1 Corinthians chapter 15

vs 25

Ok, you can feel free to disagree, but to fill in the "he"s, here is my understanding - Jesus must reign until God has put all God's enemies under Jesus' feet.

This means that Jesus currently reigns, which is easy for us to accept as he is risen in glorious splendour, and is in heaven, so we assume it's not hard to reign from there.

vs 26

Now death wasn't destroyed by Jesus' resurrection. Well, it sort of was. People still die, though, so we know it wasn't. But it was a sign that the defeat will come. So we can assume this victory over death will come in the end times with Jesus' return.

vs 27

This is clearly God putting everything under Jesus' feet. Except himself, as Paul makes clear. Jesus was humble before God on earth, and probably still is now. This does not mean that Jesus is not equal with God. But just because they are equals does not mean that one cannot treat the other with deference.

vs 28

Again, this subjection is not out of one's inferiority to the other - it is a deference which we assume is a part of the relational structure of the Godhead.

vs 29

Ok, we really have no idea here. Historical picture of this practice is sketchy at best. This verse is not necessarily endorsing the practice, but it is also not being explicitly denied either. It is never prescribed in Scripture, though, so I think we can safely say it's not necessary. The point Paul is making is that ther's no point to people doing it if there is no resurrection.

vs 30

Paul's own risk-taking life is another example of proof that he believes in the resurrection, that his hope is on more than just this life which he treats as temporary.

vs 31

He means it, but not literally. What does he actually mean? I'm not sure. That he puts his life at risk for the gospel every day? Perhaps. That he dies more to the sinful nature? Possibly, but it's out of context. There could be other meanings, but I think that first one is most in keeping with the context. Paul is really serious about this too.

vs 32

He does not do the things he does for human or temporal gain, because he knows that things done for such purposes are worthless in the end, and he has gained nothing. If he didn't believe in a resurrection or an eternity after death, then why do anything but enjoy yourself in the short term, right?

vs 33

This sort of jumps in from nowhere. I am assuming he's talking about those in the church who are talking about this lack of resurrection, or he might be talking about the company of philosophers who came to correct Paul's view on things like the resurrection, whom the Corinthians supposedly had a great respect for.

vs 34

Paul shames them because there are some among them who are ignorant of God. Could it be that these philosophers are talking the Christians into believing their philosophies, and so there are people in the church who are ignorant of God, but know about these philosophies? In any case, the church isn't doing its job.

vs 35

People still ask this question, even Christians. Paul's answer is quite potent, which makes us think that the way in which the Corinthians asked it was more of a scoffing than a plea for understanding.

vs 36

This is the start of a new metaphor - the idea of planting something and it dying before it comes to a new life.

1 Corinthians chapter 15

vs 13

And this is what they were claiming - the impossibility, or implausibility, of Christ being raised from the dead, and of the promise that we too would be raised.

vs 14

Christianity requires resurrection. Without it, it just doesn't work. But Paul will go so much deeper into it.

vs 15

Paul continues to lay out the consequences of this belief - because Paul himself testifies to Christ being raised from the dead by God, if it is not true, then he is a false witness, and what he has preached is probably false. And if God is not a God of resurrection, then no one will be raised, not even Christ.

vs 16

Paul says that it is a one-in-all-in thing - either God raised Christ, and so can and will raise everyone, or he raises no one, not even Christ. It sounds like a childish argument, but what he is doing is dispelling the argument that God could have raised Christ, because he is special, but that we will not be raised. Because the arguments against resurrection were mostly moral (the flesh being seen as evil) it makes no sense for God to do it even once if they are correct.

vs 17

Again, Christianity is futile if resurrection is non-existant, becauase it means we are still in our sins. Resurrection is absolutely necessary for the remission of sins.

vs 18

This is the tragedy of a resurrection-free Christianity. Without God's proof of power over sin and death in the resurrection of Christ, then once we die, that's it. If God has no power over death, then death is it for us.

vs 19

That there is a further life to have hope in is an easily accepted part of NT doctrine. It's not quite as easy to find in the OT (although I haven't studied that personally, but it's what I've been told). Our lives would be pitiful if we were only saved for this life, especially if we were saved later in life. Remember, the first generation of the saved were probably mostly adults.

vs 20

But never fear, because whoever is saying there is no resurrection is some sort of fruitcake. And fruitcakes are not known for their sterling theology.

vs 21

There is this incredible link between Adam and Christ, between creation and new creation, which should alert us to the incredible nature of our salvation. Creation was such a powerful moment that, through one person, we all sinned. The coming of the Christ was such a powerful event that, through one person, all can be saved.

vs 22

Now you might think I'm going to go on about hyper-calvinism, or universalism, but I'm not. All Paul has said here is that all people will be raised through the power of Christ at the end times. And there will be a mass resurrection of people at the end times. And then they will be judged. So not everyone who gets resurrected will be happy about it.

vs 23

But there is a hint that those who are in Christ will be resurrected differently, perhaps first. It has been said that judgement begins with the people of God (1 Peter, but he may well be quoting an OT reference). Of course, our hope is in resurrection, so we've got nothing to fear except a hell of a lot of embarassment.

vs 24

Dominion, power, and authority on their own aren't bad things. They tend to be in this world, though, because they tend to try and raise themselves above God. Whether it's a spiritual power like Satan, or even just a governmental power. These terms are most likely spiritual in this verse, but could easily also relate to governmental powers of the time (which of course weren't greatly friendly to Christianity).

1 Corinthians chapter 15

New runner for longest chapter done!

vs 1

After 14 chapters of letter, now Paul wants to talk about the gospel. Perhaps at the end of the book because it is of most importance, perhaps because even though the Corinthians were messed up around the edges, they still knew the gospel. Perhaps because they were in a less favourable relationship with Paul, and he's wanting to make sure that doesn't prevent them from standing firm in the gospel just because he taught it to them.

vs 2

It has to be the gospel that Paul gave them - not another gospel by some other person. I'm sure Apollos' gospel and Peter's gospel were fine. Paul is instead warning them against people whose gospel is fairly different, and therefore incorrect.

vs 3

This section is one of the most valuable of all the NT - it is one of the most succinct recitations of the gospel that we have from the first century. Christ's death as an atonement for our sins is important, but so is the fact that it is in accordance with Scripture. You can't separate the Old Testament out of the gospel - it is vital.

vs 4

His burial is important. I don't know how much we think about his burial, but it shows that he was dead for 3 days - not just a few hours and then resuscitated. He really was buried in a tomb as a dead person.

His resurrection from the dead is of course vital, but it is also important that, again, it is in accordance with Scripture. How vital is Christ's fulfilment of Scripture, that it is in the list twice?

vs 5

He then appeared to Peter and the twelve (obviously his appearance to the women is not a gospel concern ). So this isn't just a spiritual act or some sort of philosophical idea - he actually appeared to people you could go and talk to at the time. Hey, some of the Corinthians said they even followed Peter.

vs 6

Over 500 Christians saw him while he was back. That's a heap of witnesses. And most of them are still alive (Paul himself probably watched some die in his former life). So it's not as if you can't trust their vision or something.

vs 7

Now here is a really, really odd passage. Earlier we read that he appeared to the twelve (you've got to assume that's the new twelve, because Judas topped himself, so include Matthias). So this James probably isn't son of Zebedee, it is his own brother. His brother saw him almost last.

The other interesting thing is that there are now some apostles who see him. Is this a second visit from Jesus to the Twelve? Or are there more apostles than we know of or usually recognise? I'm going for the second one, which would mean that, although Paul is interesting in that he is a late apostle, he is probably not unique as an apostle outside the twelve.

vs 8

So now Paul, as one abnormally born. He is presumably unique in that he didn't see Christ pre-conversion.

vs 9

So Paul considers himself the least of apostles, but interestingly not because of how he became one. Only because of his persecution of the church is he so low in his own eyes. His vision of Christ was as real and true as any vision by anyone else of the resurrected Jesus.

vs 10

But apart from that, he accepts his apostleship, and not only that, thinks that he's the hardest working of them all. Which, considering how much of the non-Jewish world heard the gospel because of him, and how much of the NT is about him or by him, is probably fair. But Paul doesn't take the glory for himself - he knows full well that it was God's grace that allowed it, and God's work that accomplished it.

vs 11

So now Paul clarifies that, if it comes from an apostle, then it is God's good word, and you can accept it. And the Corinthians did accept it.

vs 12

Oh, but deary me. One of those important tenets of the gospel, that of Jesus' resurrection (in accordance with Scripture) is being questioned. Some of the Corinthians seem to think that resurrection is a bit much to believe. Not at all uncommon among greek-thinking people. Because of the greek mind/body dualism, and the spirit/body dichotomy, the idea of a resurrection of what is essentially to them evil flesh is unheard of and doesn't make sense. You could almost say it is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles.

1 Corinthians Chapter 14

vs 31

The previous verse might have also been about people going on for too long, hence allowing one person to get up if he has something to say and the first has been droning for a while. Hard to say. But this verse reminds us of the principle behind Paul's idea - that all may be instructed and encouraged.

vs 32

A prophet can control what he says - so if he goes on and on, it's him doing it and not necessarily the spirit of prophecy in him. So the whole idea of giving a preacher as much time as he needs so that he can get his message across is not a spiritual idea - it's just a pragmatic idea. It's certainly not wrong to do so, but it is also not wrong to expect a bit of an orderly service where people can know what time to expect the sermon to end.

vs 33

Here, the NIV and the NASB part ways. The NIV things there are two distinct sentences, and that vs 34 is half a sentence. The NASB, meanwhile, things that verse 33 is a sentence on its own.

What this verse certainly is saying is that God does not exist to confound and confuse us, and to bring disorder. He created an ordered creation. Confusion (like at the tower of Babel) is a curse, not a gift. So we should have ordered worship, not confused worship.

The NIV says that's that, and moves on. But the NASB says that God is a God of peace in all the churches.

vs 34

So now we come to verse 34, and we must decide. Are all women silent in all the churches? Or are women meant to be silent in the Corinthian church? Obviously translators differ on the matter. Paul appeals to the law, saying that if they speak it goes against them being "in submission" as the Law tells them to be.

vs 35

This verse seems to indicate that Paul is particularly talking about women enquiring about knowledge or asking questions in the meeting. His response is they should ask their husbands, rather then get up and ask in the middle of someone speaking.

Now, I have had people (women, I might add) do this, and it is bloody annoying. People (women) who constantly interject in your sermon can be extremely disturbing to the whole thing.

See, the fact of the matter is that Paul cannot be absolutely commanding complete silence from women in the church, because three chapters ago he was talking about what women need to do (cover their head) in order to participate in prayer and prophecy.

What is indeed more likely (in my understanding of what the scholars say) is that men and women most usually sat separated, as they did in synagoges at the time. And women, as they do, titter and make noise and are generally disruptive. Now you might say "You sexist biatch, you know men are as bad as women" and I do. But culturally, you've got to remember that women were not nearly as involved in public social meetings as men were in a greek society. And as such, they wouldn't have been as used to the rules of greek speaking tours, where one man talks and the rest shut up and listen.

vs 36

Paul is summing up his whole discussion of the orderly nature of worship here, not just the bit about women. We just get hung up about that bit.

So he's asking if the Corinthians think they can do things any way they want, as if they were the only Christians. I think Paul is suggesting that there is a Christian way of doing things, undergirded by Christian and godly principles, rather than a stock standard way of doing church.

vs 37

It seems those with the gift of prophecy or other spiritual gifts can recognise God's word, and in this case recognise that Paul's word is God's word.

vs 38

And Paul obviously thinks what he is saying is important, because if you ignore it, God will ignore you is the idea. And after all, if it's God's command, then that is only fair.

vs 39

So Paul now goes back to the whole thing about desiring spiritual gifts. The thing about women in the middle was more of an interjection, less of the meat of the passage (but still important).

vs 40

This is Paul's point. Order is the order of the day.Our churches should do things in an orderly fashion.

1 Corinthians chapter 14

vs 21

A quote from Isaiah. So far we're so good.

vs 22

Yes, Paul, you're making perfect sense... um, what?

There are a few things I can think of. It is possible (though I think unlikely) that Paul is quoting the Corinthian letter here, and they are using that verse from Isaiah to say that tongues is for unbelievers, and prophecy for believers. Or, Paul could be saying (another stretch) that tongues is for making unbelievers, whereas prophecy makes believers. The NASB doesn't hold that up, because it uses 'to' instead of 'for', and just doesn't sound right.

Paul could be being sarcastic. Wouldn't be the first time in the letter. It could be a mistake. But translators have not had many qualms about fixing mistakes (although this would be a pretty huge one to "fix").

When you read vs 23-25, you understand what Paul means. This verse on its own, or even in context with them, is very confusing.

vs 23

Having been in such a situation, I can happily and heartily agree with Paul here, and that was when I was a Christian! When I was a non-Christian, and I went to a church where someone was just talking about speaking tongues, that was enough to freak me out.

vs 24

Prophecy is, at least, done in regular language. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is telling the future - telling the truths of God should be enough to elicit this response.

vs 25

Laid bare in the prophecies, I am assuming, rather than him just coughing up stuff because he's in the presence of people who are speaking. It's not a response I have ever seen (the whole falling down in worship thing) but then, I've also never seen a whole church prophesy.

vs 26

I don't know if Paul means all of these must be done every time you meet together, or if all of these must be done only if people come with them. The point is that all these things are beneficial for the church, and so there's got to be an orderly way or fitting them into your regular times of fellowship.

vs 27

Because we are talking about edification of the church, interpretation of tongues is absolutely necessary to Paul. And the limitation of tonges-speakers is necessary too - not because tongues are bad, because there needs to be some order discipline in the service. Heavily needed by the Corinthians, it would seem. Perhaps not so necessary for us, as we're pretty uptight already.

vs 28

If you can't interpret, and there isn't someone else gifted, keep your mouth shut. Pray instead, to yourself, in tongues if you wish.

vs 29

Now these next two verses are absolutely out there. You have two or three prophets talking, one after the other. You're meant to sit and discern what they are saying, to judge it and weigh it carefully. Sounds important to me.

vs 30

But if someone comes up with a revelation during the meeting, they can just stand up and give it, and the person currently with the floor must take a seat and listen. Does this make a revelation different from a prophecy? Possibly it does. The word simply means "something is revealed", so it does sound like a more immediate thing than someone giving a prophecy (which if we look at the OT, their pattern seems to be longer, more drawn out sermon type things). Of course, when we think of a revelation, we think of Revelation - someone interrupting your sermon to speak out 22 chapters of stuff might be somewhat annoying. But it seems that is what Paul is saying (probably most revelations weren't or aren't quite so long).

1 Corinthians Chapter 14

vs 11

Because langauges have meaning, if you don't interpret what you say to someone, then you are treating them like a foreigner - excluded and out of place.

vs 12

Because the Corinthians are so keen to build up spiritual gifts, Paul suggests to them that they seek gifts that are for the good of the church (especially since it is having division issues) rather than those which are personally edifying.

vs 13

Here again we find Paul talking about the one who speaks in tongues also asking for the gift of interpretation.

vs 14

This is a really interesting statement, which obviously does not relate to speaking a foriegn language (unless if, when you use the gift of tongues to speak another language, you don't understand what you're saying - which would make it less useful in my opinion). For if your mind is not being used in the speaking of tongues, then it might seem all the more to be just spouted gibberish. But there is a distinction - it does mean something (for it can be interpreted), and it is a gift of God (so it can't be bad or useless). And it is still a prayer to God.

vs 15

So what is the solution? Paul thinks it is to pray in the spirit, but to also use your brain, both to pray and to sing. I'm assuming that means doing more the sort of thing that we do when we publicly pray.

vs 16

Here we get to a problem which can be found in either form of glossa - when you pray in church and other people can't understand you, how can they say "amen" to it and condone it, and mix their prayers up with it? The simple answer is that they can't. I've been in this position before, where someone has been praying in a language other than english. I've also been in a situation where a church has broken out into tongues (at the request of the song leader). I prefered the prayer in another language, but I couldn't really say "Amen!" to it, because I have no idea what was said.

vs 17

And here's the rub - it's not a matter of whether what you said was competent, or good, or truly noteworthy and excellent. If it's not comprehensible, then it is not edifying to anyone else. It all comes down to whether you are prepared to put the needs of someone else first. If you are, then you're going to do what is good for them.

vs 18

Paul spoke the ass off his tongue, apparently. It's interesting how God chooses some people to get every gift imaginable, and they become these real powerhouses. Still happens today. God will raise up another one.

vs 19

But Paul's preference is for instruction and useful words that will exalt his brothers and sisters in Christ. He could speak all day in a tongue, and what could people do except say "Oooh".

vs 20

We should be as experienced in evil as children - innocent and unthinking about it. But in our considerations and our thoughts, we should be more mature than that. Here is a great backup for Nina's words about maturity being measured in your responsibility to other people.

I think there's more to it than that, but responsibility is in there. Sacrifice and selflessness are also there. Basically, Christ-likeness is maturity. That's easy to see when you're a Christian, but probably less likely an answer to be accepted by a non-Christian.

1 Corinthians chapter 14

longest chapter yet

vs 1

Remember that chapter 13 was in the context of talking about church unity and diversity, and the use of diverse spiritual gifts. So now Paul is getting back to such use, in the most excellent way of love.

His favoured gift seems to be prophecy. We must wonder whether this is favoured once for all time, or because Corinth had lots of glossa-ers and not many prophets.

vs 2

This verse does its share to confirm the spiritual nature of the gift of glossolaia - it is a speaking between men and God, and is not necessarily understandable - muttering mysteries. I would have said muttering gibberish, but you can see that Paul approaches these things with love ;)

vs 3

ie in a language they can understand. Note this verse - it is quite possibly one of the best (but least used) definitions of prophecy anywhere, if you like definitions that rely on function. Prophecy strengthens, comforts and encourages the church. I'd like to think I'm a little bit of a prophet in that way.

vs 4

Again, we see one is for personal edification (and if you've ever been to a happy-clappy church, you will most surely have noticed that this is exactly what they use it for - it certainly doesn't encourage anyone else) and the other is for the benefit of the church.

vs 5

Paul makes known his preference for prophecy over tongues, but he does not put tongues down. He still wishes everyone could do it - but the preference is for prophecy. If those who speak in tongues do so with interpretation (interestingly, Paul says that the person speaking should interpret, whereas elsewhere he gives interpreting tongues as a separate gift) then they can edify the church with their words - otherwise, prophecy is better.

vs 6

Paul is again underlining the lack of use tongues is to the church - sure, it edifies Paul when he does it, but what good is that for the Corinthians? A bit of knowledge or a prophecy would be more useful for them. Paul is not talking spiritually here - just pragmatically.

vs 7

Another pointer that glossa wasn't always a recognisable language, I guess. It would be the difference between playing a tune in a flute (which people can understand and then rock to) or playing gibberish into a flute.

vs 8

Another example of not understanding.

vs 9

He has not banned tongues, nor has he said it is useless. But its use is limited.

vs 10

Interestingly, the word used in this verse for language isn't glossa, it is phone which is far closer in meaning to sounds than to languages. I wonder, if tongues is just a bunch of sounds like Paul is sort of describing it, why it was called glossa and not phone. But then, I'm not greek, so I won't bother answering that - just a rhetorical question. What it does mean is that the more literal translation of this verse is "There are so many different sounds in the world, and not one is voiceless". I think the NIV is a fair translation of the passage (it's probably somewhat idiomatic).

Anyway, the main point Paul is getting at I think is that we use lanuage to communicate ideas, and so every language that exists exists with the purpose of conveying meaning. No one speaks a language of gibberish. And since we are talking about such spiritual gifts in the context of love, a gift useful for others is better than a gift useful for yourself.

1 Corinthians chapter 13

vs 1

You will notice here that Paul talks of the 'tongues of men and angels', but of course uses the same word glossa as when talking about the gfits of the spirit. Everyone knows what the tongues of men are - but what are these tongues of angels? Is this what glossolalia is? Who knows. I would say the more happy-clappy among us would say yes, or perhaps theologically would claim that this was a good description even if it isn't for speaking to angels per se.

The point being, of course, that to exercise this gift without love means you just make a lot of noise. I've certainly known a lot of people who do that.

vs 2

Even the gifts of prophecy and enormous faith are nothing without love. This doesn't mean that you don't have these things - but it makes them worthless as far as the Christian life is concerned.

vs 3

And such sacrifices that we might think were worthy of great honour are worthless if they are not made out of love. When Jesus told the rich young ruler to give up everything he had, if he didn't do it out of love, then was he not getting the message? Hard to say, as I think Jesus is making a different point. But I think the two could go together.

vs 4

Now we start on the famous "Love is..." part of 1 Corinthians. While these might be great definitions of love, remember the context - Paul is talking about the members of the body of a church serving one another. I don't think there's a problem with applying this stuff about love to any relationship you have, but Paul uses it about the relationships in the church, and so obviously that is one place where it is needed most.

Most of the words Paul uses to describe love are pretty self explanitory. I'll pick up a couple though.

vs 5

It keeps no record of wrongs - in a perfect world and in the perfect church, if someone did something that should rightly disqualify them from some service (say they stole money, and they were the treasurer) you would not keep a record of that wrong against them - instead, you would expect them to take the Christian initiative of disqualifying themselves. Of course, being supportive of that person making the right spiritual decision is a course of love, I think.

vs 6

Another stab at those who are preaching false doctrine. Love in this case is a constant pursuit after the truth, for the benefit of your other churchmates.

vs 7

Always trusts uses the word pisteuo, which most usually designates faith in God by the believer. I don't think it is loving to treat everyone without any suspicion, especially if they have a 'record of wrongs' (see above). If someone is going to hurt themselves or others because of something you give them in trust, it's not a loving thing to give it to them. Instead, I would say that perfect love always trusts God. I think that is what Paul means in this verse.

vs 8

In the end, our love will always fail, because we are not perfect. But God is perfect, and God is love, and God never fails.

Now as for the rest of this passage, don't make the critically erroneous mistake of thinking this verse is talking somehow about the appearance of the Bible. This idea only came up about 100 or so years ago - and it was a branch of theology that was specifically against the charismatic church movement. When they saw this verse, they decided to interpret it to mean that prophecies and tongues stopped when the Bible appeared - as if Paul is prophesying the appearance of the Bible.

It's a completely wrong and stupid interpretation, as you will see when you look at the rest of the passage. It's obviously talking about the second coming and us being in heaven.

vs 9-10

Is the Bible perfection? Come on, I mean yes it's God's word, and I will happily argue for its infallibility, but Paul is talking about the final perfection, surely. Yes, I agree that prophecy is only partly useful, when you compare it to knowing God personally in heaven for all eternity. But remember that a good percentage of the Bible is made up of prophecy ;)

vs 11

This verse is talking about the passing away of the imperfect (the childish understanding) and the ascension of the perfect (the mature understanding). We will never be more than children here on earth, when you compare it to the maturity of eternal life and perfection.

vs 12

This verse is the killer against the argument made in verse 8. Do we see face to face now? No, we have a reflection in a mirror even through the Bible. Do we know everything in full? If so, then please explain a few things to me. Is Paul saying that upon writing this letter he is partly ignorant, but upon the completion of the canon of Scripture he suddenly became all knowing? Give me a break.

vs 13

I think the greatest of these is love not because it accomplishes more, but because it is the one we share with God. He doesn't need hope or faith - he's God. But he is love. That's just my opinion, even though it doesn't really bear out in this verse. I certainly don't think Paul is saying that you can dispense with faith and hope, as both are needed for your Christian walk. Perhaps if you've got all three, you only need the other two in sparse amounts, but you'll need a whole bunch of love to deal with other church members :D

1 Corinthians Chapter 12

vs 21

You might say "Yes, I think we've been here, Paul", but now Paul is taking a different tac. Rather than one body part deciding it is not a part of the body, now other body parts are slagging off each other. This works equally badly in the church. There are no fifth wheels in a church. So if God gives our church a person who is gifted in speaking in tongues, then (assuming he also gives us someone gifted in interpreting tongues) we can't say we don't need them.

vs 22

Indispensable? Inconceivable! But true. When you are involved in church leadership, you see so many things that you just don't notice as a pew sitter, that you suddenly realise what people are up to, and how valuable they are to the church.

vs 23

When you read the NIV translation, you think that Paul is talking about our regular bodies as an example (in which case you wonder how we treat the dishonourable bits with special honour, but then cover the unshowable bits with special modesty). But the NASB and the greek don't carry that understanding, at least in my reading. They say something more like "to those parts of the body we think are less honourable, we give more honour, and those members that are less presentable become much more presentable", which to me gives the idea that our estimations of parts of the body are somewhat incorrect in comparison to what Paul is talking about.

What I think is going on here is that vs 21 is a bit more abstract from this whole idea - it starts off the thinking that all parts of the body are necessary. But then we move from the necessity of all body parts (vs 22) to the way we treat our body (which ends at the start of vs 24).

vs 24

Presentable parts need no special treatment (except perhaps a hair cut per chapter 11).

Now Paul says "But God", which to me indicates a swapover of ideas, but for the life of me I just can't get my head around it. Is Paul saying "The body can't say to one part "I don't need you", and we treat our body differently dependant on the bit, but God has brought the whole body together"? I think that's it. God gives honour to the dishonourable bits, (possibly rather than us doing it).

vs 25

The purpose of God's work is so that the body might have an equal concern for all its parts, rather than ranking some above the other. When you think about that, then it seems to make a bit more sense. We spend all our time on the bits that are problematic (too little honour, so we try and make them more honourable, or not presentable, so we try to make them presentable). But God wants all the body to be treated with a more equal concern. This is good pastoral theology, methinks.

vs 26

Then, when they body is being thought of as a whole (rather than individualistically like we tend to in our culture), it has a more general concern for the whole, and can share the joys together (which makes them more fun) and frustrations and pains as a whole (which should make them easier to bear).

vs 27

Look at that, you can apply this stuff to the church (I've been doing this already).

vs 28

When I read this, I usually read it as a ranking system, with apostles at the top. I'm now wondering if it is chronological - is this just the order God gave these gifts out? Not sure. It seems odd to have a ranking of 3 gifts, and then mush all the others together under it. However, later on Paul talks about the "greater gifts" which does suggest a sort of ranking.

vs 29-30

The fact is that not everyone has every gift, although sometimes you think Paul has them all. Paul is asking the questions "Do all have..." to make the point that these gifts are spread around the church, in linking with the body idea above that all are necessary.

vs 31

But he does tell them that they should desires the greater gifts, because as we find out later that the Corinthians have a bit of a thing for tongues. And we'll see how Paul ranks gifts later on in the book.

And now, he's going to go into that oft-misquoted-at-weddings-especially but generally misunderstood chapter. Next week.

1 Corinthians chapter 12

vs 11

Paul wraps up his idea by repeating again that all these different gifts are the work of the same Holy Spirit, and it is God who determines who gets the gifts, not us.

vs 12

Once again, Paul is focussing on unity. Unity and division are such massive parts of this book - it flows through the whole thing. A body is made up of parts, and without those parts, it just isn't a body.

vs 13

That's why there is no difference between Christians - because the Spirit into which we have been baptised is the same spirit. Why we drink the Spirit, I honestly don't know. I mean, the word Spirit in greek is linked to wind, not water - you'd think we would breathe the Spirit. But I guess it's just a turn of phrase.

vs 14

I'm pretty sure you just said that, Paul.

vs 15

A body is not defined as such because of a specific part - a person with no hands is still a person. So in such a way, a part of the body cannot define itself as not a part of the body just because it doesn't serve some function.

vs 16

Swap body parts, same argument.

vs 17

Each part has its own role, and that is why different people are needed in the church and different gifts are given to the church. This argument is vital to understanding why the charismatic movement cannot demand that every member of the body of Christ speak in tongues - if we were all a tongue, who would the interpreter be?

But the happy clappys aren't the only ones who make this mistake. We brethos created a system that heavily rewarded the preacher/teacher type gifting, and made that above and beyond all other gifts. Our open worship system still does this, so we've got to be careful to specifically look out for and encourage other gifts too.

vs 18

Because God is creator, he designs things perfectly, and that includes the body of Christ, the church. So all the gifts a church has, God has given them for a reason. This doesn't mean that a church without people doing miracles or speaking in tongues is not a church, in the same way that a person without a tongue is still a person.

vs 19

But a church made up of all prophets would not be a church - that would be a prophecy convention. Now I am not saying this verse is Paul saying that people shouldn't create churches based on specific gifting (there is no way that there was enough Christians in the early church that they had a choice of churches to go to in Corinth in the first place). But what he is telling the Corinthians is not to focus on one gift to the detriment of the others.

vs 20

Because many gifts make up one spiritual body of a church.

1 Corinthians chapter 12

vs 1

Well then, we've really screwed up, haven't we? I mean, who is more ignorant of spiritual gifts than the Western church, and who more in that church than probably the most conservative churches? We're all afraid of pentecostalism, but we fail to look at the proof of the pudding - they have the gifts, and they have growing churches. That doesn't by any means mean that they are the only way of doing church - it just means we can't afford to be exclusive about them like we have been for so long.

vs 2

I was talking to someone about free market economics last night, and I can happily say that mute idols are alive and well. The problem is that there are many Christians who are led astray by these new mute idols, not just when they were pagans.

vs 3

So now, for a generation that was led astray by idols who can't speak, of course they are more likely to be led astray by false teachers who make lots and lots of noise.

It's the same way of testing the spirits which John gives us. It all comes back to Jesus - if he is Lord, then listen. If he is anything but Lord, turn away.

vs 4

We live in this great world where God directly interacts with us to give us spiritual gifts. They are called spiritual gifts not necessarily because they are effecting the spiritual realm, but because his Holy Spirit gives them to us. We don't need an angel to touch us for them or any other stupid ideas - all God's gifts come from God's Spirit. Direct line from God to us.

vs 5

And so we can use those gifts in different ways, but we are serving the same Lord. Just because some group of Christians are doing something different, does not mean that they are wrong or off the rails! I heard yesterday about a Christian biker club, where to be a fully-patched member you need to have the right kind of bike - the kind that the outlaw biker gangs will respect. And these guys will ride out to the outlaw gang events, and set up a first aid tent. Now I would never do that, but it doesn't mean they aren't serving God just because they've got big beards and leather jackets.

vs 6

And in the same way, God doesn't need to work in the same way in any given situation. Sometimes God will do something one way, and sometimes in his infinite wisdom he will do it a completely different, and perhaps even opposite way. That means that in one place he might raise up great leaders of men, and in another place not a single man will have any gifting of leadership, but there will be heaps of women showing those abilities. Missionaries see God's amazing and paradoxical work on the field all the time. We've got to be prepared for it too, because we don't serve a cookie-cutter God.

vs 7

So the Spirit manifests itself in every Christian, and in different ways, but for the common good. Not just for the good of the person, but for the good of the whole church. Remember that when you're using your spiritual gifting - that it's a tool (or tools) God gave you for helping the church.

vs 8

These two terms, sophia and gnosis, can mean so many different things, that in a verse as vague as this one, it's hard to pick definitions that fit adequately. All we know is that they are messages, and that they are given for the benefit of the church. With those in mind, I am going to go for these definitions: message of knowledge (gnosis) as "knowledge signified in general understanding of the Christian religion", and so message of wisdom (sophia) as "a broad and full intelligence in the discovery of truths through mysterious vision or interpretation of dreams".

That second one probably isn't what we would normally think when we read this verse, but to me it seems the best definition of the word for the situation it is used in, especially in conjunction with knowledge. It is probably worth reading something like "The Expositor's Greek Testament", and learning greek, to get a better handle on this.

vs 9

The Spirit of God also gives faith. Now everyone has faith, but I think this use of faith should remind us that our faith is a gift, and so when we are worried about not having any spiritual gifts, faith is one that we do have. The suggestion here, though, of faith being given to one, is more than likely a highlighting of one who has been given an especially rock-hard faith, for the benefit of the church as a whole, remember.

God also gives people healing powers. I've never seen a "faith healing". I know of people who claim to have been healed. I don't know them that well. But I have seen some incredible things accomplished through prayer, and I know I worship a God who is awesomely powerful. So I've got no problem with gifts of healing. I'm sure people can give all sorts of reasons as to their rarity - I say I don't care, because I'd rank it as a lesser gift than those of faith and wisdom.

vs 10

Now we've got a crapload of gifts here. Miraculous powers, again, is one we don't see much of. But who knows what tomorrow will bring. Prophecy is a curly one - so many people see it as "telling the future", but here's the definition of the word propheteia - "a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God, whether by reproving and admonishing the wicked, or comforting the afflicted, or revealing things hidden; esp. by foretelling future events" - so foretelling the future is only a third of prophecy.

Now Paul just told us how to distinguish between spirits, but obviously some people are better at it than others - those people have a gift from God. Thank God for the gift of being able to spot heresy!

But none will be argued over more than the speaking or interpretation of tongues, sometimes known as glossolalia. Glossa means "the fleshy thing in your mouth called a tongue", and also means "the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations (as in your native tongue)". It's interesting to note that at the beginning of the charismatic revolution was a bunch of methodists who wanted the gift of tongues because they thought it would help them in the missionary endeavour (that is, speaking other languages without having to learn them first would be faster). What surprised them was they were given it. So the idea that the "gift of tongues" was given as a means of speaking other real langauges came before the idea of speaking wierd meaningless gibberish.

So what's with the weird meaningless gibberish? I have no idea. If wierd meaningless gibberish is glossolalia, then all I can safely tell you is that I don't have the gift of interpreting it.

1 Corinthians chapter 11

vs 23

So Paul passed onto the Corinthians the method of celebrating the Lord's Supper which God had revealed to him, but it seems they have turned it into a farce.

vs 24-25

Although not directly reflected in any of the gospels, this most closely resembles Luke's report of the last supper. Which is not surprising of course, because Luke was one of those which hung out with Paul. The focus here is obviously on remembrance (ie rather than eating).

vs 26

There is also a sense that, as well as remembering the Lord (it is more than his death - it is who he is, and why he died, and why him dying is so important), we are proclaiming him by taking the emblems. Now my understanding is that they didn't do this out in public, so it wasn't that sort of proclaimation. Communion isn't an evangelistic tool, per se.

I guess that even the act of constant remembrance is a proclaimation in itself, because it is this one enduring symbol, this Christian religious rite, that is what Christians are known for more than anything. If you are celebrating something in a certain way, and regularly, then it is going to be what people know about you.

vs 27

It's been said before, but I'll say it again - this verse is not written to unbelievers, but to believers. It is up to us to judge before we take the emblems what state we are in, not to judge other people (although that comes later, I'm pre-empting it). And it seems to refer far more directly to the Corinthians' inability to wait for others before beginning their feast.

vs 28

Paul wants the Corinthian believers to think about what they are doing when they are enjoying their love feast together. It's not just a matter of fellowship, it is a matter of remembrance. This doesn't mean I agree with the solemn nature of our current communions, but it is fairly clear that Corinth had swung too much the other way.

vs 29

It would be easy to see why this could apply to non-believers, because they do not "recognise the body of the Lord". But that's not who it's for. "Recognise" in this case doesn't mean "to identify a thing as what it is as opposed to another thing". It is more in keeping with the jive meaning, "reco-nize" (with appropriate hand gesture) - that is, to make disctinction, to elevate in estimation of value. So it is those who do not give these symbols of Jesus' body and blood proper value and recognition that are drinking judgement on themselves.

vs 30

This makes it sound like, if you don't drink the cup correctly, you're going to die or get sick or weak. And it sort of makes Christianity sound like a backwater hickville religion ("Yer sickyness comes from you all not takin' communion rahghtly"). But it doesn't have to be read like that. Paul is observing that God passes his judgement through regular occurences in this life. After the first plague in Egypt, people were probably thinking it was a typical disaster. When the 9th one came along, surely they knew there was something more to it. Same here - when one person dies, you write it off as a fact of life. When everyone in church is getting sick, feeling weak, or dying, you assume God's at work (or there is legionnare's disease in the air conditioning - but like many churches today, the 1st century churches of Corinth were not air conditioned).

vs 31

So basically, if we take the initiative and judge our response toward the emblems before we take them, we short-circuit God's temporal judgement on us for doing it badly.

vs 32

When we are judged by God (in the form of temporal badness like sickness and so on) it is a discipline which sets us apart from the rest of the world, who are always out and out condemning his body and sacrifice. They'll get theirs when the final judgement comes - we get ours beforehand so that we aren't part of the non-Christian rabble. Puts another spin on the people of God getting judged first.

vs 33

Easy to do in a church of 20 or so - harder even with 50 people. So setting a time and letting people know when you will start is probably a fair thing to do in our society, because most of us live so spread out these days, that it would be hard for us to even know who's coming from week to week.

vs 34

And so died the love feast, because Paul said that you shouldn't take communion if you're hungry. Of course, it was really a corrective to the Corinthians who were doing it stupidly, but we see it as a "for all time" command, and therefore we don't get to celebrate communion in a fellowshippy wonderful way, we celebrate it in a staid, reverential, religious way.

Paul will tell them more about this later, when he visits. We don't get to hear that stuff.

1 Corinthians chapter 11

vs 11

How rude of me, not doing verse 11 yesterday.

As it happens, God has made us in such a way that man and woman are co-dependent on each other.

vs 12

Paul's example for this is creation, but I don't think it's his be-all and end all. I think he is using an example to prove a rule, saying that there is a model in the method of creation. But finally, he shows that the ultimate model from creation is that all things come from God. That's man and women. So not only are they co-dependent, they are both completely dependent on God. Again, it's only an example - because humans are dependent on God for everything, not just creation.

vs 13

Here is one of the most interesting verses I've read for a while. Just try reading it (in the context of its passage) and answer the question truthfully. "Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?" After all, Paul has just asked his readership to judge for themselves. Keep doing this for the next few verses.

vs 14

No, not really. From what I've seen, women's hair and men's hair grows at the same length and about the same speed. In fact, men can also grow big long beards! So in pure volume, men could grow more hair.

vs 15

Again, I'm not seeing it. Perhaps my glory-radar is broken, but long hair isn't particularly glorious on a woman to me. I mean it's pretty, but surely that's not what Paul is talking about? Some people find large breasts pretty, should women all get boob jobs too? Ludicrous.

Well, thank you for letting me judge for myself, Paul. It has been an enlightening experience.

Now, if I were living in modern day Saudi Arabia, I might have a different opinion. Or, perhaps, if we did replace the word "hair" with "boobs" then I would heartily agree that if a man has large boobs, he's got a problem (my man boobs are a shame to me), but if a woman has large boobs, they are her glory (again, I don't mean they're pretty, I mean they are an example of her womanliness). I would also agree she should keep them covered when praying in church. But were I to live in a tribal culture, I might not feel this is a big deal. I think I've used the word "boobs" enough now.

Boobs.

vs 16

Ahh, but it seems that Paul wasn't really asking us to judge for ourselves. What he was in fact doing was asking us to come up with the same opinion that he has. He does not want contention, he wants acceptance. And as his final argument, he points out that the churches of God all do this, so if you don't, you'll be a rogue church.

Problem is that, when I look around at the "churches of God" today, I see that the Brethren are one of the few denominations that still has people who do this (and not even all these churches make it mandatory, because they know that if they did they'd lose a bunch more women. I say more because the Brethren are, overall, losing people left right and centre in the west). So now, covering your hair is the mark of a "rogue" church.

Some people might say "But the first century church did it, and we want to be like the first century church, so therefore women must cover their heads". Really? Will you hide in homes and meet at night in fear of the Romans? Will you also take two bricks and castrate your children? You know what? I'll bet that if you say that statement, you won't even have communion around a table with a meal, you bloody hypocrite! This is a stupid argument, so don't waste anyone's time with it. Vent that energy into growing the kingdom of God.

vs 17

Well, speaking of the church and it's meetings, it seems that Paul is full of scorn for Corinth. Do you really want to act like a first century church? Make sure you're not acting like Corinth!

vs 18

We've been here before. Divisions in the church are so much anathema to Paul that he harps on them, again and again and again. But also, they are probably a cause for a lot of the problems that he is hearing about. So he harps on them to stop them from happening, in the hope that this will stop the other problems as well.

vs 19

But not all divisions are wrong. When you have a church with Christians and non-Christians in it, you have to make a division. That doesn't mean dividing them into different pews or anything, it means a state of mind that says that these people are different. If anything, that is more important to churches today, which are openly welcoming to non-Christians. It means that you have to make it clear to people who just walk in that if you're talking about this great relationship you have with Jesus, you have it because you're a Christian, and that this involves making some changes in your life, a change of your status.

vs 20

Paul is saying that whatever they are doing, it's not the Lord's supper.

vs 21

It sounds more like a buffet with limited food and wine, which the people who arrive early snarf down regardless of the fact that there are more people coming. That's just greedy and thoughtless.

vs 22

This is not praiseworthy behaviour, and Paul gives a bucketload of reasons. Firstly, those who come later are usually the ones who have less. Rich people can afford to get to the thing on time, but slaves only get time off when everything is done. Furthermore, the Lord's supper is primarily about fellowship, not about food. That is not to say that eating a meal is wrong, but it is saying that gorging yourself without waiting for everyone else is.

1 Corinthians chapter 11

vs 1

Paul lays it down here, and I think it is verses like this that scare people into thinking "Oh, I have to do exactly what it says, or else I'm not following the example of Jesus!" But such a literal response without taking into account cultural factors is irresponsible reading of Scripture. We are not Muslims, who think the closer you get to Mohammed's life, the better a Muslim you are. We live by Christ's example, not his exact life.

vs 2

"The teachings" is a technical term. Paradosis is a collective term for the traditions of the church that Paul and the other apostles were building up. But take heed - they were not building a tradition of words of men like the Pharisees that Jesus berated them for.

vs 3

Seems like an odd order to put them in. if you're curious, the word for "head" is kephale, and is just like the word for head in english - it is used literally and metaphorically (like head of a human, head of the table, head of the class, head of a corporation). So don't take it literally.

vs 4

Yes, it's still the same word. Why is covering your head while you pray disgraceful? I'm sorry, but I have no idea. Jewish men of the time were very strict about covering their heads when they prayed, and I'm sure Jesus would have too (to be a good Jew). So why does Paul flip the situation? Either it is to show a delineation between Christianity and Judaism (which might be, but seems odd because the church was treated in its early years as a subsect of Judaism), or because it was culturally inappropriate in Corinth (and I don't know how we could find that out). Whatever Paul is saying, it completely contradicts Jewish practice at the time.

vs 5

This is another troublesome verse. Later on, Paul will say that God gave women long hair as a covering, but here he says that a woman with a shaved head is bad, but a woman with an oncovered head is also bad.

vs 6

This verse sounds mean in the NIV, but in the NASB it sounds much more prescriptive, like "if a woman is going to pray with her head uncovered, then she should cut her hair off. But, if having your hair cut off is shameful (ie marks you as a prostitute or something) then you're better off covering your head".

vs 7

These next two verses are teaching that the order in which God created men and women was purposeful. They point to an idea that man is the "original" image of God, and women are the "proxy" image of God or something. And for this reason (and I guess because our literal "heads" symbolise our figurative "head"?) this head covering thing is important.

vs 8

Here's the bit about woman coming from man (the whole rib thing from Genesis).

vs 9

And woman's purpose was for man (whereas man's purpose was for God). This of course does not mean that woman's purpose is any less for God. It doesn't redefine the relationship between God and woman, only woman and man.

vs 10

Oh yes, the angels, silly me! There are so many, SO MANY stupid ideas about what this means. Let me just say that there's no point in bickering about this verse, in the same way that there's no reason to bicker about this whole passage. I'll say it now, although I'm sure I'll say it again tomorrow - this verse is so culturally bound that it is 100% meaningless in our society. The only reason that there are still old people who think that men with long hair is bad is because this was falsely imposed on our society. How long is long? Jesus' hair was probably pretty long. Was it too long? But the oldies' standards, yes! But that brings a clash between imposed culture and historical reality. And which one wins? Stupidly, imposed created culture!

This whole passage, and yes it continues, is so useless to us in the West. At best, you can take from it: 1) Don't dress as if you're a prostitute 2) there are some elements of the relationship between men and women that were instituted by God.

In the non-West, this verse is heaps more applicable, but even then not literally unless head coverings are already meaningful.

I'll get onto this more I'm sure.

1 Corinthians chapter 10

vs 23

This is nothing like the mantra of the misunderstanding Christian anymore. How many Christians, even new Christians, believe that their new faith frees them to do things? Most would believe the stereotype that they are now more restricted from doing things than before.

No, this mantra of "everything is permissible" was taken up by secular society long ago, while Christianity got more and more restrictive about what its adherents could do. It's interesting to see the change, though, when you leave a western, secular society and go to a society dominated by religious ideals of any non-Christian persuasion! Christianity is, in comparison to most other organised religions, enormously freeing, and mostly because it is based on love between man and God and between fellow man, rather than being based on a constant appeasement or impossible striving for perfection.

Still, it doesn't mean that, when these people become Christians, they can just do whatever they want. Not everything is beneficial, and not everything is constructive. So here we now have a message which needs to be heard by both secular non-Christians, and non-western Christians.

vs 24

This is the classic statement of Christianity - while we are free in Christ, we are not free to explore our own selfish desires and ambitions - we must put everyone before ourselves, especially Christ.

vs 25-26

Paul sets out his attitude on freedom, regarding food sacrificed to idols, very straightforwardly. If you're wanting food to eat, just go and buy it. What's happened to it is not a concern to you, and is acceptable under Christian freedom. After all, even if it has been sacrificed to an idol, it still belongs to God, him being God and all.

vs 27

The point Paul is making here is that if someone offers you something, and they don't raise any issues, then don't be the one to raise issues about it. Because, all things being equal, it is not an issue to a Christian.

vs 28-29

But if they do make a big deal about it, then simply refuse to eat it. But not for your own sake, and this is getting back to doing things out of love for others rather than for yourself. If it's going to make someone freak out that you're eating idol-meat, then don't do it (in front of them). In this way, you stop another person's conscience judging your freedom.

Which is interesting, because you would think that your Christian freedom to eat stuff sacrificed to idols would be a great witness to Christ and your Christian life. But apparently, Paul thinks differently.

vs 30

The thing that really gets me here is that the situation Paul has constructed revolves around eating at an unbeliever's house! Is Paul saying that we should pander to an unbeliever's stereotypical view of what Christians can and can't do?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no. I don't think Paul is talking about pandering to Christian stereotypes, I think he is talking about doing things that is actually going to offend their consciences. And there's no reason to offend someone with your religious freedom. This is one of those things that shows the necessity of not only reading in context, but reading about the desired effect of the task that is required - because of course, often in our culture a different task will be required to get the desired effect.

vs 31

Even in simple activities that we do every day, like eating and drinking, we can bring glory to God. And that is more important than the actual activity itself, even eating and drinking! That's hard to remember sometimes, especially with things we just do without thinking every day.

vs 32

It's hard to think about a non-Christian stumbling, but I guess we can all do things which will prevent them from becoming Christians. Now isn't that funny, though, that this might sometimes mean , instead of saying "no" to something, we have to say "yes" to something that is allowable to us as Christians but that perhaps we don't like. Because if someone thinks, for example, that they could never be a Christian because it means not going to parties (after using me as their example, who hates parties but knows I could go without any problems to my faith), then that might cause a stumbling block to them.

vs 33

The whole point of this exercise is to bring people into the Kingdom of God, and to keep them there. And by reading that, you can read back into Paul's statements from this chapter, and see why he does what he does, and why he tells the Corinthians to do what he tells them to do. And we can then look at what he expects the result to be, and take the godly principle and apply it in our modern cultural setting.

1 Corinthians Chapter 10

vs 12

It is not a matter of clawing your way to the top, and then sitting pretty. Any Christian, no matter how mature, can fall. There's no point naming the big names, because most of us aren't big names. Instead, think of the heaps of people who you thought were Christians, but stopped coming to church, or who drifted away from God. That's probably more like us. We've got to make sure we are not in that position.

vs 13

You will never be the first person to be tempted by whatever it is. Temptation has been around since, well, the beginning. But God knows what you can and can't stand, and he won't allow temptation to tempt you so much that you are uncontrollably destined to fall from God. He promises here that he will always give you an out. Sometimes, taking that out can mean something really bad happening to you - think of Joseph running from Potiphar's wife, he ended up in jail. And I know I've been in situations where I thought a really bad thing would happen to me if I didn't do something I knew I shouldn't. And sometimes we end up rationalising. But what we should be do is standing firm by taking God's out.

vs 14

In the Corinthian case, Paul is telling them that they can flee from idolatry, and God will give them an out from it. Idolatry could be heavily pressed on you by the culture - if you weren't game to worship idols, your social circle became a hell of a lot smaller back then.

vs 15

Paul does admit that the Corinthians are pretty smart - but he wants them to use that smarts with Godly wisdom, instead of thinking that smarts alone is going to make them spiritually mature. A lesson I could certainly learn.

vs 16

Why is the Lord's supper linked with, or put up against, idolatry? I guess because most idolatry is done around a table with food - and in the same way the Lord's supper was taken back then. So Paul is showing that if you are taking God's meal, you are participating in Christ's sacrifice. A participation in Christ should mean you don't need to participate with an idol by eating their food.

vs 17

The sharing of one loaf of bread symbolises the one body of the church, which is Christ's body. If we are united together with the church and with Christ through taking his bread, then would we not be uniting ourselves to pagans and to pagan gods if we take their food (at their table)?

vs 18

Again, the example comes from Israel - those who participated in temple sacrifice also ate the food.

vs 19

But Paul isn't saying that the idols are to be feared, or that the food sacrificed to them is anything especially evil. It's not so much about the food itself. And of course, any idol is not really going to be anything compared to God's power.

vs 20

The problem with being involved in a pagan offering is that those offerings are made to demons. And God doesn't care, because it's not like we can, through our offerings, make demons more powerful than him or anything. He's God. But it does mean that we are actively participating in giving demons stuff. And that's an insult to God.

vs 21

You can't do both - you can't offer something to God on the one hand, and then offer something to demons on the other. That's not faithfulness. A man isn't seen as being faithful to his wife if he sleeps with her AND sleeps with his secretary.

vs 22

In the end, all we are doing is peeving God. And God isn't the sort of person you want to annoy or make jealous.

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.