Overview:
Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is addressed to the Christian community at Corinth. Acts 18:1-17 describes Paul’s experiences on his first visit to the city. The letter is dated by most scholars to about 56 or 57 AD, and Paul’s authorship is not seriously disputed. Corinth is an extremely ancient city, but experienced a break in its history after being conquered by the Romans in 146 BC. At the time of Paul’s writing, Corinth was essentially a Roman city, having been refounded by Julius Caesar in 44 BC as a Roman colony. The Corinthians were the cause of much anxiety to Paul, in terms of theological as well as behavioral issues. 1 Corinthians offers fertile ground for the contradictionist, as Paul attempts to construct theological arguments which suffer from numerous inconsistencies, as we shall see. (Source: Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p.512.)
1:1 Paul introduces himself as “an apostle of Christ Jesus.” He also takes the additional step of pointing out that he has been called to this office “by the will of God.” Perhaps this is an attempt to establish his credentials with the Corinthians, in order lend authority to his theological and ethical instructions which are to follow.
1:2 As he often does, Paul uses some terms which have come to mean something different from what they signified in Paul’s day. The “church” was not at that time the structured organization that it later became. The Greek word here simply means “congregation” or “assembly.” Likewise, by “saints” Paul did not have in mind any formal process of canonization. The Greek word here means “holy ones” and was a term often used by Paul to refer to Christians in general. The word “Christian” does not appear anywhere in the letters of Paul. In fact, “Christian” occurs only three times in the entire New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16).
1:4 In 1 Corinthians, this traditional thanksgiving section, which is a common feature of ancient letters, is almost a sarcastic rebuke rather than a true expression of gratitude. Paul is thankful that the Corinthians had the opportunity to receive God’s grace through Jesus Christ, and that they have not lacked for spiritual gifts. Paul seems to be implying that with all these benefits, the Corinthians have no excuse for their doctinal and ethical inadequacies.
1:10 There could be no clearer statement than this of the fundamental antagonism between Christianity and modern democratic values. Dissension and disagreement are cause for alarm. Agreement and conformity are prized. For Paul, the ideal situation is where all are “united in the same mind and the same judgment.” Mao Tse-tung could not have said it better himself.
1:11-12 We see once again that all was not peace and harmony among the early Christians. “Quarreling” has broken out among the congregation. Competing factions have emerged, with loyalties to Paul, Peter (Cephas) or Apollos. (Note that this Apollos is the missionary referred to in Acts 19:1 and is not to be confused with the Greek god Apollo.) Although Paul scolds the Corinthians for their quarreling, he himself boasts of quarrelling with Peter in Galatians 2:11.
1:14-16 Paul waffles on whether he personally baptized anyone. First he says he baptized only Crispus and Gaius. Then adds as an afterthought that he also baptized in the household of Stephanas. It has been suggested that as Paul was dictating the letter his scribe may have reminded him of Stephanas after first taking down the sentence about Crispus and Gaius. (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.10, p.23-24.) Finally, Paul backs off even further from his original statement, saying he doesn’t know whether he baptized anyone else.
1:17 In Paul’s view, he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Does this mean that Paul put little value on baptism? There is no direct answer to this question in the letters, but a search on the word “baptize” or “baptized” reveals that the word occurs only ten times in all of Paul’s letters, and eight of them are in this first letter to the Corinthians. Thus, it was certainly not a topic that Paul devoted much attention to, perhaps indicating its importance (or lack thereof) to him.
1:18-19 These verses mark the beginning of an argument in which Paul contrasts the wisdom of God with the wisdom of the world. He effectively blocks any rational criticism of his theological position, because any argument refuting his ideas would, by definition, be based on the “wisdom of the world,” which will eventually pass away. The wisdom of God, being eternal and therefore truer, stands aloof, untouched by the philosophical arguments of mere mortals. Christians sometimes adopt this defensive stance when Bible contradictions are pointed out to them. No matter how convincing or damaging the contradiction, the Christians can reject such arguments as simply representing the “wisdom of the world” and remain confident that there is a higher “truth” that trumps the contradictionist arguments, even if the individual Christian does not see any refutation on logical grounds. Rational argument and discussion always require some kind of common ground on which the conversation can take place. But the dichotomy between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the world effectively rejects any common ground and makes rational dialog between the two sides impossible.
1:20 Paul proceeds to denigrate the worldly wisdom of the philosophers and debaters by calling it foolish in the context of God’s wisdom. Since God’s wisdom is only knowable through revelation (see 2:10), it follows that the arguments of the philosophers have nothing to teach us about this higher wisdom. Acts tells us that Paul had encountered philosophers during a brief stay in Athens (Acts 17:16-34), and although he was able to make a few converts, it appears that his presentation left most unconvinced. Thus, rather than sharpen his arguments in order to make them more persuasive, Paul simply declares rational argument to be irrelevant, in light of the higher wisdom of God.
1:22 Paul belittles the Jews for demanding signs – i.e., heavenly signs or miracles showing that Paul’s teaching was indeed from God. But he himself urged his followers to “test everything” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) in order to avoid being led astray by false prophets. In the gospels, Jesus was repeatedly asked for signs from heaven to test his credibility. See, for example, Matthew 16:1; Luke 11:16; John 6:30. (Especially in the gospel of John, “signs” often is equivalent to “miracles.”)
1:25 If the “foolishness of God” is wiser than the wisdom of men, then there must be such a thing as the foolishness of God. Similarly, if the “weakness of God” is stronger than men, there must be such a thing as God’s weakness. Unwittingly perhaps, Paul has thus undermined the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful God. He has given attributes to God, and these attributes are possessed in greater or lesser degree, but God cannot then be the eternal, unchanging essence that Christian theology (ironically, under the influence of Greek philosophy) eventually turned him into. If God’s weakness exists, as Paul implies it does, then God is not infinite in strength. If God’s foolishness exists, as Paul implies it does, then God is not infinite in wisdom. Paul has, in a sense, brought God down to earth by thus limiting him.
1:26 The early appeal of Christianity was overwhelmingly to the poor and uneducated, and also to women, who had nothing to fear from the whole circumcision debate.
1:27-28 In these two verses the battle lines are drawn between two worldviews: a view that values the world we live in, and a view that despises it. Here we have a total revaluation of values, whereby God chooses the foolish, the weak, the low and despised, over the wise, the strong, the noble. Readers who are familiar with Nietzsche’s work will recognize the theme of the revaluation of values, and his call to overthrow the Christian ethic which held the real world in such contempt.
1:30 “Christ Jesus” is hailed as our new wisdom, which is from God, and which replaces the wisdom of the world.
2:2 Paul knows nothing except Jesus Christ “and him crucified.” The central point of Paul’s theology is Jesus’s death and resurrection, not his life and teaching. “Paul tells us next to nothing about the life and ministry of Jesus apart from its climactic finale. Had we possessed only Paul’s letters, it would be impossible to say much about Jesus of Nazareth.” (James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p.183.) Thus, the historical Jesus plays hardly any role in Paul’s theology. We see a glimpse of this attitude in 2 Corinthians 5:16, where Paul writes that “even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.” In this verse, “from a human point of view” is in Greek kata sarka, literally, “according to the flesh.”
2:7 “We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God.” Compare Jesus’s words in Matthew 11:25 – “Father . . . thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes.” However, Jesus elsewhere denies having imparted any secret knowledge, telling the high priest that “I have spoken openly to the world. . . . I have said nothing secretly.” (John 18:20)
2:8 The rulers of the world do not understand this secret wisdom. How could they? God has hidden it from them, as we saw in verse 7. And Paul says that this is why the worldly rulers crucified Jesus – they simply did not understand the wisdom that is from God. But Paul contradicts himself on this point in the letter to the Romans, saying that the knowledge which was kept secret for ages “is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations.” (Romans 16:25) Since the Jewish officials who accused Jesus would have been familiar with these prophetic writings, this secret knowledge must have been known to them at the time they had Jesus crucified, and to Pontius Pilate as well (“known to all nations”), contrary to what Paul says here in Corinthians. Thus, 1 Corinthians 2:8 cannot be reconciled with Paul’s statement in Romans 16:25.
2:9 This quotation, which Paul introduces by the phrase “as it is written,” does not appear anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures. Isaiah 64:4 “comes nearest to the words of our quotation, but if this is Paul’s source, he makes a very free adaptation.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.10, p.38)
2:10-13 Which spirit is Paul referring to? English translations typically capitalize “Spirit” when the meaning is God’s spirit, and leave it lower case to indicate the human spirit. But the Greek texts do not have any capitalization, and so it is speculation on the part of the translators as to which instance of “spirit” refers to God and which to man. In verse 10, for example, a plausible reading would be to interpret this “spirit” to be the human spirit – i.e., God reveals himself to us through our spirit – yet the major English translations capitalize this instance of “spirit” and some (KJV, NIV) even add “his” to emphasize the point, even though the possessive pronoun is not in the Greek text.
2:14 Once again Paul emphasizes that spiritual understanding is not something that an individual can will for himself. It comes from God alone. The “unspiritual” (i.e., natural, physical) man is unable to understand the things of God because the spirit of God has not granted him this capability. But to punish anyone for not believing in God or the gospel, would be fundamentally unjust, as it is not a matter under the individual’s control. This deterministic view of salvation is not widely understood by most modern Christians, but it is a recurring theme in Paul’s theology.
As we have seen, this viewpoint also provides a basis for rejecting any rational critique of Paul’s theology. All such criticisms would be based on the wisdom of the world, i.e., the principles of reason and logic, and can be dismissed out of hand by those who claim to be in the know by virtue of their special revelations from God.
3:1 Having extolled the virtues of the spiritual man, Paul now brings his readers down to earth by telling them that they are not spiritual, and thus he cannot address them as such. They are not ready for the solid food of true spiritual knowledge, because they are still “of the flesh.” But then by Paul’s own standard, the Corinthians will never understand the spiritual truth which Paul teaches. As we just read in verse 2:14, the unspiritual are not able to understand the things of God. And if they are still of the flesh and “not ready” for the full truth, what can we say about Paul’s advice in this letter? Does it then not convey spiritual truth? What does it convey? Half truth? Falsehood? Is he still only giving them (and us) “milk” instead of solid food? And what did Paul teach the Corinthians originally when he first visited them, if he was only feeding them “milk” and not solid food? Paul’s credibility is called into question because he admits that he teaches a different lesson to different audiences, depending on whether he thinks they are ready for the full truth.
3:3-4 Paul chastises the Corinthians for their factionalism, pointing out that both he and Apollos are mere servants of the Lord. He has made this point earlier, in 1:12, but this time he neglects to mention Peter (Cephas), perhaps because Peter, having been one of the original twelve disciples and having accompanied Jesus during his ministry, was to be the rock on which the church was founded (Matthew 16:18), and thus might be viewed as a higher authority than Paul himself.
3:6 Paul planted, and Apollos watered, but Paul neglects to point out that Peter received the seeds from the gardener. This omission hints at the competition between Peter and Paul which we see, for example, in Galatians 2:12.
3:10 “I laid a foundation.” Was then the foundation flawed, given the waywardness of the Corinthians, which Paul addresses in this letter?
3:11 Paul now claims that the only foundation is that of Jesus Christ. “Why did that need to be stressed to the Corinthian community? Could it be that the leader of the Cephas faction was claiming that Peter was the rock on which the church was built?” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.10, p.47.) Of course, Matthew’s gospel had not yet been written at the time Paul was writing, so Paul may have considered such a claim on Peter’s behalf to have been arrogant. “We do not know if the rock saying, which is found only in Matthew, was known in Corinth at this date.” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.1114.) Indeed, we may never know whether Matthew 16:18 is historically accurate, or whether it was written to support the Peter faction in their competition with the followers of Paul.
3:12 This is a very odd way to continue the metaphor. What builder would build upon the foundation with gold, silver or precious stones? Or most implausibly of all, straw? Noticably absent from the list of building materials are rock and stone, which would precisely parallel the rock metaphor with regard to Peter.
3:16-17 Paul tells his readers that “you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you.” But he has already told them that they are not ready for spiritual truth, because they “are still of the flesh.” (3:3) The flesh is connected with sin (Romans 7:5; 7:25; 8:6; 8:13). So if they are still of the flesh, and flesh is the source of sin and death, how can they be at the same time God’s temple?
3:20 The quotation is from Job 5:13. The words are not spoken by Job himself, but by one of his friends who tries to answer Job’s accusations against God.
3:21-22 “All things are yours,” says Paul, including death. But Jesus has abolished death (2 Timothy 1:10). So why would death be a part of a congregation that belongs to Christ? (v.23)
3:23 According to Paul, Christ is not the equal of God, but belongs to him. “Christ is God’s,” just as the church members are Christ’s. The NASB translation brings out the relationship more explicitly: “You belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.” But if Christ belongs to God, and if Jesus was the Christ, how can Jesus say “I and the Father are one”? (John 10:30) Can God belong to himself?
4:1 The “us” that Paul refers to is still the teachers – i.e., those who build upon the foundation mentioned in 3:10, or to use his other metaphor, those who plant and water, as in 3:6. Paul’s point is that all the teachers and preachers are serving the same Christ and possess the same secret knowledge, so there is no purpose in Christians dividing themselves into competing factions according to which missionary they prefer.
4:3-4 It would appear that Paul has been accused of something dishonorable by some of those at Corinth, but what the accusation is, he does not say.
4:5 Paul refers to the future judgment when the Lord will “bring to light the things now hidden in darkness.” But as we have seen, in Romans 16:25 Paul tells us that the secret knowledge that was hidden for many long ages has already been revealed through the writings of the prophets and has been made known to all the nations. (See comment to 2:8.)
4:6 Here Paul explains to his readers that the foregoing analogies apply to himself and to Apollos (again he omits Peter), and he urges them “not to go beyond what is written.” It is not clear what writing he means. Does he refer to some passage of scripture, or to some other writing? Perhaps he alludes to his previous letter to the Corinthians, which we learn of in 5:9, but which is now lost. In any case, “few scholars claim to understand the allusion, which one imagines made more sense to the Corinthians than it does to us.” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.1115.)
4:8 This verse is to be taken sarcastically. Paul insinuates that the Corinthians think of themselves as already rich and reigning as kings. Paul mocks their belief that the kingdom of God has already come and that they are now reigning with Christ, and presumably permitted to do whatever they please. But they may have gotten such an idea from Paul himself, who stressed Christians’ freedom from the law as a result of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. See Romans 6:14; 8:1-2; Galatians 5:18.
4:10-11 Paul continues in a sarcastic vein, contrasting the hardship and humility of himself and Apollos with the arrogance and affluence of the Corinthians.
4:12 Paul claims that “when reviled, we bless; when persecuted, we endure; when slandered, we try to conciliate.” But he is not always so meek with his opponents. On several occasions, a curse replaces the blessing. Later in the same letter, he declares, “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed.” (16:22). He writes to the Galatians that if anyone should preach to them a gospel different from that taught by Paul, “let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8-9). And later in the letter to the Galatians, he wishes that his opponents who teach the necessity of circumcision would “mutilate themselves” when performing the operation. (Galatians 5:12)
4:15-16 After proclaiming his own meekness and humility, Paul now sets himself above all the other teachers who have appeared among the Corinthians. Although the Corinthians may have many guides, they only have one father and that is Paul. He urges them, therefore, to “be imitators of me.” This is not the only time that Paul saw himself as a father to his “children.” See, for example 1 Thessalonians 2:11. He also urged his readers to imitate him in his letter to the Philippians. (Philippians 3:17) Note that he does not tell them to imitate Jesus. Nevertheless, Paul is able to tell the Corinthians in a later letter that “what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord.” (2 Corinthians 4:5)
4:21 Paul, speaking as a stern father, gives the Corinthians a choice between punishment or obedience. The implicit threat did not work. “The assertion of authority was to backfire in outright repudiation of Paul and still harsher criticisms of his ministry.” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.1116.)
5:1 Paul now gets into the specific transgressions of the Corinthians, beginning with the case of a man who is living with his father’s wife. He does not indicate whether the man’s father is still living or if the woman is a widow. The egregiousness of this sin is emphasized by Paul’s claim that this type of behavior is not even found among the pagans, who were known for their casual attitude toward a wide variety of sexual expression.
5:3 Paul passes judgment upon the man, even though he is not present. It is not clear what evidence Paul had to judge the man on, or whether he sought any testimony from the man himself in his defense, as Paul himself had been allowed in his hearings before the Roman governors Felix and Festus. (See Acts chapters 23-26.) In any case, Paul does not speak of forgiveness, but of judgment. Apparently he was not aware of Jesus’s warning that “if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.” (Matthew 6:15, NASB). Based on other passages in Paul’s letters and elsewhere, he seems to have exceeded is authority in passing this judgment, because judgment is reserved for God (or Jesus) alone. “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.” These are Paul’s own words, in Romans 2:1, with emphasis added. John 5:22 tells us that God has given all judgment to the Son (i.e., Jesus), thus not to Paul. And in James 4:12 we read that there is “one lawgiver and judge – he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you that you judge your neighbor?”
5:7 “Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.” Paul likens Jesus’s crucifixion to the sacrifices of the Old Testament. It is this sacrifice which atoned for the sins of mankind. (Romans 8:3) But the difficulty with this analogy is that the real animals sacrificed by the ancient Hebrews stayed dead. They did not get up after three days and resume their life. So the sacrifice of Jesus cannot be likened to that of the paschal lamb, or any other Old Testament sacrificial ritual, because it was not a permanent sacrifice. (See Mike Davis, The Atheist’s Introduction to the New Testament, pp.134-136.)
5:9 Paul here alludes to another letter that he had previously written to the Corinthians. However, no such letter has survived. Why was it not included in the New Testament? Is the New Testament canon dependent on whether key documents just happened to survive long enough to be transcribed? Was Paul not speaking with divine inspiration in the first letter, and so God did not want it to be included? There can be no definitive answer to such questions, but the fact that they can be asked raises doubts about whether the writings of the New Testament are the divinely inspired words of God, or whether they result from the chance survival of documents that were lucky enough to be copied down before they were lost or destroyed.
5:11-13 Paul continues his theme of judgment against those Christians who persist in sinning. He applies a double standard, though. Those outside the congregation are to be judged by God, but those who belong to the community of believers are to be judged by their fellow Christians. But the passages reserving judgment for God, cited in the comment to 5:3, apply here as well, as does Paul’s own appeal to his fellow Christians, urging them, “let us no more pass judgment on one another.” (Romans 14:13) Only a few verses earlier, Paul asks, “Why do you pass judgment on your brother? . . . For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God.” (Romans 14:10) So Paul himself is not consistent on whether Christians should judge their members’ behavior or leave that task to God himself.
6:1 We may suppose that the Corinthian Christians have taken their grievances against each other to court, meaning the pagan courts of the empire. Paul is vehemently opposed to this practice. He reasons that since “the saints” (i.e., Christians) will judge the world in the day of the Lord, it is absurd for them to subject themselves to the judgment of those whom they will eventually judge. However, Paul does not argue that ecclesiastical courts should be used instead, but that Christians should suffer wrong rather than seek legal remedy (v.7). If Christians follow Jesus’s advice to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39) then there should be no need of law courts to settle disputes. Jesus himself, however, did not go so far as to rule out all appearance before the law courts. In Matthew 5:25 he advises his listeners to “make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court.”
As for Paul’s view that the Christians themselves will judge the heathen in the day of judgment, this is not consistent with John 5:22, where we read that God “has given all judgment to the Son” (i.e., to Jesus). Also, note the words of Peter in Acts 10:42, where Jesus Christ “is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead.” See also 2 Timothy 4:1; James 4:12 on Jesus as judge. There is an exception, however, but it still does not fit with Paul’s notion that Christians as a body will judge the heathen. In Matthew 19:28, Jesus tells his disciples that they will sit in judgment of the twelve tribes of Israel after Jesus is exalted to his heavenly throne. But this is only directed to the twelve disciples. There is no mention of ordinary Christians doing any judging, and there is no mention of judging non-Jews.
6:5 In this verse Paul admits that he is writing to shame the Corinthians. But earlier in the same letter, he claimed “I do not write this to make you ashamed.” (4:14)
6:9-10 Paul has gotten himself into an awkward philosophical position, because if the law no longer applies to Christians, what basis does he have for labelling certain behaviors as unrighteous or immoral? What standard is he using?
6:12 In this verse, “All things are lawful for me” are the words of Paul’s opponent, whom he debates in absentia by imagining what arguments the proponents of licentiousness might present. But again, the idea that Christians are free to do whatever they please is a notion that can easily be derived from Paul’s own writings – even if that was not his real intention. See the comment to 4:8 for examples. Also, note that Paul here does not deny that all things are lawful for the Christian, but simply introduces a new standard of helpfulness, in place of lawfulness, by which to judge these actions. If the law no longer applies, it is hard to see how a standard of “helpfulness” can be used to judge behavior as immoral or unrighteous.
6:13 Here Paul attempts to refute those who argue that sexual desire is just as natural as the desire for food.
6:16 “The two shall become one flesh.” Paul argues that a man who joins with a prostitute becomes one flesh with her and thus his body can no longer be a member of Christ (v.15). He cites the passage from Genesis 2:24 as proof. But the Genesis passage refers to marriage, not to casual sexual unions. A man becomes one flesh with his wife, according to Genesis 2:24. There is no basis in Genesis for claiming that the same degree of union occurs in the case of casual encounters.
6:18 Immorality is a sin against one’s own body, Paul argues – as though the body were naturally pure and innocent if not for sinful behavior. But elsewhere Paul equates the body with sin and death. (Romans 6:6; 7:5; 8:10) Romans 7:5 even goes so far as to identify the source of the sinful passions. They are not the result of personal weakness, but are “aroused by the law.”
6:19 Paul again is trapped by his own argument. He wants to discourage sexual immorality by depicting the body as “a temple of the Holy Spirit.” But his previous disparagement of the body as the source of sin undercuts his present argument. See the comment to 3:16-17, where Paul makes essentially the same point.
6:19-20 “You are not your own.” Despite Paul’s references to the freedom that followers of Christ enjoy (e.g., Romans 8:21; Galatians 5:1), it is clear from Paul’s words here how limited that freedom is. “You were bought with a price” as is the case with any slave. The point is driven home in 7:22, where we learn that “he who was free when called is a slave of Christ.”
7:1-2 Fundamentalists who trumpet marriage as a Christian value ignore the implications of this verse. Paul clearly believes that marriage is a poor alternative to remaining celibate. His key value judgment is that “it is well for a man not to touch a woman.” Where RSV has “well,” the KJV, NIV, and NASB have “good.” But the Greek word kalon, which Paul uses here, carries stronger moral overtones than our word “good” conveys. The meanings include “worthy, upright, virtuous,” as well as “possessing moral excellence.” (William D. Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, p.262) Obviously, Paul believes that celibacy is the preferred option, and that marriage, while not sinful (v.28), is only tolerated as a solution to “the temptation to immorality.”
It is not possible to reconcile Paul’s position here with God’s commandment to “be fruitful and multiply,” which he gave not only to Adam and Eve, but to others as well. (Genesis 1:28, 9:1; 9:7; 35:11)
7:3-6 This principle that husbands and wives should give each other their “conjugal rights” must be understood in the context of the values expressed in verses 1 and 2. The reason for fulfilling these conjugal rights is to avoid the danger of temptation due to “lack of self-control” and not because sexual behavior between married couples is good in itself. As he notes in v.6, these pieces of advice are “by way of concession, not of command.”
7:7 Here Paul recognizes that not all Christians will be able to exercise the self-control of which Paul himself is capable, but he wishes that they could be like him.
7:8-9 Paul continues with the same theme, and applies his principle to those who are unmarried or widowed. It is “good” (kalon) for them to remain single. But marriage is an option “if they cannot exercies self-control.” The language of the KJV, which says “it is better to marry than to burn,” does not refer to burning in hell, but to burning with passion, and this interpretation is made explicit in the modern translations.
7:10-11 Paul admonishes the Corinthians that divorce is prohibited, and that this command comes not from Paul himself but from the Lord. He allows no exceptions to this instruction, although Jesus himself recognized an exception and permitted divorce for reasons of unchastity in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9.
7:12 After giving advice to the unmarried and widows (vv.8-9) and to the married (vv.10-11), Paul now turns to “the rest,” while noting that this guidance comes from himself and “not the Lord.” “The rest” turns out to be mixed marriages between Christians and non-believers, but what are we to make of Paul’s admission that he, and not God, is the source of this instruction? Are these words of Paul therefore not divinely inspired? Do they still have the status of holy scripture? Did Paul always attach such a disclaimer before giving his own non-divine opinions, or might there be other passages in his letters that lack divine approval? And if there are, how would we recognize them?
7:14 If a believer marries an unbeliever, their children are holy (apparently without needing to be baptized). The implication is that when two nonbelievers marry, their children are “unclean.”
7:15 Here we have an exception to the divorce rule, in a circumstance that Jesus could not have contemplated, for Jesus taught entirely within a Jewish context, and had no concept of marriage between Christians and non-Christians, nor indeed of the concept “Christian” at all. Paul counsels that if a believing spouse is abandoned by their non-believing spouse, the believer is not bound – apparently meaning that he or she would be free to remarry without being considered as an adulterer, as provided in Matthew 5:32; 19:9.
7:19 The circumcision controversy resurfaces, as we have seen in Acts and especially in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Paul here seems to be indifferent to circumcision, saying that “neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision.” But elsewhere he expresses stronger opinions, in contradictory directions: “What is the value of circumcision? Much in every way.” (Romans 3:1-2) But: “If you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.” (Galatians 5:2) Paul’s position on circumcision is all over the map, and apologists go to great lengths in a futile attempt to reconcile his conflicting statements on the subject.
7:22 Whoever was free when called “is a slave of Christ.” Contrast this with Galatians 5:1 – “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” And “You were called to freedom.” (Galatians 5:13) Paul repeatedly observes how Christ has set Christians free from the law (e.g., Romans 8:2), but based on his words here to the Corinthians they have only substituted one form of slavery for another.
7:24 Paul’s general argument is that the status quo must be preserved. Whether you were slave or free, circumcised or uncircumcised, married or unmarried, his advice is to remain as you are. This counsel is consistent with Paul’s advice elsewhere to submit to worldly authorities (e.g., Romans 13:1-2), but is in sharp contrast to Jesus’s own challenge to authority and his explicit desire to disrupt established relationships: “I came to cast fire upon the earth; and would that it were already kindled!” (Luke 12:49) “I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household.” (Matthew 10:34-36)
7:25-31 Paul continues to promote the status quo in advising his followers not to change their current marital status. But even those who are married and have wives should “live as though they had none.” (i.e., remain celibate) (v.29) Thus, in spite of his advice in 7:3-6, Paul now counsels against sexual union between married couples, in view of the “present distress” and because the “time has grown very short” and “the form of this world is passing away.” (v.31) Although Paul previously expressed concern about his followers falling into temptation if their sexual needs were not met within marriage, he feels that Jesus’s return will come so soon, that Christians can do without sexual relationships during the brief time that remains. “Since the ground for his advice has not materialized in nineteen centuries, it is difficult to see how anyone can ascribe normative significance to the words.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.10, p.84)
7:28 Although those who marry may escape the temptation to fall into sexual immorality, they “will have worldly troubles.” Apparently, even Christians should not expect marital bliss from a relationship whose only benefit is that it reduces the temptation to sin.
7:32-34 Paul falls into another contradiction here. He previously urged his readers to marry, in order to avoid being preoccupied with sexual desire which might lead them into immorality. But now he tells us that the unmarried are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, while the married man is distracted by wanting to please his wife, and the wife her husband. If the unmarried are so focused on the affairs of the Lord, how could they also be so preoccupied with sexual desire that they might fall into temptation?
7:38 Although it is no sin to marry (v.36), it is clear that Paul considers marriage to be an inferior option to remaining celibate. While marriage is permitted, “he who refrains from marriage will do better.”
7:40 He thinks that he has the spirit of God? At this stage, it seems that he would be more sure on this point.
8:1 The issue here is whether Christians are permitted to eat food which has been offered to a pagan god. “Much of the meat sold in the market places had come from animals sacrificed in pagan temples. Many Christians had scruples about eating such meat (Rom. ch. 14). Others, however, felt superior to such scruples and contemptuous toward those troubled by them. These superior people with their ‘knowledge’ Paul rebukes for their lack of love.” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, p.1387.)
8:4-5 Jesus himself had “declared all foods clean.” (Mark 7:19) However, Paul does not settle the food dispute by appealing to Jesus’s teaching. Indeed, as we have already observed, Paul refers very little to the life and teachings of Jesus throughout his letters, and it is doubtful whether he was even familiar with what Jesus taught. (See the comment to 2:2.) Instead, Paul gives an argument based on setting a good example for one’s fellow Christians. He argues that for Christians, there is only one god, who is the creator of all things. Therefore, “we are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.” (v.8) But in order not to lead astray those Christians who may be less knowledgeable, Paul advises against eating meat, “lest I cause my brother to fall.” (v.13)
A multiplicity of gods? Paul begins his argument by observing that “an idol has no real existence,” but then proceeds to discuss other gods. In v.5 he refers to “so-called” gods, but “so-called” connotes a skepticism that is not in the Greek original. “There are those that are called gods” is closer to a neutral translation, and the KJV’s “there be that are called gods” avoids the judgmental implications of “so-called.” And this interpretation is supported by Paul’s own words in the second half of v.5, when he says that “there are many gods and many lords.” RSV and NIV put “gods” and “lords” in quotation marks, which is equivalent to labelling them as “so-called,” but the Greek text does not have quotation marks. Paul simply acknowledges that “there are many gods and many lords.” Paul may indeed consider these other gods to be “demons,” as he labels them in 10:20, but there is no reason to doubt that he accepted the existence of gods other than the Jewish one, as he explicitly states here. This should not be surprising, as the Old Testament makes numerous references to other gods without suggesting that they are merely imaginary. See for example Psalm 82:1 (“God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.”); Exodus 12:12 (“On all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments.”); Exodus 15:11 (“Who is like thee, O LORD, among the gods?”); Deuteronomy 10:17 (“For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords.”); Psalm 97:7 (“All gods bow down before him.”)
8:6 “For us there is one God.” This is not saying that only one God exists, but that only one God has relevance for Christian believers. As we saw, both Paul and the Old Testament acknowledge the existence of other gods. Paul “does not doubt the reality of the spiritual beings which were the object of worship in Graeco-Roman religion. If the Corinthian elite think there are no such beings (and thus participate in pagan worship as a harmless inanity), Paul will have to reprimand them severely.” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p.1121.)
8:7-10 Because some Christians may believe that the food in question was offered to a real idol, and may thus fail to acknowledge God as the only god relevant to Christians, it is better not to eat such food, in order to avoid giving the wrong impression to one’s less knowledgeable fellow believers. The same question arises in Acts, where James issues a decision that has none of Paul’s equivocation: “But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.” (Acts 21:25. See also Acts 15:19-20.) Thus, Paul states that Christians are at liberty to eat food sacrificed to idols (v.8), and should just take care that they do not use this liberty to mislead others (v.9). But James issues a firm prohibition against the practice.
8:13 The general point here is that not everything which is permitted is advisable. Although Christians may be free from many restrictions of the law, there is the danger that this freedom may be misinterpreted by those brethren who would use it as an excuse for sacrilege and immorality. Therefore, the exercise of this freedom must be carefully considered before being put into practice.
9:1-3 In this chapter, Paul defends himself against “those who would examine me.” It is not clear what the accusations were, but based on Paul’s defense, we can conjecture two possibilities. Either he was accused of profiting from his apostleship, or more probably, his failure to collect any material support from the church may have been seen as a sign that Paul’s missionary work did not have the backing of the Corinthian Christian community. If the latter is true, then Paul’s defense takes on the character of sour grapes, whereby he claims that he did not receive such support because he himself chose not to be a burden on the congregation. As the first point in his defense, Paul asks rhetorically, “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” Paul repeatedly claimed that Jesus had appeared to him personally, and he used this revelation as justification for his status as an apostle of God.
9:4 The “right to our food and drink” probably should be taken to mean having his food and drink supplied by the church. The alternative would not mean doing without, but providing his own food and drink.
9:5 Many Christians would be surprised to learn that Peter (Cephas) and the other apostles and even “the brothers of the Lord” had wives. But Paul’s statement here is consistent with the gospels, at least as regards Peter, as we see in the story of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. (Matthew 8:14; Mark 1:30) Thus, the Catholic Church, which insists on celibacy for its priests, was founded on the “rock” of Peter, a married man. There is no indication in the gospels as to whether Jesus himself had a wife.
According to the gospel of Mark, Peter told Jesus that he and the twelve had “left everything” in order to follow Jesus, and presumably this includes their wives. But, based on Paul’s statement here, “apparently this practice had not continued during the time following the resurrection of Jesus.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10, p.100.)
Paul’s insistence that an apostle has the “right” to be accompanied by a wife, would seem to clash with his view expressed earlier at the beginning of chapter 7, where he praised celibacy as superior to marriage.
9:7 The intensity with which Paul argues for the right of an apostle to earn a living from his missionary work may raise our suspicions that he did not forego such rewards to the extent he would have us believe in v.12.
9:11 Apart from Paul’s own personal situation, this verse can be used by modern Christian preachers to justify the accumulation of great wealth as a reward for their spiritual works. But if it is indeed true that “whatever a man sows, that he will also reap,” (Galatians 6:7) then those who sow “spiritual good” should reap spiritual benefits, not material ones.
9:14 At the time of Paul’s writing, the gospels had not yet been written. But there is no passage in the gospels where Jesus commands that “those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” It is possible to give that meaning to Luke 10:7 (“The laborer is worthy of his wages.”), although that passage refers to temporary hospitality shown to the disciples in the towns they are to visit, and it must be stretched in order to accommodate getting one’s living by the same means.
9:15 After listing all the rights that apostles are entitled to, Paul proudly proclaims that he himself has not made use of these rights. He has supported himself by working at his trade (see 4:12, as well as 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8), and has chosen not to take a wife. What lofty principle has led Paul to forego these rights to which he believes himself to be entitled? He has renounced these benefits of apostleship because he “would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting.” Yet he writes against such personal boasting in Galatians 6:14, where we read, “May it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (NASB) (The RSV has “to glory” in place of “boast,” but the Greek word used in Galatians is the verbal form of the noun used here in 1 Corinthians. NIV also has “boast.”)
9:20-22 This is the passage that undermines Paul’s credibility with respect to his entire literary output. He basically admits that he will say anything and take on any disguise in order to win converts. “I have become all things to all men,” he says. When such opportunism occurs in a political campaign we rightly see it as indicating a lack of principle. We should be no less critical when it comes from Paul.
9:24 This verse continues the same theme, and might be paraphrased as, “Do whatever it takes to win.” Paul also uses the running metaphor in Galatians 2:2 and Philippians 2:16. Here, its use is inapt, leading to the awkward conclusion that “only one receives the prize.” If the prize is salvation in Jesus Christ, then he would be better served by a metaphor that allows all to share in the prize.
10:4 The story of the rock yielding up water for the Israelistes to drink is in Numbers 20:8. Paul, rather arbitrarily, equates the rock with Christ. There is nothing in the Old Testament story to support such an identification.
10:6 Paul warns against following the example of the ancient Israelites, who incurred God’s wrath and punishment because of their immorality.
10:7 The reference here is to Exodus 32:4-6, when Aaron, the brother of Moses, fashioned a golden calf for the people to worship as a god.
10:8 This reference is to the story in Numbers 25:1-9, where Yahweh caused thousands of Israelites to die because they had intermarried with neighboring tribes and had begun to worship other gods. However, Paul misquotes the number of dead. He puts it at twenty-three thousand, whereas Numbers 25:9 has twenty-four thousand. The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, which Paul likely would have used as his source, also has twenty-four thousand.
10:9 The story of the serpents is from Numbers 21:5-6. However, as the Numbers passage indicates, the deadly serpents were not sent against the Israelites because of immorality, but because they complained to Moses that he had led them into the desert to die from lack of food and water.
10:9 The story of the serpents is from Numbers 21:5-6. However, as the Numbers passage indicates, the deadly serpents were not sent against the Israelites because of immorality, but because they complained to Moses that he had led them into the desert to die from lack of food and water.
10:10 The final example cited by Paul is told in Numbers chapter 16. It is a tale of rebellion against Moses, not against God. But the Israelites are nevertheless punished for challenging Moses’ leadership. The opponents of Moses asked rhetorically, “Is it a small thing that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, that you must also make yourself a prince over us?” (Numbers 16:13)
10:11 This is another of the numerous passages where Paul expressed the belief that the end of the age was near, and that the return of Jesus was just around the corner. We saw the same expectation in 7:29, and in Romans 13:11-12. In 1 Thessalonians 4:15, Paul indicates that he expects to be alive on the day of Jesus’s return. According to the gospels, Jesus himself expected that he would return to establish the kingdom of God within the lifetime of those to whom he was preaching. (Matthew 24:34; Mark 9:1; 13:30) None of the biblical authors thought that after nineteen centuries Christians would still be waiting for Jesus’s return. The failure of the second coming to occur within the predicted time span deals a fatal blow to whatever credibility the New Testament writings may have otherwise had.
10:13 We are assured here that God “will not let you be tempted beyond your strength.” This is the basis of the saying often heard among Christians that God gives no one a cross which they cannot bear. However, the letter to the Romans portrays Paul himself as unable to resist the temptation to sin: “I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.” (Romans 7:18-19). So his reassurance here in Corinthians rings hollow, because even Paul himself has been tempted beyond his strength.
10:20 The gods of the Gentiles are “demons,” but as we saw in 8:5, this does not mean that they do not exist. It was customary in the ancient world to consider each nation’s gods as a local manifestation of a universal divinity. Thus, toleration of various local gods was the norm, and the head god of a particular locality would be identified as simply Zeus under another name. This was made easier by the fact that there was no theology attached to the gods, so there was no conflict between the gods of one region and those of another. It was only the Jews, and later the Christians, who insisted that their god was different from and superior to all the rest.
10:23 Paul attempts to counter the arguments of those Corinthians who argue for unrestrained liberty. The libertines seem to be throwing Paul’s own words back at him, because he himself took the position that Christians are free from the law because of Christ’s sacrifice. (For example, Galatians 5:18; Romans 8:2.)
10:25-28 Paul returns to the question of eating food which has been sacrificed to idols or to heathen gods. His policy is best described as “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” According to Paul, Christians may “eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.” It is only if they are explicitly told that the food was offered in sacrifice that Christians should decline, but even then the refusal is only to avoid giving offense. This advice is in direct conflict with the decision of James in Acts 21:25, as we saw earlier.
10:33 Paul tries to “please all men in everything I do.” But contrast this with Galatians 1:10, where he asks, “Am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.”
11:1 As in 4:16, Paul once again urges his readers to “be imitators of me.” But in Ephesians 5:1 we are told to “be imitators of God.” How can we imitate both Paul and God at the same time? It can only happen if Paul himself is like God. But to be like God was the temptation that caused Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree in the garden of Eden, and which led to their downfall. (Genesis 3:5)
11:3 We have already been told in 3:23 that Christ belongs to God, and that point is repeated here where we read that “the head of Christ is God.” But Paul goes further and extends the concept to cover man’s authority over woman. Therefore, “the head of a woman is her husband.”
11:4-10 The rule that women should cover their heads is not merely a fashion statement. The head covering is a symbol of authority, indicating that she is under the authority of a man. The Greek word used in v.10 is exousian, i.e. “authority.” RSV uses “veil” on the grounds that it is a symbol of this authority, but it is not a literal translation. NASB and NIV are more literal, with “symbol of authority” and “sign of authority” respectively. Paul justifies this subordination by pointing out that man is the one who was made in the image of God, and that woman was made from man, not the other way around.
To say that a woman should cover herself “because of the angels” seems like something of a non sequitur, but some have suggested that the angels are protectors of the divine order and that subordination of women to men forms a part of that order.
11:14 Long hair is degrading to a man, but no reason is given, other than “nature” teaches us that it is so.
11:20-22 Paul chastises the Corinthians for dishonoring the Lord’s supper, and turning it into an ordinary meal.
11:24 Paul’s quotation of Jesus’s words, including “do this in remembrance of me,” are very similar to those found in Luke 22:19. However, at the time Paul wrote, Luke’s gospel had not been written. Bart Ehrman argues that the passage in Luke was added later by scribes who wanted to portray Jesus’s death as an atonement for sins, consistent with Paul’s view, but inconsistent with the rest of Luke’s gospel, which goes out of its way to avoid portraying Jesus’s death as an atonement. (Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, pp.198-211.)
11:27 Here is the point that Paul has been building toward. The Lord’s supper is already, even in Paul’s time, a sacred ritual, and to profane it by making it into an ordinary meal is to profane the very body and blood of Christ himself.
11:30 Paul makes a peculiar argument here, telling the Corinthians that those who have become sick or died have done so because they have failed to observe the proper respect for the forms of the Lord’s supper. It is an awkward position for him to take because all of them eventually died, and Paul as well, along with all the other early Christians. This is very likely another instance where Paul reveals his expectation that Jesus would return very soon, and that Christians would not be expected to die in the interim, unless they had done something wicked to deserve it. Or is this just another case of Paul being “all things to all men” (9:22) and saying whatever he needs to persuade his audience?
12:2 That the Corinthians previously worshipped idols indicates that Paul is writing to a Gentile congregation, and not to a Jewish Christian community.
12:3 Paul assures his readers that anyone who says Jesus is cursed cannot be speaking by the spirit of God. But Paul writes in Galatians 3:13 that Christ has “become a curse for us,” because everyone who is hanged on a tree is accursed (citing Deuteronomy 21:23). Therefore Paul himself must not be speaking with the spirit of God. Note also Acts 5:30, where Peter observes that Jesus was killed “by hanging him on a tree,” thus confirming the connection between Jesus and the Deuteronomy passage.
12:4-11 Paul’s point here is that while all believers have the spirit of God, they have a variety of talents with which to serve God. But some of these talents, which Paul here assigns only to some believers, he elsewhere claims are the possession of all believers. For example, the wisdom in v.8, which is portrayed as a talent of only some believers, is in 1:24 depicted as a gift to all believers. It might be argued that Paul is only talking here about the “utterance” of wisdom, i.e., fluency of speech in speaking wise things, but Jesus seemed to indicate that this fluency would be given to his followers by the holy spirit, unless his remarks in Mark 13:11 and Luke 12:12 were only intended for the disciples who were present at the time. Also, the words of Colossians 3:16 appear to be addressed to all believers, who are urged to teach each other “with all wisdom.” So there is a definite conflict between wisdom as a gift to some believers, and that same wisdom as a gift to all believers.
As a further example, in v.9 “faith” is listed as a gift that only some believers have, but in Galatians 3:26 Paul wrote that his readers were “all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus,” indicating that all followers of Jesus have the gift of faith. And in Romans 12:3, Paul wrote that God had allocated a measure of faith to each of the believers. So again a gift that elsewhere is bestowed on all believers is treated here as though it is only given to some.
Speaking in tongues is here listed as a gift from God (v.10), but Paul esteems it less than other gifts. See his judgment on tongue speaking in 14:5-9, where he characterizes the practice as “speaking into the air.”
12:12 This analogy with the body and its members is an odd metaphor for Paul to use in representing the church, given his disparagement of the body elsewhere. See, for example, Romans 6:13 (members of the body as instruments of sin); Romans 7:23 (members of Paul’s body make him a prisoner of sin); Romans 8:10 (body is dead because of sin).
12:13 Paul uses a similar formula in Galatians 3:28, but here in Corinthians he omits male and female from the list of pairs.
12:14-26 This section of Paul’s letter stresses the view that all members of the Christian community are valuable contributors to it. While the body part analogy could be used to justify inequality within a community by saying that some parts are superior to others, Paul goes to great length to emphasize that even those parts of the body which are weaker and less presentable are nevertheless indispensible. Verse 26 expresses the point of Paul’s argument.
12:27 Like Jesus, who had to explain the meaning of his parables, Paul here explains the body analogy, as though he could not count on his readers making the connection.
13:1-3 After extolling the virtues of all the varied gifts bestowed on the Christian community by God, Paul now argues that none of them are worth anything without love. Love for whom? Paul does not say whether he means love of God, love for other Christians, or love for all people. Romans 12:10 urges Christians to be devoted to each other in brotherly love. In Romans 13:8 Paul speaks of loving one another and declares that whoever loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. But it is never explicitly stated whether this love which Paul values so highly is intended to be directed toward non-believers as well, or only to fellow Christians. However, at the end of the letter, Paul does reveal his attitude toward those outside the church, and it is anything but filled with love. If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be “accursed.” In one of the great non sequiturs in the Bible, Paul follows this curse with the words, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.” (1 Corinthians 16:22-23) Thus love, in Paul's view, is not a universal value, but is only for those who belong to the Christian brotherhood. It is, apparently, OK to hate infidels.
13:4-7 Whatever Paul’s other faults, these words on love are among the most eloquent in the Bible, and are often recited in wedding ceremonies.
13:9 Paul declares that “our prophecy is imperfect.” But prophecy is not made by the will of man, but is from the holy spirit (2 Peter 1:21). How then can prophecy be imperfect – unless the holy spirit itself is imperfect?
13:12 According to Paul, he has been “fully understood.” But that is not what we find in reading the accounts of his missionary travels. See Acts 17:18, where the Athenians misunderstood Paul’s reference to Jesus and the resurrection. Also, after failing to persuade the Jews in Rome that Jesus was the messiah, Paul accused them of not understanding. (Acts 28:26)
13:13 Faith, hope, and love will endure, but Paul conspicuously omits any reference to knowledge or wisdom having the same permanence.
14:1 He just told us in chapter 12 that there are many different types of spiritual gifts and many different ways to serve God. The implication was that all such gifts and service are valuable, and that each Christian should be satisfied with the gift with which he has been endowed. But here in chapter fourteen, he urges his followers to especially desire the gift of prophecy, thus elevating those who have that gift to a higher stature than those who do not.
14:2-5 Paul goes on to further distinguish between the value of prophecy as opposed to speaking in tongues. Again in contrast to the egalitarianism of chapter twelve, Paul explicitly ranks the those who prophesy higher than those who speak in tongues.
The only reference in the gospels to speaking in tongues is in the addendum to Mark, where it is said that the followers of Christ will speak in “new tongues,” although that could just as easily apply to English or French or Russian as to the unintelligible babbling that Paul looks down on.
14:6-9 Paul continues his harangue against tongue-speaking, likening it to “speaking into the air.” But in contrast to Paul’s negative view of the practice, we read in Acts 10:45-46 that speaking in tongues was a favorable sign that the holy spirit had descended on the Gentile believers to whom Peter had been preaching. And Acts 19:6 reports that the same happened with twelve people in Ephesus whom Paul had baptized - that when he had laid his hands on them the holy spirit descended on them and they began speaking in tongues.
14:13 Paul advises his readers to pray for the power to interpret tongues. He is obviously unaware of Jesus’s instruction to pray only the Lord’s prayer, because God already “knows what you need before you ask him.” (Matthew 6:8-9)
14:18-19 As a sign of Paul’s ambivalence on the subject, he now claims that he speaks in tongues “more than you all.” But we have no examples of his doing so, and this letter to the Corinthians is the only one in which Paul discusses the subject. His point seems to be that speaking in tongues is not harmful or forbidden, but that it is not useful in a setting of common worship, because it does not convey anything of value to one’s fellow worshippers.
14:20 Although he advises his readers to be mature in their thinking, we must not interpret this to mean Paul is suggesting that his fellow Christians shine the full light of reason upon their faith. As we saw in 1 Corinthians 2:6-7, the wisdom of the mature is not the wisdom of this world, but the hidden, mysterious wisdom of God.
14:22 Speaking in tongues is a sign for unbelievers, says Paul. But this directly contradicts the experience related in Acts 10:44-46, where the holy spirit fell upon the Gentile converts, and their speaking in tongues was a sign to those “believers from among the circumcised” who were with Peter, that God favored the acceptance of Gentiles into the Christian movement.
14:27-28 Again, Paul counsels moderation and practicality in the speaking of tongues in church. Limit the practice to just two or three, he says. And always make sure there is one who can interpret the meaning to the rest. If there is no interpreter, the tongue speakers should keep silent. In modern Christianity, the Pentecostal movement especially favors the practice of speaking in tongues as evidence that a person has indeed been saved and visited by the holy spirit, but they rarely observe the conditions laid down by Paul for such practice.
It is important to distinguish the speaking in tongues which Paul refers to, where “no one understands” (14:2), from the speaking in “other tongues” described in Acts 2:4. In the latter instance, the members of the Jesus movement spoke actual languages which were understood by the speakers of those languages, as we see in Acts 2:6.
14:29-31 Paul’s general point as he moves through this section is that church services must be orderly, and not a wild cacophony of prophesying and tongue-speaking. Even those who prophesy should sit down and be quiet if another is inspired by a revelation from God to begin prophesying. “Prophesying,” as Paul uses it, means inspired preaching which results from a personal revelation from God.
14:32 This claim that God is a God of peace is contradicted by Jesus’s words in Matthew 10:34, where he proclaims that he “did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Paul is also ignoring the many instances in the Old Testament where God explicitly ordered the Hebrews to go to war and to massacre their enemies, even women and children. (See for example, Joshua 10:40, which tells us that Joshua “utterly destroyed all that breathed” throughout the hill country and the south, and the valley and the springs, “as the LORD God of Israel commanded.”)
14:34-35 Not only should women keep quiet in church, it is even “shameful” for them to speak in church. They should be subordinate to their husbands, and ask their husbands at home if there is anything they wish to know. In 11:5 Paul recognized that women may pray and prophesy, but does not say that this should be a part of common worship. And he tells us in 11:3 that “the head of the woman is the man.” This view of the woman as subordinate is not an isolated fluke from Paul. In 1 Timothy 2:11-12 the subjection of woman to man is again espoused.
14:37 Just in case any of his readers think that Paul is merely giving them his own personal opinions, he stresses that the advice contained in the letter is “the Lord’s commandment.”
15:1-2 In this chapter, Paul summarizes the gospel that he has preached. This is a very important chapter for understanding Paul’s basic theological position.
15:3-4 Paul immediately sets forth the key points of the Christian gospel: Christ died; he died for our sins; and this was done “in accordance with the scriptures.” And on the third day he was raised, again “in accordance with the scriptures.” But these verses conflict with Paul’s words in 2:2, where he writes that he knew nothing when he was among the Corinthians except “Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Now he says he did not limit his message to the crucifixion, but taught them the resurrection as well.
15:5-6 These post-resurrection appearances of Jesus are in conflict with those recorded in the gospels, which are themselves in conflict. (See Mike Davis, The Atheist’s Introduction to the New Testament, pp.37-39 and 81-83.) The gospels contain no appearance to a crowd of five hundred at one time. And Paul’s statement that the risen Christ appeared to “the twelve” has no specifics of time or place. But the appearance to “the twelve” cannot be accurate, because there were only eleven disciples remaining after the defection of Judas. There is even a contradiction between Luke and John as to whether eleven or ten disciples were present at the first post-resurrection meeting. (See the comment to Luke 24:33.)
We can also identify a contradiction between Paul’s assertion about the five hundred, and the ascension recorded in Luke. We are told that the appearance described in John 21:14 is the third appearance since the crucifixion, and the first two appearances described in John’s gospel are not to a large crowd. Therefore, the appearance to the five hundred must have occurred after the third appearance at the Sea of Tiberias described in John 21:14. However, the second appearance described in John's gospel (John 20:26) occurred eight days after the first. So the appearance to the five hundred, if it occurred at all, must also have been at least eight days after the resurrection. But Luke has Jesus ascending to heaven within 24 hours of the resurrection. (See the comment to Luke 24:50-51.) Therefore, Paul’s claim that Jesus appeared to a crowd of five hundred is in conflict with Luke’s account of the ascension, if the details in John’s gospel are accurate.
The appearance to Peter (Cephas), which Paul mentions, is alluded to in Luke 24:34, but no details are given. Paul makes no reference to the women who discovered the empty tomb, and who were the first to encounter Jesus after his resurrection, according to the gospels of John and Matthew.
15:7 This appearance to James is not recorded at all in the gospels, although it is reported in the noncanonical Gospel according to the Hebrews. (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.10, p.219.)
15:8 The point of listing all these appearances is so that Paul can point to his own alleged experience with the risen Jesus. This serves to confirm Paul’s authority as an apostle of God and preacher of the gospel, and to elevate his stature in the eyes of the Corinthians, who were getting different doctrines from Paul’s competitors.
15:12-14 Apparently, some of those at Corinth even doubted the resurrection of Jesus. Paul teaches that the resurrection is essential to the gospel and that without it, the Christians’ faith is in vain.
15:16-19 Paul hammers home the point, to stress that the resurrection of Christ is absolutely essential to the Christian faith. From v.17, we draw the conclusion that for Paul it is not Christ’s death that saves sinners, but his resurrection. Yet we don’t have to look far in Paul’s writings to find an opposite viewpoint – that it was indeed Christ’s death that brought salvation. Earlier in this very chapter Paul wrote that “Christ died for our sins.” (v.3) But if Christ’s death was for our sins, how could the resurrection be so essential to the faith? If Christ had stayed dead he would have been a true sacrifice, just like the animals offered up as sin offerings in the Old Testament. The sacrificial parallel with the Old Testament is lost if it is the resurrection, and not the death, of Christ which saves.
15:22 Paul seems to be saying that everyone will eventually be saved and that no one will go to hell, because “in Christ shall all be made alive.”
15:24 Here we have a preview of the end times, when Christ will reign until he has destroyed “all rule and all authority and power.” Even the staunchest literalist will not take these words at face value, because Christ surely will not destroy God’s authority and power. Therefore this passage must be taken to refer not to all power, but only to the authority and power exercised by the enemies of God.
15:26 It is not clear how death itself is an enemy. Paul tells us in Romans that death is “the wages of sin” (Romans 6:23), and that death spread to all men because of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12). But sometimes, as here, death is personified as though it were itself a divine power, opposed to that of God, as is Satan.
15:27 This verse is quoted from Psalm 8:6. It represents yet another instance of a New Testament writer misusing quotations from the Old Testament by trying to make it mean something it did not originally mean. Paul intends us to understand this verse to mean that God has put all things in subjection to Christ. But the context of Psalm 8:6 shows that this is not at all what the verse says. Instead, the psalm describes man, who has been given dominion over the earth and its creatures by God. “Thou has put all things under his feet” means that man is appointed by God to rule the creatures of the earth. The subject of the sentence and the antecedent to “his” is plainly stated in verse 8:4, where the psalmist asks, “What is man that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man that thou visitest him?” Now it is true that “son of man” is often used by Jesus to refer to himself in the gospels. But in the Old Testament the phrase was simply a synonym for “man.” The prophet Ezekiel is addressed by God more than ninety times as “son of man,” (See “Son of Man,” in Catholic Encyclopedia online at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm.)
Furthermore, the phrase “son of man” never appears in the letters of Paul at all, so it cannot be claimed that the reference to the eighth psalm is Paul’s way of linking the phrase to Jesus. The quotation here in the letter to the Corinthians is simply another attempt by Paul to bolster his theology by appealing to Hebrew scripture, and by re-interpreting an Old Testament verse to mean what he wants it to mean.
15:29 To be baptized “for the dead” is a curious phrase. Paul uses it here in the context of arguing for the resurrection, saying that if there is no resurrection, then there is no point in baptizing people on behalf of the dead. However, the argument is specious, because denying the resurrection of the body does not mean denying the immortality of the soul. If the Corinthian faction against whom Paul is arguing believed that only the soul survives death, then baptism of living persons on behalf of the dead might still be effective in saving the soul, even though no physical resurrection is expected. Paul does not seem to be against the practice of baptizing living persons on behalf of dead ones. He simply uses it as a point in his defense of the resurrection.
15:32 Paul introduces another point in favor of the resurrection, but it is equally fallacious. He raises the rhetorical question, “If there is no resurrection, then why have I been risking my life by preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ? We might as well all eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” The argument is fallacious because it is a veiled ad hominem argument – if there is no resurrection, then there is nothing worth living for and we would all turn into unprincipled hedonists. Thus, the ad hominem barb is directed at ourselves – we don’t want to be unprincipled hedonists, do we? Therefore, believe in the resurrection. The argument is also fallacious because, as was already pointed out, rejection of the resurrection does not imply rejection of immortality. One could believe in an afterlife, but not necessarily a physical one, and one who believes in the immortality of the soul might thus be dissuaded from sinking into moral depravity by concern over his immortal soul, while still rejecting Paul’s view of the resurrection. Finally, even those who totally reject any kind of afterlife, do not necessarily have to debase themselves by immersing themselves in sensual pleasures. It is a matter of common observation that the personal morals of atheists do not noticeably differ from those of Christians in everyday life, so the assumption that Paul makes is not borne out by reality. In fact, the ancient Hebrew prophets also did not believe in a resurrection, and yet it cannot be said that they lacked a moral compass. (See The Interpreter’s Bible, vol.10, p.241.)
15:33 “Bad company corrupts good morals,” is a quotation from the Greek playwright Menander. However, the sentiment expressed is exactly the opposite of what we find in the gospels, where Jesus is portrayed associating with various kinds of sinners. See Matthew 9:10-12; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:30-31.
15:36 Here Paul displays his ignorance of biology. A seed does not “die” as a prerequisite for growing new life. Rather it grows and expands itself by absorbing and transforming the nutrient materials in its environment. So his attempted analogy with the death of the human body is ill-suited to the circumstances.
15:37-41 Paul here describes many different types of “body.” Each kind has its own “glory.” Having made his point about the resurrection of the body, Paul now confuses the issue and seems to back off from his original position by introducing many different kinds of body, and by declaring that the raised body will not be the same as the one which dies. He seems to say that heavenly “bodies” are analogous to terrestrial bodies. But Paul’s ignorance of astronomy leads him into difficulties. We now know that the stars and planets are not living bodies, but are more analogous to our sun and the earth, than to the living bodies which populate the earth.
15:42-44 The body which is to be raised is sounding less and less like the one we have grown accustomed to in living our lives. The issue becomes even murkier when we are told that “it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.” One might think that “spirit” and “body” are incompatible opposites, but Paul manages to combine them into a single concept. One might as well speak of “cold fire” or a “living corpse.” The fact that you can combine conflicting words into a phrase does not mean that the result will have any actual meaning. Nor is it at all clear how a “spiritual body” differs from a pure spirit.
Recall that Jesus taught that in the resurrection, people will be “like the angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30) But Jesus does not say whether the angels have physical or spiritual bodies. But apparently angels do have physical strength, and some have more than others, at least according to Revelation 18:21.
15:46 Given that Christian theology owes so much to Greek philosophy, especially to Platonic and neo-Platonic ideas, it is ironic that Paul here proclaims the priority of the physical over the spiritual. With Paul, the physical comes first, unlike the view of Plato, where the ideas come first, and the physical creations are patterned after them.
15:50 With this verse, Paul appears to have watered down the concept of the resurrection so much that we cannot tell what, if anything, remains of it. Whatever the resurrection is, it is not the resurrection of a flesh and blood body, because such a body cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It is hardly possible to distinguish this view from that of those Corinthians who believed in the destruction of the body, and the immortality of the soul.
15:51 “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.” “Sleep” is a common metaphor used by Paul to mean “die.” Thus, the verse means, “We shall not all die before the Lord’s coming.” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1973 ed., p.1396.) Paul obviously expected that some of his readers, and probably Paul himself, would still be alive to witness the return of Jesus. The same belief is expressed in 1 Thessalonians 4:15. Of course, Paul was wrong. All the first generation Christians died while waiting for Jesus to appear. But Paul is in good company. Jesus himself was also wrong about his second coming, which he predicted would occur during the lifetime of the generation to whom he spoke. See the comment to Matthew 24:34 for a fuller discussion of Jesus’s inaccurate prediction.
15:52-54 At the moment of Christ’s return, the dead shall be raised imperishable, and those who are still alive will suddenly be changed into imperishable natures. Notice that Paul uses “we” as a contrast to “the dead,” indicating that he expects to be among the living when the great moment comes. Paul’s confidence in his own attendance at this event diminished somewhat when he wrote his letter to the Philippians. See the comment to Philippians 3:11.
15:56 Here Paul equates the law with the “power of sin.” But in Romans 7:7 he asks “Is the law sin? God forbid!” And in Romans 7:12 we find him saying that “the law is holy,” which is hardly consistent with the “power of sin.” But in Galatians 3:13 he speaks of “the curse of the law.” So the law is holy, and a curse, and the power of sin? Paul’s view of the law is muddled and incoherent. But there is no reason to expect that Paul was trying to develop a consistent theology. It is much more likely that he said whatever would be persuasive for the audience he happened to be addressing. As we saw earlier, Paul was willing to become “all things to all men” (1 Corinthians 9:22) in order to save some.
16:1 Paul refers here to the collection for the poor of Jerusalem. It is alluded to in Galatians 2:9-10 and in Acts 24:17. Although Galatians 2:10 suggests that the collection had the approval of the leaders of the Jerusalem church, it has been argued that the project was actually Paul’s own idea, and was undertaken for the purpose of gaining the approval of the Jerusalem leaders for Paul’s missionary work among the Gentiles. Pursuing this train of thought, it is argued that the collection was actually rejected by the Jerusalem leaders. This conclusion is based on Luke’s relative silence on the matter in Acts, referring to the collection only in passing in Acts 24:17. The reasoning is that Luke was keen to portray Paul and the Jerusalem leaders in harmony with each other, and if the collection had been warmly received, Luke no doubt would have played up that fact in Acts. That he barely mentioned it, indicates that it was not accepted, and therefore Luke downplays it. (See “The Rejection of the Collection” in The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager, at http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pauljerufinal.html#collection.) Rejection of the collection would indicate that Paul never did reconcile with the faction headed by James and Peter, and that his mission to the Gentiles was never approved by those who were closest to Jesus and follwed him throughout his ministry.
16:2 To judge by Paul’s comments in his second letter to the Corinthians, his advice to put money aside on a regular basis was not heeded, because in 2 Corinthians 9:1-4 he warns them how humiliating it would be if he were to show up and find that they were not ready. Ultimately, they must have coughed up the dough, because in Romans 15:25-26 Paul writes that he is going to Jerusalem to bring aid to the poor, and that Macedonia and Achaia – which included Corinth – had made contributions.
16:4 At this point, Paul is not sure that he will accompany the collection to Jerusalem, but by the time he had written the letter to the Romans, he had apparently resolved to deliver it personally. (Romans 15:25)
16:8 This verse establishes Ephesus as the location where the letter was written.
16:12 Paul’s influence with Apollos is obviously limited, as Apollos refuses Paul’s request that he go to visit the Corinthians. It is difficult to believe that Apollos would reject an order from Paul if he thought that Paul was really an apostle from God and had been called to the faith by Jesus himself. Most likely, Apollos considered Paul to be just another preacher – the leader of another faction at Corinth, but no different in divine approval from the others mentioned in 1:12.
16:15-17 Paul claims here that Stephanas and his household were the first converts won in Achaia. But Athens is also in Achaia, and Acts 17:34 tells us that some converts were won in Athens, before Paul came to Corinth (Acts 18:1). So either Paul or Acts must be wrong about where the first converts in Achaia were made.
This Stephanas may be the same one referred to in 1:16. Paul apparently had at first forgotten about baptizing him and his household, as he at first said he had only baptized Crispus and Gaius (1:14). Stephanas, along with Fortunatus and Achaicus, may have been the ones who delivered the letter mentioned in 7:1.
16:21 Here Paul is not saying that he himself wrote the entire letter, but only this final greeting. He typically would have had a scribe write the letter, possibly the Sosthenes mentioned in 1:1.
16:22 Paul’s moving words about love in chapter 13 must only apply to Christians, because here he invokes a curse on anyone who does not love the Lord. It is no doubt revealing of Paul’s personality that in his brief opportunity to write in his own hand, the first thing out of his pen is a curse.
BACK TO:
Home