1 Corinthians

During his second missionary journey, Paul ministered faithfully in Macedonia and Achaia, intending to establish churches in Grecian regions. Corinth will be the first city where he was not rushed out shortly but was able to serve for a substantial period of time. At Corinth, Paul’s gospel preaching led to the Jewish synagogue ruler Crispus believing upon Christ, along with his family (Acts 18:8; 1Cor 1:14). Paul served in Corinth for eighteen months (Acts 18:11). While there he also baptized the household of Crispus, Gaius, and the family of Stephen (1Cor 1:14–16). His work there saw enough believers come to faith to establish a church. Prior to this correspondence, Paul wrote to the Corinthian church in a letter that is not extant (1Cor 5:9–10).

In 146 BC, the Romans destroyed the city of Corinth—what is known as “Old Corinth.” The city was rebuilt as a Roman colony in 29 BC by Julius Caesar—what is known as “New Corinth.” This Corinth was a cosmopolitan city consisting of Romans, Jews, and Greeks. Roman and Greek influence in Corinth was evident in law, culture, language, and religion. Old Corinth was known for its immorality, as “to Corinthianize” could mean “to fornicate,” and “Corinthian girl” was a way of referring to a prostitute.¹ Many in the Corinthian assembly welcomed the mores of the surrounding culture without discernment.

Paul welcomed a delegation from “Chloe’s household” (1Cor 1:11) concerned about division in the Corinthian church, sexual immorality among the members, and civil suits between members (1Cor 1–6). Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus traveled as delegates from Corinth to bring a gift to Paul, a report of events within the congregation, and questions from the assembly addressed to Paul (1Cor 7:1). The reports and the letter pointed to misunderstandings about the role of the gospel in the life of the church. In response, Paul writes to bring the congregation to understand the priority of the gospel in decisions occasioned by the assembly’s assimilation of the culture. He will call them to agree in their decision-making by using love in all that they do.

This is the meaning² of Paul’s correspondence in 1 Corinthians: Decisions on matters in the church—the local assembly—should follow wisdom that is implicit in the gospel and that should be practiced in all churches.

“So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.”

— 1 Corinthians 10:31 ESV

I. Introduction with Greeting and Prayer (1:1–9)

A. The Calling of the Writer, Greeting, and Word of Blessings (1:1–3)
B. The Prayer of Thanksgiving for the Church (1:4–9)

II. Reply to Concerns Raised by Delegation from Chloe’s Household (1:10–6:20)

A. Reply on Concerns of Division on Baptism Modes (1:10–31)
B. Supporting Discourse on Ministry Weakness and the Spirit’s Revelation (2:1–15)
C. Supporting Discourse on Leaders Building upon Christ as Foundation (3:1–23)
D. Concluding Discourse on Assessing Leaders and Following Timothy and Paul (4:1–21)
E. Reply to the Concern of Sexually Immoral and Sinning Members (5:1–13)
F. Reply to the Concern of Lawsuits over Personal Grievances (6:1–11)
G. Reply to the Concern of Separating the Body from Immorality (6:12–20)

III. Response to Questions Written to Paul on Various Issues in the Assembly (7:1–16:4)

A. Response on Decisions Related to Marriage and Singleness (7:1–40)
B. Response on Decisions Related to Knowledge and Eating Liberties (8:1–13)
C. Supporting Discourse on the Corinthians’ and Eating Liberties (9:1–23)
D. Supporting Discourse to Display Danger in Flirting with Idols While Using Their Liberties (9:24–11:1)
E. Responses on Decisions Related to Apostolic Traditions (11:2–34)
F. Response on Decisions Related to Gifts Endowed by the Spirit (12:1–31)
G. Supporting Discourse on Love as the More Excellent Way of Using Gifts Endowed by the Spirit (13:1–13)
H. Response on Decisions Surrounding Tongues and Prophecy (14:1–40)
I. Interlude on the Resurrection of the Dead and Its Implications for Steadfastness (15:1–58)
J. Response of Decisions Related to Collecting for Relief of Jerusalem Believers (16:1–4)

IV. Closing Greetings and Final Words (16:5–24)

A. Plans for Visits of Paul, Timothy, Apollos, Stephanus, and Others (16:5–18)
B. Greetings from Fellow Believers and Final Words of Assurance (16:19–24)

1:1–3 Paul’s apostolic greeting with Sosthenes to the Corinthian church recognizes the working of God’s grace eternally and presently. In typical opening fashion, Paul’s greeting begins with establishing his authority as one summoned by God and sent to give eyewitness testimony to the resurrection of Christ. Like acknowledging Timothy, Silvanus, or other apostolic companions, Paul mentions the presence of Sosthenes as a family member in Christ. In accordance with his own calling, the greeting recognizes the eternal working of grace in the lives of the Corinthians. Such working of grace is significant considering the sub-Christian behavior in the Corinthian congregation Paul corrects in the letter. By grace, this local body is made holy by the work of Christ in redemption. Effectively, they have experienced their eternal summoning to faith so that they express the faith in Jesus’s name that is necessary for salvation, as have all the members of God’s church (i.e., “saints”). Paul wishes peace and grace upon God’s people in the vein of the Aaronic blessing (Num 6:23–27). The grace flows from the Father and the Son, the Lord over the church. Such grace and peace are integral to being the church community that God calls to do the work of Christ in a world largely absent of peace and in need of God’s grace.

1:4–9 Immediately following his greeting’s wish for the Lord’s grace upon the Corinthians, Paul speaks of their experience of the grace of Christ as a reason for giving thanks. The good for which the apostle gives thanks are benefits flowing from Christ’s work in the saints at Corinth. Paul mentions four products. First, the Corinthians are gifted greatly in both speech and knowledge. Each gifting reappears throughout the book. Positing them as works of Christ anticipates Paul’s later corrections and rebukes of the congregation’s misuse of various speaking gifts and knowledge gifts. If Christ is Lord and the enrichment is his, the gifts intend to honor him and not promote the self. The gifts confirm the working of the gospel in them, as the gifts come from the indwelling Spirit given to the redeemed. Despite much character evidence to the contrary, the transformation of the Corinthians was confirmed by the presence of God by the Spirit. Second, the giftedness in speech and knowledge shows evidence that the Corinthians have the full cadre of spiritual gifts from the Spirit. Later, Paul will be explicit in listing gifts present among believers in Corinth, especially focusing on knowledge, prophecy, tongues, and interpretation of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. The full giftedness provides all the empowerment for service and assurance of hope needed until the Second Advent. Christ has given all that is needed for building the body until the Lordship of Christ is manifest in its full glory. Their hope in the reign of Christ should guide them away from living according to a non-Christian worldview (e.g., “a kind not even known by the world” [ch. 5], “meat for the body and the body for meat” [ch. 6], “good for a man not to touch a woman” [ch. 7], meat offered to idols [ch. 8], list of sins in 10:6–11 drawn from the OT, cup of demons [ch. 10], rushing to eat the supper [ch. 11], and the reception of false prophets [ch. 12]). Third, Christ will accomplish full sanctification in the Corinthians. He will both maintain their salvation so that they will persevere and give them a guiltless status in judgment before God the Father. Although Paul speaks of some within the fellowship who are not believers (vs. “those who are genuine,” 11:19), the local assembly does have those who will be guiltless. The others seemingly apostatize. But the hope for the day of Christ is to be guiltless. Fourth, Paul expresses thanks for God’s faithfulness to accomplish the calling to which he has summoned the Corinthians. He describes it as “the fellowship of his Son” (1:9). The eschatological focus directs the Corinthians’ identity toward love rather than judgment only. They will not simply be guiltless former sinners; they will be people enjoying full closeness with the Son, and thus through him with the Father and the Spirit. They all enjoy this promise of fellowship. They all should be marked by such fellowship in the present. For a ninth time Paul will identify Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, and for the sixth time he will speak of Christ as Lord—the ruler of heaven and earth, all things visible and invisible. The repetition—Messiah, Lord, Messiah, Lord, Messiah, Lord—should color their thoughts, identity, and every decision, including occasional decisions on divisions, church discipline, lawsuits between members, personal immorality, marriage, Christian liberty, apostolic traditions, spiritual gifts, their resurrection hope, and collecting for believers in need.

1:10–12 Paul’s appeal in Christ to his brothers and sisters to overcome quarrelsome divisions over baptism with unity invites them to consider the unity of Christ’s person and Paul’s calling in their experience of the gospel’s power. The gospel’s inherent call to practice unity over conflicts on modes of baptism rests on the unity of the person of Christ and the believer’s experience of the gospel’s power. Having all called upon the name of Jesus for salvation, they should share in unity reflective of Christ’s person and work. “Agree . . . no division . . . united . . . same mind . . . same judgment” together place the strongest emphasis on unity in positive and negative terms, in thinking and reasoning from their thought. It is not a call to uniformity, but the judgment in their identity that would render idle any reason for quarreling among themselves. The letter to Corinth was occasioned by a delegation from Chloe’s home, which included a report of the existence of quarrelling among members of the body. The entire church was divided over baptism (i.e., “each one”). The discussion took up much space that would have distracted the Corinthians from their mission to teach Corinth and the world with the gospel. The three leaders over which the church was divided were key persons in the spreading of the gospel to regions outside of Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria, especially to Asia.

1:13–16 Immediately, Paul makes the issue one of the Corinthian’s identity in Christ. “Is Christ divided?” spoke to multiple concerns within the assembly (8:4–6; 10:17; 11:18; 12:5; 14:26–28). The claim “I am of Christ” reveals that the divisions reflected a one-upmanship spirit within the assembly (cf. 13:4–5). Paul takes the focus away from himself and the other servants by casting the Corinthians’ gaze to the crucifixion—an act of Christ alone, not of Paul, Apollos, or Cephas. Christ’s work both far outweighs the work of the servants and is the basis for their service. Crucifixion is not for one-upmanship but for falling in humility, which the rhetorical question about Paul encouraged. The six references to baptism in this verse and the four to follow show that the divisions are over modes of baptism. But Paul demonstrates that his work of baptism is not central to the Corinthians identity; their claim of “I am of Paul” was empty. Visitors coming to the church would have thought Christianity was about baptism and not the death of Christ, based on the energy given to declaring a baptism camp. The camps themselves would divide newcomers against members and make them confused about the point of conversion. Conversion is not for the sake of declaring camps, an idea that Paul’s few baptisms supported.

1:17–18 If the Corinthians’ faith rested on the quality of the rhetoric in one’s preaching of the gospel—i.e., whether Paul’s speech was as powerful as someone else’s or not—they were missing the point of experiencing the power of Christ. The mode of preaching became central over the gospel itself. It then followed that they were ripe to focus on “mode” of baptism—whether Paul’s, Apollos’s, Cephas’s, or Christ’s own baptism by John the Baptist. Placing emphasis on the style of the preacher made them open to confusion over the point of the gospel; if it is about mode of preaching (style or eloquence), and that leads to salvation, then baptism must also be about style (i.e., various modes, as seen or mentioned in Acts 2:38; 16:33; 18:8, 25; 19:3, 5–6). But Paul tells Corinth that if they are fighting over Paulo-baptism, Petero-baptism, Apollo-baptism, or even Jesus/Johno-baptism, they are missing the point of the gospel. Paul is clear that his calling as an apostle is to preach the gospel (Acts 13:1–5; 20; 24–28; Rom 10:15ff; 15; 2Cor 3–4; Eph 4:10–12; Phil 1:12–16; 2Tim 3:14–4:8). The wisdom of God in the proclamation of the gospel—although perceived as foolish—acts as the power of God for the saved while casting down human wisdom as weak and foolish.

Jesus being crucified to resolve the problem of sin for all could seem narrowminded to polytheists, pluralists, atheists, and the non-religious moralists. The cross was a symbol of shame in the Roman world, not of victory. Yet to those in the process of sanctification, having begun the journey with the cross, the cross is what brings about salvation; thus baptism is not what reveals God’s power to save.

1:19–20 Paul finds support in his understanding of the two-fold nature of the revelation of the cross in Isaiah 29:14. The Lord reveals that he will work to destroy secular wisdom about life (and not knowledge or information); the reference to the cross in Isaiah 29 is cryptic. All wisdom in the world has the knowledge of God as its ultimate end, but apart from the revelation of Christ, attempts at truth fail. Those philosophers, writers, and pundits of Corinth, who spoke according to the ideas guiding their contemporary age, all had failed to reach the knowledge of God. Through the cross, God had revealed the way to himself and shown all other ways to lack wisdom. The philosophies of the secular realm failed at giving persons a path to know God. God’s delight has been to reveal the path of salvation through the proclamation of the death and resurrection of Christ and faith in him alone.

1:22–25 Paul’s and the evangelists’ choice to preach Christ crucified rests on Christ to be the wisdom and power of God for salvation for believers. During Christ’s earthly ministry, the Jewish leadership constantly demanded he show signs akin to OT miracles to verify his Messianic claims, even though he had already given many signs (Matt 16:1; Mark 8:11–12; Luke 11:16; John 2:18; 4:48). Greeks were lovers of philosophical thought—much of which they considered a pursuit of wisdom—having been students of philosophy since the eighth century BC. Pontificating human wisdom was a way of life for the Greeks (Acts 17:21). Paul, however, proclaimed the death and resurrection of Christ, which was trouble to those who wanted miraculous verification to their standards; it was equally lacking in wisdom for these who relished in the learned ideas of human thought. However, God’s sovereign election of some Jews and some Gentiles made all the difference in their reception of the gospel message. For the called, Christ’s death and resurrection were sufficient for sign-seekers to see the power of God, and they were sufficient to satisfy the pursuit of the pinnacle of wisdom. The perceived foolishness and the weakness of God in the gospel excels men’s wisdom and strength. For Greeks, whose histories celebrated the likes of Alexander the Great and the victors in Homer’s writings, death by crucifixion would not be the wisdom path to success, happiness, or enlightenment; it would be foolishness, as would be proclamation of the resurrection (Acts 17:18). To the Jew, Christ dying on a tree would have been weakness, not power (Deut 21:23; Gal 3:13). But the evidence to Corinth was that God outdid the wisdom and powers of people by providing atonement through Christ. What was deemed foolish and weak was wise and strong.

1:26–31 God’s calling of the many Corinthians in their worldly weaknesses through the despised gospel makes boasting in salvation belong to God exclusively. The “for” clause continues the thought from the previous paragraph. The Corinthians’ experiences in salvation affirm the wisdom of God in the proclamation of the gospel for their salvation. If salvation were based on their intellectual status, social power status, or pedigrees of nobility, few Corinthians would have qualified for salvation. By providing salvation by faith regardless of both status by the world’s measurements and ethnic identity (“Jews or Greeks,” 1:24–25), God has removed any ability for one to claim worthiness in salvation or salvation by merit. A righteous legal standing before God, a status of holiness before him, and his ownership that purchased the Corinthians from death are works of God in Christ through the gospel. They are not works of superior intellect, power, or birth. This is consistent with Jeremiah’s proclamation that anyone who boasts boasts of the Lord’s might alone.

2:1–5 Paul’s intentional choice to proclaim the gospel among the Corinthians with human weaknesses is meant to encourage the Corinthians to trust the power of God. With emphasis on himself as the example to follow, Paul references the experience recorded in Acts 18. This might have been particularly important for those listeners who claimed “I follow Paul” in baptism. Paul’s example was not to intended to produce fans, followers, adherents, or groupies of Paul. As a learned man, Paul could have proclaimed the testimony of what God has done in Christ to resolve the human dilemma with words of academia or of the intellectual class. Like the rhetoricians of Corinth, such an approach would be taken to impress the hearers and gain followers. But that would have put human effort on display, regardless of how much Paul spoke of Christ. Paul understood that the gospel does not need help to demonstrate itself as superior to the wisdom of human beings. The Corinthians, who excelled in speaking gifts but used them to self-serving ends, needed to be reminded of the example of Paul and how his ministry led to their conversion and growth. To proclaim Christ crucified is to make the death of Christ for sinners and his resurrection from the dead the root, foundation, and goal of Paul’s teaching from Scripture. (See Acts 5:42; 8:35; 17:2–3 for the practice of Paul and the apostles to preach Christ from Scripture as their proclamation and Acts 18:4–5 for his practice in Corinth.) Instead, like one with stage fright, Paul came in a disposition of fear. “Weakness” could be an indication of physical sickness. “Trembling” is a term for quaking with fear. Bodily, emotionally, and mentally, Paul came not with power to develop the spiritual lives of the Corinthians. Although he had Apostolic gifts, the Corinthians could not be awed by them or lured into thinking it was the gifts that brought about the work of God in them. It was the Christ that Paul proclaimed who did the work before the faces of the Corinthians and in the lives of the Corinthians.

2:6–7 Paul’s team’s imparting of wisdom from God by the Spirit overcomes the natural human limitation that prevents us from gaining the knowledge of God. Paul’s preaching of the gospel is not denigrating the concept of wisdom or the pursuit thereof. On the contrary, Paul only speaks of the limits of human wisdom regarding one’s ability to know God personally. One cannot philosophize and debate to meet Christ in salvation. Salvation is the work of the gospel. Wisdom of the contemporary age might best be understood as a worldview that does not encompass the gospel and the story of redemption. What achieves and keeps people of power in rule and governing does not give the knowledge of God. But those Paul identifies as “the mature”—a term clarified later in Paul’s argument—are able to receive the things of God. A natural limitation of humans is finiteness. Those in positions of authority in this life are just as frail as those under their rule (Prov 29:13; 22:2). God has decreed all things for his glory for all eternity, including the preaching of the gospel as the path to knowing God.

2:7–9 “Secret” would be consistent with the alternative reading of “mystery” for “testimony” in 2:1. “Hidden” is something known only to God that cannot be discerned by limited humans searching for God. The wisdom that Paul, his team, and contemporary believers proclaim in the gospel reveals God’s path to God that was not fully revealed either under the Old Covenant or in history prior to the angelic announcements of the incarnation of Jesus. Neither is such wisdom initiated by human search; its revelation comes through God revealing himself rather than through a human search to discover God. Having wisdom and power to rule does not mean one understands the secret things of God behind history. Observation of social, religious, political, and scientific movements and philosophies accounts for human interpretation of events. But Herod Antipas, Pilate, the Jewish chief priests, Pharisees, scribes, and elders, though having the great philosophies of Egypt and Greece and Second Temple literature, were unable to see Jesus Christ as the incarnate revelation of God. Their lack of seeing resulted in the capital punishment of the incarnate Creator. They crucified the one Psalm 24 identified as “the King of glory” who would ride into Jerusalem as victorious Savior. It is sin that makes humankind suppress the truth about God. But sovereignly and mysteriously, it is God who must give knowledge of what he has planned in order for the human abilities of seeing, hearing, and pondering to discern the decrees of God. While the Hebrew Scriptures give accurate knowledge of the coming of Christ and redemption, they do not give full knowledge. Neither do believers have such knowledge, for it awaits God’s full revelation (Isa 55:8–9; 64:4; 1Cor 13:12–13; 15:51–58; 2Cor 5:9–10; Rev 10:4; 22:10; cf. 2Cor 12:6–8).

2:10–13 Paul assumes the indwelling presence of the Spirit within believers and the Corinthians’ knowledge thereof (cf. John 16:14; Acts 2:1–4; Rom 8:4–6; 1Cor 12:12–13; Jas 4:5–6). The indwelling Spirit, given to glorify Christ and make him known, reveals to believers what cannot be known through general revelation, human experience, inquiry, research, exploration, experiment, philosophy, accidental discovery, or study. The Spirit makes known what God is doing in Christ for believers in the full scope of redemption, and the Spirit will do so for all eternity. The depths of the knowledge of the eternal, infinite, and everlasting God are more unsearchable than the depths of the Mariana Trench. What the Westminster Shorter Catechism codified in catechetical form agrees with what Paul says about the Spirit as the necessary revealer of God and his decrees: “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.”³ “Everything” (2:10) refers to all things created and uncreated, visible and invisible, material and immaterial, for all things are within the scope of the knowledge of God—Paul’s topic here. By way of comparison, Paul explains the Spirit’s unique ability to reveal the knowledge of God because, as with humans, the one who knows a person best is the person himself. Humans, as finite beings, cannot comprehend the thoughts of God—an eternal being—on their own. But the Spirit, being eternally God, can reveal the thoughts of God to people so that people might grasp the gospel with knowledge, assent, and volition. The ministry of the indwelling Spirit stands in contrast to the philosophies of the natural order and its humanly reasoned wisdom. This provides a means for Paul to impart the wisdom of God in the preaching of the gospel to those in whom the Spirit is at work. The preacher of the gospel is to take the gospel and its truth—that which is spiritual—and give it to those who are spiritual—those made holy by the ministry of the Spirit in them.

2:14–16 “Carnal” or “natural” should not be understood as communicating a “lower shelf” Christianity made up of believers living like unbelievers who don’t care about honoring Christ and growing in him. Paul’s contrast has been between recipients of the work of the Spirit and the recipients of earthly wisdom. There is no third category in the NT. People are converts growing in Christ, or they are unbelievers. The believer’s growth occurs at different rates, just as apostates appear to be Christians until they fall away. It is the unbeliever who cannot understand the things of God because he is devoid of the Spirit. Only when the Spirit quickens the unbeliever will she or he understand the gospel.

3:1–3 Paul now intends to move the Corinthians from their divisions toward unity. In contrast to the wisdom he gives to the “mature”—a metaphor for believers—Paul must address the Corinthians as one would address infants. The contrast is not between two levels of Christianity, but between two metaphors. They are “mature” because they are believers rather than unbelievers. But the apostle must address them as “infants” because they are not mature in their discernment about the roles of persons in the plan of God. They are “of the flesh” in the sense of being merely human in their thinking and behavior. They are measuring the work of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and Jesus by human measurements rather than by “spiritual” measurements. The characteristic Pauline “in Christ” speaks to the mysterious union of the Corinthians with Christ even before Paul inserts assurance of salvation in verse 15 below: “he himself will be saved.” Paul does not classify “milk” and “meat,” but speaks of a lack of readiness to talk of advanced spiritual matters. The Corinthians need to gain basics of the faith to address the thinking that has led to their divisions. “Fleshly” should be thought of as “with earthly wisdom.” Some evidence of their use of earthly wisdom to evaluate the human servants in the church is their jealousy over the giftedness and following of the various servants and the strife created as they fight over which servant should be followed.

3:4–7 The very thing the Corinthians are doing care-free is what Paul presents as evidence of earthly wisdom—of their infant-like thinking. “Paul” and “Apollos” are humans; to claim rightness or greatness in baptism based on the perceived strengths in their approaches is to exalt human technique and effort. Paul’s two questions call for examination of the God-given roles of Paul, Apollos, and all other ministry servants in baptism and all ministry. A three-fold description will correct the Corinthians’ ideas about their roles: First, they are servants; they are not autonomous, and both have this same status. Second, they are instruments—human means acting as the conduits for the work of the gospel so that the Corinthians might place faith in the death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Rom 10:14–15). Third, they are appointed by the sovereign Lord to their service as instruments. The Lord assigned each ministry servant, so they are not in competition leading separate ministries from God; nor are they men to whom credit belongs for the belief and growth of the Corinthians. Paul reiterates the human aspects by using himself within the example along with Apollos. Yet both are used in one plan leading to the increase in belief among the Corinthians. Paul defers all credit to God, negating the value of his and Apollos’s contributions as instruments.

3:8–11 Paul speaks in common language about wages so that he might inform the Corinthians that reward is from the one who commissioned the work, not from the divided followers in Corinth. God rewards faithfulness, a standard which the Corinthians cannot judge fully. Using the additional metaphor of “field” with “building,” the apostle identifies the Corinthians as the property of God as much as the workers. This makes the workers stewards or managers responsible for the property of another. What the workers do among the Corinthians only has significance if they do the work of God as assigned. As a steward of God’s field-building that would result from his preaching, Paul used the care of a skilled master builder—as a worker with expert skill—to lay the foundation for the building from his beginning with the Corinthians. The gospel is the foundation of any local congregation. Church does not begin in the mind of humans, nor is it the simple social gathering of humans. Through the gospel people come to faith to be united into God’s field. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the only foundation upon which believers start and mature as a body. Paul and everyone serving the church must serve with care and diligence. In the image of a building, the Person and work of Christ is the foundation on which the church and all those who serve her stand. The exclusivity of the statement points to the significance of the gospel over the wisdom of the world.

3:12–15 As Paul toggles back and forth between the metaphor and those serving the Corinthians, he uses the construction language to speak of the ministry work. The focus is not on excellence, but on faithfulness. All ministry work will face the judgment of God in the coming Day of recompense. Like precious metals that survive the fires of an oven testing when the dross is removed from their pure ore content, so faithful works will receive reward. In the same way, as materials made of wood, hay, and straw would be engulfed quickly by fire, so too works done apart from faithfulness will not survive. Whatever survives is the measure of the ministry works of the Christian servant, such that salvation itself is not at stake. The reward for work is at stake.

3:16–17 Paul’s question is not merely rhetorical. The intent of the question is to invite the Corinthians to consider their corporate identity as the dwelling place of God. The presence of the Spirit dwelling in the corporate body makes the local body holy before the Lord. To destroy the body through division is to make an attack on God via his property, as God resides among his own corporate people. The reward of God to return destruction is just, especially considering that the church is the steward of the message of life in Christ. To allow divisions is to fail to consider the holiness of God and the holiness of God’s church (cf. Rom 11:26; Eph 1:4; 2:21; 5:27; Col 1:22; 3:12; 2Tim 1:9).

3:18–20 Those who have thought themselves wise as they boasted about the power of human servants—whether their favorite one or not—abandoned the wisdom of God in favor of the wisdom of humans. But even as God spoke through Job and the Psalm writers about his ability to expose the folly of those who think they are wise according to human measure, so the Lord echoes these refrains through Paul for those who would measure the work of God by human effort.

3:21–23 Paul’s conclusion negates the Corinthians’ divisive boasting in one servant over the other by drawing upon the unity of their identity. The work is Christ’s, and as his church, all work of building the church, regardless of the servant who performs it, is the stewardship of and a gift to the local body. “The world” as inheritance comes as part of Christ’s inheritance (cf. Ps 2:7–9; 24:1; 110:1). This idea will reappear in 1 Corinthians 6:2: “judge the world.” “Life” and “death,” “present” and “future,” are four all-encompassing spheres over which Christ rules. The gifts are but stewardships because, as the owner of the field, Christ is the owner of all believers. Yet even Christ’s ownership is a stewardship on behalf of God the Father. Later, Paul will revisit this concept to show the completion of the stewardship and reveal God as the “all in all” (1Cor 15:29 with reference to 3:22).

4:1–2 Paul intends for the body at Corinth to have a correct perspective on the stewardship of the workers called to serve among them. They are both servants with duties to their master, Christ, and those who are responsible for communicating and exemplifying the mysteries of God in the gospel before people who prefer the wisdom of the world. With their service, they seek a judgment of being found faithful—the only measure of being responsible when one holds the trust of another.

4:3–5 But the judgment of Paul’s faithfulness by other persons is not what Paul seeks. To the Corinthians, who are measuring based on mere human tastes and dislikes, for Paul to say that he cares little about their judgment would be significant. Even human courts could find his faithful work of the gospel to be in error by the world’s standards (or Paul could think he is being faithful to God when he only is pleasing a human court). The apostle is not able to judge himself fully enough to measure his own faithfulness to his gospel charge. His approval of himself does not acquit him from the Lord’s judgment of his stewardship. Only the Lord, as one omniscient and righteous, can measure Paul’s faithfulness against God’s demand of perfection in faithfulness. The reality of God’s measuring standards calls for the Corinthians to act in humility in the way they view Paul, Apollos, and Cephas. Only the Lord, in his advent, can expose in our stewardships what cannot be seen by human eyes. Human measurements cannot judge intentions and motives, as will be done by the coming Judge. Only then can faithfulness be rewarded.

4:6–9 Paul’s focus on his and Apollos’s stewardships (rather than the Corinthians’) intends for the Corinthians to be guided by Scripture in their measurements of servants. Paul quotes the OT in 1 Corinthians 1:19, 31; 2:9; 3:19; and 3:20, so that he and the Corinthians might be guided and judged by what is written in the Scriptures. Rather than having arrogant divisions, they will be guided in unity by agreement upon the Scriptures. Humility is appropriate for the Corinthians because they are recipients of the gospel ministry, not creators of it. This nullifies their boasting in having been baptized in the form, formula, or hands of any of the servants, for even baptism is an act received. With sarcasm, Paul pokes at the Corinthian’s’ self-perspectives on their positions in the church and world. They boast as if they were needless, wealthy rulers in the world, in comparison to the apostles. On the one hand, when it is convenient, they boast in their favored personality; on the other hand, they find the apostles to be beneath them. In contrast to the Corinthians’ self-perspective, in the eyes of all, God’s portrayal of the apostles is the opposite of that of kings. By worldly standards of measurement, the apostles appear as death-row criminals because of the poverty of their appearances and reputations. Nothing in their lives looks self-sufficient, rich, and kingly—not to society at large, nor to the angels watching to make sense of the story of redemption, nor to human wisdom.

4:10–13 The contrast between how the Corinthians view the apostles and themselves is striking. The apostles are foolish, impotent, and dishonorable as they serve Christ. But the Corinthians see themselves as wise, strong, and notable in their own eyes as they serve Christ, even with their boasting! For the sake of their stewardship of the gospel ministry, the lives of the apostles are full of periods marked by the absence of food and water, lack of proper clothing, beatings, homelessness, and manual labor, including tent-making. Where the wisdom of the age would respond to this mistreatment with revolt, escape, or the demand for justice, the apostles respond with Spirit-fueled resources—resources that look like weakness: blessing the revilers, enduring rather than resigning, and entreating the favor of those slandering them. These are in keeping with the words of Christ (Matt 5:11, 44; Luke 6:27–28). By following Christ’s words, the apostles are like garbage in the eyes of those opposing them and in the eyes of the Corinthians.

4:14–15 The Corinthians could feel shame for adopting a worldly outlook on Paul and the other servants rather than thinking in the pattern of Christ. But Paul’s goal for them steers away from shame and flows from love for the Corinthians as his own children. Hyperbolically speaking, 10,000 different ministers can serve them, but Paul’s role is unique to them. By virtue of introducing them to Christ through the gospel, Paul is their spiritual father. His care and desire for them is to leave arrogance and worldliness and to follow his example of following Christ.

5:1–2 Chloe’s household reported a problem with the congregation tolerating sexual immorality within the membership. Mentioning that they are going beyond what is tolerated by those without Christ is meant to shame the congregation that thinks of themselves as wise. The arrogance they have shown in boasting over the various servants now demonstrates its emptiness in the face of their failure to grieve over sin. Paul orders immediate and complete removal of the lawbreaker from the congregation of saints. “Among you” (3x, in 5:1, 2, 13), “assembled” (5:4), “the whole lump” (5:6), “celebrate the festival” (5:8), and “those inside the church” (5:12) all indicate an assembly-wide failure that needs to be addressed as a corporate body. This is not a personal matter left for an individual to address; it is beyond the scope of Matthew 18:15–16. Yet, in many contemporary churches, the mode of confrontation may be an investigative visit by a delegation of pastoral staff, elders, vestry, wardens, presbytery, deacons, or church council members.

5:3–5 Paul gives the congregation the responsibility of making judgment on the sinner for him by proxy; he is not having an out-of-body experience like those described in 2 Corinthians 12:2–4 and Revelation 1:10; 4:2. Instead, Paul’s approval is upon the right rightly executed process. The gathered congregation, along with the approval of Paul, in agreement with the will of Jesus in heaven, have the authority of Jesus to expel the member. Their act of expelling effectively places the sinning member outside of the merciful protection from the Evil One that God affords his own. “Deliver . . . to Satan ‘‘ comes by Paul’s apostolic power; proper church discipline of unrepentant members would intend a physical punishment brought by supernatural operation. The goal of the congregational discipline is not shame, but movement of the sinner toward repentant behavior reflective of the saving work of Christ within the rebel.

5:6–8 The pride of the Corinthians over sin within the congregation ignores the power of sin to infect the behavior of an entire congregation. Such infection would be analogous to a sprinkle of leaven having the power to cause a batch of dough to rise. Paul references the Exodus story and instructions on the removal of leaven during the celebration of the Passover (Exod 12:15–20; 13:6–7; 23:15; 34:18; Lev 23:6; Num 28:17; Deut 16:3, 8). “Old leaven” is figurative for their sinful ways before Christ, whereas “new lump” is figurative for their identity in Christ: The Corinthians are those whose sins have been removed by Jesus’s faithful, Messianic work as the atoning Passover lamb. His work in them calls for them to remove themselves from sin (including removing the rebellious sinner from among them).

5:9–11 Paul continues the Exodus imagery in his description of their corporate identity. They should celebrate the Passover work of Christ apart from embracing evil; they should celebrate with the appropriate meal that purifies the congregation, acting with sincerity and truthfulness. Paul mentions a non-canonical correspondence that is not extant. In that correspondence he previously addressed the problem of the Corinthians continuing in fellowship with those claiming to be Christians but living in sin. The judgment exhortations here are consistent with instructions Paul gave previously about separation from people practicing sexual immorality. To clarify, Paul explains that he was not commanding retreat from people of the world and their vices. In his previous correspondence, Paul elevates the consistency of Christian behavior within Christian fellowship. The Corinthians should not share their lives of unleavened bread with those choosing to live in the vices of life of the old leaven. Such vices included greed, a sin that does not consider love of one’s neighbor, but only considers amassing for oneself. It included idolatry, which the Ten Commandments prohibit (Exod 20:3–4), and reviling (or slander—the attacking of a person via libel or lying). It also included drunkenness—a sin associated with rebellion, laziness, and lack of self-control (Deut 21:20; Prov 23:21)—and swindling—a deceptive form of theft, which the Ten Commandments and other scriptures also prohibit (Exod 20:15; Prov 23:10–11; Hos 4:2; Matt 19:18; Rom 13:9; Eph 4:28). The problem of unrepentant sin in the life of one claiming to be a believer is so serious that Paul made even sharing a meal with such a person off limits. To share a meal would show sympathy with the person, or apathy toward the person’s sinful state; it would not show grief over sin and a zeal for celebrating the feast with sincerity and truth. The prohibition against eating would have excluded sinners from participating in the Lord’s Supper. Paul’s concern is the sanctification of the body and of the individual sinner.

5:12–13 Judgment of unbelievers is the prerogative and responsibility of God alone. But the responsibility of holding believers to standards of living that conform to the work of the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb on the cross belongs to the local assembly. The command to purge evil from the congregation draws from the holiness tradition committed to Israel under the Old Covenant (Deut 13:5; 17:7, 12; 21:21; 22:21–22, 24; Judg 20:13). God did not tolerate evil as part of the fellowship and identity of the people of God under either covenant; neither does he tolerate it in the contemporary church. Every assembly of believers is to seek to be holy (1Pet 1:16).

6:1–2 Paul responds to a report from Chloe’s household about lawsuits between believers. The legal wrangling arises from personal grievances. These are not issues of criminal activity within the assembly. That the number of lawsuits rises to a level of concern reveals much about the lack of unity within the congregation. Paul’s concern is the loci of the adjudication of the grievances. He will correct the saints in Corinth for subjecting fellow believers to the judgment of the secular courts when the matters are interpersonal conflicts. The people of God will have the future responsibility of sitting with Christ in judgment, as Christ is the final judge. The apostle’s question assumes that the Corinthians should know that the redeemed will share in judging those who are without Christ. Paul seems to be drawing from Jesus’s words to the twelve about their future role in the judgment of Israel (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30). In addition to the unique authority that Christ will invest in the twelve, all those purchased by the blood of Christ will have authority to stand as judges over the people of the world and the people’s works. The Corinthians should not diminish the exalted status such a role affords them by subjecting themselves to the judgment of those they later will be responsible for judging. If they will have authority to judge the works of the people of the world, it stands to reason that they should be able to address small matters of personal grievances as easily as judging a matter in a moot court.

6:3–5 The believers’ identity as future judges includes adjudication authority over the angelic realm. The NT has much to say about the role of the believer in revealing various aspects of salvation to the angels (1Cor 4:9; 11:10; 1Tim 3:16; 5:21; 1Pet 1:12). Paul speaks to the Corinthians about this role in judgment without precedent in the OT or the words of Jesus. He reasons from lesser to greater, recognizing that standing in judgment over cosmic beings in the age to come means that the lesser matters of this present world easily should be within their ability to resolve without appealing to earthly courts. The matters in litigation concern things that will pass with the present life; they are only finite matters. Later, believers will judge eternal matters of humans and angels. Paul’s correction over going to those without standing in the church does not indicate that believers must be absent from court benches in all of history. Instead, it indicates that in the early church the courts were largely made of people without the knowledge and power of Christ, and without a Christian worldview by which to assess judgment. The believers would be subjecting the church to judgment by those without the “standing” of Christ. Paul’s line of questions intends to rebuke the behavior of the Corinthians for failing to live up to the standard afforded by their identity as the body of Christ. Paul is not shaming the Corinthians; their behavior has done this for them, i.e., “before those who have no standing in the church . . . before unbelievers” (6:4, 6). What is shameful is the lack of identifying a wise person within the church to adjudicate the personal grievances of this present world. The question on wisdom looks back at the Corinthians’ pride toward wisdom; they have exalted the wisdom of the world (1:20), thought of themselves as wise according to worldly measures (3:19), and assumed they are the wisest ones in Christ as they compared their perception of the apostles’ lives to that of their own (4:10). Yet in attempting to settle personal grievances, they mimic the shame God affords to those who are wise according to the worldly measures (1:27). The futility of their so-called wisdom is evident in their failure to seek one among them wise enough to discern the best course of action for brothers to take rather than go to court. The Corinthians should be able to identify a person of wisdom among them.

6:6–8 The witness of the church is of great concern to Paul. At stake is the gospel. If the brothers in Christ cannot settle matters among themselves, and there is no one with wisdom (from God) to aid them in resolving their disagreements, then all claims to the power of the Christ’s resurrection are in question. Resurrection power should bring with it the ability to settle finite issues. Going to those without faith in Christ gives those unbelievers authority over matters within a local body. With that authority comes the perception that the power of the world is greater than the power of the church, or that the church does not have claim to supernatural power, for they have depended upon natural power to settle trivial matters. The shame is in using legal power to settle any matter between believers. As opposed to standing in a defeated position, a position of victory would be to accept wrongdoing or defraud from another member of the body rather than take a case to a court without the power of Christ. Again, Paul is not speaking about crimes against persons, institutions, or the State. Crimes should go to court out of the righteous pursuit of justice, love for victims and survivors, and submission to the laws of governing authorities. Covering up crimes is wrong, is out of the purview of Paul’s words in 5:12 and 6:1–11, and is as damaging to the witness of the church as is two individual believers taking personal matters of conflict to secular courts for judgment. To report a crime is vastly different than pursuing a civil suit, especially a suit that could be handled by the judgment of a wise believer or by swallowing a loss or accepting being defrauded. Paul is not castigating the courts and freeing believers for participation in the courts, legal professions, legal judgment, or the reporting of criminal activity among believers. Paul certainly is not advocating the covering of criminal activity. On the contrary, Paul is inviting believers to put the power and witness of Christ at the center of matters of personal offense by avoiding the courts and taking losses in non-criminal matters. The church must report crimes among them immediately.

On the Reporting of Crimes by the Church

Recently, there has been a great revelation of sexual abuse that occurred in the church in the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century. Sadly, many crimes were covered up by the church in all professions, whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. Some would appeal to the authority of the church to handle their own matters, others to the separation of Church and State, and some simply focused on addressing spiritual matters in the perpetrators and encouraging victims to forgive those who harmed them. aul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, however, do not intend to allow sin, crime, injustice, and pain to reign and go without accountability, justice, reckoning, and healing. All sexual abuse and harassment should be addressed as both sin and criminal activity. Covering up sin brings disparagement upon the message of the gospel. The church becomes a place of shelter for criminals rather than a place of shelter for those harmed by abuse in the world. We must also consider, however, that some countries have regimes that make a woman’s removal of a hijab a crime punishable by death, or peacefully protesting the government a crime punishable by incarceration. Such punishments are unjust, and it is the duty of the believer to pursue what is just at all times. In these instances, believers would not be under obligation to report such “crimes.” Wisdom should lead believers regarding when to knowingly break or submit to unjust laws, knowing that doing so can bring the church into conflict with the State. When this conflict occurs, believers should speak courageously about Christ and the justice found in him, entrusting their lives and souls to the mercy of our redeemer.

6:9–11 Paul puts the lawsuits over personal grievances within the perspective of the kingdom of God. For those inheriting the kingdom, Paul’s questioning turns the issue of lawsuits away from the personal grievances to the greater problem of sin. The Corinthians have gone to court against one another on the lesser matter of individual conflicts but have failed to grieve over and remove one in sexual immorality. The promise of the kingdom should reveal the great importance of the problem of immorality, and the poor soteriology and eschatology guiding the Corinthians in their thinking. The list of those not inheriting the kingdom is not limited to those in sexual immorality. The gift of the kingdom is for those who, by their living, demonstrate the power of the kingdom of God within and strive to overcome sin rather than practice it. Moreover, it is not enough to make “inheritance” point only to a reward. Instead, the reward is assumed for the saved only. The contrast in the passage is between the realms of believers and unbelievers. Those not inheriting are unbelievers—people before whom we should not take matters of individual grievances because they have no participation in the kingdom of God. Like the Corinthians, modern believers should not deceive themselves into thinking those who practice a life of sin are believers. Our responsibilities in judging grievances must be done as those transformed by Christ, with humility toward those in sin. The past status of believers keeps one from looking upon the unrighteous arrogantly, even though they are outside of the believer’’s purview of judgment. To be washed from sin conjures many ideas from the OT, including the cleansing of priests and lepers, and of Israel passing through the sea (to which Paul will refer in 1Cor 10:1–4). As those transformed from unrighteous to justified, they should judge one another as those being sanctified by the Son and the Spirit. Their identification with the name of the Lord and Messiah, and with the third Person of the triune God, should guide them away from the courts of the world and into an arena of judgment in which the name of Christ is the final authority.

6:12–13 Freedom to do with one’s body as one pleases is not an idea that began with the sexual revolution of the 1960s. The Corinthians’ slogan of freedom was “All things are lawful for me.” So Paul turns from the discussion of lawsuits to the problem of the Corinthians’ view of moral law ruling the Christian. For the apostle, the Christian’s freedom from the law code of the OT does not excuse moral laxity. Some things that one is free to do are not helpful to one’s faith in Christ; other things one has freedom to do could put the believer in bondage to such actions and must be avoided. Paul is introducing the righteous thinking that intended to deliver the Corinthian believers from sexual immorality. Another secular aphorism by which the Corinthians diluted their sexual morality drew an analogy between food appetites and sexual appetites. Corinth waved the flag that said, “If your stomach calls for food, you are hungry and must satisfy the hunger.” The extrapolation of the gratification of hunger pains to sexual desire did not account for the general moral neutrality of eating all foods versus the very real moral implication of all sexual acts outside of one’s marriage. Neither did it account for the eschatological changes that will remove the present forms of food and body. Like the discussion on lawsuits (6:1–11), Paul appeals to future realities to inform present moral thought and action. The Corinthians thought that sexual desire meant the body was designed to be satisfied by any sexual partner or any sexual act. In a counter parallel to the food slogan, Paul places the purpose of the body under the use of the Lord: As food is made to quash stomach desires and the stomach was created to eat food (so said Corinth, wrongly), so the Lord exists to benefit the body and the body shows needs of fulfillment from the Lord.

6:14–15 The resurrection of our bodies (following the resurrection of Christ) is central to the governance of sexual appetites. The Christian’s physical body exists to please the God who was raised bodily from death, the fate facing all humankind (cf. Prov 27:20; 30:16). The resurrection of Christ shows the body’s need for Christ (to overcome death). The Corinthians have’ only considered the use of the body in this world, not in the age in which the bodies of those submitted to Christ as Lord will be raised from the dead. In a different sub-point to his argument against sexual immorality, Paul will contrast the body’s use in prostitution with the body’s use as part of its mysterious union with Christ. The physical bodies of believers are who believers are; one’s “soul” or “spirit” cannot be divorced from one’s physical body in this life. Thus, the physical body experiences the mysterious union of being joined to Christ. The rhetorical question again assumes that the Corinthians have knowledge of their mysterious union. With the strongest negation following his rhetorical question, Paul rebukes any thought that the Christian participates in immorality apart from being a follower of Christ. Multiple members of the assembly in Corinth had no qualms with participating in immoral acts with prostitutes.

6:16–17 The second question to the Corinthians on prostitution draws upon their knowledge of the Creation account of marriage and borrows language from that account (the Greek “he who is joined” in vv. 16, 17 is the LXX language for “hold fast” in Gen 2:24). Paul draws from the significance of the physical joining of the bodies of Adam and Eve to mysteriously form “one” unit. However, for the Christian, immorality does not form a perpetual, mysterious union, for it is “one body” that is formed, because the believer is “one spirit” with the Lord such that they are inseparable. There is a joining of bodily desires and pleasures mentally, emotionally, and physically, but spiritually the believer remains united to Christ and his body.

6:18–20 Rather than coming under the domination of immorality (6:12), believers are to make themselves fugitives from sexual immorality in all its forms. Sexual immorality uniquely punishes the human body in a way that other sins do not. Idolatry, profaning the Lord’s name, profaning the Sabbath, dishonoring parents, stealing, murdering, bearing false witness, and coveting have no physical effects on one’s body. But sexual immorality has bodily implications that lying and coveting do not have; lying does not bring a desire for more lies, neither does coveting bring a desire for more coveting. But immorality uncaps a physical desire for more physical satisfaction. Paul’s last question on immorality recognizes that the physical body of the believer acts in the role of the tabernacle and temple for the presence of God. Paul is purposeful in using the modifier “Holy” before Spirit in this passage. The indwelling Spirit, who is holy, should not be subjected to the body’s immorality, for it is a defilement of the temple of God. The very presence of the Holy Spirit within the believer is a gift from God and is not conjured by the sexual individualism of the Corinthians. The redemption of believers came at the cost of the death of Christ, the Son of God. In addition to the ownership of all persons—which the Lord has by right as Creator—redemption gave God cosmic, legal ownership of the believer, body and all. Redemption supplied the Holy Spirit to the believer for the promotion of the sanctification of the body that the Holy One now owns. The believer should strive to honor God with the stewardship of the body. Rather than “All things are lawful for me,” the believers should wave the flag of “All to the glory of God in this body.”

Note on Cohabitation and Pornography

Paul’s instructions in 5:1–13 and 6:12–20 put a stake through the heart of any so-called Christian ideology that approves of unmarried, sexual cohabitation. This includes rejecting common-law marriage, same-sex marriage, and two unmarried believers living together while awaiting a future wedding ceremony. The church must demand that such persons wed or cease their sexual cohabitation. Moreover, given the proliferation of pornography addiction fostered by the easy access to sexual material via the internet, churches should have resources to help believers pursue deliverance from this sin. Church leadership must have the courage to confront the use of pornography as sin rather than ignore it as a private matter of personal freedom. It is a sin done in privacy because it is shameful. But it has public ramifications in (1) the abuse, exploitation, and trafficking of women (contra Matt 18:6, 10, 14; Eph 5:28, 33; 1Tim 5:2–3, 1Pet 3:7), (2) the destruction of marriages and families as heads of household give demons a place in the home (Eph 4:27, cf. Num 25:1–3; Eph 6:4; Col 3:21), and (3) the allowance of sin to reign in the assembly (Josh 7:11–12; 1Pet 2:11–12).

1 Corinthians 7 begins a new section that runs through 1 Corinthians 16 and addresses concerns the Corinthians sent to Paul. “Now concerning . . .” will enter several questions raised by the assembly in Corinth, including marriage (7:1, and the question under marriage about virgins in 7:25), meat offered to idols (8:1), apostolic traditions (11:2), spiritual gifts (12:1), and the collection for the saints in need (16:1). Additionally, Paul inserts a discussion about the resurrection of the dead in 1 Corinthians 15 due to a perceived need for additional theological instruction to encourage faithfulness in the Christian walk (15:58). The instruction may have been due to questions raised at Corinth but not formally sent to Paul (15:12, 35).

Careful observation reveals that Paul speaks to different groups on different topics in the development of the argument in 1 Corinthians 7. Of particular importance to notice is that 1) Paul speaks to believers who are in a spiritually mixed marriage—i.e., a believer married to an unbeliever—in 7:12–24, a text commonly cited to support an “abandonment” exception clause for divorce and remarriage, and 2) Paul speaks primarily to believing virgins only about undivided devotion to the Lord in 7:25–28 (see “virgins” [Grk. parthenos] at 7:25 and following). Gaining such an overview immediately removes approaching the topics of 1 Corinthians 7 simply or with a blanket theology of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. To Paul, the subject was complex. But he spoke carefully to multiple issues within the local Corinthian assembly.

7:1–2 Paul dovetails the exhortations against sexual immorality with the Corinthians’ concerns about morality and marriage. The Corinthians seemed to have asked Paul, “Isn’t it good for all persons, including the married, to abstain from sexual relations, as the best means to prevent sexual immorality?” In other words, they were calling for abstinence. The confusion the Corinthians demonstrated with the man sexually involved with his father’s wife (1Cor 5:1–2) and in their unrestrained sexual freedom (6:12–14) continues in the extreme solution they propose for even the married—literally, “not to touch a woman.” However, the proper idea for combatting immorality is for sexual relations to stay within one’s own marriage between a man and a woman—between a husband and wife. Paul specified that each must have one’s own spouse and deal with sexual temptation outside of marriage by means of healthy, faithful sexual relations within one’s own marriage. Paul’s words assume that marriage is a heterosexual union, as did Jesus’s words “male and female . . . a man . . . his wife” in Matthew 19:4–5.

7:3–5 The “conjugal rights” refer to the sexual pleasure one spouse should afford to the other in marriage. Both Christian husbands and Christian wives have the responsibility to provide for the sexual needs of the spouse. The basis of Paul’s reasoning is the spheres of authority over the body’s sexual gratification. The wife has dominion over the husband sexually in a Christian marriage (Paul employs the same verb in 6:12 to speak of the dominion under which the Corinthians find themselves in sexual immorality). Deprivation of sexual pleasure may happen with the consent of the authority of the spouse only as 1) both parties of the marriage agree, 2) such agreement is for a small window of time, and 3) the purpose of the small period of mutually agreed abstinence from sexual pursuit in marriage is that both spouses can give attention to prayer without interruption by sexual desire or activity. As Paul indicated in 6:19–20, the body plays an important role in the sanctification of the believer. This exception is the first of several Paul will give in his instructions on marriage within the chapter. The believing married couple should limit the period of abstinence so that either spouse’s deprivation of sex does not make their marriage partner vulnerable to temptation and immorality. The spiritual war Satan would launch would attempt to capitalize on any struggle with self-control during the period set aside for additional prayer. For Paul, one cannot claim to be spiritual or spiritually mature while depriving one’s spouse of needed sexual pleasure.

7:6–8 An additional concession Paul gives is to those who are single with self-control—that is, with a God-given enablement to abstain from sexual fulfillment while being fully content in sexual appetite. But such gifts are for some, not all, as Paul also will say of spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12. Without Paul’s type of abstinence gift, one should be seeking marriage or sexual control as a single believer. As throughout the discourse in 1 Corinthians 7, singles always have the choice to stay single or to marry, whether unmarried, widow, or virgin (7:8–9, 26–28, 36, 38, 39–40). However, part of the determination of whether one should seek to remain single or seek marriage is one’s self-control. Those who can remain in singleness with self-control, as does Paul, would do well to remain single. But those not so fortunate should marry to address sexual temptation. The admonition “For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” is not meant to give Christians permission to marry regardless of previous marital status or the previous marital status of one’s spouse. Instead, it is a conclusion about single believers determining whether marriage should be sought.

7:10–11 Paul switches sub-audiences again, turning back to believers married to believers, to address the topic of divorce. The instructions to married believers on the topic of divorce, as given from the Lord, charge against divorce and remarriage. When Paul says, “I . . . not I, but the Lord,” he seems to be distinguishing his teaching from that of Jesus’s in the Synoptics without diminishing his own apostolic authority to address additional matters. What Paul says here seems to agree with Jesus’s words in Matthew 5:31–32, 19:1–15, Mark 10:1–16, and Luke 16:18. Paul instructs wives not to divorce their husbands (as indicated by “remain unmarried”) in the next verse.⁴ The clause, “but if she does,” concedes divorce without approving of it, as Paul simply acknowledges the fact of potential divorce without qualification. Yet he gives a marital option for the divorced woman: to return to the husband whom she divorced (and the same would be true of a divorced Christian man seeking to marry again—he should return to his wife). Otherwise, she is to remain a divorced, single believer. Paul gives the same instruction to the husband on not divorcing the wife using aphiemi (“loose”) as opposed to chorizo (“separate”) in 7:10. Divorce should not be pursued, but the charge is not absolute in its application. However, remarrying another who is not one’s spouse is out of bounds for the believer.⁵

Clarification on Divorce and Remarriage

Paul recognizes the fact of the existence of divorce without any so-called “biblical grounds for divorce.” The church has created such grounds by one interpretation of the exception clauses in Matthew 5 and 19. However, the earliest record of Jesus’s teaching is in Mark 10:1–16 and is without an exception clause. Only Matthew has an exception clause, and that seems to be in place because of Joseph’s intent to divorce from Mary during the betrothal period due to the perception that she had committed sexual immorality. For Paul, divorce simply is a fact that he does not feel the need to legitimize for the church. But the fact of divorce does not necessarily create the fact of remarriage for believers. The biblical ethic should discourage divorce but allow divorce when it happens, without question of so-called “grounds.”

7:12–14 Paul switches audiences again to “the rest”—those believers married to unbelievers (12a, 13a, 14a–b). The instruction to this audience carries through verse 16. The believer is not to divorce an unbeliever simply because the person lives in unbelief. Marriage is an institution that God intends to be permanent, regardless of the spiritual statuses of the husband and wife. If the unbelieving husband or wife is content to remain in a marriage with a believing wife or husband, respectively, the believer should not pursue divorce solely on the basis of their spouse’s unbelieving status’. A concern about being in a spiritually mixed marriage would be God’s work in the lives of the children of such a union. But Paul indicates that the Lord looks upon the unbelieving spouse as “holy” because of the presence of the believing spouse within the union. “Holy” does not indicate “saved,” as verse 16 still looks toward the salvation of the unbelieving spouse, and as salvation cannot be commuted to a spouse or child. Instead, Paul speaks of the mercy God extending to the spouse and children of believers in spiritually mixed marriages.

7:15–16 Paul again employs a form of chorizo (“separate”) to speak of the unbelieving spouse pursuing a divorce from the believer. In that case, the believing spouse does not need to fight the divorce. In my view, Paul’s words are not allowing for remarriage in the case of so-called “abandonment.” Instead, Paul is saying that the believer is not a slave to efforts to prevent the divorce; he or she may allow the unbeliever to divorce. The Christian is not enslaved with respect to the unbelieving spouse’s choice of whether to stay in the marriage. Remarrying would not be considering God’s mercy toward the unbelieving spouse within the mysterious union of marriage. (Paul does not speak to the issue of the unbelieving spouse remarrying.) I do not believe a reference to so-called “abandonment” is within Paul’s meaning here, but other faithful interpreters will disagree with me here.⁶ Paul indicates that God’s will in such cases is for the believer to live with the peace of Christ toward the unbeliever who is seeking the divorce. By living at peace with the unbeliever pursuing divorce, allowing for the divorce to happen, the believer leaves the door open for the Lord to act with mercy to grant salvation in Christ through the witness of the believer.

7:17–20 Paul now speaks to each member in the entire congregation about how to walk accordingly within one’s social status. Paul will consider the social status under the hand of God, and the social status of individuals at the time of their conversion to Christ. For Paul, Christ changes the spiritual nature of one’s social status, but not the social nature of the social status itself. For the apostles, the believer’s social status at the time of salvation should be received as the Lord’s calling (vv. 17, 20, 24), with an exception for slaves to gain freedom. This teaching is for Corinth and all churches. The Jewish believer does not need to remove Jewish identifying marks because he/she becomes a believer. The person is a Jewish believer. A Christian convert continues to have a human social status. A Jewish person is still ethnically Jewish. As a believer, that one is now spiritually Christian while ethnically Jewish. Christ has precedence and Lordship over ethnic Judaism, so the person cannot practice Judaism without considering the work of Christ as the one who brings perfection to Israel. Similarly, the Gentile believer would not need marks to identify with the Jewish covenant of circumcision and thereby claim the blessing of Abraham’s offspring. The one converted as a Gentile is a converted Gentile and does not need to hide his/her Gentile identity. The markings of one’s social status do not add to (or take away from) the sanctification of the believer; keeping the Word of God is what counts in how a person leads their life in a walk before God as assigned and called. This is the third time Paul will instruct the Corinthians to remain in a social status, whether married, single, or of another status (see 7:8, 10). Each person, regardless of social status, should remain in that status, but with consideration for the concessions Paul mentions in 7:5, 7, 9, 11, and 15.

7:21–23 Paul does not condone or condemn slavery but acknowledges that some of his readers are believing slaves. They should not see this type of Roman-world slavery as contrary to one’s calling as a Christian. Yet, with another concession, Paul does encourage the pursuit of freedom for those who find it possible. The position as a slave or free man does not change with conversion. Instead, the converted slave is free spiritually—free from sin to live before God, having been released from bondage to sin by Christ (6:20). The person who was free socially at the time of conversion is now a slave of Christ, spiritually bound under Christ to do his will. The redemption of Christ comes back to the foundation of the argument, as in 6:20. Being under the ownership of Christ, the believers should not subject themselves to the bondage of the reasoning of men that would remove identifying social marks or fail to see the change in the spiritual status of the slave and the freedman in Christ.

7:24–25 Paul’s conclusion is to remain in the social status of one’s calling, now stated a fourth time. As 7:1–40 is about the topic of marriage (see 7:1), Paul is indicating that the divorcee becomes a Christian divorcee upon conversion, not one who is now free to remarry. A married convert is a believer who is married, not one who is now free to leave an unbeliever. Paul’s argument on social status puts marriage in the context of Christ’s rule in the secular realm rather than as something isolated from what Christ does in the lives of all believers. Paul turns to his fifth sub-audience, addressing a specific question under the topic of marriage that is added to the Corinthians’ larger questions about marriage. There is not a teaching in the four Gospels on the question raised. Paul will provide new revelation via his apostolic judgment. The Corinthians can trust this judgment because God has worked in Paul to provide a pattern of trust in the words he gives to the churches.

7:26–28 Paul does not specify the referent of the impending distress to come into the world. It might be a reference to the grand-scale, future persecution of believers and/or the great apostasy (Matt 24:10–14; 2Thes 2:1–3). Whatever the coming distress, Paul judges that virgins would do well to refrain from marriage (and immorality): They should stay in their current social status with respect to marriage (now the fifth time Paul instructs a group to remain in a status). But the words do not command one to refrain from marrying; it is a judgment call for the single, divorced, and widowed—those “free from a wife.” Those married should not seek to be free from their marriages (i.e., no divorce). The one divorced or widowed is not under a command to be married; that one has the freedom to choose to stay single or to marry. The virgin (who also is single) has the same freedom to choose without concern about sinning by the choice to stay single or the choice to get married. The single has the freedom to remain in the single status or to marry. Yet Paul makes the virgins and sexually experienced single believers know that being in a marriage brings concerns that singles do not have in this present age.

7:29–31 Already noting the coming “distress” (7:26), Paul speaks of the appointed time of the passing of this present world (7:31; and thus of the coming of the new world with Christ in his advent). That time draws nearer every moment, and its coming should sober believers about living in devotion to the Lord (7:35). Paul does not now call for divorce, thereby contradicting himself, but he places marriage in the proper context of things in an ultimate sense. Even those married should not over-indulge in the pleasures provided by marriage, for shortly marriage and earthly sexual fulfillment will pass away. Those beholding grief should not allow sorrows to get in the way of living for the kingdom, for the things over which one mourns will disappear with the passing of this world. The same holds true for every earthly status, including those rejoicing, those buying, and those who work in secular vocations; present joys will give way to greater joys, material goods will disappear, and business dealings will cease. All in the present world will give way to the design of the new creation and will not have the interests of the current age.

7:32–34 Paul’s teaching keeps the Lordship of Christ central. The instruction seeks to provide the single person freedom from the concerns that two people in marriage share. As a person who must seek the well-being of the spouse without selfishness, married individuals cannot make singular decisions about matters in this present world (such as dietary options, work location and length, discipline of children, division of chores, discretionary financial priorities, and leisurely activities). But the virgin (“betrothed” in 7:25, 34) and widowed can make singular decisions without concern about consulting, serving, or sacrificing for a spouse. With reference to devotion to the Lord, the single can focus on spiritual formation without needing to divert time to the concerns of marriage. Paul revisits being holy in one’s physical body and holy in one’s spirit as a particular opportunity of focus for singles (see 1Cor 5:7; 6:13, 17, 20). Unlike the virgin and those remaining single with self-control (cf. 7:8–9), the married man and woman must be concerned about providing sexual pleasure to one’ another.

7:35–36 The apostle’s intention is good, seeking to remove restraints of service to the Lord from the virgins and singles. While it could appear to the Corinthians to be an attempt to restrain them from marriage and its sexual pleasures, what Paul seeks is a means of living in this world as one both sanctified and content, and of giving maximum attention in singleness to the way in which one leads a life before the Lord. “Betrothed” is an appropriate translation in this verse, for parthenos speaks of a virgin female waiting to be married. Engaged Christian couples looking to maintain holiness but fighting strong temptation to fulfill sexual passions should not delay in moving toward marriage. As Paul has said in 7:28, choosing to be married is not sin (unless one is seeking to remarry to someone who is not their’ spouse, which is sin; cf. 7:10–11).

7:37–38 The one who can maintain self-control and commit to maintaining the purity of the virgin until marriage (whether male or female virgin) also does well in the sight of the Lord. As singles, they have a choice to hold off marriage or to pursue marriage. Only the married must remain single if divorced and not remarry; marrieds would be wise to remain in marriage rather than divorce. The apostle confirms an approved status upon those who move toward marriage because of their strong sexual desires, and he confers the same status upon those committed to waiting longer for marriage. He encourages waiting in light of the freedom from marital troubles and the freedom of devotion to the Lord that such waiting provides.

7:39–40 Paul makes his last switch of audiences, turning now to widows. With even greater clarity than he states in 7:8–9, Paul is explicit in stating that marriage is permanent until the death of one’s spouse.’ Only when one’s spouse dies is that one free to be married to someone other than one’s first spouse. Even so, a believing widow has a limitation similar to that of divorced believers and believers in mixed marriages: She only can marry a believer.

8:1–3 The second question the Corinthians sent to Paul concerned the eating of food offered to the secular gods, such as Aphrodite and Athena. Some of the Corinthians’ freedom to eat foods offered to idols was causing harm to the consciences of other brothers and sisters within the assembly at Corinth. “All of us possess knowledge” was another of the slogans adopted by the Corinthians. It guided their decisions on eating of foods known to have been offered in sacrifice to the idols. For some of the believers, their confidence in knowing that idols did not exist led them to feel superior to their brothers and sisters who did not understand that idols do not exist. Paul’s words admonish the Corinthians to be guided by love toward those who fear that eating food offered to idols causes them to be idolatrous before God. The use of love demonstrates that one has the knowledge that really matters: being known by the God who loves us and intends for his church to mature. Loving God with one’s mind includes intellectual capacity and acquisition of knowledge under the Lordship of Christ for the glory of God. What Paul is against is having knowledge of a reality about the meat and the idols that allows one to stand in arrogance over other members of Christ rather than to communicate acts of love toward them.

8:4–6 Those in Corinth who denied the reality of idols were correct in their understanding. Their confidence in the truth about the reality of God and idols rested on the historical affirmation of monotheism from the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deut 6:4). While humans worship what is false in the sky, land, seas, and underworld and submit to their localized lordships, believers affirm the singularity of God the Creator, as indicated by the Shema. In concert with ancient Judaism’s doctrine of God, Paul’‘s words show that the earliest Christians affirmed (1) monotheism, (2) belief in a Godhead of multiple Persons (i.e., “Father” and “Jesus Christ”), (3) the absolute and final sovereignty of God the Father as Creator and our existence for his glory, and (4) the Lordship of Christ as the divine agent of all things created, including believers. More than fifteen centuries later, the Westminster Shorter Catechism states, “There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three are one God, the same in substance and equal in power and glory.”⁷ These words are in agreement with Paul’s words to the Corinthians about the Persons and Deity of God. The emphasis on the believers’ existence for and through God, and on God’s Lordship over all, means decisions about eating foods cannot be made in a vacuum of individual rights and freedoms.

8:7–9 Like a faithful shepherd, Paul considers the entire flock and not simply those who have arrived at the truth about idols. Some in Corinth have such past lives with idolatry that they have not yet dismissed idols as false, despite their agreement with the Shema. This causes a conflict in conscience, for they desire to please God but watch as others in the assembly eat food offered to the idols they believe are real. Eating food does not affect one’s formation before God or bring God’s blessings. The freedom some of the Corinthians feel to eat all foods should not lead to feelings of a superior spirituality over those who are hesitant to eat such foods. ’Their right (or freedom) to eat anything because idols do not exist should not cause others to violate their consciences. Those “weak” with respect to knowledge of the truth about idols should receive loving consideration by those with freedom of conscience. The apostle intends to prevent the weak person from following the practices of the one with freedom until the weak one’s knowledge about idols (or their non-existence) clears their conscience from threat of wrongdoing.

8:11–13 As is Paul’s habit, he deposits the atoning work of Christ into the argument to direct correct spiritual and theological thinking on the matter of idols (on inserting the atonement into his argument, see for example 1:30; 2:2; 3:23; 5:7; 6:11, 20; 7:23). The authority over conscience belongs to Christ, and the Corinthians have a stewardship toward the consciences of their brothers and sisters: They should refrain from allowing their knowledge of truth to lead to acts of freedom that could harm another. Their freedoms are limited by the consciences of the other members of the assembly. Acting with the freedom afforded by knowledge about the idols and God is sinful when it hurts another member of the assembly. The Corinthians could not say, “That’s between me and God” or “That’s between you and the Lord.” The consciences of other members of the assembly were to be the concern of all members of the assembly. Paul’s ecclesiology placed high priority on the believers’ identity as family members, as members of the family of God. The consideration of the wellbeing of the brother or sister in the Lord took precedence over the freedom to eat all foods.

9:1–2 Paul will reason with the Corinthians on the use of rights and freedom by setting himself before them as an example. Paul has as much right to act freely as the Corinthians. In Christ he has freedom from sin and the law. He has authority as an apostle. He has been an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ. He has introduced the Corinthians to Christ through the preaching of the gospel. He has levels of knowledge and authority to act with every freedom afforded one in Christ. The Corinthians would recognize the freedom and authority of Paul where others would attempt to deny his apostolic authority. They could not deny that he had done the work of an apostle to the Gentiles among them, for their existence as a congregation proved such.

9:3–5 Seemingly, some in Corinth were questioning whether Paul denied the use of his freedom. Paul first will establish his (and Barnabas’s) rights before explaining his loving use of his rights. As apostles, Paul and Barnabas have the right to eat as a benefit of their service. They have the right to travel with a wife in the work of the gospel, as apparently was the practice of others among the Twelve Apostles, other missionary workers, and of Peter (whom the Corinthians revered; cf. 1:12; 3:22). The argument is not indicating that Paul and Barnabas had left wives at home to travel. It only recognizes a right they would have if they had wives and had wished for them to travel with them.

9:6–7 The series of questions proposes absurdities. If other servants of the gospel had the freedom to serve the ministry without working secular vocations to support the work, Paul and Barnabas should not have been the only servants denied that same right. Yet, it is evident Paul did tentmaking work in Corinth and other cities to support the work of the ministry (Acts 20:33–35; 1Cor 4:12; 1Thes 2:9; 2Thes 3:7–8). He never demanded payment for his service. Three common occupational experiences supported Paul’s case for his right to demand pay from those he served. It would be absurd to think of a member of Rome’s army serving without pay as he defended Rome and fought for her rule and expansion. No one in Corinth would deny that a vineyard owner had the right to eat the fruit of his labors as a farmer. He could enjoy the fruit while tending the fields and harvesting. Those responsible for the care of flocks most assuredly had the freedom to milk a goat, cow, or other animal for their own consumption while serving. The Corinthians could affirm that wages for work was a reasonable expectation for Paul and his labors among them.

9:8–11 Paul has the backing of divine authority in his reasoning, based on God’s voice through Scripture. It is God who establishes the pattern of the right of pay for labor; it is not simply a fact reasoned from contemporary practices of soldiers, farmers, and flock-tenders. The questions indicate that the assembly at Corinth had familiarity with the Law and the Hebrew Bible. The apostle quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, a verse he will use in a similar argument in 1 Timothy 5:18. Deuteronomy 25 provides laws to maintain human dignity in the face of human deficit—deficits such as blows from wrongdoing (Deut 25:1–3), death of a spouse (Deut 25:5–10), mistreatment of genitals during a fight (Deut 25:11–12), dishonesty in weights (Deut 25:13–16), and enemy attack while weak (Deut 25:17–19). Set in the midst of these laws, the concern of Deuteronomy 25:4 is for the deficit faced by persons. The just treatment of the oxen makes for production in farming rather than a diminished use of the ox. Paul discerns that the law calling for the double-wages to the ox—food to eat while threshing and in the normal feeding trough—points to the concern for proper treatment of people. If the ox has such a right to wages while working for the farmer for the farmer’s sake, the apostle should have the right to wages for his work for the Corinthians’ sake. The words of Deuteronomy 25:4 exist for application to the Corinthians. Analogously, as plowman and thresher work in the hopes of participating in the fruit from the labor of the ox, so the Corinthians should expect to pay for labor. Thus, they should recognize Paul’s right to wages. Identifying gospel work in the spiritual realm as real, credible labor by his words, Paul concludes that monetary and/or other in-kind reward should come from the Corinthians for his and others’ working among them.

9:12–13 Reasoning from lesser to greater, Paul had more right to be paid for labor among the Corinthian assembly than others who had served among them after Paul (cf. 1Cor 3:11–12). He brought the message of the gospel to Corinth and served their needs for the first eighteen months of the work to establish the church firmly (Acts 18:11). However, just as he charged the Corinthians to make rights-of-freedom choices without placing stumbling obstacles before other believers’ faith, so Paul did not use the right to wages for labor. He did so to ensure than no one could say he labored only for a paycheck and thereby cast doubt upon the veracity of Paul’s message and ministry. Since Paul’s day, many charlatans in history have tried to fleece the flock by using the gospel message to their own monetary ends. It has led to skepticism toward the motives of all who proclaim the message of the kingdom. Paul’s denial of the right to demand pay—and instead working with his own hands to care for his needs—removed this one impediment to the gospel’s message among the Corinthians. Denial of pay was Paul’s choice made out of his freedom in Corinth. Elsewhere he will exhort Timothy to pay faithful elders for their service, using Deuteronomy 25:4 as part of the base of his argument (1Tim 5:18). The question from Paul in 9:13 intends to elicit an affirmative response. As was true of temple-service work throughout the ancient world, those responsible for receiving meats, grains, and other foods for sacrificial offerings in Corinth’s temples were paid from portions of the offerings. Even though Ancient Corinth had temples to Poseidon, Apollo, Hermes, Isis, and Venus-Fortuna, “the temple” probably referred to the temple of Aphrodite standing at the top of the mount of the Acrocorinth.

9:14–16 The comparison to the temple brings Paul to a conclusion about his right to receive wages for his labor. Rather than originating as a human idea, it is God who commands his vocational servants to receive their income from their service. This does not discount the ability to tent-make, nor does it mean Paul is disobedient when he does not ask for wages. Neither is a congregation in disobedience when it cannot afford to support a pastor’s salary. For the Corinthians, Paul simply recognizes that the right he refrains from using—so as to prevent obstacles to the gospel ministry—is a God-given right. Paul’s argument could bring his motives for writing into question. But Paul does not now seek to cash in on his right to wages for labor any more than he has asked for them in the past. He is exemplary in giving away rights for the sake of boasting in the work of Jesus alone for his redemption and provision. One cannot preach the gospel as a badge of honor or accomplishment, for the work is Christ’s and not that of the servants of Christ. The stewardship granted to Paul by Christ makes faithful proclamation of the good news a necessity, not a measure of status. Paul invokes the strongest judgment upon himself if he is found to fail to preach the gospel because of failure to be paid for the work. Paul’s woes call to mind Jesus’s condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23 for their hypocrisy, and, more acutely, Isaiah’s self-condemnation in the presence of the Lord God Almighty in Isaiah 6.

9:17–19 In Paul’s argument, he set forth eating and not eating food as being inconsequential to commending one before God. Here, preaching the gospel as originating from his own will or preaching the gospel as willed by God both give Paul a stewardship before God. The reward for faithful stewardship in the face of giving away his right to pay is that the gospel is proclaimed. It is proclaimed without concern that it might be perceived as a scheme for obtaining wealth. The example calls the Corinthians to give away their lesser rights that would make gospel-obstacles for brothers and sisters weaker in conscience. The freedom of conscience and freedom from charging for the gospel Paul enjoys do not allow him to extrapolate to freedom from everything relating to those he serves. Instead, Paul’s concept of freedom from exercising his full rights still considers first those he serves. He considers them in the same manner that he calls Corinth to consider the needs of those weak in faith. What Paul considers is setting aside rights to become an appropriate servant toward various groups he serves so that people might be won to salvation (9:22).

9:20–21 Although Paul is a Jew by birth, his Christian identity gave him freedom from practicing the law. Yet, to keep a lack of Jewish identity from hindering the gospel proclamation among Jews, Paul would practice Judaism as an ethnic custom (Acts 18:18–19; 21:17–26). Similarly, before adherents of the Law, Paul, despite his freedom from the Law as a believer, would demonstrate submission to the Law out of custom—as opposed to an attempt to merit righteousness before God by keeping the Law (Acts 23:3–5)—so that the gospel would not appear to be antinomial. To win Gentiles to the faith, knowing that keeping the Law would be a stumbling block for them, Paul did not live as one abiding by the 613 commandments and prohibitions of the Law. Yet he maintained the moral import of the Law as a Christian, as nine of the ten codes of the Decalogue are repeated for the followers of Christ in the churches (Rom 7:7; 13:8–10; Eph 6:2–3; Jas 2:10–11; 1Jn 5:21; also 1Tim 1:8–11).

9:22–23 “The weak” harkens back to those troubled by eating foods offered to idols. Paul came to Corinth as one physically weak in his presentation before them (2:3). In that approach of weakness, Paul came to others who were weak in religious practice. His approach in weakness prevented an appearance of religious perfection from hindering the gospel (“Jew,” “law,” and “not under the law” demonstrate the pattern of “religious practice”). Paul’s proclamation of becoming all things to all persons is not promoting freedom to conform to people socially without regard for Scripture’s morality. Instead, it is Paul’s declaration that freedom in matters of conscience finds the means to serve all people without creating religious stumbling blocks to hearing the gospel. Paul hopes to win some because there is no guarantee that any will be won. Salvation is the work of Christ to open a person’s understanding to the gospel. In all decisions about his use of his freedom, Paul has the gospel in mind. As people come to salvation, Paul shares in that joy, which is greater than the joy he would have by demanding his rights.

9:24–27 Paul employs a metaphor from the Isthmus games to invite the Corinthian believers to consider how they are pursuing Christ and the rewards Christ gives. The contrast between one runner and “all” runners sets up the contrast between “anyone who thinks he stands’’ and “all under the cloud . . . all passed through the sea . . . all were baptized into Moses . . . all ate . . . and all drank.” One could not confuse Paul’s practice of religious assimilation toward “all men ‘‘ in 9:22–23 as having no regard for living holy. In running, athletes who win prizes discipline themselves to use self-control. The Corinthians’ freedom to eat freely food offered to idols did not consider self-discipline. However, Paul sets forth receiving an imperishable prize for living the Christian life faithfully. With mild allegory, Paul speaks of himself as the prize-seeking runner. Paul does not run without keeping before him the target of the prize of Christ. In a similar metaphor, Paul boxes with the goal of landing punches to win a match—that is, he pursues his Christian life in a way that will obtain the prize he seeks. For the apostle, the physical body is important to living faithfully before the Lord (6:18–20). He will bruise himself in the face like a prize-fighter being punched to keep his bodily desires from rising up to lead him into sin. The stakes of running were high for Paul, for he could disqualify himself from the prize after serving the gospel to others who would also run to win the prize.

10:1–3 Paul earlier references the OT to ground Christian behavior (5:6–9, 13; 9:8–9). To support his exhortation to the Corinthians to run in a way that wins an imperishable prize, he will reference the Exodus and wilderness experiences. Paul intends to remove ignorance about God’s dealings with Israel so that they might see how a corporate entity identified with Christ can do things displeasing to God. “The fathers” links the Corinthians’ spiritual ancestry to ancient Israel. As a corporate body, all members of the first-generation, post-exodus Israel experienced the theophany of the cloud leading them in the desert. Prior to that experience, all members of that generation of the nation of Israel walked through the Red Sea on dry ground during the exodus from Egypt. That same generation was identified with Moses through their experience with the cloud and the crossing of the Red Sea. The “baptized into” language finds the experiences with the cloud and the sea to be typological of the believer’s mysterious union in Christ through spiritual baptism (cf. Rom 6:4; 1Cor 12:13; Eph. 4:5). As believers have been identified with Christ through his work from all eternity for us, so too ancient Israel was identified with Moses as he led them out of Egypt and through the wilderness. In strictly earthly terms, Moses was the savior who redeemed Israel from Egypt; he was God’s human instrument for the people. The eating in question is spiritual, not simply physical. Partaking in manna was eating what fell from heaven and the hand of God; obedience was required to eat it (Exod 16:19–20), so partaking in it also formed the soul of the Israelite followers. The point is to classify the identity and exodus experiences of the Israelites as spiritual in nature, not merely physical.

10:4–5 Paul asserts four things about the experience of drinking from the rock in the wilderness. Consistent with the intended meaning of Moses (as opposed to providing new revelation that does not consider the OT author’s intention): (1) All of Israel drank from the rock when the water came from the rock (see “All” in Exod 17:1). (2) The drink was spiritual in its experience as it addressed the people’s grumbling against Moses, as God stood before Moses and the people in the experience with his presence, and as a miracle provided the water. (3) The rock itself was not an ordinary rock but represented the spiritual mainstay to which Israel turned for support in the wilderness (Pss 89:26; 94:22; 95:1). The rock did not provide the water; God provided the water, and God was on the rock as Moses struck the rock to provide the refreshing water for the people. The Israelites were to associate God with the rock from which the water flowed so that God was the Rock who provided for them. God the Rock was the one who provided their salvation from Egypt. (4) God the Rock followed Israel through the wilderness, for the Lord had promised to be with them (Exod 3:12; 4:12; cf. Exod 14:19). (5) God the Rock is Christ, which was consistent with God’s promise to send his angel before the people (Exod 14:19). Thus, the entirety of the first generation of Israel after the exodus had an identity with Christ and spiritual experiences that would mark them as a people blessed of the Lord and provided for by the Lord. The Israelites’ spiritual identity and experiences did not give them license to sin. They were free from Egypt, but not free from obedience to the Mosaic Law. The same generation lost thousands of their numbers in the wilderness due to failure to discipline themselves to exercise self-control and abstain from sin—failure to run in such a way as to obtain the land promised to Israel. Many who came through the Red Sea never set foot in Canaan.

10:6–7 Paul considers the OT useful for the Christian formation of the Corinthians. The experiences in the exodus (cf. 1Cor 10:1–4) intend to be illustrative of what can happen to a people God defended, delivered, and provided for miraculously, and who had identity in him. They pointed toward the dangers of desiring evil—a desire that also was part of the Corinthians’ experience (1Cor 3:16–17; 5:1–2; 6:17; 8:1–2). Paul calls upon four experiences of evil and judgment as examples of the danger that could await those misusing their freedom to do evil. First, drawing from the golden calf episode in Exodus 32, Paul immediately stabs at idolatry. The eating of food offered in the temples reveals revelry in idolatry for some in Corinth who claim to have knowledge that idols are nothing. Many of those who had seen the Lord deliver them through the Red Sea nonetheless participated in worshiping the golden calf and lost their lives. They ate food, just as the Corinthians ate food; those who ate and drank food in celebration of the calf were those who had eaten and drunk spiritually in the wilderness from the manna and the rock.

10:8–9 The reference to the incident at Baal of Peor intends to point to the historical connection between idolatry and sexual immorality. God had intended for Israel to destroy the people of the nations to prevent such evil. Once Israel embraced Moab’s gods, Moab introduced wide-scale sexual immorality to Israel. The people who had experienced deliverance from Egypt lost twenty-three thousand persons to judgment by plague in one day rather than gradually over forty years. Here, Paul is not using chronological order for reading of OT events, moving from Exodus 17 and Numbers 20 to Exodus 32, then to Numbers 25, and now backward to Numbers 21. In Paul’s reading, it is Christ who was put to the test, as the one who provides victory at Horeb in the episode (Num 21:3). The testing was grumbling against God and Moses for a temporary lack of food in the wilderness. As a result, the Lord sent fiery serpents to destroy many of the people (Num 21:6) and to bring the remainder of the sinners to repentance (Num 21:7). These were people who had enjoyed God’s provision at the rock.

10:10–11 It seems that Paul references Numbers 11:1–3 and 11:33 when speaking of Israel grumbling in the wilderness, even though they did so on multiple occasions. In Numbers 11, people were killed in great numbers for grumbling. “The Destroyer” ties the judgment of Israel to the judgment the Egyptians experienced in the Passover (Exod 11:23). Those who had come through the Red Sea faced judgment from the same one who had defeated their enemies. The inclusion formed by “Now these things happened to them as an example” connects the exodus experiences cited in 1 Corinthians 10:1–4 to the wilderness judgments in 10:7–10. The continuing relevance of the OT for the church is evident. The eschatological language looks back to 1 Corinthians 6:2–3, 6:13–14, and 7:29–31, in which Paul brings to bear the realities of the world to come upon the stewardship of Christian behavior in the local congregation.

10:12–13 The call to run the believer’s race in a manner qualified to win the prize draws to a conclusion. Those with a knowledge of God that gives them freedom on matters of behavior in the Christian life should not be overconfident in their identity and experience in Christ. Temptation comes to all, and apart from grace, all fall into one temptation or another. But some fall into temptations of evil that could incur great judgment. In each of the examples Paul has cited, that judgment included death. Consistently through redemptive history, God has provided a means for his own to avoid yielding to temptation; no temptation to evil is so great for his own that his own must be overtaken by it. Every temptation faced by the Corinthians was the experience of all who walked the earth. God is the one who will make temptation to evil such that the believer might escape it. There always is a way to avoid idolatry, sexual immorality, grumbling, and all other sins. Temptation may be endured until it goes away or is removed.

10:14–15 The conclusion ties all of 8:1–11:1 together. The example of Paul’s life and the examples from the Israelites’ wilderness experiences all contribute to one discussion addressing how the assembly should decide on eating or not eating food offered to idols. As important as freedom in this matter of liberty is, even more important is making sure they are not participating in the worship of idols by means of their freedom. Even though they have made errors in judgment regarding immorality and lawsuits, Paul trusts them to have enough rational ability to follow his argument against idolatry and accept it as truth.

10:17–18 To support his argument that participation in eating establishes participation with the deity of one’s sacraments, Paul asks the congregation to consider their experience in the Lord’s Supper. “The cup of blessing” refers to the supper’s cup’s representation of the blood of Christ (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1Cor 11:25–26). Words of blessing that gave thanks to Christ were spoken over the cup. Both the representation and the words of thanksgiving show that the cup points to worship of Christ. In this way, the assembly was participating in what Christ had done for them in his death on the cross. Only those believing in Christ shared in this meal in this way. Similarly, the breaking of the bread followed the tradition established by Christ—a tradition that represents his physical body being given to spare his own from death (Matt 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1Cor 11:23–24). The very breaking shows faith in what Christ proclaimed about this body being given in substitution for his own. The breaking, therefore, was participation in Christ’s atonement—sharing in redemption with the God of the assembly’s salvation. The eating of the bread represented the mysterious union of the believers in Christ; even with the sharing of bread in the various house churches of Corinth, the sharing was considered “one.” The one sharing intended to display that Christ only died for one church—the one group participating in the meal. Drinking and eating the supper together was more than a meal; it was a worship event of participating in the work of Christ on the behalf of his own.

10:18–20 Even in Judaism, the Levites were worshippers of the Lord (so they believed) as they received the people’s sacrifices and ate them. They did not eat in disbelief, but in worship—in the hope that the Messiah would return to claim Israel as his own. For the apostle, this did not now give reality to the idols of Corinth, nor did it make the food itself something to be rejected because of its role in the idolatrous practices in Corinth. Instead, Paul is speaking to participation in the deity of one’s sacrament. Those who were outside of Christ were offering to the idols, which meant they were offering to demons (for idols do not have deity). If they offer to demons, according to Paul’s argument, then anyone who eats is participating in the worship of demons, just as believers participate in the worship of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. Paul’s wish for the Corinthian assembly is that no one in the assembly would fall into idolatry.

10:21–22 The freedom to eat the food offered to idols met a limitation: One could not participate in Christ while participating in the worship of demons. The place of idols in the foods from the markets made idolatry inherent in the eating of the food. The provocation of jealousy harkened back to Exodus 20:3 and the prohibition against idolatry. There the Lord speaks of his jealousy toward Israel giving their worship to another god through idolatry. That idolatry could reap the fiery judgment of the jealous God (Deut 4:2). The question of the strength of the Corinthians intends for them to ponder whether they could withstand God’s judgment upon their idolatry.

10:23–25 The Corinthians’ freedom slogan ties together the issues of sexual immorality and eating food offered to idols. Exalting their rights was underneath much of the incorrect behavior in the assembly. Paul’s corrective again moves them in the direction of thinking about what is helpful to other members of the body, for the life and witness of the full church is his concern. Expressly, Paul counters the selfish goals of the Corinthians to prioritize their own desires, happiness, pleasure, and exaltation over that of others in the congregation. Following Christ’s instructions—in agreement with the second greatest commandment (Matt 22:39; Mark 12:31)—the apostle prioritizes love of neighbor to counter self-centeredness and to promote the good of the body. Twice, Paul tells the Corinthians to eat whatever is before them without concern of conscience. In doing so he clears their consciences so that even those who are weak in conscience my feel the freedom to eat what is offered to idols and then sold in the market. He does not propose that they can either eat the food or do good toward a neighbor. Both are possible if love of neighbor is the concern—helping, building, and doing good toward others.

10:26–28 Paul’s support for these instructions looks at God’s lordship over all as expressed in Psalm 24:1. Ownership of the earth means that all belongs to God as the creator. This includes meat wrongly sacrificed to false gods. The Corinthians could enjoy such meat without violating conscience because it is eaten as food under the lordship of Christ. An eating situation outside of the Christian community presented the potential for a nuance in the role of conscience. Accepting an invitation to eat with an unbeliever did not immediately mean the believer needed to avoid eating what was sold in the market. The Corinthian believer could exercise the same freedom to eat as exercised in a gathering with fellow believers. Only in the acute case of the unbeliever raising a concern about meat being offered to idols would the believer have need to abstain from eating the meat. The concern of the unbeliever would be that the one with faith in Christ would be honoring the gods of Corinth. This would bring into question the faith of the believer, the truthfulness of the gospel, and/or the exclusivity of Christ as God alone. So that the conscience of the unbeliever does not allow the unbeliever to deny Christ as myth or consider him as one among many god-options, the believer should abstain, showing allegiance to Christ alone. Yet, in all other instances, the believer should have freedom of conscience without concern of another’s corrupt conscience.

10:30–32 Paul assumes that in eating, the Corinthians acknowledge God as the giver of the food and express thanks to him. This means the one who prays with thanks is eating with a clear conscience toward God’s approval of the meal. The believer should be able to enjoy food without fear of having his/her faith questioned. Before unbelievers, one can do so in wisdom toward acute situations. The measure of conscience the Corinthians should use is whether they can participate in any activity and glorify God in the endeavor. Paul’s directive covers all activities in the world, not simply eating meals and drinking drinks. The Corinthians had a means under Christ’s Lordship to act with freedom of conscience in matters of liberty. To do all to the glory of God means to avoid offending the conscience of any, whether Jewish unbeliever, Gentile unbeliever, or believers (as those who uniquely belong to God).

10:33–11:1 For believers in Corinth, doing all to the glory of God meant following Paul’s example. Paul ate, drank, and did all things before all persons in a manner seeking salvation of some (cf. 9:21–24). Pleasing everyone did not mean he chose to follow people over following God, but that in following God he would seek the salvation of others before seeking what would be good for him. For the apostle, the salvation of unbelievers is at stake in all decisions (i.e., “do all,” 10:31). The salvation of all is not guaranteed, but only a remnant of “many” (echoing Isa 53:11–12 and Mark 10:45). Paul could call the Corinthians to follow his example because he was following the example set by Christ: to glorify God in all, seeking to please others, advantaging them over oneself.

11:2–3 Now Paul addresses the topic of traditional practices within the assembly. This is evident in his use of “traditions” in 11:2 and “custom” in 11:23. Things practiced by church tradition are not in view; in view are teachings coming to the churches from Jesus, being kept among all congregations, and that must be followed by specific practice. Paul will speak of maintaining one practice on the basis of doctrine derived from the creation account. The second practice will rest on what Christ himself instituted. Both practices were received by Paul and passed on to the Corinthians as he received them (i.e., “delivered” in 11:2, 23). The basis for determining the covering of one’s head should be the honoring of a woman’s head without lowering her own honor. “Head” is one in authority.⁸ Christ is the authority over male persons as the Creator. Husbands are in authority over wives. God the Father is in authority over Christ (John 5:36; 10:29–30; 12:49, 50; 14:28, 31; 17:4; 1Cor 15:28). Each of Paul’s statements reflects what is true in the creation, considering that Christ is the Father’s Agent in creation (John 1:3, 10; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2). None of the statements reflects a cultural matter at Corinth.

11:4–5 The context for the discussion is public worship—an arena for prayer and prophecy in public. The covering (or veiling) of the head as a sign of submission was a practice of Jewish women and a practice known in East Asia among women, not a practice of Corinth.⁹ A man veiling his head in public worship when praying would be dishonoring to his own head, showing a sign that would hinder his role in pointing to Christ as his head. In contrast, a woman unveiled would be showing herself to be free from male authority, like prostitutes, who wore uncovered heads. Communicating the sexual freedom of a prostitute would have been as shameful as being without hair for a woman in Corinth. Praying or giving prophecy without a sign of submission would be a denial of the order of creation.

11:6–9 The option for a wife who refused to veil herself would have been to wear short hair. Long hair communicated beauty in women, unlike the wearing of long hair by men. However, the removal of this inherent sign of beauty through cutting short or shaving the hair was not an option, for it brought disgrace upon the woman. Paul’s concern was for one standing before the congregation and disgracefully communicating disregard for herself and her husband as she prayed or prophesied. Her praying and prophesying would have been hypocritical and incongruent with what her heart was communicating by the lack of a veil. The man’s veiling (or other covering) of his head would not allow him to reflect God’s image and glory. Both men and women are made in the image of God. However, male persons point directly to God’s role as Creator; this sign should not be veiled but should reveal full authority of the Creator. In contrast, “Woman is the reflection of man to the degree that in her created being she points to man, and only with and through him to formations of their creaturehood.”¹⁰ “Woman for man” stems from God’s intention in the creation of Eve for Adam, who was alone. The woman had a great role to be helper to one deficient to accomplish full enjoyment of the earth by himself—i.e., Eve was created for Adam. The order and intention are significant to Paul as he states this with both a negation and a positive fact.

11:10–12 Angels are transcultural beings, residing in heaven, not residing in Corinth alone. Employing them to support the argument for a symbol of authority keeps the issue from being simply one reflective of a cultural concern at Corinth. Elsewhere Paul and other NT writers speak cryptically of angels’ relationship to God’s work in redemption (1Cor 4:9; 1Tim 3:16; 5:21; 1Pet 1:12). This activity is something different from the angels’ role as mediators of the Law (Acts 7:53; Gal 3:19; Heb 2:2) or servants doing the will of the Lord (Pss 103:21; 104:4; Dan 7:10). It seems to refer to angels learning about various aspects of redemption by observing the redeemed. They watch as those who have not experienced redemption but who see the glory of God reflected in the actions of those for whom the Son died. That watching should influence how believers carry out the activities of church and life, as is evident especially in Christ’s own choices (1Tim 3:16) and in Paul’s charge about appointing people to ministry service with care (1Tim 5:21). To rightly reflect what the Lord is doing in calling the church to himself forever, women should wear a veiled (or covered) head in public worship, for the Lord calls the church to enjoy him through its submission to him forever. The symbol of submission is in keeping with a wife not being independent from her husband. Every married woman wore a covered head to show her attachment to a husband, unlike prostitutes, whose uncovered heads indicated that they had no provider or protector.¹¹ Yet even his role of authority and being the one directly reflecting the Creator does not make man independent of his need for woman, for what displays man as glorious is the woman (11:7). Man does not display his own glory. The woman’s symbol of authority in public worship points to such glory. Paul’s reasoning reflects the order of the creation account in Genesis 2. Eve was not independent of Adam, having been created from a piece of Adam’s midsection. All men following Adam were then formed inside a woman and birthed from a woman. Therefore, men are not independent of women. Paul’s reading of Genesis contributes to the unity of the local assembly along gender lines and casts down both authoritarian-patriarchal and autonomous-feminist readings of Paul’s theology in this passage. For Paul, neither woman nor man are independent of God, as both find their origins in his mind, words, and hands.

11:13–16 The natural style of women’s hair supports Paul’s reading of the creation account and his argument for coverings. The Corinthians were to consider for themselves the proper posture for a woman in public prayer by considering what they saw in nature. Like the creation order and angels, “nature” is transcultural rather than an issue limited by the culture of Corinth. Paul continues to argue his position by looking beyond first-century Corinth. Different from modern, twenty-first century views in which many celebrate long hair on men’, the ancient world still viewed long hair on men with disdain. Yet long hair was viewed as promoting beauty and greatness when gracing a woman’s head. Corinth could see that nature agreed with the order of creation. Just as hair was given to cover a woman and keep her from baldness or short hair by covering her head, it was reasonable to expect a covering of even the long-haired head by veil or other cloth when a woman was standing to address God or speak for God. The universal practice in the church was for women to cover their heads when praying or prophesying in public worship. Paul is not suggesting that the prophetic practice is approved. Rather, he is saying that Corinth should have expected any woman prophesying in their midst to have adornment consistent with the claim that she was speaking for God. Paul and the early church planters and teachers called any church gathering under the ownership of God—under by means of salvation in Christ—to the same practice in public worship.

11:17–19 Paul presents a second apostolic tradition with his instructions on the Lord’s Supper. While the Corinthians might have expected commendation from Paul on their faithfulness to practice the Lord’s Supper, they will receive correction instead. Their practice is not edifying the participants. It is a corporate practice of gathering in the physical presence of one another, as evidenced by the repetition of “when you come together” (11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34). Yet they came with divisions pertaining to who could eat and when one could eat (11:21). The divisions were harming people, and Paul could not praise this. “As a church” highlights the corporate identity over the individual errors in the Corinthians’ practice of the Lord’s Supper. Paul believes the report of the divisions, noting that these divisions concerned participants’ eligibility to eat the meal. Corinth’s squabbling would reveal who among them had the character of Christ.

11:20–22 The Corinthians’ behavior during the Lord’s Supper amounted to a practical denial of the Supper’s intention and significance. Although they came to partake of the meal as the church gathered, many ate the meal as individuals rather than in unity with their fellow members. Others did the same by drinking the wine until they became drunk. Neither practice reflected the meal the Lord has established. For Paul, those getting drunk would have done well to stay at home rather than gather with the saints and fall into drunkenness while supposedly remembering the New Covenant meal. By denying the Supper’s intention and significance, they showed disregard for the church, for the meal is the meal of the New Covenant—of those gathered in Christ in his real presence. They also lacked love in their treatment of those who had nothing to contribute to the meal. The final two questions provide a jarring rebuke to those who were expecting Paul to praise them for keeping the Lord’s Supper. The Corinthians’ assembly kept the Lord’s Supper with the presence of sin (5:6–12), while worshiping demons (10:21), and while mistreating the poorer members. They should not have expected praise, nor did they receive it from the apostle.

11:23–25 Paul supports his rebuke of the Corinthians’ self-made practice by reviewing what has been passed to him as the institution of the Lord’s Supper from the mouth of Jesus, which Paul then passed to the Corinthians. “The night” ties the practice to its origin as a tradition that should not be changed. Regarding the bread, the liturgy of the Supper established by Jesus is to take the bread, give thanks for it, break the one loaf for it to be shared, and speak the three-part explanation of the loaf: (1) “This is my body,” (2) “which is for you,” (3) “Do this in remembrance of me.” The body reference points to Christ as the one providing the atonement—the nourishment for salvation in the vein of the unleavened bread of the Passover. It points to the physical body that will “suffer under Pontius Pilate, [be] crucified, [die], and [be] buried,” as the Creed summarizes. It also points to the presence of Christ that makes this meal different from eating toast and drinking grape juice at breakfast. “For you” points to the substitutionary provision of the body for sinners—for the “many,” as foretold by Isaiah (Isa 53:12–13) and repeated by Jesus (Mark 10:45). The charge to remember memorializes the gospel work, placing the atoning work of Christ at the center of worship. The continual remembrance would be formative just as the Passover intended to be formative. Regarding the cup, the liturgy consisted of taking the cup after they had shared the bread (and Passover meal) together and pronouncing the two-fold words of blessing related to (1) the inauguration of the New Covenant, and (2) the remembrance of Christ’s work. Different from the Passover, which was part of the Old Covenant, the cup pointed toward the covenant that held the promise of the full knowledge of God and the complete forgiveness of sins. Corinth would participate in both hopes with each sharing of the drink together. Each sharing of the cup also intended to point back to the atoning work of the death of Christ (i.e., “blood”). Paul’s received truth is fully consistent with the account of the Lord’s Supper recorded by Luke. Nine of the items in Luke’s narrative account of the institution correspond to Paul’s instruction to Corinth: (1) taking of bread, (2) giving of blessing, (3) breaking of the (one) loaf of bread, (4) “This is my body,” (5) “which is given for you,” (6) “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19); (7) instruction on manner of taking of the cup, (8) taking of the (one) cup, (9) “This is the (New) covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20). Only five items in Luke’s account are not included in Paul’s writing to Corinth and the churches. While Luke’s account is no more inspired than Matthew’s or Mark’s, this point is still significant in that Luke was recording a carefully investigated and accurately recorded extensive account of the life of Christ (Luke 1:1–4). Most significant is that only Luke’s account has the words “in the same manner,” or “likewise” (Luke 22:20). Paul is not simply recording that Jesus partook of the cup in the same manner that he partook of the bread based on his own understanding of the institution of the ordinance. Instead, Paul’s reception of the tradition of the institution of the Lord’s Supper from Jesus is affirmed as accurate by its agreement with Luke’s account.

11:26–27 The traditions for both the bread and the cup assume repetition of the practice (“as often as . . . remembrance of me”). The practice assumes the resurrection of Christ as Paul pivots from the references to the atonement to the advent of Christ. So, inherent in the meal’s significance is the certainty of the resurrection—that Christ is alive and will return to get his own. Each sharing of the meal according to the apostolic tradition was and is an enacted sermon on the death (and resurrection) of Christ to all until Christ comes to gather together his own for the eternal supper. The Corinthians’ reinvented version of the Lord’s Supper denied the gospel, its proclamation, and its hope. The immediate unworthy manner of which Paul speaks is the Corinthians’ lack of love (11:18, 21). More broadly, he speaks of cleansing the church of malice and evil and refraining from idolatry for proper participation in the loaf and cup (5:8, 10:20). He did not want the Corinthians to incur guilt for disregarding the atoning work of Christ by actions that scoffed at the need for his sacrifice.

11:28–32 The potential for guilt before the Lord called for self-examination regarding the (un)loving treatment of others at the meal, and regarding evil, malice, idolatry, and any other violation of the moral law. Only upon addressing the concerns of unworthy eating should one have joined in the meal. Refraining would have been wiser than eating unworthily. Participating in the bread and loaf without recognizing the bodily atonement and mysterious presence of Christ would incur judgment, just as disregarding the Passover instructions would have incurred judgment for a disobedient member of Israel (Exod 12:15, 19; Heb 11:28). The judgments are evident in the physical bodies of the disobedient among the congregation (cf. 1Cor 5:5). The guilt incurred for disregarding Christ’s atoning work led to the physical deaths of members of Corinth’s assembly. Such judgments could have been avoided if each individual had made a personal examination before participating in the meal (11:28a). Even so, the Lord’s judgments of his own provide life by separating his own from the judgment of those who are guilty of not trusting Christ for salvation.

11:33–34 The Corinthians’ gathering together for eating the meal should include the full community waiting and not eating until the meal could be shared with the poor among them. Eating to satisfy hunger should be done prior to participation in the meal. The commands to satisfy their hunger at home and wait on behalf of the poor, along with all the above directives, intended to deter judgment from coming upon individuals in the assembly. The assembly had further directives coming from Paul, to which the modern reader does not have access because they are unrecorded.

12:1–3 The fourth question the Corinthians sent to Paul concerns the operations of spiritual gifts within the body of Christ. Paul’s explanation of exercising the spiritual gifts versus following the mute idols of paganism begins by clarifying that the words of the Spirit exalt Jesus (John 15:26; 16:14). That Paul revisits idolatry in the discussion of gifts reveals how entrenched the problem of worship of their former idols was for the Corinthian assembly. The idols of Corinth were unable to speak because they were simply projections of the fear, hopes, desires, and cultures of the people of Corinth. The speaking gifts of the Spirit would have entered a church culture unfamiliar with true, direct revelation from God, because the purveyors in the temples could have claimed anything as words of the idols. When some in Corinth claimed to be speaking by the power of the Holy Spirit and yet proclaimed cursing upon Jesus, it posed danger for the congregation. Proper understanding of the voice of the Spirit in the gifts of tongues, interpretation, prophecy, word of wisdom, word of knowledge, and teaching is that the Spirit empowers people to proclaim the Lordship of Christ. The Corinthians needed discernment on all matters of the gifts.

12:4–7 Similar to their divisions over the servants of the Lord, Corinth had divisions over their understanding of the working of God through the gifts. The gift distribution at Corinth came from the working of the Triune God. The Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus Christ intend for the gifts to be used in various forms of service through and for the church. The diversity in gifting represents empowerment for service by one God. Each activity in Corinth that came as a result of the working of the Spirit revealed God at work in each member of the congregation. Behind the different expressions and uses of their supernatural gifting was one God at work in the assembly that he owned (cf. 3:14–17; 6:19–20). The varieties were given for the benefit of all, not for the individual. They were given for use toward the members of the assembly, not for personal exaltation.

12:8–9 Paul reviews the gifts given for the good of the entire body without exhausting the full listing of gifts in Corinth or the NT. Some in Corinth had the supernatural ability from the Holy Spirit to speak wisdom from God on matters within the congregation. Stephen, the first martyr in the NT, may have had this gift (Acts 6:10). But without demonstration of the gift in the NT, any conclusion about its expression is derived from lexical reasoning only. Paul does not explain how this gift was expressed. However, it spoke the wisdom of Christ (to exalt the Lordship of Christ, 12:3), not the wisdom of the world. Similarly, the speaking gift related to knowledge would have revealed knowledge about God (8:1–3; 12:12) for the good of all rather than for the puffing up of some over others weak in conscience. Just as all believers should seek wisdom (Col 4:5; Jas 1:5) and grow in the knowledge of God (Col 1:10; 2:6–7), all believers should live by faith (Rom 1:17; 2Cor 5:7; Heb 10:38). But some have a Spirit-given enablement to trust God beyond the ability of other believers. The Spirit gives the gift of utterance of wisdom to one and utterance of knowledge to another. The Spirit gives to yet others the power to trust God where the faith of some believers has reached a limit in trust. The Holy Spirit also gave multiple empowerments for healing ailments of individuals. The twelve disciples and Paul had the ability to cure people of diseases, paralysis, blindness, deafness, and muteness (Luke 10:9; Acts 3:7–9; 5:15; 9:34, 41; 14:10; 19:12; 20:10; 28:8). Some in Corinth had one or multiple gifts from the Spirit in the realm of the ability to heal one or multiple physical maladies.

12:10–11 Some in the congregation had the ability to perform miracles other than healing. Calvin’s view of “miracles” is that it is power over demonic forces. He may not be right in relegating the first of miracles exclusively to abilities over invisible forces of evil; however, it does seem that this divine working of powerful deeds through believers is broader than various healings in its object of service. Paul covered a range of physical impediments with the plurality of healing gifts. There is no need to revisit the powerful deeds of this present gift. Other unspecified miracles were known to Corinth. While the Gospels and Acts give witness to the apostles having authority over demons, that may better be attributed to the gift of apostleship rather than miracles. Concerning prophecy, Paul helps us with the understanding of this gift in chapter 14. The one with such a gift had the ability to speak revelation in the present that would bring conviction and repentance (14:24–25). It was speech that was understandable by all, and the content of prophecy was subject to the discerning judgment of all others in the congregation with the prophetic gift. Agabus (Acts 11:28; 21:10–11), identified as a prophet, spoke practical, real-time revelation from God into the gathering of the saints in a manner consistent with that of OT prophets. Seemingly, the gift exercised at Corinth was the same working. Whether one agrees with its present working in the modern church or asserts its cessation is inconsequential to one’s conclusion about its use at Corinth. Concerning the discernment of spirits, some in the congregation were uniquely empowered to recognize evil forces at work so that the congregation could not be deceived by evil masking for good, a later problem for Corinth (2Cor 11:14). The supernatural ability to speak languages foreign to the speaker was complemented by the supernatural ability of another to interpret a language previously unknown to the interpreter. If the speaking and interpreting were previously known, enablement by the Holy Spirit would have been unnecessary. These gifts allowed for the gospel to be spoken to people of foreign dialects and languages (14:22–23). Lexically, there is no difference between the tongue-speaking in Corinth and in Acts (i.e., “tongues” [glossa] is the word used in Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6 and in 1Cor 12:10; 14:2). In Acts, human languages were spoken in various dialects to hearers. Acts gives no instances of the use of the gift of interpretation of tongues. By wrongly using the gift toward believers rather than unbelievers, however, the members at Corinth largely would have been speaking to people of one common language rather than visitors of many languages (cf. 14:16–17, 23). Corinth should welcome the diversity of the gifting for the edification of all in the church and visitors among them, for all were the working of the Spirit of God. In his freedom, God gave each member of Corinth gifts according to divine wisdom and appointment. No one could claim to be devoid of a gift, and seemingly no one could claim to have them all (i.e., “to each,” “to one,” “to another,” “to each one,” vv. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 [with Paul using both heteros (“another of the same kind”) and allos (“another of a different kind”) in each of vv. 9, 10]).

12:12–14 The use of the human body analogy to explain the exercise of spiritual gifts focuses on the oneness of bodily unity. “With Christ’’ highlights the nature of the Corinthian assembly as Christ’s body. Spiritually, they are not a separate body from Christ or multiple bodies centered on various apostles and/or gifts. Spiritual baptism, which occurs with conversion, mysteriously places one into Christ’s body. In both Acts and Romans, the giving of the indwelling, promised Spirit occurs with salvation (Acts 10:44; Rom. 8:9). The delayed instances of the manifestation of the Spirit among believers in Acts 2 and 19 are consistent with the newness of the permanent indwelling work of the Spirit since Pentecost and the need to unite the working of the Spirit in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and in Gentile territories. Paul speaks to this very reality in Corinth in explaining that there is only one body of Christ for all believers, regardless of Jewish or Greek background, or slave or free social status. The Corinthians should see themselves as one body that experiences the Spirit in the same manner; there is no basis for seeing a cryptic reference to the cup of the Lord’s Supper here, for Paul will use “cup” when he desires to speak of the drink during the meal (10:16, 21; 11:25, 26, 27, 28). The body analogy allows Paul to show the unity of the diverse gifts for the body. It also allows him to speak of the diversity within the unity of the body. Everybody needs more than one body part to function properly.

12:15–16 A singular foot could not deny its bodily membership because it does not function as a hand. The absurdity points to the unity that undergirds the distribution and function of gifts. The same would be true for an ear attempting to deny bodily membership because it does not have the abilities of the eye. For a church that boasted in wisdom and over the various ministries of its leaders, looking at gifts that seemed to have more show could have made persons with less prominent displays feel detached from the local body.

12:17–18 The two questions regarding a body consisting entirely of one part expose the importance of the diversity of gifts within the united body. Those with “ear” and “nose” gifts should see the significance of their role by imagining a body made entirely of eyes or ears. The experience of life and its pleasures enjoyed through the other senses and body parts would not be possible. The human body could not function as a body should function. Analogously, a local church body should look to enjoy all gifts among its members rather than exalting one (or some) above others for the local church body to function as God designed it to function. Corinth’s confusion on the speaking of the Spirit and the importance of both the unity and diversity of the gifts fails to understand God’s providential working in the body through the gifts. Within the body among each member God apportions gifts according to his purposes in redemption for his glory. From eternity, in his plan in Christ for the church and each believer, he determined and assigned gifts to members in Corinth and every assembly.

12:19–20 A congregation that only emphasized the use of one gift would function like a body that was only an ear. It would not be a body or capable of functioning as a body. It would not be able to move members toward growth and sanctification through one gift (or only some). Corinth would have done well to incorporate all the gifts God appointed so that it could be a fully functioning body. This would have been consistent with God’s gracious giving of many gifts to meet all the needs of a congregation. But their incorporation should not emphasize the functioning of any gift over another and thereby effectively deny the unity of the body.

12:21–24 Proper body functioning does not allow one body part to dismiss the necessity of the other to the fully functioning body. The human eye and hand are extremely important to the body’s functioning. Practically, any eye that needs rubbing or needs an object removed knows the importance of a hand. Every head needs feet to move the head and body from location to location on its own. Paul will make three points in opposition to Corinth’s diminishing of some gifts. First, the perspective that some gifts are weaker than other gifts in their enablement errs by failing to see the indispensability of any gift (for it is not only the gifts they deemed lesser that are indispensable). Second, in a human body, body parts that one would not put forward as the greatest or most significant body parts are the ones that receive the most honor—that are to be most recognized (e.g., one puts rings in ears and paint on eyes, but one’s colon, which is unseen, is vitally significant to the body). Third, with reference to the body’s genitalia, body parts that should not be displayed publicly are not dismissed or diminished in their significance. Their significance is without question. Instead of counting them as lesser, they are kept hidden for modesty’s sake before others. It is not that some gifts are immodest but that the body parts should be displayed appropriately. All spiritual gifts are part of a local congregation and should be set forth for use before all in the body. Again, the apostle directs the Corinthians’ thinking to God’s sovereign working in the formation of the body. God intends for the church to be a place in which persons who receive lesser honor because their gifts do not make for as great a public display, or because their gifts do not have as much significance as the coveted gifts, receive more honor than others. It is fellow members that the Corinthians overlook. But bestowing honor upon the seemingly “lesser” gifted people affords honor to all, since the Corinthians would naturally honor those with gifts of great show.

12:25–26 The honoring of the people with gifts perceived to be of less significance intends to prevent great disunity within the body. The boasting over gifts contributed to the same fracturing of the body as did boasting over leaders and the disregard those with freedom to eat food offered to idols had for those without such freedom. It contributed to the division experienced in the sharing of the Lord’s Supper as the rich partook in the fellowship meal without those of lesser means. The Corinthians had been swept up in the wisdom of the world that emphasized human greatness and achievement rather than service toward and love for those with less abilities. But Paul calls for a congregation of love in which the care afforded to those with the gifts of prominent display is the care afforded those with gifts of lesser display. A recognition of the unity of the body brought about by the gifts from the Spirit through the working of Christ creates an assembly in which no one’s suffering is overlooked. Like a whole body that cringes or slows when there is a toothache, skin infection, or knee pain, a body of unity empathizes and sympathizes in the suffering of individual members. The suffering of one member is the suffering of all members, so like a physical body, the entire body should share in the pain of the member and seek to alleviate the suffering. Similarly, if a person is exalted for singing, running, baking, or solving a scientific mystery, more than the mouth, feet, hands, and brain are honored; the whole person is honored. Within the person the full person rejoices; it is not simply the mouth, feet, hands, and brain that rejoice. The parts rejoice as one person, not as separate parts. This is the right corporate solidarity for a body, as opposed to the solidarity that allows one to assume safety from judgment for individual sin because the Lord is rescuing his body (cf. 10:1–13).

12:27–28 Stepping out of the analogy of the physical body, Paul reiterates the bodily identity of the Corinthians. Their identity is in Christ, as his presence on earth. Each of the gifts Christ has appointed to those he has chosen are for the full inclusion, edification, honor, congregational care, and joy of the entire membership. This is a privilege for each believer as each Corinthian is part of the formation of the expression of Christ’s body at Corinth. The ranking of gifts is from the perspective of God’s building of his church. Paul does not now contradict himself by placing honor upon the most visible and coveted gift or gifts. Neither does he contradict his words about the sovereign apportioning of gifts by calling for the Corinthians to desire gifts he identifies as “higher.” Apostles, prophets, teachers, and workers of miracles played significant human roles in God’s establishment of the church, in setting his church on a foundation of the Word of God, and in verifying the revelatory work of these servants through the working of miracles (cf. Acts 2:42–3:16; 5:12–16; 8:4–8; 13:4–12; Heb 2:1–4). The working of the first four gifts allowed for established local congregations to use gifts of healing, helping, administration, and tongues-speaking to strengthen ailing members, to support the service of the members, to organize and manage the working of the church in a region and its care for its members, and to speak the gospel to visitors of various languages. This is the working of the corporate body of Jesus through its individual believers who make up the assembly.

12:29–31 The series of rhetorical questions each expects a response of “No,” as Paul has already explained God’s freedom in the distribution of the gifts. Paul looks at the Corinthians’ experience of the prominent, publicly displayed gifts among them to have them recognize the fact that the members of their body are not possessors of only one of the gifts. There would be unity if all had the same empowerment of apostleship, but there would be no ability to give prophetic revelation, teach exceptionally, provide miracles needed for the church to thrive in secular culture, heal those with physical maladies, or make God’s Word known to unbelievers of foreign languages. It is good that their local body is not gifted exclusively with any one gift. Therefore, if they are not gifted exclusively, honor should not be given to any gift exclusively above others because of its public display. The body would be poor if only one gift were given across a local congregation. Hope for possession of the higher gifts does not mean the Spirit of God will distribute such gifts to any one member. Yet unity should want the church to grow and expand as believers mature and unbelievers are evangelized. The wish for such gifts among them shows an agreement with God’s plans for his church—’plans for the use of the gifts he has appointed for the building of Christ’s body. Lest they express their desire for gifts as they have presently expressed them in disunity without regard for the other among them, however, Paul offers to show the Corinthians a way to use the gifts that is to be coveted more than experiencing the higher gifts, which he does in chapter 13.

13:1–2 Paul’s more excellent way of using the spiritual gifts will be to employ love. For the apostle, love’s enduring quality makes it the superior pursuit in using gifts and knowledge while living as a Christian. Love will excel the Corinthians’ operation of gifts in the flesh and considering only oneself, one’s own personal comforts, one’s own desires, and one’s own promotion. Love intends to decrease the self so that the body can be the very presence of Christ on earth. Paul creates an extreme example using hypothetical language. He does speak in tongues (cf. 14:18) and multiple languages (Acts 21:27, 40). Paul writes, “I have become” to show what happens to a person when the gifts and abilities are used without love. The person who would use extraordinary gifts without love would be a percussion instrument being played in a loud, annoying manner. In an orchestral group, a gong banging out of place or cymbals playing over the other parts would not produce an enjoyable sound. Paul’s personal, superlative abilities to access the mind and power of God render him personally insignificant when used apart from love. Paul again uses “I” both to soften a direct correction toward the Corinthians, and to make the contrast more significant: “Even if I, the Apostle Paul, have not love . . .” The abilities are superlative: “all mysteries and all knowledge,” and “all faith.” “Prophetic powers,” “mysteries,” and “knowledge” are related types of abilities: Each accesses the mind of God beyond what is written in the text of Old Testament Scripture. Each is mentioned also among the gifts in 12:8–10, showing again that, in the context, Paul is addressing the problem of doing church in the flesh in Corinth (see also 8:1–2; 14:33–37). Paul mentions mysteries in the New Testament that explain more of God’s plan for Redemptive History (Rom 11:25; 1Cor 2:1, 7; 4:1; 15:51). But even he does not understand the full mind of God (Rom 11:33–36). The gift of faith is the supernatural ability to trust God with far more faith than the mature believer’s measure of faith. This verse has Matthew 17:20 in the background (see also Matt 21:21; Mark 11:22–24; Luke 17:6). Without exercising love Paul is nothing, despite the presence of the great gifts—not even a noisy gong. Corinth’s depth of knowledge of Scripture, theology, Christian living, and ministry—yea of anything—and their abilities to trust the Lord for the seemingly impossible, if done without love, made them nobodies rather than great somebodies.

13:3–5 Paul lists two sacrifices: (1) giving away one’s personal goods (to the poor is implied), and (2) giving one’s body to be burned. While both are as hypothetical as the previous examples (notice “If” with the subjunctive tense verb), they are possible, which would be different from the items in 13:1, 2. Neither one of these items is a spiritual gift. A good translation of the first clause is, “If I parcel out all my property for food,” with “to feed ‘the poor’” being implied.¹² Paul says, “I gain nothing,” as opposed to “I am nothing.” In Corinth there were those who thought they were beneficial and necessary to the body when they were annoying; others found their worth or value in the sight of others while serving when they were nothing; still others thought their giving in great measure merited rewards when they were gaining nothing. The characteristics of love’s behavior include enduring, not giving out injury, and being unselfish toward others. Paul will personify love to portray how the members of Corinth should treat one another with respect to the spiritual gifts and, more broadly, with respect to the issues in the assembly—boasting ministry servants among them, immorality among the congregants, the handling of personal grievances, marriage and divorce, food offered to idols, the wearing of head coverings, and the participation in the feast as one body. If Love was a person, 13:4–8 indicates how love would act. Or, since Christ is perfect in love, this is how Christ acted toward the members of Corinth’s assembly of believers. The first two of six characteristics of love’s behavior is patience (or longsuffering’ e.g., the KJV’s “suffereth long”). Paul’s word for “kind” occurs only here in the NT (i.e., a hapax). It indicates mildness or mercy toward one you could or intend to harm. “Patience” and “kindness” appear together as fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22; Col 3:12; 2Cor 6:6), so they are characteristics that should describe people in all churches. Yet they are not easily obtainable characteristics, for they must reflect the patience and kindness of God. “Envy” and “boasting” have in common selfish desires toward an object: either one desires what someone else has or wants everyone to focus on what he himself has. “Arrogant” and “rude” have in common the elevation of the self: either one brags on oneself, or one does not care how one’s actions before others affects them. “Boast” is also a NT hapax, this being the first time the word occurs in Greek literature.¹³ It is to behave as a braggart or be a windbag and might refer to the Corinthian’s love of exalted speech (cf. 1Cor 1:17; 2:1). “It suggests self-centered actions in which there is an inordinate desire to call attention to oneself.”¹⁴ “Arrogant” (or “proud” or “puffed up”) is a continual problem in the Corinthian church. It shows up in divisions (4:6, 18, 19), a cavalier approach to sexual sin (5:2), and disregard for weaker believers (8:1). Rude is to act disgracefully or shamefully. It recalls the Corinthian’s actions toward head coverings (11:5) and the Lord’s Table (11:22). The idea of “behaving poorly in the eyes of others” is contained in the term (hence the problem with the head coverings and making the poor feel even lower in 1Cor 11). “Does not insist on its own way” translates a phrase that reads, “does not seek the things of oneself.” The idea is one of putting forth in the body of Christ only the things of personal interest to oneself, but not being willing to make sacrifices for the things of interest to others (cf. 1Cor 10:24, 33). Inherent in “insist on its own way” is a judgment that one’s own way is the right way, best way, only possible way, or singular way that the Almighty God can do something. This is another sign of the flesh at work, putting individual desires and thoughts at the center of the assembly. “Not irritable” pertains to how one responds to the evil of others, whereas the first five items in 1 Corinthians 13:4–7 deal with the evil within oneself.¹⁵ “Resentful” translates a phrase that says, “does not reckon to account the evil.” It is not that love does not have evil thoughts (as expressed in the KJV), but that the person who loves, in his thoughts, does not continue to dwell upon wrong suffered (cf. 1Cor 6:7). “Resentful” assumes the right to hold onto a wrong, regardless of how it eats us on the inside. Christ is not Lord where we are resentful.

13:6–7 Love includes delighting; loving people are happy people. Jesus—Love personified—would be full of joy if he were to walk into the assembly at Corinth. Joy says that God has done enough for the believer in Christ so that all the believer needs is in him despite earthly deficiencies. To “rejoice” is to put joy in action—it is to outwardly express the feeling of satisfaction. Love cannot sit passively, or with apathy toward right and wrong. Love never has joy in that which is not right—in wrongdoing, or that which is unrighteous in the sight of God, against the law of God, and/or harmful toward another being or society. In contrast, love rejoices with the “truth” (aletheia). To love as Christ loves is to delight in what pleases God. The characteristics of love’s behavior include a willingness to suffer anything while always trusting the Lord. The repeated term “all” (Greek panta) is not standing in as the object of the verb (i.e., “‘‘X’ all things”), but is adverbial, modifying the verb (i.e., “always ‘X’”). “Bears” (Greek stegei) carries the idea of “puts up with.” Previously Paul has said, “We endure anything (panta stegomen) rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (1Cor 9:12). “Believes” is one of the three members of Paul’s great triad of core, gospel-produced characteristics (1Cor 13:13; see also 1Thes 1:3; 5:8). Love keeps believing in the truth of the gospel (and thus the faithfulness and goodness of God) in the midst of any circumstance. “Hope” is the third member of Paul’s abiding triad (1Cor 13:13). To “hope” as a Christian differs from natural hope, in that one is not optimistic without certainty in an outcome or the ability for the longing to be fulfilled. “Endures” (Greek hupomeneo) is a compound from “to remain” (meneo) and “under” (hupo). It means “to bear up under” or “to persevere” (cf. Jas 1:2). Carson summarizes these four characteristics by saying that the “always” of love “[are] part of the voluntary curtailment of personal freedom love demands . . . Love hopes for the best, even when disappointed by repeated personal abuse, hoping against hope and always ready to give an offender a second chance and to forgive him ‘seventy times seven’ (Mt. 18:22).”¹⁶

13:8–12 Paul will compare love to three spiritual gifts. Love’s comparison to spiritual gifts will contrasts the childlike limits of the gifts as indirect revelation with the adult-like fullness of the presence of God. Paul begins this passage by speaking of love as something that never “ends.” Paul will compare love unfailing to the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and (word of) knowledge. In contrast to love, each of the gifts has a limitation. Prophecies will be “rendered idle” (and the same term, translated as “pass away” in the ESV, appears in conjunction with knowledge). Speaking in tongues will “cease” in its operations. The gift of the word of knowledge will be rendered idle. Paul explains the reasons for the limitations through four illustrative means: 1) by contrasting what is “in part” with the coming of “the perfect” (vv. 9–10); 2) by making a childhood-to-adulthood analogy (v. 11); 3) by contrasting our experiences now with being “face to face” “then” (through the analogy of the mirror, v. 12a–b); and 4) by comparing the experience of our knowledge of God now versus then, with reference to God’s knowledge of us (v. 12c–d). Each of the illustrations moves from a limited experience of revelation to a complete experience of revelation. Paul moves from limited to complete by removing imperfect mediums.

Prophecy is partial because it awaits fulfillment. It paints an accurate picture, but not a full one or fully understood one. Speaking in tongues is partial—regardless of whether one thinks Corinth experienced evangelistic human language or angelic prayer language—because one day there will not be a need to explain the gospel across language barriers or to meet the Lord on a higher or deeper level. Tongues will give way to God being plain to everyone and being understood regardless of one’s human language. Knowledge is partial because no finite human can explain God fully (cf. Job 26:14 Rom 11:33–36). The coming of the “perfect” will render this problem idle (1Cor 13:9–10). Thus, “the perfect” is experiencing the full knowledge of God upon Christ’s return—upon his coming. Rather than having a childlike understanding of God, the Corinthians would have an adult-like understanding of God. Rather than having a distorted knowledge of God in the present, the limits of the gift of the word of knowledge will give way to seeing God “face to face.” The believers in Corinth would go from an experience like an enigmatic image in a mirror to seeing God clearly, for all of who he is! The Greek for “through a glass darkly” is di esoptrou en ainigmati, making an echo of ou di ainigmaton in Numbers 12:8 LXX: “With him [Moses], I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD” (emphasis mine). Paul is explicit in saying that our knowledge of God is partial, for “then” (when we are “face to face”) we also “will know fully.” That knowledge will be like the knowledge God has of us—not just cognitive, but experiential. God’s knowledge of us is salvific, from all eternity to all eternity (cf. Pss 1:6; 139:1–3; John 17:3). In the Second Advent of Christ, believers will know God fully because believers will be experiencing love fully.

13:13 Paul often groups the triad of faith, hope, and love (Rom 5:1–5; Gal 5:5–6; Eph 4:2–5; Col 1:4–5; 1Thes 1:3; 5:8; see also 1Tim 1:5, 14; 2Tim 1:5–7). However, in keeping with the “more excellent” way of living, spiritually speaking, love excels faith and hope. As indicated previously, faith will give way to sight, and hope will give way to experiencing that of which one was assured. But love will continue through all eternity and is what should guide all Corinthian activity in their present congregational life.

The chart below demonstrates the six different sub-units within 1 Corinthians 14:

From the chart, one discerns that the speaking of tongues and prophecy tie this passage together. For Paul, the desire for the gift of prophecy over tongues ought to be pursued in love because of the greater value of prophecy to the whole body.

14:1–3 Having established love as the way greater than the Corinthians’ arrogant, fleshly, selfishness, Paul continues to show how love operates with speaking in tongues and prophecy. They are to desire all gifts, but prophesy as one of the “higher” gifts (12:31). All the instruction to follow explains the use of tongues and prophecy in the sphere of the love of 1 Corinthians 13. At stake is the Corinthians’ understanding that speaking in tongues is not greater than prophecy, for tongues is limited in building up the body (1Cor 14:4, 12, 26). If one allows that Paul speaks of languages and dialects unknown to the speaker, then the gift of tongues would be understood only by God if used in public gathering toward believers of the same language group. Mysteries—previously encountered in Corinth (4:1; 13:2)—would be a working of the Spirit as direct revelation from God. The gift of prophecy would have been appropriate for use in the gathered assemblies (even if in various homes around Corinth) because it would have been direct revelation spoken in a known language. With understanding, the people receiving real-time, practical, prophetic discourse would have matured by learning of God and following his Word in obedience. Amid challenges to their faith, they would have found encouragement and consolation from the fact of God speaking and the content of the revelation. Prophecy would have given words of hope in what God would do in the future on behalf of his people.

14:4–5 The only person in the local congregation gaining from one speaking in tongues is the one with the gift, because only he or she is responding to the working of the Spirit within. But the word of revelation in the language known by the hearers would edify by giving instructions on the person and will of God. Everyone hearing would have clear instructions for what to do. The hope Paul has for the full congregation to speak in tongues looks toward speaking the gospel to outsiders of foreign languages. Paul speaks in exaggeration about tongues to exalt prophecy as more significant to believers’ sanctification. It is loving to use prophecy in the assembly (note that it is greater than the use of tongue-speaking, like love is greater than faith and hope). Prophecy excels in usefulness over tongues because it is spoken in understandable terms. The presence of one with the gift of interpretation of tongues levels the value of tongues and prophecy within the congregation, for then tongues could be understood as much as a prophetic word could be understood.

14:6–8 The worthlessness of tongues to the knowledge of the hearer should lead the brothers to pray for an interpreter for the sake of the edification of the body. Paul sets forth a hypothetical scenario as he did in 13:1–3. The Corinthians’ should imagine Paul coming to them and speaking languages foreign to them by means of special endowment by the Spirit. The congregation that had benefited from his ministry toward them in words they understood would have been without the ability to benefit from Paul’s vast knowledge of the Scriptures and of the will of God. Only if Paul’s tongue-speaking was accompanied by speaking mysteries (revelation) would the gifts of utterance of knowledge, prophecy, and teaching have benefited the congregation during his time speaking among them. Paul inserts two illustrations that support his argument for gaining benefit from knowable revelation. First, musical instruments are not alive, like those with the gifting of the Spirit. Yet one only benefits from playing a wind instrument like the flute or a string instrument like the harp if one understands the distinct notes compositely, as a recognizable music composition. If this is true for that which is lifeless, much more is it so for living persons in need of understanding what God is speaking through those living and gifted. Similarly, the blowing of a trumpet to arm for war only calls people to battle if one can distinguish the notes blown as a battle cry rather than generally playing or rehearsing notes.

12:9–11 Speaking in tongues to a congregation without the presence of one endowed by the Spirit with interpretation of tongues is akin to a flautist or harpist playing indistinct notes, and like a trumpeter blowing trumpets for war without yielding a specified battle blast. The hearers would not recognize the music, the call to arms, or, in Corinth, the words of one speaking in a foreign language by the power of the Spirit. Rather than being heard and understood, the interpreter-less tongue-speaker would utter words that only went into the air as sounds unintelligible to all listening. That Paul speaks of languages in the present world argues for tongues being human languages rather than ecstatic speech. To the people of the language group, a language has understandable meaning; meaning exists in the words of any language. But to the outsider, one is a foreigner to the one endowed with ability to speak the language, and the one with the ability to speak the language will be a foreigner to the one who cannot speak the language of the people group. The hearer is not benefiting from the words of the speaker.

12:12–14 Corinth is zealous for displays of the working of the Spirit, but only for outward show in which they can boast. Their zeal for displays of the working of the Spirit was not concerned with correcting the man sleeping with his father’s wife or speaking to those who had taken grievances to court. Their desire for Spirit displays was not for strengthening marriages, building single believers in their devotion to God, or getting clarity on food offered to idols. Tongue-speaking in Corinth had not considered the good of the entire church. Practicing prophecy and/or tongues with the presence of an interpreter would afford all members the opportunity to hear God speak and obey his voice. The words of verse 13 reveal the possibility that one can have the ability both to speak in tongues and to interpret tongues. The words also emphasize the importance of interpretation when tongues occur. The Spirit who will give gifts could give a gift of tongues in accordance with what God had apportioned from all eternity for an individual. One should not equate “pray in a tongue” with the totality of the experience of speaking in tongues. Paul is using an example of the use of tongues, as he will do with “sing” (14:16). Speaking tongues while praying would be a working of the Spirit, but it would not allow even the speaker to gain fruit from the speaking because the mind does not know the language.

14:15–17 Yet one with the ability to interpret could interpret his/her own speaking to himself/herself because the foreign language would now be intelligent to the mind of the speaker. If one sang using the gift of tongues, interpretation would give the singer the ability to understand the song being sung. Both hypothetical examples indicate the employment of tongues and interpretation in a manner that one would employ teaching or healing. The reasoning from neither illustration lends to an interpretation that the speaker has lost control of intelligence to a spontaneous and overriding working of the Spirit. Leaving the hypothetical for the present experience of the Corinthians, the apostle demonstrates how tongues without interpretation excludes the community from sharing in the experience of the Spirit. Giving thanks for God’s working in the life of the tongue-speaker is something that would benefit the full congregation. But without an interpretation of the foreign language, one could not affirm the working of God. Seemingly, a public response of “Amen” to the sharing of the testimony of God’s working was known to Corinth. Only then could one other than the speaker be edified from the interaction with the Spirit.

14:18–19 Paul is not boasting, for he eschews such, except to show the Corinthians’ foolishness (cf. 2Cor 11:17, 21; 12:6). Instead, Paul makes a simple comparison. Paul spoke more languages (or spoke in foreign languages more often) than the Corinthians (e.g., “five” versus “ten thousand” in 1Cor 12:19). He is not speaking of a greater ability within a gift category and does reveal gradation in gifts in his prior discussion in chapter 12. The comparison aims at seeing that receiving words in a known, intelligible language would do far more to build up a body of believers than scores of words by manifestation of the Spirit without someone present to explain the foreign speech. The benefit of the hearers is Paul’s concern, not the simple enjoyment of Spiritual empowerment by the one with the gift.

14:20–25 The nature of tongues as a sign for unbelievers requires mature thinking toward prophecy for the sake of the glory of God in gathered worship. Paul reveals three very important things in these verses. First, the Corinthians’ thinking about tongues as the greatest of all gifts, and their use of tongues without an interpreter, was immature thinking. It was childish, and the use was not reflective of the knowledge of God—of the love of God (1Cor 13:11). The childishness the Corinthians needed was toward evil acts. Those smaller than toddlers do not have the ability to devise great evil. Paul’s words are steering the assembly further away from the divisive boasting, prostitution, lawsuits, sexual abstinence in marriage, and idolatry that characterized the congregation. They should be like children who have no knowledge or ability to pull off such pursuits. In thinking about tongues, they needed adult-like, mature thoughts—thoughts that saw the need for interpretation and the building up of the congregation. Second, in their immaturity about tongues, Corinth did not understand that historically tongues were a sign of judgment upon unbelieving Jews to condemn them for not believing God (Isa 28:11). The Assyrians would come as a people of foreign tongue to fulfill the promises of curses spoken on the plains of Moab (Deut 28:49). Foreign-language use toward the people of God was not a sign of superiority, but of failure. Here, the Corinthians were failing in their use of Spirit-empowered, foreign speech. Just as the foreign speech came to unbelieving Israel, so now in redemptive history the purpose of tongues was to speak words to unbelievers of foreign languages. What was once spoken to Israel for judgment would now be spoken to unbelievers to offer life-giving words of the gospel. In contrast, revelatory words of the common and known language through prophecy intended to speak to the body of believers. Both evangelistic speech and disciple-making speech were covered through the variety of gifts. Third, the right use of tongues and prophecy (from a right thinking about tongues and prophecy) would lead someone to worship God and acknowledge his existence. Disparaging words would be spoken against the church if unbelievers walked into an experience of Spirit-empowered, foreign-language speaking by multiple persons taking place in a gathering of believers. What would be the point of gathering with no understanding as people spoke into the air? It would seem that all reasonable sense was absent from the Corinthians. But by entering into a gathering in which one could hear real-time, practical, needful revelation being spoken into the life of the congregation, and particularly toward the visitor, there would be a benefit to the body. A believer would be added in Corinth through the Word of God being understood, bringing conviction of unbelief, and calling out their sin. The visitor, having had what is secret disclosed by the prophetic words, would experience the working of the Spirit. The experience to which Paul speaks reveals the practical, directed nature of some of the prophecies taking place in Corinth. The resurrection of Christ would be undeniable by the phenomena of prophecy. Thus, the body would be added to as God was praised by someone who previously lacked understanding.

14:26–28 “What then” invites a conclusion on the experience of the gathered assembly at Corinth. There was no order in Corinth’s gathering. In their gathering, one could speak up with a song. That was disjointed in purpose from another having something to teach the assembly, and yet others having knowledge to give, or foreign words of revelation, or a supposed interpretation of foreign words. These acts were done for the individuals rather than for the maturing of the body in love of Christ. Paul teaches that the manner of speaking in tongues, interpretation, and prophecy for the building of the church must follow a prescribed order. Order would reflect the orderliness of God. First, Paul speaks to the manner of speaking in tongues appropriate for gathered worship. Two or three people maximum should speak in tongues in one assembled gathering. That is all that would be required for evidence of God working, in keeping with ecclesial verification among God’s people (Num 35:30; Deut 19:15; Matt 18:16; John 8:17; 2Cor 13:1; 1Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28). One speaker should speak at a time, unlike at Corinth where one seemed to have been speaking over another (14:30–31). There must be an interpretation, and the lack of an interpreter required silence by the one gifted to speak in tongues. The enablement by the Spirit was not for show or selfish use; it was for body edification, which could not take place without interpretation.

14:29–33 Second, the manner of speaking prophecy also needed order. Two or three prophets should speak only through the time of gathering. All other prophets present were to judge the prophecy to see if it is from God, in accordance with Deuteronomy 18:19–22. The potential for false prophecy always existed when anyone claimed to have direct revelation from God. God vested those with that gift the ability to discern whether God had spoken, which seemingly was different from the gift of discerning spirits. A prophetic speaker was to stop speaking if God began to speak through another speaker. God would not cause confusion by speaking through two persons at once.

Moreover, inherent in Paul’s words is love, for the prophet was not to be rude or insist on his/her own way if another began to speak. In keeping with all said previously, the goal was the edification of the body through knowledge of what God is speaking (v. 31). It is following this order that is in accordance with the nature of God (v. 30). For what Paul is saying is this: Tongue(s) or prophetic speaking in a different type of order will keep people from being edified. It would make sense that if God were speaking, which was the understanding behind tongues (whether one believes tongues to be languages toward unbelievers or back to God) and prophecy (toward believers), then he would speak through one rather than through many. That one voice would be his so that all could hear rather than many voices being his with only some able to benefit from each “voice.”

One can easily imagine how two or three speaking at once could bring division within the church as some sided with one “voice” and others sided with another “voice” (cf. 1Cor 1:12; 3:4–6; 12:3; 15:12). If tongues were spoken with no interpreter, then no edification would take place, for only the speaker would gain, not the whole body. This would be a sight: Everyone gathered to worship corporately, but one person is having private worship, even claiming to be hearing from God, but no one else could benefit from God speaking! Should they stop everything else they are doing, or keep going? If an interpreter were present, then they should stop. But without an interpreter, there would be disorder.

Failure to follow any of Paul’s directives would be a failure to be consistent with the nature of God, as God desires for there to be order, not disorder. The confusion spoken of in 12:33 is a lack of edification in the body due to too many voices speaking, voices speaking without an understanding, or the wrong voices speaking. God has prescribed a certain order so that no one will be confused as to which voice is God’s, and from that confusion bring division in the body. If this were to happen, the body would fail to be edified. One should not take Paul’s words to mean that if one is “confused” by a personal lack of understanding or a personal distaste toward a teaching or ministry, then God is against it. Such a person needs to learn, study, and humble himself or herself toward the direction of the congregation. Paul’s concern about confusion is a concern for ordered worship.

14:33b–35 It is important to note that Paul is laying down a rule to be consistently applied in all churches of the gospel-reached world (14:33; see also 4:17; 7:17; 11:16). Therefore, his statements are not limited by so-called “culture.” He is not making a statement only for Corinth, but for saints everywhere. He is making a pattern to be followed, not giving special instructions only for the assembly filled with the evils and immaturity with which Corinth was filled. For the apostle, women speaking in tongues or prophesying should reflect what is right for all churches. This would agree with the Law of God. Paul’s instruction to Corinth and to all churches was that women could not speak in tongues in the gathered congregation or interpret, nor prophesy (or give judgment on the prophecy). They should refrain from asking a question or speaking in tongues, interpreting, prophesying, or judging prophesy in the church. This does not necessarily mean that the Spirit did not distribute such gifts to women in Corinth, for the very instructions seem to have behind them the experience of women speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, prophesying, and approving of prophecy. To bring order, Paul commends silence from all women in Corinth; this is contrary to modern sensibilities. Yet Paul is not seeking sensibilities, ancient or modern, but what makes for the building of the congregation. Neither was Paul making a statement about women’s intelligence, giftedness, fitness for service, or their value as human beings and co-heirs of the grace of God in Christ. Elsewhere in his writings, Paul highly exalts Phoebe, Priscilla (Prisca), Mary, Junia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufas’s mother, Julia, Nereus’s sister, Euodia, Syntyche, Nympha, Lois, Eunice, and Apphia (Rom 16:1–25; Phil 4:1–2; Col 4:15; 2Tim 1:5; Phlm 1:2). His reception of the letter from members in Corinth that meet in Chloe’s home also includes him seeing Chloe as a faithful member and laborer in Christ (1Cor 1:11). Paul simply was bringing order to Corinth—the same order he expected of all the churches. These instructions do not contradict his words in 11:5, as there he only speaks of the reality of prayer and prophecy happening in the congregation. He puts a cessation to such activity.

In the contemporary church, Paul’s words should be read and applied with great caution, sensitivity, wisdom, and the appropriation of dignity toward all persons, especially women. Error in using such words to foster a type of so-called complementarianism that only serves as a mask for patriarchy will harm both women and men; patriarchy is not biblical complementarianism, no matter how many Christian women find the ability to agree with forms of patriarchy. The directives concerning wives would not exclude single women from the instruction on silence, but only on the ability to ask questions at home. That is, wives in Corinth would have been out of order to ask questions related to the revelatory speaking in the assembly gathering if their husbands were believers. Only such men could answer questions about the Spirit at home. Women married to unbelievers, and single women, could ask questions without being out of order. The silence refers to the subject matter of tongues and prophecy.

14:36–40 Paul impresses it upon the Corinthians that the Word of God originated from God and has powerfully reached people the world over. In addition, he invokes his own authority as an apostle—as one who speaks for God. Thus, to fail to heed all that Paul is saying in 14:1–40 would be to ignore the Word of God—the very voice and power of God himself. Paul concludes where he begins, with a desire for prophecy over tongues, but with a caution to complete the work in “a fitting and orderly way.”

15:1–2 Rather than responding to a question, Paul inserts teaching on the gospel, with emphasis on the resurrection of Christ. The fifty-eight verses intend to encourage steadfastness in the faith that is needed in light of the questions and concerns at Corinth. Much of what Paul has written rests on an eschatology that assumes the resurrection (1:8, 29; 2:9; 3:13–15, 22; 4:5; 5:5; 6:2–3, 14; 7:31; 9:25; 11:26–32; 13:12). Every topic raised in Corinth has the resurrection and the truth of the gospel at its foundation. This good news is proclaimed evangelistically among the Corinthians (Greek, to euangelion ho euangelisamen humin, “the gospel which was preached evangelistically to you”). The proclaimed gospel was received by the assembly. It was not merited or earned but received as a gift given without change in its contents. That message of the good news is sufficient for the Corinthians’ present sanctification and hope, for Paul covers both concepts below in 15:29–34. For the assembly at Corinth, the gospel is that in which they stand. The gospel message is good news for the completion of the promise of final salvation. What provided initial justification will provide final transformation. The gospel’s promise is for those who continue in the gospel, notthose who turn away in apostasy. It is continuation, not in Paul, but in the message he preached (cf. 1:12, 23; 2:2; 3:11; 4:1). It would be vain to continue to hold Paul’s gospel if there is no resurrection.

15:3–5 Paul is only a steward of the message passed to him directly from the Lord. Like the Corinthians, he is a receiver of grace; he only gave to them what he himself had received. It is of the highest priority that the Corinthians have the correct gospel message. The core of the good news—as opposed to all of its attendant implications—has two parts with two evidentiary means of support: (1) Christ died a death as a man on behalf of our sins and their due penalty as the Scriptures foretold in the OT. Evidence that he died is his burial—his physical, human body was buried after he died. As the Gospels reveal, a Roman soldier verified the death of Christ, Joseph of Arimathea asked for the body and laid it in a shroud, Joseph and Nicodemus embalmed his body with spices, and women followers of Christ intended to embalm with more spices the body they saw die (Mark 15:39, 43–47; 16:1; John 19:33–35, 38). (2) Christ rose again from the dead after three days as also foretold in the OT (Gen 22:10–12; Pss 16:10–11; 22:21–24, 31; Isa 53:11–12; Jon 1:17; 2:10; Heb 11:19; also Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:32–33). The evidence that he was raised from the dead bodily is that he appeared alive in his body to Peter and “the twelve” (which does not include Judas, but does include Matthias; Acts 1:21–26). Jesus gave evidence that he had a body and was not simply raised spiritually (Luke 24:39). The good news that Paul had proclaimed was that Jesus, the promised Jewish Messiah, had solved the human dilemma of sin. The burial gave witness to Jesus’s death to pay the penalty for sin and grant his righteousness to sinners. The eyewitnesses told of their experiences with him bodily three days after his death. His defeat of death allows him to offer life after death to all who receive this gospel message.

15:6–7 There were over five hundred witnesses who saw Jesus Christ on one shared occasion, a fact that would discount hallucination or uncertainty. Even at the time of Paul’s writing to the Corinthians, there were living witnesses to the bodily resurrection of Christ, each of whom could state assuredly that the resurrection was a fact of history. “Fallen asleep” was an idiom in the ancient world for dying. But the hope in Christ infused the idiom with resurrection truth so that the bodies of those who had believed on Christ were only awaiting being awakened by his return (John 11:11–15). “James” is unidentified among the four Jameses in the NT—James the son of Zebedee (Matt 10:2), James the son of Alpheus (Acts 1:13), James the half-brother of Jesus (and son of Joseph; Mark 6:3), and James the son of Mary and brother of Joses (Luke 24:10). However, the son of Zebedee had been martyred before the founding of Corinth, and his name may not have carried significance to this assembly. The sons of Alpheus and Mary had less prominence in the NT. The brother of Jesus and leader of the church at Jerusalem seems the likely referent, as Paul could refer to him without qualification elsewhere (Gal 1:19). James’s eyewitness testimony would have been significant to the ministry at and from the church in Jerusalem. The additional appearances of Jesus to “the apostles” seems to be inclusive of secondary apostolic emissaries without apostolic gifts, like Barnabas and Apollos, for Paul uses “the twelve” to speak of the narrower group in 15:5.

15:8–10 Paul refers to his encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road. His experience with the resurrected Christ was undeniable, giving further credence to the fact of the resurrection. Paul was not birthed into apostleship when the twelve were commissioned, for he was still a zealous Pharisee in those days. The untimeliness of Paul’s apostleship gave Paul a sense of humility about his calling. Unlike many of the Corinthians who seemed to have felt worthy of salvation (1:26), Paul magnifies the working of the grace of God with three truths. First, God’s grace called him to salvation and apostleship so that the entirety of his being and identity is radically different from his identity and life as a persecutor of the church. Second, grace working in him is not empty in its results. Paul’s use of “in vain” points backwards to the Corinthians’ faith in the resurrection of Christ (15:2) and looks forward to Paul’s conclusion on the significance of the resurrection in Christ for the Corinthians’ faith and faithfulness in their labors for him (15:14, 58). Paul’s faith in Christ by grace produced faithful service by grace, just as the assembly placed faith in Christ and is called to faithful service. Third, even the work Paul did by human effort to labor with more effort than all the other apostles was the working of grace. Both service and sanctification, which appeared to be wrought by human diligence, were alone the working of God’s grace that accomplished the efforts. Paul’s understanding of concurrence still attributes all achievement to a monergistic working of grace (i.e., “not I, but grace”) rather than a synergistic working of God plus human effort.”

15:11–13 The message of the good news believed upon by the Corinthians came by means of grace. The identity of the human mouthpiece was inconsequential. Their faith was in a message that was delivered faithfully. The Corinthians’ faith rested in the message of the death and resurrection of Christ. However, the question of whether the dead are raised surfaced despite their belief in Christ’s own resurrection. The claim that there is no resurrection from the dead negates Christ’s resurrection with drastic consequences for those who have expressed faith in him. Therefore, Paul makes inquiry into their question about the resurrection of people. The very question seems incongruent with the belief that Christ was raised after three days. Denying human resurrection would mean that Christ, who took on flesh, also never arose from the dead.

15:14–15 Since the content of the message of the gospel is faith in the death and resurrection of Christ, removal of the concept of resurrection as a fact would destroy the gospel message. One gives oneself false hope by placing faith in something that does not happen in truth. All living and service based on the resurrection of Jesus would have been a waste of the Corinthians’ thought, effort, and time. Promoting a resurrected Christ would be promoting a lie in the name of God. If human resurrection does not occur, then God did not raise the fully human Jesus. This is the third drastic consequence of the resurrection being a false hope, the first being that Christ was never raised and the second being that preaching the gospel is an empty enterprise.

15:16–17 There is a domino effect to the claim that there is no such thing as resurrection from the dead. A crucified Christ that was not raised from the dead is a dead Christ; he would not be a first fruits of anything, neither would his sacrifice have been acceptable to God, as the resurrection is proof of acceptance. As such, faith in Christ to raise one from the dead would be a worthless belief because Christ has no power to help others beat death if he himself never was raised from the dead. This also would mean no sacrifice for sin had been acceptable before God on behalf of sinners. No resurrection means all are still deserving of the wrath of God.

15:18–20 If Christ has not been raised, then Paul rightly argues that those who have died have met the wrath of God upon their sins. Rather than being raised to life and the presence of God because of Christ, they have met hell because the death their sin deserved had not been defeated by a resurrection—specifically Christ’s resurrection—because it never happened. The snowball effect of the resurrection of the dead being myth would be that the activities of the present life are all there is. Those who have trusted Christ and labored for the next life have wasted their time. All should look upon them with pity as people who made a poor investment of their lives. But Paul re-establishes the resurrection of Christ as a historical fact. Pointing to the typology of the OT first fruits offering (Lev 23:9; Num 18:12–13; 28:26–30; Deut 26:10), he describes Jesus as an offering brought to the priest that is the initial crop of the harvest to follow. Jesus is the best and first before God to be raised, with many to follow in being raised from their temporary bodily slumber.

15:21–23 In redemptive history, death was brought into the world by a man, so it follows that a man must satisfy the requirements for persons in the world to have life after death. The God-Man, Jesus, makes that provision. Adam’s federal headship of the human race means death for all persons. This statement about the first Adam requires a historical Adam in Genesis 3 in order for the corresponding resurrection of Christ to be (1) a human resurrection and (2) a resurrection that occurred in history. As all persons follow Adam in deserving physical and spiritual death, so those identified with Christ by mysterious union through faith in him will experience the life Christ has secured. Christ’s resurrection as the first fruits orderly precedes the resurrection of believers and the final subjection of all to God as all in all. “At his coming” indicates the certainty of the return of Christ for his own at the time of the future resurrection of the bodies of believers. In true harvest fashion, the resurrection of believers follows the first fruits resurrection of Christ.

15:24–25 Paul’s eschatology has the pattern of OT prophets, immediately placing future items adjacent to one another without giving details of events between the initially mentioned items. Paul speaks of no other events between the Second Advent of Christ, the bodily resurrection of believers, and the establishment of the final rule of Christ. Neither does Paul here explain the nature of the kingdom. All discussion of millennial timing and the ontological nature of the kingdom of God will meet resolution with the help of Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology. These verses only establish a return, resurrection, and rule in finality. The end of this present world and death itself come with Christ the Son’s presentation of the kingdom to God the Father like a victorious battle warrior presenting the spoils of war to his king. The spoils were secured by the warrior, but they are the property of the king for the honor of his rule. Christ, the Divine Warrior, will end all warfare against him in the heavenly places and on earth (Eph 1:20–21; Phil 2:10–11). The apostle’s eschatological scheme reads across Psalm 110:1. The decree of God to David’s Lord is that the Lord will have complete rule over all his enemies with the victory of an ancient warrior-king, placing his foot on the neck of his subjugated enemy. The NT reads Jesus as the Lord in Psalm 110 to whom that promise was made (Matt 22:43–45; Acts 2:34–36; Eph 1:22; Heb 1:13; 2:8; 10:13).

15:26–27 If Christ defeats all enemies, he must defeat death, the greatest enemy standing against having life with God. Defeating death in battle requires the ability to have and give life in a manner that death cannot overcome. The means by which Christ destroys the last enemy is resurrection from the dead. That victory will be actualized to its full extent in the establishment of the final rule. “All things”—says the one who became “all things” for all persons in 9:22–27—includes death as one of these things. However, Paul notes one exception to all things coming under the rule of Christ: Christ will present the kingdom to God the Father. This means the Father is in the superior position within the Godhead. Paul’s conclusion draws from Psalm 110:1 because it is the sovereign LORD who makes the enemies subject to David’s Lord. The Sovereign LORD rules and gives to David’s Lord the victory over his enemies. He is in authority over Christ, not subjugated under him.

15:28–29 Even the Son of God, through his voluntary submission of all things to the Father, will place himself under God the Father as the one to be glorified. The Son will be subordinate to the Father for all eternity. It is the Father for whom the Son intends glory and worship forever. The inquiry of 15:29 calls into question the eschatological scheme that flows from Christ’s own resurrection. If Christ will not have final victory over death and all things as one who already has been raised from the dead—as one warring on behalf of God the Father, the King who rules over all, including death—then, asks the apostle, why would some experience baptism vicariously for others who had died? An unidentified group of people participated in baptism in the hopes of affecting a missing baptism on the part of their loved ones. The acts show hope in the resurrection of those baptized, but Paul does not indicate’ agreement with the practice, as his use of the third person supports. Neither does Paul indicate that the baptism is for salvation or righteousness, but only that some practice it with hope in the resurrection of those who died. More than forty interpretations of this verse are identified by Bernard Foschini, and many interpretations have been offered since his work. However, it might be best to conclude with D. A. Carson, “There is no good evidence for vicarious baptism anywhere in the New Testament or among the earliest apostolic fathers . . . If the practice existed at all, it may have been tied to a few people or special cases—for example, when a relative died after trusting the gospel but before being baptized. We really do not know.”¹⁷

15:30–32 The third question asks about the shared experiences of the Corinthians’ and Paul as believers. Why live at risk of persecution and potential martyrdom if there is no hope of resurrection? Paul is right to mount a protest to those who question the fact of the resurrection of the dead. Why put himself at risk of life daily on behalf of the Corinthians if his pride in the Corinthians’ conversion and their growth ends in futility rather than life? Paul gains no reward or merit by facing down opposition to the gospel work in Ephesus if there is no resurrection from the dead. One only continues in the gospel work in the face of hostilities if there is hope in the resurrection. Otherwise, one should take the most libertine approach to this life’s pleasures, as in Isaiah 23:22, knowing that only death awaits once the party of this life has ended.

15:33–34 The reference to deception and those who “have no knowledge of God” indicates that skepticism over the resurrection comes from an unbelieving (and maybe agnostic) group of people. Their morality (or lack thereof) depends upon removal of the hope of the resurrection (15:32). They can live to the full conclusion of hopeless lives: Get the most fun from this life as possible, for there is nothing after that. Such libertine morality would have complemented the Corinthians’ attitude toward sexual immorality, lawsuits, marriage, food offered to idols, and their participation in the Lord’s Supper. The presence of those who did not agree with the resurrection was corrupting the spiritual lives of the assembly. Imagery of an inebriated man acting foolishly characterized the Corinthians’ questioning of the resurrection: The libertine worldview led them into the stupor of all sorts of sins. Paul calls them to awaken—to separate themselves from the libertines and their denial of the resurrection from the dead. The shame to the Corinthians is due to their lack of discernment. They should not have embraced the theological belief of unbelievers on the resurrection of people; they should have held to the gospel.

15:35–36 In addition to the libertine impulses among the Corinthian congregants, denial of the resurrection derived from some not being able to conceive of resurrected bodies. The frailties of the body in this life led some to wonder what carried over from this life to the resurrection. Paul explains to the Corinthians how bodily resurrection happens. For Paul, doubt about the resurrection because of a lack of understanding of resurrected bodies is unwise. Their lack of understanding should not lead to dismissal of what they do not understand. Using agricultural language, Paul first clarifies that a seed going into the ground loses its shape in the ground to allow life to sprout and yield flowers or fruit (cf. John 12:24).

15:37–38 Like a seed of wheat that yields a grain that looks nothing like its seed, so the human body in this world is only like a kernel of wheat. The body one puts in the grave does not show the body that will come up from the earth, living. Also, like each type of seed yields a different type of produce, so the sovereign God gives a different body product to each bodily kind based on his sovereign choice.

15:39–41 Paul can recognize different body types (“flesh”) among humans, animals, the cosmos, the earth, spiritual realms, and physical realms. The Corinthians’ (1) general knowledge of the human species and of the animal kingdom, and (2) their belief in beings of the invisible world (versus that of the physical world) should have been enough to believe in the possibility of the existence of a resurrected body made for a realm different than that of present bodies. In different realms, bodies also have different glories. The OT sighting of angelic beings and the description of some classes of angels reveals beings with splendor beyond that of humans (Isa 6:2; Ezek 10:12; Dan 10:5–6). What makes the appearance and constitution of humans and animals great differs vastly from the description of angels. In similar fashion, the Corinthian assembly could have drawn conclusions about different bodies by comparing their own bodies’ splendors to the splendor of luminary bodies.

15:42–44 The analogy of the differences between various bodies comes to a conclusion about human resurrection from the dead. There are different bodies for different realms with different glory in each realm. In this life, one has a body that can perish in the grave. That is a body for this realm. In the return of Christ, one will have a body that cannot perish for any reason. It is a body for “the end” and “the kingdom” (15:24). The present body can go to death with the marks of persecution, disease, aging, birth deformities, accidents, tragedy, and the like. The experience of Paul’s and the apostles’ bodies in serving the churches was one without honor but with great physical abuse (1Cor 4:9–11; 15:30–32; cf. Acts 14:19; 21:30–32; 2Cor 4:8–12, 17; 2Cor 10:23–29; Gal 6:17). The hope that allowed Paul and others to give their physical bodies in sacrifice to the Lord’s work is certainty of a body in a different realm being raised gloriously—without deficit, marring, pain, or shame. The present body goes to death in this realm without strength to prevent death. In the realm of Christ’s Advent, the believer will inhabit a body with the power of life. In this natural realm, bodies are natural. The new realm will provide a body that is spiritual. It is not that this life will give way to a disembodied existence; rather, it will be an embodied existence made by the Spirit (cf. 1Cor 2:13).

15:45–46 The comparison of bodies and realms turns to a comparison of the two Adams made for two different realms. The creation account of Adam gaining life for this world as progenitor of the human race points toward the work of Christ in the resurrection giving life for those of his spiritual lineage. The pattern of life offered in each realm begins with human beings, because the creation of man precedes the incarnation of Christ.

15:47–49 Still examining the story in Genesis 1–3, Paul compares Adam’s origin to Christ’s origin. One is from dust, so naturally the body made from dust has existence and glory for the realm of dust. All who follow Adam as Federal Head share in being people formed out of dust who will return to the dust of the earth in death. However, because Christ comes from heaven, all of those who are “of heaven”—because they have identified with Jesus through faith—will be like Jesus with a heavenly body. The glory of persons who have lived as the offspring of the one created from dust will give way to a glory for persons who bear the image of the Second Adam—the God-Man, the man of heaven—a final accomplishment of the dignity intended for all persons since the beginning of the creation of man and woman.

15:50–51 A right deduction from the differences between bodies and their realms would be that present bodies of dust made in Adam and set to perish in the earthly realm in dishonor are not fit for the kingdom of God. The gift of the kingdom Christ offers excels the ability to be embraced by the bodies made for this present realm. The kingdom comes with the quality of imperishability. As Paul has shown that the perishable body is only for this realm that is perishing, the quality of the kingdom necessitates the resurrection of a body made for its realm. Previously, Paul has not explained how one moves between bodily realms. Now Paul will reveal truth not fully known in prior revelation. “Behold” calls the Corinthian church to give great attention to what follows: Some believers will never see death. Instead, in an instant, without warning, they will transfer from this realm to the future realm, exchanging bodies in the process.

15:52–53 The transference from one body and realm to the new body and realm will be instantaneous. The trumpet that will announce such a blast is the last trumpet to be blown within the present realm of redemptive history. Referring to the OT blowing of trumpets, one recalls trumpets being blown to call Israel to battle, to remind Israel of the presence of God, and to call them to solemn rest before God (Num 10:1–10). Additionally, trumpet blowing pointed to the coming of the Day of the Lord (Isa 27:13; Joel 2:1). The last trumpet blast combines OT ideas of a battle cry, blasts over offerings in sacred assemblies, and the Day of the Lord as it ends the earthly realm and announces the presence of the kingdom of God. To that kingdom the trumpet will call both dead bodies and those living into a state of imperishable living. All those who placed faith in Christ will experience this bodily exchange in a flash. On “imperishable,” Thiselton’s comments are important: “Although the semantic opposition is not explicit here, incorruption does not adequately convey what the absence of this destructive process entails for a process directed by the Spirit. The σῶμα [body] will be raised without degenerating decay at the very least; perhaps Paul means also here the reversal of decay, i.e., flourishing.”¹⁸ From the totality of Paul’s argument, the imperishable kingdom demands that Christ’s own be clothed in bodies for that realm. These bodies cannot be those that will perish, for the new realm is everlasting. The new bodies cannot be capable of dying, for they are going to a realm without dying.

15:54–55 The transfer to bodies of the new realm allows for final fulfillment of prophetic words found in Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14. In the first quotation, “Death is swallowed up in victory,” Isaiah spoke of the day the Lord would establish his rule in Jerusalem and provide final salvation and victory over their enemies. Israel no longer would face death, for the establishment of the kingdom would end their miseries in this life. In the second quotation, Hosea proclaims Ephraim’s victorious rescue from the experience of death (“sting”)—that death being “Sheol,” or the second death, which their sins deserved. In his advent, Christ’s resurrection will carry the significance of being the end of both physical death and spiritual death for his own. Israel will experience full victory in her Lord both physically and spiritually. In Christ, believers will experience the same.

15:56–58 In a play on “sting,” Paul speaks of the power of death. It is sin that makes death final, for only those without sin can stand before a holy God and live. Paul does not elaborate on the role of the Law to reveal sin as he does in Romans 7. However, it is the Law that establishes what is commanded and prohibited by God. For the Christian, the moral law reveals where a person misses God’s standards of righteousness, thereby deserving death. It is right to give all thanks to God for the way out of the Law, sin, and death, for he alone has made the provision for the believer to be victorious through these obstacles to life. The believer experiences victory over the Law, sin, and death because Christ died for sin and was raised from the dead after three days. Only in placing faith in Jesus—the sovereign Lord of heaven who is the promised Jewish Messiah—is there any assurance of victory and of receiving the kingdom of God. The resurrection’s removal of the emptiness of our labors calls for us to be steadfast in our work for Christ. The importance of the certainty of Christ’s resurrection from the dead for our present and future victory, even with its complexities, warns against temptations to deny the resurrection of the dead.

16:1–4 The instructions concerning the collection for the saints in Jerusalem limits Paul’s role to assist those who will carry the gift. The Corinthians had questions on who would collect and carry the gift. With all the problems in Corinth, their mistrust of one another was reasonable. Paul sets himself as an example of not touching the money so that there is not a question of motives or theft. The monies being collected were for believers in need in Jerusalem (Acts 24:17; Rom 15:25–28). “First day of the week” was an idiom for “Sunday.” Following the resurrection of Christ, believers gathered on Sundays. As they gathered, it would be natural to collect sacrificial giving for the churches in Jerusalem at a time when the majority of the believers in Corinth were present. The giving was not necessarily spontaneous, as Paul instructed each believer to store away their individual collections so that there would not be last-minute activity for collecting upon his arrival. No specified amount was given for all; each home’s income allowed for giving at one’s discretion according to his/her own prosperity. It would also be the Corinthians who would appoint people they trusted to carry the funds to Jerusalem. Paul would only be part of the company, not needing to have control and not wishing to bring questions of trust.

16:5–9 Paul’s plans to benefit from visiting and spending time with the Corinthians while also accounting for the gospel working at Ephesus. Paul models the love he instructed in 1 Corinthians 13; he does not intend simply to check off his list a visit to Corinth. He intends to linger with them, across the winter months, simply being present with them. Paul does not over-promise, for he recognizes the sovereignty of God in all planning; he will come stay with the Corinthians for the winter if God has decreed such. In saying this, the Corinthians should not be able to accuse Paul later of lying about his travel plans; nevertheless, they do (2Cor 1:15–19). Paul’s plans keep the gospel ministry in mind. There still is opportunity to preach Christ where he previously fought great adversaries in Ephesus (15:32). While there, Paul will observe Pentecost as an ethnic Jew, celebrating a cultural festivity with fellow Jews (1Cor 9:22–23). He remains cognizant of those hostile to the gospel message.

16:10–12 The Corinthians should receive’ Timothy and treat him in a manner that considers the peaceful gospel working among them, Paul, and the brothers. The anxious or timid nature that characterized Timothy was easy to despise. But Paul sets forth Timothy before them as a servant of the Lord in the same work as Paul. It is the work and position of Timothy they were to respect, a mitigating cause for vigilance on Timothy’s part. Paul sets everyone in Corinth on notice of proper treatment of Timothy. Timothy should leave them being settled in spirit so that he can join others in serving Paul. Even though Paul urged Apollos to make a visit to Corinth, he did not visit them. The will of God in Apollos’s life explains the delay in his visit and future opportunity to come.

16:13–14 The directives for being faithful amidst cultural challenges call for using love in response to all. The series of short imperatives relates to matters previously encountered in the correspondence. The assembly should be aware of persons like the libertines (15:33). They should labor faithfully, standing on the hope of the resurrection (15:1, 58). They would need to be courageous (“act like men”) and strong toward potential beasts like those Paul faced in Ephesus (15:9, 30–32). The last two directives have the OT refrain “be strong and courageous” behind them (Josh 1:9). Doing all by means of love revisits the idea of love being related to every decision in Corinth (13:1–14:1). Their watchfulness, firm standing, courage, and strong stances should be characterized by actions that Love Personified would do if present among them (1Cor 13:4–8).

16:15–18 The respect to be afforded Stephanas, Fortunas, and all workers should consider the faithfulness of their work in Corinth and to Paul. The earliest believers in Achaia showed signs of true conversion. Stephanas (1:16) and the members of his household (which may have included servants) continued in the gospel they had believed (15:1–2) and had given themselves to meeting the needs of the believers. As servants to all, they had the character quality for leadership in the assembly. The congregation should find themselves lining up under their leadership and under others who were workers of the gospel for the saints. Paul’s words reveal that the divisions, moral laxity, libertine spirit, and all other displays of a lack of love had led to problems with members following the congregation’s leaders. Stephanas himself, along with two other fellow workers and laborers (16:16), Fortunatus and Achaicus, had either traveled with the delegation from Chloe’s household or been those who carried questions to Paul. They deserved to be followed as those who visited Paul in the stead of the Corinthians. Paul was not expecting the entire congregation to visit him; but love would have them visit to show care about Paul. As the entire congregation would not have had the ability to visit, the three workers stood in place of the congregation, representing the love the congregation would have intended to show with their own presence. Their presence brought joy to Paul. As they served Paul, the trouble, concern, or tiredness he would have felt after his departure from Corinth would have been overcome as he experienced a new strengthening by their service to him. These workers had served Corinth in the same way. For the apostle, recognition of faithful, joy-giving, refreshing service to saints was worth being exalted before the assembly. It was a loving, gospel-centered work to recognize the service of faithful gospel workers.

16:19–24 The greetings in Corinth were to be complemented with love and holiness in the grace of Christ. Paul’s fellow workers, Aquila and Priscilla (shortened here and in Rom 16:3 to “Prisca”), made their warmth toward the Corinthians known, as did believers unknown to the Corinthians in parts of Asia. Greater than intimate knowledge of one another, their connection was that they all were part of the church as spiritually united brethren (1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 14:33). The greeting with the holy kiss was common in Paul’s letters and intended warm affection without sensuality (Rom 16:16; 2Cor 13:12; 1Thes 5:26; see also 1Pet 5:14). Also characteristic of Paul’s writings was Paul’s personal penmanship at the end of the letter to authenticate the words of the letter, the bulk of which were written by an amanuensis (Gal 6:11; Col 4:18; 2Thes 3:17; Phlm 1:19). The double-emphasis on love in 16:22 and 16:24 again manifests the centrality of love to Corinth’s functioning as a properly working body. Love for the Lord was utmost; its absence indicated a person was an unbeliever and doomed to perish. Paul invokes the strongest cursing, immediately following it with a strong appeal for the Lord to come. None of what Paul called Corinth to do could be done apart from the working of God’s grace in them (15:10). The cursing upon unbelievers in their midst, the calling for the return of the Lord, and the hope for grace all sprung from a heart of love toward the Corinthians (“love” here communicates his affectionate feelings rather acts of service). The hearers of this letter would have known that one who loved them was admonishing them. His shaming of their deception, calling out their foolishness, demanding they purge sinners, warning of overconfidence, and the like were all said by a father who loved them and wanted them to gain their reward. The final “Amen” means Paul sees his words as truthful and is willing to stand before the Lord for them.

Carson, D. A. Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2019.

Ciampa, Roy E. and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010.

Datiri, Dachollom. “1 Corinthians.” In Africa Bible Commentary: A One-Volume Commentary Written by 70 African Scholars, edited by Adeyemo Tokunboh, 1403–23. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006.

Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Revised Edition. NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014.

Gardner, Paul. 1 Corinthians. ZECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003.

Keener, Craig S. 1–2 Corinthians. NCBC. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Kovac, Judith L. 1 Corinthians Interpreted by Early Christian Medieval Commentators. TCB. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2019.

Perkins, Pheme. 1 Corinthians. Paideia. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012.

Philip, Finny. “1 Corinthians.” In South Asia Bible Commentary: A One-Volume Commentary on the Whole Bible, edited by Brian Wintle, 1555–83. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015.

Sanders, Boykin. “1 Corinthians.” In True to Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary, edited by Brian K. Blount, 276–306. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2018.

Spurgeon, Andrew. 1 Corinthians: An Exegetical and Contextual Commentary. ICNT. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2017

Tucker, J. Brian. Reading 1 Corinthians. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2017.

1. D. A. Carson, Leon Morris, and Douglas Moo, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 263.

2. I offer a statement of meaning here rather than a statement of purpose, out of conviction that determining purpose is speculative where it is left unstated by the author; (contrast Luke 1:1–4, John 20:30–31, 1Tim 3:16, and 1Jn 1:1–4). What the author means, however, is discerned through the words, tone, structure, and theology of the text the author has left and that has been received by the church as the words of God.

3. WSC, Q. 4.

4. I recognize that this is one view of Paul and Jesus’s teaching on divorce and remarriage—a “betrothal” view. Among evangelicals there have been strong arguments for different views on Paul and Jesus’s view(s) of divorce and remarriage. I am attempting to develop an argument from 1 Corinthians 7 rather than equate Paul’s view(s) with Jesus’s view(s).

5. To clarify, Paul’s instructions seek ideal obedience but recognize marital realities. Not divorcing (ideal) meets situations is which believers divorce (reality). His concessions are full of grace.

6. Evangelical interpreters differ regarding the permissibility of remarriage. My argument follows the argument of John Piper in certain respects and would not see an “abandonment clause” as allowing for divorce and remarriage. For a popular-level alternative on this issue, see Kevin DeYoung’s article. For a more substantive dialogue on this issue, see Gordon J. Wenham, William A. Heth, and Craig S. Keener, Marriage after Divorce in Today’s Church: Three Views (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009).

7. WSC, Q. 6.

8. Wayne Grudem, “Does Kephale (“Head”) Mean “Source” or “Authority Over” in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,” TrinJ ns 6.1 (Spring 1985): 38–59; idem., “The Meaning of kephale (‘Head’): ‘An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and Alleged,” JETS 44 (2001): 25–65. For alternative views, consider Alan F. Johnson, “A Meta-Study of the Debate over the Meaning of ‘Head’ (Kephalē) in Paul’s Writings.” PP 20:4 (Autumn 2006).

9. Albrecht Oepke, “Καλύπτω, Κάλυμμα, Ἀνακαλύπτω, Κατακαλύπτω, Ἀποκαλύπτω, Ἀποκάλυψις,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964) 3:562–563. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament henceforth TDNT.

10. Heinrich Schlier, “Κεφαλή, Ἀνακεφαλαιόομαι,” TDNT 3:674

11. Albrecht Oepke, “Καλύπτω, Κάλυμμα, Ἀνακαλύπτω, Κατακαλύπτω, Ἀποκαλύπτω, Ἀποκάλυψις,” TDNT 3:563.

12. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 633.

13. Fee, Corinthians, 637.

14. Ibid.

15. Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 638.

16. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996), 63.

17. D. A. Carson, “Did Paul Baptize for the Dead?” CT 42, Aug 10, 1998:63. See also Bernard M. Foschini, “‘Those who are Baptized for the Dead’: 1 Cor 15:29,” CBQ 12 (1950): 260–76; and Michael F. Hull, Baptism on Account of the Dead (1 Cor 15:29): An Act of Faith in the Resurrection, Academia Biblica, No. 22 (Leiden: Brill), 2006.

18. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 1296–1297.

The text of 1 Corinthians, excluding all Bible quotations, is © 2023 by The Gospel Coalition. The Gospel Coalition (TGC) gives you permission to reproduce this work in its entirety, without any changes, in English for noncommercial distribution throughout the world. Crossway, the holder of the copyright to the ESV Bible text, grants permission to include the ESV quotations within this work, in English.

In addition, TGC gives you permission to faithfully translate the work into any other language, but you may not translate the English ESV Bible into another language. If you wish to include Bible quotations with the translated work, you will need to obtain permission from a publisher of a Bible translation in the same language.

All scripture quotations are taken from the ESV® Bible (the Holy Bible, English Standard Version®) copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. ESV Text Edition: 2016. All rights reserved. The ESV text may not be quoted in any publication made available to the public by a Creative Commons license. The ESV may not be translated into any other language. The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.