1 Corinthians Chapter 6

vs 11

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

vs 12

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

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

vs 13

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

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

vs 14

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

vs 15

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

vs 16

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

vs 17

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

vs 18

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

vs 19-20

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

1 Corinthians chapter 6

vs 1

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

vs 2

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

vs 3

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

vs 4

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

vs 5

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

vs 6

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

vs 7

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

vs 8

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

vs 9-10

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

1 Corinthians chapter 5

vs 1

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

vs 2

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

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

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

vs 3

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

vs 4

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

vs 5

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

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

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

vs 6

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

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

vs 7

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

vs 8

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

vs 9

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

vs 10

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

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

vs 11

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

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

vs 12

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

vs 13

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

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

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

1 Corinthians Chapter 4

vs 11

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

vs 12

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

vs 13

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

vs 14

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

vs 15

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

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

vs 16

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

vs 17

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

vs 18

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

vs 19

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

vs 20

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

vs 21

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

1 Corinthians chapter 4

vs 1

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

vs 2

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

vs 3

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

vs 4

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

vs 5

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

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

vs 6

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

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

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

vs 7

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

vs 8

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

vs 9

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

vs 10

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

1 Corinthians Chapter 3

vs 12

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

vs 13

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

vs 14

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

vs 15

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

vs 16

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

vs 17

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

vs 18

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

vs 19

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

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

vs 20

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

vs 21

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

vs 22

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

vs 23

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

1 Corinthians chapter 3

vs 1

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

vs 2

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

vs 3

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

vs 4

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

vs 5

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

vs 6

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

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

vs 7

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

vs 8

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

vs 9

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

vs 10

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

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

vs 11

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

1 Corinthians Chapter 2

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

vs 9

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

vs 10

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

vs 11

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

vs 12

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

vs 13

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

vs 14

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

vs 15

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

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

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

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

vs 16

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

1 Corinthians chapter 2

vs 1

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

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

vs 2

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

vs 3

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

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

vs 4

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

vs 5

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

vs 6

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

vs 7

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

vs 8

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

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

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

1 Corinthians chapter 1

vs 21

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

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

vs 22

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

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

vs 23

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

vs 24

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

vs 25

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

vs 26

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

vs 27

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

vs 28

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

vs 29

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

vs 30

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

vs 31

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

1 Corinthians chapter 1

vs 11

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

vs 12

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

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

vs 13

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

vs 14-15

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

vs 16

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

vs 17

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

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

vs 18

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

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

vs 19

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

vs 20

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

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

1 Corinthians chapter 1

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

vs 1

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

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

vs 2

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

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

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

vs 3

Typical Paul stuff.

vs 4

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

vs 5

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

vs 6

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

vs 7

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

vs 8

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

vs 9

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

vs 10

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

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

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

Galatians Chapter 6

vs 10

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

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

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

vs 11

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

vs 12

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

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

vs 13

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

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

vs 14

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

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

vs 15

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

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

vs 16

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

vs 17

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

vs 18

Amen.

Galatians chapter 6

vs 1

Apart from the obvious meaning of this verse, this does show that the church at Galatia is not lost. There are people there that Paul would give this command to. Hopefully leaders, but really anyone who is trying to serve God faithfully in Christ is being instructed to help those whose lives are sinful. This restoration should be gentle (which seems different from Paul's attitude in 1 Corinthians, "kick the sicko out").

Of course there is always a chance that you will be tempted too - either to do the same thing they are doing, or perhaps to sin in a different way which does not involve gentle instruction. I think a lot of our attempts to gently restore people from their sinful lives ends up in us having shouting matches. Probably not enough gentleness on one side, and not enough humility on the other.

vs 2

We are a family, and as such we should help each other through the hard times. Yes, some people's entire lives will be hard times - and that means the church needs to help them all the time. This verse is probably mostly talking about carrying the burdens of sin in the context of verse 1. We're about to get into some confusing territory here, though.

vs 3

We're all nothing, so it's an easy deception to be made because we all want to be something. But probably doubly so when someone thinks they are doing well in the Christian life, but in reality they are in a bit of a shambles. And these people will be hard to correct and gently instruct.

vs 4

This verse sort of puts a dampener on the idea I've been having lately of people needing role-models in radical discipleship. It doesn't kill it, though, it just adjusts it to be more biblical.

See, we should hold up people as an example (Paul uses himself all the time, and of course Christ is the ultimate example), but we shouldn't hold them up as a measure (except Christ, who is a perfect measure which we will never meet anyway).

So if we were to set up some sort of role-model ministry, it would not be for people to measure themselves up against their role-model. It would be to use them as an example to follow.

vs 5

Of course, now we see a bit of a contradiction. Paul just said "carry each other's burdens" and now he says "carry your own load". But it's not a true contradiction. If we think of the carrying of a burden as a shared task, then more than one person does it, and as long as one of those people carrying is the person to whom the burden belongs, then these are not in contradiction.

But anyway, I don't think that's the point Paul is making. I think he's saying that you need to to be carrying your own problems, and not someone else's problems as your own. Help someone carry their burden, sure, but don't make it your burden. And use someone as an example, absolutely, but don't take on their troubles along with their example.

vs 6

Now this could be Paul saying "And now that I've told you all this sweet information, give me money!" but I don't think it is. I do think it is saying that if someone comes to you and gently helps to restore you back to Christ, then you owe them. Acknowledge the help they have been to you.

vs 7

Guess how many times this word mocked is used in the NT? Once, right here. Mukterizo is the word, and it is more of a sneering derision than a Nelson "Ha Ha". So you cannot sneer at or deride God. You might think you can, but of course it's completely stupid to do so.

And part of this mocking, I think, is the attempt to sow one thing and reap another. In this case, probably trying to sow sinful selfish desires, and reap righteousness. You just can't trick God that way. No matter how much you genetically engineer your crop, God still knows what you're really doing.

vs 8

What are we hoping to gain from the stuff we are doing? This is a direct link to James' idea of salvation. But is Paul here saying that you have to work for your salvation? Of course not! What he is saying, though, is that where your treasure is, there also is your eternal consequence. But notice that it is not your actions which choose your consequence. It is the object htat you are serving that is the bringer of consequence. If you are serving your self, then it is your selfish (sinful) nature (and not your self-serving actions) which condemns you to destruction. If you are working for the Spirit, it is the Spirit (not your work) which rewards you with eternal life.

vs 9

There is a harvest of good to be made! In the context, of course, that good which we harvest is beneficial for us because the Spirit will reward us with eternal life. But of course, if you are planting good actions, then that means good actions will be happening to people, which is great even though not the end reaping in itself.

Galatians Chapter 5

vs 19-21

It's a long list. And as I often like to do when I see these long lists, I like to know exactly what we're talking about. It's not really necessary - the translation is pretty good, and the idea of the verse is not to build up a new Law (after all Paul just said about the Law!) but to realise that there is a lifestyle commitment which ns required of Christians.

Porneia - illicit sexual intercourse (so basically any sex outside of marriage, or with animals, dead people, close relatives - you name a wrong thing to do with sex, that's what the word means)

Akatharsia - literally means "uncleanness", but is often used metaphorically to talk about impurity of thoughts and actions

Aselgeia - quite hard to define in English, but basically it means outrageous, unbridled excessive lust.

Eidololatreia - you should recognise it from the word. Idolatry.

Pharmakeia - looks like pharmacutical, because it's the root of that word, and literally means administering drugs or poisons. That's how it became linked with witchcraft. But don't let that lead you into thinking that Paul is condemning herbal medicines or something, or that this is a precursor to all those celtic druidic old ladies being burned at the stakes in the 13th century (that's a lie anyway - but I've not got the time to go into it). It is almost always found in the context of idolatry, and the practices fostered by it. Metaphorically, the word means "the deceptions and seductions of idolatry", which shows you just how close this link is. So it is the use of potions and so on in magic in service of idols. Hence evil. Hence in this list.

Echthra - Enmity is a good translation. So hatred is equally good.

Eris - Not to be confused with eros, this word is of unknown affiliation (so they're not sure what it's a root of or what root is is from) but it basically means quarrelling and arguing, almost wrestling.

Zelos - literally zeal. And zeal isn't a bad thing usually, but it can have the sense of being envious and jealous, and that is why it's in this list. If you see the word zelos in amongst sexual immorality and arguments etc, then you can be sure it is meaning the bad kind of jealous zeal.

Thumos - the kind of anger which boils up quickly, but then quickly subsides again. So fits of anger or angry outbursts is a good translation.

Eritheia - translated "selfish ambition", it literally talks of people who encourage partisanship in order to push themselves forward. So the kind of ambition that is not people-friendly, bad ambition.

Dichostasia - literally means division or dissention. So those who divide people, who are not reconcilers, are on this list.

Hairesis - this is the word from which "heresy" comes. You'll be interested to know that it literally means "to lay siege to a city". It comes from the word "to choose", and hence why it means heresy. But here it is focussing more on the idea of choosing a faction to be a member of - the word in that way is often used negatively of the Pharisees etc.

Phthonos - this word also means envy, but there are two things to be noted. Firstly, this word has a very different root to zelos - this one comes from "to corrupt or destroy". Secondly, this word is linked to the factional idea of the previous word (in the same way that witchcraft is linked to idolatry, although not as strongly). So there is a difference between a zealous jealousy, and a factional envy.

Methe - they would hit the meth way back then, it seems, because it means intoxication or drunkenness.

Komos - in one way it's hard for us to imagine a komos. A lot of the time they were half-drunken parties held after a feast which would flow down the street with torches in honour of Bacchus or Dionysus or someone or other. We just don't have these 'gods of pleasure', so it's hard to imagine people doing this in a religious way. But of course, all of us in Australia know what it's like to have groups of drunken youths tear up the street with absolutely no religious conviction, mearly enjoying themselves. This sort of behaviour was taken to extremes by people like Emperor Nero, who Penny tells me was very much like a Droog a-la "Clockwork Orange", getting very much involved into ultra-violence and rape and the like. Hence you can see why this is on the bad list.

Don't forget "and the like" - this is not by any means an exhaustive list. Perhaps a list which picked on the Galatians and what they were up to or used to be up to, but anything like this sort of lifestyle is completely against God, and as such these people are not the kind of people who inherit the Kingdom of God. Having said that, of course, Paul doesn't mean that people who act nice and don't do these things, but aren't Christian, will inherit the Kingdom - merely that people who call themselves Christian but do these things won't.

vs 22-23

Thank you Mal Key for putting these verses to song. Now I will never ever forget them, and that is wonderful.

Should I do a list of these things? Probably.

Agape - the famous greek love word. The kind of benevolent, active brotherly love that Christians should show.

Chara - the word means joy, but my understanding is that it is very much linked in with a relationship with someone. If you were to say "my joy comes from you" or "you are my joy" you would use this word. So it most probably means not the joy of a happy day or a nice comfortable life, but the joy of being in relationship with God.

Eirene - this is the word you use when there has been a cessation of violence and war, either between nations or between individuals. From this flows its other definitions - safety and prosperity (only possible in peacetime), the peace of salvation (only possible because of our peace with God), the lack of fear of death and judgement because of that salvation, and the blessed state of the righteous after death (like "rest in peace").

Makrothumia - it alomst literally means "long-lasting". So endurance, perseverance, patience all fit under this idea. Reverend Lovejoy might say "sweet, sweet constancy".

Chrestotes - really means moral goodness and benignity. So kindness is a good word. But it's not just a pitiful kindness, it is a kindness out of morality.

Agathosune - this word means something similar, but the focus is more on the uprightness and propriety of your life and actions. If righteousness is a status, then this is the action of that status.

Pistis - faithfulness, either in something or to something.

Prautes - it really means meekness or mildness. The idea is one of non-retaliation or reliance on your own strength. A person who understands and relies on God's strength to take care of things that are happening, rather than trying to correct them herself, is a meek person. It doesn't mean doing nothing - it means relying on God to do things. When you look at it this way, it's not a sign of weakness, it's a sign of incredible strength.

Egkrateia - the person who controls her appetites and desires.

And of course there is no law against these things! Like Peter says, who is going to persecute you for doing good? The answer is that people will, but God will never judge you as wrong when you are doing these things for him.

vs 24

Another mark of the Christian is their putting to death (by crucifixion of course) of the passions and desires of their sinful nature. It would be easy to get the word "passion" wrong though, because this word (pathema) is the word that is used when people talk about "the passion of the Christ". It is a word very much linked to suffering. So a not-incorrect translation could be the "sufferings and lusts of the sinful nature". When you think about the passion of the sinful nature as a suffering, an evil affliction, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to put it to death.

vs 25

It's only sensible that if we live by the Spirit, then the Spirit should guide our steps. We should ive a spiritual walk by the cadence of the Spirit.

vs 26

I really don't know why we do this, but of course we do. We build ourselves up as the righteous one, and then we provoke other people into arguments about the things we are "so right" about, and we challenge them on it. Far out, what a way to cause divisions and factions! No wonder Paul speaks out against these things.

Galatians chapter 5

vs 10

There is a penalty for being a teacher if you lead people into confusion or away from the truth. James has said that teachers will be judged more strictly, and this is why.

God doesn't play games with people's salvation. If you confuse someone when they're trying to work out their salvation, then you're going to be in deep doodoo.

vs 11

Remember that Roman persecution of the church didn't start in earnest until Nero goes a little nuts. Before then, the Roman authorities were basically used by the Jews to persecute Christians. So Paul is talking about Jewish persecution here. You can understand, if not condone, the actions of Peter that Paul is rebuking - I mean, when someone is going to beat the snot out of you and possibly try to stone you to death, it becomes a lot easier to rationalise things.

Paul here is also explicitly stating, yet again, that circumcision and crucifixion do not go together. You either trust one or the other.

vs 12

Ouch, Paul. That's a nasty thing to say. Now, do we take that as a Scriptural injunction that allows us to call false teachers names and wish mutilation on them? Or do we take this as a Scripture which shows truthfully that Paul was not super-human?

vs 13

Yes, we are free. But being free doesn't mean being irresponsible. God is still God, and still worthy of worship and still worthy of surrendering your life to. It's just that we don't expect to be saved by doing it anymore. If anything, our motives should be purer. So we should use that freedom to serve one another in love.

vs 14

Well, we know that the law is summed up in two commands, but Paul is saying that our freedom does not free us from the responsibility to our 'neighbours'. It frees us from following a specific form in helping them. It frees us to help them more than required.

vs 15

This is a very descriptive verse, using a metaphor which will probably never go stale. The internal division of the Galatian churches must have been pretty bad, but this sort of thing goes on all the time and in every church. The sniping, the gossiping, the arguments, the fight. And yet we know that a house divided against itself does not stand. Conflict resolution is not just a good idea. It is a necessity. And it's not just a necessity, it is a Scriptural rule. So many parts of Scripture, especially in the NT, are focussed on building or keeping relationships. Lord help me to put relationships ahead of being right or feeling good.

vs 16

Now that there's no law to follow (which didn't really help in restraining either desire or indulgence), we must have all the more faith in the Spirit to guide us away from sinful desire. That is one of the marks of a Spirit-filled life.

vs 17

Does this sound familiar? Romans sort of familiar? The war of the sinful nature and the Spirit which battles on in all of us can be confusing. Paul doesn't develop it here nearly as much as he does in Romans, but sufficed to say that we all suffer that battle, that conflict. Note that the conflict does not stop you from knowing what you want (except for the confusion), it stops you from doing what you want. Because, of course, what you really want is to live by the Spirit. Right?

vs 18

But! Even if you are suffering from a conflict and a confusion and a difficulty in doing what you know you should, if the Spirit is leading you, then you are not bound by the Law. And that's good, because if Paul were king, it means you get to keep your testicles. But it's also good because it means that you are given freedom in Christ.

Galatians Chapter 5

vs 1

So in concluding his argument, Paul states that we are saved for freedom in Christ, not slavery. Yes, Paul says in Romans that we are slaves to God instead of slaves to sin, and that is true. But as Jesus said, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light". Slavery to God is freedom compared to slavery to sin. One treats you like a son, the other beats you like a red-headed step-slave.

vs 2

Now obviously getting circumcised doesn't make your salvation leak out of your lack of foreskin. Paul is saying that if you follow a conviction to get circumcised because someone has told you it is necessary for your salvation, then you are putting your faith in something other than Christ.

vs 3

Restating his point - that a lawbreaker is guilty of breaking the whole law if he breaks just one part of it. So if you have faith that following the step of circumcision is going to help you spiritually, then you better stop eating shellfish and making sacrifices at the temple!

vs 4

It's not God working against himself here. It is not the Law that alienates us from Christ because the Law is some bad thing. It's our refusal to accept that Christ is the fulfilment of the Law that separates us from Christ!

vs 5

Paul will have no bar of it. He awaits God's righteousness by faith. And it is his hope - an assurance that he has.

vs 6

THE ONLY THING you idiots! Cutting off your foreskin is not pleasing to God. Baptism won't get you to heaven. Nor will regular church attendance. Nor will driving safely.Nor will converting the heathen. Taking communion, giving money, being nice to people? Will not get you to heaven.

Jesus really is the narrow door.

vs 7

It almost sounds like Queensland driving - "You were driving along on a Queensland motorway - who cut in and forced you to break the road rules?" (the answer inevitably being a Queensland driver).

It's a rhetorical question, made to make the Galatians think about the people who have led them astray. They know full well who has taught them this stuff. Paul probably knows too. But anyone who would try and stop you from running your race for God, who are they and why are you letting them?

vs 8

These people are not the kind of people you should listen to! They do not come from God! Satan is a master at this game - making you think of urgent things you've got to do (Oh, I've got to have a baby because of my biological clock! Oh, I've got to buy a house and get a mortgage because time is running out! Oh, I've got to get married or I'll die alone! What if I never get to travel overseas or swim with dolphins!?!) which are absolutely not essential to your salvation or your service of God. If they come along, you do them, you thank God for them, you move on. But if you want to look at priorities, nothing has higher priority than serving God. Ever. Your own self and interests are temporary. Family can burn. Houses can fall. Marriages break up and dolphins leave the earth. But your relationship with God is eternal.

vs 9

You wonder why heresies always seem to pop up so quickly and spread? Because they are like a mould or a bacteria. One person starts following stupid practices, and then another, then another and so on and so on. They are attractive. If they weren't, people wouldn't follow them. They teach a special knowledge, or they make something easier to understand, or they seem to make sense, or they appeal to your emotions, or your understanding of how things work.

Galatians Chapter 4

vs 21

We can often think that the Law just includes all those rules. But the term "The Law" is more what we would call the Pentataeuch. So that includes all that important stuff in Genesis and the beginning of Exodus. And that's what Paul includes here.

vs 22

This is where Paul's argument style really comes out with both guns blazing. It is not a logical argument, but it is supposed to be a convincing argument. I'm pretty sure this forms a rabbinical argument, but I'll be damned if I can find the book I'm looking for that says so, so I'll just move on.

vs 23

So one child represents the will of God, and the other one the will of man.

vs 24

Paul openly admits that he is taking this story figuratively, and yet he considers (and expects the Galatians to consider) this a valid intepretation of God's Law. So Hagar's child represents a covenant to make slaves of its children.

vs 25

The reason Hagar stands for Mt Sinai is because that is where the Law was given. The reason she stands for Jerusalem is because that is where the Law is followed. So Hagar the slave girl will always give birth to slaves, and as such the covenants of Sinai and Jerusalem will always be covenants of slavery, according to Paul.

vs 26

But heaven is a place of freedom, the new Jerusalem.

vs 27

Now I'm not sure if Isaiah was talking about Sarah's children in this verse, but he might have been. But what Paul is saying is that the children of the free woman covenant, of the heavenly covenant, are far more than that of the slave covenant of Jerusalem. And in numbers, that would easily have been true. Jews have never been all that populous.

vs 28

So the Galatians, and we assume ourselves, are children of the promise - Isaac, the one God said Abraham would have.

vs 29

So in the history of Judaism, the Ishmaelites harassed and persecuted the Israelites. And now, says Paul, the Jews persecute the Christians. He is drawing comparisons to show that Christianity is superior to Judaism.

vs 30

Oh come one Paul, this is completely out of context! If I were to preach a sermon on this level of analogous reasoning, I'd be drummed out of church! If I were to write an essay on this sort of logic, I'd be failed. And it is still not correct to do this sort of interpretation ourselves. But where it is done in the Bible, we've got to accept it. God does use whole stories as analogies, we know that. But we've got to be sure that he has used them and how far the analogies go before we get too deep into them. Paul goes pretty deep here, but we accept that it is true because it's Scripture. And God has said that the Jew will not share in the inheritance of the Christian. What does this mean for all those dispensationalist pro-Israel people? I don't know. But I wouldn't want to disobey God. Doesn't mean I want to round up Jews and put them into Concentration Camps either. It does mean I would not tell a Jew that their position in heaven is secure because of the blood in their veins.

vs 31

"Therefore..." ??? So the argument goes, "here's a story from Genesis. I've made the bits all mean different things and represent stuff, and because I've done that, therefore you fit into one side and not the other". Well, you've convinced me Paul. Tell me the one again about how sheeps' bladders can be used to prevent earthquakes.

Galatians Chapter 4

vs 12

Paul is now pleading with the Galatians to copy his way of life, in the same way that he copied their way of life when he was with them. Another example of the lengths Paul would go to to get the gospel out there and listened to, and also of his earnest desire for them to stick to their salvation. The reason he is angry with them and calls them foolish etc is only because he doesn't want them to turn away.

Then out comes this sentence out of the blue "You have done me no wrong". It's phrases like this which just spring up that remind us that these are occasional letters, written at a specific time to a specific audience. It may well be that Paul is answering a letter written to him, and that someone has said that the Galatians had hurt Paul somehow, or that they had wronged him.

This also makes me revise the idea that Galatians was written to a group of churches, because how would a group of churches in the region of Galatia look after him in sickness?

vs 13

Paul may not have even been going to stay in Galatia long, but because he fell ill (either through sickness or getting the crap beaten out of him again) he didn't have a choice. So he made the most of the opportunity he had.

vs 14

Some people think this verse is a reference to the time Paul and Barnabas were called gods in Lystra. But there they were called the names of greek gods - here he was seen as an angel, or as Christ. He probably doesn't mean that literally - but that their treatment and acceptance of him was so great, as if he were Jesus. So Paul obviously would feel close to the church there, because they helped him in a rough time.

vs 15

They were at a stage of great love for Paul, and also of great joy in the Lord.

vs 16

But now they seem to have changed, and might even be against his teaching. At the very least there are those among them stirring up the idea that Paul has done them wrong by teaching them improperly.

vs 17

Now we're hearing about these false teachers. They are trying to bad-mouth Paul so that the church will listen to them, and give them the same allegience.

vs 18

Paul is pointing out that he doesn't expect them only to be zealous when he is around, but that it's ok to be zealous all the time. Only, that zeal should be for good things.

vs 19

Paul is now once again suffering because of their unbelief or their turning from belief.He is less like a tutor (like the OT law) and more like a mother, waiting for Christ to be formed in them so they can be born again.

vs 20

Paul wants to go to them and have his mourning and anger turned into joy, and his criticisms and corrections turned into mutual growth and benefit. He's confused, I guess, about how a church that was so full of zeal and so helpful to him could go off the rails and become such a place that seeks to attack him and follow wrong doctrine.

Galatians chapter 4

vs 1

Paul is extending his metaphor from verse 24 (not that you'd know from the NIV!) about people being children of faith when shepherded by the Law, but fully mature when coming to faith in Christ. But it's not for exactly the same purpose. Verses 1 and 2 simply set the scene for Paul's new use for this metaphor.

vs 2

So when you're mature enough, you don't need a tutor anymore. And it's your father who picks that time, not you.

vs 3

So now, instead of being slaves under the tutor of the Law, we as humanity were all slaves under the principles of this world.

vs 4

The right time is picked by our heavenly father for our salvation. And our salvation comes through a woman's son (through a human), through someone under law. Yes, Jesus was a Jew. But of course, everyone is born under God's Law, so the more important point is that he was, just like anyone, under the duress of the law to achieve perfection.

vs 5

Mixing metaphors a bit, Jesus came to free us from our slavery to the Law (because being under a tutor is like being a slave) so that we might become full sons - that is, take ownership of the inheritance.

vs 6

The Holy Spirit is the mark that we are God's sons. It cries out "Daddy!" to God in our hearts, so that we might be turned to him more and call on him more.

vs 7

So Christians are sons, not slaves (so we shouldn't be slaves to the world or to our Law tutor).

vs 8

Of course, the Galatians were probably slaves to idols. We've got just as many idols, we just don't usually build little shrines for them in our house. Secularisation has made sure that we suppress our open worship of stuff, and internalise it in our actions.

vs 9

Paul's concern for the Galatians is that they are going to turn back to their old system of worship, which denies their freedom and sonship in God, and instead enslaves them once more to tradition and ritual. But those are weak and miserable.

vs 10

Whether these were Jewish special times or pagan special times, Paul probably didn't really care. The fact is that we are free from them, and yet the Galatians had run back into old practices. You'll note of course that Paul tempers himself a bit towards the Romans, by putting the matter of special holy days as a disputable matter. But here, he goes full ball against the Galatians.

vs 11

That's got to be one of the harshest messages in the New Testament. I pray God's message isn't wasted on us.