First Epistle Of Paul To The Corinthians: The Maintenance Of Order In The Local Assembly
Stanley Bruce Anstey
Table of Contents
A Brief Summary of the Epistle
Chapters 1–10:14 treat the house of God aspect of the assembly and deal with things that pertain to the sanctity of the local assembly.
Chapters 10:15–16:24 treat the body of Christ aspect of the assembly and deal with the privileges of the local assembly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chapters 1–6 deal with things among the Corinthians that were reported to the Apostle (Chap. 1:11).
Chapters 7–11:16 deal with questions that the Corinthians had written to the Apostle (Chap. 7:1).
Chapters 11:17–16:23 deal with more things that were reported to the Apostle pertaining to the function of the assembly (Chap. 11:18).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We also see the Christian’s three enemies at work in chapters 1–10.
Chapters 1-4—The wisdom of the world.
Chapters 5-7—The lusts of the flesh.
Chapters 8-10—The power of the devil (demons).
The Apostle shows how these three things can destroy a local assembly, and gives God’s remedy for dealing with them.
The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
The Maintenance of Order in the Local Assembly
Grave disorders existed in the assembly at Corinth, and they were the reason for the writing of the epistle. The Apostle Paul had been with the Corinthians for 18 months and he surely wouldn’t have allowed such things to carry on when he was there. It is fair to assume, therefore, that things in the assembly at Corinth had deteriorated significantly.
Paul elected to write to the Corinthians regarding the problems in their midst, rather than visiting them in person. Had he gone to Corinth, he would have had to use his apostolic authority as a rod of correction and judge many of them who were at fault (1 Cor. 4:21). Therefore, in mercy, he stayed away and wrote to them and waited for God to produce repentance in them whereby they would set right the things that were in disorder (2 Cor. 1:23). Hence, the epistle treats various matters pertaining to the internal order of the local assembly, as well as its public responsibility. It views the assembly of God in its privileges and responsibilities on earth and presents God’s appointed order for normal function. Thus, we are furnished with divine insight for the maintenance of order in a local Christian assembly.
The Introduction of the Epistle
(Chap. 1:1-9)
Vss. 1-2—Paul establishes His apostleship at the outset so that the saints at Corinth would clearly understand that the things he was about to write concerning the disorders in their midst were not personal prejudices of his, but apostolic injunctions from the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37).
The instructions he gives not only apply to the assembly at Corinth, but also to “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.” This means that the epistle is applicable to all Christian assemblies, both then and now. Being written in a corrective manner, we are instructed as to how we are to deal with such problems if they were to arise in the Church today.
Ten Disorders Addressed & Corrected
Paul proceeds to correct at least ten disorders in the assembly at Corinth. Thus, in his remarks we are furnished with a composite exposition of what should characterize a local assembly of Christians. They are:
Failure to maintain unity in the assembly.
Failure to judge moral evil.
Failure to resolve personal disputes.
Failure to understand Christian liberty regarding morality.
Failure to understand Christian liberty regarding idolatry.
Failure in regard to headship and its sign.
Failure to have sobriety at the Lord’s Supper.
Failure in regard to the nature and use of gifts.
Failure to maintain sound doctrine.
Failure in regard to collections.
Vss. 3-9—Before launching into those things that needed correction, the Apostle praises the Corinthians for all that was of God among them. It would make the Corinthians more willing to receive his coming admonitions. This is a principle that we would do well to heed. Christian love will commend, if possible, before it will correct.
1) Failure to Maintain Unity in the Assembly
(Chaps. 1:10–4:21)
The Characteristics of Division
Vss. 10-16—Paul had heard that there were rifts in the local assembly at Corinth and immediately turns to address this problem. It was necessary to correct this disorder first, for without unity restored in the assembly there would be no power to deal with the other evils that needed to be judged. Making assembly decisions would be nigh impossible if the assembly remained in a divided state.
The Corinthians were walking as carnal men and were immersed in the world around them which was full of schools of opinion under various philosophers. In like manner, they formed different parties in the assembly under the leadership of certain gifted men and arranged themselves around them according to their personal preferences. However, this worldly idea threatened the public testimony of the unity of the assembly in Corinth. It was a basic problem of the world and worldly thinking getting into the assembly.
Vs. 10—Paul begins by beseeching the Corinthians in "the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" that such would not be the case among them, and that they would look to correcting the problem immediately. By bringing in the Lord's name, as he does, he was showing that it was not just his idea for them, but that it was the will of the Lord (chap. 14:37). And by carrying on as they were, they were clearly not living under His Lordship authority.
He tells them that for an assembly to exist in a healthy state, there cannot be "divisions [schisms]" (the same word in the Greek) among them. This refers to an inward rift among brethren, even though they all may be meeting together outwardly as one company. Then, he says that a properly ordered assembly according to the will of God will "be perfectly joined together in the same mind [opinion] and in the same judgment." In stating this, Paul seeks to reach their conscience, and really puts his finger on how these things develop. Divisions among the Lord’s people begin with something as small as differences of “opinion” and judgment (vs. 10). These differences will lead to “contentions [strifes]” (vs. 11). And, if contentions and strifes are not judged, they will develop into “divisions [schisms]” (vss. 12-13).
Later in the epistle Paul tells the Corinthians that "divisions [schisms]," if not judged, will lead to "heresies [sects]" (chap. 11:18-19). This is even more serious. A sect or a heresy (the same word in the Greek) is an outward split or division among the saints, where a party detaches itself and meets independently. This meant that the problem of division among the saints at Corinth was a serious evil, and that it needed to be corrected immediately.
Vs. 11—This problem among them was not just hearsay; Paul names the source from which he had heard these things. It was from “the house of Chloe.” This emphasizes a principle that should always be acted on in dealing with problems in the assembly—everything must be done “in the mouth or two of three witnesses” (2 Cor. 13:1).
Vss. 12-13—The parties or divisions that had formed among the Corinthians were not actually around “Paul,” “Apollos,” and “Cephas” (Peter), though he uses his and other prominent labourers’ names. In chapter 4:6 he mentions that he purposely “transferred, in their application,” the names of the leaders in their midst to himself and the other servants of the Lord to make his point to the Corinthians. Using spiritual tact and delicacy, he did not want to identify by name those persons whom they were rallying around, lest they might say that Paul was jealous of them. Therefore, he used himself and Apollos, etc., for sake of illustration. Each time he makes reference to those factions and their leaders, he transferd the application to himself and Apollos, etc. (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4; 3:22; 4:6). Of all the schisms in their midst, “I of Christ,” was perhaps the worst of all, for it implied that they were the only ones who were of Christ!
Vss. 14-17—Such were the inclinations of the Corinthians that Paul was thankful that when he was among them he let others do the baptizing, lest they would set up his name and form a party around him. He did, however, baptize “Crispus and Gaius,” and “the household of Stephanas,” the first believers in that region (1 Cor. 16:15). Thereafter, he let others do that work so that it didn’t look like he was the founder of some new sect. This is a wise principle and should be acted on today in Christian service. Those who are prominent and gifted should defer certain tasks to others in the work of the Lord so as to take the spotlight off themselves. This will help to defuse any ideas the Lord’s people may have of wanting to rally around any one servant.
The Cause of Division: The Intrusion of Human Wisdom in the Assembly
In chapters 1:17–2:16, Paul traces the cause of such schisms among the Corinthians to its source—the intrusion of worldly wisdom into the assembly. Being converted out of the world, the Corinthians brought a lot of excess baggage with them. The Greeks had their various schools of philosophy to which they would flock, and these dear saints thought that Christianity was the same. But they were wholly mistaken. The sad fact was that such things only led to the formation of parties among them. This being the case, Paul proceeds to expose the futility of man’s wisdom in the things of God.
Vs. 17—“The cross of Christ” is God’s answer to the wisdom of the world. The Apostle points to the cross to show the Corinthians that all worldly wisdom has been judged by God there, and therefore, has no place in the assembly. (We are not referring to knowledge that man has gained in the fields of science, medicine, technology, etc., but the world’s so-called wisdom and philosophies of life—those things that pertain to the essential values of life that are moral and spiritual.)
The cross stands as the supreme proof of the folly of worldly wisdom. Men, in their so-called wisdom, looked on Christ when He came into this world and saw no value in Him, and called for His crucifixion! Paul, therefore, would not give it a place in his preaching and teaching, and exhorted the Corinthians to do the same. Neither should we give it a place in our ministry. The wisdom of this world has no place in the assembly. If the gospel is to be communicated by using man’s methods of wisdom, then the cross of Christ is made of “none effect,” because the very purpose of the cross is to glorify God over the question of sin and to pass judgment on all that is of man in the flesh—including his so-called wisdom. The gospel announces that all such human philosophy and wisdom has been judged at the cross; how then could we implement it into our preaching and service for the Lord?
To emphasize this, the Apostle goes on to show the futility of man’s wisdom:
Firstly, in communicating the gospel to lost souls (chap. 1:18–31).
Secondly, in teaching the saints the truth of God (chap. 2:1–16).
The Futility of Human Wisdom in Helping Men Understand the Gospel
Vss. 18-20—Human wisdom and philosophy, either in communicating the gospel or in receiving it, has only hindered men from seeing the value of the work of Christ on the cross. Paul says, “The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness.” The wise of this world do not see the glory of the Person who hung on it, nor do they see the love of God that gave His Son to die there. They do not see the holiness of God that demanded such a sacrifice and the utter ruin of man that must be judged. The world’s wisdom is thus exposed as being worthless and a hindrance in divine things.
Some of those who taught in the assembly at Corinth were trying to make the gospel intellectually respectable. Their occupation with the wisdom of the world made them sensitive to those aspects of the Christian message that were offensive to the philosophers and the general public. They didn’t want to abandon the faith; they just wanted to redefine it, so that it would be more palatable to the men of the world. Paul shows that you simply cannot mix the two, for they are total opposites. Man’s principles, motives, and objectives are the opposite of God’s and are only a hindrance to understanding the things of God. The natural mind of man can never learn the truth of God, except by the revelation of the Word of God (Job 11:7; 1 Cor. 2:14). Therefore, at the cross, God has destroyed “the wisdom of the wise” in passing judgment on the whole order of man after the flesh. It now can be said, “Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world?” It all has been set aside (Rom. 8:3).
Vss. 21-25—Since the world by its wisdom has proved that it cannot know God, God has been pleased to bless man on an entirely different principle—faith. Through “the foolishness of preaching” He would “save them that believe.” This exalts “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” It is not that the world thinks that the medium of preaching is foolish, because the world uses that medium too; it is what is preached that is foolishness to them.
Vss. 26-29—The “calling” of the Corinthian saints was an outstanding proof of this very point. They were not of the class of great philosophers and wise men, or wealthy, or famous in society—such people are usually hindered by their intellect and their station in life. Paul mentions three classes of important persons in this world who are usually stumbled by the gospel.
“Wise” – the highly educated (intellect).
“Mighty” – the famous and wealthy (riches).
“Noble” – those of high society, nobility, etc. (birth).
To teach the lesson of the emptiness of human wisdom, God has purposely chosen “the foolish,” “the weak,” “the base,” and the “despised” persons in this world to have and communicate His truth. In this way, no wise man after the flesh, if he gets saved, has a case in which to glory (boast).
Vss. 30-31—The chapter ends with the Apostle speaking of Christ in glory, and the believer’s place before God in Him. This is seen in the expression “in Christ Jesus,” which refers to Him risen and ascended on high. He is set forth as the source of true “wisdom.” Where is true wisdom then? It’s in a glorified Man in heaven! We need not to turn to the world’s wise men and their principles of philosophy for wisdom; we have it in Christ. Not only does the Christian have “wisdom” in Christ, he has “righteousness,” “sanctification,” and “redemption.” Do we need righteousness? We have it in Christ (2 Cor. 5:21). Do we need sanctification and redemption? We have it in Christ (Heb. 10:10, 14; Rom. 8:23). Everything we need is in Christ! We have no need to look outside of Him for anything. Therefore, if there is to be any boasting or glorying, it must be in Christ and what we have in Him (vs. 31).
Hence, chapter 1 sets forth Christ on the cross (crucified) as a statement of God’s judgment of man in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). It also sets forth Christ in glory as the measure of the believer’s position before God and his blessings and resources in Him (Eph. 1:3).
The Futility of Human Wisdom in Helping the Saints Learn the Truth of God
In chapter 2 the Apostle goes on to expose the futility of man’s wisdom in teaching the saints the truth. Hence, human wisdom cannot help a person understand the gospel (chap. 1), nor can it help the believer learn the truth of God (chap. 2). Paul points to his own ministry as a demonstration of this. He refused the flesh in himself and his ministry so that there would be no hindrance to the working of the Spirit of God in souls. When He came to Corinth, he made no appeal to the natural man by refusing to use “excellency of speech” or any display of human wisdom. He purposely avoided using such methods to communicate the truth.
Vs. 1—The style of his preaching was “not with excellency of speech.”
Vs. 2—The subject of his preaching was “Christ crucified.”
Vs. 3—The spirit that characterized his preaching was “in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.”
Vs. 4—The source of power in his preaching was “the Spirit.”
Vs. 5—The end in view in his preaching was that their “faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”
Vss. 6-9—In the opening verses of chapter two Paul refers to wisdom many times; in each case it is to utterly discredit it. We might conclude from this that wisdom is something that the Christian should distrust and shun. We might think that the Christian faith is only for a person’s feelings and emotions, and has nothing in it for the thinking man. However, Paul is not saying that. He said, “We speak wisdom ... ” (vs. 6), which shows that he valued wisdom, but it was a certain kind of wisdom that he upheld and sought to communicate—divine wisdom, which is wisdom that is only found in Christ (1 Cor. 1:30).
Moreover, he sought to minister the true wisdom of God “among them that are perfect”—those who were full-grown or mature believers. This shows that Paul would not minister the truth to please the Greek philosophical mind. Nor would he minister the things of God in a way that would please the carnal Christian. Instead, he sought to reach those who were going on spiritually in his audience, and let them teach the others as they were able for it. Notwithstanding, there are some today who insist that the ministry in the meetings should be on the level of the youngest believer. It seems they want everything to be kept on the level of not much more than the Sunday school. But that was not Paul’s way. It is not that he refused to drop “handfuls of purpose” to the young in his ministry (Ruth 2:16; 1 Cor. 3:1-2), but the main thrust of his ministerial labours was to reach the mature believers in his audience (“the perfect”). If they received his doctrine and were built up in it, they in turn could give it to the others. Paul instructed Timothy to do the same. He told him to teach the truth to “faithful men” who would teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2). Ministering to those who were “perfect” did not require an intellectual manner of speech, for even the deepest truths in the Bible can be ministered simply so that all who want it will understand.
He said that the wisdom of God is “in a mystery,” which is a secret, that can only be known by God revealing it (vs. 7). Man’s philosophical searching can never find it (Job. 11:7). The great ones of the world (“the princes”) proved this by failing to see the wisdom of God in Christ, and “crucified the Lord of glory” (vs. 8).
Paul quotes Isaiah to prove that man’s way of acquiring wisdom and knowledge is wholly inadequate in the things of God (vs. 9). Men have three main ways of learning: the “eye”—observation; the “ear”—tradition (listening to things that have been handed down by previous generations), and the “heart”—intuition (by the instincts of the heart). But note: the passage that he quotes is in the negative. The “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man.” These three methods, in themselves, cannot find the wisdom of God. Hence, the truth of God is not discovered by the natural senses of man, regardless of how keen they may be in an individual. It is, therefore, futile to use such methods to learn the truth.
How True Wisdom Is Acquired
The question naturally follows, “How then is true wisdom to be acquired?” In the latter half of the chapter Paul shows that true wisdom is all from God who is its source, and that it can only be learned by the power of the Spirit of God.
From verse 7 to the end of the chapter, he traces a chain of things by which God has brought the truth to us. Firstly, it was “ordained” (set up) before the ages of time began—before everything natural was created. Since it has existed before natural things, it is completely outside the scope of natural things. Hence, natural men, though intelligent, do not know it by their natural tuition. The greatest proof of this is that “the princes of this world” crucified Christ (vs. 8).
Vs. 9b—Secondly, the truth of God had to be “prepared” for us. God could not give these precious things to men except on a righteous basis, which was laid by Christ accomplishing redemption. His work in redemption prepared the way for God to bring it to us.
Vss. 10-12—Thirdly, what has been ordained and prepared for redeemed men required the power of the Spirit of God to bring it to them. Hence, it was “revealed” to special vessels (the apostles) “by His Spirit,” who were raised up for the purpose of bringing the truth to the saints. “Us” in verse 10 refers to the apostles. They were given special revelations of the truth for the purpose of delivering it to us, so “that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.” “The deep things of God” are not prophecy, but the truth of the mystery of Christ and the Church, and all the related truths having to do with Christian position and practise, which heretofore had been “hid” in the heart of God (Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:26).
Vs. 13—Fourthly, the means by which the apostles would communicate the truth to the saints was through divinely given "words." They are not necessarily the words that the intellectual wise men of the world would use, “but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; communicating spiritual things by spiritual means.” The apostles, regardless of how godly and gifted they were, were but men with human limitations. They had no power in themselves to convey the truth to the saints in the absolute fidelity and perfection in which it had been revealed to them. Hence, a further action of the Spirit was needed. The spiritual “means” by which they communicated the truth is divine inspiration. In the early Church, the apostles made the truth known to the saints in oral ministry, but they were also led by inspiration to write it out for us in the New Testament Scriptures. This is called “verbal inspiration,” which is God’s thoughts given in God-chosen "words." Some have thought that "communicating spiritual things by spiritual means" is referring to our labours in Christian ministry of communicating the truth to others. But this verse is really not speaking of our ministry, but of the apostles' work under inspiration.
Vss. 14-16—Fifthly, there is yet one further thing necessary in order for the truth to be received and understood by the saints. It has to be spiritually “discerned.” Having a saved soul with a new life is not enough to receive the truth; the believer needs the indwelling Spirit of God to help him take it in. This is called illumination. The Spirit of God illuminates the soul, causing the believer to understand the truth. However, being “spiritual” is more than just possessing the Spirit, it implies a condition where one is under the control of the Spirit. This shows that a spiritual state of soul in us is imperative for learning the truth. If we walk in the power of the ungrieved Spirit of God, He will give us the spiritual discernment to know the truth (1 John 2:20-21, 27). “The natural man” (the lost soul) cannot receive the things of God because he has no spiritual capacity to do so. “But he that is spiritual discerneth all things.”
These five things show that God works from both ends in bringing the truth to the saints. He ordains and prepares the truth, then reveals it to the apostles, inspiring them to write it down in the Holy Scriptures. But then He also works in the saints to produce a state of soul whereby they are illuminated and are enabled to take it in.
Hence, in connection with the giving and the receiving of the truth of God, there are five links:
Ordination (vs. 7)
Preparation (vs. 9)
Revelation (vs. 10)
Inspiration (vs. 13)
Illumination (vss. 14-16)
In summary of the first two chapters, Paul has stated two great things for the correction and blessing of the assembly at Corinth—the cross of Christ and the Spirit of God. The cross shuts man out, and the Spirit brings God in. The grand result is that the saints are instructed in “the mind of Christ” (vs. 16), which means that they have the ability to think on spiritual terms and know the truth of God. But note: this whole process of bringing us the truth is altogether outside the resources of the natural man and his wisdom. This proves conclusively that man’s wisdom and philosophy is worthless in the things of God and should not be given a place in the assembly.
If there is any hindrance now to Christians learning the truth, it wholly has to do with their state of soul. If we do not understand a particular part of Scripture, it is because:
We have not read the passage carefully enough.
We have brought pre-conceived ideas to the Word and are attempting to interpret Scripture from those notions.
Our will is at work, and we don’t want the truth.
The Consequences of Worldly Wisdom in the Assembly
In chapter 3:1-17, the Apostle continues to expose the dangers of human wisdom. In chapters 1-2 he has shown that worldly wisdom will not produce anything positive in the things of God. Now, in the third chapter he shows that it actually has serious negative effects on the assembly.
Paul proceeds to tell the Corinthians of the sad consequences that result from the working of worldly wisdom among the saints. Far from being profitable, it was destructive to the life of the assembly. He shows that it:
Vss. 1-2 – Dwarfs the saints.
Vss. 3-8 – Divides the assembly.
Vss. 9-17 – Defiles the house of God.
1) Spiritual Growth Is Stunted
Vss. 1-2—Firstly, worldly wisdom, being the opposite of God’s wisdom, is counterproductive to spiritual growth in the saints. Human ideas in philosophy not only didn’t give the saints the truth of God by which they would grow—it actually stunts growth! The Corinthians were a living proof of this. They were spiritual dwarfs. Paul wrote this epistle to them about five years after they had become Christians, and at the time of its writing they were still very much “babes in Christ.” This was to their shame.
The Apostle refers to three states in this part of the epistle. At the end of chapter 2, he spoke of those who were “spiritual” (a believer possessing the Spirit and controlled by Him) and of those who were “natural” (a lost person who does not have the Spirit). Now in chapter 3, he speaks of those who were “carnal.” This refers to a person who is saved, possessing the Spirit, but does not live under the control of the Spirit.
The problem with the majority of the Corinthians was that they were in a carnal (fleshly) state: To prove this, Paul points to the fact that he could not minister “the deep things of God” (“meat”) to them but only the elementary truths of the Christian faith (“milk”). They simply were not in a state to take in anything more.
2) a Spirit of Rivalry Develops
Vss. 3-8—Secondly, another negative result of promoting worldly wisdom is that it fosters rivalry in the assembly. Party-making, of course, does not produce godly unity, but rather, stirs up the flesh with “envying and strife” (vs. 3). The Corinthians had copied the world’s ways of boasting in its founders of certain schools of thought, saying, “I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos.” It led to pride of party—each seeking to defend his favourite teacher. This rivalry polarized the saints and created “divisions” among them and only confirmed their carnal state (vs. 4).
When there are troubled waters (contention and divisions) in a local assembly, it indicates that the assembly is in a low or “carnal” state. If the saints are distracted with in-fighting and problems in their midst, they cannot feed and grow together. It is imperative, therefore, to have “still waters” in the assembly (Psa. 23:2).
The Apostle explains that the gifted teachers in their midst were not to be set in a rivalry against one another. Each had a different place to fill in the body, and each had a different service to discharge. It was the Lord who gave them their distinctive gifts, and therefore, it was impossible to compare them when there was such diversity of service (vs. 5).
Far from setting the labourers in a rivalry, Paul shows that they are to be united in their labours. He speaks of himself and Apollos as an example. One “planted” and the other “watered.” Their work complemented each other. They were not competing with one another as rivals; they worked together toward the same common end. Furthermore, any results that their labours produced were not their doing anyway; it was only a result of God’s working. He says, “God gave the increase.” Therefore, it was completely out of place to exalt the Lord’s servants when it was really all the working of God (vs. 6).
The servants of the Lord should not see themselves as “anything,” whether it’s he that “planteth” or he that “watereth” (vss. 7-8). If we are going to be used of Him in His vineyard, we need to see ourselves as nothing. The Apostle’s attitude reflects this; he said, “Who then is Paul?” This is the right spirit to have. One of the things God does in His training of His servants is to whittle them down to a useful size. If we are too big in our eyes, or in the eyes of the saints, we probably won’t be used of the Lord in any appreciable way. If those who serve in public ministry see themselves to be something important among God’s people, it could draw out pride in those that look to them for ministry, and lead them to boast in those servants, which in turn could lead to the formation of a party. An old brother who was much used of the Lord in his life was asked when the Lord first began to use him. He replied, “When I realized that He didn’t need me!” This is an important thing to understand for all who serve the Lord. He doesn’t need any one of us, even though He is pleased to use us at times. When He does, we should consider it a privilege, and seek to carry that work out humbly.
3) It Brings Worldly Defilement Into the House of God and a Loss of Reward
Vss. 9-17—A third negative consequence in imbibing and propounding worldly wisdom is that it brings defilement into the house of God, which results in a loss of reward for the labourer.
The Apostle shows that in labouring in God’s house, it’s possible to build with bad material which will not meet the Lord’s approval. This leads the Apostle to speak of the quality of work with which one must labour in order to meet the approval of the Lord. Each servant’s work will be reviewed at the judgment seat of Christ. Paul points out the solemn fact that when our labours are reviewed, we could “suffer loss.” Promoting worldly wisdom and supporting division amongst the saints is wasted energy that otherwise could be used to build up the house of God. It will not stand the test of the judgment seat of Christ. All who do work on fleshly lines will “suffer loss.”
Vs. 9—Two figures are used to describe the sphere in which the servants of the Lord are to work for Him. One is “God’s husbandry” (a vineyard); the other is “God’s building” (a house). They present two aspects of the sphere of the labourer. The following verses focus on the house aspect particularly (1 Tim. 3:15).
Vss. 10-11—There are two aspects to the assembly as the house of God. Firstly, believers are looked at as “living stones” in the house (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20-21; 1 Peter 2:5; Heb. 3:6). Christ is seen as the Builder (Matt. 16:18), and all who compose the house in this aspect are real. Secondly, there is the aspect of the house of God where profession is included (Eph. 2:22; 1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:20-21). That is, it embraces all who make a profession in Christ, whether they are truly saved or not. In this aspect, men are seen as having part in the building, and therefore, there is a possibility of bad material being built into the house. Paul says, “Let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.” All that is built must be in accord with “the foundation,” which is Christ Himself, in order to meet the approval of God (vs. 11). This shows that there is responsibility connected with labouring in the house of God.
Three Kinds of Good and Bad Material
Vss. 12-13—The Corinthians needed to understand that even though some in that assembly had assumed the role of teaching, it didn’t mean that they were necessarily labouring with God’s approval. One might be doing (what he thinks is) a work for God, but it is not a work of God—that is, God is not the Author of it. Paul, therefore, indicates there are ones who may labour or build in God’s house with materials that are wholly unsuitable. Good intentions are not the criteria for God’s approval, but whether it is according to the truth.
He refers to three kinds of good materials that are figurative of labour that meets the Lord’s approval:
“Gold” speaks of the glory of God—i.e. labours that pertain to the exaltation of God’s glory in Christ.
“Silver” speaks of Christ’s work of redemption (Ex. 30:12-16)—i.e. labours in the gospel and teaching that helps to establish believers in the blessings of the gospel.
“Precious Stones” speak of the formation of Christ in the saints of God (Mal. 3:17)—i.e. labours that pertain to the perfecting of the saints in their walk with the Lord.
He also refers to three kinds of bad material that are figurative of labour that will not meet the Lord’s approval. Sad to say, the Corinthians had brought all three of these things into the assembly:
“Wood” speaks of what is natural and merely human (Amos 2:9; Mark 8:24; Luke 3:9; Isa. 2:12-13; 7:2; 10:16-19).
“Hay” speaks of what is fleshly (Isa. 40:6; 1 Peter 1:24).
“Stubble” speaks of what is positively wicked (Job 21:17-18; Mal. 4:1).
Three Kinds of Builders in God’s House
Paul then speaks of three kinds of builders in the house of God. Each of these builders is indicated in the text by the words, “If any man ... ” (Vss. 14-15, 17).
Vs. 14—A good builder is a God-fearing believer who strives “lawfully” in his labours (2 Tim. 2:5). Paul speaks of himself as being “a wise master builder” under Christ, laying “the foundation” in Corinth, by first preaching the gospel whereby they were saved (vs. 10). He would be an example of a good builder. He sought to work according to the principles of God’s Word, and therefore, his work will stand the test of the judgment seat. “He shall receive a reward.”
Vs. 15—A bad builder is a true believer, but he labours on his own principles in ignorance or defiance of God’s Word. “He shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved.”
Vss. 16-17—A corrupt builder is one who is not saved, and he defiles the house of God by his presence and his doctrines. The labours of ones in this class are usually that which attack the Person of Christ and work of Christ or undermine the Christian faith in some way.
“The Spirit of God” dwells in the house of God, God’s temple. He not only dwells in the saints but also dwells among them collectively—which is the aspect of the Spirit’s presence here (see also John 14:17—“with you” and “in you”). “You,” in verse 16 is plural, and refers to the saints collectively. This means that it is possible for a lost person (a mere professor) to move among the saints and to be where the Spirit of God is working. He is thus made a partaker of the Holy Spirit in an outward way. But because he occupies a privileged place in the house of God, he is held responsible for his actions, and his end is judgment—“him shall God destroy.” King Ahaz is a type of one who defiles the house of God as a corrupt builder (2 Kings 16:10-16).
The Apostle uses the expression “know ye not” ten times in the epistle. The Corinthians boasted in their knowledge, but it is appalling what they didn’t know. They didn’t seem to know:
The saints collectively are God’s temple – Chap. 3:16.
A little leaven leavens the whole lump – Chap. 5:6.
The saints will judge the world – Chap. 6:2.
The saints will judge angels – Chap. 6:3.
The unrighteous won’t inherit the kingdom – Chap. 6:9.
The saints’ bodies are members of Christ – Chap. 6:15.
He who is joined to a harlot is one body – Chap. 6:16.
The saints’ bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit – Chap. 6:19.
Those that minister the holy things live out of those things that were offered – Chap. 9:13.
Those that run in a race run against all participants – Chap. 9:24.
The Cure for Division
In chapter 3:18–4:21 Paul proceeds to give the remedy for the problem of division in the assembly.
1) Have a Proper View of Ourselves
Vs. 18—If there is going to be a cure for the problem of division in an assembly, we must first have a right view of ourselves. Many of the Corinthians had a high opinion of themselves intellectually. They considered themselves to be connoisseurs of philosophical wisdom; it was largely part their culture. They were glorying in the worthless principles of worldly wisdom, which tended to blind their eyes and deceive their hearts. Being able to talk in the philosophical terms of the world’s wisdom can give one a false sense of importance. Paul, therefore, warns of the deceiving character of it, saying, “Let no man deceive himself.” He then calls them to self-judgment, saying, “If any one thinks himself to be wise among you in this world, let him become foolish, that he may be wise.” Hence, they needed to have a change in their thinking which would result in a proper view of themselves before God. This would particularly apply to those who had the teaching roles in Corinth.
To think of ourselves as being something important in the assembly is, of course, nothing but pride. Since the heart is inherently deceitful (Jer. 17:9), it is difficult to detect this in our hearts. Nevertheless, unjudged pride is usually at the bottom of every division (Prov. 13:10; 28:25; 1 Tim. 6:4; 1 Cor. 4:6). J. N. Darby said that pride is the cause of division, and humility is the secret of unity and true fellowship. How true this is! If every person in a local assembly judged the pride of his or her heart, strife and division would not develop. Mr. Darby also said that we need to see the flesh in ourselves and Christ in our brethren! This would keep us from being critical and asserting ourselves in the assembly.
2) Have a Proper View of the World’s Wisdom
Vss. 19-20—Paul went on to state a second thing that would lead to curing the divisions in their midst. He said, “The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” In saying this, he was telling the Corinthians that they needed to see the world’s wisdom for what it really was before God—“foolishness.” They needed to have a proper view of it—to see it as God sees it—and shut it out of the assembly. It was at the bottom of the divisions at Corinth, and it was time that they ceased from all such worldly thinking.
While the world’s wisdom on moral and spiritual subjects may command the respect of natural and carnal men, it is only “foolishness with God.” Paul quotes a couple of Old Testament passages to confirm the fact of human wisdom being foolish and vain (Job 5:13; Psa. 94:11). What a paradox this is! The world thinks the gospel of God is foolish (chaps. 1:18; 2:14), but God says the world’s wisdom is “foolishness.” We, therefore, should be content to be considered fools in the eyes of the world and not concern ourselves with trying to be acceptable to the world. We have to accept the fact that Christians appear foolish to the people of the world.
3) Have a Proper View of Those Who Minister the Word
Vss. 21–4:5—Thirdly, there were those in the assembly at Corinth who were making too much of their teachers—putting them on a pedestal. The Corinthians gloried in their teachers around whom they rallied. They had a distorted view of grandeur of those who ministered among them and tended to venerate them in a fleshly way. They saw "men as trees, walking" (Mark 8:24), having “men’s persons in admiration” (Jude 16). They needed to cease and desist from this immediately because this undue emphasis on glorying in men stirred up party spirit. It fuelled the contentions and created rivalries among the saints at Corinth, causing sad divisions.
The Apostle’s remedy for this was, “Let no man glory in men” (vs. 21). He says, “All things are yours;” whether it was the Lord’s servants, or all things in the world—both at this present time and that which is to come—even “life or death!” (vss. 22-23) Everything belongs to the Christian because he is a joint-heir with Christ who is the “heir of all things” (Rom. 8:17; Heb. 1:2). Understanding their dignified position “in Christ” (which is to be in Christ’s place before God) would liberate the Corinthians from glorying in certain teachers and rallying around them because it was beneath the dignity of the Christian position to do such a thing. As Christians, we do not belong to men and their parties because all things belong to us in Christ. Hence, we don’t belong to them—they belong to us! They have been given to the Church as servants to help us understand the revelation of God and to walk in the light of it (Eph. 4:11). Understanding this will cure any notion we might have of putting the Lord’s servants on a pedestal and being gathered under their feet as a follower of them.
In chapter 4, Paul continues to elaborate on this point, showing that it is not for the saints to be evaluating the various gifts Christ has given to the Church. The tendency among the saints is to rate God’s servants by their knowledge or eloquence, but it’s purely a carnal thing. We are to account them all merely as “the servants of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God,” without rank (vs. 1). A servant’s true value in the sight of God is measured by his faithfulness and not his popularity among the saints! (vs. 2)
Moreover, if any were to start rating the servants of the Lord according to their personal criteria, they were to follow the Apostle’s example. He said that such fleshly and carnal practises were “a very small thing” to him because he put no confidence in their ability to evaluate correctly (vs. 3). Paul wouldn’t judge his own labours but left it all “until” the Lord would come. Then He will evaluate everything properly at His judgment seat (Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10). At that time, the Lord will even probe into the motives behind our actions in service. He “will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts.”
In chapter 3:13-15, he spoke of the Lord’s judging our works of service at the judgment seat; here he speaks of Him judging our motives in service. This shows that only a divine Person having omniscient attributes can properly evaluate the service of His servants. Scripture says, “By Him actions are weighed” (1 Sam. 2:3). Only He is able to weigh the motive behind an action. It proves the folly of mere creatures attempting such a task. The most spiritual and sincere Christian, being a mere human, cannot weigh the motives of someone else’s heart—much less carnal Christians such as the Corinthians! When Paul said, “Judge nothing before the time,” he was referring to the motives of the heart in service. Elsewhere we are told to judge a person’s words, his oral ministry, and his actions (1 Cor. 5:12; 10:15; 14:29). At the judgment seat of Christ, He will find cause to reward every one of His people for what they have done for His name’s sake. “Then shall every man have praise of God” (vss. 4-5).
4) Emulate Paul’s Ways in Christ
Vss. 6-21—The final words on this subject are directed toward the leaders of the parties that had developed among the Corinthians. The way they were carrying themselves contributed to the polarization of the saints in their divisions. Paul, therefore, had a word for them. They could help defuse the saints’ desires to put them on a pedestal by emulating the Apostle’s “ways which be in Christ” (vs. 17). Hence, Paul points to the humble manner of life as he served the Lord; it is a pattern for us to follow (1 Cor. 11:1; 1 Tim. 1:16). This is something that all the saints should emulate, not just those who take the lead in public ministry.
Throughout these opening chapters Paul “transferred” the “application” of these things concerning party leaders at Corinth to himself and Apollos, when really it was certain teachers in their midst whom they were rallying around. He did this so that he wouldn’t expose those leaders by name and avoid any open conflict that might erupt from it. He now mentions another reason why he did it—“ ... that ye may learn in us the lesson of not letting your thoughts go above what is written, that ye may not be puffed up for such a one against another” (vs. 6). Those who taught in Corinth desperately needed to “learn” how to conduct themselves in service by observing the ways of Paul and Apollos. The apostles and those that served with them were models for other servants to follow. Quite the opposite of being “puffed up” with pride “one against another” (as were the Corinthian teachers), Paul and Apollos were clothed with humility (1 Peter 5:5). They needed to be “followers” of the Apostle (vs. 16) and imitate his “ways” (vs. 17). He laboured together with the other servants of God in harmony under the Lordship of Christ.
In verse 7, he addresses the leaders directly, saying, “Who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?” Apparently, they were glorying in their gift as being distinct from other gifts. But if, by reason of a servant’s gift, he differed from others, it was only that which he had received from God anyway. How then could he boast as though it were something that he had produced by his own power? To use what God has given us to promote our own glory in the assembly is nothing but a shameful display of unjudged pride. Making public ministry an arena of competition was only helping on the problem of division. The use of a spiritual gift is not for the purpose of exalting oneself, but for the edification of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:16).
It was evident that the Corinthian teachers were living for the present—for “now”—and were seeking the praise of men (vs. 8). In contrast to this, the true servants of God lived in view of the future (to the judgment seat of Christ)—a time Paul calls “then” (vs. 5), when they would have the praise of God. What a striking contrast! This shows that there was something seriously wrong with the Corinthians’ view of Christianity. They were living like “kings,” which was completely out of character for those who are supposed to be pilgrims (vs. 8). Their lifestyle was not in keeping with the pilgrim character of Christianity. Paul desired that the reigning time had truly come, and then all the saints could reign together, but it was not time for that, for we are still living in the time of Christ’s rejection. The right attitude for us now in the time of Christ’s absence is that of mourning and fasting and abstaining from worldly pleasures (Mark 2:20; 2 Sam. 19:24; 1 Peter 2:11).
In verse 9, Paul again turns them to the lifestyle of “the apostles” who were models of Christian character and purpose. He alludes to the Roman amphitheatre (where Christians were fed to the lions as a spectacle) to show that the apostles were similarly a “spectacle” to all. However, their amphitheatre was much larger. It was the whole universe; both angels and men (heaven and earth) were watching. And what were they seeing?—men that were rejected by the world who considered them “fools,” “weak,” and “despised” (vs. 10a). The apostles were content to be thought of as such by those who crucified their Saviour. In contrast to this, the Corinthians were trying to court the world’s favour! They were attempting by their knowledge of divine things, to be “wise,” “strong,” and “honourable” in the eyes of the world (vs. 10b). To make the Christian revelation palatable to the man of the world is impossible without compromising it in some way, but this was what the Corinthian teachers were doing.
On the other hand, the apostles were paying the price for preaching the truth. They were suffering “hunger and thirst ... ” etc. (vs. 11). Furthermore, they were “working” with their “own hands” to support their labours, which the teachers among the Corinthians were evidently not doing. They were living off the gifts of the Corinthian saints (1 Cor. 9:12; 2 Cor. 2:17). In short, the apostles were suffering reproach and persecution from the world while the Corinthians and their teachers were courting the favour of the world. Something was seriously wrong with this picture (vss. 12-13). Paul said to Timothy, “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12). Living normal Christianity naturally results in being rejected by the world.
The Apostle wanted them to understand that he was saying these things because he loved them, calling them, “My beloved children.” He warned them because there were serious dangers involved in courting the favour of the world (vs. 14). They may have had many “instructors” (teachers), but where were the “fathers” among them that would faithfully point this danger out? (vs. 15) Paul, on the other hand, had been a spiritual father among the Corinthians, sacrificing himself for the good of the saints. This is what the local teachers around whom they were rallying should have been doing.
Paul concludes his remarks by saying, “Be ye followers of me” (vs. 16). This is the model for conduct for all in the local assembly. He and the other apostles walked in humility. They did not seek a place in this world (Jer. 45:5).
To help the Corinthians in this difficulty of division, Paul sent Timothy to bring to “remembrance” his “ways which be in Christ”—which was the divine remedy for all such difficulties. His model of conduct was for “every where in every assembly” (vs. 17). It is essential for assemblies to go on happily together. Timothy would support this by word and by conduct among them. If these things were practised by all in the assembly, the problem of division in their midst would be cured.
A Summary of Paul’s Solution for Divisions
In summary, the Apostle’s solution for division in a local assembly is as follows:
Have a proper view of ourselves—understanding that we are nothing. We need to see the flesh in ourselves and Christ in our brethren (chap. 3:18).
Have a proper view of the wisdom of the world—understanding that it is nothing. Knowing this, we don’t want to give it a place in the assembly (chap. 3:19-20).
Have a proper view of those who minister the Word—understanding that they are nothing. Therefore, we should be careful to not put them on a pedestal and glory in them (chap. 3:21–4:5).
Emulate the apostles’ conduct of humility and self-sacrifice because they sought to be nothing that Christ might be everything (chap. 4:6-21).
Chap. 4:18-20—Paul anticipated that there would be resistance to his corrections and closes with a word of warning to those who presumed to do otherwise. Having the cause and the cure for division clearly laid out before them, the Corinthians were responsible to follow the instructions the Apostle had given them. If there were those who would not heed his advice, imagining that these were but idle words, Paul warned that he would have to come to them in judgment, and then they would know not only his “word,” but his apostolic “power.” He reminds them that the kingdom of God is not characterized by words, but by moral and spiritual power. He said, “What will ye?” In other words, the choice was theirs to make. If they chose to neglect his solution for division, he would be forced to come to them in judgment to correct the problems among them.
Chapter 4:6-8 is a reproof for being “puffed up.”
Chapter 4:9-16 is an example of not being “puffed up.”
Chapter 4:17-20 is a warning to those who are "puffed up."
2) Failure to Judge Moral Evil
(Chap. 5:1-13)
Verse 21, of chapter 4, properly belongs to chapter 5. The Apostle turns to deal with another problem among them. In regard to it, he asks the Corinthians whether they would like him to come to them with a rod of correction or in the spirit of love and meekness. He was referring primarily to a flagrant case of immorality that was unjudged in their midst. If they continued to do nothing about it, Paul would be forced to act with apostolic authority to judge them with “a rod.” However, if they heeded the warning and correction of the Apostle he would come to them in “love” and “the spirit of meekness.” This case among the Corinthians was “universally reported” among the saints, yet the Corinthians had done nothing about it (vs. 1). The nature of this sin was “not so much as named among the Gentiles.” Yet it was found in the Christian circle! Something had to be done.
The Proper Attitude the Assembly Should Take in Exercising Holy Discipline
Vss. 1-2—It may be argued that the Corinthians had heretofore not been given any specific instructions for such a case, and consequently, they didn’t know what to do. If that were the case, the Apostle points out that at least they could have had the moral sensibility to mourn over it. Had they “mourned,” and besought the Lord about it, He would have acted by a stroke of governmental judgment, whereby “he that hath done this deed might be taken away” from among them (vs. 2). Paul was referring to the Lord taking that person home to heaven through death. The Apostle John refers to this same governmental action, saying, “There is a sin unto death” (1 John 5:16). The Lord also spoke of it when He said, “Every branch in Me that beareth not fruit He [His Father] taketh away” (John 15:2). See also James 5:19-20.
This shows that mourning is the proper attitude that should be taken when the local assembly has to deal with sin in its midst (Josh. 7:6-9; Judg. 20:26). Each individual should lay their hand upon their own heart in self-judgment realizing that they could have done that sin. They must treat the sin as their own. This is called, “Eating the sin offering” (Lev. 6:26; 2 Cor. 2:2-4). We are called to judge such in the consciousness of our own sinfulness—“considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1; 1 Cor. 10:12). Each person in the assembly should ask, “Have I contributed to the person’s fall in some way?” Had the erring one been properly looked after. Had he or she been shepherded? Had they been prayed for? Did we give them a godly example?
But instead of being humbled about such a thing in their midst, the Corinthians were “puffed up!” They were quite insensible about it. Their carnality had manifested itself not only in the presence of divisions among them, but also in their extreme laxity of morals. They were occupied with their gifts and glorying in them when they should have had their faces in the dust.
Three Reasons Why Evil Must Be Judged in the Assembly
The Apostle proceeds to give us three great reasons why evil must be judged in the assembly. The instructions herein given affords the Church with light as to what to do if such sins should come up in its midst.
1) The Maintenance of the Lord’s Glory
Vss. 3-4—The Lord’s name had become associated with the sin in their midst and needed to be vindicated. Hence, the assembly was enjoined to carry out an administrative judgment of excommunicating the person in question. Putting the offender out of fellowship disassociated the Lord’s name from the evil, and thereby His name would be exonerated.
In verse 4, the Apostle gives them the procedure. Even though he was not present, he knew what should be done, and laid it out for the Corinthians. When they were “gathered together” in assembly, they were to act in their administrative capacity, excommunicating the person (vs. 13). This action would have the authority of the Lord—“the power of the Lord Jesus Christ.” The action must be carried out when they were gathered together in assembly, whereby the Lord would be in their midst, thus giving His authority to the action. It is referred to in Matthew 18:18, 20, where it says, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. ... For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.”
2) The Correction and Restoration of the Offender
Vs. 5—There is another reason why the person must be put out of fellowship—“for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The person in question needed to be corrected and restored. His will needed to be broken down so that repentance would bring forth its fruit. Being put away from the fellowship of the saints would work to that end. Having the warmth of the Christian circle of fellowship taken from him, and being left in the coldness of the world, is calculated to produce the needed repentance. He would be delivered to Satan’s domain or sphere, which is the world.
“The destruction of the flesh” refers to the body. This shows that the most Satan can do is touch the child of God’s body. Job is an example. Ultimately it could lead to death, if repentance had not worked in the man’s soul. If it got to that, “the spirit” of the man would still be “saved,” because Satan cannot touch the Christian’s eternally secure standing in Christ.
All assembly discipline should have the correction and restoration of the offender in view. The assembly does not put such a person out of fellowship to get rid of him. The excommunication is for the breaking down of the individual’s wilful course, so that he might feel what he has done and repent. Then the assembly has the happy privilege of restoring him to its fellowship. The censure placed on the person can be “loosed” (Matt. 18:18). In the case of this individual at Corinth, that is exactly what happened. Being put in the outside place, his will was broken down, and the necessary repentance was produced, whereupon he was restored to the Lord and to the fellowship of his brethren (2 Cor. 2:6-11).
3) The Purity of the Assembly
Vss. 6-11—The Apostle mentions a third reason why excommunication was necessary. Since holiness becomes the house of God (Psa. 93:5), the assembly is responsible to maintain holiness in its midst. There are two reasons for this: firstly, so that it would be a fit place for the Lord to dwell in the midst; and secondly, so that the leavening character of evil wouldn’t permeate the whole assembly and many be affected by the evil and follow such ways.
To teach this important lesson Paul uses the illustration of a lump of dough. Just as leaven in one part of a lump of dough permeates through the whole lump, so evil left unjudged in the assembly spreads. “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (vs. 6) This teaches the important lesson that association with evil defiles. This is true whether it is doctrinal evil (2 Tim. 2:16-18; 2 John 9-11; Gal. 5:9), moral evil (Josh. 7:11; Judg. 20:13), or ecclesiastical association (1 Cor. 10:15-23; Haggai 2:11-13).
Even though we may not do the sin, if we are in fellowship with a person who does, we are associated with it. The principle of association with evil is illustrated in the case of the sin of Achan. When he sinned, God said, “Israel hath sinned” (Josh. 7:11). Nothing more clearly condemns the false idea that sin in a person concerns only that person and does not involve the others with whom he is in fellowship. Quite to the contrary, God looks at the toleration of evil in an assembly as complicity with the evil.
The responsibility of the Corinthian assembly was to “purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.” The Apostle wanted them to bring their collective state up to their standing before God as “unleavened” (vs. 7). They needed to be in practise what they were in position. Cutting off the leaven in the assembly by putting the incestuous man out of fellowship would do this in a collective sense.
Thus, the Apostle would have them to “keep the feast,” not with an indifference to sin, but “with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (vs. 8). “The feast” is not just the eating of the Lord’s Supper but refers to the whole period of the believer’s life on earth. Our whole life should be a “feast” of fellowship with God in holy separation from sin. It is not to be kept with “old leaven,” which is a reference to pre-conversion sins that might spring up in a believer’s life.
In verses 9-10 the Apostle shows that the exercise of holy discipline can only be practised within the Christian circle. To attempt to exercise such discipline toward the man of the world would be impossible. The Christian has no business trying to set the world right. By saying “yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world,” he was making allowances for such situations where the Christian might have an obligation to eat a meal with an unsaved fornicator of this world—perhaps with an employer. He explains that to attempt to carry out discipline toward the lost of this world, one would have to “go out of the world” altogether, which is impossible.
He hastens to say that if “any man that is called a brother” were going on in such a sin, we are “not to mix with him” (vs. 11). That is, we are not to keep company with him or show any fellowship toward him—even to the eating of a common meal. Being shunned by the Christian community, the man would be made to feel the seriousness of what he has done, and repentance would begin to work in his soul.
The Apostle also mentions that the need for excommunication was not to be confined to a “fornicator” but would include a “covetous” person, or an “idolater,” or a “railer” [abusive], a “drunkard,” an “extortioner,” etc. It is not a complete list, for a murderer and a blasphemer are not named but would surely be excommunicated, as the others he mentions.
The Responsibility of the Local Assembly
Vss. 12-13—The Apostle concludes by saying that we are not responsible to judge those that are without the Christian circle—“them that are without.” God will do that in His own time. But we are responsible to judge sin in a person who is “within” the Christian circle of fellowship. “Therefore,” he says, “put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” Note that he does not call the person in question a brother, but rather a “wicked person.” This is because if a person has not judged the course of sin that they are in, it is questionable whether he is a true child of God, because normal Christianity is that every brother and sister lives a holy life for the glory of God. If someone does otherwise, there is a question as to whether he or she is truly a believer. The man in this chapter proved to be a real believer by his repentance, seen later in 2 Corinthians 2:6-11. At this point, he had not shown repentance, and therefore, was called a “wicked person.”
“Within” and “Without”
In these verses Paul indicates that there is a “within” and a “without” in connection with the fellowship of the assembly. In the days when the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, there were no other fellowships of believers besides those on the ground of the Church. The sad outward sectarian divisions in the Christian testimony had not yet developed. At that time there was “the whole church,” outside of that there were only “simple persons” or “unbelievers” (1 Cor. 14:23). Those who were “called a brother” were in the one fellowship of Christians who were gathered unto the Lord’s name (Matt. 18:20). When the assembly at Corinth acted to put away the fornicator, they acted on behalf of the whole Church. He was, therefore, outside the fellowship of the whole Church of God on earth. If anyone was outside the assembly in that day, he was in the world where he would have no Christian fellowship.
Today things are different because of the ruin of the Christian testimony. As a result, there are many man-made fellowships of Christians meeting independently of one another. Today if a person is put out from among the saints gathered to the Lord’s name, while he is universally outside the fellowship of the saints so gathered, he is not necessarily outside of Christian fellowship. He could quite easily go down the road to another group of Christians and feel welcome there. The question is, “Is that person ‘without’ in the sense that Paul spoke of in the days of the early Church?” Today, because of the ruin, we would have to say, “No.” He cannot be put into a place where there is no Christian fellowship, but the person can still be put “without” the fellowship of the saints who meet on the ground of the one body. The “within” and the “without,” whether then or now, has to do with being in or out of the fellowship of the saints gathered to the Lord’s name where He is in the midst according to Matthew 18:20.
Since the breaking of bread is the meeting wherein our fellowship at the Lord’s Table is expressed (1 Cor. 10:16-17), the “within” and the “without” should be outwardly marked so as to distinguish those who are in fellowship and those who are not. Those who are not breaking bread should sit back. This was especially needed in the early days of brethren when the meetings were very large. Without it, it would be difficult knowing who was in fellowship and who wasn’t and could lead to confusion. There is no rule as to this, but all things should be done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). A. P. (Lord) Cecil said, “I have no doubt that the within and without of the assemblies should be outwardly marked and kept distinct: otherwise there is confusion.” 8
3) Failure to Resolve Personal Disputes
(Chap. 6:1-11)
Paul turns to address a third disorder among the saints at Corinth—lawsuits among fellow Christians. The Corinthians were taking one another to court to solve their personal disputes, and the Apostle rebukes them for it.
Three Reasons Why Christians Should Not Take One Another to Court
He proceeds to give three reasons why they shouldn’t be taking their matters before “the unjust” magistrates in the world’s legal system (vs. 1).
1) Vss. 2-5—The Christian does not need to take his brother to court because, through having the Spirit and the mind of Christ, he is able to judge more correctly than the unregenerate men of the world (1 Cor. 2:10-16). The believer’s competence to judge is such that God is going to have the saints “judge the world” in the Millennium! (Dan. 7:22; Rev. 20:4) This will not be in regard to eternal judgment for sins, but judgment in the administrative affairs of “the world to come”—the Millennium (Mark 10:30; Eph. 1:21; Heb. 2:5).
The Apostle’s reasoning is unarguable: “If the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?” Not only will Christians judge in the affairs of the world to come, they will also “judge (fallen) angels” after the Millennium has run its course. (The elect angels do not need to be judged.) Since this is so, why would they ever need to take their problems before the “unjust” judges of this world?
In verses 4-5, the Apostle chides them for such folly. He tells them to “set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church,” and they would be competent to settle their issues. He asks, “Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?”
2) Vs. 6—The Christian should not take his brother to court because it renders a bad testimony before the world. He says, “Brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.” Christians are to manifest a testimony of love and unity before the world. When the world sees Christians not getting along with each other, it gives them an occasion to blaspheme the Lord (Compare Rom. 2:24; Phil. 2:14-16). Since a Christian bears the name of the Lord, he has to be very careful what he does. It is, therefore, unwise to put our “dirty laundry” out before the world (2 Sam. 1:19-20). It should be settled within the Christian community.
We are the only Bible the careless world will read,
We are the sinner’s gospel; we are the scoffers creed,
We are the Lord’s last message,
What if the type is crooked,
What if the print is blurred?
3) Vss. 7-8—The Christian does not stand up for his rights when he believes that he has been defrauded, because it is out of keeping with Christian character. Paul asks, “Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” It would be better to suffer loss than to give the world an occasion to blaspheme the name of the Lord; it would be the Christian thing to do. The spirit of Christian grace is to suffer wrongs, committing it to the Lord who is over all things, and He will set them right in His time (1 Peter 2:20-23; Heb. 10:34; 2 Sam. 19:24-30).
Warning to the Mixed Multitude
Vss. 9-11—With the horrendous practises reported to be among the Corinthians, Paul had reason to believe that there were some among them who were mere professors and not true believers at all. Hence, throughout the epistle he addresses the Corinthians as a mixed multitude (1 Cor. 1:2—“both theirs and ours”). The presence of mere professors among them perhaps is what produced a number of their problems. These people would naturally act on selfish and worldly principles, and thus bring impurity into the assembly. Knowing this, the Apostle gives a solemn warning here.
He reminds them that there is judgment coming for all who are characteristically “unrighteous.” A believer may act unrighteously in a certain circumstance, but one who lives that way habitually is not saved and will not “inherit the kingdom of God.” Being outwardly on Christian ground through profession is not what secures our eternal security. One needs to be “washed,” “sanctified,” and “justified.” Some of the Corinthians had been marked by the sins the Apostle lists, but were now saved, and needed to be careful not to lapse back into those former sins. He reminds them of what they are by the grace of God, and then in the next section (Chaps. 6:12–10:13) he exhorts them to live in accordance with their position.
To be “washed” (aorist tense in the Greek) is a once-for-all thing (John 13:10). It is the moral cleansing which results from new birth (quickening). They were washed from their old condition and were “sanctified” (set apart) to a new place before God. When sanctification is mentioned before justification in Scripture, it is always absolute (positional) sanctification. They were also “justified,” which is to be cleared from every charge against us by being put into a new position before God in Christ where no further charge of sin can ever be laid (Rom. 8:1). The Christian is “justified in Christ” (Gal. 2:17 – J. N. Darby Translation). “In Christ” is an expression used by Paul in his epistles to denote the believer’s position of acceptance before God. The new place that Christ is in as risen and seated on high in the glory is our place (Isa. 50:8; Rom. 8:33-34). To be “in Christ” is to be in Christ’s place before God. The very place of acceptance that He stands in before God belongs to the believer!
Thus, the Corinthians, being washed, sanctified, and justified, were brought under the Lordship of Christ—“in the Name of the Lord Jesus”—and were expected to acknowledge His Lordship in their lives practically.
4) Failure to Understand Christian Liberty in Regard to Morality
(Chap. 6:12—7:40)
Since some at Corinth in their unconverted days had lived according to the corrupt and wicked lifestyle mentioned in verses 9-10, they were in danger of lapsing into their old habits and sins. This leads the Apostle to engage in a long dissertation on the subject of Christian liberty in relation to holiness and testimony. This will be his theme from chapter 6:12 to chapter 11:1. Several things needed to be addressed in this large topic. He takes them up under two headings—morality (chap. 6:12–7:40), and idolatry (chap. 8:1–11:1).
Paul first addresses the subject of morality in relation to our bodies (chap. 6:13–20); then in relation to our marriage partner (chap. 7) before passing on to deal with idolatry in chapters 8-10. He uses his own life as an example of how Christians are to behave in connection with liberty, except in marriage.
The saints at Corinth had totally misunderstood the whole subject of Christian liberty. They thought that it meant that they could indulge in things, be it moral or spiritual, for which Christ suffered and died to bring them out of. Many were using their so-called Christian liberty to live as they pleased. This had an effect on the others in the assembly, so that the assembly as a whole was in a deplorably low state. The Apostle, therefore, takes up the subject with them in the light of the Lordship of Christ. Paul’s teaching on Christian liberty is much needed today, for the Church at large is in a similar state as the Corinthians. Christian liberty is equally misunderstood and misused in our day.
Simply put, Christian liberty is not liberty for the flesh. Thus, liberty is not licence. True Christian liberty is liberty for the Spirit who dwells in every believer to act—leading him to live not for self, but for Christ.
Two Governing Principles
Vs. 12—The underlying motive in the actions of the natural man is self-gratification. Everything he does with his body is done to that end, though the motive may be hidden at times. For the Christian, this ought not to be so. The Apostle proceeds to give the Corinthians two great principles that are to govern the actions of every Christian.
He says, “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient [profitable].” This is the first thing that should govern our Christian liberty. Having been saved and brought under the Lordship of Christ, our liberty must be regulated by whether the thing which we allow is spiritually profitable or not. (When the Apostle speaks of “all things” being lawful, he is referring to all things that are morally right. Sin, of course, is not lawful for a Christian at any time.) The point he is making here is that even though certain things may be morally right (lawful), they may not be profitable for a Christian, as far as his spiritual health and testimony are concerned.
Then, secondly, he says, “All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” This is another great principle that should regulate our liberty. If the thing that we allow has power over us, in the sense that it is captivating and enslaving, then it’s something that we shouldn’t be doing. We should not allow anything in our lives that will dominate and control us apart from the Lordship of Christ. These two underlying principles are to supervene (interpret) the course of all our actions as Christians.
This long section on the use and misuse of Christian liberty begins and ends with the Apostle citing these same two underlying principles (chap. 6:12; 10:23). They act as bookends to his treatise on the subject.
Christian Liberty in Relation to Our Own Bodies
(Chap. 6:13-20)
Vs. 13—In taking up this subject of liberty in relation to our bodies, Paul focuses on the two greatest appetites of the body—food and sex. These things are not wrong in their place, but if they are indulged in outside and beyond God-given limitations, it is sin. He shows that there is a danger of a person using those right things in a wrong way, and consequently, coming under the power of them.
He speaks first of food. It’s possible to come under the power of “meats” (food) in self-indulgence and become a glutton. Then he goes on to speak of fornication (illicit sex), giving four reasons why the Christian cannot be engaged in such a thing.
Four Reasons Why We Don’t Give Our Bodies Over to the Gratification of the Flesh
1) Our bodies are destined for honour and glory when we reign with Christ in His kingdom. “God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by His own power” for that purpose (vs. 14). Having such a high and holy purpose for our bodies, we cannot rightly “make them members of a harlot” (vs. 15). By being “joined to the Lord” by “one Spirit,” we are members of His body; we simply cannot use them for such an unholy purpose. It is completely opposed to the very thing that we have been brought into as members of His body (vss. 16-17).
2) The person who engages in immorality sins “against his own body” (vs. 18). He opens a “wound” that never properly heals (Prov. 6:27-28, 33), and as a result, he becomes susceptible to falling back into that sin thereafter. It also brings the governmental judgment of God into our lives (2 Sam. 12:10-12).
3) Our bodies are “the temple of the Holy Spirit,” and we cannot link the Spirit—who is a divine Guest dwelling in us—with sin (vs. 19). The Spirit will be grieved, and He will not have liberty to work in our lives for blessing (Eph. 4:30).
4) We have been “bought with a price,” and our bodies no longer belong to us (vs. 20). They belong to the Lord and are for Him to use as He pleases. Therefore, we are not at liberty to do what we want with our bodies; they have been purchased for another purpose—to glorify God. The great motivation that brings the Christian to recognize this, and surrender his body for the use of glorifying Christ, is the “price” that He paid—His atoning sufferings. How could a truehearted Christian carry on with sins in his life that cost the Lord the agonies of Calvary? How could we take pleasure in something that cost Him suffering? It was love that led Him to give Himself for us (Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Eph. 5:25; 1 Tim. 2:6; Titus 2:14). The normal response from us, therefore, should be willingness to yield ourselves (our bodies) to Him for the furthering of His glory, and thus, live a holy life for Him. Throughout this passage Paul has shown that the Christian’s body is not to be used for GRATIFICATION but for the GLORIFICATION of God.
Christian Liberty in Relation to Marriage
(Chap. 7:1-40)
The subjects touched on from chapters 7–11 are the Apostle’s response to questions the Corinthians had written to him about their concerns. In chapter 7, he continues the subject of liberty, speaking of it in a slightly broader sphere—marriage.
The Lawfulness of Marriage & Its Duties
Vss. 1-9—The Apostle speaks, first of all, of the lawfulness of marriage and its duties. He speaks of God’s legitimate way to avoid the temptation of fornication—being married, whereby the natural appetites of the body can be fulfilled lawfully. He says, “Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (vs. 2). Note, it is written in the singular, because polygamy is not God’s ideal. He designed marriage in the beginning to be for one man and one woman (Mark 10:6-8). Polygamists can be in fellowship at the Lord’s table when they are converted, but they were not to be in a place of handling the administrative affairs of the assembly (1 Tim. 3:2). This statement of the Apostle debunks the Catholic idea of celibacy (1 Tim. 4:3). Paul insists that “every” man and woman in Christianity has the liberty to be married—even those who minister the Word (1 Cor. 9:5).
In verses 3-5, he goes on to spell out some of the responsibilities in marriage. Spouses are not to sexually “defraud [deprive]” one another of their bodies, because there is a real danger of Satan tempting them in their incontinency (lack of self-control) in immorality outside the marriage. The one exception is for a special exercise of prayer, and that only for a specified time.
In verses 6-9, Paul is careful to show that he is not commanding the saints to marry in the foregoing verses, but rather counselling them. They have that liberty, but some may, as Paul, have a “gift of God” to forgo marriage to serve the Lord without distraction. However, if one cannot “contain” [“control”] himself, he should marry, for it is better to marry than to “burn” with lust.
Troubled Marriages
In verses 10–24, Paul gives his comments for troubled marriages. He considers two scenarios. The first is a Christian marriage where both husband and wife are saved (vss. 10-11). If the wife should depart for some reason, she is to remain separated from him and not to remarry. Similarly, the husband is not to divorce his wife if she departs. The reason for this is that there may be an opportunity at a later time to be “reconciled.” If one or both went ahead and re-married, it would make this impossible. This was an apostolic “command” from the Lord.
In the second scenario Paul was not giving an apostolic command from the Lord, but his apostolic advice. It has to do with a marriage of unbelievers, where one partner gets saved. Thus, there results a mixed marriage—one partner is saved and the other is not (vss. 12-24). He is not referring to a Christian who has disobeyed Scripture and has gone and married an unbeliever. It is rather, a situation that was prevalent in places where the gospel was new—where the grace of God penetrates a home where both husband and wife are lost, and one gets saved. There is mercy in such cases, as the Apostle goes on to explain.
He shows that the unbelieving partner is in a place of outward favor in Christianity. “The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the (believing) wife” (vs. 14). In Old Testament times, if a Jew married a heathen, he (or she) profaned himself (Ezra 9:1-5; Neh. 13:23-28). In Christianity, it is the other way around; if the grace of God has worked in a home and one gets saved, the unbelieving partner is sanctified by his or her connection with their believing partner. Even though he is sanctified, he is still an unbeliever! This may sound strange, but it is an “external” or “relative” sanctification only.
In such mixed marriages, if there is wilful desertion on the part of the unbeliever, the believer is free to remarry. Note: the Apostle gives no liberty for the believing partner to depart and remarry (vss. 15-16). Hence, Scripture allows for re-marriage under three conditions:
Death (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39).
Desertion (1 Cor. 7:15).
Infidelity (Matt. 19:9).
Since the tendency of the human heart is to want change, in verses 17-24, the Apostle passes on to speak of the call of God coming to persons in various stations of life. The general principle is to remain in the calling wherein the person is called. However, if a person could free himself from menial servitude, he was to “use” (not abuse) that freedom to serve the Lord (vs. 21).
Apostolic Advice for the Unmarried
In verses 25-40, Paul gives his “opinion” to the unmarried, whether male or female. (The word “virgin” is used for either.) His general advice is that if one truly has the service of the Lord before him and has received a “gift” from God to live free of lust in his unmarried state, he should remain single. He gives three reasons for remaining single:
Firstly, due to the hostile condition of the world toward the Christian faith, there was the very real possibility of martyrdom. There was “the present distress” of Roman persecution. With extenuating circumstances of having a wife and family, one’s responsibilities to them were greater. There is the worry for their safety, etc. and the very real possibility of widowhood and orphaned children. Hence, Paul judges that if a person could receive it, it would be good for a Christian to remain single (vss. 25-26).
Secondly, there is “trouble in the flesh” in marriage (vss. 27-28). It’s not that marriage isn’t rewarding, but difficulties come with it. Problems on account of having the fallen human nature (the flesh) are multiplied in marriage. It is hard enough for one person, who has the indwelling sin-nature, to keep the flesh in the place of death, let alone living with another person who has the flesh too. When two people become one, there are two wills, and two personalities with distinct likes and dislikes, etc. Living together requires grace. By remaining single, a person can be “spared” from such difficulties.
Thirdly, there are preoccupations in marriage (vss. 29-35). The Christian is to live in view of the fact that “the time is short,” for we expect the Lord to come at any moment. This world will soon pass away. Therefore, everything is to be prioritized toward devotion to the will of God. However, in marriage there are responsibilities in maintaining a happy relationship and family life. The joys and sorrows, and the possessions of life that go with it, have a way of pressing into our time. The married person is forced to use the temporal things of this world (but “as not abusing” them) in a way in which to “please his wife,” whereas a single person does not need to involve himself in such things, and therefore, will be freer from earthly ties to serve the Lord. He gives an example in verses 32-34. The single person has more time to “attend upon the Lord without distraction.”
Vss. 36-38—However, if one has difficulty controlling his sexual desires that he (or she) should give their virginity in marriage, for it is better to “marry than to burn” with lust (vs. 9). A person shouldn’t feel guilty in doing so—he has done “well.” But the Christian, who has “power over his own will,” having a “gift” from God for it, does even “better” by remaining single.
Vss. 39-40—As far as re-marriage is concerned, the Apostle gives one word of advice. The divorced or widowed are at liberty to marry whom they think best, but they should marry “in the Lord.” This is something higher in principle than marrying “in Christ.” “In Christ,” as we have noted earlier in the epistle, is the position of every Christian before God in the acceptance of Christ. It does not take into consideration the believer’s state. Therefore, to marry “in Christ” would be to marry another Christian, without considering their personal state or interest in the things of the Lord. However, Paul does not tell them to marry “in Christ,” but rather to marry “in the Lord.” This is a higher thing in which both persons in the marriage recognize the Lordship of Christ practically in their lives. Hence, a Christian marriage should be a union where both persons in the relationship own the Lordship of Christ.
5) Failure to Understand Christian Liberty in Regard to Idolatry
(Chaps. 8:1–11:1)
In chapter 8, the Apostle continues the subject of Christian liberty, but in relation to idolatry. In chapters 6:12–7:40 he has dealt with the subject in the sphere of moral things; now he looks at it in relation to spiritual things. In chapter 8, he deals with the Christian’s liberty in relation to how it will affect the Christian community, and then in chapters 9-10 he looks at it in relation to those who are without—the public testimony of Christianity before the world. Thus, he treats the subject from the smallest point and works out to its widest. He starts with our own bodies (chap. 6), then moves to our marriage partner (chap. 7), then to our brethren with whom we walk (chap. 8), and then lastly, before the world (chaps. 9-10).
Christian Liberty in Relation to Our Brethren
(Chap. 8:1-13)
There were those at Corinth who were taking liberty to eat meats offered to idols, but in doing so, they were in danger of causing some of their brethren to stumble. Paul, therefore, turns to correct this by giving them a universal principle that would regulate Christian liberty in relation to things offered to idols.
This chapter is similar to Romans 14 as both deal with the use and misuse of Christian liberty. There is a difference however; Romans 14 is dealing with the weak Jew who has been converted out of Judaism, whereas 1 Corinthians 8 is dealing with the weak Gentile who has been converted out of idolatry.
The Difference Between Knowledge and Love
Vss. 1-3—Most at Corinth understood that since an idol was nothing that food was a non-issue with God. They thought they were free to act as they pleased in regard to food offered to an idol and there would be no strings attached. Paul teaches them that their liberties needed to be regulated so that they wouldn’t offend any who were “weak” in the faith.
A person might know that an idol is nothing, and therefore, go into an idol temple and eat meat offered to an idol (vs. 10), or buy meat in the market place that was offered to an idol (chap. 10:25). But this raises a question, “Would it be right to do it if it stumbled our brother?” Paul shows in this chapter that knowledge in itself is not sufficient to guide us in these matters. This question cannot be answered merely by “knowledge,” but it can be settled by “charity [love].” Knowledge without the exercise of love can lead a person to act without considering the effect that his act may have on others.
This leads the Apostle to compare knowledge and love. “Knowledge,” not held in communion with the Lord, tends to puff a person up with pride, whereas “love [charity]” considers the welfare of our brother (vs. 1). There is quite a difference; knowledge tends to puff up oneself, whereas love builds up (edifies) others. Knowledge occupies us with the thing in question—its merits and demerits—but love thinks of our brother. If knowledge were the only principle that applied in the matter, it could lead to outright arrogance, and surely offence. Paul was not belittling knowledge; he was showing that it must be held in love.
He goes on to say that since none of us know all the truth, for we can only know in part now (1 Cor. 13:9), we should be careful in using our knowledge without considering that we might not have things quite right. If one imagines that he has acquired knowledge, and is complacent about it, he is showing that he lacks understanding on how it ought to be held and practised (vs. 2). Moreover, if a person truly loves God, it will be manifest in his actions toward his Christian brother (1 John 5:1-2). The person who approaches this subject of liberty from the standpoint of love will be “known” of God in the sense that He will take note of that person and will give him a special sense of His approval (vs. 3).
The Difference Between Idols and the True God
Vss. 4-6—The question of eating meats offered to idols leads the Apostle to draw a brief but important comparison between idols and the true God. Idols are only “called gods” because they are either outright fakes or manifestations of demons. None of them are truly gods. Knowing this gives one to understand that there is nothing to an idol.
Knowledge Must Be Regulated by Love
Vss. 7-10—Since we are all at different stages of growth, not all Christians have this knowledge concerning idols. Some were not able to rise above the deeply rooted prejudices of their respective backgrounds in regard to idols. They were “weak” in the sense of being deficient in Christian knowledge. Some converted out of heathendom were not entirely convinced that idols were non-entities and that meats offered to them were no different from other meats. Care must be taken not to stumble these persons (vs. 9). For some, to eat meats offered to idols could lead to a bad conscience, and abandoning a good conscience could lead a person to do something that would destroy (“perish”) him, in the sense of making shipwreck of his Christian life and testimony (vs. 10). He, of course, wouldn’t perish in the sense of losing his salvation, for the Lord said that His sheep “shall never perish” (John 10:27).
In verses 11-12, the seriousness of offending a weak brother in Christ is emphasized. If the Lord loved that person so much that He was willing to die for him, shouldn’t we be careful not to hinder his spiritual progress by doing something that would stumble him? It would be a “sin against Christ.”
In verse 13, he concludes his remarks by laying down a simple principle that would regulate our liberty in regards to our Christian brother. Before we exercise our liberty in a given area not forbidden by Scripture, we should consider what effect it will have on our brother. If the thing that we allow might cause him to stumble, then we ought to forego it—love would do that. In all such matters the Christian must not only use knowledge, but also love.
This principle that Paul has brought before the Corinthians is essential to the health and welfare of a local assembly. It has a broad application to all things having to do with life in the assembly that are of a secondary importance––i.e. things which do not attack of undermine the Person and work of Christ. If this principle were acted on in our interactions with one another, there would be far less offences given and taken.
Knowledge tends to see things black and white, without considering any other qualifying factors. A person acting merely on that line sees things as either right or wrong. Often they will go around correcting others in the assembly on small issues that they feel are wrong, thinking that they are doing God a service. But they often leave a trail of offence behind them. They feel justified in their actions and “chalk it up” to being faithful. Unfortunately, dealing with things on the line of knowledge only is usually destructive to happy assembly life. It does not make for peace (Rom. 14:19). Divine love, on the other hand, considers our brother “for whom Christ died” and is careful not to offend in these secondary matters. It will not compromise principles, but also considers the state and the stage of growth in the ones whom it seeks to reach. Love waits for its opportunities and deals with things with the love of Christ.
Christian Liberty in Relation to Serving the Lord
(Chap. 9:1–10:14)
In chapter 9, Paul continues the subject of Christian liberty, applying it to the service of the Lord. He digresses from the subject of liberty in relation to idolatry to illustrate his point in chapter 8: Namely, that we must be willing to forgo certain liberties for the testimony of the Lord. Again, he uses his own life and ministry as an example. He fastens on two “rights” (J. N. Darby Trans.) or liberties in particular that he had as the Lord’s servant and shows that while he had every “right” to those liberties, he surrendered them for the sake of reaching and helping others.
The Verifications of Paul’s Apostleship
Vss. 1-3—His apostleship was something that some among the Corinthians questioned, since he was not among the twelve chosen by the Lord on earth. He states that he is indeed an Apostle because he had “seen Jesus our Lord” (Acts 9:4-5). A further evidence to his apostleship was the assembly at Corinth. It owed its existence to his labours (Acts 18:1-11). He says, “Are not ye my work in the Lord?” These were two verifications of his apostleship. Having established that, he takes up two specific areas where he had “power” (a legitimate “right”) as a servant of the Lord to partake (vss. 4-27).
Paul’s “Right” to Partake of the Ordinary Mercies in Natural Life
Vss. 4-5—Firstly, he speaks of his liberty to partake of the ordinary mercies of life—“to eat and to drink” (vs. 4), and to “lead about a sister, a wife” (vs. 5). Being a servant of the Lord, he had that power [“right”]. He had liberty to partake of the normal things of life, and points to the “other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas” (Peter) who all rightly partook of that liberty.
Paul’s “Right” to be Financially Supported by Those to Whom He Ministered
Vss. 6-14—Secondly, Paul had a right to be financially supported by those to whom he ministered. He had a “right” to “forbear working” (full time) and to receive help in “carnal (temporal) things” in return for his ministry in “spiritual things” (vs. 7). He proceeds to list several things to support this right:
1) It is customary to remunerate workers. He cites three examples from ordinary life—a soldier, a farmer, and a shepherd (vs. 8). Working for the Lord should not be treated with any less importance.
2) It is according to the Mosaic Law (vss. 8-9). He quotes from Deuteronomy 25:4 to show that the Law of Moses supported such a practise in principle. It was not written merely for God’s care of oxen (who are typical of servants of the Lord) only but for “our sakes” (vs. 10).
3) The tabernacle and “the temple” system that was ordained of God supported the idea of paying those who did the work (the priests and the Levites). Those who “attend at the altar partake with the altar” (vs. 13; Num. 18:8-20).
4) It was exercised by other Christian workers. If they had a “right” to be supported by those to whom they ministered, why couldn’t Paul? After all, he was their spiritual father in the faith, and therefore, had a right to their “carnal things” (vs. 11).
5) The Lord ordained it for His disciples when they were sent out to preach (Luke 10:7). “They which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (vs. 14). In this, He set the example for Christian workers.
The Principle of Surrendering One’s “Right” for the Blessing of Others
Vss. 15-23—Having established that he had such “rights,” Paul hastened to say, “But I have used none of these things” (vss. 12, 15). He had a “right” to such liberties, but he elected to not exercise those rights because he didn’t want to stumble any to whom he preached. He relinquished them so that he could reach more souls. For instance, when he was among the Corinthians, he worked with Aquila and Priscilla in making tents, which was their mutual profession (Acts 18:1-2; 20:34; 2 Thess. 3:7-9). This beautifully illustrates the fact that Christian living and service is all about making sacrifices for others; its object is not to please self. The Lord Jesus is our great example. He “pleased not Himself” (Rom. 15:1-3).
Vss. 17-18—Paul felt compelled to preach the gospel, and he did it “willingly.” He threw himself into the ministry of the Word with unselfish abandon. While he refused material recompense, he knew that he was not without reward for his labour. He could boast that the gospel was “without charge,” and he had the joy of reaping—seeing souls being saved.
Vs. 19—In one sense, refusing to exercise his “right” gave him greater liberty. It made him “free from all men,” in that he was not dependant on any human for financial help, and thus would be less likely to be influenced by their desires. In doing this, he sought to make himself a “servant unto all” that he might “gain the more” people by the gospel. He surrendered his right of Christian liberty to reach them and made himself “as” they were, as far as their customs were concerned. He would adapt himself to those to whom he sought to reach with the gospel if it didn’t compromise the truth. It was a voluntary restraint of his liberty and just shows the lengths to which his love for souls would go to reach them with the gospel.
Vss. 20-21—When he was trying to reach the “Jews,” he would surrender his right of Christian liberty and become “as a Jew.” He did this, he says, so that he might “gain them that are under the law.” Note: he doesn’t say that he formally took up the position of being a Jew again; he says became “as” a Jew. This would be in customs, habits, dietary concerns, etc. Vice versa, when he was reaching out to “them that are without law” (the Gentiles) he would be “as without law.” In case any might think that this included abandoning his morals and living like the heathen, he adds in a parenthesis, “Not as without law to God, but as legitimately subject to Christ” (vs. 21—J. N. Darby Trans.). This means that he would go along with the customs of the Gentiles as far as he possibly could, without compromising principles of holiness and spirituality. This was the kind of wisdom that won souls (Prov. 11:30); it involved self-denial.
Vss. 22-23—Paul says, “To the weak became I weak, that I might gain the weak.” That is, to those who were simple in their understanding of divine subjects, he was careful to bring things down to their level when communicating with them, using simpler terms to express the truth. He would focus on elementary truth with such. Thus, he adapted himself to the various situations in which he found people, but at the same time, he took care to not compromise principles of holiness and truth.
In chapter 8, love would not let the Apostle do anything that would offend the consciences of his weaker brethren. In chapter 9 his love went farther—beyond the Christian community—it would not allow him to do things that would be offensive to unbelievers to whom he witnessed. By purposely relinquishing his Christian rights or liberties to win those to whom he ministered, he was an example to the Corinthians of normal Christian love sacrificing itself for the blessing of others. It shows that all such rights in Christian liberty are to be subservient to the interests of Christ and His testimony in the gospel.
The Need for Self-Control in Exercising Christian Liberty
Vss. 24-27—He goes on to show that a person has to be careful in taking liberties for another reason—it could have a negative effect on him, whereby he comes under the power of the carnal appetites of the body. He has spoken of the need for self-denial in the giving up of one’s rights or liberties; now he speaks of the need for self-control of the baser instincts of human nature. Later he will speak of the need for self-judgment (1 Cor. 10:12; 11:28).
He points to the athletes of the world being “temperate” (having self-control) in all things as they train themselves to compete for “a corruptible crown” in their games—an allusion to the original Olympic Games (vss. 24-25; 2 Tim. 2:5—J. N. Darby Trans.). Likewise, a Christian in the service of the Lord must also use self-control to have the Lord’s approval in the coming day of glory. To win “the prize” one had to live and serve in God’s vineyard according to God’s principles. To do this required keeping the body “under” control.
In verses 26-27, Paul used himself as an example in self-control. He was careful to not indulge in the appetites of the body, but kept it in “subjection” so that it would not be a hindrance to him in service. It has been said that the body is a good servant, but a poor master.
He shows that it is possible for one who was preaching to end up as a “castaway.” The word “castaway” is translated elsewhere “reprobate” and surely refers to a lost soul (Rom. 1:28; 2 Cor. 13:5-7; 2 Tim. 3:8; Titus 1:16). We mustn’t take from this that a Christian can lose his salvation. The subject in question in the chapter is preaching, not salvation. It’s possible for a person to be a preacher and yet not be saved, and thus, end up a castaway. Judas Iscariot was such a person. The man the Lord spoke of in Matthew 7:22 is another example. There are many who are such today in the Christian profession.
He brings this in because there were ones among them who were preaching who did not seem to be real at all. Their habitual indulging in the things of the flesh (taking liberties) without self-control brought to light that something was terribly wrong. If one carries on in such activities, it may be that they are not saved at all.
Some have thought that since the word means “disapproved” or “rejected” that Paul was referring to a man’s ministry being rejected, not himself personally. Hence, his ministry would be rejected because his life was in disorder. This would certainly be true, but the word “castaway” must not be taken in that limited sense. It is not used that way elsewhere in the New Testament. It means that the whole person is rejected because he is lost. J. N. Darby said, “To be a castaway is to be lost—to be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.” Paul, “in a figure, transferred” such to himself (1 Cor. 4:6) and thus handled the matter delicately, not singling out anyone in particular. The point he makes here is that he wanted to show by his whole manner of life (in keeping his body in subjection) that he wasn’t one of those reprobates.
Abusing Christian Liberty Brings the Hand of God Upon Us in Governmental Judgment
Chap. 10:1-14—Such being the case, Paul goes on to address the mixed multitude among the Corinthians and warns those who were mere professors of the danger of God’s judgment. This shows that it is a solemn thing to be externally connected with the testimony of God and not be real.
He shows that all who identify themselves with the Christian testimony are going to be tested as to their reality or their lack thereof. And even if a person was a real believer, partaking of spiritual privileges doesn’t guarantee his preservation. If he didn’t “keep under” his body, but misused his liberty, he would come under the governmental dealings of God.
He points to Israel as an example. They were given some wonderful privileges in their relationship with Jehovah, yet when they were tested in the wilderness many of them proved to not be real at all. He outlines five great privileges that Israel had and then passes on to speak of five different evils that they fell into and God’s corresponding discipline. The net result was that they were sifted out of the testimony of the Lord. They were “strewed in the desert” (vs. 5 – J. N. Darby Trans.). Deuteronomy 2:14 says that they were “wasted out from among the host.”
The privileges that they had, in principle, are the same that Christians have—only we have them in a greater way. And the evils that they fell into are the same evils that Christians can fall into. Furthermore, the governmental judgment that fell on them is the same, in principle, that can fall on us. His ways with Israel demonstrate the very real possibility of being sifted out of God’s testimony today.
Five Great Privileges
Vs. 1—“The cloud”—they had His divine presence with them. Christians also have the Lord’s presence with them (Matt. 28:20; Heb. 13:5).
Vs. 1—“All passed through the sea”—they had a divine deliverance. Christians have experienced a great deliverance in the death of Christ (Gal. 1:3-4).
Vs. 2—“All baptized unto Moses”—they had a divinely appointed leader. Christians have Christ as their Leader (1 Pet. 2:25).
Vs. 3—“All ate the same spiritual meat”—they had a divine provision of food (the Manna). Christians have Christ as their food (John 6:47-58).
Vs. 4—“All did drink the same spiritual drink”—they had a divine provision of running water. Christians have the divine provision of the Spirit of God given to them which springs up into the enjoyment of eternal life (John 4:14).
Five Evils & Their Corresponding Discipline
Vss. 6-11—Having such privileges made the children of Israel very responsible before God, for with every privilege there is a responsibility. Since Christians have those privileges in a greater way, we are even more responsible than Israel. If we abuse our liberty and live after the flesh, God will put His hand upon us in a governmental dealing, by which we will be taught by discipline to walk in holiness. It is a solemn fact—God judges His people in a governmental way if need be, but of course, not in an eternal way. Peter says, “It is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear” (1 Peter 1:16-17). He also says, “He that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and His ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil” (1 Peter 3:10-12). Again, he says, “The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” (1 Peter 4:17)
In using Israel’s history as an example, Paul shows that there are at least five different ways a person could be sifted out of the fellowship to which all Christians are called (1 Cor. 1:9). (The Apostle does not take them up in chronological order.)
1) Lusting After the World
(Vs. 6; Num. 11:4-6, 33-34) The children of Israel wanted Egypt’s foods, and God gave it to them, but He also sent leanness into their souls (Psa. 106:14-15). By insisting on having those things, they perished under the judgment of God and thus were removed from His testimony through a plague from the Lord. This is a type of Christians lusting after the world and insisting on it to the point where they are drawn away. God allows the “plague” of the world’s influence to affect them, whereby they are drawn away by it and thus sifted out.
2) Practising Idolatry
(Vs. 7; Ex. 32:1-8, 25-29) The children of Israel worshipped the golden calf and called it a feast unto Jehovah. They consequently became insensible through that spiritual corruption (Ex. 32:6, 18, 25; Psa. 115:4-8). They came under judgment by the hand of their brethren who acted for God (Ex. 32:26-28). This is a type of those engaging in spiritual evil (perhaps doctrinal or ecclesiological) whereby they come under the administrative judgment of excommunication by the hand of their brethren.
3) Engaging in Immorality
(Vs. 8; Num. 25:1-9) The children of Israel were invited to enter into fornication with the daughters of Moab. Judgment fell on them by the javelin of Phinehas and through the plague of the Lord. This is a type of being excommunicated for moral evil (1 Cor. 5:11-13).
4) Tempting the Lord
(Vs. 9; Num. 21:4-9) The children of Israel tempted the Lord by questioning the wisdom of His ways. God sent serpents among them and many perished. We, too, can question the wisdom of God in His sovereign will in our lives, but it is a sin that He does not take lightly. What happened to Israel is a type of God allowing Satan, “that old serpent” (Rev. 12:9), to get in on us in a special trial whereby we are taken away in some way. It is a stroke of God’s judgment.
5) Murmuring and Complaining
(Vs. 10; Num. 16:1-3, 41-50) These people murmured and complained about a dealing of the Lord with a party of men that rose up in rebellion against the God-appointed leadership in Israel. Korah and his company had formed a party to challenge God’s order of priesthood. They thought that they had a justified cause in challenging the place of Moses and Aaron, but God took them away in judgment. After the judgment fell, the people referred to here sympathized with the rebels who were judged. They murmured and accused Moses and Aaron of killing them! These also fell under God’s judgment and were swept away. It is a type of those who would sympathize with a party that has gone out from the assembly in some cause. God’s judgment on such is for them to be swept away with the party and removed from the fellowship where the Lord is in the midst. There have been many who have been removed in this way—in the so-called “divisions” that happen among God’s people.
Vss. 11-13—The Apostle has given a lengthy warning to all who might be inclined to abuse Christian liberty by indulging in the flesh in some way. He has shown that we cannot do it without incurring the discipline of God. He reminds us that those things that happened unto them (Israel) were written as “ensamples [types]” for “our admonition.” In other words, we are supposed to learn from these things.
He concludes by giving a call to self-judgment, saying, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” Pride and self-confidence lead to having a fall (Prov. 16:18). If there were any who thought that the temptations they were facing were too great, he adds the encouraging words, “God is faithful, who will not suffer (allow) you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”
Christian Liberty in Relation to the Lord’s Table & Fellowship With Idols
(Chap. 10:15–11:1)
The Apostle has addressed Christian liberty in relation to our brother in Christ (Chap. 8) and in relation to our service for the Lord (Chap. 9:1–10:14). Now he looks at Christian liberty in relation to fellowship at “the Lord’s Table” (Chap. 10:15–11:1).
A “table,” in Scripture, symbolizes fellowship. In the case of “the Lord’s Table,” it symbolizes the ground of fellowship God has for all Christians where the Lord’s authority is recognized and bowed to. It is a spiritual ground of principles upon which Christian fellowship is expressed and the unity of the body is exhibited in practise. Scripture does not say the Lord’s “tables” (plural), but the Lord’s “Table” (singular), because there is only one such ground of fellowship to which Christians are called and that the Lord owns with His presence in their midst (1 Cor. 1:9; Matt. 18:20).
The Principle of Identification
Vss. 15-20—In these verses, the Apostle lays down a basic principle in regard to fellowship, and then applies it to the situation at Corinth. We might call it the principle of identification. That is, by partaking in a religious service of any kind we are identified with all that that system upholds and represents whether we personally believe such things or not. Our act of partaking with them is an expression of our fellowship with all that exists there. He shows that it is true in Christian worship and fellowship, and also in Judaism and in paganism. In each case, the principle of identification exists.
In regard to Christianity, he said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not fellowship with the blood of Christ? The loaf which we break, is it not fellowship with the body of Christ?” (Vs. 16—W. Kelly Trans.) It is clear from this that our act of breaking bread (partaking of the Lord's Supper) is an expression of our fellowship with the Lord and His table and all those with whom we break bread.
In regard to Israel (Judaism), he shows that the same principle exists, saying, “See Israel according to the flesh: are not they that eat the sacrifices in fellowship with the altar?” (Vs. 18—W. Kelly Trans.) One who partakes of the sacrifices at the Jewish altar is identified with all that that altar represents.
He also shows that the same principle holds true with the idolatry in paganism, saying, “The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils [demons] and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils [demons]” (vs. 20). Those who partake of the “cup of devils [demons]” are in fellowship with demons.
Vss. 21-22—The Apostle then reasons with the Corinthians concerning their carelessness in regard to their associations. Apparently, they had been partaking of things that were in pagan temples and thought nothing of it. But God does not want His people to be in fellowship with spiritual evil or practise (2 Cor. 6:14-18). By doing so they were identifying “the Lord’s Table” with the table of demons. Therefore, Paul would have them to desist immediately, saying, “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils [demons]: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s Table, and of the table of devils [demons]” (vs. 21).
This principle of identification has a much broader application than idolatry. The point Paul establishes in these verses is that if we partake of the Lord’s Table, we must watch that we do not partake in anything that is inconsistent with it and its holiness. It means that breaking bread at the Lord’s Table demands separation from all other tables, whether it is in Judaism, or in paganism, or even in the unscriptural Christian places of worship in Christendom. Being in “communion [fellowship]” with the “blood” and “body” of Christ at the Lord’s Table necessarily demands the exclusion of all other communions (fellowships). To do such is to provoke the Lord to act in a governmental dealing of judgment, as He did with Israel (vs. 22).
There are many man-made tables (fellowships) in the Christian world today, but the Lord cannot condone their existence with His presence in their midst collectively. In doing so He would be condoning the many divisions in the Christian testimony. He is with all Christians individually at all times (Matt. 28:20; Heb. 13:5), so in one sense He is with them. However, He cannot be in the midst of the various Christian fellowships in the sense of Matthew 18:20—which is His presence collectively, condoning the very ground upon which His people gather and authorizing their administrative acts. He is simply not in every place where Christians gather in this sense. Therefore, if those who eat at the Lord’s Table eat at these other tables also (either schismatic Christian, Jewish, or pagan), they could incur the governmental judgment of the Father (1 Cor. 11:27-32; 1 Peter 1:16-17).
Some have asked, “If there is only one Lord’s Table, and it signifies the only ground of Christian fellowship that He owns, then which group of Christians has it?” This question has put the focus in the wrong place. It is focusing on the people who are at the Lord’s Table. Our answer as to who has the Lord’s Table is—the Lord! It is His table, and He is leading exercised believers to it. There is always a danger of shifting the focus from the Lord in the midst to the people whom the Spirit of God has gathered and saying that they have the Lord’s Table. This is a mistake; our focus should be Christ. Our gathering together is to be “unto Him” (Heb. 13:13).
The fellowship expressed at the Lord’s Table in the breaking of bread embraces all true Christians, though all may not be at His Table. We see in the “one loaf” every member of the body of Christ (vs. 17). The Lord’s Table is where all Christians should be. Since the Christian profession today is in ruin, and there are hundreds of Christian fellowships all claiming to have the Lord in their midst, exercised Christians must seek out that place of the Lord’s appointment where His table is, using the resources God has given—the principles of the Word of God, prayer, and the leading of the Spirit of God (Psa. 25:9; Prov. 25:2; Luke 22:10). It comes down to this simple fact—there cannot be two (or more) fellowships of Christians on earth that the Lord identifies with as being on the divine ground of gathering. Christ is not divided (1 Cor. 1:13).
Leavened or Unleavened Bread in the Breaking of Bread
Some have wondered whether there should be leavened or unleavened bread in the breaking of bread. At the time when the Lord instituted the feast of remembrance, it certainly was unleavened bread that they used, because Jews were not to have anything leavened in their houses at the Passover (Exodus 13:7). The Lord surely would have kept the Passover supper in accordance with the Scriptures. But, let us remember, when He instituted the Lord’s Supper, it was still in a Jewish setting. It was for Jewish disciples who were waiting for the setting up of the kingdom on earth (Matt. 26:26-30). It had not its Christian significance at that time. Paul’s ministry in this chapter sets it in its proper Christian place, and gives it its Christian meaning. In the Greek, the word “loaf” (vs. 17) implies bread risen with leaven—yeast. Unleavened bread is never translated as a “loaf” in the New Testament. Since Paul speaks of the bread used in the Supper as a “loaf,” it is quite acceptable to have bread that is leavened in the breaking of bread.
Difficult Questions Regarding Identification
Vss. 23-30—Having warned of fellowship with idolatry through identification, the Apostle goes on to answer some questions that might arise concerning eating meats apart from the idol’s temple. Difficulties would present themselves in markets and at meals in private homes where food had been offered to an idol. The pagan world was filled with idols, and most of the animal carcasses on sale at marketplaces and eaten in homes had been killed in connection with idol sacrifices. Since that was the case, the question was, “What should they do in such situations?”
He goes back to the great principle he laid down in chapter 6:12 in regard to Christian liberty. He says, “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient [profitable].” Notice: he applies it to himself, for each must be “fully persuaded in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). He reminds them of the basic principle of Christian sacrifice for others, saying, “Let no one seek his own advantage, but that of the other” (vs. 24 – J. N. Darby Trans.).
If there were ones who had a weak conscience about such things (1 Cor. 8:7), they were to be careful about what they did by not asking where the meat had come from when buying or eating it. They were to do this for the “conscience sake” of that weak brother. If they were at a feast, they were not to ask questions about where the meat came from so they could honestly say they didn’t know the meat’s prior connection (vs. 25). But if someone at the dinner voluntarily told them that it was “offered in sacrifice unto idols,” they were not to eat it so as to protect the conscience of a weak brother. This is the kind of godly Christian care that we should have for one another (vss. 27-28).
We are, therefore, governed somewhat by the “conscience ... not thine own, but of the other” (i.e. our brother). Genuine love and concern for one another would make us glad to forego some liberty so that our weak brother would not be stumbled (vss. 29-30).
Two Further Principles of Christian Liberty
Vss. 31-33—Before closing his remarks on Christian liberty, he gives two further principles that are to govern us. He has already spoken of two great principles when he opened the subject—first, we should partake of something only when it is spiritually “profitable” (1 Cor. 6:12a), and second, when it doesn’t bring us under its “power” in an enslaving way (1 Cor. 6:12b). Now he adds two further principles.
If we engage in some liberty, we are to make sure that we are doing it “to the glory of God” (vs. 31). If it’s done merely for self, then it probably is not for the glory of God. Another underlying principle is to make sure that we “give none offence” in what we allow (vs. 32). This care is not just toward our brethren, he says, “neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God.” We are to be careful not to give offence to anybody as every person in the world is in one or the other of these three classes. Our liberty, therefore, is to be regulated in regard to the public testimony of Christianity in general (vs. 33). The purpose of making such sacrifices in Christian liberty is not in seeking our own profit, but the good of others, so “that they may be saved.”
The gospel is written a chapter a day,
By deeds that you do and by words that you say,
Men read what you write, whether faithless or true,
Say, what is the gospel according to you?
Summary of Four Great Principles That Are to Govern Our Christian Liberty
Paul has touched on four great governing principles in regard to the exercise of Christian liberty:
We are to partake of something only when it is spiritually “profitable” (1 Cor. 6:12a).
We should partake of something only if it doesn’t bring us under its “power” in an enslaving way (1 Cor. 6:12b).
We should partake of something only if it is “to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).
We should partake of something only if it will not stumble our brethren (1 Cor. 8:13) and/or “give none offence” to others (1 Cor. 10:32).
Paul’s life was a shining example of this. Therefore, he ends his comments on Christian liberty by saying, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1).
6) Failure to Understand Headship & Its Sign
(Chap. 11:2-16)
Paul moves on to another disorder among the saints at Corinth—the misunderstanding of headship and its sign. The first part of chapter 11 gives very clear instructions for sisters to have their heads covered when divine subjects are in discussion. Apparently it was not in practise at Corinth, and the Apostle sought to correct this.
From the 17th verse of this chapter to the end of the epistle, he addresses the disorders that existed when the saints were together “in assembly”—when they met together for worship and ministry. This is indicated by the phrase, “When ye come together.” It is stated seven times in the closing chapters of the epistle (chap. 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26). Since assembly meetings do not come into view until verse 17, the subject of head coverings (vss. 2-16) cannot be confined to assembly meetings. Its sphere of application is broader than when the assembly meets together, and applies to whenever the Word of God is open and read, and whenever prayer is being offered, whether in public meetings or in private.
The Principles Involved in the Use of Head Coverings
The Apostle launches immediately into explaining the meaning of headship and its sign. He shows that the acts of uncovering the heads of brothers and covering the heads of sisters are a demonstration of the principles involved in the confession of Christianity. In Christianity, a man’s “head” (a brother) represents Christ, and a woman’s “head” represents man. He says, “I wish you to know that the Christ is the head of every man, but woman’s head is the man, and the Christ’s head God” (vs. 3). Since this is so, the brothers are to uncover their heads when divine subjects are in discussion. By doing this, they acknowledge that all glory belongs to Christ. It is a deliberate act on the part of the brothers and should be undertaken with that in view, for he says, “A man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God” (vs. 7).
On the other hand, a woman in Christianity represents the glory of man. It says, “Woman is man’s glory. For man is not of woman, but woman of man. For also man was not created for the sake of the woman, but woman for the sake of the man. Therefore ought the woman to have authority [a symbol of authority] on her head on account of the angels” (vss. 7-10). The woman’s hair is a sign of the natural glory of the first man. It is her permanent veil of glory and beauty (vs. 15). The woman’s hair, therefore, should be covered when divine things are in discussion because of what it represents. When sisters wear a head covering, they are telling out the fact that we do not recognize the first man as having any place in Christianity. It is a confession that man and his glory has no place in divine things.
It says in verse 5, “Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth ... ” These two things cover the whole of a person’s activity in the spiritual realm. Praying is the sphere of priesthood, and prophesying is the sphere of ministry. Praying is towards God and prophesying is towards our fellow men. The woman’s hair, therefore, should be covered when either of these spheres is in exercise. It could be whether she is praying, or when she is in the presence of another praying, adding her ‘Amen;’ or it could be when the Word of God is being ministered.
The Apostle adds, “ ... because of the angels” (vs. 10). God has established a certain order in His creation. Christian men and women are not to neglect this order, but to remember that they are a divinely appointed spectacle. The angels, as well as men, are learning the manifold wisdom of God in His ways among Christians on earth (1 Cor. 4:9; Eph. 3:10).
Disputes Regarding Head Coverings
History tells us that this subject has not been an issue in the Church until approximately the last 60 years. Today it is a subject that is much disputed. One argument is that these instructions from the Apostle Paul were only for the Corinthians of that day, and hence, has no application for our day. The need for wearing of a head covering is explained away as being an ancient cultural custom that doesn't have any application to women today. What Christian could entertain the idea that part of their New Testament Bible has nothing to say to them, but someone who was deliberately trying to get around a certain passage? We would remind the reader that things that Paul taught regarding head coverings are not something that was exclusively for the Corinthians of that day, but are for “all ... in every place” (1 Cor. 1:2).
Making head coverings a cultural thing of that day is a fabrication. Paul makes no comment to that end. To teach such is to infer something that is not in Scripture. He has explained the reason for wearing them—it is a confession that the first man has no place in Christianity. If this passage were something only for the early days of the Church and not for today, then we are really saying that the truth of Christ’s headship is not needed today! Without realizing it, those who hold such arguments are suggesting that the first man should be given a place in the assembly today. Such was just the problem in the assembly at Corinth, and such is our problem today.
Moreover, if head coverings were only for that day, why is it that the Church at large has observed these instructions from its inception until about 60 years ago? That is over 1900 years! Has the Church been wrong in doing it all those years and has only lately come to the knowledge of the truth? We would rather think that it is what Paul told Timothy when he said, “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine ... and they shall turn away their ears from the truth” (2 Tim. 4:3-4). Such is the character of the last days.
Two Coverings for the Head
Another argument is that a woman does not need to wear an artificial head covering because her hair has been given to her for that purpose. This is taken from verse 15 which says, “If a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” This is a common misunderstanding. The idea comes from not seeing that there are two coverings mentioned in this passage. The Apostle purposely used two different words to distinguish them. Unfortunately, in most English Bibles, the translators have not indicated it; and therefore, the reader might honestly conclude that the woman's hair is a sufficient covering.
The word in the original language for “covering” in verses 4-6 is “katakalupo” which indicates an artificial covering for the hair, such as a hat or a scarf, etc. The word in verse 15 is “peribolaiou” which indicates one’s natural hair flung around the head. Modern language might call it a hairdo or something equal to that. Hence, a woman's hair is a veil (or covering) of glory and beauty that nature has given to her. It speaks of the natural glory of the first man. (The article “the” should not be in the text in verse 7b. It is not “the man,” but simply “man.”) Therefore, her head is to be covered with an artificial covering. By doing this, we thus confess that we do not recognize that the first man has any place in Christianity.
If hair is the covering referred to in verses 4-7, then men have a covering on their heads, for they have hair too. And if that were the case, then how would they ever be able to pray and prophesy in obedience to God's Word, for the brothers are not to minister with their heads covered? (vs. 4) The only other option if one wishes to minister the Word is to be shaved (vss. 5-6). Surely those who have these objections don't mean that all brothers who pray and minister the Word publicly should have their heads shaved? And if they believe that, why don't they practise it?
The Spirit of God seems to have anticipated this time in which we live when there would be those who would dispute these things. So the Apostle says, “If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God” (vs. 16). The “we” in this verse is the apostles who were given to lay the foundation of Christianity through their ministry. He says that if there are those who want to argue about these things, let them know that “we” have “no such custom” that women should appear with their heads uncovered when divine subjects are in discussion. They did not deliver any such custom to the Church—not in Corinth, or in any of “the churches of God.”
Should Head Coverings Be Worn at Hymn Sings?
Some have asked whether sisters should wear head coverings at hymn sings. Verse 5 says that sisters should be covered when they pray or prophesy. This, as mentioned, refers to the two spheres in which she functions before God—priesthood and ministry. Colossians 3:16 indicates that spiritual singing has both dimensions. It says, “Teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” In the light of this verse we would say that the sisters should be covered.
“Hymns” are compositions addressed to divine Persons. Some are prayers and others express worship. These fall in the category of priesthood. The verse quoted says that are sung “to the Lord.” “Psalms” and “spiritual songs,” on the other hand, are compositions that ought to instruct us in the truth. There is (or at least should be) a “teaching and admonishing” dimension to them, which is the sphere of ministry. Therefore, at hymn sings sisters should have their heads covered, and accordingly, the brothers should be uncovered, because they are participating in a priestly and ministerial function.
7) Failure to Have Sobriety & Reverence at the Lord's Supper
(Chap. 11:17-34)
At this point in the epistle the Apostle turns to address matters in the assembly when they were gathered together for worship and ministry. He says, “First, when ye come together in assembly...” As mentioned earlier, this phrase occurs seven times through the next few chapters, indicating that he is now addressing disorders having to do with the saints when they are together “in assembly.” It is significant that before speaking of ministry in the assembly, which is the exercise of gift, he addresses their behaviour at the Lord's Supper. This is the sphere of priesthood where praise and worship are offered. Since worship should always precede the exercise of gift in service, he addresses this first.
Prayer, praise, and worship all belong to the sphere of priesthood. Scripture teaches that every believer is a priest (1 Peter 2:5; Rev. 1:6; 5:10), and when the assembly is gathered together, the brothers should be in a good spiritual state so that the Spirit of God can lead them to act as the mouthpiece of the assembly, expressing publicly its dependence on God and its worship of God (1 Tim. 2:8). The Lord’s Supper is perhaps the preeminent meeting of the Church. It is not a meeting for the exercise of gift, but for the remembrance of the Lord in His death. It is not called a “worship” meeting, but worship certainly flows from the hearts of the saints when they are occupied with the Lord’s sufferings in death. It is a time when the saints can exercise their priesthood collectively in offering worship and praise to the Father and the Son.
Dishonouring the Lord’s Supper
Vss. 17-19—Such grave disorders existed in the assembly at Corinth that the Lord’s Supper, which should have been for their blessing, had become the occasion for bringing the governmental judgments of God upon them. Hence, Paul says, “Ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.” Coming to “the Lord’s Supper” in such a deplorable state was only for their “worse” in the sense that they were suffering under the governmental dealings of God for it, as verses 27-32 indicate.
The breaking of bread is the way in which the members of the body of Christ express their unity as set forth in their partaking of the “one loaf” (1 Cor. 10:17). However, the coming together of the saints at Corinth for that feast only manifested a state of division among them. The very feast that was supposed to manifest their unity manifested their spirit of division! He says, “There be divisions among you.” This was to their shame.
Moreover, since there were divisions, he tells them “there must be also heresies.” A division (a schism) is an inward rift among the saints, but a heresy (a sect) is an outward split among the saints where a party splits off and no longer meets in fellowship with the others. Paul warns that if those divisions (schisms) were not dealt with, sooner or later they would develop into a heresy. It was, and still is, Satan’s way of destroying the assembly from within. The Apostle says that if things get to that point, “they which are approved” will be made “manifest.” In other words, God allows these things to test us, and our state will be manifested by which side we take in the heresy.
Vss. 20-22—The Corinthians were apparently coming together for a preliminary social feast. Then at the end of it, they partook of the Lord’s Supper as sort of an add on. This was a terrible misunderstanding of the purpose of the Lord’s Supper. Paul would not have allowed it to happen when he was there with them for 18 months (Acts 18:11), so their meetings must have deteriorated considerably in his absence. Since some were poor and others were wealthy, it forged natural divisions among them as they ate their meals. Some brought an elaborate spread of food to indulge in, but others went “hungry.” This was diametrically opposed to the purpose of the breaking of bread at the Lord’s table. Their coming together had thus become a practical denial both of the Lord’s Supper and the truth of the assembly of God. To correct this, he tells them that they shouldn’t mix a social feast with the feast of remembrance. They could have their social feasts at home.
The Meaning of the Lord’s Supper
In verses 23-26, he goes on to speak of the real purpose of the Lord’s Supper. The setting in which the Lord instituted it is touching indeed. The very night that the evil of man rose to its height in the betrayal of Christ, His love was displayed in all its beauty. When lust led to betrayal, love instituted the Supper! Love and affection was the setting in which it was instituted, and love and appreciation is the manner in which it is to be eaten.
It is not called a “worship meeting,” but worship at the Supper spontaneously rises to the Father and the Son. With the hearts of those who partake of the Supper being deeply affected with gratitude, worship can’t help but rise from that scene. We do not come to remember our sins in the breaking of bread, but His love that suffered to put our sins away. This touching memorial of the Lord’s death is a stark contrast to the drunken feast to which the Corinthians, through their insensitivity, had reduced the Supper.
The habit of the early Church was to break bread on “the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7). This was not merely something that the saints at Troas did locally; it was what the disciples did universally. This is what the Church should be doing today, but sad to say, the Church has largely put this preeminent feast into disuse. Some Christian groups have a form of the Lord’s Supper once a month; others do it quarterly.
The Difference Between the Lord’s Table and the Lord’s Supper
A common error is to confuse “the Lord’s Table” with “the Lord’s Supper.” Oftentimes these two terms are used interchangeably as if there were no difference between them:
• “The Lord’s Table” is a symbolic term that signifies the ground of fellowship upon which the members of the body of Christ meets, where the Lord’s authority is recognized and bowed to (1 Cor. 10:21).
• “The Lord’s Supper” on the other hand, is a literal ordinance that Christians partake of when they remember the Lord in His death in the breaking of bread (1 Cor. 11:20, 23-26).
We must not think that the Lord’s Table is a physical table that the brethren set in the middle of the room upon which they put the emblems. Nor should we think that the Lord’s Table is the act of breaking bread. As mentioned, it is a symbolic term. If we are truly gathered to the Lord’s name by the Holy Spirit, we are at “the Lord’s Table” 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but we only eat “the Lord’s Supper” at a specific hour on the Lord’s Day, once a week. Under normal conditions, a person should come to the Lord’s Table once in his life, when he comes into practical fellowship with those gathered to the Lord’s name, but he should come to the Lord’s Supper every week. The Lord’s Supper (the act of breaking bread) is to be eaten at the Lord’s Table—the ground of fellowship upon which the Spirit gathers the members of the body of Christ. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that we go to the Lord’s Table on the Lord’s day; but rather, that we go to partake of the Lord’s Supper on that day. Well-meaning people may say things such as, “Brother so and so stood up at the Lord’s Table to give thanks,” but the comment would be more accurate if it was said that brother so and so stood up at the Lord’s Supper to give thanks.
When a person is received into fellowship, he is received to “the Lord’s Table” wherein he has the privilege of eating “the Lord’s Supper.” If a person is “put away” under an administrative act of judgment by the assembly (1 Cor. 5:13), he is put away from “the Lord’s Table,” not merely “the Lord’s Supper.” He is put outside the fellowship of the saints gathered to the Lord’s name as a whole, which would include the privilege of breaking bread. Some think that the eating mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11 is referring to eating the Lord’s Supper. Hence, they conclude that we are not to break bread with him, but we can have fellowship with him on an individual basis. However, it has to do with any kind of eating—whether it is in the breaking of bread or at a common meal in our homes.
The question may be asked, “Can those who are not at ‘the Lord’s Table,’ but in the various man-made church organizations, partake of ‘the Lord’s Supper’ where they are?” J. N. Darby said, “They may individually remember the Lord’s death, and in that sense have the Lord’s Supper.” W. Potter said, “Take the tables in the various denominations: to these Christians the table with them is that of the Lord and the supper His, and as such they partake of it. Some among us were for years at one or the other of these tables, and there in all sincerity, there for want of further light. Could it be said in truth we had never partaken of the Lord’s Supper until we were found among those gathered on Scriptural ground? Surely not, though the way in which we had partaken of it was not according to Scripture.” Christians can eat the Lord’s Supper in their denominations, but if it is to be eaten rightly, it should be done at “the Lord’s Table.”
Two Aspects of the Breaking of Bread
The Supper is spoken of in chapters 10-11 in two ways. Some differences are: chapter 10:15-17 is the collective act of breaking bread—it says, “the cup of blessing which we bless,” and “the bread which we break,” whereas chapter 11:23-26 is the individual act of breaking bread. It says, “This do ye ... ”
In chapter 10:15-17 “the bread,” viewed in its unbroken state, represents the mystical body of Christ, whereas the “bread” in chapter 11:23-26 represents the Lord’s physical body in which He suffered and died.
Chapter 10:15-17 puts “the cup of blessing” first, then followed by “the bread,” because it is speaking of our title to be at the table as redeemed believers—which is a result of His blood being shed. In chapter 11:23-26 the order is reversed, putting the breaking of the bread first, then followed by the drinking of the cup, which is the order in which it is to be eaten (Luke 22:19-20). This is because we eat the Supper in remembrance of Him in His death, and He suffered in His body first, then after dying He shed His blood.
In chapter 10:16-17, the breaking of bread is in connection with “the Lord’s Table,” wherein we show forth the fellowship of the body of Christ (vs. 21). In chapter 11:26, the breaking of bread (“the Lord’s Supper”), we show forth Christ’s death.
Chapter 10:15-22 has to do with our responsibility to keep separate from all other tables (fellowships)—be it schismatic Christian tables, Judaistic tables, or idolatrous tables), whereas chapter 11:23-32 has to do with our responsibility to maintain purity in our personal lives.
Many have thought that since Christians drink of the “cup” (which represents Christ’s blood) that they are those with whom the New Covenant is made. It is true that the cup is connected with “the blood of the New Testament [Covenant]” (Matt. 26:28), but the New Covenant is what the Lord will establish with Israel when they are restored in a coming day (Jer. 31:31-34). The Old Covenant was made with Israel and was sealed with the blood of bulls and goats. The New Covenant will also be made with Israel, but it is made with the blood of Christ.
It is a common misunderstanding to think that the New Covenant is made with the Church. The Church partakes of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant without being formally in the New Covenant, because it rests in faith on the same foundation of the finished work of Christ—of which the blood speaks. In fact, whenever the making of the New Covenant is mentioned in Scripture, it always specifies that it is with “the house of Israel” and “the house of Judah” (Heb. 8:8). Furthermore, the fact that it is a “new” agreement or covenant implies that there has been some agreement in place prior to it. It is called “new” because it has been brought in to supersede the old. Hence, the New Covenant is made with those (Israel) who had the old. Gentiles who are being saved out from among the nations during this present time (Acts 15:14) never have had any previous agreement or covenant with God. It is not with them that a “new” covenant would be made. Similarly, you wouldn’t say to a person with whom you have never had any prior dealings, “Let’s make a new deal.” You wouldn’t call it “new” in that case.
Verse 26 tells us that this remembrance feast is something that is to be carried on “till He come.” We cannot help but think that if the Lord has asked us to do something that He will provide a way in which it can be done—even in this late day in the Church’s history.
Six Things the Lord Has Asked Us to Do “Till” He Comes
Follow Him in the path of faith (John 21:22).
Hold fast the truth that God has given us (Rev. 2:25).
Occupy (trade) in the field of service (Luke 19:13).
Don’t pass judgment on the motives of others (1 Cor. 4:5).
Be patient (James 5:7).
Remember Him in His death (1 Cor. 11:26).
The Danger of Partaking of the Supper in an Unworthy Manner
Vss. 27-32—The Apostle reminds them of the very real possibility of partaking of the Supper in an unworthy manner. God’s provision and remedy for any who were in a bad state of soul is self-judgment. He says, “Let a man examine [prove] himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” Therefore, if our conscience accuses us, there needs to be an honest self-examination followed by thorough self-judgment (vs. 28). Even if our conscience does not directly accuse us, it is a good habit to search our hearts in self-judgment before we eat the supper (Psa. 26:2-6; Psa. 139:23-24). There may be things in our hearts that we are not aware of that will spoil our enjoyment of that privilege (Job 34:32).
To partake in an unworthy manner would be to eat the Supper without having judged ourselves. If one does that, he eats and drinks “damnation [judgment] to himself.” This apparently was happening at Corinth, and the proof of it was that God’s hand in governmental judgment was upon them. Some were “weak and sickly,” and many had been taken away in death—“sleep” (vs. 30). Paul said that if they had been judging themselves, this would not have happened. He says, “If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged” (vs. 31). Notice that he includes himself in the need for self-judgment, saying, “We ... ” This is because no saint on earth is beyond the need for self-judgment. Moreover, our self-judgment should not be superficial. It is not merely our ways that we are to judge, but “ourselves.” This would go to the inner springs of our thoughts and motives. We need to judge the very condition of our souls that has led to the unholy acts that we have done.
These verses tell us that we cannot do as we like in the holy things of God. It is a solemn thing to be laid aside through a governmental dealing of God, and even more solemn to be taken away from the place of testimony on earth through death. Paul says, “ ... and many sleep.” The Apostle John also speaks of this, saying, “There is a sin unto death.” This does not mean that a Christian loses his salvation, but that he would be removed from the place of testimony on earth through death because his life is a dishonour to the Lord (John 15:2; James 5:20; Acts 5:1-11; 1 John 5:16).
Vss. 33-34 – Note that in correcting the gross irregularities that were among the Corinthians at the supper, there is no suggestion of having some appointed official minister. Paul commends them, rather, to the leading of the Spirit. This is alluded to in that fact that he says that if they were in a right condition and waited “one for another,” the Spirit of God who is the God-appointed Leader of all proceedings in the assembly, would correct the disorder.
8) Failure to Understand the Nature & Use of Gifts in the Assembly
(Chaps. 12–14)
Having addressed the disorders in connection with the Lord’s Supper wherein are the believer’s priesthood is exercised, the Apostle now addresses some disorders in the sphere of gift. As mentioned, priesthood and gift are two different spheres in the assembly. Prayer, praise, and worship are to God and pertain to the sphere of priesthood, but ministry of the Word is to men and pertains to the sphere of gift. Our privileges in both spheres are not confined to when the saints are assembled together “in assembly.” A person should exercise his gift wherever and whenever he is led by the Spirit to do so, without compromising principles. But that is not the subject here; in these chapters the Apostle is addressing the nature and use of gifts in the assembly.
There are some differences between these two spheres in the assembly. For instance, all brothers should be exercised about being led publicly by the Spirit in the sphere of priesthood. However, when it comes to the sphere of gift in the assembly, under normal conditions, only those (brothers) who have a gift for ministering the Word should function in the sphere of ministry. While all brothers have a public function in the assembly in the sphere of priesthood (because we are all priests), not all may have a gift for public ministry of the Word. Therefore, we should not insist that we hear from every brother in the meeting in the sphere of ministry. Scripture does not support the idea of “everyman ministry” of the Word. It is a misunderstanding of many who have been introduced to the truth of the priesthood of all believers. They mistakenly think that since every brother should exercise his priesthood in the assembly, every brother should also minister the Word publically in the assembly. However, this is confusing these two spheres.
In chapters 12-14, we see how the gifts are to function when the Church is gathered together in assembly. Chapter 12 speaks of the endowment of gifts upon the assembly. Chapter 14 gives the exercise of gifts in the assembly. But in between, in chapter 13, we have a parenthesis giving the motive in exercising the gifts—which is love. Chapter 12 gives us the machinery, chapter 13 the oil that would cause the machinery to function smoothly, and in chapter 14 we have the machinery in action producing edification for all. This is normal Christianity. Sad to say, the order of things presented these chapters has largely been departed from in modern Christianity.
The Great Principles of the Spirit’s Manifestations in Ministry in the Assembly
(Chap. 12:1-11)
The subject of chapter 12 is not exactly the body of Christ; it is the Spirit’s “manifestations” in the sphere of gift in the assembly (J. N. Darby Trans.). The body of Christ is introduced because it is the instrument the Spirit uses for His manifestations. And what is it that the Spirit is seeking to manifest? It is Christ! The body is the Spirit’s vessel to express Christ. God has graciously bestowed on the Church a variety of gifts for the singular purpose of glorifying Christ.
Vs. 1—Since the Corinthians were saved out of idolatry which is rife with ecstatic utterances and babblings, they had some misunderstandings as to how the Spirit leads in His manifestations in the assembly. The Apostle, therefore, proceeds to set this straight in the opening verses of the chapter by laying down some general principles. An idolater who does his devotions before his “dumb idols” is “led” in a completely different way from being led by the Spirit of God in Christian ministry. Idol worship in heathendom had a lot of ecstatic utterances and confusion (Acts 19:34). The Corinthians definitely needed to understand the true nature of “spiritual manifestations” in the assembly.
1) True “Spiritual Manifestations” Exalt Christ
Vss. 2-3—The first great principle of ministry that the Apostle lays down is that all “manifestations” of the Spirit will exalt Jesus as Lord. He says, “Wherefore 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” (vs. 3). The Lord also said, “He [the Spirit] shall glorify Me” (John 16:14). Therefore, the evidence of the Spirit's leading in ministry in the assembly is that Christ will always be exalted and never spoken of derogatorily. He ever leads to the confession of Jesus as Lord.
It is significant that no evil spirit recorded in the events of the Lord’s life in the four Gospels ever called Him Lord. However, that does not mean that false persons cannot say the word “Lord” (i.e. Matt. 7:21-23; 25:11). The point Paul is making here is that they will not recognize His Lordship authority.
With this great principle in hand, we are at once able to test the spirit in which men speak in the assembly. It is not a question of distinguishing whether one is a believer or not, but of testing the spirit in which men speak. The great question is, “Does what they say in ministry exalt Christ as Lord?” This was important in that day because the New Testament was not yet in existence, and the saints were dependant on oral ministry. The devil sought to corrupt this medium in the early Church by introducing false doctrines into the assembly. Hence there was the need for judging what was said—and there still is today. To put it simply, when someone ministers the Word in the assembly, and Christ is honoured in the comments given, it is of God. If He is not, it is not of God.
2) True “Spiritual Manifestations” Emanate From God
Vss. 4-6—The second great principle having to do with “spiritual manifestations” in the assembly is that there is nothing of man (or the devil) in it, though God is pleased to use men as His vehicle. Everything having to do with man in the flesh is entirely shut out in true Christian ministry.
We see the whole Godhead active in the manifestations from start to finish. While there is diversity of “gifts,” “services,” and “operations,” all proceed from God with one unity of purpose—to glorify Christ. Whether it is the giving of the gift, or the leading of the gift, or the result of its operation in souls, all is of God (vss. 4-6).
Vs. 4—The Spirit gives the “gifts.”
Vs. 5—The Lord leads the gifts in various “services.”
Vs. 6—God produces the results in souls by His “operations.”
Notice that there is no mention of the requirement of theological training (seminary) and a person’s ordination before he can exercise his gift and function in ministry in the assembly. All such ideas are man-made and intrude on God’s order for ministry. God’s order in Christian ministry is that those who possess a spiritual gift for ministering the Word should have liberty to exercise it in the assembly as they are led by the Spirit to do so. The possession of a spiritual gift is God’s warrant to use it (1 Peter 4:10-11).
3) True “Spiritual Manifestations” Will Not Be Concentrated in One Man
Vss. 7-10—The third great principle of ministry in the assembly is that Christ has distributed gifts by the Spirit to the various members of His body, and these gifts are not all held by one man. The Apostle says, “To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another...” It is perfectly clear from this that one man does not have all the gifts. This means that the assembly needs more than one man to minister if it is to get the benefit of the gifts in its midst. The assembly needs participation in the ministry of the Word from all who have a gift for it.
Verse 7 says, “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.” This could be translated, “ ... for the profit of all.” God would have each brother who has a gift for ministering the Word to be exercising his gift in the assembly so that all can profit from it. The very nature of Christianity is such that a person’s spiritual gift is not for himself, but for the benefit of the other members in the body.
A man might have more than one gift, but it is clear from this passage that he does not have all the gifts. Chapter 14:31 says, “For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.” This indicates that all who are able should have liberty in the assembly to minister the Word.
There is a difference between the gifts mentioned here and those in Ephesians 4:11. Here it is referring to the actual spiritual gift that the Spirit of God conveys to, or deposits in, the believer when he is saved that enables him to minister in a certain capacity. The gifts in Ephesians 4 are persons who have been given to the Church for the work of the ministry, and for the building up of the saints in the most holy faith. The person himself is viewed as the gift to the Church. Those mentioned in Ephesians 4 will possess one or more spiritual manifestation as mentioned here. For instance, “the word of wisdom” is the spiritual gift that a pastor would have (vs. 8). The “word” here is not the Word of God, but the capacity to communicate spiritual thoughts. All saints should have wisdom (1 Cor. 1:30; James 1:5), but all saints do not have the “word” of wisdom, which is a gift to express the wisdom of God in plain terms. Likewise, “the word of knowledge” is the spiritual gift that a teacher would have. He has a capacity to express the truth of God in an orderly and understandable way. Again, all saints should know the truth (Eph. 1:17-23; Jude 3, 20), but they will not all have the “word” of knowledge to express it verbally for the profit of all.
In verses 9-10 the Apostle names some of the “sign” gifts (1 Cor. 14:22) that the Spirit manifested in the early Church before the revelation of the written Word of God was complete. These gifts were for the inauguration of the Christian testimony, whereas pastors, teachers, and evangelists, as found in Ephesians 4, are for spiritual edification. We are told that the sign gifts would “cease” (1 Cor. 13:8), but there is no mention that the gifts for edification would cease. They are present in the Church today.
Those today who claim to have such gifts as “tongues” and “gifts of healing,” etc. are impostors. Paul tells us that in the last days there would be such impostors in the Christian testimony. They, like Jannes and Jambres, will perform imitation signs and wonders and deceive the hearts of the simple (2 Tim. 3:8; 2 Thess. 2:9). The gift of “tongues” is the power to speak in an understandable foreign language (Acts 2:6-8; 1 Cor. 14:10). The people today who claim to speak in tongues do not speak in any known language. Some of them even claim to be apostles, but are really “false apostles” (2 Cor. 11:13; Rev. 2:2). Apostleship (Eph. 4:11) is not a gift that is in the Church today. It was given to build the foundation of the Church, and that has been laid already (Eph. 2:20). However, the ministry of the apostles is still with us in what the Spirit of God gave them to write in the New Testament.
4) The Spirit of God is to Have Liberty in the Assembly to Employ Whom He Pleases in Producing “Spiritual Manifestations”
Vs. 11—The fourth great principle of Christian ministry is that when the saints come together in assembly, the Spirit of God is to have His due right to employ whom He pleases to speak. The gifts are to operate in the assembly by the “selfsame” Spirit who distributed the gift to the individual when he was saved. Paul says, “All these [gifts] worketh that One and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will.” The New Testament knows no other order for ministry than that of the sovereign guidance of the Holy Spirit in the assembly. The Scriptures assume that the saints have the necessary faith to trust the leading of the Spirit in ministry. If we allow Him to lead in the assembly, He will take whatever gifts there are in a gathering of Christians and use them for the edification of all.
The principle is simple. The Holy Spirit is in the assembly seeking to use the gifts as He chooses for the edification of all. This is God's order for Christian ministry. Unfortunately, the man-made clergy/laity system in place in the Church today hinders this free action of the Spirit. He cannot divide to every man severally as He chooses, because denominationalism has set up an order of things where a man occupies that place of leading the assembly. Men speak of “conducting” worship or “conducting” a service! The presidency of the Holy Spirit is denied in such a practise. He might desire to call on a person in the gathering for ministry, but it is blocked and hindered by human order. In many Church denominations today, the services are pre-arranged—sometimes days in advance. It may be done with good intentions, but it is not God's order for ministry in the assembly.
The Vehicle Through Which the Spirit Makes His Manifestations—the Body of Christ
(Chap. 12:12-31)
The Apostle goes on to speak of the instrument through which the Spirit would make His “manifestations”—the body of Christ with its many members. He goes right back to the beginning and speaks of how the body came into existence in the first place.
The Formation of the Body of Christ
Vss. 12-13—He uses the figure of the human body and concludes by saying, “ ... so also is the Christ.” “The Christ” is a term used by the Apostle in his epistles to denote the mystical union of Christ and His Church—the Head in union with the body. It is “mystical” in the sense that it cannot be seen with the human eye. It is well to note that while the word “body” is used many times in the chapter, the body of Christ is mentioned only twice! In verse 13 it is referred to in its universal aspect, and in verse 27 it is referred to in its local aspect. Every other mention of a “body” in the chapter is referring to a human body as a figure.
He speaks of how the body of Christ first came into being, saying, “For by one Spirit are we all [have all been] baptized into one body.” It was a corporate action of the Spirit that took place historically on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and was extended to take in the Gentiles in Acts 10. The Spirit of God took the individual believers who were in the upper room and linked them together into one unit by His indwelling presence. Thus they were brought into a union with Christ, the ascended Head in heaven. This was a once-for-all thing. J. N. Darby notes that the action of the Spirit in baptizing in this verse is in the aorist tense in the Greek, meaning that it was a once-for-all act. The Spirit of God today is no longer acting in the capacity of baptizing because His work of baptizing was to form the body of Christ. That has been done once and for all time. If He were still baptizing today, He would be forming more and more bodies, which of course, is not true, for “there is one body” (Eph. 4:4).
The fact that the baptism of the Spirit is a historical action to form the one body of Christ and not a present action can be seen by looking at the seven references to the baptism of the Spirit in the Scriptures. Five of these references look forward from the time that they were uttered to some coming action of the Spirit, without specifying when (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5). The sixth and seventh references (Acts 11:16; 1 Cor. 12:13) point back in time to some action of the Spirit. The only significant action of the Spirit that happened between these two groups of references is what happened at Pentecost, when the Spirit of God came to form and reside in the Church.
Contrary to popular thought, the baptism of the Spirit is neither an after-salvation experience nor an action of the Spirit to put a believer into the one body when he gets saved. In Scripture, being baptized with the Spirit is not seen as an individual experience. There is not one reference in Scripture to an individual being baptized with the Spirit! “You” in the KJV is collective, and refers to a company of believers (Matt. 3:11). Verse 13 doesn’t say, as some imagine, “We have been baptized into the one body,” (adding the article “the,” which is not in the text). Adding the article (“the”) changes the meaning considerably and supposes that the body was in existence before the baptism took place. If that were the case, then it would indicate that individuals today do get into the body through the baptism of the Spirit. However, the verse says that they were “baptized into one body,” meaning the baptism is what formed the one body. Christians today are part of the “one body,” but they didn’t get there by the baptism of the Spirit. They were placed in the body when they believed the gospel and were “sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13). Hence, they were added to an already baptized body.
Some might wonder that if that were so, why Paul spoke of “Jews” and “Gentiles” being baptized into one body when there were no Gentiles at Pentecost. This is because Paul was speaking representatively. He said, “We”—the Christian company as a whole—“have all been baptized into one body.” All were not there on that inaugural day, but all are part of the body of Christ that was baptized then.
It is something like the incorporation of a company. It is incorporated once—and it may have been a hundred years ago. And now that the company has been formed, each time it takes on a new employee it doesn’t need to be incorporated all over again. Nor is there any such thing as every new employee in the company being incorporated. The new employee is merely added to an already incorporated company.
To take the illustration a little further, suppose we listened in on one of that company’s board meetings and heard one of the directors say, “We were incorporated 125 years ago.” We wouldn’t have any trouble understanding what he meant. But someone who didn’t understand the English language very well might say, “What does that person mean? None of these people in this meeting are over 60 years old. How can he speak about what they did 125 years ago?” Well, of course, it’s because the director was speaking representatively of the company as a whole. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 12:13, Paul was speaking of what is true of the body of Christ, of which he and the Corinthians were a part. As the Christian company, Paul and the Corinthians (and we too) are all embraced in the baptism that took place at Pentecost, when we were saved and brought into the one body by the sealing of the Spirit.
Two Enemies of Unity in the Body of Christ
In verses 14-24 the Apostle uses the figure of the human body to teach us some practical lessons connected with the Spirit’s manifestations in the body of Christ. He warns of two particular enemies that disrupt unity, and thus hinder the Spirit’s manifestations in the assembly.
Discontent
Vss. 14-19—The first enemy of unity is discontent. The Apostle uses the figure of a human body to address this problem. He shows that in a human body it would be ridiculous if “the foot” said that since it couldn’t have the function of “the hand” that it was going to quit being part of the body. But sad to say, in the body of Christ there is a danger of some of the members becoming discontent with the place they have. When discontent of this sort is in a member of Christ’s body, it will lead the person to seek after a function in the body that has not been given to him. For example, an evangelist might seek the role of a teacher.
The Apostle meets this problem by showing that God intends there to be diversity in the unity of the body, saying, “For the body is not one member, but many” (vs. 14). In other words, the human body does not consist of all its members being hands or feet; likewise the members of the body of Christ are not all teachers or evangelists. If that were so, the diversity in the body would be lost.
The remedy for this is to recognize the sovereign action of God. He, not man, has appointed the place of the members in a human body “as it hath pleased Him.” And it’s the same in the body of Christ. The cure for this is to get into the presence of God in prayer and learn from Him what our place in the body of Christ is and to be content with it. We will not be happy until we accept the place and the function God has given us. Until such time that we submit to the sovereignty of God in this, we will likely be a nuisance to our brethren in ministry, and thus disrupt the unity.
Disdain
Vss. 20-24—The second enemy is disdain. The Apostle again uses the figure of the human body to meet this, saying, “But now are they many members, yet but one body” (vs. 20). This shows that there is to be unity in the diversity of the members of a body. In a human body there is never a time when the more prominent members look down with disdain on the less prominent ones, and say, “I have no need of you” (vs. 21). But sad to say, there is that danger in the body of Christ. This attitude destroys unity.
The Apostle warns against this danger by pointing to the fact that in the making of our bodies God has purposely bestowed “more abundant honour” on the unseen members than those seen by the public eye (vss. 22-23). The less prominent members of the human body are more important than the prominent ones! A person could get by without a hand or a foot, but he can’t live without a heart or a liver, etc. The Apostle uses this as an illustration of how we should not look down on the less prominent members of the body of Christ.
The remedy, again, for this problem is submitting to the sovereignty of God. “God hath tempered the [human] body together” (vs. 24). He has constructed it in such a way that every member is valuable and has something to contribute to the whole of the person. Similarly, in the body of Christ, God has formed it so that the contribution of every member is needed for the well-being of the whole (Eph. 4:16). We, therefore, need to recognize this, and allow each member to function in its God-given role.
Unfortunately, the man-made clerical order of things in the Church today treats the members of the body of Christ that could minister the Word publicly as if they are not important. (We refer to the clergy/laity system, where one person—a so-called “Pastor” or “Minister”—handles the public ministry on behalf of the congregation.) It is unintentional, but nevertheless, this is the net result of that order of things. By precluding such members from functioning in public ministry in the assembly, that system is essentially saying, “I have no need of thee.” As mentioned, it is not done with evil intentions toward the other members of the body of Christ; nevertheless, it hinders those members who may have a gift for ministering the Word in the assembly by limiting the ministry to one person who has the official right to it.
As there is no “division [schism]” in the human body and all the members act in concert together with “the same care one for another,” the members in the body of Christ should also work together in harmony (vs. 25). As there is sympathy and support in the human body—when “one member suffer, all the members suffer with it”—so also should there be that same sympathy and support among the members of the body of Christ (vs. 26). We might wonder how it is possible to have sympathy for a member of the body of Christ when we’ve never heard of that person. Perhaps a suffering member lives on another continent and is in some divergent fellowship of believers. The answer, we believe, is in the following verse. The Apostle goes on to qualify his remarks by speaking of the body of Christ in its local aspect (vs. 27). If all in a city or town were together in the same fellowship (as they were in that day and ought to be today), they would know of any members who were suffering, and they all would suffer with that person.
The 27th verse says, “Ye are Christ’s body” (J. N. Darby Trans.). Note, it does not say, “We” but “ye”—referring to the Corinthians. The verse, as rendered in the KJV, which says, “Ye are the body of Christ,” is incorrect. The article “the” should be left out, because it would mean the whole body of Christ, which the Corinthians were not. No local company of Christians can claim to be the body of Christ; the body consists of all on earth who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and are sealed with the Holy Spirit.
Hamilton Smith illustrates the Apostle’s exhortation here by asking us to suppose that we saw a General of a local company of soldiers exhorting his men. He might say, “Remember men, you are Coldstream Guards.” He wouldn’t say, “You are the Coldstream Guards” because they are only a local company in that vast regiment. In this verse Paul is simply stating that the local assembly at Corinth was the representative of the whole body of Christ. And, as far as a local company was concerned, they should know of the members of the body in that locality who were suffering and suffer with them.
Hence, the first enemy destroys diversity, and the second enemy breaks up unity. In truth, no member is preeminent, and all members are indispensable.
This passage is not to be applied to assemblies, but to individual members of the body. This is important to see, because we might get the idea that each local assembly must consult with the other local assemblies before acting administratively—i.e. in matters of discipline. A Scripturally gathered local assembly is the representative of all assemblies similarly gathered on the ground of the whole body of Christ and acts on behalf of the body at large.
The Order of Importance of Gifts in the Body of Christ
Vss. 28-31—The Corinthians had distorted ideas of the importance of certain gifts in the assembly. They gravitated to the miraculous gifts because they were showy and put a person in the limelight. To set them straight on this, the Apostle states God’s order of importance of the gifts. It is not a complete list. God has set the non-miraculous, foundational gifts first in importance. They are followed by gifts for edification, and then the miraculous sign gifts are given last. The Corinthians had it the other way around. All the gifts are important, but it’s significant that each time the Apostle lists the gifts, “tongues”—the gift the Corinthians were enamoured with—is at the bottom of the list (Chap. 12:6-10; 12:28; 13:8; 14:26).
He concludes by saying, “Covet [desire earnestly] the best [greater] gifts.” The verb in this verse in the original language is in the plural, and therefore, the exhortation refers to the assembly as a whole, not individuals coveting the best gifts. If it were an exhortation to individuals, he would be encouraging us to covet another person’s gift, which would contradict what he taught earlier in the chapter—namely, that we ought to be content with the gift that we have been given. Paul is exhorting them to collectively “desire” and pray that God would raise up a good supply of edificational gifts (“the greater gifts”) in their midst, such as teaching and prophesying. Then the assembly would be edified and built up on the “most holy faith” (Jude 20).
He goes on to say that there is something even more important in an assembly than the presence of “the greater gifts”—it is “charity [love].” To serve one another in love is truly the “more excellent way.”
The Motive for the Use of Gifts—Love
(Chap. 13)
He proceeds to explain the “more excellent way” in chapter 13 by giving a beautiful treatise on love. People tend to divorce this chapter from its context and apply it to all kinds of situations in life—such as marriage relationships and family life. We don’t want to take anything away from those applications, for they have their place, but the context is love in exercising our gift of ministering the Word in the assembly. The gifts are to be exercised in love, which is the true spirit of service. As mentioned, this chapter gives us the “oil” that would cause the machinery in chapter 12 (the gifts) to function smoothly in the assembly.
The Preeminence of Love
Vss. 1-3—The Apostle begins by stating that everything we might naturally think would be necessary for a local assembly to carry on profitably is not as important as love. Even if there was great eloquence (vs. 1), great gift (vs. 2a), great knowledge and understanding of the truth (vs. 2b), heroic faith (vs. 2c), and tremendous self-sacrifice for others (vs. 3a)—even conviction that would lead to martyrdom (vs. 3b), all such would profit us nothing if it were not done in love. The Apostle brings this in here because these were things that the Corinthians were glorying in. But even with all that they had in the way of gift and knowledge they still were not a spiritually healthy assembly. It shows that outward manifestations of power and knowledge are not what constitute a healthy assembly.
Paul goes on and shows that there is something greater than all these things—it is love. The Corinthians were using their gifts for self-display, which really is the flesh in the things of God. If all of the above is done to attract attention to self, such vain display would be valueless. Love would not do that.
The Qualities of Love
In verses 4-8a, Paul speaks of 16 qualities of love. The first seven qualities, point to the need of the complete renunciation of self—the keeping of self down in the ministering the Word. The latter nine qualities pertain to how we are to behave in the presence of the flesh exerting itself in ministry.
1) “Suffereth long [Long patience]”—This rebukes an impatient spirit in ministering the Word. The flesh cannot wait to speak, but love is “long patient” and will wait on the Spirit’s leading to bring forth a word “in due season” (Matt. 24:45). One who lacks this quality of love will manifest a lack of self-control in keeping his spirit “subject” (chap. 14:32). We are reminded of the priest in the Old Testament who had an “itch” (Lev. 21:20—J. N. Darby Trans.); he was not to function in the sanctuary. A person with an itch, as we all know, cannot sit still. Another example of the lack of control of one’s spirit in ministry is the young man, “Ahimaaz,” who was eager to run with a message, and insisted on doing so. But when he got before his audience he had nothing to say (Compare 2 Sam. 18:19-32). King Solomon said, “Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? There is more hope of a fool than of him” (Prov. 29:20). True love can and will wait for God’s time to speak, and when it is God’s time, the person governed by such love will bring forth something that will be profitable for the assembly.
2) “Kind”—This rebukes the tendency to minister without duly considering the situation of the saints. Divine love will take account of where the saints are at, considering what they are going through (their troubles, the sorrows, the feelings, etc.), and will make remarks in ministry with due consideration. Such kindness will touch their hearts and they will receive the ministry. There may be a need for rebuke, but never for scolding the saints; such could lose their ear. Ezekiel “sat where they sat” before he opened his mouth to speak to his audience (Ezek. 3:15). If those to whom we minister see that what we say comes from genuine love and concern for them, we will gain their ear, and they will receive what we have to say. If it comes from our hearts, it will go to their hearts (Ruth 2:13 – margin; 2 Sam. 19:14). The Lord Jesus is our great example. He ministered in the synagogue with “gracious words” (Luke 4:22).
3) “Not emulous of others”—This rebukes the desire to equal or excel someone else in ministry. The flesh would like to outdo others in a public ministry; however, the assembly is not an arena for competition. Love would not do that. The gifts are to complement one another in their exercise to edify the saints; they are not to rival one another. All such one-upmanship proves that love for the saints is not in action (Phil. 1:15-16).
4) “Not insolent and rash”—This rebukes the tendency to make offensive remarks in ministry. Insolence is to be rude and insulting. This has no place in ministry. Being “rash” is being quick to say something in a quarrelsome way. We may have to speak to the conscience, but we don’t have to be offensive. If the Spirit of God is moving us in ministry, He will touch the consciences of those in the audience and will bring them under conviction. Some minister as if it were their responsibility to bring ones under conviction, and as a result, they get aggressive. But it is not our work to convict souls. Sometimes we think that because the conscience needs to be reached, we have the liberty to be offensive in our remarks and pass it off as being faithful. This is not of God. There is no place for whipping the saints. We are reminded of the “ox” that “gored” a man or a woman; it was to be “stoned” to death under Old Testament law (Ex. 21:28-32). An “ox” is a figure of the servant of the Lord who grinds out the corn for his master (1 Cor. 9:9). Stoning is a figure of the (corporate) judgment of the assembly. We are responsible to our local assembly for our actions in ministry. If we behave offensively in public ministry we could come under the assembly’s corporate judgment.
5) “Not vainglorious [puffed up]”—This rebukes self-importance in ministry, which is nothing but pride. Diotrephes loved to have the preeminence among his brethren (3 John 9). We may think a lot of our ministry, but putting ourselves forward is not love. In Romans 12:3 the Apostle warns that we shouldn’t think of ourselves and our gift more highly than we ought to think. The desire to be seen and heard is the flesh. Love, on the other hand, is content with the low place.
6) “Doth not behave itself unseemly”—This rebukes the unmannerly conduct in the meetings. A person may mean well, but if his behaviour is unfitting for who he is, it will not bode well in the eyes of the saints. They will likely not take him seriously. Perhaps an example of unseemly behaviour would be of a younger brother trying to act (and minister) in the role of an older brother. He may say everything right, but there is something unseemly about it. Or perhaps it might be an evangelist attempting to minister in the role of a prophet or teacher when he doesn’t have the gift for it. We are not saying that an evangelist shouldn’t minister the Word in the assembly, but that he should not assume the role of a teacher or a prophet. All such behaviour is unseemly.
7) “Seeks not her own”—This would rebuke selfishness. The flesh thinks of self first and seeks its own interests. It will be evident in one taking up an inordinate amount of time in the meetings in ministry, and thus leaving little or no space for others to speak. To run on and on in ministry, or to have some personal agenda in ministry is self-seeking. Love wouldn’t do that. The love of hearing self speak is not love for the saints.
In summary, these moral features of love are really a description of the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As mentioned, the next nine qualities seem to be more in connection with how we are to behave in the presence of the flesh exerting itself in ministry. These qualities have a particular application for those in the assembly who are under the sound of the ministry. When certain persons are impatient, unkind, jealous and competitive, offensive and quarrelsome, proud, unmannerly, and selfish (which are really the opposite of the first seven qualities) love will find a way to deal with it. This is necessary so that we avoid God-dishonouring clashes in the assembly meetings. Similarly, in Ephesians 4:2 we are told to be lowly and meek, but when we come across those that are not, it goes on and says that we are to be longsuffering and forbearing in the presence of such.
8) “Not quickly provoked”—If malicious attacks come from some confrontational person in their ministry, love will not seek to retaliate. Solomon said, “The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to pass over a transgression” (Prov. 19:11). In the presence of a quarrelsome person, love will not allow itself to get drawn into a word fight in a meeting (or after a meeting) because all such is a work of the flesh.
9) “Thinketh [imputes] no evil”—If remarks are made in ministry that are questionable, love will not jump to a conclusion and assume that the person has evil intentions. The flesh can bear very little without resentment. It is quick to imagine evil motives, but love will not judge the motives of others in their ministry.
10) “Does not rejoice at iniquity”—The flesh loves to be occupied with evil. There is in every one of us—that which wants to lend an ear to learn of the wrongs of others. But there is no place for this in the assembly; it will never make for happy fellowship.
11) “Rejoices with the truth”—Love finds its joy in hearing the truth propounded—and it is not offended if the Lord uses someone else to bring it out.
12) “Bears all things”—The word “bears” can be translated “covers.” Some versions translate this verse “protects.” Bearing things, in this sense is to conceal the faults of others and doesn’t publicize them needlessly. The Apostle Peter confirms this, saying, “Charity [love] shall cover the multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8). The point here is that ministry in the assembly should never expose someone’s personal failures.
13) “Believes all things”—This does not mean that love is blind, but that it is not suspicious. The Apostle, elsewhere, warns of the sin of “evil surmising” (1 Tim. 6:4). Under normal conditions love will believe and receive the truth when it is put forth in ministry in the assembly without arguing and disputing. Sad to say, some people cannot receive anything without first having a struggle over it. Love doesn’t do that. The Bereans are an example of the way we ought to receive the truth—especially when we know the person from whom it comes. They “received the Word with all readiness of mind” and then went home and confirmed it in the Scriptures (Acts 17:11).
14) “Hopeth all things”—This means that love is positive and encouraging. If someone should minister in the assembly without much substance, love will find something positive in it that could be used for edification.
15) “Endures all things”—If the Word of God is ministered to the conscience in the power of the Spirit, there likely will be opposition to it. The flesh resents ministry that strikes the conscience and will perhaps persecute the one who delivers it. In that case, love will endure the attacks in quietness before the Lord (1 Peter 2:23).
16) “Never fails”—If there is opposition or lack of interest in the truth that we deliver to the Lord’s people in ministry, love will never stop seeking the blessing of those who oppose it or are indifferent to it. The flesh will take it personally and will be bitter about it, but love will never fail to seek the good of those who are difficult to get along with in the assembly.
Thus, the Apostle shows that love is superior to all gift and knowledge and is truly the “more excellent way” for life and ministry in the assembly.
The Permanence of Love
Vss. 8-13—The Apostle concludes his treatise on love by speaking of its abiding character. All the gifts will pass away, whether it is the sign gifts, such as “tongues” or the edificational gifts, such as “prophecies” or the word of “knowledge.” This would happen when “that which is perfect” is come. This refers to the perfection of the coming glory. We will not need the gifts to minister to us then; we will have Christ before us in our glorified state.
Even though we “know in part” and we “prophesy in part,” all the truth has been revealed today in the written Word of God. The revelations given to the Apostle Paul were “to complete the Word of God” regarding to the great mystery of Christ and the Church (Col. 1:25-26 – J. N. Darby Trans.). Others were inspired to write epistles after Paul died, but they did not add to those revelations.
The Apostle goes on to say that just as a child matures and puts away childish things, it would be the same with the Church (vs. 11). Once the foundation was laid through the ministry of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20) and the writing of the Word of God was completed, there would be the putting away of the sign gifts. He mentions this to exercise the Corinthians. They boasted of possessing gifts that would establish the saints (1 Cor. 1:4-7), yet they had not matured. They were still enamoured with the gifts that mark infancy. Why were they not laying aside those things and focusing on the exercise of gifts that would establish and build up the saints? If they truly were established in the faith and well taught in the truth as they imagined, they would not have been occupied with the gift of tongues, etc.
Three Reasons for the Cessation of the “Sign” Gifts
1) The “sign” gifts were given by God to render a testimony to Israel that God was about to bring in the kingdom as promised by the Old Testament prophets. Hebrews 2:4 says, “God also bearing them [the Jews] witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost.” Also 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 says, “With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people (Israel); and yet for all that will they not hear Me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.” See also Acts 2:22. Healings, tongues, and miracles were a demonstration of “the powers of the world to come”—the Millennium (Heb. 6:5). If the Jews had received the Messiah (Christ) as presented in the gospel, He would have set up the kingdom with all its outward blessings.
The time of the nation’s “visitation” from Jehovah had come in the coming of the Lord Jesus (Luke 1:78; 19:44), but even with all those signs and wonders that surrounded His ministry (Luke 7:22), the nation would not recognize it. The Jews rejected all such testimony from God—both in the ministry of the Lord Jesus as recorded in the four gospels and in the ministry of the apostles in the early chapters of the Acts. Hence, they have been nationally set-aside for a time in the ways of God. In the meanwhile, He would “visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name” who would compose the Church (Acts 15:14). See also Romans 11:11. Since God is no longer holding out the kingdom to Israel, those signs are no longer needed for that purpose.
2) Since Israel has been set aside in the dispensational ways of God, and He is reaching out to the Gentiles with the gospel, the sign gifts were also used to bear witness to the world that God had established a new thing on earth—the Christian testimony. They were an adjunct to the Word of God preached, used to authenticate the ministry of the apostles as being sent from God. Romans 15:18-19 says, “I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God.” Mark 16:16-20 confirms that these things would follow the Lord’s servants as they reached out to the nations.
Now that the Christian testimony has been established on earth and the foundation of the Church has been laid (Eph. 2:20), those things are no longer used. A cursory look at Church history bears witness to this fact. There is no record of miraculous gifts being used after the first century—except by some rare renegade or impostor (2 Tim. 3:8). Scripture does not promise that the miraculous “sign” gifts would continue, but it does say that the gifts for edification will carry on until the Church reaches perfection, which is when the Lord comes (Eph. 4:11-13).
3) Another reason for the cessation of the “sign” gifts is the ruin of the Church’s testimony. In the beginning, the Church was a separated company espoused to the Lord as a chaste virgin who looked for her Lord to come. It was in a good state then. The delight of the Lord was to lavish upon her many tokens of His power and glory in those early days (Acts 4:33; 1 Cor. 1:7). However, as time went on, the Church began to drift, and dissension, sin, and failure came in. This actually started as early as the first century. It naturally grieved the Lord, and there was some reserve on His part to bestow upon the Church the tokens of His power as He once did. The Church today has gotten far away from God’s original intentions with much ruin and failure and unfaithfulness. In fact, there is so much indifference to the claims of Christ and man-made order built into the Church today that a person would not know that it is the same Church that we read of in the Word of God (Matt. 13:31-32). Therefore, we cannot expect to see the miraculous gifts of Pentecostal days today. In doing so the Lord would be condoning the Church’s low state. At best, the Church today can only boast of having “a little power” (Rev. 3:8—J. N. Darby Trans.).
Vs. 13—“Faith” and “hope” are good traveling companions while we are here in the wilderness, but we part company with them at the door of heaven. Only “love” can go the distance of eternity. It is superior to all gift.
Four Things That Are to Govern the Exercise of the Gifts in the Assembly
(Chap. 14:1-33)
The Apostle goes on to give some simple principles that are to govern oral ministry in the assembly. Using the “oil” in chapter 13, the gifts are to be regulated by love and discernment. He gives four governing principles.
1) Prophesying (Ministering) With Love
Vs. 1—He exhorts the Corinthians to “follow after love” as outlined in chapter 13. He has stated the qualities of love, but now he exhorts them to apply them to their meetings for ministry. It is the first thing that should govern the exercise of gift in the assembly.
Every movement toward the saints in ministry must come from the motive of love for them. Thus, it is not the love of hearing self speak but love for the welfare of the saints. When what we have to say comes from our hearts, it will go to the hearts of our brethren.
Hence, they were to “desire” and pray for “spiritual manifestations” in their midst in the way of “prophesy,” rather than the outward display of “sign” gifts. Prophecy in that day was the bringing out of Christian truth that had not yet been written in the New Testament. It is also the telling forth of the mind of God for the moment on a practical line of things. The latter is the character of prophecy that is still being exercised today in ministry, since the New Testament Scriptures have been completed. Such a gift strengthens and encourages the saints, and builds them up in the most holy faith (Jude 20). The exercise of sign gifts, on the other hand, does not establish a person in the faith, but rather, tends to draw attention to the person who exercises that gift which could lead to pride and vainglory.
2) Prophesying (Ministering) With Substance
Vss. 2-4—The next thing that should govern the exercise of the gifts in the assembly is that those who hear it must be edified through what is ministered. A person might be full of love for his brethren, desiring their good and blessing, but what he has to say lacks substance, and therefore, is not profitable. Unfortunately, this very thing was happening in Corinth. There were those who were speaking in the assembly with the gift of “tongues” (the power to communicate in an understandable foreign language – vs. 11; Acts 2:6-8), but they didn’t have an interpreter. Consequently, no one knew what was being said—“no man understandeth him” (vs. 2). The net result was that it was of no profit to the assembly.
A person who speaks in the assembly with “tongues” without an interpreter is speaking only “unto God,” for only God understands that foreign language. For instance, if someone in an English-speaking assembly got up and spoke in the Latvian language, but there was nobody in that assembly who knew Latvian, to translate what was said, only God would know what the person was saying. He might be communicating valuable truth, perhaps something of the “mysteries” of God—Christian truths that were “hid in God” before the New Testament was completed (Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Cor. 4:1; Eph. 3:4-6; Col. 1:25-27; 1 Tim. 3:9)—but no one in the assembly would profit from it.
In this chapter, Paul does not condemn the use of “tongues,” but rather the abuse of “tongues” (vss. 5, 18-19, 39). His point was that that gift should only be used in the assembly in the meetings when it was for edification. This would require an interpreter. The principle that the Apostle is insisting on here is monumental. We must make sure to not occupy time in the assembly meetings with things that have little or no spiritual substance. This will take discernment on the part of those who feel led to speak, because everyone likes to think that they have something profitable to communicate. In the case of the Corinthians, it was the misuse of the gift of “tongues,” but regardless of what gift it may be, the principle that the Apostle gives here is broad enough to apply to all the gifts. Every spiritual gift can be misused. Paul goes on to speak of the three-fold purpose of prophecy in verse 4:
“Edification” is the building up of the saints in the most holy faith through sound teaching (Jude 20). If the saints are deficient in some point of doctrine in the Christian faith, this kind of ministry will meet that need. It is for our understanding.
“Exhortation” is the stirring up of the saints in some aspect of Christian practise. If the saints are lacking in some practical area of their lives, this will meet that need (Hagg. 1:13-14). It is for our consciences.
“Comfort” is the cheering up of the saints. This is ministry that encourages the saints to go on in the path of faith. It is for our hearts (Ruth 2:13 – J. N. Darby Trans.).
These three things are seen in Acts 14:22. It says, “Confirming [establishing] the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.” Establishing them is the effect of “edification.” Exhorting them is, of course, “exhortation.” And encouraging them concerning the tribulations that they were passing through is “comfort.” We can see from this that prophesying has a broad application regarding the spiritual needs of the saints.
Verses 2 and 4a are not speaking of someone using the gift of tongues for enhancing his or her spiritual relationship with God. Spiritual gifts have not been given to the saints for their personal edification (devotional purposes). Their use always has in view the benefit of the other members of the body. The gifts are for “the profit of all”—that is, all the other members of the body (1 Cor. 12:7). The Apostle uses the word “edifieth” in a negative sense in verse 4a, when he says, “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself.” Edify, as we said, means to build up. But in this case, it was to use the gift merely for building up themselves in a fleshly show, rather than ministering for the good and blessing of the assembly.
3) Prophesying (Ministering) With Intelligibility
Vss. 5-25—The Apostle touches on another point. A person may have genuine love for the saints and feel that what he has to say has real spiritual substance, but he may lack the ability to express his thoughts clearly (in an orderly way), and therefore, his speaking wouldn’t be for profit to the saints. The person may be full of love, but be quite ignorant of the truth, or lack discernment as to how it should be given out; all such speaking will not be for profit. Hence, there is a need for speaking with charity, but also with clarity.
In this part of the chapter Paul shows that if a person does not speak clearly or intelligibly, he is really giving “an uncertain sound” in the assembly. Three musical instruments are used to illustrate the need for clarity in ministry—a “pipe,” a “harp,” and a “trumpet.” His point is that if the truth is not put forth clearly, the people will not know how to respond to it because they won't know what is being said.
Verses 10-11—The point he is making here is that if there is no interpreter in the assembly when a person uses his gift of speaking in tongues, then it will be like two foreigners trying to speak to each other. Neither of them know the other person’s language, and so they won’t understand each other. Paul says, “There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices [languages] in the world, and none of them is without signification [undistinguishable]. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice [language], I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian [foreigner], and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian [foreigner] unto me.” He insists that no language is “undistinguishable.” This proves that the gift of tongues is the power to speak in an understandable foreign language. In Scripture, the languages used when one exercised the gift of tongues were intelligible languages. Acts 2:6-8 supports this. Verses 10-11 destroy the false notions of so-called Pentecostal and charismatic Christians who think that their unintelligible babble (which they call the gift of tongues) is languages that no other human knows.
Being converted Gentiles, the Corinthians were in danger of thinking that the gift of tongues was something that they were familiar with in their unconverted days when they chanted and did their devotions before their idols (1 Cor. 12:2). However, the ecstatic, unintelligible speech used by idolaters is not the gift of tongues.
In verses 13-17, Paul expands on the subject and applies the principle of the need for clarity in the public exercise of our priesthood, even though it is not the subject of the chapter. He speaks of singing and praying and shows that clarity is necessary in that sphere in the assembly too. When someone prays audibly in the assembly, he is supposed to be speaking as the mouthpiece of the assembly. But if the assembly doesn’t understand him, it cannot give its, “amen,” to what is being said.
In verses 18-22, the Apostle shows that the proper place for the gift of tongues is the mission field. He says, “I speak with tongues more than ye all. Yet in the church [assembly] I had rather speak five words with my understanding. ... ” Here, he tells us that he used tongues more than all the Corinthians; however, it was when he was outside the assembly in the mission field. When he entered the assembly, he would rather speak “five words” in a language that all could understand than use “ten thousand words” in a tongue (a foreign language) that nobody understood. He was not belittling the gift of tongues, he was simply reminding them of its proper place of use. He concludes by telling them that the gift of tongues was to be used primarily outside the assembly as “a sign” to them that believe not. They were to follow his example in this.
The Results of Spirit-Directed Ministry in the Assembly
Vss. 23-25—If the Church met together according to God's order for ministry, where the Spirit of God is given His rightful place in the assembly to direct in all things, there would be a powerful testimony to those who came into such meetings.
The message in the prophetic word put forth in ministry should be so clear that even the simplest believer understands it. Even if someone ministers “the deep things of God” (chap. 2:10), it should be presented clearly. Obscurity marks poor ministry. Good ministry, on the other hand, is characterized by setting forth the truth “evidently.” This was the case with the Apostle Paul’s ministry (Gal. 3:1). When this is so, a visitor (an unbeliever or an “unlearned” believer) who comes into the assembly will be:
“Convicted”—His conscience is touched.
“Judged”—He is brought to self-judgment.
“The secrets of his heart [are] made manifest”—The hidden motives of his heart are exposed and searched in the presence of God.
“Falling down”—He will have a humble recognition that all that proceeds there is from God.
“He will do homage”—He acknowledges that God’s presence is there.
He “reports that God is indeed amongst you”—He becomes a witness, carrying a report of his findings abroad.
The Unprofitable Results of Speaking in Tongues in the Assembly Without an Interpreter
Vss. 13-15 From the standpoint of the speaker—unfruitful.
Vss. 16-20 From the standpoint of the assembly—unedified.
Vss. 23-25 From the standpoint of the visitor—unconvicted.
Six Restrictions Placed on the Use of Tongues in the Assembly
What is said must be for the edification of all (vss. 26, 31).
Only two or three at most (vs. 27).
Only by course—one at a time (vs. 27).
Only with an interpreter present (vs. 28).
Only under complete self-control (vs. 32).
Only brothers speak in tongues (vss. 29, 34).
4) Prophesying (Ministering) Under the Control of the Spirit
Vss. 26-33—When the saints are together for ministry in the assembly there should be liberty for various ones to take part as led by the Spirit (chap. 12:7-11). But there is a danger of abusing this liberty; this is just what the Corinthians were doing. When they came together for ministry, one had “a psalm,” one had “a doctrine,” another had a “tongue,” etc. They all wanted to show and tell what they had and clamoured for an opportunity to speak. In a person’s eagerness to speak, he would cut off the one who was already speaking (vs. 30). This turned their meetings into a free-for-all. It was confusion. What Paul was saying in verse 26 could be loosely paraphrased: “How is it then, brethren, that your meetings are a free-for-all?” This verse is not a pattern for assemblies to follow in allowing the saints the liberty to minister as led by the Spirit. There should be that liberty in the assembly, as Paul has taught in chapter 12:7-11, but this 26th verse is a exposure of the Corinthians’ fleshly clamouring for an opportunity to speak.
This abuse of Christian liberty in ministry could not be charged to the majority of the Christian denominational and non-denominational fellowships today where one man (the Pastor or Minister) presides in the ministry. They do not have an order of things in their churches that allows the members of the body to minister the Word as led by the Spirit, and therefore, could not be accused of abusing this Scriptural order. The churches in Christendom haven’t misused God’s order—they have set it aside altogether!
To correct the problem at Corinth, Paul told them that though all might have something to say, it does not mean that all should necessarily speak. They must wait on the leading of the Spirit of God. The Spirit is not directly mentioned in the passage, but His presence and work is implied in the use of the word “let,” which occurs 12 times in these few verses. When “let” is used in various New Testament exhortations, it refers to the need of the saints getting themselves out of the way, so to speak, and allowing the Spirit of God to lead the new life in them in whatever direction He chooses.
Some think that the liberty of the Spirit in ministry is liberty for the saints to speak up in the meetings as opposed to having one-man ministry. However, the leading of the Spirit is not the saints’ liberty to speak as they please in the assembly, but the Spirit's liberty to lead whomsoever HE pleases! Thus, we are not to speak unless we are led by the Spirit to do so. The problem in the Corinthian assembly is that they had turned God-given Christian liberty in ministry into liberty for the flesh.
Some think that if every brother present in the assembly speaks up in a Bible reading that the Spirit of God has had real liberty—this is also a misunderstanding. It comes from confusing two distinct spheres of activity in the assembly—priesthood and gift. In Christianity, everyone is a priest, and every brother should have the liberty to pray and praise God in the assembly, as led by the Spirit. However, in the sphere of gift where the Word of God is ministered, not everyone is able to minister edification to the saints. To insist on every brother taking part in this sphere will lead to confusion. This mistaken notion has been called, “Every-man ministry.” In actuality, it denies that the Lord has given a variety of gifts—some for ministering the Word publicly and some not. Scripture indicates that all the gifts are not for public ministry of the Word. Some of them are for teaching, preaching, exhorting, and prophesying, but others such as shepherding, helps, giving, ruling, and showing mercy, etc., are more of a private nature (Eph. 4:11; 1 Cor. 12:28; Rom. 12:8). To insist that all the saints should minister the Word publicly in the meetings is to put those who may not have a gift for it in a place where they could embarrass themselves, and not edify the assembly. These verses surely do not teach “One-man ministry” in the assembly, but neither do they encourage “Every-man ministry” in the assembly.
As mentioned, the liberty of the Spirit was being abused at Corinth in their misuse of tongues. Paul’s answer is to wait on the leading of the Spirit, which would evidence itself in brothers speaking “by course [separately]”—that is, one at a time (vs. 27). Love and care for the good of the assembly, as mentioned in chapter 13, would cause such who would speak to have an interpreter, otherwise, they should “keep silence” (vs. 28). This correction condemns the practise of the so-called “tongues movement” today, where most of the congregation speak simultaneously in an unintelligible babble, which they imagine to be the gift of tongues. They do their babbling all at the same time, which passage denounces (vs. 27). Moreover, a large percentage of these babblers are women, which this passage also decries (vss. 29, 34).
When it comes to prophesying, we need to be led of the Spirit (vs. 29). Godly order in the assembly is such that if the Lord gives something to “another that sitteth by,” he is to wait until “the first” person “holds his peace” (vs. 30). This would prevent brothers running over each other. Furthermore, the Apostle says that the prophesying should be limited to “two or three” at the most, because the saints can only take in so much at a time.
If a person is prompted by the flesh, and rushes in and takes up time with profitless speaking that does not edify the saints, it was to be stopped by “the others” judging (vs. 29). If a person thinks that what he has to say is profitable and edifying, and insists on speaking, but has little or no substance and clarity, the assembly must to step in and exercise this kind of godly discipline, calling for him to be silent in the meetings. A Scriptural assembly is responsible to “judge” the ministry in its midst.
Thus, the assembly is not a platform for the flesh. Paul adds in verse 32 that “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” This means that a person should know how to exercise self-control and refrain from speaking on such occasions. Sometimes we will hear a brother say, “I couldn’t help it; I had to say such and such. ... ” What he is really saying is that he is not able to control his own spirit (Prov. 25:28).
Three Things That Are to Curtail Fleshly Ministry in the Assembly
Vss. 26-30—Giving place to the leading of the Spirit (“let”).
Vs. 32—The prophets exercising self-control over their spirits.
Vs. 29—The assembly exercising administrative discipline on those who will not be subject to the Spirit’s leading and will not control their own spirits.
Liberty should be given for “all” to “prophesy” in the assembly, but it should be done “one by one”—which is one at a time. Under normal conditions, the Spirit of God will use those who have a gift for ministering the Word. But if there is no one with the gift for prophesying in the assembly, or those who can minister the Word are in a low spiritual state, the Spirit of God will use whomever He can.
While these verses primarily refer to an open meeting, the principles that he gives here are broad enough to apply to Bible readings too (1 Tim. 4:13). The net result of orderly Spirit-led meetings is “edification” (vs. 26) and “peace” (vs. 33) in the assembly.
Summary of the Four Great Principles the Apostle Has Given for Ministry in the Assembly
It must be done in love. This requires a genuine care and concern for the saints.
It must have some spiritual substance that would edify the saints. This requires having some knowledge of the truth.
It must be understandable. This requires some gift for communicating the truth.
It must be under the control of the Spirit of God. This requires a good state of soul to discern the leading of the Spirit.
In Christ-centred, Spirit-filled ministry in the assembly, the Holy Spirit presides, love prevails, edification proceeds, and clarity pervades—and spiritual manifestations are witnessed to the profit of those present.
The Sisters’ Place in Public Meetings
Vss. 34-35—In the assembly at Corinth, the sisters were speaking in the meetings for ministry. It may have been that they were asking questions. The Apostle takes this opportunity to show the place that God would have the sisters to have in the public meetings. They were not to “speak,” but be “under obedience [subjection], as also saith the Law.” When a sister exercises her gift of ministering the Word, she is called a “prophetess” (See 2 Kings 22:14). It is significant that in verse 29 Paul says, “Let the prophets speak.” He didn’t say, “Let the prophets and prophetesses speak.”
Some have mistakenly thought that Paul was not prohibiting the sisters from ministering the Word in the assembly, but simply curtailing their tendency to chat with one another while the meetings were going on, and thus being disruptive. However, the word “speak” here is the same word that is used in verse 29, which refers to the brothers (prophets) speaking from the Scriptures. Hence, if it meant chatting in verse 34, then it means chatting in verse 29. We find it hard to believe that the Apostle would be encouraging the “prophets” to chat in the meeting, rather than to minister the Word. This is nonsense. The sisters were speaking along the lines of spiritual topics, perhaps asking questions in the meetings.
Paul’s remedy for the questions the sisters may have had was to ask their men-folk in the home setting, rather than in the meetings. He said, “Let them ask their husbands at home.” Some have wondered what the sisters were to do if they didn’t have a husband. The answer lies in the fact that “husbands” does not refer exclusively to married men, but rather the men-folk. The word “husbands” can also be translated “men,” and perhaps should be translated such here (see Acts 1:16; 13:38). Therefore, if a sister didn’t have a husband, she could ask one of the brothers.
Paul didn’t prohibit the sisters from praying or prophesying. 1 Corinthians 11:5 permits such an activity (See also Acts 21:9). However, this chapter distinctly states that such ministry of women is not permitted “in the assemblies.” The sisters’ sphere of prophesying is in the domestic sphere outside the public meetings of the assembly.
Many Christians will agree that God has distinctive roles for the man and the woman, and believe that they should be observed, but only in our natural relationships at home. When it comes to the assembly, they think that such distinctions of male and female are not to be regarded because the Word of God says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). It is believed by many theologians that this universal statement supersedes the narrower dictates of Paul's other statements in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
This misunderstanding comes from failing to distinguish between position and practise. The key that unravels this apparent contradiction lies in understanding what the term “in Christ Jesus” means. It refers to the believer’s place of acceptance before God in the very position that Christ now occupies as a Man in glory. Simply put: “in Christ” means to be in Christ’s place before God. It is our position before God in the new creation and is inseparably bound up with the Holy Spirit's indwelling. Paul uses it many times in his epistles (Rom. 8:1; Eph. 1:3; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:13, etc.). The point in Galatians 3:28 is that all believers, regardless of their nationality, social background, or sex, are all equally blessed in that place of acceptance before God. It is a positional term. However, 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 refer to a practical order of things among Christians on earth. Galatians 3 is speaking of what we are “in Christ,” but 1 Corinthians 14 is speaking of what we are to do “in the assemblies.” One is before God in heaven; the other is among men on earth. When we understand the difference between the two things, we will see that the places and services of brothers and sisters in the assembly are quite distinct.
Some think that this prohibition of women speaking in the assembly applied to Corinth only in that day, which was a city that was particularly noted for having loud and brazen women. We are told that these Corinthian women would carry on in their old habits after they were saved, and thus, it led to disturbances in the meetings. Paul's answer to this local problem was to have them be silent until they knew how to behave better. It is therefore concluded that this injunction of the Apostle has no application to women in the Church today.
Again, it is pure supposition to say that the women were acting in this way. Scripture does not say this was the problem. Furthermore, there is simply no truth to the idea that these instructions were only for Corinth. The beginning of this epistle shows that the principles given in the epistle are for more than just those in that assembly, but for “all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord” (chap. 1:2). This very passage in question in 1 Corinthians 14 clearly tells us that this injunction was for “all the assemblies of the saints”—not just those in Corinth (vss. 33-34).
Vss. 36-38—Paul seems to anticipate objections to the instructions he has given in this chapter, and therefore, hastens to remind the Corinthians that the things that he taught were “the commandments of the Lord.” They were not his personal feelings or beliefs. He adds that the test of a person’s spirituality will be seen in their recognition that these things were from the Lord.
He then concludes the subject by giving one final governing principle, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40).
9) Failure to Maintain Sound Doctrine
(Chap. 15)
The Local Assembly Is Responsible to Uphold Sound Doctrine
The Apostle turns to emphasize the importance of the local assembly maintaining sound doctrine. The assembly as the house of God is to be the “pillar and ground [base] of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). As a “pillar,” it is to bear witness to all the truth of God by upholding it; as a “base,” it is to support the truth by practical godliness in the lives of the saints. Sad to say, the Corinthians were astray in this. Some of them had let go of the fundamental doctrine of resurrection and many others were wanting in practical godliness.
To let go of this great cornerstone of the Christian faith was a serious thing for it cut at the very foundation upon which they stood. “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psa. 11:3). Perhaps it came through the influence of the Sadducees who deny resurrection (Matt. 22:23; Acts 23:8). Whatever the source may have been, it was definitely worse than what “Hymenaeus and Philetus” were propounding (2 Tim. 2:17-18). These two erroneous teachers didn’t deny resurrection, but they had the timing of events concerning the resurrection in a wrong order. They were teaching that the resurrection was past already. The Corinthians, however, were holding something far worse—they were denying resurrection altogether! The Apostle wisely left this most serious of all errors to the end of his epistle to correct. The chapter begins with the death of Christ and ends with His coming.
The Gospel Is Founded on the Resurrection of Christ
Vss. 1-2—He goes back to “declare” the first principles of the gospel to them. He assured them that those who had truly “received” the gospel were “saved.” But he adds, “ ... if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.” This was for the conscience of those who were mere professors among them who had let go of the truth of the resurrection. “Keep in memory” should be translated “hold fast.” Holding fast the truth of the gospel proves the reality of a person’s faith. A real believer will hold fast to the fundamentals of the gospel, but the mere professor may not. To give up something as fundamental as the resurrection, calls in question whether such a person is really saved. What Paul was saying is that he who tampers with the fundamentals of the gospel cuts away the very ground beneath his feet upon which he professes to stand! He was saying, “Are you sure you really want to deny the resurrection because such a thing only proves that you were never saved in the first place?”
A Christian may become defective in some points of the truth and give up something he once held, but he will not give up the cornerstones of the faith. Only an apostate would do that. Note: the Apostle is not saying that if someone doesn’t “hold fast” the truth of the gospel, they would lose their salvation, but that if someone doesn’t “hold fast” the fundamentals of the gospel, it’s because he was never saved in the first place. Therefore, if resurrection were just a myth, then the Corinthians’ belief was “in vain” because everything that they had professedly received in Christianity hinged on it. It was not that they were deficient in faith, but that they were wrong in what they believed. To believe something “in vain” is to believe something that is not true.
The Fact of Resurrection
The Apostle undertakes to prove the reality of resurrection by pointing to four things:
1) Resurrection Attested by Scripture
Vss. 3-4—He starts with the most authoritative of all proofs—the Holy Scriptures. He was, of course, referring to the Old Testament Scriptures, for the New Testament had not been written yet. He says, “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” And then, “He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” He does not take time to quote the various passages, for they, being filled with all knowledge (chap. 1:5), were cognizant of them.
Nevertheless, the Old Testament abounds with passages that tell us that the Messiah would die and rise again. He would be a suffering Messiah before being a reigning Messiah. There are over 25 Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in Christ’s death and resurrection (Psa. 16:10-11; 18:4-5; 22:15, 21b; 31:1-5; 102:24; Isa. 53:9-11, etc.). Only an infidel would deny the Scriptures. “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Psa. 12:6). “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away” (Matt. 24:35). “Forever, O LORD, Thy word is settled in heaven” (Psa. 119:89).
Four Fundamental Facts of the Gospel
“Christ died for our sins”– to put our sins away (1 John 3:5).
“He was buried”– to put us away (Rom. 6:5-6; Gal. 2:20).
“He rose again”– to bring us into a new position before God (Rom. 4:25-5:2).
“He was seen”– to be an object for our faith (John 20:20).
Twelve Reasons Why God Raised the Lord Jesus From the Dead
To fulfil the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).
To prove that the Lord Jesus is the Son of God (Rom. 1:4).
To set a seal of approval on the Lord’s finished work on the cross (1 Peter 1:21).
That the Lord would be set forth as an object of faith for salvation (Rom. 10:9).
For our justification (Rom. 4:25).
That the Lord might be the Head of the new creation race (Col. 1:18).
That the Lord might carry out His present high priestly intercession (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25).
That we might bring forth fruit to God in our lives (Rom. 7:4).
That the Lord might be the first-fruits of them that sleep (1 Cor. 15:20).
To strengthen the faith of His disciples to witness for Him (Acts 2:32-36).
To demonstrate the power of God to bring in the kingdom according to the Old Testament promises (Eph. 1:19-20).
To give assurance to all men of coming judgment (Acts 17:31).
2) Resurrection Attested by Eye-Witnesses
Vss. 5-28—The Apostle proceeds to give a number of faithful eye-witnesses who saw the Lord after He rose from the dead, thus confirming resurrection. These appearances all happened in a period of “forty days” following the Lord’s resurrection (Acts 1:3). They have been called Christophanies. Notice he does not mention the Lord’s appearances to the women (Matt. 28:9-10; John 20:11-18). It is not that they could not be trusted, but that it is not the sisters’ place to stand as public witnesses in the Christian testimony.
Six Witnesses
Vs. 5a—“Cephas.” This was in regard to Peter’s private restoration to the Lord.
Vs. 5b—“the twelve.” This is an administrative term rather than the actual number of apostles. The Lord actually appeared to only ten of the apostles on this occasion (Luke 24:36-48; John 20:19-23). Judas had hung himself, and Thomas was not present on this occasion. And Matthias was not chosen until after all the resurrection appearances of the Lord were completed. The ten others filled the administrative office of apostleship at that time, which “the twelve” signifies.
Vs. 6—“five hundred brethren.” These apparently were Galilean believers.
Vs. 7a—“James.”
Vs. 7b—“All the apostles.”
Vs. 8—“He was seen of me (Paul).”
The Practical Effects of the Doctrine of the Resurrection
Vss. 8-10—In case anyone thinks that the truth of the resurrection is merely a formal creed of Christianity, and that it has no practical bearing on Christian life, Paul digresses to show that such a notion is false. The doctrine of the resurrection of Christ has great practical power in transforming lives. It changed Paul’s life dramatically.
Vs. 8—It converted him. His calling was such that he was “born out of due time” (Acts 9:1-9). This is a reference to him being born pre-maturely before a remnant of the nation of Israel will believe on Him in a coming day. He “pre-trusted” in Christ (Eph. 1:12).
Vs. 9—It produced humility in him. His estimation of himself was that he was “not meet to be called an apostle.”
Vs. 10a—It gave him a profound sense of appreciation for the grace of God. He said, “By the grace of God I am what I am.”
Vs. 10b—It produced a burning desire to serve the Lord with all his energy. He said, “I laboured more abundantly than they all.”
Vs. 11—It gave power to the message of the gospel that he preached, so that souls are brought to believe. The Corinthians’ conversion was an example. He says, “ ... and so ye believed.”
The Solemn Consequences of Denying the Resurrection
Vss. 12-19—Paul then turns to state the solemn consequences of denying the resurrection. The ramifications are devastating. (Note the seven “ifs” in these verses.) If there is no resurrection:
The Scriptures are not true (vs. 12).
Christ Himself is not risen, and therefore, we do not have a Saviour (vs. 13).
The apostles’ preaching and the Corinthians’ faith were in vain—they had believed a fable (vs. 14).
The apostles were false witnesses that could not be trusted (vss. 15-16).
The Corinthians were still in their sins before God, and therefore, heading for a lost eternity (vs. 17).
The sleeping saints have perished (vs. 18).
Christians would be most miserable, not having a hope in this world (vs. 19).
The Far-Reaching Results of Resurrection
Vss. 20-28—He then opens a parenthesis wherein he traces the far-reaching results of resurrection (J. N. Darby Trans.). He shows that God will not only overcome death through resurrection, but He will also overcome the cause of death, which is sin.
Not only has Christ been raised from the dead, but also all men will be raised from the dead—both the saved and the lost. He uses two terms to indicate this; he speaks of resurrection “from among the dead” (vs. 20) and “the resurrection of the dead” (vs. 21).
Resurrection from among the dead is also called “the first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5) and “the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:14) and involves righteous persons only. There are at least ten accounts in Scripture of persons being raised from the dead, but none of them were of the order of the first resurrection (1 Kings 17:21-22; 2 Kings 4:34-36; 2 Kings 13:20-21; Matt. 9:24-25; 27:52-53; Luke 7:11-15; John 11:38-44; Acts 9:36-41; 14:19-20; 20:9-12). Those who will rise from among the dead at the first resurrection will rise in a glorified condition (Phil 3:21). Each of these ten mentioned accounts of persons who were raised from the dead, died again, and await resurrection.
The first resurrection has three phases: Christ has been raised first as “the firstfruits” (vs. 23; Acts 26:23). The second phase occurs at His coming (the Rapture) when He will raise the righteous who have died down through the long range of time—“they that are Christ’s at His coming” (vs. 23; 1 Thess. 4:15-18). The third phase will involve those who will die a martyr’s death during the Tribulation period. They will be raised at the end of the Great Tribulation (Rev. 6:9-11; 14:13).
The resurrection “of” the dead is a term that speaks of resurrection in a general way, which includes the lost. He says, “By Christ shall all be made alive” (vs. 22). The lost will be raised at the end of time (after the Millennium) and will be judged then (Rev. 20:11-15).
When “the end” of time is reached (vs. 24), which is after the Millennium has run its course, the Lord will deliver up the kingdom to God in a state of perfection. Neither Adam, Moses, Solomon, Israel, nor the Church have maintained the testimony committed to them. Every vessel of testimony through the range of time has broken down and failed. There will be only One faithful Administrator of what has been put into His hand—Christ. Having received the kingdom from God (Luke 19:12), He will perfectly maintain God’s glory in it for 1000 years (Isa. 32:1). Then, after time has run its course, He will deliver it back to God, not only in the condition that it was received, but with an enhanced glory! When He receives the kingdom, not all enemies will be put down, but having it committed into His hand, He will put them all under His feet. “All rule and all authority and power” in heaven and on earth will be dealt with in righteousness by Christ. “Death” itself will be the last enemy to be removed (vs. 26). The Lord will not hand back the kingdom until He has brought it into a state of perfection. This will be the fruit of reconciliation in its fullest sense (Col. 1:20). Could we imagine that He would hand over to God an imperfect state of things? In the end, He will create a new heavens and earth wherein everything in the creation will be free from the effects of sin (2 Peter 3:12-13; Rev. 21:1-8).
In that Day of God, the kingdom will be handed over to the Father so that the Son will be free to devote Himself fully to His bride (Rev. 21:2). Being a Man forever will mean that He will be “subject unto Him” (God) forever (vs. 28).
3) Resurrection Attested in the Convictions of Godly Christians
Vss. 29-34—The Apostle resumes his argument for the fact of resurrection by asking a few questions. They revolve around the convictions of godly, sincere Christians.
In speaking about being “baptized for [in place of] the dead” Paul was not teaching that if a person died in his sins, he could be helped by someone being baptized in his behalf. If Scripture teaches that a person cannot save himself by being baptized (1 Peter 3:21), then he surely can’t save someone else through that act. The “dead” referred to here is not lost persons, but Christians who have finished their life of service in testimony for the Lord and have gone on to be with Him. Those who were being baptized “in place of” the dead were new believers who were getting saved and stepping into the ranks of the Christian testimony in place of those who had died. Baptism is the formal way in which someone takes their place in the Christian ranks.
In those days, there was a high likelihood that if one received Christ as his Saviour, and was baptized unto Christ, that he could die as a martyr. Paul mentions this risk on his life, saying, “I die daily.” He was referring to his encounter with wild men at Ephesus, whom he calls “beasts” (Acts 19:23-41; 1 Cor. 16:8-9). He was speaking of his exposure to physical death on a daily basis, and not some experimental application death in his soul, as some have mistakenly thought. There is no exhortation to Christians to die; they are dead positionally (Rom. 6:2, 8).
What Paul was saying is that there is a very real possibility of being killed by stepping into the place of Christian testimony. His question was, “Why would anyone want to step into that place and probably die, if there was no hope after death? Why would anyone want to put his life in ‘jeopardy [endanger ourselves]’ if there was nothing beyond this life to live for? Why then would believers be willing to endure persecution and make sacrifices?”
The Apostle’s point is that the convictions of Christians in being willing to stand for Christ bear a convincing witness to the fact that there is such a thing as resurrection. Those dear believers were so convinced of it that they were willing to put their lives on the line. Denying resurrection only destroys the incentives to live for and to serve the Lord. If there was nothing beyond death, then a person might as well just say, “Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die” (vs. 32). The compelling motive for upright Christian living and service is that there is everything to live for after death. Why bother to live a holy life? Why bother to serve the Lord, if it were not so?
Paul traces their misunderstanding on this fundamental point of the Christian faith to bad associations. He says, “Evil communications corrupt good manners” (vs. 33). The Corinthians had had contact with evil teachers, and this had affected them in a negative way. The Apostle warns that the consequences of imbibing such erroneous doctrine on resurrection had also led to bad morals. (Some translations render “manners,” as “morals.”) It’s a fact; bad doctrine leads to bad practise. It corrupts good morals. He exhorts them, therefore, to “awake” to practical righteousness “and sin not.” Such evil communications were sin, and it was corrupting them. They needed to separate from such teachers who were corrupting them. He deals at length with this in his second epistle.
4) Resurrection Attested in the Creation
Vss. 35-41—The Apostle turns to give another evidence of resurrection—the creation itself. He deals with the rationalistic objections of those who denied the resurrection by pointing to nature (vs. 35). Rationalists try to exploit the fact that believers cannot actually explain resurrection. But he says that it is a foolish position to take (“thou fool”) because neither can they explain many things in God’s creation.
Paul speaks of three similitudes in creation that show that God is well able to make resurrection bodies:
1) “Grain”—God’s creatorial method of germinating seeds reflects resurrection (vss. 36-37). The seed that is planted in the ground dies, but out of it springs the life of a new plant (John 12:24). God makes a new body out of it (vs. 38).
2) “Flesh”—God’s creatorial method in the lower creation reflects His power to change bodies into new forms. Many creatures begin in a particular form, but over time God gives them a different body. Take the butterfly for instance; the caterpillar goes into its cocoon and abides in a dormant state for a time and then emerges in an entirely different form (vs. 39).
3) “Celestial” and “terrestrial bodies”—We see God’s handiwork in the inanimate creation. The “terrestrial” bodies are the mountains and hills, etc., that pervade the landscape. Many of these were once in a different shape, but through volcanic activity their form has been changed entirely. The “celestial” bodies are the “sun” and the “moon” and the “stars.” These too, have had different forms, but through what astronomers call “star birth,” they develop into new and different forms (vss. 40-41). (“Celestial bodies” are not angels, as some have thought. Angels do not have bodies; they are “spirits” – Hebrews 1:7).
The Manner of Resurrection
Vss. 42-50—Paul then speaks of the reality of the resurrection of the human body, saying, “So also is the resurrection of the dead” (vs. 42). If God can do it in various ways in the creation, He can also do it with the human body.
He proceeds to tell us of the manner in which it will happen. He shows that, in resurrection, the saints do not receive a “new” body, as some say, but a miraculous “change” occurs to the very same body that they lived in (Phil. 3:21). To emphasize this, he says, “It—the very same body that died—is raised ... ” (It is mentioned four times in vss. 42-44). This is important, because to say that the saints receive new bodies really denies the resurrection of the bodies that they once lived in. If they get entirely new bodies, then their old bodies don’t really rise from the dead after all! To guard against this, Scripture is careful never to say that the resurrection bodies of the saints are “new” in that sense. When speaking of resurrection it always says, “changed” (1 Cor. 15:51-52; Phil. 3:21; Job 14:14). This defines what will happen at the moment of resurrection more accurately: That old body will be raised, changed, and glorified, all “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump” (vs. 52).
He gives four descriptions of death and burial, and then four corresponding descriptions of resurrection and the glorified state of the human body:
“Corruption”—“incorruption” (vs. 42). This has to do with condition.
“Dishonour”—“glory” (vs. 43). This has to do with appearance.
“Weakness”—“power” (vs. 43). This has to do with capacity.
“Natural”—“spiritual” (vs. 44). This has to do with character.
We must not confuse what is natural and what is sinful. The “first man” (vs. 45) is never said to be sinful, while the “old man” is nothing but sin (Rom. 6:6; Eph. 4:22). When Christ came into this world, He became the “second Man,” but it wasn’t until He rose from the dead that He became the “last Adam.” As the “second Man,” He exhibited a new order of humanity in moral perfection in His life here. In resurrection, as the “Last Adam,” nothing will supersede Him and His new creation race under Him. There will not be another head and another race of men later. This new creation race of men is the last race of men that God will make. It is a perfect race that cannot be touched with sin, nor can be improved upon, and thus, there will be no need for any further race to supersede it.
Some contrasts are given to help us understand the vast difference between the two races of men under Adam and Christ:
Adam was “made.”
Christ was not made (the word is in italics and should not be in the text).
Adam was soulish (natural).
Christ is “a quickening spirit” (spiritual).
Adam was a creature.
Christ is the Creator.
As “a quickening spirit,” the Lord as the Last Adam breathed on the disciples, and thus symbolically linked them with Him under His Headship in this new creation race of men (John 20:22). Now, for all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they are made part of that race and are new creatures in Christ by virtue of the new birth and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 5:17). There will be full conformity of every member of this race to the Head—Christ—though it is not seen yet. They have the new life that belongs to that new order of creation now, but they will shortly “bear the image of the heavenly” (vs. 49) in the sense that they will all be physically glorified like Christ at His coming (1 John 3:2). The new order of humanity brought in by Christ in resurrection is:
Vs. 47 – heavenly in origin.
Vs. 48 – heavenly in character.
Vs. 49 – heavenly in destiny.
When glorified, the saints will not have their ailments and old age, etc. They will be in “the dew” of their “youth” like Christ, who will be in “the dew” of His “youth” (Compare Psalm 110:3 with Philippians 3:21). Their fallen sin-natures will be eradicated forever, and they will sin no more (Heb. 11:40; 12:23—“made perfect”).
The frail bodies of humiliation that we have now “cannot inherit the kingdom of God” in their present condition (vs. 50); they will require a change. This leads the Apostle to tell us how and when we shall obtain these spiritual and incorruptible bodies.
The Moment of Resurrection
Vss. 51-58—He proceeds to tell us of the “mystery” of the resurrection and glorification of the saints. He says, “We shall not all sleep,” meaning that not all of the saints will die, and therefore, need resurrection. But he assures us that “we shall all be changed” into that glorified state.
He identifies two classes of the saints who are presently in two different states: those who have died and those who are alive on earth. One is the “corruptible,” and the other is the “mortal.” The “corruptible” refers to the bodies of the saints who have died. Their bodies are decaying in the grave, but “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye” the “corruptible” will put on “incorruption.” The “mortal” refers to the bodies of the saints who are still alive. At that same moment, the “mortal” will put on “immortality.” This shows that only those whose bodies are in the state of corruption (the dead in Christ) experience resurrection. The living saints do not need resurrection, but they do need to be “changed” into their glorified state.
Contrary to what many think, this passage does not speak of the Rapture. It’s true that the glorification of the saints and the Rapture happen at the same time—“in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye”—but the actual the calling away of the saints to heaven is not mentioned here. The word “rapture” means to pluck up or snatch away. This is what will happen to the saints at that time, but this passage does not go so far as to speak of it, focusing rather on the change to their bodies. The mention of “the last trump” synchronizes this passage with 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 which speaks of the catching away of the saints to heaven—thus, we know that it happens at that moment. It is the “last” event on earth in relation to God’s present dealings with men in the day of grace.
Verses 55-56 tell us that in the very scene where death has reigned (this world) there will be a triumphant victory, and the exclamation will be made, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave [Hades], where is thy victory?” It is a two-fold “victory.” “Death” which has claimed the body, and “Hades” which has held the disembodied spirits of the saints, will succumb to Christ’s victory.
Three Phases in the Defeat of Death
The full and final removal of death in the creation occurs in three phases:
Firstly, for the believer, death is “annulled” now through Christ’s resurrection (2 Tim. 1:10 – J. N. Darby Trans.). That is, the dread factor of death has been taken away. Since Christ has gone down into “the dust of death” and annulled it (Psa. 22:15), there is left but its “shadow” for the child of God to pass through (Psa. 23:4). Prior to the death and resurrection of Christ, Satan has wielded “the power of death” over the consciences of men making them afraid of what lies beyond. He has used “the king of terrors,” which is the fear of death, to his advantage, holding men in bondage and fear (Job 18:14). But Christ has gone into death and has robbed the devil of his power to terrify the believer with death. On the other side of death, the Lord now stands with “the keys of Hades and of death” in His hand, and He is saying, “I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell [Hades] and of death” (Rev. 1:18). He has conquered death having loosed its “pangs” (Acts 2:24 – W. Kelly’s Translation). Pangs are fears in connection with what lies beyond death. Since Christ has loosed the pangs of death, the enlightened believer who faces it need not fear.
Secondly, at the Lord’s coming, He will effect a great “victory” over death and Hades. The bodies of the living saints will be “changed” into a glorified state, wherein they will no longer be affected by death (Phil. 3:21). The saints who will have passed away will be raised and glorified, and also “changed” into a glorified state. Thus, they too will no longer be subject to death.
Thirdly, after the Millennium the Lord will destroy death completely, casting “death and Hades” into “the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:14; 1 Cor. 15:26).
Hence, there has been an annulling of death now, but there will be a great victory over death at the Lord’s coming (as far as the saints are concerned); and then after the Millennium, there will be the destruction of death altogether.
These facts concerning Christ’s victory over death lead the Apostle to speak of two practical effects that should result in every right-minded Christian. The first is thanksgiving (vs. 57), and the second is energy in serving the Lord (vs. 58).
What a tremendous power the resurrection has in our lives practically, and what a wonderful hope it gives. Christ is alive through resurrection and He will raise us up to live with Him (1 Thess. 5:10). What greater incentive, what greater motive could we have for living and serving Him?
10) Failure Regarding Collections
(Chap. 16:1-4)
Vss. 1-4—The Apostle deals with one more thing that needed to be set in order at Corinth—“the collection.” Apparently, the Corinthians didn’t have a regular weekly collection. What he was about to tell them in regards to this was not something specific to them alone. He had taught the same to “the churches of Galatia.”
The collections of the saints should be used for the needs of the Lord’s people. It could be for His servants from whom we receive spiritual help (Phil. 4:14-18), or for special needs of the poor of the flock (2 Cor. 8-9). On this occasion Paul was not speaking of a collection for those who ministered the Word, but for “the poor saints which are at Jerusalem” (Rom. 15:25-26). We see the wisdom of the Apostle here in addressing the saints on this subject. Had the collection to which he refers been for labourers, it could have been construed that he really wanted a gift from them after all, even though he said he wouldn’t take one from them (chap. 9). But that was definitely not his intention (2 Cor. 12:17). He tactfully waited for this moment when there was a need for others. Then he would speak about the collection and the dispersing of it without anyone thinking that he wanted it for himself.
The saints at Jerusalem were poor for a number of reasons. Their faith in the Lord Jesus had brought them into severe “persecution” (Acts 8:1), and many of them had their earthly possessions confiscated (Heb. 10:34). Some of them were killed and thus left behind widows and orphans who needed support. There was also a “great dearth” (famine) in that area, and this stressed the saints beyond measure (Acts 11:28-30). What made matters worse was that the saints at Jerusalem, in their zeal for the Lord, had sold their possessions and their lands and houses (Acts 2:44-45; 4:34-35). When the trouble came, it magnified their problem, for they had nowhere to turn for food and shelter.
Our all-wise God had His good reasons behind allowing the need to arise in Jerusalem and Judea. It became an occasion for the Gentile Christians to have fellowship with the Jewish believers, thus bonding them together in a very practical way. The Jewish saints may have had thoughts of not needing the Gentile believers, or that the Gentiles were in a class beneath them, but this gift from the Gentile saints to the poor Jewish saints at Jerusalem helped to dispel that. It caused the Jewish believers to lift up their hearts in thanksgiving in genuine appreciation for their Gentile brethren (2 Cor. 9:11-13). If there had been any reserve toward the converted Gentiles, prior to this trial, this expression of love and fellowship dispelled it.
Paul told them that they should take care to have a regular collection “upon the first day of the week.” This was the day when the saints universally came together to break bread (Acts 20:7). Hebrews 13:15-16 connects this kind of giving with “the sacrifice of praise to God.” Both are a priestly function. In fact, both are said to be a “sacrifice” to God. All such monetary gifts are given to the Lord as part of our worship. Since this passage in 1 Corinthians 16 synchronizes with Acts 20:7 when the saints were gathered together to break bread, it is fair to assume that both offerings to God would be given at the same time at the remembrance feast.
Paul said that “everyone” in fellowship ought to give in the collection. Some have mistakenly thought that the husband who is the head of the house (and the one who usually brings the money into the home) ought to give on behalf of his household. Therefore, there is no need for the wife to contribute too. This is what was done in Judaism (Num. 7:2), and it was right and proper for Jews in a natural religion. However, Christianity is a direct contrast to Judaism (John 4:21-24). To practise such in Christianity is to confuse natural relationships with the new spiritual relationships that we have been brought into in the body of Christ. In Christianity, we don’t worship God as members of a family, but as members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:17). The wife is a member of the body of Christ as much as her husband and should participate in this aspect of worship. This mistaken idea may have been borrowed inadvertently from Christian denominationalism. Such organizations approach God in what they call “Family Worship,” but it is a misunderstanding of true Christian worship. Since both brothers and sisters are priests, none should be hindered in this priestly function (Heb. 13:15-16). A single sister gives in the collection, and when she gets married, this priestly function shouldn’t be taken from her because she has married.
The funds were to be stored until such time that someone who was travelling to Jerusalem could take the gift to them. Note that everything having to do with handling the Lord’s money is to be done above suspicion. Since they would know the character of those in that assembly best, Paul said that they should choose “whomsoever” they thought best to carry the funds (vs. 3; 2 Cor. 8:19). In this way, they would be “providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men” (2 Cor. 8:21).
Closing Exhortations
(Chap. 16:5-24)
Before closing the epistle, the Apostle gives the Corinthians some practical exhortations that he hoped would encourage them to do the will of God, and those things that he exhorted in the epistle.
Paul’s Planned Visit to Corinth Postponed
Vss. 5-9—Paul tells them of his plans to visit the assemblies in “Macedonia,” and also to come to them at Corinth, but for the time being he would stay at “Ephesus” because there was an open door in the gospel there (vss. 8-9). This shows that it is not wrong for the Lord’s servants to have an itinerary as he serves the Lord.
Verse 6 indicates that while the servant may have definite plans in his travels, he should also be flexible in those plans. He said that he would like to come to Corinth if the Lord opened the way (vss. 5-6), but for the time being he had postponed the trip (vs. 7). Had he gone to Corinth, he would have had to use his apostolic authority as a rod of correction and judge many of them who were at fault. Instead, he waited and looked for repentance in them and a setting right of the disorders in the assembly. He didn’t come out and tell them that directly here because it might have given them a wrong reason for correcting things. Therefore, he wisely desisted, and waited on the Spirit of God to work in them producing the necessary fruits of repentance. Later, when they had corrected the disorders in their midst, he wrote the second epistle and was free to tell them why he did not come at this time. It was to “spare” them (2 Cor. 1:23). He would have had to use his apostolic power in a disciplinary way (1 Cor. 4:21—“a rod”).
Service Under the Lordship of Christ
Vss. 10-18—In this whole closing passage we see a beautiful picture of the various servants of the Lord at work in His vineyard. Some were travelling from place to place ministering to the Lord’s people—such as “Paul,” “Timotheus,” and “Apollos.” Others were serving locally such as “Stephanas,” “Fortunatus,” and “Achaicus.” They are all found working under the Lordship of Christ and being directed by Him in their work. There is no mention of them reporting to a missionary board that would dispatch them to their appointed place of work, as it is usually done today. Such is a man-made idea that interferes with the servants’ immediate responsibilities under the Lordship of Christ.
This chapter shows that when Christ gives gifts (Eph. 4:11) that they are directly responsible to Him in their ministry. The Head of the Church is in heaven, and He will direct the members of His body in their sphere of ministry, if they look to Him. We find that in the early days of Christianity the work of the Lord was not carried out under an organization of men—not even the apostles. That was, and still is, solely the work of the Spirit of God. What He did then we can count on Him to do now. Scripture says, “Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He will send forth labourers into His harvest” (Matt. 9:38). And again, “As they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, Separate Me now Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them. Then, having fasted and prayed, and having laid their hands on them, they let them go. They therefore, having been sent forth by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia” (Acts 13:2-4).
These references indicate that the Lord’s servants are to be free to act under His immediate direction. Scripture knows nothing of the Lord’s servants being controlled by an earth organization of men, but by the Lord through the Holy Spirit. The Lord, by the Spirit, sent Paul and Barnabas into the field, and there is no mention of them reporting to a board for direction and support in that service. Neither was there any mention of the servants of the Lord in that day going to a seminary before they ministered. The possession of a gift to minister the Word was their warrant to use that gift (1 Peter 4:10-11). It should be the same today.
The Church should recognize a gift as being sent of the Lord and should give the person “the right hands of fellowship” in that work that he does, as was the case in Antioch in regard to Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13:3; Gal. 2:9). This might be a practical gift of financial support. But the Church or any parachurch organization involved in the work of sending servants is really interfering with the servant’s immediate responsibility to act under the Lord. They tend to become servants of that organization to fulfil its goals and are made answerable to it in their ministry.
We don’t see any such thing in this passage or any passage in the Scriptures. Earlier in the epistle Paul said that he would encourage Timothy to go to Corinth and remind them of his ways in Christ, and to exhort them as to their responsibility to set things in order (1 Cor. 4:17). This was a nice desire of Paul, but it is as far as he would go. No apostle had authority over another servant to send him to a work if he didn’t feel led to do so. An apostle could recommend it, and encourage one in that direction, but ultimately a person has to feel led of the Lord. He says here, “Now if Timotheus come ... .” (vs. 10). This shows that even though the Apostle desired Timothy to go to Corinth, he understood that Timothy had to be directed of the Lord in it. There was a possibility that Timothy would not feel led to go.
Paul exhorted the Corinthians that “if” he did come, that they were to let him be among them “without fear.” Timothy was a timid young worker, and they needed to give him space to exercise his gift in ministry. With the confusion going on in their meetings (chap. 14:26), someone like Timothy would never be able to get a word in. So Paul said, “Let no man therefore despise him” (vs. 11). Timothy not only did “the work of the Lord,” but he did it in the same manner and spirit “as” the Apostle Paul. This was a high commendation indeed.
We see here that “Apollos” was not under apostolic direction either (vs. 12). Paul said that he “greatly desired” that Apollos would go to Corinth, but he had other places on his heart. Apollos looked to the Lord and felt directed not to go at that time. The Apostle, having expressed his desire, respects his convictions and leaves the servant of the Lord free to act before his Master.
We might wonder if Paul would not go to Corinth because of the problems, and why he would encourage other servants to go. The reason, we believe, is that he was an apostle and would be forced to act in judgment among them. Carrying such a responsibility, he desired that others would go and seek to bring them to repentance, so that when he came, he would not have to act in judgment.
Verses 13-14 indicate that the assembly at Corinth was not dependent on the servants of the Lord coming to correct things; they were directly responsible to the Lord to set things in order themselves. Five little exhortations follow. All were aimed at stirring the Corinthians into action in regards to the need to set right the disorders in their assembly. He says, “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. Let all your things be done with charity [love].”
We see in the case of “Stephanas,” “Fortunatus,” and “Achaicus,” that they too were doing the work of the Lord. But it was primarily in a local sense. “The house of Stephanas” is set before us as a model of leadership in the assembly. They were marked by caring for the flock. They had “addicted [devoted] themselves to the ministry [service] of the saints” (vs. 15). This is a beautiful commendation. We do not read that Paul had appointed elders in that assembly (perhaps because of their carnality), but even though there were none in that place officially, the work of oversight went on.
This is a pattern for us today since we have no apostle to appoint elders in our assemblies. The Spirit of God can still raise up ones to take the lead and care for the flock, and the work of oversight can still go on (Acts 20:28). It is just that we don’t have any apostolic power to appoint them to that place officially. The Corinthians were to “submit” themselves to such (vs. 16) and “acknowledge” them in that place (vs. 18). Compare also Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Thessalonians 5:11-12.
We find that as was the case with the other servants of the Lord, “Stephanas,” “Fortunatus,” and “Achaicus” were not under any apostolic direction. They had gone to the Apostle on their own volition as led by the Lord and supplied things to him which were “lacking” on the part of the Corinthian assembly (vs. 17). This is a reference to their practical fellowship with the Apostle that the assembly as a whole did not communicate. In the face of this lack, these three brothers provided for Paul out of their own pockets.
Final Salutations
Vss. 19-24—Various salutations from various assemblies and individuals are given by the Apostle as he closes the epistle. Paul wanted the Corinthians to know that even though there were serious things in their assembly that needed to be corrected, the other assemblies were still in fellowship with them, and saluted them. This was to confirm to the Corinthians that the assemblies abroad had not abandoned them. If they refused to correct those things, actions would have to be taken whereby they would be disowned as an assembly, but until that time they were still in fellowship. This is an important principle. The presence of sin in an assembly does not automatically make it cease to be an assembly gathered to the Lord’s name (Matt. 18:20). It is only after patience and remonstrance with such an assembly that proves to be harbouring evil in its midst in self-will, that an action must be made to clear the Lord’s name. Another assembly that is nearest to the problem morally—in the sense of having had some prior interaction with them in regard to the issue at hand—should act on behalf of the assemblies at large to disown the assembly at fault. They may not be the assembly that is geographically nearest, but they are morally nearest the problem.
Paul closes with a solemn warning to any among them who might not be saved. He says, “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha” (vs. 22). “Anathema Maranatha” means to be accursed when the Lord comes. He has alluded in various places in the epistle that there was a strong likelihood that there were some among them who were mere professors. Every true believer will “love” the Lord Jesus Christ. They prove their love to Him by keeping His commandments (John 14:15; 1 Cor. 14:37). Those who will not walk in obedience prove themselves to be false, and Paul warns that certain judgment was awaiting them.
“Grace” from the Lord Jesus Christ and “love” from the Apostle is commended to the Corinthians as the final motive to bestir them to action in dealing with the various things that needed to be attended to in regards to the disorders in their assembly (vss. 23-24).