Exposition of 1 Corinthians 9:15b–18 Paul’s gift to Corinth

Posted on May 23, 2013 by Barry Applewhite

1 Corinthians 9:15b–18

15b And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast. 16 For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.

At times, strong emotions break into Paul’s thinking and writing; 1 Cor. 15b is one such verse. Here are three translations of verse 15b:

(NIV) “. . . for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast.”

(NET) “In fact, it would be better for me to die than — no one will deprive me of my reason for boasting!”

(Thiselton[1]) “I would rather die than — well, no one shall invalidate my ground for glorying!”

The last two translations are much closer to Paul’s Greek text and demonstrate his strong feelings about what his life is about — telling people about Christ crucified and seeing them grow into mature believers.

Verse 16 is rather simple in concept, though it sounds a bit strange to our ears. Just recall how many amazing heroes — from the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or some death-risking rescue — say that they were not a hero because they were only doing their duty. Paul sees himself as a steward of the gospel (“I am simply discharging the trust committed to me” 1 Cor. 9:17b). Christ commissioned him to take the gospel to the gentiles. If he did not do so, he would be miserable over failing Christ (“Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” 1 Cor. 9:16b). In preaching the gospel, Paul was doing his duty.

Paul thoroughly grasps the position he is in, because the prophet Jeremiah wrote eloquently of being under similar compulsion (Jer. 20:7–9). Jeremiah suffered severe persecution for speaking God’s message and considered remaining silent. Jeremiah tells what happened then (Jer. 20:9b): “His word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot.” Paul understands that inner fire by personal experience. Since Jesus commanded his followers to make disciples in every nation, the fire of witness is to spread through us.

The only way Paul would be entitled to a reward is if he did something “entirely by personal choice.”[2] Thus, the first half of verse 17 says, “If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward.” Thiselton explains, “If Paul cannot ‘freely’ give his apostolic work (since to this he is pressed by God without choice), what is left to give freely is his toil and labor as a leather worker and salesman in the commercial [market].”[3] So, Paul surrendered his right to financial support as his own gift (1 Cor. 9:18). In this way he is going “the second mile” (Matt. 5:41).

So, how does this apply to the Corinthian church? Thiselton relates the ideas of Dale Martin by saying, “Paul does not ask every reader to give up a right, but those who have ‘rights’ to give up, i.e. the strong or socially influential. . . . Low-status persons, the weak, by definition have no [‘rights’] to give up.”[4] The socially influential are exactly the people exhibiting spiritual pride and trying to form stronger factions within the church. By example, Paul calls on them to imitate him instead.

Copyright © 2013 Barry Applewhite. All rights reserved worldwide. Derived from materials created for Christ Fellowship, McKinney, Texas. Used by permission.


[1] Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William. B. Eerdmans publishing Company, 2000) 676.

[2] Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 696.

[3] Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 697.

[4] Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 697–98.

Posted in 1 Corinthians, Christian Life, Discipleship, Gospel | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Exposition of 1 Corinthians 9:8–15a Rights may be willingly set aside

Posted on May 10, 2013 by Barry Applewhite

1 Corinthians 9:8–15a

8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.  15a But I have not used any of these rights.

Paul’s argument about the soldier, vine grower and shepherd (1 Cor. 9:7) are only human arguments, so he ratchets up the force by appealing to the Law of Moses (1 Cor. 9:8–9). Quoting Deuteronomy 25:4 (“Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”), Paul derives a principle that applies to his ministry among the Corinthians. David Garland explains, “If God forbids preventing an ox from enjoying benefits from its work in threshing grain, how much more is a human apostle entitled to receive benefits from his mission work.”[1]

Paul applies the principle from the Law to himself in a straightforward way in 1 Cor. 9:10–11. Verse 12 a clearly implies that others have been supported in ministry by the Corinthian church. Once again Paul argues from the lesser to the greater by saying that if those people deserved financial support, surely he who led them to Christ deserves support even more.

Paul has laid out a compelling case for his right to support, yet in verse 12b he drops a weighty fact on the table: “But we did not use this right.” Instead, Paul “put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.” Anthony Thiselton offers Dale Martin’s insight “that this putting up with to avoid ‘hindrance’ is precisely what the socially ‘strong’ were not prepared to do.”[2] Recall that those Corinthian believers asserting their freedom to eat meat associated with idol worship had shown no concern for those who might be led back into idol worship by trying the same thing (1 Cor. 8:8–9).

The phrase “hinder the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:12b) contains a military metaphor of blocking an enemy advance, a meaning the verb has in other works from that era. This is a subtle suggestion that those who make so much of their rights are hindering the gospel of Christ.

After stating his own position, Paul adds two fresh arguments in favor of his right to financial support from the Corinthian churches. First, he mentions the practice of priests in the Old Testament (Lev. 6:16-18), who had the right to eat from gain offerings made by the people. Such practices were also common in the Greco-Roman world. Second, Paul claims the command of Jesus himself (Mark 6:8–11; Luke 10:7); that caps all the arguments!

However, Paul did not use his rights, and he made that decision for a thoughtful reason. Just as eating a meal with someone established a social bond recognized by others, accepting financial support from a patron would obligate Paul to that patron. It appears that Paul “refuses a ‘friendship’ or patronage which is offered by selected people of influence, rather than . . . the church as a whole.”[3] We will soon see the only obligation Paul feels.

Copyright © 2013 Barry Applewhite. All rights reserved worldwide. Derived from materials created for Christ Fellowship, McKinney, Texas. Used by permission.


[1] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003)409.

[2] Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William. B. Eerdmans publishing Company, 2000) 691.

[3] Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 690.

Posted in 1 Corinthians, Christian Life, Christians and Culture, Love | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Exposition of 1 Corinthians 9:1–7 Paul is entitled to all apostolic rights

Posted on May 6, 2013 by Barry Applewhite

1 Corinthians 9:1–7

1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me.

4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk?

Paul ended chapter 8 by explaining the harm that can be done to a weaker believer through the thoughtless exercise by some Corinthian believers of their full rights in Christ. Chapter 8 ends with this ringing statement: “Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.” So, Paul was willing to give up his right to eat meat associated with idol worship for the good of others in the church.

Paul’s theme does not change when we enter chapter 9. But you might think otherwise when you read the chapter heading provided by the NIV’s editorial team: “Paul’s Rights as an Apostle.” The NET Bible is almost identical with the heading “The Rights of an Apostle.” But the editors of the ESV get it right when they provide the heading “Paul Surrenders His Rights.”

Anthony Thiselton again lights the way by saying, “The argument about ‘rights’ and ‘apostleship’ simply runs parallel to Corinthian arguments about their ‘right to choose’ (cf. 6:12; 8:1–13; 10:23) in order first to establish the validity of the ‘right’ so that Paul, in turn, may choose to relinquish it where it threatens to harm the welfare of others, or of the church as a whole.”[1] Paul asserts his rights (1 Cor. 9:1–12a) only to model giving them up for the sake of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:12b–27). In this way, Paul incarnates the gospel — a theme we will return to later.

All of the rhetorical questions in verses 1–2 are structured in Greek to signal an emphatic, affirmative answer. Just imagine, no one in Corinth can claim to be an apostle, but Paul can! No one in Corinth has seen the resurrected Christ, but Paul has! If Paul has a share in the freedom bought by Christ on the cross, then surely his freedom surpasses them all. The living proof of his apostleship is the faith of the Corinthians themselves!

David Garland points out: “Paul casts his remarks as a fictitious defense because of the delicacy required when discussing oneself. . . . Sounding boastful is avoided if the speaker shows that he (1) is offering a defense against charges (apologia, [9:4]), (2) does so because of compulsion (anankē, 9:16–18), and (3) demonstrates that it is included for the good of others to admonish or instruct them (9:24–27).”[2] This helps explain the structure of chapter 9. Paul implements step one with presentation of his “defense,” starting in 1 Cor. 9:3.

To be concrete about some of his own rights, Paul uses rhetorical questions to assert two of his specific rights: “the right to food and drink” (1 Cor. 9:4), meaning financial support from the Corinthians for his ministry to them, and the right to have a wife accompany him (1 Cor. 9:5). If Paul had a wife, she would also have been entitled to support just as in the case of “the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas [Peter]” (1 Cor. 9:5).

The three rhetorical questions in verse 7 all expect the answer “No one!” Paul uses three metaphors: the soldier, the vine grower, and the shepherd. Paul appeals to common knowledge that each one has the right to be sustained by others or by their property.

In the next lesson, Paul will continue his argument by further strengthening his right to financial support from the Corinthians. Then he will explain why he waived that right for the sake of the gospel.

Copyright © 2013 Barry Applewhite. All rights reserved worldwide. Derived from materials created for Christ Fellowship, McKinney, Texas. Used by permission.


[1] Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William. B. Eerdmans publishing Company, 2000) 661–662.

[2] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003) 406, citing B. Dodd.

Posted in 1 Corinthians, Christian Life, Christians and Culture, ESV, Gospel, Love, NET Bible, NIV 2011 | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Exposition of 1 Corinthians 8:9–13 Knowledge leads to love

Posted on May 2, 2013 by Barry Applewhite

1 Corinthians 8:9–13

9 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.

Paul is not nearly as optimistic about “rights” (1 Cor. 8:9) to eat meat associated with idols as those with knowledge seem to be. He can imagine situations in which their exercise of the right to choose can bring ruinous harm to “the weak.” In place of the blithe confidence of the “strong,” he commands watchfulness for potential harm. Think of the vigilance of a mother whose child is swimming in a lake when a boat comes quickly toward the shore.

Bear in mind that both the Old and New Testaments speak about life using a metaphor of walking step by step. With that common metaphor in mind, we can easily see that falling is an unwelcome and perhaps even calamitous event. That cause-of-falling is the metaphorical idea behind “stumbling block” (1 Cor. 8:9).

As we enter the conclusion of chapter 8, keep in mind that Paul has been carefully building his argument. He began his argument with this shot across the bow: “But knowledge puffs up while love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:2), a theme that will recur at the end of chapter 8. Then he seemed to agree with the “strong” that an idol is truly nothing (verse 4). Slowly Paul has built his argument about the effect on the weak of those asserting their right to choose. He will end with a bang by expressing his own conclusion about how to behave.

In verse 10, Paul imagines the highly probable scenario in which the weak see the strong eating in an idol’s temple, which was a very public place. With great irony the apostle conjectures that the weak will be “built up” — NIV says “emboldened” — to imitate this behavior. In verse 11 we encounter a quirk of Greek grammar; the main verb can be translated either in passive voice (“is destroyed”) or reflexively (“ruins himself”). NIV takes the former translation[1], but Anthony Thiselton prefers the latter.[2] The believer with a weak conscience wants to behave like the “strong” one, follows his example, but finds himself ruined rather than built up. For the weak, this is a bridge too far, and it collapses! Their conscience cannot stand so much freedom.

Compounding the error perpetrated by the strong using their right to choose, the person they have “built up” for ruin is a “brother or sister for whom Christ died” (1 Cor. 8:11). That makes their provocative behavior a sin “against Christ” (1 Cor. 8:12). Because every Christian is united with Christ, a sin against a fellow believer is always a sin against Christ.

Thiselton corrects one possible abuse of Paul’s teaching when he says:

It has little or nothing to do with whether actions “offend” other Christians in the modern sense of causing psychological irritation, annoyance, or displeasure at a purely subjective level. It has everything to do with whether such attitudes and actions cause damage, or whether they genuinely build not just “knowledge” but Christian character and Christian community.[3]

Paul closes his argument with a very strong personal appeal (1 Cor. 8:13). Though he never actually commands the Corinthians to abstain from association with idolatry, the command is implicit because of the danger to those with a weak conscience.

Fee tells us, “The abuse of others in the name of ‘knowledge’ indicates a total misunderstanding of the nature of Christian ethics, which springs not from knowledge but from love.”[4] That statement in no way demeans the knowledge Christ gives us through his Word and his Spirit, but we must see that knowledge in its proper role. Only knowledge that leads to love can claim the imprimatur of Jesus Christ.

Copyright © 2013 Barry Applewhite. All rights reserved worldwide. Derived from materials created for Christ Fellowship, McKinney, Texas. Used by permission.


[1] A choice that inevitably leads to the view that salvation may be lost; see Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 387, footnote 61.

[2] Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William. B. Eerdmans publishing Company, 2000) 653.

[3] Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 658.

[4] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 390.

Posted in 1 Corinthians, Christian Life, Christians and Culture, Jesus Christ, Love | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Exposition of 1 Corinthians 8:7–8 The danger of a weak conscience

Posted on April 27, 2013 by Barry Applewhite

1 Corinthians 8:7–8

7 But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. 8 But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.

We must first recall that Paul has been working to correct the Corinthian slogan “We all possess knowledge” (1 Cor. 8:1). In 1 Cor. 8:6, he has subtly reminded the Corinthian believers that we live for God alone through Christ alone, and that relationship has absolute primacy over any past or present behavior related to idols.

The problem with knowledge is that it is not possessed by all in the church (1 Cor. 8:7). When some eat food that is in any way associated with idol worship, “since their conscience is weak, it is defiled” (1 Cor. 8:7b). The Greek word translated “conscience” (NIV) essentially means “consciousness” or “self-awareness.”[1] In this context we would say that some in the church have a fragile awareness of their identification with Christ and — because of their past exposure to idolatry — eating food that is possibly associated with idolatry undercuts that fragile identity. It feels like a moral violation that will make them odious in God’s sight. Defilement is metaphorically like being covered with slime.[2]

Though opinion is hardly unanimous, it is likely that “food does not bring us near to God” (1 Cor. 8:8a) is another slogan[3] used by the “strong” believers — who are too full of themselves — in hope of justifying their ongoing participation in certain settings associated with idols. Examples might be either attending a banquet in an idol temple’s meeting room or dining in the private home of an idol worshipper. This coming “near to God” (1 Cor. 8:8a) may involve a summoning for judgment by God that the “strong” implicitly deny will ever occur.

The second half of verse 8 is apparently Paul’s authoritative opinion that food is not something that offers an advantage or disadvantage in relation to a Christian’s standing with God.

This is a good time to summarize what Paul is saying about knowledge. David Garland explains, “Paul is an enemy not of knowledge per se but of knowledge that is not informed by faith or directed by love, that inflates egos and wants to put itself on display and receive acclaim.”[4] In our context, Paul has shown that knowledge, even if technically correct, can harm those believers whose identity in Christ is still easily threatened by old associations. The next section will extend that idea.

Copyright © 2013 Barry Applewhite. All rights reserved worldwide. Derived from materials created for Christ Fellowship, McKinney, Texas. Used by permission.


[1] Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William. B. Eerdmans publishing Company, 2000) 644.

[2] Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 640, offers an even courser metaphor from the ancient world.

[3] Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 648.

[4] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003) 368.

Posted in 1 Corinthians, Christian Life, Christians and Culture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Exposition of 1 Corinthians 8:1–6 Knowledge and love

Posted on April 22, 2013 by Barry Applewhite

1 Corinthians 8:1–6

1 Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2 Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3 But whoever loves God is known by God.

4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Our opening verse contains both the problem Paul is addressing and the beginning of its solution. While idolatry provides the context of the argument between Paul and the Corinthian believers, the real conflict is between two different kinds of knowledge. The form of knowledge that Paul opposes is the one that leads to spiritual pride and an excessive focus on individual rights exercised without regard for others in the church. The form of knowledge that Paul advocates is the one that leads to love for others, building them up and putting their interests ahead of one’s own. This fact will not become fully obvious until the conclusion of chapter 8.

Be clear on the fact that Paul is not pitting love against knowledge. Nor is he saying that love is good and knowledge is bad. Instead, godly knowledge is the kind that results in love for others while worldly knowledge leads to selfish assertion of rights no matter how it affects others.

Before we get into verses 1–3 in detail, take a look at the following translation by Anthony Thiselton:

1 Now on the subject of meat associated with offerings to pagan deities: we are fully aware that “All of us possess ‘knowledge.’” This “knowledge” inflates; love, on the other hand, builds. 2 If anyone thinks that he or she has achieved [some piece of] this “knowledge,” they have not yet come to know as they ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves [God], he or she has experienced true “knowing” [is known by him].[1] (strikethrough added).

The translation just given is not the same as that of the NIV because the NIV follows a different line of NT Greek manuscripts than Thiselton follows. This is one of those rare instances in which the manuscript evidence can lead in two different directions (neither of which significantly alters any Christian theology believed by the historic church). Gordon Fee also agrees with Thiselton that the words in brackets (“[. . .]”) above are not part of Paul’s original letter.[2] These words do not appear in the oldest available manuscript (p46) and were likely added by someone who mistook what Paul was driving at.

You may be asking “What difference does this make?” Good question! In this context, Paul is not talking about love for God or even being loved by God; he is talking about the need of the Corinthians to learn to love others; accordingly, the oldest manuscript (p46) does not mention God in this verse. Fee says, “True gnosis [knowledge] consists not in the accumulation of so much data, nor even in the correctness of one’s theology, but in the fact that one has learned to live in love toward all.”[3] True knowledge is crucial to Christian faith, but it will always direct us toward love for others. We too must gain knowledge — true knowledge.

Returning to the question about the Corinthians’ association with idol worship (1 Cor. 8:4), Paul again quotes two Corinthian slogans: “An idol is nothing at all in the world” (verse 4) and “There is no God but one” (verse 4). By using these slogans, the Corinthians hope to live something close to the lives they led before trusting Christ. These sayings are intended to allow them to do as they like in relation to eating in idol temples, eating food associated with idols or participating in civic ceremonies somehow affected by idolatry. You might say that they are examples of Corinthian “knowledge” used to authorize individual liberties. Besides, living like they did before is good for business and advancement! But Paul has already warned them not to get sucked into the great game of this world, because “this world in its present form is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31).

Paul will not fully correct their understanding until 1 Cor. 8:9–13. For the moment he starts where the Corinthians are and deals with the more general subject of idols, and their place in the minds of people who follow Christ; later he will introduce love for others.

In this context, Paul assumes for the sake of argument that idols exist and represent “so-called gods” (1 Cor. 6:5), and he goes on to speak of “many ‘gods’ and ‘many lords.’” Fee explains that the “gods” designate the traditional deities (e.g., Poseidon, Aphrodite, and others) while “lords” was the normal designation for the deities of the mystery cults that had come to Greece from the Orient.[4]

Paul begins his shift away from idols and toward his theme of love with the words “Yet for us there is but one God, the Father” (1 Cor. 8:6a). In fact, Paul puts “one God, the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ” in direct contrast with the “many gods and many lords” of the surrounding society.

In speaking of the one unique God, Paul describes our relationship to Father with the phrase “for whom we live” (1 Cor. 6:6) and our relationship to the Son with the phrase “through whom we live.” Our unique God is one, yet relates to us as Father and Son. The argument began with idols and has progressed — at this intermediate stage — to our relationship to Christ. Thiselton says, “Christ-likeness and the shape of the cross mark all that a Christian believers are and do.”[5] That being the case, Paul will soon take the next step in his argument by showing how those related to Christ in this way must live.

Copyright © 2013 Barry Applewhite. All rights reserved worldwide. Derived from materials created for Christ Fellowship, McKinney, Texas. Used by permission.


[1] Anthony Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William. B. Eerdmans publishing Company, 2000) 612–613, following p46, Siniaticus and Clement of Alexandria. p46 is the oldest known Greek manuscript of 1 Corinthians, from about A.D. 200.

[2] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987) 364–369.

[3] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 368.

[4] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 373.

[5] Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 638.

Posted in 1 Corinthians, Christian Life, Christians and Culture, Love | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Exposition of 1 Corinthians 7:32–40 Complicated living for God

Posted on April 17, 2013 by Barry Applewhite

1 Corinthians 7:32–40

 32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs — how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world — how he can please his wife — 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world — how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin — this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. 40 In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is — and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.

Christians often want someone to tell them what to do to please God. But life is very complicated and each Christian has an important responsibility to decide how to please God in spite of the complications.

The section including 1 Cor. 7:32–40 is best understood in light of Paul’s contextual statement “this world in its present form is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31b). When you combine that fact with the need to please the Lord while living in a world that God has judged by the death of Christ, you have a very challenging path ahead. That was true in Corinth as well as for us today.

In verses 32–35, Paul discusses how this challenge might be simplified at the cost of forsaking marriage. That this is a choice not everyone can make is the subject Paul takes up in verses 36–38. If Paul thinks others should make celibacy their choice, as he has done (1 Cor. 7:38b), we might also consider that they need his support in making that sacrifice. It is important to note that Paul does not dictate what choice is to be made but leaves it to the people involved. They must figure out how to live for God most effectively.

In terms of making an application of verses 39–40 to remarriage today, the most vital clause would be “he must belong to the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39b). When Christian women allow themselves to “fall in love” with a non-Christian man, a spiritual disaster is coming! Of course, we could say the same thing of a Christian man marrying an unbelieving woman. We should not be confused about advising someone in this situation. Such relationships literally amount to sleeping with the enemy of God.

Copyright © 2013 Barry Applewhite. All rights reserved worldwide. Derived from materials created for Christ Fellowship, McKinney, Texas. Used by permission.

Posted in 1 Corinthians, Christian Life, Christians and Culture | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment