Category: 1 Corinthians (Page 3 of 5)

I’d be happier if 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 wasn’t in the Bible.  It’s notoriously difficult to interpret and discusses women’s head-coverings, not a hot-button issue today!  But, walking through the entire letter, we can’t detour.  Furthermore, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write it for a purpose that transcends the first readers.

THE PROBLEM

As will be evident from the text, women are praying and prophesying in the church without head-coverings.  This customary distinction between the sexes is considered disgraceful.

Dr. Gordon Fee surmises: “Probably this is related to their being pneumatikos (“spiritual”) and to their somewhat overrealized eschatology.  It seems difficult to understand Paul’s answer unless their spiritualized eschatology also involved some kind of breakdown in the distinction between the sexes.  Already they had arrived in the Spirit; they were already acting as those who would be ‘like the angels,’ among whom sexual distinctions no longer existed.  As part of their new ‘spirituality’ they were disregarding some very customary distinctions between the sexes that would otherwise have been regarded as disgraceful” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 498).

Paul wants them to wear head-coverings . . .

BECAUSE IT IS SHAMEFUL NOT TO.

I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.  But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head (11:2-6).

After praising the church, he sets out this foundational principle:  “ . . . the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”.  “Head” here refers to authority.  This isn’t a matter of superiority/inferiority but role or function. If a man prays or prophesies with his head (literal) uncovered he dishonors his head (Christ).  But if a woman prays or prophesies with her head (literal) uncovered she dishonors her head (the man).

Furthermore, if she has her head uncovered “it is the same as having her head shaved.  In Roman society, a shaved head signified an unfaithful wife.  So “she should cover her head.”

 BECAUSE WOMAN WAS CREATED FROM MAN.

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.  It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.  Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.  For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God (11:7-12).

God created both male and female in his image (Genesis 5:1,2).  But he created woman from man and for man. So, as God-created, man is to honor God. Woman created from and for man is to honor man.  The head-covering, therefore, signifies she is honoring man.

“ . . . because of the angels” may mean that angels, as guardians of the created order, are watching women who are disregarding that order.

That Paul isn’t subordinating women to men is clear from the interdependency that exists between them.

BECAUSE IF A WOMAN PRAYS WITH HER HEAD UNCOVERED, IT’S IMPROPER.

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?  Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God (11:13-16).

Here Paul appeals to their reason.  By “the very nature of things” he probably means “the way things are” in their culture.  Since a woman “by the very nature of things” has long hair “as a covering”, she naturally should not pray or prophesy without a head-covering.

Some are being “contentious”, and Paul refutes their probable claim that “other churches do it.”  He tells them wearing head-coverings is the custom in all the churches

WHAT CAN WE TAKE AWAY?

If women are to be subordinate to men, men must be leaders.  Blessed is the family (and the church) where the man sings to the Lord with all his heart, who lifts his hands in adoration, who prays aloud his praise, who exercises spiritual gifts.  This is especially important today when many divorced women fill our churches.

Sadly, that’s often not the case.  If the worship leader calls for only women to sing, then only men, the difference is night-and-day.  Women sing out; men hesitate.  Where are those strong male voices exalting the King?

I’m not dismissing the important role of women.  Where would our churches be without them?  Often they are most responsive to the Holy Spirit in worship.  Often they are the first to lift their hands or pray aloud.  They should complement men’s lead, not replace it.

Paul reproved the Corinthian women for removing their head-coverings.  Maybe he should have reproved the Corinthian men for allowing it.

I grew up in a church that forbade members from smoking, drinking, dancing and going to movies.  A good-motive, but a wrong-headed exercise–blanket rules for personal-conscience matters.

That all may seem largely irrelevant now.  But, in fact, the principles Paul sets out challenge every generation.

FIRST PRINCIPLE

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others (1 Corinthians 10:23,24).

The issue is eating market place meat which had been offered to idols before being sold to the public. The Corinthians arrogantly claim the right to do anything, because such matters don’t affect one’s relationship with God through Christ.  Rather than debate,  Paul introduces a concern they’ve overlooked:  “not everything is beneficial . . . not everything is constructive”.

Here, then, is his first principle:  “No man should seek their own good, but the good of others.”  Your conscience may free you to eat “idol meat”, but does it hurt your brother’s conscience?  Might it lead him into sin or cause him to fall away?  What will contribute to his good, his benefit?  What will build him up?

EATING AT HOME

Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it” (1 Corinthians 10:25,26).

A Christian is free to eat market meat because it’s the Lord’s  meat, like everything in creation.  So the Corinthians needn’t ask if it’s been offered to an idol.  But . . .

EATING AT A NEIGHBOR’S

If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours (1 Corinthians 10:27-29a).

You’re free to eat whatever an unbeliever serves—unless someone says, “This has been offered in sacrifice.”  Assume that “someone” who’s raised the issue is convicted by his conscience not to eat such meat.   That changes everything:  ” . . . do not eat it . . . ”  Don’t seek your own good but his.

SECOND PRINCIPLE

For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:29b-31).

This passage is notoriously difficult to interpret.  Here’s my “educated guess”.  Because the Corinthians have questioned it (chapter 9), Paul suddenly argues for his freedom.  He’s free to eat and free not to.

That bring us to the second principle Paul sets out:  “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.”

C. K. Barrett comments:  “I do not act to the glory of God if I give to an idol some of the honor due to God alone; nor if I cause scandal or ill-feeling in the church, or cause a fellow-Christian to fall from his faith” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians).

Putting it positively, to seek the good of the other in personal conscience matters is “for the glory of God.”  But when Paul adds the phrase, “whatever you do” he’s reaching far beyond personal conscience matters.  John Piper once wrote an article, “How to Drink Orange Juice to the Glory of God” (http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-to-drink-orange-juice-to-the-glory-of-god).  Whatever we do!  Whatever we do should show God’s glory and give God glory.

THE EXAMPLE

Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—  even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:32-11:1).

Paul urges the Corinthians to not use their freedom in a way that causes others to fall from the faith.  He offers himself as an example of a man who is “not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved”.  Then he makes the daring exhortation, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ”.  (Christ supremely sought not his own good but the good of many in his life and in his death.)  A daring call, because Paul invites the Corinthians to model their ways after his.

* * * * *

We can easily apply this to contemporary personal conscience issues, like drinking alcohol for instance.  Yes, I’m free to drink (no drunkenness!), but not if it causes someone else to “stumble” in the faith.

We can also apply this more broadly with probing questions . . .

. . . Do I seek the good of others, or selfishly seek my own?

. . . Do I do whatever I do for God’s glory?

. . . Do I dare invite others to “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ”?

Christ died to free us from our sins.  Christ died to free us from keeping rules to be righteous.  Christ also died to free us to seek others’ good, to live for God’s glory, and to encourage fellow believers to follow our Christ-following example.

“I’ve got to go to church this Sunday; I did some bad stuff lately.”  That’s “Christian Magic”.  As if going to church makes up for sin.

The Corinthians believed in Christian Magic (they didn’t call it that), especially when it came to the Lord’s Supper.  Somehow the Lord’s Supper would protect them from any harm eating idol-food in a pagan temple.

1 Corinthians 10:1-22 concludes Paul’s reply to the church regarding “food offered to idols” (begun in 8:1).  Here he absolutely bans eating idol-food in pagan temples.

ISRAEL’S EXAMPLE

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness (10:1-5).

Lots to speculate about here.  But this much is clear:  Paul warns the Corinthians of dreadful consequences if they, like old Israel, persist in idolatry.

The church and Israel share similar blessings.  The Christian life begins with baptism, so Israel, delivered from Egyptian slavery, underwent a kind of baptism in the Red Sea.  The Lord is present among the church by the Spirit; so he was present among Israel in the cloud.  The church is cared for by Christ; Christ provided for Israel in the wilderness.

“Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.”  Why?

IDOLATRY WARNING

Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.  Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes.  And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.  These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it (10:6-13).

Why bodies in the wilderness?  Idolatry.  Paul quotes Exodus 32:6b where Israel  ate in the presence of the golden calf.  “ . . . got up to indulge in revelry”–a nice way of saying sex-play-worship.  So Paul admonishes the Corinthians, “We should not commit sexual immorality”.

All these things, Paul explains, “ . . . occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did . . . These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us . . .”  See those bodies in the wilderness?  Take heed!

IDOLATRY BAN AND WHY

Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.  I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.  Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?  Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf. Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?  Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything?  No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he (10:14-22)?

Paul’s command is absolute:  “ . . . flee from idolatry.”  Escape.  Run away.  Since they pride themselves on their knowledge, he appeals to their reason for obeying his command.

The Lord’s Supper isn’t just a religious ceremony.  It’s a “participation” (Greek, koinonia—fellowship) in the blood and body of Christ.  By the Spirit, God is present.  As fellow believers, they celebrate their common life in Christ.  How can they think it okay to fellowship with Christ at the sacred meal, then fellowship at the table of idols?

True, an idol is nothing.  “But the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons . . . ”  So, eat idol-food in idol temples, and you fellowship with demons.  Demons?  Satan’s minions that oppress?  An idol may be nothing, but lurking behind them are spirits meant to do you evil.

But their harm isn’t the worst.  The Lord’s jealousy is.   “Will you continue to eat at both the Lord’s Supper and the table of demons and so kindle the Lord’s jealousy, as Israel did in the desert?”

IDOLATRY TAKE-AWAY

Well . . . no idol-food in pagan temples for us!  But how about “Christian Magic”?  Or, as bad, a “ceremony view” of the Lord’s Supper?

When I led the Lord’s Supper, I’d often remind everyone, “This is ordinary bread and juice. Nothing special about it.”  No “power” comes from chewing the bread-cube and swallowing the juice-thimble.

Yet the Lord’s Supper is far more than ceremony.  It’s where we commune with the crucified Christ.  How?  By the Holy Spirit.  With his help, I envision myself at the Last Supper.  I hear Jesus say, “This is my body.  This is my blood.”  I see myself at the cross.  Jesus agonizes in pain.  I hear him cry, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” I can almost feel him breathe his last.  And I remember . . . I remember he’s bearing my sin.  He’s loving me.  I can almost smell death–the cost of giving me life. 

How can I get involved with any kind of “idol” after that?

Church members turn against the pastor.  Pretty common.  Happened to Paul.  Corinthians didn’t like how he criticized their lifestyle; so they challenged his apostolic authority.  In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul hit it head-on.  The dispute has implications for us today.  (Hint:  if he’s not an apostle, why should we listen to him?)

PAUL DEFENDS HIS APOSTLESHIP.

 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord (9:1,2).

“Well, yeah.”  That’s the response Paul’s rhetorical questions expect.  “Am I not free?”  In other words, “Don’t I have the right to use or not use my apostolic rights?”  Ah, that’s the nub of the church’s charges against Paul.  Of course, others may question his apostleship, but surely not these Corinthians, since they owe their Christian existence to him.

PAUL ASSERTS HIS APOSTLE-RIGHTS.

Paul has the right to receive material support from the Corinthians; but, he hasn’t used it.

“If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right” (9:12).

Noble?  Crazy?  To the Corinthians, accustomed to paying itinerant philosophers, Paul’s choice to support himself by tent-making made Paul an “amateur”, probably not an apostle at all.  To defend himself, again with forceful rhetorical questions, Paul asserts his rights as an apostle. 

This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?  If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.  Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel (9:3-14).

Paul’s grounds his defense on “the Law of Moses”, quoting Deuteronomy 25:4. Not only does God care about oxen, but “for us.”  So the spiritual-seed-sower should “reap a material harvest.”  “But we did not use that right.”  Why? Because, while this brought hardship, he doesn’t want to “hinder the gospel of Christ” by preaching for pay.

Though he’ll explain further in 9:15-18, we can say here that by preaching the gospel “for free” he illustrated the gospel’s “free” nature.

He climaxes his defense by referring to the Lord’s command—“the worker deserves his wages.”  A principle Jesus gave the 72 when he sent them out to preach (Luke 10:7).

PAUL RESTRAINS HIS APOSTOLIC-RIGHTS.

 But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast.  For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!  If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel (9:15-18).

Having forcefully argued his right to receive the Corinthians’ material support, he affirms “I have not used any of these rights.”  Nor does he want to now.  He preaches the gospel because “I am compelled to preach”—literally “I am under compulsion.”

Dr. Gordon Fee explains:  “God had ordained such a destiny for him from birth and had revealed it to him in the events of the Damascus Road (Galatians 1:15,16).  From that time on, proclaiming Christ to the Gentiles was both his calling and compulsion.  He ‘had to do it because God had so taken hold of him (Philippians 3:12) (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 4:18).” Therefore, he doesn’t preach voluntarily and so isn’t free to be paid. Because of the Spirit’s work in him, he isn’t free not to preach!

PAUL USES HIS APOSTOLIC FREEDOM.

Not accepting material support from anyone means he is free from everyone.  And he uses that freedom to be “a slave to everyone” . . .

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.  To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.  To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.  I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings (9:19-23).

The Corinthians criticized his chameleon-like conduct.  Socially, he became like a Jew among Jews and like a Gentile among Gentiles “so that by all possible means I might save some.”  He does it all so the gospel may progress and in the end, with his converts, he might share in gospel blessings.

PAUL MODELS SELF-DISCIPLINE.

Perseverance is required to share in eternal gospel blessings.  And perseverance demands self-discipline.  To make that point, Paul uses a familiar Greek athletic metaphor.  The Corinthians must “[r]un ins such a way as to get the prize.”  Specifically, they must not be idolaters (10:6b) by participating in idol-temple feasts (Chapter 8).

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air.  No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize (9:24-27).

Paul changes the image from running to boxing, opening his heart to the church.  Because he refuses material support and chooses to support himself, he sometimes does without.  He makes his body “my slave” so he won’t “be disqualified for the (eschatological) prize.”

* * *

What implication does this “apostle dispute” have for us today? Why should we care if Paul was really an apostle?  Because apostleship gives him authority to speak into our lives.  If he wasn’t an apostle, why listen to him?  Well, we say, he’s in the Bible.  No, he’s “in the Bible” because he was an apostle.  So he speaks with authority from Christ to us as he did to the Corinthians.

In that regard, this chapter’s conclusion both exhorts and warns us.  He makes  his body his slave “so that . . . I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.”  Disqualification for the eschatological prize was a  real possibility.  How to justify that with assurances like “God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability”–10:13a, I don’t know. But both are biblical.  That warns us:  “Don’t be complacent!  Don’t let your bodily appetites dictate your conduct!”

With the warning comes the charge: “Run in such a way as to get the prize.”  We’re in a race.  It’s no time for sinful-nature-detours.  We must conduct ourselves like runners straining  toward the prize.

So let’s grab our running shoes–I mean, Bibles . . . and get going.

Can’t remember the last time I attended a dinner party with food offered to idols.  So why should we study 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1?  Because it’s God’s Word to us . . .

THE SITUATION

Food, offered in worship to idols, was sold in the marketplace.  Do the Corinthians, who have eaten it all of their lives, have the right to continue now that they’ve become Christians? Do they have that right even if it leads “weaker” believers to follow their lead and commit what their consciences say is sin?  Before going into detail, Paul begins with what shouldn’t and should guide our behavior.

KNOWLEDGE OR LOVE?

Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God (8:1-3).

The Corinthians have written to Paul about “idol food”, arguing they have the right to eat it, as they always have.  Indeed, most meat was sacrificed, then sold.  It’s apparent that the Corinthians believe they have special gnosis (“knowledge”) from the Holy Spirit about idols.

Knowledge, however, says Paul, leads to pride.  While love expresses concern for the welfare of fellow-believers.  Those who presume to be “in the know” about idols and idol food don’t know as they should, because real knowledge in Christianity leads to love—loving God and thus being recognized by God as “really knowing.”

Theological knowledge mustn’t be the primary guide in our relationships; love that builds up the other must be.

KNOWLEDGE

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live (8:4-6).

Paul addresses the issue at hand:  “eating food sacrificed to idols”.  He agrees with the Corinthians’ knowledge:  “An idol is nothing” and “There is no God but one”.  However, pagans, by believing in idols, give them what we might call a “subjective reality”.  Some new converts to Christ do the same. But “there is but one God”.  He is “the Father”, the source of all things and the one “for whom we [believers] live”.  And “there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ”.  All things came into existence through him and we believers have new life through him.

Thus Paul affirms God’s uniqueness and the “nothingness” of idols, though many believe they are “gods” and “lords”.  This isn’t just a profound theological statement; it’s the ground for ethical behavior.  God is our Creator.  Jesus is our Redeemer.  Thus he (God the Father and God the Son)—what he is like—must govern our conduct.

LOVE

But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols?  So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.  When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.  Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall (1 Corinthians 8:7-13).

Some among them haven’t yet outgrown their old pagan ideas.  They haven’t come to really know that an idol is nothing.  To them “idol food”  has been “sacrificed to a god”.

Their inner moral sense of right and wrong is “weak”; that is, they haven’t fully grasped that idols are nothing.  Therefore, when those who “have knowledge” eat idol food, it encourages the “weak” to eat—and thus by eating they believe they are worshiping “another god” and defiling their relationship with Christ.

Paul agrees food holds no spiritual significance. He warns them, however, not to demand their rights and become a “block” weaker believers stumble over.  If they do, they will allow their knowledge to destroy a brother or sister “for whom Christ died”.  Thus this is “sin against Christ”.

Paul sets himself out as the model to follow.  “ . . . if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into (what is to him or her) sin, I will never eat meat again . . . “

* * *

Application is obvious:  if my brother believes it a sin for him to drink wine, or if he’s a Muslim convert to Christ who believes eating pork is a sin, I mustn’t lead him into “sin” by drinking wine or eating pork (at least in his presence).

A broader application.  We presume what we do affects only us.

For example, how often do we think, “If I skip Worship today, how might that affect other worshipers? If they see me missing again, what message do I send them about seeking God’s presence in worship?”  I have the “right” to skip Worship again.  But am I acting in love?

A personal example.  The Corinthians’ had knowledge others didn’t.  They knew an idol was nothing.  And their knowledge led to arrogance (8:1-3). These days my illness has challenged my faith.  I think of young preachers exuding confidence they can handle whatever hits.  I say to myself, “Wait ‘til your aging body won’t work.  Let’s see how full of bubbly faith you are then.”  My knowledge produces arrogance; I’m not loving my brother.

In the Christian community, we don’t live to ourselves.  We mustn’t presume what we do is our private “right.”  My behavior affects you.  That’s why I must do what builds you up in Christ.

Sounds like a title for a sex-saturated Hollywood comedy.  Actually, it’s the last group the apostle Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 7.

He’s writing in response to matters about which they wrote him (7:1).  So far he’s addressed marrieds (7:1-7), unmarrieds (7:8-11), and believer-unbeliever marrieds (7:12-16).  He’s written about circumcision and slavery (7:17-24).  One theme runs throughout:  serve the Lord in whatever condition you find yourself, fulfilling the responsibilities of your position.

This issue arose because the Corinthians believed that, having been gifted by the Holy Spirit, they should abstain from all forms of bodily indulgence.  (Right.  These are the same guys who argued that what they did with their bodies was of no spiritual consequence!)

Even though it’s long, I want to finish the remainder of the chapter.  So we’ll plow through reading the whole chunk, then I’ll comment.

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.  Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.  But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.  What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;  those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep;  those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord.  But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.  I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.  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.  So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.  In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 7:25-40).

“Virgins” (7:25), distinct from the unmarried and singles, are probably betrothed (“engaged”) women and men.  Should they marry or abstain?

The question arises because “ . . . this world in its present form is passing away” (7:31), “the time is short” (7:29) and there is “a present crisis” (7:26).  These eschatological realities inform Paul’s counsel throughout the entire chapter.

What’s the “present crisis”?  Paul is thinking eschatologically, referring to distress associated with this present age’s end and Christ’s Second Coming.  Likely, however, there is a specific eschatological distress they know about, but we don’t.

In what way is “the time . . . short”?  The Greek sustello can be translated “near the end.”  Paul may mean that Christ’s first coming “set in motion” the age to come, so now we’re “near the end”.  Therefore, we see that “this world in its present form is passing away”.  And this future should motivate us to live accordingly in this present age.

Paul offers his “trustworthy” opinion (7:25) and thinks that “I too have the Spirit of God.”  Thus, his “opinion” counts.

He opines:  in whatever state you are, stay.  But, “if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.”  Why does he say that?  Because the Corinthians think their spirituality demands celibacy.  Paul insists single, engaged, married or not are all irrelevant as far as one’s spirituality is concerned.

However, due to the present crisis, a married man may have more “trouble.”  His interests are divided between pleasing the Lord and pleasing his wife.  “So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better” (7:38).

A brief comment on 7:29b-31—“From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep;  those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.”

Obviously, Paul doesn’t mean literally.  The interpretation-key is the last sentence.  Because the world is passing away, husbands shouldn’t live as if they couldn’t live without their wives (no marriage in heaven).  Don’t mourn as if what you treasure is forever lost and don’t ground your happiness in this world’s things (treasures will be more than restored in heaven and this world’s form is passing away).  For the same reason, don’t overly-treasure this world’s things; use them, but don’t be absorbed by them.

* * *

What can we take away?  If we’re not virgins in a present crisis, not much it seems.  For me, though, two things.

First, I don’t think enough, or even correctly, about “the time is near the end” and “the form of this world is passing away.”  I’m more a man of my culture than of Christ.  I presume the sun will rise tomorrow as always.  End-of-the-world-talk is extremism.  But one morning the sun won’t rise.  Though my mind can’t conceive it, this world will end.  And Christ has already set the passing in motion.

Not only do I not think enough, I think “too small” about what’s coming.  In that, I’m a man of my culture too.  “Heaven” will be a “nice” ending to death.  Scripture knows no such idea.  The future that’s coming is really big.  It’s a new and perfect creation.  Bigger than Columbus discovering The New World.  Bigger than colonizing a new planet.

Second, I don’t live now in view of “the time is near the end” and “the form of this world is passing away.”  For example, I allow depression over my permanent and progressing disability to dominate me, when in the new creation I’ll run (and maybe dance).  How differently might you live?

While “about virgins” seems nearly irrelevant to us, it isn’t.  Dr. Gordon Fee writes, “Being eschatological people is to free us from the grip of the world and its values . . . “  It calls us to think and live radically as people who know our roots aren’t in this world and a mind-can’t-conceive future awaits us.

What identifies who we are?  What determines how we see ourselves?  Paul’s words to the Corinthian church answer those questions.

In 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 Paul urged the Corinthian Christians to remain as they were–married, widowed, single, etc.  Here he applies that exhortation to circumcision and slavery.  First, he enunciates . . .

THE PRINCIPLE (7:17)

Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them.  This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.

“Nevertheless” refers back to the one situation in which they shouldn’t remain as they were:  “ . . . if the unbelieving partner leaves, let it be so” (7:15).  Despite that exception, Paul writes, a believer should stay in the same social situation he was when converted.

Why?  The Corinthians thought their social status (married, celebate,7:1-16) held religious significance.  For example, being moved to a “higher plane” by the Spirit, they should strive to be celebate in marriage or, if a widow, they should remarry.

Paul tells them that Christ’s call transcends social status. It’s irrelevant.  It has no spiritual significance. The Gospel eclipses social standing.  Therefore, they shouldn’t seek to change it.  They should see marriage to a believer or pagan as the proper place God “assigned” them to live out their Christian lives. Now Paul applies that to . . .

THE CIRCUMCISED (7:18-20)

Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

A circumcised man couldn’t “become uncircumcised”.  But Paul is making an earthshaking point:  “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.”  Neither makes a difference to God when a man is “in Christ”.

Paul, then, repeats the principle:  “Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.”  There’s no need to change, because the believer is “in Christ”.

What matters is “keeping God’s commands”.  The Corinthians, particularly, need to hear this, because they considered themselves “spiritual” to the point where bodily sin doesn’t matter.

Paul, however, doesn’t mean “keeping God’s commands” as works of the law. Rather, obedience is the proper response to God’s grace in Christ.  One keeps God’s commands, not to become a Christian, but because God in Christ by the Spirit has made one a Christian.

This brings Paul to his second social situation . ..

THE SLAVE (7:21-24).

Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave.  You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.  Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

To the slave-called-to Christ, Paul doesn’t counsel, “Stay as you are.”  In fact, he says, “ . . . if you can gain your freedom, do so.”  But his counsel is,  “Don’t let it trouble you”.  “Don’t let it be a concern to you.”

Why? “For the one called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person”.  He may remain a slave socially, but spiritually he is freed from his sins to know Christ.

In the same way, “the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave.”  His calling to Christ results in his belonging to Christ.  He no longer belongs to himself.

“You were bought at a price do not become slaves of human beings.”  In other words, the cross purchased you to belong to Christ.  Don’t allow a human way of thinking (I have to improve my social status) to enslave you.

“As responsible to God” is literally “with God”.  Paul’s sense seems to be that one–slave or free—is “responsible to God”, not to the mores of social status.  Slavery or freedman is irrelevant.

YOU AND ME.

To the Corinthians spiritual identity required certain social identity.  I’m approaching “identity” differently. What identifies who I am?  What determines how I see myself?

In 1989 we moved to Florida.  I thought I needed a “sabbatical” from pastoring, so I bought (believe it or not) a small carpet-cleaning company.  I remember complaining to my wife, Lois, “I don’t know who I am.”  My identity was “pastor.”  When I temporarily stepped away, I didn’t know who I was.

Then, three years ago I retired.  Again my identity changed.  No longer “pastor”, I became an old wheel chair-bound curmudgeon.  As a pastor, I was needed and respected.  People looked to me to interpret God’s Word.  Who needs an old curmudgeon?  I’ve become less important, less needed.  So who am I?

Incredibly, it took me a couple years to realize my identity never changed.  Whether pastor or curmudgeon, my identity has always been a man in Christ.  I’m a blood-bought sinner, joined to Christ, indwelt by his Spirit.  Sure, I’m a husband, father, grandfather and blogger (!).  But what identifies me, what determines how I see myself, is Christ himself.  I’m his.

How about you?

This isn’t my favorite Bible chapter.  Verses 1-9 are fine; I struggle with verses 10-16.  But let’s start where Paul does, dealing with matters the Corinthians raised in a letter to him.

TO THE MARRIED:  NO SEXUAL ABSTINENCE (7:1-7)

Now, to deal with the matters you wrote about.  A man does well not to marry (7:1).

This is another Corinthian Christian slogan.  Literally, the Greek reads, “A man does well not to touch a woman”—a euphemism for sexual intercourse.  The slogan obviously promotes sexual abstinence.  Paul disagrees.

But because there is so much immorality, every man should have his own wife, and every woman should have her own husband (7:2). 

“ . . . so much immorality” refers to husbands being “driven” to prostitutes (6:16) because wives insist on abstinence.  “Have” here means to have sexually.  Thus, Paul urges. . . .

A man should fulfill his duty as a husband, and a woman should fulfill her duty as a wife, and each should satisfy the other’s needs.  A wife is not the master of her own body, but her husband is; in the same way, a husband is not the master of his own body, but his wife is (7:3,4).

The language, “ . . . should fulfill his duty”,  implies that husband and wife have an obligation.   “ . . . not the master of her own body” implies married partners don’t have the authority over their own bodies regarding sexual relations.  But, there can be an exception . . .

Do not deny yourselves to each other, unless you first agree to do so for a while in order to spend your time in prayer; but then resume normal marital relations.  In this way, you will be kept from giving in to Satan’s temptation because of your lack of self control  (7:5,6).

Couples may mutually agree to “no sex” to spend time in prayer.  But this must be temporary, otherwise their lack of self-control will make them prey to Satan’s temptation.  For example, a husband might be “driven” to a prostitute (6:15).

Actually I would prefer that all of you were as I am; but each one has a special gift from God, one person this gift, another one that gift (7:7).

Paul wishes they all had the gift of celibacy like him, but recognizes God has gifted everyone differently.  So the married should follow his instruction.

TO THE UNMARRIED AND WIDOWS:  STAY SINGLE OR GET MARRIED (7:8,9).

Now, to the unmarried and to the widows I say that it would be better for you to continue to live alone as I do. But if you cannot restrain your desires, go ahead and marry – it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Since Paul has already advised the unmarried to marry (7:2), the “unmarried” here (Greek, hagamois) are probably men who’ve lost their wives to death.  He counsels them “to live alone as I do” (without explaining why).  But, if they can’t control their desires they should marry, because it’s better to marry than “burn with passion.”

TO CHRISTIAN PARTNERS:  DON’T DIVORCE (7:10,11).

For married people I have a command which is not my own but the Lord’s: a wife must not leave her husband; but if she does, she must remain single or else be reconciled to her husband; and a husband must not divorce his wife.

Paul addresses married couples who both are believers, appealing explicitly to Jesus’ authority.  “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11,12).  No distinction should be made between “leave her husband” and “divorce”.  In Greek-Roman culture, divorce was sometimes “legalized” through proper documents; other times one partner simply left the other.

Paul allows a wife to leave her husband, but not to remarry.  Presumably the same is true for the husband.

TO BELIEVER/UNBELIEVER MARRIEDS:  DON’T DIVORCE (7:12-16).

To the others I say (I, myself, not the Lord): if a Christian man has a wife who is an unbeliever and she agrees to go on living with him, he must not divorce her. And if a Christian woman is married to a man who is an unbeliever and he agrees to go on living with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made acceptable to God by being united to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made acceptable to God by being united to her Christian husband. If this were not so, their children would be like pagan children; but as it is, they are acceptable to God. However, if the one who is not a believer wishes to leave the Christian partner, let it be so. In such cases the Christian partner, whether husband or wife, is free to act. God has called you to live in peace. How can you be sure, Christian wife, that you will not save your husband? Or how can you be sure, Christian husband, that you will not save your wife?

Jesus didn’t address this issue. (“I, myself, not the Lord”)  However, that doesn’t lessen Paul’s apostolic, Spirit-empowered authority.

In such a “mixed” marriage, Paul forbids the believer to initiate divorce.  Why when he forbade Corinthian Christians from even eating with the world’s sexually immoral (5:9-13)?  “For the unbelieving husband is made acceptable to God by being united to his wife” and so the unbelieving wife with her believing husband.  Similarly, their children “are acceptable to God.”

“ . . . acceptable” referring to adults is the Greek word for “sanctified” and referring to children is the Greek for “holy”!  Dr. Gordon Fee takes this to mean “as long as the marriage is maintained the potential for [the unbelieving partner to be converted] remains (The First Epistle to the Corinthians). Paul pointedly asks, “ . . . how can you be sure, Christian husband, that you will not save your wife?”  C.K. Barrett, Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham, comments, “The Christian partner has the effect of sanctifying the relationship and his partner in it” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians).

Neither explanation is fully satisfying.  But Paul’s rule is clear: If the unbeliever consents to remain with the believer, the believer must not divorce.  On the other hand, if the unbeliever leaves, the believer is “free to act.”  The Greek is doulo-o—“enslaved, under bondage, bound.”  Traditionally many commentators have taken Paul to mean the believer is free to remarry.  But his prohibition against remarriage (7:10,11) makes it more likely Paul simply means the believer should freely let the unbeliever go.  “God has called you to peace.”

My Struggle.

Pastoring 44 years, I did much marriage counseling.  Always I tried to uphold the sanctity of marriage.  But where many years of emotional abuse was involved, I couldn’t bring myself counsel a believer to remain married to that unbeliever.  Nor when children needed a father or the family needed a bread-winner besides the mother, could I counsel a wife not to remarry.

The best of us believers are still fallen creatures.  Sometimes we make a mess of our marriages.  I understand the never-ending cost of divorce.  But I also understand, in some situations, cost of a mother with children remaining single (7:11) and the cost of a mother with children remaining married to an abusive unbeliever (7:12-16).  Divorce or remarriage is always the last resort.  But sometimes in our fallenness we need redemptive grace, not strict rules.  I always tried to  find the narrow spot between the sanctity of marriage and compassion to hurting believers.

As Paul wrote earlier, “Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes.  He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts . . . ” (1 Corinthians 4:5).

When it comes to sex, Christians seem stuck in the 19^th century.  We wonder, “Should a first date end with a kiss?”  Meanwhile, movies show us first dates actually end in bed (euphemism for sexual intercourse).

In 1 Corinthians 6:13-20 Paul is confronting a surprising sex issue. Corinthian Christian men are asserting their right to visit prostitutes!  Paul begins where they stand in their beliefs . . .

“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be enslaved by anything (6:12).

“All things are lawful for me”—that’s their slogan.  They’re “spiritual” (pneumatikos) people.  Having the Spirit the body, and ethics pertaining to it, have no consequence.

While they’re not under law, Paul reminds them “not all things are helpful (profitable, beneficial)”. More importantly he himself refuses to be “enslaved” by anything.  The Greek word (exousiazo), refers to someone or something that has authority over, that dominates or masters. For Paul, sex with a prostitute amounts to coming under her power.

Men argued for freedom to do as they pleased without restraint, including having sex with prostitutes.  Paul saw it as coming under the power of the prostitute.

“Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”–and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power (6:13,14).

Paul cites another Corinthian slogan that seems to have nothing to do with prostitutes.  But the Corinthians apparently used it to say, “Just as food is meant for the stomach, and the stomach for food”, so the body is meant for sex.  Paul agrees that food regulations are irrelevant, because God will ultimately destroy both stomach and food.

But the body is in a different category.  It is “for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.”  Just as God bodily “raised the Lord” he will also bodily raise us.  Therefore, “The body is not meant for sexual immorality”.

“Sexual immorality” is the Greek porneia.  Paul uses it of sex with a prostitute.  More broadly, it also refers to sexual relations before marriage (“fornication”) and sexual relations with someone married to another man or woman (“adultery”). The body is not meant for that, but for the Lord.

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! (6:15).

By “Do you not know” Paul implies they should know “that your bodies are members of Christ”.  Spiritually, the believer’s body has been joined to Christ’s resurrection body (and will be raised with his).  Therefore, it’s unthinkable to “take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute”!

Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him (6:16,17).

In the second, “Do you not know”, Paul rejects the modern idea of “casual sex.”  “ . . . he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her”.  He takes that from Genesis 2:24–“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

The Christian man actually prostitutes himself.  By being joined to the Lord he “becomes one spirit with him”.  By union with a prostitute, the Christian “becomes one body with her”.  And she’s not a member of Christ, not destined for resurrection.

Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body (6:18).

Paul fairly shouts, “Run away from porneia!”  With his exhortation comes this warning:  the porneia person “sins against his own body.”  That is, by having sex with a prostitute he, in effect, takes his body from its union with Christ and makes it a member of her body.

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body (6:19,20)

Finally, the Corinthians should know this:  “that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God.”  Earlier of the church Paul had written, “Do you not know that you (plural) are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (3:16).  What is true of the church is also true of the believers.  Once the Jerusalem temple housed the presence of the living God, now the Spirit of God is housed in the believer’s body.

Thus, Paul turns the Corinthians’ argument on its head.  They insisted the Spirit’s presence made the body of no consequence; Paul argues the Spirit’s presence sanctifies the body.

Furthermore, they are not their own, free to do as they please with their body.  “ . . . for you were bought with a price.”  Paul is clearly referring to the “price” of Christ’s sacrificial, bodily death.  This “bought” them as whole persons (body too) for God.

Doxasate refers to enhancing God’s reputation; hence, “praise, honor, magnify” God in your body.  Again, the body is not of no account.  It belongs to the Lord.  It is joined to the Lord.  It is indwelt by the Lord’s Spirit.  It will be resurrected by the Lord.  “So glorify God in your body.”

* * *

Prostitutes not the problem?  How about pornography? (It’s a $10 billion business—bigger than the NFL and MLB combined.) Or lustful looking?  Fornication?  Adultery?  Porneia includes them all. But we shouldn’t see the prohibition as an ancient ethic, as if we’re hopelessly out of touch with the times.

If we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, then this body we call ours is really his.  It’s joined to him.  It houses his Spirit.  It will be one day resurrected by him.  The issue isn’t keeping a regulation.  It’s not even just running away from porneia. 

It’s remembering whose body it is.  Then honoring the Owner with it.

After more than four decades of pastoring, I can look back on some pretty messy church problems.  But never did I have to deal with one member cheating another out of money (that I knew of).  Paul did. The Corinthian case was even worse, because the cheated member took the cheating member to court.  Paul was indignant.

DARE GO TO LAW?

When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!  So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church?  I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers,  but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? (1 Corinthians 6:1-6).

Paul is horrified.  Look at his language:  “When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?”  As a Jew, he was trained in the tradition of bringing to the synagogue what pagans would bring to law court.

But these newly-converted Corinthians were products of their “court-culture”.  In nearby Athens, a jury for small cases numbered 201, for big cases from 1,000 to 6,000 people.  That made jury participation a way of life.  It was natural, then, for these newly-converted Corinthians to settle a dispute in court.

Paul, however, isn’t thinking culturally¸ but eschatologically.  The “saints” (those sanctified by conversion to Christ) “will judge the world”.  That belief may have sprung from the prophet Daniel who saw in a vision that “ . . . the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High”.  Jesus echoed the idea when he told the disciples they would judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28).

Paul doesn’t go into detail.  The Corinthians should know the saints will judge the world.  That means God’s people will somehow be involved in the final judgment when the whole anti-God world system will be judged.

So Paul asks rhetorically, “And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?”  Dr. Gordon Fee (The First Epistle to the Corinthians) paraphrases:  “Here are those who will not inherit the kingdom, whom God through his people is going to judge, and you are allowing lawsuits to be brought before them?” (p. 232).

Not only does Paul shame them for going to “unrighteous” judges, but . . .

DO YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE?

To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?  But you yourselves wrong and defraud–even your own brothers! Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Corinthians 6:7-11).

Win or lose in court, they’ve already lost: they’re behaving like people of the present evil age where self-gain and personal rights rule.  People of the new age in Christ should rather be cheated than take a brother to court.

Again, fault lies not with only the two combatants, but the whole church.  Instead of intervening, the whole church is boasting of their spirituality while ignoring sinful conduct. If they persist, Paul warns, they’ll find themselves like the world:  without inheritance in the kingdom of God.

But Paul can’t end his reproof with a warning.  To call them to right-living, he reaffirms what God’s Spirit has done in them.  In the past, they were guilty of sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, practicing homosexuality, stealing, greed, drunkenness, reviling, and swindling.  But then they were cleansed from the filth of their former lifestyles (“you were washed”), set apart to God for holy living (“you were sanctified”) and declared right with God (“you were justified”).  This salvation was carried out by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ (“in the name of”) and “by the Spirit of God”.  Paul, therefore, is urging the Corinthians to live like the new people they are.

Here, too, the apostle is thinking eschatologically.  “Why not rather be defrauded” than take your brother to court?  We would say, “He cheated me out of my money!”   Paul would say, “This world’s wealth is a trivial thing for people who are eternally rich!”  This is why Paul can say, “To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you.”  Shame on the church, not only because brother is fighting brother for money, but for embracing the values of this age instead of the eternal kingdom of God.

SHAME ON THE CHURCH TODAY?

At first glance I don’t get Paul’s indignation.  Sure, the church is “airing its dirty laundry before the world”.  And, sure, this mars the church’s witness.  But neither is why Paul is horrified.  Why then?  Because the church is living by the values of this evil age instead of those of God’s kingdom.  And it’s not just a matter of ethical failure:  the church isn’t living out its identity as the new-age people of God who will judge the world.

Let’s suppose the following occurred in a church I pastored . . .

A church member sells his house to another member, promising a sizeable water-leak problem has been repaired.  The next big rain reveals the seller’s deceit.  The seller refuses to pay for repair and damages.  The buyer hires a lawyer and sues.  Would we say, “Shame on the church”?  Would I as pastor be indignant, as Paul was, and for the same reasons?

I’m sure I’d be disappointed in those two members.  I’d be concerned about our church’s reputation.  If the monetary loss wasn’t too great, I’d suggest the new owner forgive the old and move on.  But I don’t think I’d be indignant that the church wasn’t living out its identity as the new-age people of God who will judge the world.

So:  shame on the church today?  In this case, yes.  Shame that we haven’t learned to live out our identity as the new-age people of God who will judge the world!  In other words, shame that while we’ve learned to look back to biblical ethics, we haven’t learned to look ahead to the “not yet” of God’s kingdom that has “already” come in Christ by the Spirit.

Being, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Spirit-washed, Spirit-sanctified, Spirit-justified heirs of God’s eternal kingdom calls for radical thinking and other-worldly conduct, doesn’t it!