Commentary on 1st Corinthians 6-10
by Dave Brown
Go to 1 Cor. 1-5
[While some of the things covered in this chapter might not seem to be as bad, at least in man's eyes, they are still sin, and you can feel the momentum of Chapter 5 moving right into Chapter 6.]
1 Corinthians 6
6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?
[Saints here are just ordinary Christians, not necessarily elders or deacons, although they would certainly be included in resolving issues like this. It seems clear that there were some disagreements of members of the church at Corinth that had people going to the courts of law against each other. I can think of very little that would divide the church more than this.]
2 Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
[Worldly things = smallest matters as compared to the welfare of the souls of all of the Christians there, to say nothing of their evangelistic efforts. How do saints judge the world? By their actions. This is why when we take a stand for what is right we will be persecuted ... because right there and then we are judging the world (the people who are not conforming to God's law). We do not have to say anything -- it is in what we do and what we are that this judgment is accomplished.]
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more, things that pertain to this life?
["Judge angels" has baffled commentators who are not united on this subject. We are told that certain angles were cast down with Satan and they are his demons now. I think this would be again who he is talking about -- our righteousness is contrasted with their rebellion. And again, this is not Christians sitting on the "bench" and pronouncing judgment; it is just the contrast between rebellious angels and faithful Christians. Consider Jude 6: “And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” This would seem to be what Paul was alluding to, since he did not say that this was something currently taking place. And yet, our judgment of the angels cannot be much different from out “judging the world” of verse 2. That is, our behavior is to be such that it will justify God’s punishment of them, as He can point to the faithful to prove that His will can be done. So, if we can do this by our current lives, we should be able to resolve whose ox gored who, and how much they must repay to make it right?]
4 If then ye have to judge things pertaining to this life, do ye set them to judge who are of no account in the church?
[These would be the non-Christian judges appointed by the political authorities. They might be good and wise men, but they have not given themselves to Christ, so by definition, their judgment must be somewhat flawed. Also, they would rarely have the insight into the events or be able to discern the truth as effectively as those who knew the adversaries personally.]
5 I say (this) to move you to shame. What, cannot there be (found) among you one wise man who shall be able to decide between his brethren,
6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?
[Can you feel Paul's disgust? The implication here is that it would be perfectly acceptable for the two adversaries to agree on a judge (i.e., an arbitrator) and allow this honorable Christian to resolve the issue. Certainly multiple judges would also be acceptable. The parties should agree beforehand to abide by the ruling, and then afterward gladly accept the verdict and put it behind them. Of course, according to the procedure in Matthew 18, the best resolution would be for the two to resolve it between themselves and not involve anyone else at all. But short of that, it needs to be resolved by respected persons within the church.]
7 Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you, that ye have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather take wrong? why not rather be defrauded?
[Rather than subject the church to such abuse and ridicule from the world, why not take wrong? Paul was a living example of this throughout the book of Acts. What a great thing a person would do when they know they are right, but they decide that, since the facts are so convoluted, to just allow the wrong judgment of others to prevail in order to keep things from getting out of hand. I don't mean they should lie about it, but often our feelings are not at all reliable. Sometimes we have to go against them because we have great respect for the mature men of the church. What a tremendous principle that is being put forth here -- and one that Paul lived by. This is not to say that Paul did not claim his rights and appeal to Caesar -- but that was in a completely different context ... it had nothing to do with any disagreement between him and another Christian. It is important that we do not mix these up or hastily generalize. He is not saying that a Christian should never seek a legal remedy from the courts of this world -- only that this should not be done against a fellow Christian.]
8 Nay, but ye yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that (your) brethren.
[What follows are a list of sins of those who will not inherit "the kingdom of God" -- that is, heaven. It is not just a list per se, the list is a synecdoche (partial list of examples) to tell them that these are the types of people that you are going to allow yourselves to stand before and pronounce which Christian is right and which Christian is wrong. But as usual, once Paul gets off on this tangent he makes some other points as well ...]
9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
[Those who say that any of these sins are not condemned by God are refusing to accept the whole counsel of God. This is not an exhaustive list -- any un-repented of sin can condemn us. Paul is emphasizing the worst in that he wants them to see how foolish it is for them to go before such people for judgments against each other.]
11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.
[He is referring to their baptism and having their sins washed away (as Ananias expressed it to Paul -- Acts 22:16; see also Rev. 22:14). The idea is certainly that Christians are not to go back to these things. And we are not to look to people who have not been washed and justified for judgments. Can we not find a few good men who can make such a judgment? If not, then just take wrong. This passage should also give hope to all of us who have many past sins. If we repented of them prior to our baptism, then we are washed and sanctified. If we have fallen back into them after that, then we need to repent and beg God for forgiveness as soon as possible. In either case, we should not continue in this life with sins accountable to our souls.]
[We are now entering into another major phase of this letter -- there should be a chapter division here. The things that Paul is going to talk about right on through chapter 11 are things that are not necessarily in and of themselves right or wrong. Reference Romans 14 and the issue of things sacrificed to idols. He is elaborating upon much the same subject now, but will make many other applications.]
12 All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the power of any.
[There is another NOT ... BUT construct. Obviously Paul was not saying that he was free to do anything that he could without sin. The former is hyperbole to make the point -- yes, it might be lawful (so let's not argue about that), but is it right? Is it expedient? Does it really meet the test of what you ought to be doing as a Christian? This principle applies to just about everything for which there are no specific laws given. If a law is given, then, of course, it would not be lawful. The context below will show that the particular activities in question were those for which God had not given neither a prohibition or a positive command. While it is impossible to tell for sure, it seems as those Paul’s adversaries were making a point out of what was lawful and what was not, trying to take the argument there. Paul would have none of that, as if to say: “Since that is not the question here, I will stipulate, all things are lawful.”]
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall bring to naught both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body:
14 and God both raised the Lord, and will raise up us through his power.
[Under the New Testament God has not given us any laws with regard to what we can and cannot eat (Mark 7:19). This was the particular issue that initiated this discussion at the time. However, this is just one example of the application of a much broader principle that has nothing to do with dietary habits. The above verses should be given considerable meditation. Yes, God created our stomachs for food and there is nothing wrong with eating anything most things that are edible. Of course, there are some exceptions, e.g. blood; but for the most part no food is condemned per se under the New Testament (as it was for the Jews under Moses). But the idea here is that this is just a temporal thing -- it is not what we live for -- it should be to enable us to live. Fornication was a big problem with the Gentiles in the church as it had been part of their religion before being converted, and some of them may well have been looking back toward that time. Our bodies are not given to us just to give us pleasure. They are to be sacrificed as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1) to the Lord. This is only right, since our Lord has given Himself for us and our bodies.]
15 Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? shall I then take away the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? Absolutely not!!!
[Collectively the church (ekklesia -- called out people) is the body of Christ. This is stated explicitly in a number of places throughout the NT. Of course, this is not literal. Its figurative sense is profound -- we are Christ on this earth today. He has no other physical substance. If we do not do right, then right will not be done. The whole idea of Christians engaging with prostitutes is just unthinkable. But it does happen at times. And it will happen since we have not lost our free will.]
16 Or know ye not that he that is joined to a harlot is one body? for, The twain, saith he, shall become one flesh.
[Recall from Genesis -- when he brought Adam and Eve together. How terrible is this statement violated when we as Christians (or anyone for that matter) would have sexual relations with prostitutes. Again, this must have been a problem with some of them in the church at Corinth. And, if it can happen then, it can happen now. Not that it happens often among those who are faithful. Generally Christians keep themselves pure, but any of us can fall in a weak moment. We would be arrogant not to realize this.]
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
[The contrast is clearly between the physical and the spiritual. Which one are we going to allow to dominate us?
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that commits fornication sins against his own body.
[This has many ramifications. For example, STDs today make this a physical reality for many people who are guilty of fornication. But what this seems to be saying is more of how it can transform the body and become addictive. Once a person falls into it, why would then only want to do it once? Since it is found to be so enjoyable, why not again and again until it becomes addictive? On the other hand, if a person plans to do it just once and plans to be sorry for it and repent of it, then why even do it the first time? It is even questionable whether a planned-for repentance is valid. It would only be if there was equal repentance for the planning for it. Repentance is referred to as a crucifixion of the old man in Romans 6:6, indicating that the repentance is far more painful than the sin is pleasurable.]
19 Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own;
20 for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body.
[This teaches that Christians all have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In our age it is not miraculous, and generally it was not miraculous even in the first century. Nowhere in the bible is it taught that we determine we have the Holy Spirit by something that we feel. True, having a clear conscience really feels good, but it is not an adrenaline feeling that many people mistake for the presence of the Holy Spirit. That presence is with us when we observe what He says -- Paul was here inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so when we listen to him we are listening to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is thus getting within us and shaping our lives. It is as simple as that. There is no reason to turn it into something that the bible never describes. Those who assert that the Holy Spirit produces a physical excitement should be asked to give the passages that support such a position -- they are teaching it, so the burden of proof is on them. It is virtually impossible to prove that something is not in the scriptures. So unless we can read it, we should not teach it. The Holy Spirit indwell us in the same way that Jesus indwells us; in fact, they are one and the same. This is clear from Romans 8:6-11.]
1 Corinthians 7
7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
[They wrote several questions to Paul -- he is addressing them here and in subsequent chapters. One thing they asked about was this idea that it is better to stay unmarried (as Paul was). Some might have thought this to be the case, and here Paul is saying, YES, this might be good ... BUT ...]
2 But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.
[These verses need to be considered together. God has given us the blessings that come from marriage -- one man and one woman for life, instituted from the beginning. One of the blessings that we give to each other is the sexual relationship, and that can keep us from being tempted to fornication. Remember that many of the Corinthians practiced fornication as part of their previous religion. Here he is saying that neither the husband nor the wife has the right to deny this to the other. This is probably the only place in the bible where we learn that the sexual relationship has a purpose in addition to reproduction. It is God's will that we enjoy our spouses, and, of course, we should do all in our power to see that they enjoy us as well.]
6 But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment.
[Paul is stating that these benefits of marriage are not to be taken as binding a person to be married per se. For some it is clearly the better state; for others it is not. So this is a qualification of the first five verses. He is saying -- I am not making it a command with regard to being married one way or the other -- each must do what is best and most holy for himself (or herself). This is verified by the next verse ...]
7 Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they have not continence, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
[Each of us must do what is spiritually best for us. "Burn" might be interpreted either as in burn in lust or burn in hell. Either way, marriage is preferable, given that the marriage itself is not in violation of other principles (e.g., see Matthew 19). Similarly, he goes on ...]
10 But unto the married I give charge, (yea) not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband
11(but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.
[First let us deal with the "… not I but the Lord …" clause. Some think that Paul here is just stating his opinion on something, and therefore, it is not binding on us. The correct alternative view is that Paul is merely making a distinction between what the Lord introduced (i.e., explicitly stated) and what Paul is now introducing. Either one of these have equal weight as far as being binding commands. Consider the last verse of this chapter, 1 Cor. 7:40: "... and I think that I also have the Spirit of God." If Paul had the opinion that he was speaking by the Spirit of God, do you wish to think otherwise? You do so at your own risk. Also, consider 1 Cor. 14:37 "If any man thinks 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." There is no distinction between the words that Paul writes and the words that Jesus Christ uttered as far as authority is concerned. Now back to the text ...]
[If you are already married then obviously you do not have the option of making a decision as to whether to get married or not. You have already made that decision and unless your wife dies (or commits adultery, which is the only grounds for divorce -- see Matthew 19), then you have no choice, for better or for worse. This should not have negative implications, but the bible uses the word "bound" quite often referring to the marriage relationship. It is a contract of sorts -- a pledge and a covenant for life. Obviously it is not to be taken lightly; but once made it is binding. So there should not be a departure on either spouses’ part. However, Paul allows that there might be times when such becomes necessary (e.g., an abusive relationship, especially if children are involved – our example, not Paul’s). But the person is still married and should in all cases attempt to redeem the erring spouse. There is no right to remarry if the erring spouse has not committed adultery. So, what Paul here is citing is the basic ideal. Separation on a temporary basis might be required and agreed-upon by both parties, but in all cases the desire of the Christians should be that of reconciliation, and that the separation be as short as possible.]
12 But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her.
13 And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband.
[It seems that one of the questions pitched at Paul was if new converts' husbands/wives refuses to accept the truth, should the Christians leave them? The answer is clearly NO. The marriage bond still holds. God respects the marriage relationship and all family relationships. There are other relationships that we have -- with God, the church, the family, the government, our business, and other social relationships. There are laws that apply to each one -- the principle "render under Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" is more than just something that applies to political rulers (the government). It also applies to the family, our business and our social relationships. God's law comes first. But as long as God's law is not broken, then we are bound BY GOD’S LAW to observe the laws of these other relationships. In this case, the marriage contract.]
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
[In other words, the marriage relationship is sanctified -- the individual is not, but God allows the marriage between a believer and a non-believer, and sanctifies the relationship, figuratively sanctifying the unbelieving spouse. This is done by God in order for the marriage and the family (in this case specifically mentioned are the children) to be holy and clean.]
15 Yet if the unbelieving departs, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such (cases): but God hath called us in peace.
[The word bondage here means slavery, and this word is never applied to the marriage bond, and thus, it does not apply. The departure of a spouse alone is not grounds for divorce. However, it is recognized that one of the partners in the marriage may "depart." This verse does not deal with whether this departure was for a good cause or not -- it does not matter. The unbelieving spouse has departed, and while the deserted spouse does not have the right to remarry, they do have the right to go about their lives independent of the other. The assumption of the word "depart" here is that there is little hope for reconciliation (the direct opposite of that temporary separation discussed in verse 5). They are not enslaved, in the sense of being owned by their partner, but this in no way infers the dissolving of the marriage bond (see Romans 7:1-3.]
16 For how to you know, O wife, whether you shalt save thy husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
[This is one reason why the believer should stay with the unbeliever. To save the unbeliever. Most older Christians have seen this occur many times, and this should always be the goal.]
17 Only, as the Lord hath distributed to each man, as God hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the churches.
[This does not sound like Paul's opinion. What he is saying is that if we are in a relationship that is for life we should not try to change that. If we are not, then we can, but we should do it with prayer and trepidation, not frivolously or arbitrarily.]
18 Was any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Hath any been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God [is].
[Clearly Paul is applying the basic principle here to something outside of marriage, as should we. This tells us something about Biblical principles and authorization. If an example established a general principle that is over-arching in making that example, then we are to understand and re-apply that general principle appropriately. We must not apply it to situations for which it is questionable that it applies, or which violates other biblical principles (see 2 John 9 and 1 Corinthians 4:6).]
[The subject of circumcision gets back to that old nemesis -- the Judiazing Christians who were insisting upon circumcision of Gentiles before they could be baptized (see Acts 10). Just how one would become uncircumcised might be questioned, but this could well be figurative of a Jew deciding to become a Gentile and no longer keeping the customs of the Jews. (Or, it could infer some surgical procedure, but we see no reason to delve into that.) Keeping these customs was specifically ALLOWED -- but they were not mandated, especially on the Gentiles. Their relaxation for Jews was also allowed as inferred by Paul’s reasoning with Peter (Galatians 2:14). For one to go against those customs could cause all kinds of unnecessary issues throughout the Christian's family or the Jewish community. Why cause that? On the other hand, for a Gentile to try to become a Jew in all respects (symbolized by circumcision here -- synecdoche) could cause the same problem for him. So there is an analogy here between the community relationships of the Jews (and Gentiles) and the marriage relationship. This gets into that subject of our family and social relationships -- if they do not violate the law of God, then they do not have to be upset when we become Christians. In fact, as we look ahead we are going to find out that the very upsetting of such could become sinful. But we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg here -- an appetizer to what is to come. Remember Romans 14 -- this is the same basic subject that was considered when we talked about the EXAMPLE of eating meat sacrificed to idols. There we stated that the principle was far broader than that one example. Here it is being applied to our family and social life in general. Much more to come.]
20 Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called.
21 Were you called being a bondservant? Care not for it: nay, even if thou canst become free, use (it) rather.
22 For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord's freedman: likewise he that was called being free, is Christ's bondservant.
23 Ye were bought with a price; become not bondservants of men.
24 Brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.
[Again, the bondservant -- essentially a slave but perhaps for a fixed amount of time -- no matter, it is just an EXAMPLE. It is so important that we do not get hung up on the examples. Obviously the example of slavery does not apply to us (directly) today. But the principle is the same. We should be satisfied and function within the situation that we find ourselves. Christians can rejoice in tribulation. True we should do all that we can to free our fellow man and make things better for all, but that is secondary at best. The most important thing is the saving of the soul, and when that is taken care of, these other things will follow, and we can suffer through them realizing that in doing so we are doing God's will.]
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be trustworthy.
[Having dealt with questions regarding those who were already married, Paul now turns his attention to those who are not yet married. Here again he states that this may not have been something that was covered by Jesus, but he feels that his inspiration should be sufficient.]
26 I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, (namely,) that it is good for a man to be as he is.
[This is a key verse to understanding a good part of this chapter. The commands that Paul has given and will give in this chapter are qualified by the fact that they were being heavily persecuted and were in “distress.” If not in distress some other decisions might be more appropriate. This applies to all of the other relationships, but it is especially applicable to marriage. There might be times when it is just not in the interests of either parties to enter into marriage, and the best thing is just to wait until a more appropriate and expedient time.]
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.
28 But should you marry, you hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she has not sinned. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh: and I would spare you.
[This further reinforces the fact that Paul is not making absolute edicts with regard to marriage, but instead, he is giving advice in light of the current distress. This should not be interpreted that there is no right or wrong in this issue. We are not to judge each other in such matters, but we are to judge for ourselves what is best depending on the circumstances. When we refuse to use good judgment in any matter, it is sin.]
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none;
30 and those that weep, as though they wept not; and those that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and those that buy, as though they possessed not;
31 and those that use the world, as not using it to the full: for the fashion of this world is passing away.
[Some have interpreted this to mean that Paul was teaching that the end of the world and the final judgment was imminent. At times he gave that impression, and at times he had to correct that impression (see 2nd Thessalonians). It is important to state that just because Paul was an inspired apostle did not make him omniscient. Even Jesus confessed that he did not know when the final judgment would be (Matt. 24:35-36: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knows no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son , but the Father only.") Why should we expect the apostle to know? But two factors play into our understanding of what Paul is trying to convey: (1) our lives are like vapors -- James 4:14 -- and we should always view the time as being shortened; and (2) not knowing when Jesus will come again, we should all be prepared as if it were imminent. There is no question the time is "shortened," in the sense that in both cases we have one less day than we did yesterday. But what is the point? Quite simply, that the spiritual considerations of our lives should far overshadow the physical things. We should not be concerned with things of this world -- they will soon be gone in any event.]
32 But I would have you to be free from cares. He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34 and is divided. (So) also the woman that is unmarried and the virgin is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 And this I say for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is seemly, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
[Paul here seems to be explaining why he might have inferred in the past that it was best for them to be as he was with respect to marriage.]
36 But if any man thinks that he behaves himself un-seemingly toward his virgin (daughter), if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requires, let him do what he will; he sins not; let them marry.
37 But he that stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power as touching in his own heart, to keep his own virgin (daughter), shall do well.
38 So then both he that giveth his own virgin (daughter) in marriage doeth well; and he that giveth her not in marriage shall do better.
[While there is probably some basis for the above (ASV) translation as far as the customs in the first century are concerned, we urge you to consider other translations and recognize that the word "daughter" is not in the original. The New International Version translation has the following:
36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.
37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin — this man also does the right thing.
38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
The New King James Version is also quite consistent with the NIV. We find this to be totally consistent with the context and not nearly so strained as to require the questionable insertions.]
39 A wife is bound for so long time as her husband lives; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
[This is also stated in Romans 7:2, although in a very much different context. But clearly, marriage was intended to be for life, and the marriage bond can only be broken by adultery (Matthew 19); otherwise it is for life. Should her husband die, then she may be married. "Only in the Lord" is clearly a qualifier on "to whom she will." Generally "in the Lord" refers to a person who is a Christian, and that would seem to be the most reasonable meaning here. It could mean that the marriage has to be consistent with the will of the Lord. However, would it ever be the will of the Lord for her to marry a non-Christian? The phrase "in the Lord" is used often in 1st Corinthians, and a review of them would be informative to those who are in doubt over what this verse requires. See: 1:31, 4:17, 7:22 (see above), 9:1-2, 11:11, 15:58, and 16:19. While it could be argued that there is no reason that Paul should impose something on a widow that is not imposed on someone marrying for the first time, an equal argument could be made that what applies to the widow equally applies to all, so this reasoning does not resolve. The resolution is made by reviewing the meaning of "in the Lord" in all other passages in 1st Corinthians, or for that matter, the entire New Testament. But, we know of no specific prohibition against a first marriage requirement of being “in the Lord.”
40 But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment: and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.
[This is something that Paul has certainly established for himself. He was happy in dedicating his total service to the Lord and being free from family obligations. Perhaps he compared himself to Peter, who was not so free, and realized that it would have been impossible for him to do all of the things that he experienced if he had a wife and family. He would expect others who also made such a commitment to be as happy as he is, but there is no way that they could find out without actually committing themselves to it. Essentially, it seems that Paul is saying that others who are not married can trust him on this matter; but they would have to accept that point. He believes that all that he has said to this point are consistent with the Spirit of God, even those opinions that are clearly advice and not bound.]
1 Corinthians 8
Introduction to Chapter 8
[Back in chapter 6 we saw where Paul was going to cover a number of things that were not wrong per se (in and of themselves), but became wrong by how men conducted themselves with regard to them. Marriage is one of them -- generally it is not wrong for a person to marry provided he is free from any other relationships that might make it either wrong or not expedient. It also becomes wrong if the marriage relationship is abused in any way. Chapter 8 gets into the Romans 14 subject of meat sacrificed to idols. While there is nothing wrong with eating it per se, it could become wrong under a number of circumstances -- mainly due to an unloving attitude of those involved. These types of things will continue to be covered right on through Chapter 11. This is further confirmation that the New Testament is not just a check-list of dos and don'ts. Some things require considerable thought, as we shall see. But the principles of the New Testament are so much loftier than the Old Testament type of check list. To apply these principles takes dedication and intensive thought and effort -- it cannot be done without involving the heart.]
8:1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.
[This was probably another thing they wrote to him about -- some saying it is OK and others condemning it. Both sides would claim to have knowledge -- "I know that what I am saying is right!" Paul is saying, take it down a notch if you think you know it all. If your knowledge of the loopholes of God's laws is what is driving you, and not your love for your fellow man, then you are in big trouble. Puffed up generally means proud when used in the New Testament -- perhaps like a peacock. This is obviously not a hard criticism of acquiring knowledge, especially spiritual knowledge, since many passages in the New Testament teach the value of our acquiring a rich knowledge of God’s word. But there is a tendency of those who have acquired knowledge to be proud, just as is true of any other accomplishment.]
2 If any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows not yet as he ought to know;
3 but if any man loves God, the same is known by him.
[Paul is trying to get them to stop and think -- this is not an easy subject ... there are no simple "yes you can" or "no you cannot" answers about it. Instead, he appeals to their better instincts -- let love determine the answer -- consider the other person better than yourself (Philippians 2:3-4). If you do what is best for him, then you can know that you are right.]
4 Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is (anything) in the world, and that there is no God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many;
6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.
[So, we can have great confidence in this truth, and just not worry about those idols, right? Well, not quite ...]
7 Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge: but some, being used until now to the idol, eat as (of) a thing sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
["Used to" here means that it had become a habit or custom. The gentile converts served these idols in the past, but now they have cut themselves off from them. Animals sacrificed to idols would have been in the pagan worship (obviously this would never enter into the worship of the Lord’s church). However, this meat might become available in the general marketplace. If they saw faithful Christians eating this meat, it could raise questions in their consciences. The fact that it meant nothing to the Christians who were doing it could be irrelevant to them – their consciences might still be offended. It might cause division, or it might cause them to boldly violate their consciences and participate in a practice that they believed was wrong. They did not want to eat meat sacrificed to idols, and for them that was good ... they should not. On the other hand, the “stronger” Christian might think: "What has this to do with me? I know there is nothing to it, so why can't I eat it?" Well, there are some good reasons ...]
8 But food will not commend us to God: neither, if we eat not, are we the worse; nor, if we eat, are we the better.
[OK, then we can do whatever we want, right? No, there are some other things that we must consider out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ ...]
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to the weak.
10 For if a man see thee who hast knowledge sitting at meat in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to idols?
[That would cause him to violate his conscience and do something that he believed to be wrong. So, one sin that can occur from eating meat sacrificed to idols (which is not wrong per se) would be if it caused someone else to eat it and it violated their conscience, since this would cause them to sin. Anyone who violates his conscience is sinning, even if the thing that he is doing is not wrong per se. And, anyone who would temp or cause someone to so violate their conscience is also in sin, failing to have the proper love for his brother.]
11 For through thy knowledge he that is weak perishes, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
[This is the knowledge that puffs up that was discussed above. So, love would make us have concern for those who are "weak." Actually the word "weak" is being used accomodatively here ... if he is doing what he thinks is right, and he is not violating God's law, that is strength and not weakness. But I think we can easily get the picture. Here the "strong" brother is the one who knows it is not wrong to eat it, while the "weak" brother does not have that same confidence.]
12 And thus, sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat causes my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore that I cause not my brother to stumble.
[This is the attitude we should all have. But what is the relevance to us? -- do we have things from our past customs that we can and cannot eat? If you do, then this might just have direct relevance to you. But very few of us have such customs in this day and age. But there is a much broader principle here that is not limited to meat or food or any particular thing that we do. It is the general principle that ANYTHING that we do lawfully could at some point cause someone else to be needlessly offended. Christians should try to identify these things and avoid doing them around those who might be offended. This principle might go beyond even our brothers and sisters in Christ -- it could apply to offending anyone with anything if we don't have to. (Sometime we have to stand up for the truth whether it offends others or not -- this is not what Paul was addressing in this context.) It might not have anything to do with eating or drinking. It could be in the way we dress or the particular words we use to express ourselves. In all things we need to try our best not to cause other people to have problems, and this all needs to be motivated out of love.]
[Perhaps this is a good time to bring up this point, since it applies to several chapters. There is nothing good and righteous that we know of that cannot become sinful when taken to extreme. As an example, if knowledge, which is something that we are urged to gain throughout the bible, can become sinful, then it is hard to imagine anything that cannot become sinful in our zeal to practice it. We are not ignorant of Satan's devices (2 Cor. 2:11), and he has special sins that only mature Christians can commit. In the example in 2 Cor. 2:11, it was the matter of taking the withdrawing from a sinful brother beyond the point of it being beneficial. Now the challenge: think of anything that is good and right within itself, and then come up with a circumstance, a way it might be misused perhaps, or perhaps a concentration on it that takes away from another commanded obligation. It seems reasonable to say that anything that is good and righteous per se could become sinful if not kept in the perspective of our love for God and our fellow man?]
1 Corinthians 9
9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord?
2 If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
[We can safely infer here that some had accused Paul of not being an apostle. Recall that when he was in Corinth he worked for a while as a tent maker. It appears that they are criticizing him for that. Perhaps some of them were living off the flock and they would look down on anyone who would work with their hands. We can see the virtue in Paul working, but when people are against you, it really does no matter what you do. If he took support from them they would probably complain about that. So he is appealing to those that he converted -- YOU are the evidence that I am the real thing! If I am a false apostle, then what are you who have been led to Christ by the teaching that was given to me by the Lord?]
3 My defense to them that examine me is this.
4 Have we no right to eat and to drink?
[This alludes back to the former chapter ... yes, he had the right, but he did not abuse that right. So, would they then conclude that he did not have the right? That seems to be their reasoning.]
5 Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
[Cephas here is Peter -- a married man. Paul was not married. Did that mean he did not have the right to be married? Paul is drawing a parallel to show the flaws in their reasoning. Just because he did not exercise all of his rights did not mean that he did not have them. Recall that we are in the midst of talking about things that are not right or wrong in and of themselves, but they can become wrong if not exercised properly.]
6 Or I only and Barnabas, have we not a right to forbear working?
[The answer from the above reasoning is yes, but he is going to go on with a more detailed proofs that use a number of analogies.]
7 What soldier ever serves at his own charges? who plants a vineyard, and eats not the fruit thereof? Or who feeds a flock, and eats not of the milk of the flock?
8 Do I speak these things after the manner of men? or says not the law also the same?
9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treads out the corn. Is it for the oxen that God cares,
10 or says he it assuredly for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that plows ought to plow in hope, and he that threshes, (to thresh) in hope of partaking.
[The reference to the Law of Moses is Deuteronomy 25:4. The arguments are all from the lessor to the greater -- it if is true of an animal that serves you, would it not be true of a man who serves you? Similarly with the various occupations.]
11 If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things?
12 If others partake of (this) right over you, do not we yet more? Nevertheless we did not use this right; but we bear all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.
[Two things are established here. First is the principle that preachers and other servants of the church (including deacons and elders) can scripturally be paid, and in the proper circumstances, they should be compensated. Second, it establishes the fact that Paul did not take support from them, and it was a matter of principle with him that he should not -- he felt it would hinder the work. Apparently he feared more the criticism from taking it than the criticism from not taking it. But his motives were to keep those who were faithful there from being swayed by the false teachers who seem to have gotten a fairly large foothold in the church.]
13 Know ye not that they that minister about sacred things eat (of) the things of the temple, (and) they that wait upon the altar have their portion with the altar?
14 Even so did the Lord ordain that they that proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel.
15 But I have used none of these things: and I write not these things that it may be so done in my case; for (it were) good for me rather to die, than that any man should make my glorifying void.
16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of; for necessity is laid upon me; for woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel.
17 For if I do this of mine own will, I have a reward: but if not of mine own will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me.
18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel without charge, so as not to use to the full my right in the gospel.
[Paul did not want to be accused of preaching just for the money. There was one and only one way to assure that. Recognize that he took money for support from other churches, but never from Corinth. He is now going to generalize this principle. The money thing is just an example. We should not think the example is exclusive when it is illustrative of a broader principle. He now generalizes it into the following principle of love.]
19 For though I was free from all (men,) I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more.
20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.
23 And I do all things for the gospel's sake, that I may be a joint partaker thereof.
[These verses need to be considered as a unit -- it is a beautiful principle. Yes, we have rights. But when those rights would come between us and our spiritual service to our fellow man, then out of love we need to gladly give up those rights. This could apply to just about anything, and to narrow it to only the examples that are here would be wrong and we would miss the major point. This applies to things that Paul had not even thought about at the time, and perhaps did not even exist in the first century. The examples are too numerous and I think we do injustice when we try to nail them down -- this needs to be left in the abstract. Notice one thing he says here is that he considers himself "under law to Christ." The entire Gospel is really a type of law -- not like the Old Testament law, it consists largely of principles. Paul called it a law of faith (Romans 3:27) and James called it a law of liberty (James 1:25; 2:12). It is not a checklist type of law like the Law of Moses. It requires a depth of understanding that emerges out of faithful, earnest study of its principles before they can be properly applied to our lives. It is a continuous process UNTO righteousness (Romans 6:16; 10:4; 10:10; 1 Peter 2:24); that is, we never arrive, so we are constantly striving to reflect a more perfect image of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6).]
24 Know ye not that they that run in a race run all, but one receives the prize? Even so run; that ye may attain.
[Life is not sports -- games are all over in a couple hours with a very conclusive and definitive result. Rarely outside of sports is there anything for which a win is definitive and not just the start of other things, perhaps with more responsibilities and greater expectations. Life goes on, and we have to live with our mistakes for the rest of our lives, even if we are forgiven of them. BUT, Paul uses a sports analogy here, so let's try to get what he wanted us to get out of it ...]
25 And every man that strives in the games exercises self-control in all things. Now they (do it) to receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
[We know how people sacrifice for the Olympics -- this was basically what he was talking about. His reasoning is -- if they can do that for their temporal prize, why can't we exercise the same self-control to attain eternal life? Note here that he is not saying how life it like sports, but rather how the Christian life is unlike sports. In the following verses he is emphasing the personal sacrifices that are made by athlete and indicating his own efforts in remaining right before the Lord.]
26 I therefore so run, as not uncertainly; so fight I, as not beating the air:
27 but I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage: lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected.
[As we get on into Chapter 10 we will see that "rejected" here means lost. When we get into Chapter 10 this will become abundantly clear. Some believe the "once saved always saved" tenet of Calvinism. You cannot go for more than three or four chapters in the New Testament without contradicting that doctrine. If Paul could be lost after receiving salvation, then any Christian could be lost. It is just a matter of not remaining faithful unto death (a condition of salvation given in Revelation 2:10).]
1 Corinthians 10
[Chapter divisions were not in the original manuscripts, so Chapter 10 is a continuation of the thought that Paul has introduced at the end of Chapter 9. Note also that verse 1 below starts with the word "for," which indicates the connection with what Paul just wrote. At the end of Chapter 9 Paul said that he buffets his body daily lest after preaching to others he would be lost. This chapter essentially reinforces that thought.]
10:1 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 and did all eat the same spiritual food;
4 and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.
[Paul is stating that God saved them -- they were in a saved condition. Some figures here -- baptism of the New Testament is likened unto the salvation of the Israelites out of Egypt as the sea was on each side and the cloud was above. So, in this figurative sense, the nation was summarily baptized. Then God fed them in the wilderness. He alludes to their drinking water from the rock. "The rock was Christ" could be an allusion to Peter's confession in Matthew 16:18 after Jesus asked who men said that he was. They answered that most saw him as being a great prophet. Then he asked: "who do YOU say that I am?" Peter answered: thou are the Christ the son of the living God. Jesus said that flesh and blood had not revealed that unto him, and then stated: "Upon this rock I will build my church." The rock was the truth that Peter uttered that was revealed to him by God, analogous to the Word (see John 1).]
5 Howbeit with most of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
[The Corinthians knew the rest of the story, as do we. Their being saved at one point in time did not assure that they could not be lost if they later rebelled against God. God is not a respecter of persons; he is not going to judge them harsher that He is going to judge us. If they could fall, so can we. If this were not true, the following would make no sense.]
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9 Neither let us make trial of the Lord, as some of them made trial, and perished by the serpents.
10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them murmured, and perished by the destroyer.
[This, of course, is not a complete set of examples, but is quite exemplary of what the Corinthian Christians were being tempted to engage in. Essentially Paul is saying that if they go back to their former worldly lives their salvation would be in great jeopardy.]
11 Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come.
[In a sense the Old Testament is part of the New Testament by reference. There are other such references (e.g., Romans 15:4). While we are not under the large number of requirements of the Law of Moses, we must recognize that it is truth, and wherever truth is communicated, there is benefit. God's moral law has not changed.]
12 Wherefore let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.
[It is when we take pride in ourselves that we are most vulnerable. Only a truly righteous person can commit the sin of being proud of his legitimate righteousness, which is rather ironic. Of course, a far worse case is when people are proud of their unrighteousness, which many are these days.]
13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as man can bear: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation make also the way of escape, that ye may be able to endure it.
[This is a profound statement and one we should take to heart. There will be many setbacks and many temptations, but God will help us through them. The way of escape might be prayer, other Christians, or study of God's word ... in any event, it will be provided by God.]
14 Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.
[There is a tendency for us all to get caught up in superstition, which I define as the attitude that "there might be something to it." There is nothing to it. If we give in to it, we are showing a lack of faith in God. Run, don't walk. When we see something of a spiritual nature that does not come from God, we can be sure that it comes from Satan.]
15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?
[He is referring to the Lord's Supper that was, and still is, observed by Christians. It is a fellowship in the body and the blood of Christ -- the bread representing the body and the fruit of the vine representing the blood. The command given was "Do this in remembrance of me." So when we see/eat the bread we see in our minds the body of Christ sacrificed on the cross; and when we see/drink the fruit of the vine we see the blood shed for us. So here are the rhetorical questions, the answer to both are obviously yes. The word “communion” means sharing, and it has the same Greek source as the word “fellowship.” So we are spiritually sharing the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s supper.]
17 seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.
[We are all individuals and have many differences; but in this we are united and as we have fellowship with Christ we have fellowship with each other. The word translated communion in verse 16 is the same Greek word as that translated fellowship in other places. It simply means sharing, and should not be given any special mystical or ritualistic meaning.]
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: have not they that eat the sacrifices communion with the altar?
[Sharing with the alter -- a strange term ... some of it went to the alter and some of it went to them. The priests had the right to eat certain things that were sacrificed.]
19 What say I then? that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
[OK, so we have cycled back to the main example in all of these principles, i.e., the freedom to eat things sacrificed to idols. While there are many things that Paul expounded on that might not directly relate to this question, we should see his strategy in routing us through those things. So now, since the idol is nothing, why should this be a problem?]
20 But (I say), that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have communion with demons.
[If we think that we are having communion (sharing) with the demons, that would make it wrong, even though it was not wrong in and of itself. But there is something even more profound here. Demons are living beings; idols are not. What are all of the ramifications of our (or their) sacrificing to living spiritual beings, the powers of which we should explore. See this article on demons. What does it mean to be sharing with demons? We may not be able to describe it, but one thing we know: it is not good!]
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons.
22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
[So, if you are attributing some superstitious power to it, and that is why you are eating it, beware! But if not, and if it means nothing to you, then eating it would seem to be acceptable.]
23 All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify.
[Recall, and perhaps review the same statement in 6:12? So all that went in between was related to things that are not wrong in themselves but become wrong by how we view them or how we handle them. If it does not edify -- build up, make us more spiritual in our service to God -- then it is wrong and we should run from it. If it does not demonstrate our love and concern for our fellow Christians and for those of the world, than we should flee from it as well. The idea of love follows.]
24 Let no man seek his own, but (each) his neighbor's (good).
25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake,
26 for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.
[The shambles here is the meat market, and again he is reiterating that in and of itself, nothing wrong. However, if it harms our own conscience or if it harms our neighbors’ consciences, then we should abstain from it. It becomes wrong in these circumstances.]
27 If one of them that believe not bids you (to a feast), and ye are disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake.
28 But if any man say unto you, This hath been offered in sacrifice, eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake:
29 conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other's; for why is my liberty judged by another conscience?
[The reason is because I love my neighbor and will do nothing to cause him any harm or to offend his conscience. Yes, we must be aware of the impact of our actions on other people's feelings, even if those feelings are not the most mature or logical. That makes no difference when we are motivated by love for him.]
30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?
31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
32 Give no occasions of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God:
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.
[Why would we put a stumbling block in someone's way over such mundane things? Sure, you might have the right to do X, but why use that right when it is going to cause someone else to potentially be lost. That would be nothing but gross selfishness on our part.]
Go to 1 Cor 11-16
[While some of the things covered in this chapter might not seem to be as bad, at least in man's eyes, they are still sin, and you can feel the momentum of Chapter 5 moving right into Chapter 6.]
1 Corinthians 6
6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?
[Saints here are just ordinary Christians, not necessarily elders or deacons, although they would certainly be included in resolving issues like this. It seems clear that there were some disagreements of members of the church at Corinth that had people going to the courts of law against each other. I can think of very little that would divide the church more than this.]
2 Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world is judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
[Worldly things = smallest matters as compared to the welfare of the souls of all of the Christians there, to say nothing of their evangelistic efforts. How do saints judge the world? By their actions. This is why when we take a stand for what is right we will be persecuted ... because right there and then we are judging the world (the people who are not conforming to God's law). We do not have to say anything -- it is in what we do and what we are that this judgment is accomplished.]
3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more, things that pertain to this life?
["Judge angels" has baffled commentators who are not united on this subject. We are told that certain angles were cast down with Satan and they are his demons now. I think this would be again who he is talking about -- our righteousness is contrasted with their rebellion. And again, this is not Christians sitting on the "bench" and pronouncing judgment; it is just the contrast between rebellious angels and faithful Christians. Consider Jude 6: “And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” This would seem to be what Paul was alluding to, since he did not say that this was something currently taking place. And yet, our judgment of the angels cannot be much different from out “judging the world” of verse 2. That is, our behavior is to be such that it will justify God’s punishment of them, as He can point to the faithful to prove that His will can be done. So, if we can do this by our current lives, we should be able to resolve whose ox gored who, and how much they must repay to make it right?]
4 If then ye have to judge things pertaining to this life, do ye set them to judge who are of no account in the church?
[These would be the non-Christian judges appointed by the political authorities. They might be good and wise men, but they have not given themselves to Christ, so by definition, their judgment must be somewhat flawed. Also, they would rarely have the insight into the events or be able to discern the truth as effectively as those who knew the adversaries personally.]
5 I say (this) to move you to shame. What, cannot there be (found) among you one wise man who shall be able to decide between his brethren,
6 but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?
[Can you feel Paul's disgust? The implication here is that it would be perfectly acceptable for the two adversaries to agree on a judge (i.e., an arbitrator) and allow this honorable Christian to resolve the issue. Certainly multiple judges would also be acceptable. The parties should agree beforehand to abide by the ruling, and then afterward gladly accept the verdict and put it behind them. Of course, according to the procedure in Matthew 18, the best resolution would be for the two to resolve it between themselves and not involve anyone else at all. But short of that, it needs to be resolved by respected persons within the church.]
7 Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you, that ye have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather take wrong? why not rather be defrauded?
[Rather than subject the church to such abuse and ridicule from the world, why not take wrong? Paul was a living example of this throughout the book of Acts. What a great thing a person would do when they know they are right, but they decide that, since the facts are so convoluted, to just allow the wrong judgment of others to prevail in order to keep things from getting out of hand. I don't mean they should lie about it, but often our feelings are not at all reliable. Sometimes we have to go against them because we have great respect for the mature men of the church. What a tremendous principle that is being put forth here -- and one that Paul lived by. This is not to say that Paul did not claim his rights and appeal to Caesar -- but that was in a completely different context ... it had nothing to do with any disagreement between him and another Christian. It is important that we do not mix these up or hastily generalize. He is not saying that a Christian should never seek a legal remedy from the courts of this world -- only that this should not be done against a fellow Christian.]
8 Nay, but ye yourselves do wrong, and defraud, and that (your) brethren.
[What follows are a list of sins of those who will not inherit "the kingdom of God" -- that is, heaven. It is not just a list per se, the list is a synecdoche (partial list of examples) to tell them that these are the types of people that you are going to allow yourselves to stand before and pronounce which Christian is right and which Christian is wrong. But as usual, once Paul gets off on this tangent he makes some other points as well ...]
9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
[Those who say that any of these sins are not condemned by God are refusing to accept the whole counsel of God. This is not an exhaustive list -- any un-repented of sin can condemn us. Paul is emphasizing the worst in that he wants them to see how foolish it is for them to go before such people for judgments against each other.]
11 And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.
[He is referring to their baptism and having their sins washed away (as Ananias expressed it to Paul -- Acts 22:16; see also Rev. 22:14). The idea is certainly that Christians are not to go back to these things. And we are not to look to people who have not been washed and justified for judgments. Can we not find a few good men who can make such a judgment? If not, then just take wrong. This passage should also give hope to all of us who have many past sins. If we repented of them prior to our baptism, then we are washed and sanctified. If we have fallen back into them after that, then we need to repent and beg God for forgiveness as soon as possible. In either case, we should not continue in this life with sins accountable to our souls.]
[We are now entering into another major phase of this letter -- there should be a chapter division here. The things that Paul is going to talk about right on through chapter 11 are things that are not necessarily in and of themselves right or wrong. Reference Romans 14 and the issue of things sacrificed to idols. He is elaborating upon much the same subject now, but will make many other applications.]
12 All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the power of any.
[There is another NOT ... BUT construct. Obviously Paul was not saying that he was free to do anything that he could without sin. The former is hyperbole to make the point -- yes, it might be lawful (so let's not argue about that), but is it right? Is it expedient? Does it really meet the test of what you ought to be doing as a Christian? This principle applies to just about everything for which there are no specific laws given. If a law is given, then, of course, it would not be lawful. The context below will show that the particular activities in question were those for which God had not given neither a prohibition or a positive command. While it is impossible to tell for sure, it seems as those Paul’s adversaries were making a point out of what was lawful and what was not, trying to take the argument there. Paul would have none of that, as if to say: “Since that is not the question here, I will stipulate, all things are lawful.”]
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall bring to naught both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body:
14 and God both raised the Lord, and will raise up us through his power.
[Under the New Testament God has not given us any laws with regard to what we can and cannot eat (Mark 7:19). This was the particular issue that initiated this discussion at the time. However, this is just one example of the application of a much broader principle that has nothing to do with dietary habits. The above verses should be given considerable meditation. Yes, God created our stomachs for food and there is nothing wrong with eating anything most things that are edible. Of course, there are some exceptions, e.g. blood; but for the most part no food is condemned per se under the New Testament (as it was for the Jews under Moses). But the idea here is that this is just a temporal thing -- it is not what we live for -- it should be to enable us to live. Fornication was a big problem with the Gentiles in the church as it had been part of their religion before being converted, and some of them may well have been looking back toward that time. Our bodies are not given to us just to give us pleasure. They are to be sacrificed as a living sacrifice (Rom. 12:1) to the Lord. This is only right, since our Lord has given Himself for us and our bodies.]
15 Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? shall I then take away the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? Absolutely not!!!
[Collectively the church (ekklesia -- called out people) is the body of Christ. This is stated explicitly in a number of places throughout the NT. Of course, this is not literal. Its figurative sense is profound -- we are Christ on this earth today. He has no other physical substance. If we do not do right, then right will not be done. The whole idea of Christians engaging with prostitutes is just unthinkable. But it does happen at times. And it will happen since we have not lost our free will.]
16 Or know ye not that he that is joined to a harlot is one body? for, The twain, saith he, shall become one flesh.
[Recall from Genesis -- when he brought Adam and Eve together. How terrible is this statement violated when we as Christians (or anyone for that matter) would have sexual relations with prostitutes. Again, this must have been a problem with some of them in the church at Corinth. And, if it can happen then, it can happen now. Not that it happens often among those who are faithful. Generally Christians keep themselves pure, but any of us can fall in a weak moment. We would be arrogant not to realize this.]
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
[The contrast is clearly between the physical and the spiritual. Which one are we going to allow to dominate us?
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that commits fornication sins against his own body.
[This has many ramifications. For example, STDs today make this a physical reality for many people who are guilty of fornication. But what this seems to be saying is more of how it can transform the body and become addictive. Once a person falls into it, why would then only want to do it once? Since it is found to be so enjoyable, why not again and again until it becomes addictive? On the other hand, if a person plans to do it just once and plans to be sorry for it and repent of it, then why even do it the first time? It is even questionable whether a planned-for repentance is valid. It would only be if there was equal repentance for the planning for it. Repentance is referred to as a crucifixion of the old man in Romans 6:6, indicating that the repentance is far more painful than the sin is pleasurable.]
19 Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own;
20 for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body.
[This teaches that Christians all have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In our age it is not miraculous, and generally it was not miraculous even in the first century. Nowhere in the bible is it taught that we determine we have the Holy Spirit by something that we feel. True, having a clear conscience really feels good, but it is not an adrenaline feeling that many people mistake for the presence of the Holy Spirit. That presence is with us when we observe what He says -- Paul was here inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so when we listen to him we are listening to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is thus getting within us and shaping our lives. It is as simple as that. There is no reason to turn it into something that the bible never describes. Those who assert that the Holy Spirit produces a physical excitement should be asked to give the passages that support such a position -- they are teaching it, so the burden of proof is on them. It is virtually impossible to prove that something is not in the scriptures. So unless we can read it, we should not teach it. The Holy Spirit indwell us in the same way that Jesus indwells us; in fact, they are one and the same. This is clear from Romans 8:6-11.]
1 Corinthians 7
7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
[They wrote several questions to Paul -- he is addressing them here and in subsequent chapters. One thing they asked about was this idea that it is better to stay unmarried (as Paul was). Some might have thought this to be the case, and here Paul is saying, YES, this might be good ... BUT ...]
2 But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your incontinency.
[These verses need to be considered together. God has given us the blessings that come from marriage -- one man and one woman for life, instituted from the beginning. One of the blessings that we give to each other is the sexual relationship, and that can keep us from being tempted to fornication. Remember that many of the Corinthians practiced fornication as part of their previous religion. Here he is saying that neither the husband nor the wife has the right to deny this to the other. This is probably the only place in the bible where we learn that the sexual relationship has a purpose in addition to reproduction. It is God's will that we enjoy our spouses, and, of course, we should do all in our power to see that they enjoy us as well.]
6 But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment.
[Paul is stating that these benefits of marriage are not to be taken as binding a person to be married per se. For some it is clearly the better state; for others it is not. So this is a qualification of the first five verses. He is saying -- I am not making it a command with regard to being married one way or the other -- each must do what is best and most holy for himself (or herself). This is verified by the next verse ...]
7 Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they have not continence, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
[Each of us must do what is spiritually best for us. "Burn" might be interpreted either as in burn in lust or burn in hell. Either way, marriage is preferable, given that the marriage itself is not in violation of other principles (e.g., see Matthew 19). Similarly, he goes on ...]
10 But unto the married I give charge, (yea) not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from her husband
11(but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife.
[First let us deal with the "… not I but the Lord …" clause. Some think that Paul here is just stating his opinion on something, and therefore, it is not binding on us. The correct alternative view is that Paul is merely making a distinction between what the Lord introduced (i.e., explicitly stated) and what Paul is now introducing. Either one of these have equal weight as far as being binding commands. Consider the last verse of this chapter, 1 Cor. 7:40: "... and I think that I also have the Spirit of God." If Paul had the opinion that he was speaking by the Spirit of God, do you wish to think otherwise? You do so at your own risk. Also, consider 1 Cor. 14:37 "If any man thinks 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." There is no distinction between the words that Paul writes and the words that Jesus Christ uttered as far as authority is concerned. Now back to the text ...]
[If you are already married then obviously you do not have the option of making a decision as to whether to get married or not. You have already made that decision and unless your wife dies (or commits adultery, which is the only grounds for divorce -- see Matthew 19), then you have no choice, for better or for worse. This should not have negative implications, but the bible uses the word "bound" quite often referring to the marriage relationship. It is a contract of sorts -- a pledge and a covenant for life. Obviously it is not to be taken lightly; but once made it is binding. So there should not be a departure on either spouses’ part. However, Paul allows that there might be times when such becomes necessary (e.g., an abusive relationship, especially if children are involved – our example, not Paul’s). But the person is still married and should in all cases attempt to redeem the erring spouse. There is no right to remarry if the erring spouse has not committed adultery. So, what Paul here is citing is the basic ideal. Separation on a temporary basis might be required and agreed-upon by both parties, but in all cases the desire of the Christians should be that of reconciliation, and that the separation be as short as possible.]
12 But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her.
13 And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband.
[It seems that one of the questions pitched at Paul was if new converts' husbands/wives refuses to accept the truth, should the Christians leave them? The answer is clearly NO. The marriage bond still holds. God respects the marriage relationship and all family relationships. There are other relationships that we have -- with God, the church, the family, the government, our business, and other social relationships. There are laws that apply to each one -- the principle "render under Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" is more than just something that applies to political rulers (the government). It also applies to the family, our business and our social relationships. God's law comes first. But as long as God's law is not broken, then we are bound BY GOD’S LAW to observe the laws of these other relationships. In this case, the marriage contract.]
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
[In other words, the marriage relationship is sanctified -- the individual is not, but God allows the marriage between a believer and a non-believer, and sanctifies the relationship, figuratively sanctifying the unbelieving spouse. This is done by God in order for the marriage and the family (in this case specifically mentioned are the children) to be holy and clean.]
15 Yet if the unbelieving departs, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such (cases): but God hath called us in peace.
[The word bondage here means slavery, and this word is never applied to the marriage bond, and thus, it does not apply. The departure of a spouse alone is not grounds for divorce. However, it is recognized that one of the partners in the marriage may "depart." This verse does not deal with whether this departure was for a good cause or not -- it does not matter. The unbelieving spouse has departed, and while the deserted spouse does not have the right to remarry, they do have the right to go about their lives independent of the other. The assumption of the word "depart" here is that there is little hope for reconciliation (the direct opposite of that temporary separation discussed in verse 5). They are not enslaved, in the sense of being owned by their partner, but this in no way infers the dissolving of the marriage bond (see Romans 7:1-3.]
16 For how to you know, O wife, whether you shalt save thy husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
[This is one reason why the believer should stay with the unbeliever. To save the unbeliever. Most older Christians have seen this occur many times, and this should always be the goal.]
17 Only, as the Lord hath distributed to each man, as God hath called each, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all the churches.
[This does not sound like Paul's opinion. What he is saying is that if we are in a relationship that is for life we should not try to change that. If we are not, then we can, but we should do it with prayer and trepidation, not frivolously or arbitrarily.]
18 Was any man called being circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Hath any been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised.
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God [is].
[Clearly Paul is applying the basic principle here to something outside of marriage, as should we. This tells us something about Biblical principles and authorization. If an example established a general principle that is over-arching in making that example, then we are to understand and re-apply that general principle appropriately. We must not apply it to situations for which it is questionable that it applies, or which violates other biblical principles (see 2 John 9 and 1 Corinthians 4:6).]
[The subject of circumcision gets back to that old nemesis -- the Judiazing Christians who were insisting upon circumcision of Gentiles before they could be baptized (see Acts 10). Just how one would become uncircumcised might be questioned, but this could well be figurative of a Jew deciding to become a Gentile and no longer keeping the customs of the Jews. (Or, it could infer some surgical procedure, but we see no reason to delve into that.) Keeping these customs was specifically ALLOWED -- but they were not mandated, especially on the Gentiles. Their relaxation for Jews was also allowed as inferred by Paul’s reasoning with Peter (Galatians 2:14). For one to go against those customs could cause all kinds of unnecessary issues throughout the Christian's family or the Jewish community. Why cause that? On the other hand, for a Gentile to try to become a Jew in all respects (symbolized by circumcision here -- synecdoche) could cause the same problem for him. So there is an analogy here between the community relationships of the Jews (and Gentiles) and the marriage relationship. This gets into that subject of our family and social relationships -- if they do not violate the law of God, then they do not have to be upset when we become Christians. In fact, as we look ahead we are going to find out that the very upsetting of such could become sinful. But we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg here -- an appetizer to what is to come. Remember Romans 14 -- this is the same basic subject that was considered when we talked about the EXAMPLE of eating meat sacrificed to idols. There we stated that the principle was far broader than that one example. Here it is being applied to our family and social life in general. Much more to come.]
20 Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called.
21 Were you called being a bondservant? Care not for it: nay, even if thou canst become free, use (it) rather.
22 For he that was called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord's freedman: likewise he that was called being free, is Christ's bondservant.
23 Ye were bought with a price; become not bondservants of men.
24 Brethren, let each man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.
[Again, the bondservant -- essentially a slave but perhaps for a fixed amount of time -- no matter, it is just an EXAMPLE. It is so important that we do not get hung up on the examples. Obviously the example of slavery does not apply to us (directly) today. But the principle is the same. We should be satisfied and function within the situation that we find ourselves. Christians can rejoice in tribulation. True we should do all that we can to free our fellow man and make things better for all, but that is secondary at best. The most important thing is the saving of the soul, and when that is taken care of, these other things will follow, and we can suffer through them realizing that in doing so we are doing God's will.]
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be trustworthy.
[Having dealt with questions regarding those who were already married, Paul now turns his attention to those who are not yet married. Here again he states that this may not have been something that was covered by Jesus, but he feels that his inspiration should be sufficient.]
26 I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, (namely,) that it is good for a man to be as he is.
[This is a key verse to understanding a good part of this chapter. The commands that Paul has given and will give in this chapter are qualified by the fact that they were being heavily persecuted and were in “distress.” If not in distress some other decisions might be more appropriate. This applies to all of the other relationships, but it is especially applicable to marriage. There might be times when it is just not in the interests of either parties to enter into marriage, and the best thing is just to wait until a more appropriate and expedient time.]
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.
28 But should you marry, you hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she has not sinned. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh: and I would spare you.
[This further reinforces the fact that Paul is not making absolute edicts with regard to marriage, but instead, he is giving advice in light of the current distress. This should not be interpreted that there is no right or wrong in this issue. We are not to judge each other in such matters, but we are to judge for ourselves what is best depending on the circumstances. When we refuse to use good judgment in any matter, it is sin.]
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may be as though they had none;
30 and those that weep, as though they wept not; and those that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and those that buy, as though they possessed not;
31 and those that use the world, as not using it to the full: for the fashion of this world is passing away.
[Some have interpreted this to mean that Paul was teaching that the end of the world and the final judgment was imminent. At times he gave that impression, and at times he had to correct that impression (see 2nd Thessalonians). It is important to state that just because Paul was an inspired apostle did not make him omniscient. Even Jesus confessed that he did not know when the final judgment would be (Matt. 24:35-36: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knows no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son , but the Father only.") Why should we expect the apostle to know? But two factors play into our understanding of what Paul is trying to convey: (1) our lives are like vapors -- James 4:14 -- and we should always view the time as being shortened; and (2) not knowing when Jesus will come again, we should all be prepared as if it were imminent. There is no question the time is "shortened," in the sense that in both cases we have one less day than we did yesterday. But what is the point? Quite simply, that the spiritual considerations of our lives should far overshadow the physical things. We should not be concerned with things of this world -- they will soon be gone in any event.]
32 But I would have you to be free from cares. He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 but he that is married is careful for the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34 and is divided. (So) also the woman that is unmarried and the virgin is careful for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 And this I say for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is seemly, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
[Paul here seems to be explaining why he might have inferred in the past that it was best for them to be as he was with respect to marriage.]
36 But if any man thinks that he behaves himself un-seemingly toward his virgin (daughter), if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requires, let him do what he will; he sins not; let them marry.
37 But he that stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power as touching in his own heart, to keep his own virgin (daughter), shall do well.
38 So then both he that giveth his own virgin (daughter) in marriage doeth well; and he that giveth her not in marriage shall do better.
[While there is probably some basis for the above (ASV) translation as far as the customs in the first century are concerned, we urge you to consider other translations and recognize that the word "daughter" is not in the original. The New International Version translation has the following:
36 If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.
37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin — this man also does the right thing.
38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
The New King James Version is also quite consistent with the NIV. We find this to be totally consistent with the context and not nearly so strained as to require the questionable insertions.]
39 A wife is bound for so long time as her husband lives; but if the husband be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
[This is also stated in Romans 7:2, although in a very much different context. But clearly, marriage was intended to be for life, and the marriage bond can only be broken by adultery (Matthew 19); otherwise it is for life. Should her husband die, then she may be married. "Only in the Lord" is clearly a qualifier on "to whom she will." Generally "in the Lord" refers to a person who is a Christian, and that would seem to be the most reasonable meaning here. It could mean that the marriage has to be consistent with the will of the Lord. However, would it ever be the will of the Lord for her to marry a non-Christian? The phrase "in the Lord" is used often in 1st Corinthians, and a review of them would be informative to those who are in doubt over what this verse requires. See: 1:31, 4:17, 7:22 (see above), 9:1-2, 11:11, 15:58, and 16:19. While it could be argued that there is no reason that Paul should impose something on a widow that is not imposed on someone marrying for the first time, an equal argument could be made that what applies to the widow equally applies to all, so this reasoning does not resolve. The resolution is made by reviewing the meaning of "in the Lord" in all other passages in 1st Corinthians, or for that matter, the entire New Testament. But, we know of no specific prohibition against a first marriage requirement of being “in the Lord.”
40 But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgment: and I think that I also have the Spirit of God.
[This is something that Paul has certainly established for himself. He was happy in dedicating his total service to the Lord and being free from family obligations. Perhaps he compared himself to Peter, who was not so free, and realized that it would have been impossible for him to do all of the things that he experienced if he had a wife and family. He would expect others who also made such a commitment to be as happy as he is, but there is no way that they could find out without actually committing themselves to it. Essentially, it seems that Paul is saying that others who are not married can trust him on this matter; but they would have to accept that point. He believes that all that he has said to this point are consistent with the Spirit of God, even those opinions that are clearly advice and not bound.]
1 Corinthians 8
Introduction to Chapter 8
[Back in chapter 6 we saw where Paul was going to cover a number of things that were not wrong per se (in and of themselves), but became wrong by how men conducted themselves with regard to them. Marriage is one of them -- generally it is not wrong for a person to marry provided he is free from any other relationships that might make it either wrong or not expedient. It also becomes wrong if the marriage relationship is abused in any way. Chapter 8 gets into the Romans 14 subject of meat sacrificed to idols. While there is nothing wrong with eating it per se, it could become wrong under a number of circumstances -- mainly due to an unloving attitude of those involved. These types of things will continue to be covered right on through Chapter 11. This is further confirmation that the New Testament is not just a check-list of dos and don'ts. Some things require considerable thought, as we shall see. But the principles of the New Testament are so much loftier than the Old Testament type of check list. To apply these principles takes dedication and intensive thought and effort -- it cannot be done without involving the heart.]
8:1 Now concerning things sacrificed to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.
[This was probably another thing they wrote to him about -- some saying it is OK and others condemning it. Both sides would claim to have knowledge -- "I know that what I am saying is right!" Paul is saying, take it down a notch if you think you know it all. If your knowledge of the loopholes of God's laws is what is driving you, and not your love for your fellow man, then you are in big trouble. Puffed up generally means proud when used in the New Testament -- perhaps like a peacock. This is obviously not a hard criticism of acquiring knowledge, especially spiritual knowledge, since many passages in the New Testament teach the value of our acquiring a rich knowledge of God’s word. But there is a tendency of those who have acquired knowledge to be proud, just as is true of any other accomplishment.]
2 If any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows not yet as he ought to know;
3 but if any man loves God, the same is known by him.
[Paul is trying to get them to stop and think -- this is not an easy subject ... there are no simple "yes you can" or "no you cannot" answers about it. Instead, he appeals to their better instincts -- let love determine the answer -- consider the other person better than yourself (Philippians 2:3-4). If you do what is best for him, then you can know that you are right.]
4 Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is (anything) in the world, and that there is no God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many;
6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.
[So, we can have great confidence in this truth, and just not worry about those idols, right? Well, not quite ...]
7 Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge: but some, being used until now to the idol, eat as (of) a thing sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
["Used to" here means that it had become a habit or custom. The gentile converts served these idols in the past, but now they have cut themselves off from them. Animals sacrificed to idols would have been in the pagan worship (obviously this would never enter into the worship of the Lord’s church). However, this meat might become available in the general marketplace. If they saw faithful Christians eating this meat, it could raise questions in their consciences. The fact that it meant nothing to the Christians who were doing it could be irrelevant to them – their consciences might still be offended. It might cause division, or it might cause them to boldly violate their consciences and participate in a practice that they believed was wrong. They did not want to eat meat sacrificed to idols, and for them that was good ... they should not. On the other hand, the “stronger” Christian might think: "What has this to do with me? I know there is nothing to it, so why can't I eat it?" Well, there are some good reasons ...]
8 But food will not commend us to God: neither, if we eat not, are we the worse; nor, if we eat, are we the better.
[OK, then we can do whatever we want, right? No, there are some other things that we must consider out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ ...]
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to the weak.
10 For if a man see thee who hast knowledge sitting at meat in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to idols?
[That would cause him to violate his conscience and do something that he believed to be wrong. So, one sin that can occur from eating meat sacrificed to idols (which is not wrong per se) would be if it caused someone else to eat it and it violated their conscience, since this would cause them to sin. Anyone who violates his conscience is sinning, even if the thing that he is doing is not wrong per se. And, anyone who would temp or cause someone to so violate their conscience is also in sin, failing to have the proper love for his brother.]
11 For through thy knowledge he that is weak perishes, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
[This is the knowledge that puffs up that was discussed above. So, love would make us have concern for those who are "weak." Actually the word "weak" is being used accomodatively here ... if he is doing what he thinks is right, and he is not violating God's law, that is strength and not weakness. But I think we can easily get the picture. Here the "strong" brother is the one who knows it is not wrong to eat it, while the "weak" brother does not have that same confidence.]
12 And thus, sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat causes my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore that I cause not my brother to stumble.
[This is the attitude we should all have. But what is the relevance to us? -- do we have things from our past customs that we can and cannot eat? If you do, then this might just have direct relevance to you. But very few of us have such customs in this day and age. But there is a much broader principle here that is not limited to meat or food or any particular thing that we do. It is the general principle that ANYTHING that we do lawfully could at some point cause someone else to be needlessly offended. Christians should try to identify these things and avoid doing them around those who might be offended. This principle might go beyond even our brothers and sisters in Christ -- it could apply to offending anyone with anything if we don't have to. (Sometime we have to stand up for the truth whether it offends others or not -- this is not what Paul was addressing in this context.) It might not have anything to do with eating or drinking. It could be in the way we dress or the particular words we use to express ourselves. In all things we need to try our best not to cause other people to have problems, and this all needs to be motivated out of love.]
[Perhaps this is a good time to bring up this point, since it applies to several chapters. There is nothing good and righteous that we know of that cannot become sinful when taken to extreme. As an example, if knowledge, which is something that we are urged to gain throughout the bible, can become sinful, then it is hard to imagine anything that cannot become sinful in our zeal to practice it. We are not ignorant of Satan's devices (2 Cor. 2:11), and he has special sins that only mature Christians can commit. In the example in 2 Cor. 2:11, it was the matter of taking the withdrawing from a sinful brother beyond the point of it being beneficial. Now the challenge: think of anything that is good and right within itself, and then come up with a circumstance, a way it might be misused perhaps, or perhaps a concentration on it that takes away from another commanded obligation. It seems reasonable to say that anything that is good and righteous per se could become sinful if not kept in the perspective of our love for God and our fellow man?]
1 Corinthians 9
9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord?
2 If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
[We can safely infer here that some had accused Paul of not being an apostle. Recall that when he was in Corinth he worked for a while as a tent maker. It appears that they are criticizing him for that. Perhaps some of them were living off the flock and they would look down on anyone who would work with their hands. We can see the virtue in Paul working, but when people are against you, it really does no matter what you do. If he took support from them they would probably complain about that. So he is appealing to those that he converted -- YOU are the evidence that I am the real thing! If I am a false apostle, then what are you who have been led to Christ by the teaching that was given to me by the Lord?]
3 My defense to them that examine me is this.
4 Have we no right to eat and to drink?
[This alludes back to the former chapter ... yes, he had the right, but he did not abuse that right. So, would they then conclude that he did not have the right? That seems to be their reasoning.]
5 Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
[Cephas here is Peter -- a married man. Paul was not married. Did that mean he did not have the right to be married? Paul is drawing a parallel to show the flaws in their reasoning. Just because he did not exercise all of his rights did not mean that he did not have them. Recall that we are in the midst of talking about things that are not right or wrong in and of themselves, but they can become wrong if not exercised properly.]
6 Or I only and Barnabas, have we not a right to forbear working?
[The answer from the above reasoning is yes, but he is going to go on with a more detailed proofs that use a number of analogies.]
7 What soldier ever serves at his own charges? who plants a vineyard, and eats not the fruit thereof? Or who feeds a flock, and eats not of the milk of the flock?
8 Do I speak these things after the manner of men? or says not the law also the same?
9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treads out the corn. Is it for the oxen that God cares,
10 or says he it assuredly for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that plows ought to plow in hope, and he that threshes, (to thresh) in hope of partaking.
[The reference to the Law of Moses is Deuteronomy 25:4. The arguments are all from the lessor to the greater -- it if is true of an animal that serves you, would it not be true of a man who serves you? Similarly with the various occupations.]
11 If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things?
12 If others partake of (this) right over you, do not we yet more? Nevertheless we did not use this right; but we bear all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.
[Two things are established here. First is the principle that preachers and other servants of the church (including deacons and elders) can scripturally be paid, and in the proper circumstances, they should be compensated. Second, it establishes the fact that Paul did not take support from them, and it was a matter of principle with him that he should not -- he felt it would hinder the work. Apparently he feared more the criticism from taking it than the criticism from not taking it. But his motives were to keep those who were faithful there from being swayed by the false teachers who seem to have gotten a fairly large foothold in the church.]
13 Know ye not that they that minister about sacred things eat (of) the things of the temple, (and) they that wait upon the altar have their portion with the altar?
14 Even so did the Lord ordain that they that proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel.
15 But I have used none of these things: and I write not these things that it may be so done in my case; for (it were) good for me rather to die, than that any man should make my glorifying void.
16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of; for necessity is laid upon me; for woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel.
17 For if I do this of mine own will, I have a reward: but if not of mine own will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me.
18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel without charge, so as not to use to the full my right in the gospel.
[Paul did not want to be accused of preaching just for the money. There was one and only one way to assure that. Recognize that he took money for support from other churches, but never from Corinth. He is now going to generalize this principle. The money thing is just an example. We should not think the example is exclusive when it is illustrative of a broader principle. He now generalizes it into the following principle of love.]
19 For though I was free from all (men,) I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more.
20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.
23 And I do all things for the gospel's sake, that I may be a joint partaker thereof.
[These verses need to be considered as a unit -- it is a beautiful principle. Yes, we have rights. But when those rights would come between us and our spiritual service to our fellow man, then out of love we need to gladly give up those rights. This could apply to just about anything, and to narrow it to only the examples that are here would be wrong and we would miss the major point. This applies to things that Paul had not even thought about at the time, and perhaps did not even exist in the first century. The examples are too numerous and I think we do injustice when we try to nail them down -- this needs to be left in the abstract. Notice one thing he says here is that he considers himself "under law to Christ." The entire Gospel is really a type of law -- not like the Old Testament law, it consists largely of principles. Paul called it a law of faith (Romans 3:27) and James called it a law of liberty (James 1:25; 2:12). It is not a checklist type of law like the Law of Moses. It requires a depth of understanding that emerges out of faithful, earnest study of its principles before they can be properly applied to our lives. It is a continuous process UNTO righteousness (Romans 6:16; 10:4; 10:10; 1 Peter 2:24); that is, we never arrive, so we are constantly striving to reflect a more perfect image of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6).]
24 Know ye not that they that run in a race run all, but one receives the prize? Even so run; that ye may attain.
[Life is not sports -- games are all over in a couple hours with a very conclusive and definitive result. Rarely outside of sports is there anything for which a win is definitive and not just the start of other things, perhaps with more responsibilities and greater expectations. Life goes on, and we have to live with our mistakes for the rest of our lives, even if we are forgiven of them. BUT, Paul uses a sports analogy here, so let's try to get what he wanted us to get out of it ...]
25 And every man that strives in the games exercises self-control in all things. Now they (do it) to receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
[We know how people sacrifice for the Olympics -- this was basically what he was talking about. His reasoning is -- if they can do that for their temporal prize, why can't we exercise the same self-control to attain eternal life? Note here that he is not saying how life it like sports, but rather how the Christian life is unlike sports. In the following verses he is emphasing the personal sacrifices that are made by athlete and indicating his own efforts in remaining right before the Lord.]
26 I therefore so run, as not uncertainly; so fight I, as not beating the air:
27 but I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage: lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected.
[As we get on into Chapter 10 we will see that "rejected" here means lost. When we get into Chapter 10 this will become abundantly clear. Some believe the "once saved always saved" tenet of Calvinism. You cannot go for more than three or four chapters in the New Testament without contradicting that doctrine. If Paul could be lost after receiving salvation, then any Christian could be lost. It is just a matter of not remaining faithful unto death (a condition of salvation given in Revelation 2:10).]
1 Corinthians 10
[Chapter divisions were not in the original manuscripts, so Chapter 10 is a continuation of the thought that Paul has introduced at the end of Chapter 9. Note also that verse 1 below starts with the word "for," which indicates the connection with what Paul just wrote. At the end of Chapter 9 Paul said that he buffets his body daily lest after preaching to others he would be lost. This chapter essentially reinforces that thought.]
10:1 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 and did all eat the same spiritual food;
4 and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock was Christ.
[Paul is stating that God saved them -- they were in a saved condition. Some figures here -- baptism of the New Testament is likened unto the salvation of the Israelites out of Egypt as the sea was on each side and the cloud was above. So, in this figurative sense, the nation was summarily baptized. Then God fed them in the wilderness. He alludes to their drinking water from the rock. "The rock was Christ" could be an allusion to Peter's confession in Matthew 16:18 after Jesus asked who men said that he was. They answered that most saw him as being a great prophet. Then he asked: "who do YOU say that I am?" Peter answered: thou are the Christ the son of the living God. Jesus said that flesh and blood had not revealed that unto him, and then stated: "Upon this rock I will build my church." The rock was the truth that Peter uttered that was revealed to him by God, analogous to the Word (see John 1).]
5 Howbeit with most of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
[The Corinthians knew the rest of the story, as do we. Their being saved at one point in time did not assure that they could not be lost if they later rebelled against God. God is not a respecter of persons; he is not going to judge them harsher that He is going to judge us. If they could fall, so can we. If this were not true, the following would make no sense.]
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9 Neither let us make trial of the Lord, as some of them made trial, and perished by the serpents.
10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them murmured, and perished by the destroyer.
[This, of course, is not a complete set of examples, but is quite exemplary of what the Corinthian Christians were being tempted to engage in. Essentially Paul is saying that if they go back to their former worldly lives their salvation would be in great jeopardy.]
11 Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come.
[In a sense the Old Testament is part of the New Testament by reference. There are other such references (e.g., Romans 15:4). While we are not under the large number of requirements of the Law of Moses, we must recognize that it is truth, and wherever truth is communicated, there is benefit. God's moral law has not changed.]
12 Wherefore let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.
[It is when we take pride in ourselves that we are most vulnerable. Only a truly righteous person can commit the sin of being proud of his legitimate righteousness, which is rather ironic. Of course, a far worse case is when people are proud of their unrighteousness, which many are these days.]
13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as man can bear: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation make also the way of escape, that ye may be able to endure it.
[This is a profound statement and one we should take to heart. There will be many setbacks and many temptations, but God will help us through them. The way of escape might be prayer, other Christians, or study of God's word ... in any event, it will be provided by God.]
14 Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.
[There is a tendency for us all to get caught up in superstition, which I define as the attitude that "there might be something to it." There is nothing to it. If we give in to it, we are showing a lack of faith in God. Run, don't walk. When we see something of a spiritual nature that does not come from God, we can be sure that it comes from Satan.]
15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?
[He is referring to the Lord's Supper that was, and still is, observed by Christians. It is a fellowship in the body and the blood of Christ -- the bread representing the body and the fruit of the vine representing the blood. The command given was "Do this in remembrance of me." So when we see/eat the bread we see in our minds the body of Christ sacrificed on the cross; and when we see/drink the fruit of the vine we see the blood shed for us. So here are the rhetorical questions, the answer to both are obviously yes. The word “communion” means sharing, and it has the same Greek source as the word “fellowship.” So we are spiritually sharing the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s supper.]
17 seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread.
[We are all individuals and have many differences; but in this we are united and as we have fellowship with Christ we have fellowship with each other. The word translated communion in verse 16 is the same Greek word as that translated fellowship in other places. It simply means sharing, and should not be given any special mystical or ritualistic meaning.]
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: have not they that eat the sacrifices communion with the altar?
[Sharing with the alter -- a strange term ... some of it went to the alter and some of it went to them. The priests had the right to eat certain things that were sacrificed.]
19 What say I then? that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
[OK, so we have cycled back to the main example in all of these principles, i.e., the freedom to eat things sacrificed to idols. While there are many things that Paul expounded on that might not directly relate to this question, we should see his strategy in routing us through those things. So now, since the idol is nothing, why should this be a problem?]
20 But (I say), that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have communion with demons.
[If we think that we are having communion (sharing) with the demons, that would make it wrong, even though it was not wrong in and of itself. But there is something even more profound here. Demons are living beings; idols are not. What are all of the ramifications of our (or their) sacrificing to living spiritual beings, the powers of which we should explore. See this article on demons. What does it mean to be sharing with demons? We may not be able to describe it, but one thing we know: it is not good!]
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons.
22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
[So, if you are attributing some superstitious power to it, and that is why you are eating it, beware! But if not, and if it means nothing to you, then eating it would seem to be acceptable.]
23 All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify.
[Recall, and perhaps review the same statement in 6:12? So all that went in between was related to things that are not wrong in themselves but become wrong by how we view them or how we handle them. If it does not edify -- build up, make us more spiritual in our service to God -- then it is wrong and we should run from it. If it does not demonstrate our love and concern for our fellow Christians and for those of the world, than we should flee from it as well. The idea of love follows.]
24 Let no man seek his own, but (each) his neighbor's (good).
25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake,
26 for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.
[The shambles here is the meat market, and again he is reiterating that in and of itself, nothing wrong. However, if it harms our own conscience or if it harms our neighbors’ consciences, then we should abstain from it. It becomes wrong in these circumstances.]
27 If one of them that believe not bids you (to a feast), and ye are disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience' sake.
28 But if any man say unto you, This hath been offered in sacrifice, eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake:
29 conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other's; for why is my liberty judged by another conscience?
[The reason is because I love my neighbor and will do nothing to cause him any harm or to offend his conscience. Yes, we must be aware of the impact of our actions on other people's feelings, even if those feelings are not the most mature or logical. That makes no difference when we are motivated by love for him.]
30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?
31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
32 Give no occasions of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God:
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.
[Why would we put a stumbling block in someone's way over such mundane things? Sure, you might have the right to do X, but why use that right when it is going to cause someone else to potentially be lost. That would be nothing but gross selfishness on our part.]
Go to 1 Cor 11-16