Paul now turns to answer certain questions which they had written to him. The change from heathenism, with its vices, was immense; the change., too, from Judaism was great; questions therefore might well arise on which the Corinthian saints desired the mind of the apostle. To answer such he now sets himself. And first about marriage, and about virgins; for these were two questions, as his language implies. No one was compelled to marry, but it was God’s institution in Eden for His then unfallen creature’s happiness and comfort; and since the fall it has become a provision against uncleanness as well.
The sanctity, and for the Christian the inviolability, of the tie once formed is here insisted on. No Christian is to break it. That is God’s distinct command. (vs. 10) If an unbeliever left a Christian, well and good; the Christian was not in bondage in such a case. “Let him depart,” is the advice of the apostle; wise advice, in full accordance with the mind of God, though not set forth as a command from the Lord. If the unbelieving partner consented to remain with the Christian, the latter was not to put him or her away; for herein lay a difference between Judaism and Christianity, the unbelieving partner being sanctified by the believing one, else were their children unclean, but now, he adds, are they holy. Under the law no marriage was legitimate, nor could be legitimatized, where one of the partners was of a race with which Israel was forbidden to intermarry, and the children of such unions were unclean. With Christians it is different. Hence separation on the part of the believer from the unbeliever was not called for. So the children now of such marriages are holy; i.e. they are not by reason of birth incapacitated from entering into the congregation of the Lord, to use the language of the Old Testament; for holy in this sense, we need scarcely add, is spoken of them as living on earth, not of their souls’ standing before God. The difference between the unbelieving parent and the children should be noticed. The unbelieving partner was sanctified (ἡγιασται) whilst the believing one lived, but the children were holy (ἃγια). Circumstances could not change their condition, which flowed from their birth; whereas if death took away the Christian partner, the unbelieving one would be sanctified no longer.
But these directions only applied to those who were united in wedlock before conversion. Hence, he adds a few remarks, to guard the saints against the thought that with conversion a change in their outward condition should necessarily be effected. Such a thought, if entertained, might make some restless and dissatisfied, so he says, “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called;” and “Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.” (1 Cor. 7:20,2420Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. (1 Corinthians 7:20)
24Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God. (1 Corinthians 7:24)) So, to put an extreme case, but then a common one, a converted slave was to go on quietly in slavery until, if it should please God, emancipation was permitted him. That he was free to accept; but he was not free to run away, or to refuse to serve his master. Of this Onesimus was an example, How carefully did the apostle guard the rights of Philemon, and maintain the duty of a slave, preserving to the master the right and privilege of manumitting his brother in Christ.
Concerning virgins (1 Cor. 7:2525Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. (1 Corinthians 7:25))-the term here applies to both sexes-Paul had no commandment; but he gave his judgment. “It was good for the present distress,” he writes, “so to be.” The advantages of that condition he sets forth (vss. 32-35), the approach of the end he recalls to mind (vss. 29-31); but celibacy he does not enforce. Marriage is not wrong; a second marriage was not forbidden, if in the Lord; but, he adds, here writing of a widow, “She is happier if she so abide after my judgment (γνώμη). (See v. 26). And I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” (vs. 40)
The next question taken up was that concerning the eating of things offered to idols, raised, it would seem, by the conduct of such as pleaded for their liberty or right (ἐζουσιά) in such a matter. The apostle, while examining this plea, and dealing with it, raised a point which they had evidently overlooked. The inanity of the idol he fully admitted (vs. 4), yet knowledge in such matters is not all; for knowledge puffs up, but love edifies, lit. builds up. A Christian was to act in this matter out of care for his brother. Due regard for a weak brother’s conscience was to be shown, lest, emboldened by the act of the one who had knowledge sitting at meat in the idol-house, the weak brother, having conscience still of the idol, should partake of the food as of a thing sacrificed to idols, and thus his conscience be defiled, and he perish, a brother for whom Christ died. (1 Cor. 8)
Acting in such a way they would sin against Christ. Would they then plead for the exercise of their liberty? Why did they deny Paul the exercise of his in the preaching to them without charge? In this they showed their inconsistency. (1 Cor. 9) Of course his right to be supported was incontestible; he affirmed it. The principle of it all men owned. (1 Cor. 9:77Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? (1 Corinthians 9:7)) God’s word too recognized it (vs. 9), and the Lord upheld it. (Chapter 9:14; Luke 10:77And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the laborer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. (Luke 10:7)) But Paul did not claim it, desiring rather the welfare of others among whom he labored. What were they doing? How great the difference between them and him! But his example was evidently lost on them. They were gratifying themselves, ministering to their bodies. He was deeply conscious of the need of soberness and watchfulness. He, whilst preaching to others, kept his body under, lest he should be a castaway; for one might preach most attractively to others, yet not submit oneself to the truth; be, after all, not really a Christian His practice proved he was not such an one. Liberty was a plea which should, in such matters as they pleaded for it, be carefully examined; and Paul’s example it was well to keep in mind. Care for others should characterize them, and a walk like Paul’s should instruct them.
Now the importance of watchfulness over oneself the history of Israel exemplified. How many came out of Egypt How few of them entered the land! Had they forgotten that history, written for our admonition on whom the ends of the ages have come? Watchfulness became them, and a taking heed to themselves, lest they should fall Wherefore let them flee from idolatry. (1 Cor. 10:1414Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. (1 Corinthians 10:14)) Would they make the question raised simply one of the exercise or not of a right? Had they forgotten that he that eat of the sacrifice was partaker of the altar? Now they were partakers of the Lord’s table. Between that and the table of demons there was, there could be, no fellowship. If the former was their place and privilege, they could not be partakers of the latter. Our right, our liberty, is not all that we have to think of; another question has to be remembered, Is such a thing expedient? All things are lawful; but all things are not expedient or profitable. All things are lawful; but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but another’s welfare. (Chapter 10:23,24) Yet there was to be no bondage in such a matter. Whatever was sold in the shambles they might freely eat, asking no questions about it for conscience’ sake. The earth and its fullness are the Lord’s. An invitation even to a heathen man’s house to dine they need not refuse, if minded to go, and there they might freely eat of all that was set before them. But if told that food set before them had been offered to an idol, they were not to eat of it for the person’s sake who told them, and for that one’s conscience. Let them show real care for their brother’s welfare, and that communion with demons must at all cost be refused; and let them do all to the glory of God, putting no stumbling-block in the way of any, but seeking their welfare, thus becoming imitators of Paul as he was of Christ.
Amid all that he had to blame there was one point, however, on which he could speak with approval. They remembered him in all things, and kept the ordinances which he had delivered to them. A practice, however, it would seem, was springing up amongst them, or at all events was pleaded for, of women praying or prophesying before others with their head uncovered just like men. In Christ, it is true, there is no distinction between the sexes. In creation, and in the assembly there is. Women were to remember that, and to show it by a covering on their head, if they prayed or prophesied. “The head of every man,” writes the apostle, “is Christ; the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head:for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” Thus, creation order is to be maintained, and the teaching of nature to be hearkened to. (Chapter 11:14,15) Would any gainsay this? We, says Paul, have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God. (vs. 16) Then passing from the subject as to what became women in the circumstances indicated, he proceeded to deal with the disorders rife in the assembly when gathered together for the Lord’s Supper. The scandalous conduct allowed by these saints he reproved and corrected, reminding them in the most touching way of that which might have checked such grave disorders; viz., that the showing of the Lord’s death was the avowed purpose for which they met. What became them at such a time? Then giving them that revelation about the supper which he had received, he points out what apparently they had not perceived, how the Lord had been dealing with them for those gross and scandalous goings on. Sickness and even death had come in amongst them, the Lord thus judging because they had not judged themselves. Now, what did the supper set forth? The surrender of the Lord to death on behalf of others. What did their ways at it indicate? Selfishness of the grossest kind, in the presence of that which spoke of His dying for them.
From correcting the disorders at the supper, he goes on, as was natural, to treat of the exercise of gift in the assembly. (1 Cor. 12-14) Endowed richly with spiritual gifts, and living in a day when revelations were vouchsafed by the Spirit, it became necessary, since the enemy was counterfeiting the working of the Holy Ghost, to guard the saints against being misled by the activity of demons. Hence at the outset of this question he gives a clear rule, by which a Christian could judge who was speaking in the power of the Spirit of God, and who was energized by a demon. No one speaking by the Holy Ghost would say, “Cursed is Jesus.” No one could say “Lord Jesus “but by the Spirit of God. (1 Cor. 12:33Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (1 Corinthians 12:3)) No demon is allowed to declare the dignities and exaltation of the Lord Jesus. God has thus provided a test by which the presence and energizing power of a demon can be detected.
Now, if the Holy Ghost is working, “there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are differences of administrations or services, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but the same God which worketh all in all.” (vss. 4-6) The Corinthians, unmindful of these truths, were desirous of exercising the gift of tongues to their own exaltation and self-glorification; yet what was it but a gift given them, and by the Spirit just as He would? In truth, every gift was, as its name implied-χαρίσμα-a favor bestowed on its possessor by the Holy Ghost according as He chose. The individual had not deserved it, nor could he claim it; he only received it; and each endowment of the Spirit was for the profit of all. Further, by the Spirit, who had bestowed the gifts, they were all baptized into one body, so were members one of another, being Christ’s body.
Let them learn then from the ordinary treatment of the human body what became them who had received such gifts as members of Christ’s body. (vss. 14-26) The more abundant honor is bestowed on the uncomely parts. Was that their thought about others? and did they think that the exercise of supernatural powers were the highest gifts to be desired? God had set the gifted ones in the assembly in an order of His selecting, in which such as could exhibit miraculous powers were far removed from being in the front rank. (vss. 28-30) Would they desire gifts? Let them desire the best. Howbeit there was something better than any spiritual gift; viz., the activity of the divine nature, love, in which they were sadly deficient, and without which the person, however richly endowed with gifts, was nothing? (Chapter 13)
After this he treats somewhat at length of the difference between speaking with tongues and prophesying, and lays down rules for their exercise, pointing out that if they would glory in speaking with tongues, he valued most the ability to prophesy, so as to speak to men to edification, to exhortation, and comfort. Then he ends this part of the subject with directions concerning women-what became them when all met together in assembly. There might be, those of them who could prophesy, but such were not to do it when the assembly was gathered together.
Looking back on all that we have gone through, one governing evil principle we plainly see was at work in Corinth-the gratification of the natural man in one way or another. Varied were the manifestations of it, from the indulgence of the grossest licentiousness to the enjoyment of intellectual pleasure. Self really ruled, whether at the table of the Lord, in the house of feasting, before the heathen tribunals, or in the assembly of God; and that evil so strongly noted at Corinth was at the bottom of the false doctrine which some of them (1 Cor. 15:1212Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? (1 Corinthians 15:12)) were imbibing, which denied the resurrection of the body. (vss. 32-34)
Now, the gospel which Paul preached, by which they were saved, made resurrection of the body a fundamental part of its teaching. (1 Cor. 15:1-41Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. 3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: (1 Corinthians 15:1‑4)) And the Lord Jesus, who had’ really died, had been seen by many after He rose, and of witnesses to His resurrection Paul was one, who had seen Him as risen, though only in glory. The attesting witnesses to His resurrection were many and various. (vss. 5-11) But if there is no resurrection, Christ was not risen, and the consequences, if that was true, were serious. The testimony of God in that case was not true. The Corinthians, too, were yet in their sins Those who had fallen asleep in Christ had perished, and Christians such as Paul were of all men most miserable. Doubtless they had never intended to surrender all that. “Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.” (Prov. 1:1717Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird. (Proverbs 1:17)) But self so rife among them was thus producing disastrous and deadly fruit. Christ was risen, so a resurrection is not only possible, but the resurrection of all who die is thereby made certain. He, the risen One, is the first-fruits of those fallen asleep. Yet all will not be raised at once; His own will be raised at His coming; and by-and-by, since death is to be annulled, all the ungodly dead must rise too. The consequences therefore of Christ’s resurrection are traced out to the end. (vss. 20-28) How stupid as well as wrong was that new doctrine! Why were gaps in the ranks caused by those who died filled up, as others came forward and made a profession of Christianity by being baptized? If their new doctrine was true, “Let us eat and drink,” says the apostle; “for to-morrow we die.” Responsibility we may fling to the winds, and let self-gratification be the guiding star of our life. (vss. 29-34)
Then addressing the man who would argue it out, and would ask in a caviling way, “How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?” he calls such an one a fool. The operations of nature could teach him that resurrection is not impossible. The revelation of God would teach him that it is certain, and the study of God’s works would show him that there are different kinds of flesh, and there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. The body then will be raised, and a change will pass over it. Sown a natural body it will be raised a spiritual body. We have born the image of the earthy man (χοικός); we shall also bear the image of the heavenly one- ἐπουάνιος (vss. 35-50); and in a moment will that take place, so the suddenness of the Lord’s coming is here dwelt on. Therefore, he concludes, “be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” (vs. 58)
In the last chapter (16) Paul dwells on service, and it may be read somewhat as a commentary on the verse just quoted; and surely part of it must have been a rebuke to many there who were glorying in gifts instead of caring for others. Directions for the collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem were first given. (Chapter 16:1-9) Then Timothy, a worker for Christ, as Paul was, is commended to their care and consideration, should he visit them. The servant’s responsibility to the Master is fully owned in the case of Apollos. Next those who devoted themselves to the saints, exemplified in the house of Stephanas, they were to acknowledge and submit to; and besides this they were to own servants, such as the three from Corinth, who had ministered to Paul’s temporal necessities. No service too small, too commonplace, to be noticed, recorded, and remembered.
Then with a salutation from the assemblies of Asia, and especially from that in the house of Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus, Paul appends his own salutation, and pronounces a withering curse on any one who does not love the Lord Jesus Christ: “Let such an one be Anathema Maranatha;” i.e. devoted to destruction at the coming of our Lord.
He had written strongly, but faithfully; and his last words attested that it was all in love: “My love be with you all in Christ Jesus.” Having despatched the letter, he waited with intense anxiety to learn its effect on them. He did not wait in vain.
C. E. S.