their knowledge to print translations, to teach the church about its past etc. Simply sitting on top of a mountain and meditating doesn't do anyone any good.

vs 21

When it comes down to it, if even the smartest, wisest person is nothing compared to God, why would you boast about knowing them? If you know God, then you know everything. Everything that matters, anyway.

vs 22

Ok, so Christians might not all have the periodic table memorised, but instead they know how to have a relationship with the one true God who will give them life for ever and ever in heaven. Hmm, weighing those two things up, guess which one I think is better?

vs 23

This is one of the few verses where the NIV is more literal than the NASB, which says "belongs" a lot. But Paul completes the circuit here - we've got everything, because Christ's got us, and God has Christ.

1 Corinthians chapter 3

vs 1

So, after Paul has spoken about the spiritual man, and the necessity of the spirit for understanding God's grace, he tells the Corinthians he can't talk to them that way, because they are worldly.

vs 2

Remember, Paul was there for ages. I think it was like a year and a half. But during that whole time, it seems, he was only giving them basic nourishment. And they are still not ready for harder things!

vs 3

There are marks of worldliness about them. The greek is actually "fleshly" (sarkikos), so it means they are governed by human appetites and not spiritual desires. Paul mentions their jealousy and the arguments among them as examples of their worldliness. He says they are still walking in the way of men (mere doesn't appear anywhere in my greek, but the word used for man, anthropos, can denote the weakness of man, and his pitiful state).

vs 4

Paul is striking while the iron is hot, and taking the issue on which they are arguing head on, stating that when they argue about it, they are doing so as mere men - so that this argument is among them is proof of their immaturity.

vs 5

If you put people in their proper place, then you'd suddenly realise that you're much better off following God. I mean, you'll still sound foolish ("Oh, my master is a crucified criminal"), but it's better than saying "My master calls himself a slave". So Paul knows his place and the place of Apollos. They were given opportunities by God, and so they just used them as good servants.

vs 6

As far as I know, humanity has still not succeeded in controlling whether a seed germinates or not. Sure, you can just the right amount of water, you can fertilise it, you can plant it at the right time. And a lot of the time, the seed will grow. But sometimes, no matter what you do, they don't.

Paul knows his place in the work. He just does his job, and leaves God's job to God. And he knows who deserves the glory - the one who does the impossible job.

vs 7

Growth is what gives value to a seed. And you can be sure that back in these times, seeds were very valuable. There are records of times (even in the last century) when farmers would be going through such a tough time that they had to decide whether to feed their children with their corn, or plant it, because they couldn't do both. Times like that, you're counting every seed, and once you've buried them, it's only the ones that grow that do you any good.

vs 8

Paul doesn't want to make it sound like God doesn't value his work. Him and Apollos are serving God in obedience, and they will be rewarded. Not because of the value of their work, which is not really comparable to God's work. But because they had a purpose and fulfilled it, they are rewarded.

vs 9

Paul now sees an apt time to switch metaphors, from farming to building.

vs 10

So Paul is now an expert builder, and he's already laid the foundation of the building. Now another builder is coming and building on it. But this time, it's not Apollos - for there are multiple people who build on the foundation. That is the members of the Corinthian church. And he is warning them to watch how they build on the foundation.

They are not just building up good little Christian lives either - they are building up the church. If you go to South America (and probably other parts of the world) you will still see churches that get built by the members. Everyone pitches in what they can - bricks, sand, a truck, or just hard work laying slabs, putting up walls, doing floors, whatever. In the same way, every Christian in the church has to then build it up in Christ.

vs 11

First of all, he warns them that you can't build on another foundation, because you can't lay another one. Christ is the foundation, and so you have to start with him to go anywhere.

1 Corinthians Chapter 2

Now that stupid blog stupid thing has fixed, I can start.

vs 9

Even Isaiah, who that quote is from, and who goes on about the suffering servant, and has pretty strong visions of crucifixion and so on, even he didn't really know what was going to happen. God's plan was simply beyond our understanding. And he kept it hidden, too. I guess if we'd known, someone might have actually saved Jesus. Doubtful though. I mean, you'd think the disciples would have done it anyway.

vs 10

But now he has revealed what he has done. It is Paul's classic "It is a mystery, and now it is revealed" thing that he does in lots of his letters. Of course, now we have God's Spirit in us, and through that he can communicate stuff to us. The Spirit is like a more invasive heavenly Google web machine. Of course, we can't just plug in some search topics and come up with a heavenly answer, but anyone who has had their prayers answered knows that it's not that far off.

vs 11

I don't think Paul is making a point about the irreconcilable inability to truly communicate without using the Vulcan mind meld. But I do think he is saying that without expression (and possibly even with expression) the thoughts of a man are not easily fathomed, so that only inside himself does he know them. How much harder, then, for a man to divine God's thoughts? In the same way, only an insider, like the Holy Spirit, can be privvy to God's thoughts.

vs 12

And we have that Spirit, so we can understand God's thoughts. Not only his thoughts, but the actions that flow out of those thoughts, particularly those actions which he has done for us.

vs 13

And so, Paul and Sosthenes (remember him?) are not speaking this stuff just out of their arses, but they are speaking the words that God has given them. It's a spiritual message, and so it is being expressed in the Spirit's words. And the truths they speak weren't taught to them by a person, but by God through his Spirit.

vs 14

Oh, give me an amen to that! How many of us have tried to explain these things to non-Christians? Is it not a lost cause? Just one more reason to stick to Jesus, and explain that in the hope that God will open their eyes to it. Because trying to explain it in terms of human argument just isn't worth it. It is foolishness. I will freely admit that the gospel is foolish, in our human terms. But spiritually discerned, it is fabulous.

vs 15

It's verses like this that make what I am doing worthwhile. I mean, there are fair portions of the Bible which you just read, you go "yep, I think I've got that down". And then you hit 1 Cor 2:15 and you say "What the hell does that mean?"

Now, if you didn't know that the word used for "judge" here was anakrino, you might think it was talking about some form of heavenly or end-times judgement. In fact, the word "examine" or "discern" would work just as well.

Also, the words "not subject" are thrown in by the NIV to give it greater reference, but aren't actually literal. It's one of those times when I would have used a different word, because of course judgement has a more specific meaning in a Biblical sense, and I don't think anakrino is ever used in that sense. It can mean a sort of judgement, like making a judgement about something, but if he wanted it to mean "God's judgement", Paul would have used krima.

The NASB says "But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one." So instead of calling down judgement on all things, the spiritual man is now making value judgements about things, and yet no one can accurately assess him.

vs 16

And this is why. We have been given the mind of Christ, and he allows us to appraise our situation, or to appraise a certain thing that we are thinking of getting involved in, or a group of people etc. But people are unable to appraise us or finalise their judgement on us, because as Christians we just don't fit into the boxes they want. "He talks about people coming back from the dead, so he must be crazy. But he helps people, so he must be nice. He does things for the community, so he's a good person. But he speaks out against injustice, so he's a bit of a rebel. He talks about God and stuff a lot, so he must be spiritual, but he doesn't drink and he doesn't do a lot of things a normal person does, so perhaps he's from a cult..."

1 Corinthians chapter 2

vs 1

I don't know whether this means that Paul didn't ham it up, that he is just being modest or humble about his abilities as a speaker, or if he came to the Corinthian church in more humble circumstances. After all, he did come from Athens, where he did not see a huge response to his message.

But the eloquence and wisdom which the Corinthian church values, and which Paul has just undervalued in the last chapter, is not something that Paul used in his speaking in Corinth.

vs 2

Man, sometimes we've got a hell of a lot to learn from this. I remember when I was first made aware of this idea. I don't even think the person pointed out this verse to me. It was probably at a conference about evangelism or something. But the person said simply that everything that Christianity revolves around and centres on is Christ. But people, particularly Aussies, don't want to talk about Christ. They want to talk about creation vs evolution, or the difference between the denominations, or the most recent homosexual priest scandal, or the whys and why-nots of abortion. All these things are completely not central to the gospel. The person (whoever it was, I've forgotten now) simply said "Just bring everything back to Christ". And it made so much sense to me! Because I am the kind of person who loves to argue about everything, and to learn about all the touchy stuff, and the disputable things. But that's not where it's at at all. Try it some time - no matter what someone says, just always bring the focus back to Jesus Christ our Lord. It changed how I thought about evangelism.

vs 3

Well, there we go. Paul tells us that his circumstances were fairly humble. I'm not sure if it was a fear of persecution that made him weak, or just a fear of going to yet another town to preach the gospel and possibly be regected. I mean, we never think of that. When you read Acts, you think of Paul as this intrepid explorer going from unreached town to unreached town, spreading the gospel, getting beaten, stoned, jailed, flogged, and just keeping on going like a man of steel.

But there's nothing to say that he wasn't actually scared out of his wits of doing it, and doing it over and over and over again. The difference between him and us them becomes his obedience to God - God told him to spread the message, and so he goes and does it, even though he's afraid.

vs 4

Now did he mean actual miracles that he did, or does he mean the power of the words that he spoke? Whatever your theology of miracles is, I'll let you deal with this one and how you apply it. I'm a little of the opinion that he is talking about both. Miracles don't the message make, but they are very much tied up in the whole outreach thing in the NT.

vs 5

The point of this term "Spirit's power" is to show that their faith was built on God's power, not on the earthly wisdom of man. The gospel is full of that power in the first place, because its very message is about the power of God to forgive your sins. So it's covered even without healings or floor-time, but that doesn't mean they weren't there.

vs 6

Now Paul isn't saying there is no wisdom in what he teaches, and to those who are mature in Christ, there is certainly some wisdom to be had. But it's not the kind of wisdom they were expecting. They might have been expecting a gnostic sort of wisdom - a secret knowledge that they could get their hands on exclusively. They might have been expecting a proverbial sort of wisdom - key sayings of smartness. Or they might have been expecting the greek form of philosophical wisdom. But Paul's not dishing out those (perhaps a bit of proverbial wisdom from Proverbs). In fact, Paul says that these human types of wisdom are actually valueless, and come to nothing.

vs 7

No, Paul is talking about God's secret wisdom. If that sounds a little gnostic, well, perhaps Paul is using the term to combat the proto-gnosticism we see in the early NT church. But certainly he isn't teaching a gnostic wisdom form - you know from his other books that when he talks about the mystery of the gospel, he talks about it as one that was hidden, but now is made known. Not only did God hide this wisdom, but his destiny for it was that it would be used to glorify his people.

vs 8

So religious and political leaders did not realise this hidden wisdom, which is Christ as God. If they did, they most probably should have given Jesus their crowns and their positions.

This verse highlights an odd problem that comes up when talking about what people really know and their subsequent actions. Paul here is saying that if they really, really knew who Jesus was, they wouldn't have crucified him. If you try and apply this more generally, you end up saying that if people really, really knew who Jesus was, they would follow him and not ignore him. Now I don't think it's that simple. I think there are people who can know and understand the gospel, and perhaps even believe its tenets, but who actually turn their backs on God and say they don't want what he's giving.

After all, Paul has just finished saying that he didn't come to teach the Corinthians a wise saying. Because you can convince people of the true nature of God and Christ, but some people just don't want to follow God. But I don't know. It's a question that begs more research.

1 Corinthians chapter 1

vs 21

Ok, I've read this verse a dozen times. Here's what I think it is saying. The reason people can't know God through their worldly wisdom is because God (in his wisdom) chose not to reveal himself that way. Rather, God decided to make a saving knowledge of himself known through a method which, in the world's wisdom, is utterly foolish rather than utterly wise.

Now you might say "Yeah, of course that's what it means". But the sticking point for me is the very beginning - the bit about God's wisdom and the world's wisdom.

vs 22

The AiG people (I don't know what they're called now) use this verse when pushing the evangelistic side of their stuff. Their argument is that while we are preaching from the gospels all about Jesus' miracles and how they prove he's the Son of God (which would convince Jews), the gentiles actually want wisdom, and so that's why they do all this creation science stuff.

The problem is, it's a classic verse taken out of context! Yes, Paul is saying that different people are looking for different things in their own understanding of God. But...

vs 23

Paul does neither! Not only is the gospel of Christ crucified not compatible with what these groups are looking for, but it actually places a stumbling block in front of Jews (because you're telling them that when their Messiah came he didn't come in glory, and that even though he was God, God died for them), and foolishness to the gentiles (because why would God sacrifice his son for us, and then give us eternal life freely?).

vs 24

But it's not that to everyone. To Christians, and to those God has called as Christians, it means that Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. There are those out there who are just waiting to hear the gospel, and they click and go "That's it. That's what I've been waiting to hear". And there are ones who say "I don't believe it" but eventually they are convicted by its truth. But not because of miracles, and not because of its wisdom.

vs 25

The dumbest, most foolish thing that God does is still smarter than anything we could possibly do. And the weakest thing he ever does is stronger than the strongest thing we can possibly do. It's one of those characteristics that makes him God. And it just goes to show that we shouldn't call things God does "weak" or "dumb".

vs 26

And this is the story of the whole world's conversions. There are some rich, powerful, influential people who are won to Christ, and when they are we tend to say "Yeah, woo! More resources for the church".
But it is far more common that it is the poor, the needy, the marginalised, the left behind, who are the ones who respond to the gospel.

vs 27

And why? Because not only is God's weakest and most foolish better than our wisest and strongest, but he actually shames our strength and wisdom by choosing the foolish and weak. In doing this, he says "See how wise you people are? See how strong? How influential, how rich your blood is? Didn't get you into a relationship with me though, did it? And yet even these poor, dumb gutter dwellers know God you idiots!"

vs 28

His choosing of the poor and despised nullifies our earthly riches and wisdom. It says "No matter how rich, or how wise you can get on this earth, this poor stupid person made the right decision, and you made the wrong one. Their decision will bring them life and eternal riches, and you, well, you'll be dead in a year".

vs 29

But the poor person can't then boast "Oh yeah, I so chose correctly. Yay me!" because it was God who revealed to that person the foolishness of his salvation.

vs 30

Christ has become our wisdom, and so we can't claim that it was our own doing. And the wisdom of God, which people think is foolishness, it is our righteousness, our holiness and our redemption. So it is our position or rightness before God, it is our separation from mundane things for God, and the price paid for our release to God. Those all sound like great, very wise things to have, don't they? But who would expect that you would get them through Christ and his crucifixion?

vs 31

We can boast about God all day long - it's not really boasting when God has all the power and gets all the glory. He's the only one who can boast, and who deserves us boasting about him.

1 Corinthians chapter 1

vs 11

Chloe, or at least someone from her household, has been talking to Paul, and telling him what's going on at Corinth. And the report so far doesn't seem great. People are quarreling.

vs 12

The Christians have formed some divisive little sects inside the church, based on who they were baptised by, and whose teaching they were taught or they follow. Although the literal reading to us might sound like there is one group who is doing the right thing ("I follow Christ"), some scholars have suggested that this may in fact just be another division trying to outrank everyone else. Surely the proper Christian attitude would be "We all follow Christ" or something more pithy. Anyway, Paul's next line is one that may help back this up, because he is referring to Christ even as this last group does.

What this also shows is that either Corinth was receiving teaching from a lot of bigwigs (Paul, Peter, Apollos), or else their teachings were directly available via letter or verbal transmission (like Christ's teachings).

vs 13

Christ was crucified for all. He was not divided for the followers of Apollos, Paul, Peter etc. And these people were not crucified for the sins of Christians. And Paul at least didn't baptise anyone into his name, but only into Jesus' name. The teacher is far less important that what is taught - Christ is the supreme, and his church should be undivided.

vs 14-15

In fact, Paul only baptised two people, and he's glad, because he doesn't want to foster this idea that you can get baptised into the name of Paul, or even that his baptism is better than Apollos' baptism etc.

vs 16

(Oh, wait, I did baptise some other people. I can't even remember if I baptised more. But apart from that... you get the point!) Yes, Paul is human and has an imperfect memory.

vs 17

This always hits home to me when I read it. Paul doesn't go around with a ministry of baptism. And he doesn't go around with a ministry of wise apologetics in order to win arguments in the ampi-theatre at lunchtime. That sort of thing empties the cross and all of Christ's work of its power - not in a literal way though. It's not like every time someone preaches by words of wisdom that the cross becomes a little less powerful than it was. What he is saying is that if you are preaching some wise words in an attempt to win over a person's mind by logical force, then your argument is only as strong as your wise words.

Paul preaches the gospel. And it's not a gospel of wise words, or street smarts. It is a gospel of the power of God by the cross. Paul has more to say about it too.

vs 18

The gospel is the power of God. Why make wise and intellectual arguments, when you can just use the power of God that is the gospel? And yes, some people will see the gospel as foolishness, and its bringers as fools. But for those who God powerfully works in, it saves. The gospel is all-sufficient.

Now I'm not trying to devalue tertiary Bible studies like Bible college, or evangelism courses or apologetics or anything. But the fact is that anyone who has heard the gospel and become a Christian can share the gospel, because it's not by their own power that they do it - when you are sharing the gospel, you are wielding the very power of God.

vs 19

Paul is making the point very clear that relying on your own wisdom, either for your own walk with God or for reaching others (the gospel is as important to our own walk with God as it is for reaching others - I mean, it's not like you hear the gospel, you're saved, then you only bring the gospel out when you are teaching others about Christ, but the rest of the time you lean on your own understanding).

vs 20

Now it is not as if there were no wise men, scholars, or philosophers in Corinth at this time. Paul is not asking for someone to tell him where they live. He is saying "When it comes to the wisdom and power of God, when it comes to God frustrating the intelligent and the wise, where do the wise men stand? How close to God does the philosopher get? What percentage of greatness is a scholar to God?" Such wisdom which is based on the world is foolishness compared to the revelation of God.

Why? Because God is God! Anything that God says is so much wiser than the wisest Einstein we've got. One word from God is smarter than a whole book from Steven Hawking. So his message of salvation, direct from himself, is the absolute best gospel you will find. You will never come up with anything better. Sure, you might express it differently because you live in a different culture, and that is just fine. But you will never be able to change what the gospel says, and make it somehow better or more right. No matter how smart of wise or intelligent you are.

1 Corinthians chapter 1

Here I go, longest book I've ever tried. I'm going to be trying to focus on church worship. We all in our churches seem to have so many problems with how to do things, so I want to try and concentrate on looking at what Paul has to say about the principles of the things he instructs.

vs 1

Ok, so Paul I know, but who is Sosthenes? He is mentioned one other time, and a million points if you know who he is without looking.

He is, quite possibly, the synagogue leader of the Jewish synagogue at Corinth. I think that is pretty awesome. He gets the crap beaten out of him when the Jew's legal action against Paul fails, and perhaps he then went and became a Christian. Or perhaps he was leaning that way already. Anyway, it could be another Sosthenes, but then you'd wonder why Luke would mention him by name in Acts.

vs 2

This letter is fairly widely addressed. Firstly, to the church in Corinth, easy enough. Secondly, it is called to those sanctified in Christ, who we could still assume are those in the church in Corinth. But then it gets a lot wider, and goes to all those everywhere who call on Christ.

Now this is interesting, because 1 Corinthians is accepted by scholars to be the second letter Paul has written to Corinth. And yet here it is obvious that it was written for a very wide audience. With the amount of criticism in the book, you would think that the church at Corinth might supress this letter - that may be what happened to the other letters! - but we have it, perhaps only because it was circulated.

1 Corinthians is generally read as a letter written to a church full of friends of Paul. But it could also be that Paul is writing to a church that has a lot of people attacking Paul in it, and he is defending himself against those attacks. Let's see how we go.

vs 3

Typical Paul stuff.

vs 4

Again, a fairly typical Paul entry. Note that Paul is immediately speaking in the first person, so Sosthenes has become a lesser player (perhaps amenuensis?).

vs 5

Paul is praising the ability of those in Corinth to speak and in their knowledge. Of course, all this comes from God, so he is praising God for it.

vs 6

Paul made testimony about Christ in Corinth, and he did it for ages. A year and a half or something, which is a long time for Paul. He's happy to see they are still there.

vs 7

The Corinthian church was also a church full of spiritual gifting, which is another great thing to thank God for. For those who know 1 Corinthians, you know that Paul is lining up a lot of stuff he's going to talk about later in the book. First knowledge, then spiritual gifts.

vs 8

Another thing the Corinthian church is doing is waiting eagerly for Christ's return. And here they are confirmed that when that day comes, Jesus will have kept them strong so they will be blameless.

vs 9

It's not because of their own strength or becuase they are really keen, or because of their knowledge or anything else that makes their last-day assurance. It's because God is faithful, and he is the one who called them into fellowship.

vs 10

Now we start getting into some meat. There are divisions in the church, and that's just not the way church is meant to be. Paul is calling for a perfect unity, in "mind and thought".

Nous means the perceiving, understanding, judging and feeling mind.

Gnome, in this context, means the things you do with that faculty. So the thoughts, opinions, understandings etc. So Paul is saying here that we should be alike in both faculty and use of said faculty. I'm keen to find out what Paul's solution to make this happen is, because I don't see many churches where this is perfect, and certainly my own church could use some similarity in mind and thought.

Galatians Chapter 6

vs 10

The context of this verse says so much. "Therefore" links back to sowing to please the Spirit and reaping the subsequent results. So in verse 9 we will not reap a harvest of souls on the mission field or anything like that - we will reap the blessings of the Spirit because we are continuing to do good.

This verse, then, shows us that we should be doing all this good stuff to anyone we can, but especially amongst the family of believers. And I cannot stress enough how important this is. Chrsitians must, without fail, look after their own. In this crappy world, I can assure you that no-one else will look after them. The amount of times I have seen, again and again, Christian villages or towns miss out on "international aid" during catastrophes because the aid money is being distributed by local non-Christian governments, or even by non-Christian (typically non-Western) NGOs, it reminds me of the need for Christians to look out for their own.

And it's not "instead of mission"! Don't draw a false dichotomy between mission work/church work. Because when we help each other as Christians, people see that and think "Wow, I wish I were a Christian, because then I'd have a community of people who love me".

vs 11

Paul is either getting old and so can't see very well, or is emotional and so is writing in large letters. But it's his own mark, and that can show emphasis on what is coming.

vs 12

If you know that to do something is wrong, but there's a lot of pressure to do it, then if you do it, you're only doing it to escape persecution for Christ. That is assuming that the reason you are trying to do the right thing is because of Christ of course!

This is why I tell people not to get baptised unless they think they should. A lot of Christian parents put pressure on their kids to get baptised, and then the kids are left thinking "Am I doing this because Christ commands it, or because my parents are telling me to? Is it really the right thing to do if my parents are forcing me to?" It's not like not getting baptised is going to keep you out of heaven (we could stand to let this secret out into the public too).

vs 13

Sounds like these cock-cutters (how endearing - Paul would be proud of me I'm sure) are just after something to boast about in their ministry, to show that people are flocking to it and following it and so they can then make an argument by numbers.

This faith these people have in circumcision is not in the Law, it's simply in some ritual. No wonder it's so worthless! I mean, Paul has already pointed out that the Law can't save you, but certainly having a penis-trim isn't going to get you into heaven either.

vs 14

So Paul makes it his wish that he will only ever boast about the work of Christ, not the work of himself or some guy with a sharp knife.

Christ not only made us dead with regards to the world's rules (so we don't have to follow them) but he also killed the power of the world to lord over us through our sinful nature. With that sort of wholesale death and destruction, you'd think our lives would be more free of sin and shame than they are.

vs 15

To chop or not to chop - I'm sure there are some medical opinions, but as far as your salvation goes, you will find plenty of both in heaven. The rest of the person will be there too. I'm not saying that we'll walk around heaven with some sort of foreskin fetish. In fact, it will be a non-issue.

What really counts is that life-change, that new creation in Christ. It is the Spirit's work in our lives that exists as a guarantee of our sonship - so we should value our new lives in Christ far more than any bits we might have chopped off.

vs 16

I'm assuming the "Israel of God" is the Jewish Christians, but I don't really know. It would seem to fit that Paul is saying that even if you are Jewish but worshipping Christ, you don't need to give your kids the clip (but you can if you want to for history's sake, just not for God's sake). This was probably a bigger issue then than it is now - the church had a much larger Jewish and proselyte percentage back then.

vs 17

Had someone tried to crucify him? It's possible I guess, considering all the other things he survived, but those are more likely what he is referring to - the bruises and other sores from his various persecutions which he had suffered for Christ. Why you shouldn't cause him any trouble for this, I'm not sure. But hey, I wouldn't get in his way after this letter.

vs 18

Amen.