Category Archives: 1 Corinthians

Posted on

Who really speaks for God?—1 Thessalonians 5:21

Paul closes his first letter to the Thessalonians with a series of exhortations. Paul no doubt designed these exhortations particularly for the believers in Thessalonica, but they relevant for us today also. (Ancient writers sometimes listed a series of exhortations; in this case, Paul is adding some concise advice after finishing the main part of his letter.) I will focus especially on Paul’s exhortations concerning prophecy, in their wider ancient Christian context, but many of these principles also apply when we evaluate teachings.

Paul’s exhortations in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-22

Paul’s closing exhortations include supporting and heeding God’s workers among them (5:12-13a), remaining in unity (5:13b), giving each member of the body what they need (admonition, encouragement, or help, 5:14) and being patient and kind with everyone (5:14b-15).

Paul then lists a trio of exhortations related to a worshipful heart: always rejoice, continue in prayer, and give thanks in every situation (5:16-18). Such an approach to life demonstrates faith in God who guides our lives. Of course, these are general summaries, not meaning that a person is never sad. Elsewhere Paul does value grieving with those who grieve (Rom 12:15) and himself grieves whenever he thinks of the fallen state of his people (Rom 9:2-3). He feared for a friend’s safety (2 Cor 7:5) and was deeply concerned for the churches (2 Cor 11:28-29; 1 Thess 3:5). Nevertheless, joy is characteristic of life in the Spirit (Gal 5:22) and of much worship (e.g., Ps 9:2; 27:6; 32:11; 33:3).

Then Paul turns to what might be another trio of exhortations, the third of which might raise two related issues. We must not “quench” the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19); we must not despise prophecies (5:20); we must evaluate them (5:21), embracing what is good and rejecting what is evil (5:21-22).

The verb that Paul uses to warn against “quenching” the Spirit originally (and usually still) referred to putting out a fire. This suggests to us that the Spirit sometimes moves God’s people in astonishingly dramatic ways; even more clearly, it warns us that our resistance can hinder the Spirit’s work. We can do this in ways such as preferring our old patterns of doing things to what God is now doing, or by deliberate disobedience.

Discerning prophecies (1 Thess 5:20-22)

The next exhortation likely suggests one of the Spirit’s key ways of working: “Do not despise prophecies” (5:20). As we see in 1 Corinthians 14 and in light of the Old Testament, God moved some of those listening to him to deliver his message to others. Whereas this may have sometimes been practiced in small groups of prophets in the Old Testament (e.g., 1 Sam 10:5-6, 10), God had now poured out the prophetic Spirit so widely starting at Pentecost (Acts 2:17-18) that such prophecy was widespread among the early churches (compare 1 Cor 14:1, 5, 26-31).

The verb translated “despise” implies contemptuously looking down on something as being too insignificant, or beneath one’s dignity, to consider. The Old Testament and Jewish tradition often associated the Spirit with prophetic inspiration, so “quenching the Spirit” (1 Thess 5:19) may be expressed here especially by demeaning prophecy (5:20). Probably the Thessalonian Christians were not the only ones tempted to ignore prophecies; Paul warns the Corinthian Christians to zealously seek to prophesy, as well as not to forbid tongues (1 Cor 14:39). (See further http://wp.me/p1MUNd-l9.)

Nevertheless, not all prophecies or messages supposedly from God really were (cf. 2 Thess 2:2). Moreover, we may hear something from God yet fallibly misunderstand and/or miscommunicate it: we know and prophesy only in part (1 Cor 13:9; cf. 2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 15-16; Matt 11:3; Acts 21:4).

One must therefore “test all things” (1 Thess 5:21). Paul elsewhere speaks of evaluating everything, so we may discern God’s will (Rom 12:2; Phil 1:9-10); he urges us to evaluate especially ourselves (1 Cor 11:28; 2 Cor 13:5; Gal 6:4). He also exhorts prophets in local congregations to corporately evaluate the prophecies they have given (1 Cor 14:29), and may speak of a special gift of such discernment (12:10).

Having evaluated messages, we should embrace what is good and reject what is evil (5:21-22). These final warnings may apply specifically to prophecy. But even if these last two warnings are more general rather than referring specifically to prophecy, in this context the principle would certainly apply to prophecy also.

Often in the Old Testament, senior prophets such as Samuel or Elijah and Elisha mentored groups of younger prophets, helping them grow in discernment (cf. 1 Sam 19:20; 2 Kgs 4:38; 6:1-3). Here, however, Paul addresses a congregation of believers that is only several years old; the “safety net” for prophecy in this case thus involves not the discernment of senior prophets but rather a sort of peer review. Here those most sensitive to the Spirit’s voice listen together for God’s leading (1 Cor 14:29). The corporate hearing of all the churches was also valuable (1 Cor 14:36). Paul could function in the senior prophet role himself (14:37-38), but was not with them to supervise everything, and sometimes these young believers needed correction. Today we still need to practice discernment about whatever message claims to be from God, whether it is with prophecies or teachings.

Discerning prophets in Scripture

First John, concerned about false teachers who have left the community of believers, warns that believers must “test” the spirits to discern false prophets (1 John 4:1). Whereas Paul’s instructions to churches required evaluating genuine believers’ prophecies, this passage addresses full-fledged false prophets from the spirit of “antichrist” (4:1-6). First John offers various means of discernment, both doctrinal (Jesus is the Christ, 2:22-23; Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, 4:2-3; Jesus is God’s Son, 4:15; fidelity to the apostolic witness to Jesus, 4:5-6) and moral (continued fellowship with God’s people, 2:19; keeping his commandments [2:3-6], especially by loving other believers, 2:9-11; 3:10; 4:7-8, 20). Articulating the right view about Christ and faithfully loving one another are both signs of being true followers of Christ; wrong views about Christ, or failure to truly love one’s fellow believers, are signs of a false prophet.

Of course, John was addressing a specific situation. We also read of false prophets who deliberately make up falsehoods to exploit God’s people financially or sexually (2 Pet 2:1-3). Others prophesy in Jesus’s name, apparently believing in what they are doing (Matt 7:22), but are damned because they do not bear the good fruit of obedience to Jesus’s teachings (7:16-23). A person can even prophesy genuinely by the Spirit and yet not be a godly person, simply moved because the Spirit is strong in the ministry setting where they find themselves (1 Sam 19:20-24). What matters most before God—and how we will know who is from God—is not a person’s gifts but his or her fruit.

A very early Christian document that is not in the New Testament gives even more detailed advice. Chapter 11 of the Didache urges Christians to initially welcome visiting apostles and prophets. If, however, an alleged apostle or prophet does not live by the Lord’s ways, for example by seeking for money or gifts for oneself, that person is a false prophet.

Ultimately, in distinguishing a true message from God from a false one (or at least one distorted by human misinterpretation), any given message must be evaluated by a larger context of what God has said. God’s word did not start with any of us nor come to us alone (1 Cor 14:36). God will not contradict what he has already spoken, so everything may be safely tested by Scripture. Further, as noted above, others who listen to God should also be able to recognize whether something is truly from God or not.

Discerning messages today

Because not everyone understands Scripture the same way, careful interpretation is important (see e.g., http://www.craigkeener.org/why-it-is-important-to-study-the-bible-in-context/; “The Bible in its Context” free at http://www.craigkeener.org/free-resources/).

A difficulty sometimes harder to resolve by “objective” means is how we recognize who else is truly listening to the Spirit to help evaluate messages. In settings where falsehood has become widespread, the true prophetic voice may be in the minority whereas those who all speak the same message may be false prophets (1 Kgs 22:6-25; Jer 5:13, 31; 14:13-15; 20:6; 23:9-31; 26:7-8, 11, 16; 27:9, 14-18; 28; 29:8, 31; 32:32; 37:19; Ezek 13:2-9). Nevertheless, even here the true prophetic voice stands in continuity with earlier prophetic voices (Jer 7:25; 25:4; 26:5; 28:8; 29:19; 35:15).

Even though some regarded prophecies of judgment against God’s people as blasphemous (Jer 26:11), the burden of proof rested with those who told people what they wanted to hear (28:8-9). “Prophets” can get popular telling people what they want to hear, such as that judgment is not coming (Jer 6:13-14; 8:10-11; 14:13-16; Ezek 13:16; Mic 3:5), or that God does not mind their sexual behavior or popular idolatry (Jude 4; Rev 2:14, 20).

To give an example, a few decades ago prosperity teacher Charles Capps declared that judgment would not come on America, since it had 100 million Christians who spoke in tongues. During the same period, Pentecostal preacher David Wilkerson was warning that judgment was coming on the United States. Which one was more accurately hearing what the Spirit was saying?

Certainly we know what people in the United States want to hear and want they do not want to hear, whether it comes from the political right or the political left. People were incensed when Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, from the political right, pronounced judgment on the United States for sexual sin; people were no less incensed when Jeremiah Wright, President Obama’s former pastor, pronounced judgment on this country for exploiting others. One reason for the public outcry in both cases was that the speakers apparently pronounced judgment after the fact (even if they had also been doing it beforehand); another may have been that it was felt insensitive to the many innocent people who suffered when the tragic events came.

Nevertheless, it also seems clear that it is easier to become popular by preaching what satisfies people’s “itching ears” (2 Tim 4:3). Is it possible that preachers who promote extravagance, or preach a god who does not care about injustice, or promise that believers will not suffer, and so forth, gain followers by satisfying what people want to hear? Is it possible that God’s heart is grieved, as in Jeremiah’s day, by the proliferation of false messages in his name?

Posted on

How do we imitate God?—Ephesians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 11:1; and other passages

What does Eph 5:1 mean when it exhorts us, “Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children” (NIV)? Should we try to be omnipresent (everywhere at once), as God is? Should we try to create the universe? The context is very specific how we should imitate God. We should forgive as God in Christ forgave us (4:32) and love one another, just as Christ sacrificially loved us (5:2).

Paul similarly invites his hearers in Corinth to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Cor 11:1). Paul offered himself in 1 Cor 9 as an example of giving up his rights; in 10:33, he summarizes, “just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved” (NRSV). This is how Paul followed the example of Christ, and invites others to follow his example.

Other passages also speak of imitating God or Christ, although in different words. For example, 1 Pet 1:14-16 urges us not to act like we did before we followed Christ, but to be holy in our behavior as God is holy. That is, God has set us apart for himself, so we should behave like those who are consecrated for God’s eternal purposes, not living for things that do not really matter. (Peter cites Lev 11:44-45, where God already invited this imitation, in that case by Old Testament food customs separating Israel from surrounding cultures.)

In Matthew 5:48, Jesus calls us to be perfect as our heavenly Father is. This does not mean that if we miss a point on a test we are disobeying this command. The context is God’s example: he sends the agricultural blessings of sunshine and rain on both those who serve him and those who do not. In the same way, we should love our enemies, thus acting like his children who follow his example (Matt 5:44-45). (This is clear in the same context in Luke, where Jesus is instead quoted as, “Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful”; Luke 6:36 NASB.)

Something goes even deeper than imitation, however, and enables us to imitate God in these moral ways. If we recognize Jesus as our Lord and Savior, he sends God’s Spirit to live in us (Rom 8:9). The fruit of God’s Spirit in us means that God’s own character, his own heart, is at work inside us. Because of this, we will grow to be more and more like him, because of his own gift of his Spirit to us. (For more detail on this, see the post on this website concerning the fruit of the Spirit: http://www.craigkeener.org/the-fruit-of-the-spirit-galatians-522-23/.)

Posted on

When would Jesus permit divorce?

In the previous post, I emphasized Jesus’s teaching on preserving and, where possible, restoring marriage. Jesus used graphic language to challenge some of his religious hearers’ insufficient commitment to marriage. In doing so, however, he was not seeking to make matters worse for those whose marriages were being broken against their will. Indeed, as noted briefly in that post, these were the very people that Jesus was defending.

Here I will first raise a problem—a way of reading a verse that some have used to prohibit and even break up remarriages. I will then show from the context of Jesus’s larger teaching on divorce, and other New Testament interpretations of his teaching, that this first way of reading the passage takes Jesus’s point out of context.

When Jesus speaks of remarriage after divorce as “adultery” in Mark 10:11, what does he mean? When used literally, adultery means sleeping with someone who is married to another person, and/or sleeping with someone other than one’s own spouse. (Most of the ancient world gave more license to the husband so long as his paramour was single, but the New Testament does not allow this double standard.) Thus, if Dedrick is married to Shamika and sleeps with Shonda, that is adultery.

But Jesus here seems to be saying that if Dedrick divorces Shamika and marries Shonda, that is still adultery despite the official divorce; that is, he treats Dedrick as still married to Shamika. In other words, he speaks as if human, legal divorce does not actually end a marriage in God’s sight.

The question is: Does Jesus mean this literally, or is he simply using a graphic way of warning against divorce? I argue here that he is using a graphic way of warning against divorce—that he is using hyperbole, that is, a rhetorical overstatement to drive home a point. Keep in mind that the point of hyperbole is not so we can dismiss its message, saying, “That’s just hyperbole.” Rather the rhetorical and literary device of hyperbole is a way to challenge us to examine whether we are living up to its message. How we take this matters: strongly warning against divorce is not the same as denying that God recognizes the legitimacy of new marriages.

Like (but even more than) many of his contemporaries, Jesus used graphic hyperbole to communicate many of his points. Anyone who is not willing to recognize that a given teaching at least might be hyperbole, before examining it, needs to reimmerse himself or herself in Jesus’s teachings. A camel does not normally literally fit through the eye of a needle; scrupulous Pharisees did not normally literally gulp down camels whole; and we have no record of Jesus’s first followers moving any literal mountains. These were graphic ways of communicating a point.

Moreover, the literary context of at least one of Jesus’s divorce sayings involves hyperbole. Just before his teaching about remarriage and adultery in Matthew 5:32, Jesus warns that whoever looks on a woman to covet her sexually has committed adultery with her in his heart (5:28). I often tell my students that I am proud to see that none of them has committed this sin. How do I discern their innocence? The solution to this sin, which appears in the next verse, is for the transgressor to tear out his eye. In fact, nearly all of us recognize that command as hyperbole—a graphic way of underlining the point that we must put away sin. No sane reader will follow this command literally.

Further, it may be relevant that Jesus does not tell a woman married five times that she was married once and that all the rest of her relationships were adulterous. Rather, he says that she has had five husbands but the man with whom she lives now is not her husband (John 4:18). One could argue that Jesus is speaking literally in John 4:18 but figuratively in Mark 10:11, or one could argue the reverse; but one who affirms the authority of both texts cannot easily have it both ways. Further evidence shows which reading is likelier.

Matthew and Paul recognize exceptions to Jesus’s graphic statement. In Matthew, Jesus says that a man cannot divorce his wife and remarry unless the wife is unfaithful (Matt 5:32; 19:9). (Some try to make the exception here something narrower than adultery, but the Greek term is actually broader than, rather than narrower than, adultery. It is only the context that limits it even to adultery.) The basis for remarriage being adulterous would be that God did not accept the reality of the divorce (all monogamists recognized that a valid divorce was necessary for remarriage). Here, however, God accepts the reality of the divorce if the spouse was unfaithful.

Yet if Shamika is not still married to Dedrick, how can Dedrick still be married to Shamika? If even an explicitly guilty party is not married to their first spouse in God’s sight, we cannot say that God literally regards the first partners as still married, or that remarriage is therefore literally adulterous. That a true follower of Jesus should work to preserve their marriage is clear, but that anyone should break up remarriages as adulterous unions, as some suggest, is not.

Paul explicitly allows the believer abandoned by an unbeliever (someone who is not following Jesus’s teachings) to remarry. (Laws in Corinth treated marriage as a matter of mutual consent; the departure of either party legally dissolved the marriage.) When Paul says that the believer is “not under bondage,” or “not bound” (1 Cor 7:15), he uses the exact language of ancient Jewish divorce contracts for freedom to remarry. This is precisely what the language meant when people in antiquity discussed divorce, the issue that Paul addresses here.

We should note what the two clear exceptions have in common: in neither case does Jesus’s follower break the marriage covenant; it is broken by the other person. One person working hard can often lead to the restoration of a marriage, but it is not guaranteed; the partner has their own will and can still choose to do the wrong thing (1 Cor 7:16). Paul had to address a local situation that Jesus did not explicitly address. Today we might think of physical abuse as an analogous kind of situation where the abuser is the one breaking the marriage covenant. Beyond such extreme circumstances, however, we need to be very careful, recognizing that some people will take any excuse to opt out of responsibility for a marriage (such as burning the toast, as mentioned in the earlier post). Paul makes clear that we are expected to do our best.

Not only do the biblical exceptions suggest that Mark 10:11 includes hyperbole, but so does that very verse’s context. Jesus demands, “Therefore what God has joined together, LET no one separate” (Mark 10:9). The point remains that we must not break up marriages. Yet the wording shows that marriage is not indissoluble in God’s eyes; Jesus warns against breaking marriage, rather than arguing that it is impossible to break. That is, the context of Mark 10:11, like Jesus’s and Paul’s other teachings on the subject, shows that Mark 10:11 uses hyperbole.

Jesus graphically summons us to commitment to marriage. Yet to break up remarriages (the solution that some readers have argued) actually undermines his point. Moreover, Jesus is certainly not seeking to make matters more difficult for those divorced against their will, as some churches have done. Treating someone divorced against his or her will to “stand against divorce” can be like treating someone raped or murdered against his or her will to stand against those actions.

I recognize that short posts cannot address all situations; these two posts have explored principles, but pastoral counselors must apply those principles in a wide range of concrete situations. What I hope is clear is that the biblical issue is less about whether someone eventually remarries than about the need to be faithful to marriage to begin with. (From a counseling perspective, it is unwise to enter a new relationship immediately after a divorce even if one was completely faithful to one’s previous marriage; the wounded heart is too vulnerable and needs time to heal. But at this point the expertise belongs not to me but to pastoral counselors and related professions.)

The narrowness of the explicit exceptions reminds us, however, that Jesus wants us to value and be committed to marriage. The point of exceptions is that they must be a last resort (though of course someone in physical danger is probably already at that point). Counseling or therapy can often save marriages. But we need to recognize that just as prayers for healing are not always answered (everyone acknowledges, for example, that godly people are not immortal), neither are prayerful attempts to save marriages when they involve only one party.

Believers must do their best to preserve marriage, but we must not abuse those whose marriages have broken, especially if it was not their choice. Jesus warned some religious people: “If you had understood the meaning of these words—‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice’—you would not have condemned the innocent” (Matt 12:7).

Posted on

Not rightly discerning the body—1 Corinthians 11:17-34

When Jesus met with his disciples the night before his crucifixion, he ate a meal with them. In the ancient world, eating together formed a covenant relationship between those who ate. Sometimes it formed a covenant relationship even between their families into the next generation—in one Greek story, two warriors decided not to fight each other because one’s father had once hosted the other’s father for a meal.

But Jesus’s disciples had often eaten with him, and this was a special meal. Jesus had sent his disciples to prepare the Passover for that evening (Mark 14:12-16). The Passover commemorated God’s action of saving Israel; now Jesus was about to be the agent of a new act of salvation. At the Passover, the host interpreted elements like the bread and the wine.

Over the bread he declared, “This is the bread of affliction which our ancestors ate when they came out of the land of Egypt.” Jesus said, “This is my body, which is for you.” No one thought that the bread at Passover was literally the very bread the ancestors had eaten and digested 1300 years earlier; the disciples should likewise have understood that Jesus was not suggesting literal cannibalism in the eating of his flesh. (Of course, no one today understands the Lord’s supper this way. Even the strictest supporters of transubstantiation do not affirm that the bread’s chemical composition changes to skin and muscle with human DNA.)

Just as Jewish people remembered, reenacted and participated in Israel’s redemption by God in the Passover, so Jesus’ followers reenter into the final night with his disciples when we participate in the Lord’s supper. We recognize that Jesus’ death was no accident or mere miscarriage of justice. It was part of God’s plan to save us, just like the Passover lamb spared Israel from the final, devastating plague.

But in Corinth Christians treated the Lord’s supper in a different way. In their culture, well-to-do people often invited other people over for dinner—and seated them according to social rank. The people with better seats (actually, better couches) often got better food and better wine than people in lower positions. Sometimes those who got the lower seats complained about their humiliation.

Even though we are followers of Christ, we sometimes reflect the values of our culture without realizing it, and it takes either someone very insightful or someone from another culture to point our error out to us. Some of the Corinthian Christians were feasting and getting drunk at the Lord’s supper, while others were leaving hungry (1 Cor 11:21). The Christians had absorbed the values of their culture! Corinthians emphasized social status, and the church there was interested in the same thing (1 Cor 1:26-27; 4:8; 6:4).

The Lord’s supper was not just about Christ’s act of redemption; it was about the people whom he has redeemed. If Christ is the way that all of us were saved, then none of us can boast over another. When he gave his body, it was partly to make us one body (1 Cor 10:17; 12:12-13), and if we despise one another, we do not rightly discern Christ’s body (1 Cor 11:29). This behavior invites God’s judgment (11:30-34).

Do we look down on (or up on) people in the church whose status or role in society differs from ours? More generally, are we divided from other members of Christ’s body, in our local church or elsewhere? (Sometimes this division extends even to debates about the Lord’s supper itself, but the principle also applies to divisions more generally.) We cannot always control others’ views toward us, but insofar as it depends on us, do we live at peace with others? The Lord’s supper is a regular reminder that we share a common faith that matters more than our other differences. To partake of the Lord’s supper with integrity consistent with our faith, we must learn to live out that unity that Christ has established.

This article adapts one that Craig wrote in 2006. Craig Keener is author of 17 books, including 1-2 Corinthians (Cambridge University Press, 2005).

Posted on

Will gifts like prophecy and tongues pass away?

Paul says that spiritual gifts like prophecy, tongues and knowledge will pass away when we no longer need them (1 Cor. 13:8-10). Some Christians read this passage as if it said, “Spiritual gifts like prophecy, tongues, and knowledge passed away when the last book of the New Testament was written.” This interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13 ignores the entire context of 1 Corinthians, however: it is a letter to the Corinthians in the middle of the first century, and they had never yet heard of a New Testament in the middle of the first century. Had Paul meant the completion of the New Testament, he would have had to have made this point much more clearly–starting by explaining what a New Testament addition to their Bible was.

In the context we find instead that Paul means that spiritual gifts will pass away when we know God as He knows us, when we see Him face to face (13:12; when we no longer see as through a mirror as in the present—cf. 2 Cor 3:18, the only other place where Paul uses the term). In other words, spiritual gifts must continue until our Lord Jesus returns at the end of the age. They should remain a normal part of our Christian experience today.

A broader examination of the context reveals even more of Paul’s meaning in this passage. In chapters 12-14, Paul addresses those who are abusing particular spiritual gifts, and argues that God has gifted all members of Christ’s body with gifts for building up God’s people. Those who were using God’s gifts in ways that hurt others were abusing the gifts God had given for helping others. That is why Paul spends three paragraphs in the midst of his discussion of spiritual gifts on the subject of love: gifts without love are useless (13:1-3); love seeks to edify (13:4-7); the gifts are temporary (for this age only), but love is eternal (13:8-13). We should seek the best gifts (1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1), and love gives us the insight to see which gifts are the best in any given situation–those that build others up.

The context of Paul’s entire letter drives this point home further: Paul’s description of what love is in 1 Cor. 13:4-7 contrasts starkly with Paul’s prior descriptions of the Corinthians in his letter: selfish, boastful, and so on (1 Cor 3:3; 4:6-7, 18; 5:2). The Corinthian Christians, like the later church in Laodicea (Rev. 3:14-22), had a lot in their favor, but lacked what mattered most of all: the humility of love.

Posted on

Christian celebrity cults: Paul vs. Apollos in 1 Corithians 4:6-21

Sometimes we get so excited about various figures we respect today or in church history that we lose sight of the fact that they were just people like us. A true man or woman of God can say like Paul and Barnabas, “We are people just like you” (Acts 14:15). In our consumeristic society it seems effective for ministries and publishers to market the people who represent them; but we must not lose sight of the One who really matters, who really saves us. This reminder is especially important for the leaders who get marketed.

Students of rival teachers in Corinth often competed and sometimes came to blows; this broader societal problem spilled over into the church. Even though Paul and Apollos personally were on good terms, their respective followers divided over who was the more clever speaker. That is, they focused on their celebrities, just the way their wider culture focused on its celebrities.

Paul reminds the Corinthian Christians, however, that their heroes were not as big as the Corinthians thought. Everything, after all, was a gift (4:7); we can’t boast in what was given to us, as if we earned it. Indeed, God had given the Corinthians Paul and Apollos and others for their sake, to build them up (3:21-22).

Like non-Christians in Corinth, the Christians there wanted to compare teachers, determining who was wisest. They used criteria such as speaking ability. Since they want to be wise, Paul adopts mock philosophic language. Many philosophers claimed that only the truly wise person had the wealth that mattered and was fit to reign as a king; Paul says, “You’ve become rich, you’ve become kings! Hey—I wish this were really true, so you could share some of that ‘royalty’ with us!” (4:8; cf. them being “wise” in 4:10). Even the Corinthians should have known that true sages, even in their culture, often demonstrated their commitment to their teachings by sufferings. Some even offered lists of what they had suffered—as Paul will now do (4:9-13).

Paul thus offers his own example (4:9-13). His orientation is not toward making himself a celebrity or acting for his own benefit, but rather working for Christ’s sake and for theirs. Although elsewhere Paul lists “apostles” as first among the gifts (12:28), he notes here that they are last (4:9). In this context, he means that they must suffer the most persecution and dishonor; the greatest—their founding apostle—is truly the least. Paul may also be saying that apostles are the “last act”—probably alluding figuratively to the closing act of criminals being executed in the arena (15:32). Thus, he says, “we have become a spectacle to the world” (4:9). Some argue that even the language of “scum” and “dregs” Paul that uses in 4:13 sometimes applied to people who were killed on behalf of others. In any case, Paul’s apostolic role is not the lifestyle of a carefree celebrity, but of a suffering servant. Like Jesus, Paul blesses when reviled (4:12).

Paul then invites the believers in Corinth to follow his example (4:14-21). His mock praise of them in 4:8 and 10, and his contrast of their attitude with his sacrifice, is not meant to humiliate them, he points out. Rather, he admonishes them as his dear children (4:14). He addresses them as his children because he is their father; teachers were sometimes called their disciples’ “fathers,” but Paul more than any other kind of teacher, for he brought them the message of Christ (4:15). So Paul, their father, invites them to do what children often do with their fathers: to imitate him (4:16). He offers Timothy, his son in the Lord, as an example of this behavior (4:17). If they choose not to receive his gentle, fatherly admonition, however, they would leave him no alternative but to come discipline them as a father must (4:18-21).

Sometimes today we are tempted to identify with people that we exalt, instead of exalting the Lord. But Paul’s example shows us that true servants of the Lord humble themselves; the greatest is the least. Paul was ready to offer any sacrifice in his life to serve God’s purposes. We must do the same. It’s not about being famous, but about being faithful; not about being praised, but about bringing praise to the One who merits it.

 

Posted on

Paul explains the resurrection to the Corinthians – part 3

These background notes are for 1 Corinthians 15:35-58.

Verse 35: Paul advances the case by answering an imaginary objector, raising the sort of objection often raised to the resurrection belief. For example, some asked what happened if the body was destroyed by fire. (Later rabbis implausibly declared that the body would be resurrected from an indestructible bone in the back of the neck.)

36: “Fool!” was a common response to rhetorical adversaries, including imaginary ones.

37-38: Paul argues that the present body provides the pattern for the future one, regardless of how much remains. Later rabbis also used the seed analogy.

39: Paul argues in 15:39-41 that God can create various kinds of bodies, analogies that allow for a body of glory rather than of flesh (15:43, 50). In these verses Paul lingers on the point rhetorically, developing it by the rhetorical devices of antithesis (contrasts) and various cases of anaphora (x…/x… repetition).

40-41: Most pagans considered stars divine, and Jews saw them as angels. Many believed that stars consisted of fire, as Jews often believed about angels. Many Gentiles considered the heavens pure, the place where souls released from their bodies would ascend. Even some Judeans compared resurrection bodies to angels; given the link between stars and angels in Jewish thought, Paul may compare “angelic” bodies here. He also knows of end-time glory for God’s people (e.g., Isaiah 60:1-2, 19; 61:3; 62:2).

42-43: In 15:42-44, Paul rouses emotion with the ancient rhetorical devices of antithesis and anaphora (x…/x… repetition), in four parallel contrasts. Greeks cherished immortality, but only for the soul. Some Jewish views of the resurrection involved being raised initially in precisely the form in which one died (whether maimed or anything else); Paul seems to envision it differently.

44: Paul contrasts not a “physical” body with a “spiritual” body (though Stoics believed that even “spirit” was material), but rather bodily existence dominated by human life versus the future bodily existence fitted for life by God’s Spirit .

45-47: The first Adam became “a living soul,” or person (Genesis 2:7), a quality in some respects shared with animals (Genesis 2:19). Perhaps since the Holy Spirit characterizes the end-time and resurrects bodies, Paul can associate the new Adam with the Spirit (perhaps like the very breath God breathed into Adam in Genesis 2:7). Some think that Paul is challenging an idea in Corinth (documented in the Jewish philosopher Philo) where Genesis 1:26-27 depicts a “heavenly man” and Genesis 2 a later, earthly “living soul.”

48: Paul returns to his rhetorical contrasts in 15:47-48. Ancients emphasized the principle of like begetting like; what was heavenly produced what was heavenly, and what was earthly, what was earthly. Adam was made from dust (Genesis 2:7).

49: Jewish people believed that God created Adam in his image, but also believed that God stamped his image on people or creation through his Wisdom, his perfect image.

50: “Flesh and blood” was a common figure of speech for mortal humans. In much Greek thought (and Jewish thought influenced by it), whatever was heavenly was eternal, but whatever was earthly was perishable.

51: For examples of end-time “ mysteries” see Daniel 2:28-30, 47. “Sleep” was a frequent euphemism for death.

52: Trumpets were used for gathering and for battle; Jewish prayers spoke of a trumpet gathering God’s people at the time of the end (perhaps based on Isaiah 27:13). Paul may borrow the image from Jesus (Matthew 24:31).

53: In 15:53-54 Paul returns to the rhetorical antithesis, here between mortal and immortal.

54: Paul adapts Isaiah 25:8, “He will swallow death forever,” changing “forever” to “in victory” to correspond with his next citation (it was common to link texts based on common key terms; Jewish teachers also selected textual traditions that worked best, and evidence suggests that some others had already translated “in victory” in the Greek of this verse). (The change also alludes back to 1 Corinthians 15:25-26.) The context could support resurrection (Isaiah 26:19).

55: One could construe Hosea 13:14 negatively, but Paul may reverse that reading in light of the destined positive restoration of God’s people (Hos 14:4-7). Paul changes “hades” to “death” (fitting the meaning and parallel), but more surprisingly changes “punishment” to “victory”; midrash sometimes changed words slightly to play on them. In this way he can link Isaiah 25:8 (in v. 54) with Hosea 13:14, as he builds toward a rhetorical crescendo (1 Corinthians 15:57).

57-58: Speakers and writers often closed a section by summarizing. Ancients often connected belief in the afterlife or, in Judaism, the resurrection, with moral behavior.

 

(Adapted from Dr. Keener’s personal research. Used with permission from InterVarsity Press, which published similar research by Dr. Keener in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

Posted on

Paul explains the resurrection to the Corinthians – part 2

These background notes are for 1 Corinthians 15: 20-34.

Verse 20: “First fruits” represented the beginning of the harvest (Exodus 23:19; Leviticus 23:10; Jeremiah 2:3), a first installment (cf. Romans 8:23).

21-22: In 15:21-22, Paul introduces the concept between Adam and Christ that he will take up again in 15:45-49; Jewish people often affirmed that the end-time would parallel what God had done at the beginning (envisioning paradise as a new Eden).

23-25: Paul envisions the sequence of events based on Psalm 110:1 (as becomes explicit in 15:25): Christ must reign at God’s right hand until his enemies are subdued (for his reign, cf. also Isaiah 9:6-7; Daniel 7:14).

26: All enemies must be subdued (Psalm 110:1); no other enemy can possibly outlast death itself, so the resurrection coincides with Christ’s final victory.

27: Paul shows that the only exemption from what is subdued under him is God himself, as is clear from the verse (Psalm 8:5) immediately preceding his citation (Psalm 8:6). If the ruling “human one” in Psalm 8:4 alludes to humanity’s commission to rule in Genesis 1:26-28, Paul is preparing for his contrast with Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45-49.

28: “All in all” was a rhetorical way to emphasize everything significant. (Although Stoic philosophers used such expressions pantheistically, Jews who used the language did not mean it this way.)

29: There is no consensus what this baptism means. Perhaps Paul alludes to the analogy of 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, where prayer for the dead is unreasonable unless the dead are raised. Perhaps he refers to baptism before they died in hope of the future resurrection; or baptism on behalf of a converted friend who failed to be baptized first. There is no evidence for vicarious baptism for others who are dead in this period, but perhaps it was a local Corinthian idea.

30-31: Danger every hour and dying every day are probably both hyperbole (for very real danger and suffering; cf. Psalm 44:22; 119:109).

32: Corinthians would readily understand the image, since Corinth had recently (A.D. 54) instituted annual imperial festivals that included wild beast “shows.” Ephesus also had gladiatorial shows. Nevertheless, the sentence of battling wild beasts in the arena was a death sentence, so those who did it did not normally live to tell about it. Paul thus undoubtedly applies the image figuratively. Philosophers spoke of the irrational as beasts, and Scripture compared human enemies with hostile beasts (e.g., Psalm 22:16; 74:19).

Paul cites the words of the wicked in Isaiah 22:13, who will face judgment (Isaiah 22:14). Similar depictions applied to those who denied an afterlife, such as Epicureans (cf. also Wisdom of Solomon 2:1-20)

33: Sages emphasized companionship with the morally edifying (e.g., Proverbs 13:20), and Paul here cites a Greek proverb (first known to us in Menander’s comedy “Thais”).

34: The educated and philosophically astute prided themselves on their knowledge (cf. 8:1), especially about eternal matters.

 

(Adapted from Dr. Keener’s personal research. Used with permission from InterVarsity Press, which published similar research by Dr. Keener in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

 

Posted on

Paul explains the resurrection to the Corinthians – part 1

These background notes are for 1 Corinthians 15: 1-19.

Introduction to Paul’s argument: Resurrection by definition involved the body. Many Judeans connected belief in an end-time resurrection (Daniel 12:2) and judgment with moral behavior (Pharisees sometimes attacked the resurrection-denying Sadducees on this count). The notion, however, seemed absurd to Gentiles. Many Gentiles denied an afterlife; believed that it involved a shadowy existence in the netherworld; or, commonly in this period, that one’s soul was immortal, but the body was earthly and had to be relinquished for the soul to ascend back to the heavens from which it originated. Even many Diaspora Jews did not affirm the resurrection. Paul accommodates their language where possible (even more in 2 Corinthians 4:16 to 5:10), but maintains the goodness of God’s physical creation hence a future hope for the body.

Verses 1-2: One often softened an audience by appealing to beliefs they shared; Paul appeals to the common ground of what converted them (cf. 2:1-5; Galatians: 3:2-5).

3: Jewish teachers would “pass on” or “deliver” their teachings to their disciples, who “received” them. Students could take notes, but especially memorized the traditions and sought to pass them on to others. Some think that 15:3-5 or 15:3-7 might be even a verbatim citation; the “Scriptures” believed to involve Jesus’ death here probably include Isaiah 53:4-6, 8, 11-12.

4: By its Jewish definition, resurrection was bodily, like the burial. Scriptures for the resurrection may have included Psalm 16 and Isaiah 53:12; if Paul thinks of Scripture also for “the third day,” he might think of texts like Hosea 6:2 or Jonah 1:17 (but may simply mean that Jesus was raised soon, before he could “see corruption,” Psalm 16:10).

5: “Appeared” was used for visions, but also for real appearances (often of God or angels). Visions of ghosts were common and not controversial; Paul’s list of witnesses in 15:5-8 instead attests assurance of a resurrection, which was by definition bodily. “Cephas” is Aramaic for “Peter.”

6: Ancients liked to appeal to public knowledge; the implication here is that such witnesses remained available to consult. No precedent supports the possibility of so many people having a mass hallucination simultaneously.

7: Paul uses “Apostles” more broadly than just for the Twelve (15:5).

8: Paul compares his out-of-season experience with that of a stillbirth (an image the Septuagint employs only for comparisons; Numbers 12:12; Ecclesiastes 6:3; Job 3:16), but instead of being born prematurely Paul is postmature. There may also be irony in a stillbirth’s acceptance of resurrection.

12: They probably affirm Christ’s resurrection, while wishing to deny that of believers. But resurrection was a corporate,  eschatological experience of God’s people (Daniel 12:2), of which Jesus’ resurrection was only the first installment (cf. 15:12-28). In the following verses, Paul offers a logical chain by way of reductio ad absurdum: they cannot deny the future resurrection without denying the very message that had converted them to faith.

19: Some other Jews felt that life was miserable if there was no future vindication and justice.

 

(Adapted from Dr. Keener’s personal research. Used with permission from InterVarsity Press, which published similar research by Dr. Keener in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

Posted on

The purpose of spiritual gifts – 1 Corinthians 12-14

The Corinthian church was like much of the American church today: socially stratified, individualistic, and divisive. Although Paul commends them for their pursuit of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 1:5, 7), he reproves them for a deficiency far more serious: they lack love, the principle that should guide which gifts they seek (1 Cor. 12-14; 1:10).

Spiritual gifts are for building up the body (1 Cor. 12), and love must coordinate our expression of spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 13). Thus prophecy, a gift that builds up others, is more useful publicly than uninterpreted tongues (1 Cor. 14). Gifts, including prophecy, are no guarantee of spiritual  commitment, and one may prophesy  falsely or even submit to the Spirit’s  inspiration without being committed to Christ (Matt. 7:21-2 3; 1 Sam. 19:20- 24).

Paul reminds his friends in Corinth that they experienced  ecstatic  inspiration in Greek  religion before their conversion, and points out that the message of Christ,  rather  than inspiration in general,  is what matters  (1 Cor. 12:1-3). Communicating the content of God’s message, rather than how ecstatically one speaks it, is the important thing. This  principle applies not only to tongues-speakers and prophets, but to well­ meaning preachers who mistake enthusiasm for anointing while delivering empty speeches  devoid of sound scriptural teaching.

Paul then reminds his hearers that all the gifts come from the same Spirit (1 Cor. 12:4-11) and that the gifts are interdepen­dent (12:12-26). Paul ranks the leading gifts (apostles, prophets, and teachers) and then lists other gifts without ranking their importance or authority (12:27- 30). Paul urges this church to be zealous for the “best” gifts (that is, those that will best build up the church; 12:31), especially prophecy (14:1). Thus it is appropriate to seek spiritual gifts, but we choose which gifts to seek by determining which gifts will help the body of Christ most. That is, we let love guide our choice (1 Cor.  13).

Paul covers this point in some detail. Even if we had all spiritual gifts in their ultimate intensity, we would be nothing without love (13:1-3). The gifts will ultimately pass away, but love is eternal (13:8-13). While noting the priority of love over spiritual gifts, Paul describes the characteristics of love (13:4- 8a). Many of the characteristics he lists (for instance, not being boastful) are precisely the opposite of characteristics he earlier attributed to his readers (see 5:2; 8:1).  Thus while the Corinthian Christians were strong in Spirit-led gifts, they were weak in Spirit-led character. For this reason, Paul needed to emphasize the importance of the gift of prophecy, which edifies the whole church, over uninterpreted  tongues, which  edifies  only  the speaker ( 1 Cor. 14). Although Paul focused on what would serve the church as a whole, he was careful not to portray tongues negatively (14:4, 14-19, 39). He exercised this caution even though he could not have known that some later Christians, contrary to 1 Corinthians 14:39, would despise the gift.

The relevance of Paul’s words to the Corinthian churches raises the question of whether Paul would have applied the same argument to all churches in his day. As many Pentecostals and charismatics note, some of his specific restrictions on gifts may have applied to the excessive situation in Corinth rather than to all churches. If, as is likely, most Corinthian house-churches seated only forty members, I suspect that the dynamics of spiritual gifts would apply differently there than in a congregation of two thousand members, where more limits would be necessary, or in a prayer meeting of five members, where fewer would be necessary.

Likewise, in churches today where spiritual gifts are suspect, prophecy would edify the church no more than tongues would, because even the purest prophecy, approved by other trustworthy prophets, would only introduce division.

Some  charismatics insist  that  the  public  function of all the gifts, including tongues  and  prophecy,  is so important that we should pursue them ( 1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1) even if it splits a church. Other charismatics, however, recognize that this view misses Paul’s whole point. The purpose of the gifts is to make the body of Christ stronger, and if public use of gifts would divide a non­ charismatic congregation, charismatic members should honor the unity of the body first and foremost. This is not to say that they should not work through appropriate channels to bring the congregation to greater biblical maturity in the matter of spiritual gifts.

But while gifts are very important and biblical, they are not the most important issue in the body of Christ. The greatest sign of maturity is love.

 

(Adapted from Three Crucial Questions About the Holy Spirit, published by Baker Books.)