Commentary on 1st Corinthians 11-16
by Dave Brown

Go to 1 Cor. 6-10


[It seems that this is still in the section of 1 Corinthians that deals with things that are not wrong in and of themselves but become wrong in the ways that others might be affected by our actions.  As a backdrop, apparently the pagan prophetesses (many of which were prostitutes) appeared in public with their heads "uncovered" in the sense spoken of in this chapter.  We know even in the Middle East today, this could be an offense that would require extreme punishment -- women have to have their heads almost totally covered in public, to say nothing of the rest of their bodies.  This appears to have been the custom in Corinth at this time. If it was not, then we have some questions that will be addressed when we get into the passage.  Recall 1 Cor. 10:33: "... even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the (profit) of the many, that they may be saved" as you begin this study.]


1 Corinthians 11
11:1 Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.
[This goes with the prior verse.  We are to follow Paul's examples in all things approved; in this case, going out of our way not to offend people is what he is talking about.  I believe that applies as we move forward.]

2 Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.
[Here he is praising them for doing what he had commanded of them in verse 1.  "Traditions" is used in the positive sense of those practices that were delivered to them by Paul.  This is contrasted with holding to the "traditions of men" as condemned by Jesus in Matthew 15:6.]

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
[The "but" here creates a contrast between the good things that they had been doing in keeping the practices that Paul had left with them as opposed to something that they were now practicing that was against the headship of man and the headship of Christ.  This is God's established order, and God wants us to respect it. He will go on to discuss how they were violating it.]

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
[The first "his head" is his literal head.  The second "his head" would seem to be going back to verse 3 and talking about Christ being the head of the man.  In other words, he is dishonoring Christ.  The man's literal head cannot be dishonored in any meaningful sense -- we can only dishonor other people or God.  It would thus seem that they should understand that when men were in a formal prayer setting that the acceptable respect was indicated by their removing  their head coverings.  Even now, if a man came into the meeting house wearing a hat and refused to remove it during worship, that would be recognized as being disrespectful independent of their or our understanding of this chapter.]

5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.
[This is talking about a physical covering, not just her hair, since the hair is used as a further extreme comparison.  From the customs in that part of the world today, we can see where Paul is coming from.  Indeed, a woman on the streets without a covering would probably be suspect -- at best considered to be a rebellious person who is appearing this way in order to dishonor men in general, and those who hold to established customs in particular.  In most Middle Eastern countries this is not even lawful.  Note the reference to prophesying -- some women had spiritual gifts (Acts 21:9), although this very mention of them would infer that their number was quite limited.  In this case we might speculate that they were removing their veils to be like the pagan priestesses, or to show their dominance over the men, either one of which would have been appalling and thus a direct affront to the principles being reviewed in this context.  While this is speculation (not revealed by the context), it is not improbable, and it is the position taken by many commentators.  We are not asserting it to be the proven truth, however.  We know of no way that anyone can know at this point, and our position is that it is impossible to know for sure.]

6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.
7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man:
9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:
10 for this cause ought the woman to have (a sign of) authority on her head, because of the angels.
[This is best considered as a unit.   There is no controversy about the major principle.  Women  are under authority to men in the church.  That is not being disputed.  And, when a woman wears a veil or other head covering that is a sign of such submission, this should be given the highest respect.  The only question would seem to be -- is the wearing of a headdress (of any sort) a binding command today given the instructions above?  There is no doubt that it was binding in the first century at Corinth; clearly Paul's commands were binding per se on them.  On the surface the command would still be binding unless there is some reason that would show that it was a demonstration of a principle as opposed to an end in itself.  For example, it is generally agreed that 1 Cor 16:20 ("All the brethren salute you. Salute one another with a holy kiss.") is not specifically mandated today, but since it was the custom at that time, it was appropriate.  Europeans typically greet each other with a hand shake, and a kiss (albeit holy) might be misconstrued, especially between men.  So the command is seen as being illustrative of a broader principle, perhaps stated: "use whatever customs are appropriate to demonstrate your love for your fellow Christians when greeting them."  But Paul was quite definitive: "Salute one another with a holy kiss," which would seem to leave little latitude, and we believe that it was an absolute command at that time.]

[The following is a further question that should be asked when attempting to obey the command "that a woman be covered during worship."  Is Paul commanding them: (1) NOT TO REMOVE their veils during worship (praying and prophesying)?  or (2) TO PUT ON their veils only when in worship?  These are two distinctly different commands, and to our knowledge there is no way that the obedience of one of these commands can satisfy the other.  And yet, it is totally impossible for us to resolve which one is being commanded from the context here.  Those who put on the veil during worship today seem to believe the latter, since most only wear them during worship (some only during the prayers).  But if Paul's command to them was to not remove the headdress, then it is impossible to obey this command by putting the covering on just at given worship times.  In this case, to be consistent with the customs of Corinth, the women would have to wear these coverings all the time when in public because of the implications if they did not.  But this is not an issue to be contentious about.  Clearly, this is a matter of personal conscience, and we would hate for to violate their conscience just because we state our opinion.  We must all honor each others' views, and this seems to be the accepted norm since this is not something that we know of to be bound on anyone in any local church.  It is regarded as a matter of personal conscience as we believe it should be.  Since the practice of anyone as a result of this affects no one else, then no one is being bound one way or the other.  Because this issue cannot be resolved by what is written in 1 Corinthians 11 or anywhere else in the bible, the only way that it can become sinful would be for a local church to bind it one way or the other, the binding being done either formally or informally (e.g., by peer pressure).]

[Finally, in the analogy to the "holy kiss," what would be the principle being taught here if it is not a command for the woman either "to not remove" or "to put on" a covering?  What is the hand shake?  Could it not be generalized to be a command for the woman not to do anything (with regard to clothing or anything else) that would put the headship of a man in question?   So, for example in a remote village where the well established custom is for women to pierce their ears and for men to not do this, would it not be wrong for a man to pierce his ears or a woman to refuse to pierce hers?  While this is an unlikely example, there are many customs today that make a proper distinction between the roles of men and those of women.  For fear of making any of these into rules of conduct, we will not elaborate on any of them specifically, and have intentionally made our example an unlikely one to actually occur.  However, it cannot be denied by both those who wear the covering and those who do not that the principle given by this passage has to be comprehensive of all things that our customs have established that reinforce the proper and scriptural roles of men and women.  It would seem that if the command is viewed strictly in terms of it being obeyed by the placement of a covering (whether temporary or permanent while in public), that this could well miss the major principle that this passage and its context is attempting to convey.]

11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, so is the man also by the woman; but all things are of God.
13 Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?
[This would seem to make it a matter of judgment.  Most Christians today would respond with a YES to this question.  Most Christians in the first century at Corinth would definitely answer NO -- this is definitely a rhetorical question and Paul was only expecting one answer from them -- no.  If that rhetorical question is obvious, then there is no doubt that the woman is commanded to wear the covering.  For example, the command to wear the covering (either in worship or all the time) would seem to hold in the Middle East today as a definitive command.]
 
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
[Long is a relative term.  Even here what used to be considered a dishonor might not any longer.  However, typically we do not see relatively  long hair on mature men who are respected in the church.]

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
[I do not think that this is referring to a custom of contentiousness (the condemnation of that would go without saying).  It seems that Paul is saying that there is no custom in the church for the women to not be covered. This still does not answer the question of whether they had to be covered all the time or just in worship.  But at this time it would seem clear that the custom within the church was no different from that which was respected and approved by men and woman of high moral standing outside of the church, and the plea was that nothing be done to bring reproach on the church by flaunting a variation with this norm.  But regardless of Paul's intent in this verse, those who want to get contentious over this issue are wrong ... this is not the way Christians behave themselves with regard to such issues in the church of God.]

[Corinth had many problems as we have seen.   Another one that Paul addressed here had to do with their eating of the Lord's Supper.  This was something that Jesus commanded; so before going on, let us review it from Matthew ...
 Matt 26:26-29
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.
29 But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
We see in Acts 20 that this was done the first day of every week when the disciples came together, so this is exactly how we should do it today.  1 Cor 11:17-34 below confirms that the disciples did this every week, but in Corinth they were not doing it properly.  They had decided to have a common meal instead of this simple observance for the purpose of remembering Jesus.] 

1 Corinthians 11:17-34
17 But in giving you this charge, I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better but for the worse.
[I believe that the "charge" goes back to the first two  verses of this chapter: 1 Cor 11:1-2 "Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.  Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you."
He charged them to follow after his example that he had given them while being there for 18 months (Acts 18).  They were just not following things as he had delivered to them to the point where their coming together was actually counterproductive.]

18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and I partly believe it.
19 For there must be also factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you.
[It is a shame that this is the case. but we can almost say that there will always be some in the church who are not behaving themselves as they should.  Perhaps like most human families, and it is the local family of God. Sometimes there is immaturity, and at other times there is pure rebellion.  People are people.  And while becoming a Christian sets them on the right path - they start at the beginning of that path, not at the end of it.]

20 When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord's supper:
21 for in your eating each one taketh before (other) his own supper; and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
[This is NOT the way Jesus or Paul had commanded or intended it to be done, so they might call it the Lord's Supper, but calling it that does not make it so.  It must be done in accordance with the command of the Lord, and clearly having a common meal was not what Jesus had in mind.]

22 What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you? In this I praise you not.
[This makes it very clear -- we are to partake of our common meals in the context of the HOME, not the church.]
 
23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;
24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.
[This is the same event that Matthew described above.  Paul/Saul was still persecuting Christ back when Jesus gave this command to his disciples -- he did not become a Christian for several years after that.  But after his conversion the Lord appeared to Paul, and the Holy Spirit had gave guidance, so he is giving them what the Lord delivered to him, which is totally consistent with what Matthew and the other gospel writers documented.  This was done by Jesus for the first time in conjunction with the Passover.   Jesus is our Passover today.]

25 In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cups is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink (it), in remembrance of me.
[Note the purpose -- do this in remembrance of me (Jesus).  Anything that detracts from that purpose is sinful.]
 
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come.
[Proclaim his death has many ramifications -- he suffered, he bled, he shed his blood for our sins, he rose again -- all of these things are parts of the entire picture of Christ that we should form in our minds when taking of the LS.  However, clearly the focus of our meditation should be on Jesus on the cross and that sacrifice that he made for us and to enable us to be free from our sins.]

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
[It was not the frequency or the timing that was wrong -- it was the manner in which they were doing it.  They turned the simple ritual into a gluttonous meal.  I am sure that Paul was extremely surprised at this turn of events.  It was terrible -- not just a slip or a mistake.  They had essentially abandoned the very purpose for it.  Thus, they became guilty of the crucifixion of Christ themselves.  A startling condemnation.]
 
28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.
[Discern not the body would mean that the individuals fail to recognize that Jesus said: this is my body; this is my blood.  Of course, it is not that literally, and there is nothing mystical about it -- it is still bread and fruit of the vine -- it does not physically change.  But when we look at the bread we should see the body of Christ in our minds; and when we look at the grape juice we should see the blood of Christ in our minds.  That is the purpose -- to remember what Christ did for us and to be grateful.]

30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep.
[A difficult verse, but my take on it is that there were some in the first century like Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5) who were afflicted (perhaps even struck dead) for their sins.  We saw several punitive miracles in the book of Acts.  These have not continued today; they ceased when the miracles ceased, but for us this means that God is not at all pleased when we take a ritual that he has given and change the manner of it and the whole purpose of it ... and then still call it the Lord's Supper.]

31 But if we discerned ourselves, we should not be judged.
[Think about what you are doing and the way you should do it.  Discern is translated discriminate in some versions.  We should discriminate between this food for the Lord's Supper and food for a common meal -- they are two entirely different things in the spiritual sense.]

32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.
[There is a purpose for this chastisement; he was encouraging them to make the necessary corrections and not be corrupted like the world.]

33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another.
[This is just the due courtesy that any loving family would have for each other.  The Lord's Supper is something that all Christians in a local church should do together, not disorganized.]

34 If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment. And the rest will I set in order whensoever I come.
[Here again Paul repeats -- eating a common meal is something you do at home or in a restaurant or anyplace else except in the context of the church.  He further asserts his authority as an apostle to come and set things in order.]

[The next three chapters (12-14) are on the subject of miraculous spiritual gifts.  No church had as many spiritual gifts (that implies the miraculous) as Corinth did.  Paul said to them that they came behind in no gifts (1 Cor. 1:7), so we can conclude that to be the case.  But, we have found so far that they are probably as troubled as any church we read about in the NT (our opinion is: more than most).  Is there a correlation here?  Well, we can hardly conclude that spiritual gifts caused the problems.  It is quite possible that without the degree of spiritual gifts that they had, things would have been even worse.  But it is also quite clear that it takes more than spiritual gifts to solve the problems caused by the weaknesses and resulting sin of humans.]  

[Recognize from your study of miracles and spiritual gifts, all that spiritual gifts did was to reveal and to confirm the truth.  (We are not trivializing this important role -- without revelation and confirmation, we would be in a rudderless boat.)  So, while the role played by spiritual gifts was essential, it was not sufficient to produce virtue.  It was (and still is) up to the individual to assimilate this truth and make it part of his/her being.  Clearly the Corinthians were not doing this despite their spiritual gifts.  In fact, they were clearly abusing the gifts.  For one thing, they were proud of them.  And they were thinking that those who had certain gifts were higher in the "pecking order" than others.  You can see the problems that even righteousness can cause.  Today someone might be proud of their bible knowledge.  Isn't Satan clever.  He knows what our weaknesses are and exploits them at every opportunity.  Satan cannot thwart the revelation and the confirmation of the truth, but he can make those who are revealing it so proud of themselves that it almost defeats the message.]
 
1 Corinthians 12
12:1 Now concerning spiritual (gifts), brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
[It is important to recognize that this topic of spiritual gifts will continue through Chapters 13 and 14.  Most lessons using Chapter 13 often concentrate on the subject of love, when in fact, the primary topic has to do with the inferiority of spiritual gifts compared to love, and the temporary nature of these spiritual gifts.  Perhaps they had written and asked about this topic, but their abuse of these precious gifts of God had probably become quite renowned.] 

2 Ye know that when ye were Gentiles (ye were) led away unto those dumb idols, howsoever ye might be led.
3 Wherefore I make known unto you, that no man speaking in the Spirit of God saith, Jesus is anathema; and no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit.
[The word "say" is meant to convey a truthful conveyance.  Of course someone can say a lie; but if someone is really truthful and meaning what they say, then they cannot tell the truth of God except that they be "in the Holy Spirit" (miraculous or not).]
 
4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all.
[He is about to deal with this issue of feeling that "my gift is better than your gift."  This is background information for getting into that.  The major point is that these gifts, if in fact they come from the same God and the same Holy Spirit, cannot contradict themselves or work against each other.  God works "all in all."  The "all in all" expression seems to be a Hebrew idiom in that it appears in several different contexts (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:28 and Eph. 1:23).  In and of itself, the expression cannot be parsed.  However, if we do not view "all" as a noun, but instead view it as an adjective with a missing noun implied, then we can establish alternatives for these nouns, and select that which makes the most sense in the context.  In this context the noun "things" is supplied to the first "all."  (This is not the case in the two other examples referenced above.)  It seems the most reasonable alternative noun that is missing in verse 6 is men, referring to all of humankind.  So the concluding statement would be: "God worketh all things in all men."  In this context, however, it is not referring to every singles possible act that any man can do, but rather to the working of spiritual gifts,]     
 
7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal.
8 For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit:
9 to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit;
10 and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits; to another (divers) kinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues:
11 but all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will.
[This list of gifts seems to be generally moving from those that may not be miraculous at all to those that are obviously miraculous.  Not all Christians had spiritual gifts.  Did this make them any less beneficial to the Kingdom?  Did it make them worthless?  No, of course not.  There is much we can do today, and much back then without the benefit of the miraculous.  This applies to all of us today with regard to our talents, since none of us have miraculous spiritual gifts (see the discussion of this at the end of 1 Cor. 13 below).]
 
12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ.
13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit.
[He will elaborate on the figure of the human body analogy to the body of Christ, which is the church.  The body here is the local church.  He is saying that the local church is like a human body in the sense of having many members each with different functions, but all very, very important.  Verse 13 is quite profound as well, and as we saw in Romans 6, we are baptized into Christ, that is, His body, the church.  It does not matter what our background happens to be -- gender, race, nationality, economic status -- or even what we might have done before becoming Christians -- how sinful we might have been.  None of that matters now.  We are all one in Christ.]

[Some force an interpretation of verse 13 claiming that this is speaking of Holy Spirit baptism (i.e., being baptized in the Holy Spirit.)  There is no evidence that anyone other than the apostles (Acts 2) and the first Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11) were ever baptized in the Holy Spirit.  Those that the apostles laid their hands upon to convey to them miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit (e.g., Stephen and Philip in Acts 6; the Samaritans in Acts 8) were never described as being baptized in the Holy Spirit.  To leap to the conclusion here that "all" were baptized in the Holy Spirit is a leap that is not supported at all by the New Testament.  "In one Spirit" means that this was done in total consistency with the teaching of the Holy Spirit.  The baptism was the only baptism that was ever commanded -- water baptism.  The Holy Spirit baptism was a promise to specific individuals, the benefits of which accrue to all Christians for all times, and certainly in this sense we all receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:32), that gift being the Holy Spirit Himself (see Romans 8), and it can be said then that we all drink from this one Spirit.]

14 For the body is not one member, but many.
[Those being individual Christians.]

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the body.
[The foot might think it is inferior to the hand, but not so -- the human needs its foot as well as its hand.]

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; it is not therefore not of the body.
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members each one of them in the body, even as it pleased him.
[So, they did not all have the same spiritual gifts, and some of them did not have any spiritual gifts at all, at least in the miraculous sense of the term.  But this did not make them any less important in the kingdom, which is the body of Christ.]

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
[It would not be able to function if everyone had the exact same ability and role.]

20 But now they are many members, but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee: or again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
[This is taking the opposite view -- the proud being so proud of their skills that they think they have no need for anyone else.]

22 Nay, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be more feeble are necessary:
23 and those (parts) of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely (parts) have more abundant comeliness;
24 whereas our comely (parts) have no need: but God tempered the body together, giving more abundant honor to that (part) which lacked;
[Especially some of our inner parts -- not pretty to look at, but without them we are dead.]

25 that there should be no schism in the body; but (that) the members should have the same care one for another.
26 And whether one member suffereth, all the members suffer with it; or (one) member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
[That is a beautiful picture of a family, a company, any human organization, and for sure, it is to be the ideal of Christians in the church.]

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof.
[Each baptized believer is a member of the body of Christ.]

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, (divers) kinds of tongues.
[This seems to be generally in an order from the greatest spiritual gifts to the least, although there were some who did not have any spiritual gifts at all, at least not in the miraculous sense of the term.  All of these gifts mentioned here are miraculous, with the possible exception of "helps" and "governments."  Just exactly what he means by this is not known since as far as I know these terms are not used elsewhere.  There are people who are extremely good helpers, and others who lead well and take on the management/government of the group.  In a sense these are gifts of God, but not necessarily miraculous.]

29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all (workers of) miracles?
30 have all gifts of healings? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
[Rhetorical questions.  Obviously no.]

31 But desire earnestly the greater gifts. And moreover a most excellent way show I unto you.
[This might seem to be a contradiction, but we will see that it is not contradictory when we get into the next chapter.  There is nothing wrong with desiring the greater gifts, but there is something wrong when possessing them becomes prideful.  The opposite of pride is  humility, and humility produces love for God and love for our fellow man and our fellow Christians as we recognize their worth to be, in many cases, superior to ourselves.  This love is the more excellent way.  The next chapter is one of the most beautiful chapters in the bible.]

[Chapter 13 is arguably the most important one in the New Testament when it comes to understanding miracles (supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit).  Remember that Chapters 12, 13, and 14 (which we are in the middle of right now) have the subject of spiritual gifts.  Spiritual gifts (also called gifts of the Holy Spirit) were miraculous.  They gave the first century Christians the ability to obtain truth and verify the truth because they had nothing other than the Old Testament scriptures.  But like as God created Adam and Eve miraculously and then set in motion the natural birth process, so once He totally revealed all truth and that was written down in the scriptures, there was no longer a need for the miraculous.  This is the essence of what Paul is trying to get across to them because they were banking so much on their various spiritual gifts -- to the point of saying -- "my gift is better than your gift, so you need to listen to me."  We can see how spiritual gifts could actually become counterproductive.  Paul never states that their gifts were not legitimate, although with their attitudes it is hard to see this to be anything but the case.  Yet, Paul did not want to dissuade those who had legitimate spiritual gifts, because they were needed at this time in Corinth.  So he is kind of walking a tight rope here.  More will be said about spiritual gifts in Chapter 14, but it is essential for us to recognized that spiritual gifts are also the major subject in Chapter 13 as well.]

1 Corinthians 13
13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal.
2 And if I have (the gift of) prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 And if I bestow all my goods to feed (the poor), and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing.
[In all three cases there would be great admiration for someone who had those gifts or did those things, but Paul asserts that no matter how good it may be (or seem), if it is not motivated by true love, it is worthless to you and over the long term to those around you as well.]

4 Love suffereth long, (and) is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its own, is not provoked, taketh not account of evil;
6 rejoiceth not in unrighteousness, but rejoiceth with the truth;
7 beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
[This is talking about truly putting the interests of others at least on par with your own; perhaps in many cases even higher than your own interests.  While this applies to family love, it is not at all restricted to that -- it applies to the love of God and to the love of neighbor as yourself.  These are not things to be read one time and understood; they are things that can only be absorbed through hours of meditation.]

8 Love never faileth: but whether (there be) prophecies, they shall be done away; whether (there be) tongues, they shall cease; whether (there be) knowledge, it shall be done away.
[Verses 4-7 were a definition of love in terms of how people behave who are motivated by love.  Most people seize on this as the heart of the chapter and just ignore everything else calling it the "chapter on love."  Can we see why Paul defined love for them?  This definition is not an end in itself.  He is trying to teach them something about their spiritual gifts.  He is saying ... in the grand scale of things, compared to love, your spiritual gifts are relatively worthless.  When you think about the worldly nature of most things called "miracles" today, they are being used for the wrong purpose (e.g., to promote false teachings), and so they are MORE than worthless even if they were legitimate.  Once truth is revealed it does not have to be proven, re-proven, re-revealed and proven again all over and over again.]

[Love never fails, but prophecies were going to fail, tongues were going to fail, miraculous knowledge was going to fail -- they would all fail because they would all be done away.  This is the reason that they could not put their hope in them once they had served their purpose.  Most people agree that this HAS to be the meaning here, but they question just WHEN this will take place.  This will be resolved in the next verse,  Go back to the first three verses again to get the overall context.  What is being minimized are the miracles; what is being emphasized instead is love,  Now, let us consider when this will take place,

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part;
10 but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.
[Note the contrast -- know in part (see verse 8 ... this is miraculous knowledge) and prophesy in part (teaching, and verifying the things taught by foretelling the future, again miraculously).  So, he is contrasting the miraculous parts  with the non-miraculous: "that which is perfect."  The word perfect here means full grown or fully developed (somewhat different from our usage of the word today).  Thus, the perfect with regard to revelation would be that which would exist when all had been revealed that was going to be revealed.  Would it not seem reasonable that at this time there would be no more need for the parts?

[Consider the "parts" -- that is, the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit.  They were imperfect.  For one thing, no one had them all -- each had only a part.  It is these parts that would be done away.  What was to be the completed work of the gifts of the Holy Spirit?  Would it not be the completed scriptures?  We have dozens of verses in the New Testament that either state explicitly or imply that we are to observe the scriptures as the word of God.  We do not need ongoing miracles for this.  Think of how confusing it would be if all those who claim to were in fact getting direct revelations from the Holy Spirit.  In fact, if we had ongoing miracles for this, why would we even need to bother with the scriptures?  So, "that which is perfect" is the completed revelation written down for all ages to read and obey.  The fact that there has been no significant changes to the canon of scriptures that we have in nearly 2000 years is ample testimony that we have all that God thinks we need -- it is full grown, it is perfect.]

[We would be remiss if we did not consider and comment on the assertion that Jesus is "that which is perfect."   Is it reasonable to believe that this was what Paul was trying to convey to the Corinthians?  What possible value would it be to say such a thing?  Is there any purpose at all in stating that we will no longer have miraculous spiritual gifts after we are taken into heaven?  If this is the way that they interpreted it, then all that could produce in them is the question: so what?  What effect would that have on their behavior, their proper use of the spiritual gifts that they have, or their prideful valuation of them?  If this were the meaning, then why would Paul even be stating it.  What need is there for spiritual gifts after the judgment?  The faithful will be together with God eternally.  There will no longer be a differentiation between the natural and the supernatural.  To say he is talking about when Jesus will come again is just a nonsensical thing to want to divert attention from the truth.  Do not shift gears in the next verse -- Paul is still talking about the same thing -- spiritual gifts.]
  
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child: now that I am become a man, I have put away childish things.
[This is not a lesson telling people to "grow up" -- as many misuse it today.  The child is the church without a bible.  It needed the nurturing of the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit like a child needs milk.  But once it matured and the written word was completed then it was time to put those things away.  Or perhaps rather, recognize that God was going to put them away and they would not longer be needed.  Similarly, the next verse continues to address the temporary nature of spiritual gifts.]
 
12 For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully known.
[Their mirrors were polished metals -- they could not really see their images exactly as we have discovered how to do it now.  So what they saw was not quite what they were -- and so it was with the parts -- there was something deficient in each prophet and church having a miraculous part.  The things being taught could not be verified consistently -- there was lots of room for abuse, as we see from the claimed miracle workers today.  Seemingly people can be made to believe just about anything.  But once the canon of scripture is assembled, then it will be face to face.  Similarly, they only had parts -- no one had it all.  Even Paul who may have had more spiritual gifts than anyone else (evidence his writings) did not have it all.  Consider the following passages that indicate that the scriptures are complete and adequate, and that they deliver to us all necessary knowledge that was also available in the first century: Matthew 5: 17-18; 24:34-35; Luke 16:31; John 15:26-27; 16:7-14; 20:30-31; Acts 1:8; Romans 1:16; 6:17-18; 1 Corinthians 6:4; 14:37; 2 Corinthians 11:3; Galatians 1:8-9; Ephesians 3:3-4; 4:11-16; Philippians 2:12-16; 4:9; 2 Timothy 316-17; Hebrews 2:2-4; 5:9; James 1:25; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 4:17; 2 Peter 1:2-4; 3:1-2; 14-16; 1 John 5:3; 2 John 9; Jude 3; Revelation 1:3; 22:18-19.]    

13 But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
[This is sort of a qualifier leading us to the next chapter, where he is going to talk about the correct usage of the spiritual gifts that they had.  He is not disputing that they had them; only that they were misusing them.  The implications of Chapter 13 are for the future.  The Corinthians needed instruction regarding their use of spiritual gifts now.  This would require faith and hope on their part to properly use the spiritual gifts.  But they pale in comparison to their need for love.]


[Recall that Chapters 12-14 are on the subject of spiritual gifts.  Paul said in Chapter 1 that no church came behind them in spiritual gifts -- from that and from all he says here, and the fact that he does not even mention the subject to other churches, it is fairly safe to conclude that Corinth had more spiritual gifts than any other church.  Those today who put their faith in current day miracles should recognize this.  In the first century the spiritual gifts certainly played a very important part in revealing and confirming the truth.  However, they were clearly abused in Corinth and used for self aggrandizement.  Obviously this was a tremendous temptation (see 2 Corinthians 12 where God allowed Paul to be afflicted with a thorn in the flesh to prevent this).  And their cessation may well be explained by God's sparing us this temptation today.]
 
1 Corinthians 14
14:1 Follow after love; yet desire earnestly spiritual (gifts), but rather that ye may prophesy.
[The Corinthians still needed their spiritual gifts since the time had not yet come when the revelation was completed ("when that which is perfect is come").  So, Paul does not discourage the use of spiritual gifts, just the abuse of them.  Love is more perfect that any spiritual gift and we/they should follow after love.  But they still had need of spiritual gifts, and he cites prophesy as being one of the more excellent gifts.  As we shall see next, this was in contrast to speaking in tongues, especially speaking in some tongue that no one even knew ... it appears that some thought they could speak in the tongues of angels (reference back to 13:1).  But there is no such reference to such a capability anywhere in the bible (to our knowledge).]

2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
[This is not the tongues in the Acts 2 (Pentecost) sense because those tongues were real languages that could clearly be understood, and the gift served the purpose of communication.  Apparently the Corinthians had abused this gift to claim that they were speaking in a miraculous tongue when in fact they were not making any sense to anyone.  Paul does not go so far as to proclaim them to be dishonest, perhaps because they were sincere in their beliefs.  There is also a chance that he did not know -- apostles were not omniscient.]

3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men edification, and exhortation, and consolation.
[If the prophesy predicted the future then the other truths revealed could be validated.  The word prophesy, however, while implying a knowledge of the future does not necessitate it.  The last three words of this verse describe prophesy that is not necessarily miraculous.  However, in this context, since Paul is talking about prophesy as a spiritual gift, then we should conclude that either the knowledge itself or the ability to foresee the future (or both) were miraculous.]

4 He that speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
[This is the best that could be said for the practice when the tongue cannot be understood.  Obviously if it was an understandable tongue, say to a visitor there at Corinth from a foreign land who did not understand their language, it would serve the same purpose as it did on Pentecost -- to reveal the truth and to prove the truth.]

5 Now I would have you all speak with tongues, but rather that ye should prophesy: and greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
[Even if the tongue is understood to some, it would not be useful to  those who could not understand it.  So what Paul is calling for here is someone to translate the tongue into something that at least some people could understand.  Similarly, if someone knew the foreign tongue and the local tongue, they would be able to translate for the church.  This teaching was exactly what the Corinthians  needed at this point to get past the problems that they were having with Spiritual Gifts, but without sacrificing them altogether.  This would not be a problem today since we learned in 1 Cor. 13 that these gifts have now ceased with the completion of the New Testament.]

6 But now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching?
[Another misuse of  the gift of tongues might be someone speaking in a legitimate foreign tongue but not speaking anything that was needful for the church.]

7 Even things without life, giving a voice, whether pipe or harp, if they give not a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself for war?
9 So also ye, unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to [be] understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye will be speaking into the air.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and no (kind) is without signification.
11 If then I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh will be a barbarian unto me.
12 So also ye, since ye are zealous of spiritual (gifts), seek that ye may abound unto the edifying of the church.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
[This seems that Paul is speaking accommodatively of the practice of speaking in the tongues of angels..  He is certainly not encouraging it or sanctioning it.  The above is continuing to show how wrong it is to speak in unintelligible sounds.  They should know this, but apparently not -- Paul had to drive the subject home by describing it in several different ways.]

15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else if thou bless with the spirit, how shall he that filleth the place of the unlearned say the Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he knoweth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
[Continuing even further with his arguments against not being understood.  Here we learn further of the practice in the first century of saying Amen (let it be so) at the conclusion of a prayer.  Obviously, it should not be said by a hearer that does not understand what is being said.]

18 I thank God, I speak with tongues more than you all:
19 howbeit in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
[This is sort of a definitive pivotal verse.  While Paul is hesitant to condemn speaking in unknown tongues per se, he is very definitive in putting it in its place.  If they were going to understand Paul's intent at all, they should have gotten it at this point.]

20 Brethren, be not children in mind: yet in malice be ye babes, but in mind be men.
[This goes back to Chapter 13 -- recall: "When I was a child I spoke as a child, behaved as a child, ..., but when I became a man I put away childish things."  We said then that in that context it appeared that the childish things were the miracles ... they would no longer be needed as the church matured and the scriptures were completed.]

21 In the law it is written, By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people; and not even thus will they hear me, saith the Lord.
[The reference here is to Isaiah 28:11-12, and the application there is to the prophesied captivity, where a foreign land (and language) would be used to teach them the necessary lesson.  This is another example where God has turned the consequences of sin (in this case at the Tower of Babel) to a positive use.  Similarly, enabling Christians to speak in a foreign tongue that was unknown to them produced two quite positive effects: (1) it enabled a better understanding of the truth, and (2) it proved by this clear miracle that what was being taught was the truth.  Anything that disrupted these positive effects, thwarted the overall goal.  In this case "not even thus will they hear me" is an indication that once again, the clear will of God (with regard to their gift of tongues) is being thwarted by the very ones that God has chosen to administer this gift.]

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving: but prophesying (is for a sign), not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe.
[Go back to the clear example of the use of tongues in Acts 2.  What was it that convinced the hearers that the apostles were speaking from God?  It was that they could hear in their own tongues, and that the apostles clearly never learned these tongues in any natural way.  So, why would tongues be needed once the truth was fully revealed?  Prophesying, on the other hand is something that could be validated by anyone, not just someone who knew the foreign language.]

23 If therefore the whole church be assembled together and all speak with tongues, and there come in men unlearned or unbelieving, will they not say that ye are mad?
[Or, as he pointed out, it would be disrespectful -- like speaking in a language that no one (or only a few) can understand.  I know we have all seen people do that when they don't want others to know what they are saying.  In the case of speaking in a totally unknown tongue to no one who could understand at all, they would think you were crazy.  We have no evidence whatsoever that this was ever something that was commanded or approved by the apostles.  It just seemed to come about by someone at Corinth saying -- OK, maybe you are speaking German, but I am speaking with the tongue of an angel.  How would anyone know?  It should be obvious to the reader that any such practice today would be equally condemned.]

24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one unbelieving or unlearned, he is reproved by all, he is judged by all;
25 the secrets of his heart are made manifest; and so he will fall down on his face and worship God, declaring that God is among you indeed.
[There is a tremendous contrast here between things being done in a confused way and things being done systematically and calmly.  Prophesy is speaking the truth, and it could include some elements of foretelling the future.]
 
26 What is it then, brethren? When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
[It is difficult to determine here if Paul is saying that this is the way it ought to be, or if he is condemning them for being disorganized and everyone trying to take over the services.  We suspect the latter, since the context is not one of commendation.  He is sort of saying well, that's OK since many of you have spiritual gifts, but make sure it is all done unto edifying -- building up and proclaiming the truth ... and not counterproductive to those goals.  Note the gift of "hath and interpretation" as it applies in the next verse.]

27 If any man speaketh in a tongue, (let it be) by two, or at the most three, and (that) in turn; and let one interpret:
28 but if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
[One of the gifts was to be able to interpret someone who might be speaking in a tongue that might only be understood by a few.  Say a couple Chinese visited Corinth and could not understand Greek.  So, someone is inspired to preach to them in the Chinese tongue.  All well and good,  But there needs to also be someone else who can interpret it to the rest of the congregation.  This seems to me to be what Paul is talking about here.]
 
29 And let the prophets speak (by) two or three, and let the others discern.
[This is just a matter of expediency and order.  You cannot have everyone speaking at once.]

30 But if a revelation be made to another sitting by, let the first keep silence.
[There are times when even those inspired are commanded to keep silence.]

31 For ye all can prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted;
32 and the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets;
[Some might have been thinking that the Holy Spirit was so moving them that they could just blabber on interrupting those who were legitimately speaking.  Not so.  The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets -- they can control themselves and they should in the assembly.]

33 for God is not (a God) of confusion, but of peace.
[If you see confusion in the church, that is not of God, plain and simple.]

As in all the churches of the saints,
34 let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law.
35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.
[Going back to 1 Cor. 11, it appears some women were prophesying (and we know from Acts 21:9, for example, that Phillip had two daughters that prophesied.  The question here seems to be whether it is appropriate for them to do so in the assembly.  Apparently the women were contributing to the confusion in Corinth.  I do not think we can rationalize away the command for women not to preach or teach over a man.  There is more evidence to consider, and we should consider it all.  For example 1 Tim 2:11-15 says: "Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.  But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.  For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety."  Here Paul gives a reason why the woman should learn in subjection and not be allowed to teach over a man (she can certainly teach other women and children, and she can teach a man outside of the assembly of the church, as Priscilla and Acquilla did at the end of Acts 18).  The reason is because the woman is more apt to be beguiled.  While many would dispute this, I believe all honest thinking and observing people know this to be the case.  Men have their peculiar weaknesses too ... the biggest one probably being women.  Consider all the men who have been taken down by women, e.g., Adam, David, Sampson.  So, this edict could be as much due to the weakness of the man (for the woman) as for the women (in being beguiled).  But we do not have to figure all of that out since this command is as clear as any in the New Testament.  Leadership and authority is something that is often coveted by those who do not have it. Once they get it and then they realize what an onerous responsibility it can be.]

36 What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?
[This is a challenge to the Corinthians about all of the things in Chapters 12-14.  They were going way beyond what God had intended in giving them their spiritual gifts.  They had gotten proud and began thinking that they were the source of all truth.  These rhetorical questions are to bring them to an understanding of the responsibilities that these gifts brought.]

37 If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.
[This is a most powerful statement.   The words of Paul are the words of Jesus.  Similarly with all of the writers of the New Testament.  This is scripture and it contains the power of God.  If Paul or Jesus were standing here themselves and preaching to us, it would have not more power than the written word.  This is a verse to mark in your bible and always remember.  We do not need miracles to know the commandments of the Lord today, we have the writings of the apostles and they are sufficient.]

38 But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
[Willfully ignorant.  If it is not willful, then we should teach them.  But if someone refuses to learn and refuses to accept the writings of the New Testament, then there is not much more that we can do with that person.]

39 Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
[A final exhortation with regard to these two spiritual gifts.  They still needed them and Paul did not want them to disregard those who had these gifts.

40 But let all things be done decently and in order.
[This short phrase covers so many things.  There is so much of a tendency for some (usually the young) to turn the worship services into a circus.  Is it decent?  Is it in order?  We have lots of flexibility in how we do things many things in worship -- how we pray, what songs we sing, how the preaching is done, the conduct of the Lord's Supper, and our giving.  But none of it should be disorderly or indecent to someone who is visiting from the outside.]

 
[First Corinthians Chapter 15 is one of the most amazing in the NT.  Apparently there were some (perhaps converted Sadducees that were either denying that Jesus was resurrected from the dead or denying that Christians will be resurrected.  We realize that nothing can be proven (at least nothing in the historical sense -- things can be proven  mathematically, but even then the proofs only hold up if the assumptions hold up.  So, it is not a matter of proving anything -- it is a matter of presenting overwhelming evidence.  In a sense, the no-resurrection advocates served us all quite well -- Paul would have never written this chapter had it not been for them.  Not that we have them to thank; rather we thank God's providence who turns all evil into good uses.]
 
1 Corinthians 15
15:1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand,
[The word gospel means good news.  The word is used to encapsulate the entire New Testament.]
 
2 by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain.
[Salvation is conditional on our holding fast, e.g., keeping the faith, being faithful to Christ in keeping his will for us.]

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
[E.g.,  Ps. 22; Isa. 53:1; Dan. 9:26; Zech. 12:10]
 
4 and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures;
[Recall that a scriptural argument using Ps. 16 was used by Peter when he preached on the day of Pentecost (recorded in Acts 2).  His argument was that David could not have been talking about himself because his body had long since decayed.]
 
5 and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve;
[These events are recorded in the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).]
 
6 then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep;
[Sleep was a figure that referred to physical death quite often in the New Testament.]
 
7 then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as to the (child) untimely born, he appeared to me also.
[Literally, a miscarriage or an abortion that survived.  He is not referring to his late birth, but to his irregular birth.  We rarely hear of one being born too late.  But more often this is applied to a miscarriage -- that the birth is not the ideal as would be desired and prayed for by the parents.  So, with such an odd figure as this, he goes on to explain ...]
 
9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
[He is not denying his apostleship; this is something that he made very clear elsewhere -- he was an apostle in the official sense of the word (not just a messenger).  He had the power that only apostles had -- to lay hands on others and impart gifts of the Holy Spirit to them (see Acts 19).  But here we see Paul's humility ... true, Jesus appeared to him, but he was not going to lord that over his fellow Christians.]
 
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not found vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
[When we can see all of the good in ourselves as not being of ourselves but as being of the grace of God, then we will come to the correct understanding of God's grace that Paul had.]
 
11 Whether then (it be) I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
[The whole gospel; but the part that they were lacking in is the part he mentioned in verse 4 above -- that Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day.  This is a critical part of the gospel, and it is completely erroneous to attempt to exclude it.] 
 
12 Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
[Continuing our count, this would be the second evidence, the first being the eye witnesses.  The second is that this is part of the gospel that was preached by the apostles and the early Christians, whether they were eye witnesses or not.  It was their doctrine and therefore evidence of the truth.  Apparently some, probably previously Sadducee Jewish Christians were not teaching the resurrection of Christ as they should have, and as we read at the end of John (also the last few chapters of Matthew, Mark and Luke will also have the resurrection story).  These errant Christians were teaching that there is no resurrection of the dead.  Perhaps they were teaching that baptism is the resurrection, or something to that effect.  In other words, essentially when you are dead you are done.  Even the Old Testament taught an afterlife, and why the Sadducees did not accept it is hard to understand.  So what Paul is going to do is to give them at least a dozen reasons that they should believe in the resurrection in addition to the two that he has already given.  We will keep count below indicated by a #.  We already have two.] 
 
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised:
[(#3) This is simple enough, but it might be stated as follows: "The resurrection of Christ proves the fact that we (Christians) will all be resurrected.  This was taught by Jesus, and he also prophesied his resurrection.  So, if all of us have no hope of a resurrection, then we can hardly conclude that Christ was resurrected.  Of course, the resurrection of Jesus is the lynch pin of Christianity.  If Jesus was not raised from the dead as he said he would be, and as all of the apostles proclaimed, then the whole thing is bogus and Jesus was nothing but a huge deceiver and a master liar.  He would also not be very clever, having given his body on the cross in a miserable death for not reason at all.] 

14 and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.
[(#4 and 5) All the things that Paul had been teaching would be vain if his teaching on the resurrection is not true.  Also, why are we believing in all of these other things since, if this is not true, our own faith would be vain if there is no resurrection.]
 
15 Yea, we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised.
[(#6) Were they ready to conclude that Paul was a false witness, a liar?  That is what they would have to do if they deny the resurrection of the dead because that is what he taught.  What possible motivation could Paul have for making such a thing up?]
  
16 For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised:
17 and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
[ (#7) Verse 16 us a reiteration of #1, so we will not count that.  But the fact that they would  still be in their sins has to be a new argument.  Why would this be the case?  Why would they still be in their sins if Christ had not been raised?  For the same reason given above.  Our sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ (on God's part), and by faith (on our part).  But if Jesus was an impostor and telling lies, then our faith would be in lies and not in the truth and thus, our sins could not possibly be forgiven by such a deceptive and evil faith system.] 
 
18 Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
[(#8) Those who we thought were saved when they died are not saved -- they have perished (into something unknown) if they are not saved in Christ.  Were they willing to accept that?]
 
19 If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.
[(#9) In fact, the whole system of faith in Christ is a hopeless cause and profits nothing; so we are worse off than all men in that we put our faith into something that is vain.]
 
20 But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep.
21 For since by man (came) death, by man (came) also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming.
[(#10) This is evidence by analogy.  We covered this back in Romans the 5th chapter -- the comparison between Adam and Christ.  Adam bringing death into the world; Christ bringing eternal life to all who will accept it as a free gift.  Christ was the firstfruits -- the first one to be resurrected.  When Christ comes again for the final judgment, then all of those who have gone before (they that are Christ's) will come with him.  This was a consistent teaching of the apostles.]

24 Then (cometh) the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death.
[(#11) This is another argument -- if there is no resurrection, then how could death be abolished.  The reason that things are as they are now is that God is allowing things to work themselves out according to His will.  In the end Jesus will deliver up the kingdom to God, and citizens of the kingdom will live with Him forever.]

27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him.
28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all.
[This speaks for itself; Jesus is God, but he subjected himself to God the Father in coming to this earth.  God gave all authority unto Jesus (Mt. 28:18), but apparently this will be for the duration up until the final judgment when Jesus will deliver up the Kingdom to God, and in this way be subjected unto God the Father.]

29 Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?
[(#12) This is one of the most complex and debated verses in the New Testament, but we know of only one consistent resolution that does not require a forced interpretation.  First of all, being baptized for the dead is not a scriptural concept -- we should not be doing it.  Many have tried to rationalize that this was not what Paul was talking about, but they have to twist the grammar to do it.  It says what it says.  However, it in no way endorses the practice.  In fact, it seems from the statement itself that the people who were practicing this were the very ones who were denying the resurrection.  If you think about it, this is a devastating argument -- these people are contradicting their own practice.  Why be baptized for the dead if there is no resurrection and the dead are gone never to rise again?  There are over a half dozen or so attempts to explain this verse, but this one -- that it was being practiced by those denying the resurrection -- is the only one that makes total sense and is not stretching credibility.  Notice Paul does not say "we" are baptized for them -- he says "they" indicating that it is a practice of someone else.  This would be no argument at all if it applied to anyone other than those who were denying the resurrection.  If it did apply to them that it was a very devastating argument from the point of view of their inconsistency.]

30 Why do we also stand in jeopardy every hour?
31 I protest by that glorifying in you, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
32 If after the manner of men I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.
[(#13) We will put this all in one although it could be broken out into two or three.  The main point that Paul is making is this rhetorical question: Why would Paul be going through all the things that he is going through if it were not for the promise of the resurrection?  We see some of his suffering in the book of Acts -- in one case he was stoned and taken up for dead.  He went through a lot and they all knew it.  All of those things would be really stupid if Paul had no hope in the life to come.  Logically speaking -- if there is no resurrection then let's make the most of this life in every way that we can.  But, of course, he is speaking rhetorically here -- we know that the best life we can live is that which is given to us by God.  God wants us to be happy, and the resurrection is part of that happiness.]

33 Be not deceived: Evil companionships corrupt good morals.
[This is true without exception.  Humans cannot help but be influenced by their environment.  We have no control over that.  However, unlike the animals, we do have control over the environment that we allow ourselves to be subjected to.  In other words, we choose who we "hang around" with.  Thus, we can determine what we will become merely by looking at who we choose to associate with.  Some (many?, most?) think that they are stronger than their companions, but this itself is a false sense of pride.  This seems to me to be a strange place for this truism to show up.  However, Paul just recited a saying that perhaps many were spouting at this time: "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."  Paul says you might as well go along with that if the dead are not raised.  Go ahead and let such evil influences affect you if you do not believe in the resurrection.  Also, it fits into the next verse ...]

34 Awake to soberness righteously, and sin not; for some have no knowledge of God: I speak (this) to move you to shame.
[So he is trying to get the Christians here not to be affected by these evil people who would deny and argue about the infeasibility of the resurrection.]
 
35 But some one will say, How are the dead raised? and with what manner of body do they come?
[This is an example of how they might argue.]

36 Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened except it die:
37 and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind;
38 but God giveth it a body even as it pleased him, and to each seed a body of its own.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one (flesh) of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the (glory) of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual (body).
[(#14) This is the 14th argument in defense of the resurrection.  This is more of a defensive or reactive argument against those who would say that such is impossible.  The point being made is that there are many other things that we recognize in this world that defy explanation.  What makes a seed grow?  What makes the distinction between the various things listed.  If we can see that these things are real, why can't we see that God can make a difference between a physical body and a spiritual body?]

45 So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam (became) a life-giving spirit.
[(#15) The written part of this verse is referencing Genesis 2:7, talking about the creation.  There is an analogy here between the first man and the first to be raised from the dead, Jesus.  But in addition to this, Jesus by his death became a life-giving spirit in the spiritual sense of the word "life" -- spiritual life.]

46 Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
[(#16) This is some new information regarding the resurrection and life eternal.]

51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed,
[Sleep here is physical death.  Some who are alive when Jesus comes will not see death (sleep) in the physical sense.  When he says "all" here he means all -- those saved and those who are not saved.]

52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
[Other places in scripture talk about the trumpet sounding at the time of the judgment.  It will be a fearful experience to those who are not prepared.  I would expect even for those who are.]

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
[This is true for both the saved and the lost, but the following verses are talking especially about those who are in Christ.]

54 But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
[(#17) Isaiah 25:8.  For those who are saved this will be a victorious day -- whether they are still alive or in the graves.  It seems that the physical body will be somehow put together miraculously by God, and that we will be given a spiritual body that is totally incorruptible at that point.  This would be totally impossible without the resurrection.]

55 O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?
56 The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law:
57 but thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
[The only phrase that might be of question is that of the power of sin being the law.  It is the law that condemns us, but Jesus has taken away the law and satisfied it for us, so now sin has no more dominion over us provided we repent of it and it is forgiven.  This was something that Paul spent a lot of time on in his letter to the Romans.]

58 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not vain in the Lord.
[Doing God's will with a good heart can never be wrong -- it brings great blessings with it, and Paul urges them and us not to move from being in Christ and abounding in the work of the Lord.]


1 Corinthians 16
16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so also do ye.
2 Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.
[There are some very extensive instructions related to this in 2nd Corinthians.  In regard to this "collection," this had to do with a famine that was going on in the Jerusalem/Judea area, and Paul was going through the Gentile world collecting funds to aid in this regard.  It should be noted (here and in 2nd Cor. as well as other places -- that the collection was "for the saints"  -- i.e., for Christians.  Now these Christians could share with their families and friends once the distribution through the church took place, since it would become their individual property.  However, as far as the church effort was concerned, this was not a general benevolent effort -- it was targeted and restricted to just Christians.  That may sound rather greedy, but think about it -- it is not the work of the church to feed the world.  Many other agencies are very skilled at doing that, and we as individuals should support these efforts.  But the work of the church is to save souls, not to perform social services.  Exceptions we see here and elsewhere (recall Acts 6) when there are physical needs of Christians that need to be met.  It is like your family -- you have an obligation to support them before the rest of the world.  It is not that we do not want to help the whole world in this regard, but it is a practical matter that the New Testament has given us wisdom and guidance on.]

[This collection was to be taken up every first day of the week and Christians are to give at that time "as they prosper."  No income, no problem, no contribution is required.  The amount to be given is not a tithe -- that is an Old Testament command that no longer applies.  However, the 10% figure is an excellent guide as to what God wants even though not mandated in this dispensation.  Note that Paul did not want collections to be made when he came.  This was not a situation where Paul would come in and say: "look at the terrible needs that are there, now dig deep and help out our Jewish brethren."  This is typical in many churches today, but Paul was adverse to this type of thing -- he wanted them to give regularly for these and other needs of needy Christians and the church, not because of some special need but because it was something that they should be doing out of a regular habit.]

3 And when I arrive, whomsoever ye shall approve, them will I send with letters to carry your bounty unto Jerusalem:
4 and if it be meet for me to go also, they shall go with me.
[This is another practical and wise procedure.  It provides a general rule for us as opposed to a specific set of details.  Details and needs change, but the need for expediency does not.  This verse presents a principle in terms of an example -- that there be no question about the use of funds contributed to the Lord.  For example, it is wise for a church to have three or four people involved in the process of counting the contribution.  If only the treasurer is involved that could (can we say that we know it will) create issues.  This is not a matter of lack of trust; in fact, the treasures should insist upon it just so as to prevent there from being any questions. This is an abstraction of this example to a broader principle, a process that is often essential to proper biblical interpretation.]
 
5 But I will come unto you, when I shall have passed through Macedonia; for I pass through Macedonia;
6 but with you it may be that I shall abide, or even winter, that ye may set me forward on my journey whithersoever I go.
7 For I do not wish to see you now by the way; for I hope to tarry a while with you, if the Lord permit.
[This is a notification to the Corinthian Christians of a significant change in Paul’s plans.  The importance of it cannot be understood until Second Corinthians (2 Cor) is studied, and we will not go into great detail on things that are covered in that commentary.  However some comment on this is relevant now in preparation for what is said there, since this passage is critical to understanding the big picture.  We have not found other commentaries or sources that put this together in a logical way, so we will give it a start here and then invite you to the 2 Cor commentary to get more details.
 
First it must be recognized that Paul was writing this letter from Ephesus, and Paul had already communicated to those at Corinth his intent to come directly to them.  See a map – it is a relatively short voyage across the Aegean sea.  The report of this early plan to Corinth is not specified in scripture, but it can be inferred from 2 Cor.  Paul had planned to go to Macedonia after stopping and visiting at Corinth, and then to return through Corinth back to Judea.  But his plans were interrupted by two things:

• The negative reports that he had gotten from faithful Christians at Corinth, many of which we have covered in this commentary, and which he hoped this letter would address and correct; and
• His concern for Titus, the details of which are not documented in scripture, but the effects clearly are.

Imagine Paul getting these negative reports and, compounding the anxiety in his soul was the fact that he had to write about them.  He weighed the alternatives and decided that it would be for the best if he gave his letter (and those faithful who were working at Corinth) a chance for things to improve before he went there.  And so, this is the reason for his telling them about his changes of plans here.  Not that it was done in a matter-of-fact type of way, showing that Paul had no (or little) concern that they would react negatively to it.
 
To get to Macedonia from Ephesus in the shortest route, it is necessary to go through Troas.  Luke did not cover this in much detail, as shown by these events being buried in the following:
 
Acts 20:1-2
1 And after the uproar ceased, Paul having sent for the disciples and exhorted them, took leave of them, and departed to go into Macedonia.
2 And when he had gone through those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece.
 
The “uproar” was in Ephesus near the time of Paul writing this letter, and “Greece” is Corinth.  What is not covered here is that Paul expected to meet Titus in Troas.  When he did not find him there, he became very upset with Titus’ welfare.  Things were going well for the work at Troas, and Paul could have accomplished much there, but his concern for Titus overwhelmed this and he quickly departed for Macedonia.  Why Titus would be in Macedonia, and why he was expected to be at Troas is all a mystery.  These things were neither communicated by Paul or Luke, but we know that they were realities from our study of Second Corinthians. 
 
We see from 2 Cor and Acts 20:1-2 that Paul eventually got to Corinth as he planned, given here.  But not before writing a second letter to them (2 Cor) that is very much concerned, among many other things, with explaining his change in plans.  We will add that such should not have been necessary – anyone is entitled to change their plans for good reason, and Paul had several good reasons.  And, it would not have been necessary had the enemies of Paul not taken advantage of it to criticize him harshly, accusing him of being fickle and dishonest, among other things that are covered in 2 Cor.  But then, consider that the backdrop that necessitated the second letter leads us to suspect that Divine Providence may have been involved, since this second letter is a collection of valuable jewels to astute readers, who can not only see the facts presented but feel the very heart and soul of Paul as he suffers to keep his beloved brethren from falling from the faith.]

8 But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost;
9 for a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries.
[In Acts 19 things were going great at Ephesus and Paul had planned to move on and then all of a sudden tremendous persecution erupted ... this seems to be what Paul is alluding to.]

10 Now if Timothy come, see that he be with you without fear; for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do:
11 let no man therefore despise him. But set him forward on his journey in peace, that he may come unto me: for I expect him with the brethren.
[Paul had sent Timothy to them (1 Cor. 4:17-18), but in that day and age there was no assurance of just when things would happen involving such travel.  Here he exhorts them to welcome him, again providing us the example of letters (or other communications) among churches regarding fellow Christians and how they should be received and treated.]

12 But as touching Apollos the brother, I besought him much to come unto you with the brethren: and it was not all (his) will to come now; but he will come when he shall have opportunity.
13 Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.
14 Let all that ye do be done in love.
[He is advising them to expect persecution and to "man up" as we would say now (we even hear this from women at times when courage is called for).  This might be considered sexist now, but verse 14 assures that this is not the case -- and this would extend to racism or economic distinctions (slave and free).  All are loved by God, and if we love all of our fellow mankind we will not be a respecter of persons.]

15 Now I beseech you, brethren (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have set themselves to minister unto the saints),
16 that ye also be in subjection unto such, and to every one that helpeth in the work and laboreth.
17 And I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they supplied.
18 For they refreshed my spirit and yours: acknowledge ye therefore them that are such.
19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Prisca salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
[Quite a bit in this last verse.  Churches of Asia -- apparently there were many, at least one in every major city.  Jesus through John wrote to some of them in Revelation 2 and 3.  We learn that Priscilla and Aquila from Acts 18 were fellow Jewish tent makes with Paul and subsequently converted to Christ.  Now apparently they had a church in their house -- or their house was being used as a meeting place for a relatively small church.  It only takes two or three meeting together to be a church (Matthew 18 -- "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am in in their midst").

20 All the brethren salute you. Salute one another with a holy kiss.
[This was an indication of their being in fellowship.  The Europeans generally do not engage in the kissing show of unity and have replaced it with a hand shake.  If we were in the middle east and this were called for, then the details of this command would need to be followed -- in fact, it would be a snub if we did not do what is says.  Local customs then often determine the details of how we obey commands.  Here again, we abstract this command to its intent -- to show our love and fellowship.  But then we apply it to our own customs in a way that will bring this about most effectively.  Two men kissing in the USA might be extremely counterproductive in this regard.]

21 The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand.
[Other passages, specifically in Galatians, indicate that Paul may well have still had a residual eye problem -- so he allowed others to actually do the writing, but he would sign it or write a very small part of it.

22 If any man loveth not the Lord, let him be anathema. Maranatha.
23 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
24 My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.
[So, are we to judge?  Absolutely.  Jesus said "by their fruits ye shall know them" (Mt. 7:16).  A tree is identified by its fruits, and so are those who love the Lord, and those who do not.  We are not to persecute those who obviously do not love the Lord.  The word "let" indicates that they are to be left on their own.  We should try to convert them, but if they are not willing, then let them be ... they are no longer our responsibility.]