Religion Scripture Readings

Yeah..Killing Lincoln and Killing Jesus, I have yet to read Killing Kennedy and chances are I wont. Both books were OK..same formula that was interesting at best on the first read, became trivial by the second. Historically speaking he did almost as well as W.E.B. Griffith who can take minor known events and make them extremely entertaining. Bill has taken major events and given them something that they may not have needed.

 

I read the Lincoln one also, I didn't think that one was too good, sort of gave Lincoln more that I think he was. But I thought they did a good job digging up some of the actual history of Jesus.

 

1 Corinthians 7

Principles Regarding Marriage and Singleness
A. Answer to a question about sexual relations in marriage.

1. (1-2) Paul enlarges on the principle of purity.

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

a. Concerning the things of which you wrote to me: Chapter seven begins a section where Paul will deal with specific questions asked him in a letter by the Corinthian Christians.

b. It is good for a man not to touch a woman: Here, "touch" is used in the sense of having sexual relations. This was probably a statement made by the Corinthian Christians, which they were asking Paul to agree with. Paul will agree with the statement, but not without reservation - the Nevertheless of verse two.

i. Why would the Corinthian Christians suggest complete celibacy - which is what is meant by a man not to touch a woman? They probably figured that if sexual immorality was such a danger, then one could be more pure by abstaining from sex altogether, even in marriage.

ii. "The idea that marriage was a less holy state than celibacy, naturally led to the conclusion that married persons ought to separate, and it soon came to be regarded as an evidence of eminent spirituality when such a separation was final." (Hodge)

c. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband: In light of the danger of sexual immorality (ever present in the Corinthian culture - and our own), it is appropriate for husband and wife to have each other in a sexual sense.

i. Paul is not commanding the Corinthian Christians to get married (an issue he deals with later in the chapter), but a command to live as a married person, especially in the sexual sense. Paul is saying that husbands and wives should be having sexual relations.

ii. "What miserable work has been made in the peace of families by a wife or a husband pretending to be wiser than the apostle, and too holy and spiritual to keep the commandments of God!" (Clarke)

d. Paul is not saying sex is the only reason for marriage, or the most important reason for marriage. Paul is simply answering their specific questions about marriage, not trying to give a complete theology of marriage.

i. For more on a complete theology of marriage, see Ephesians 5:21-33 and Colossians 3:18-19.

2. (3-6) The principle of mutual sexual responsibility in marriage.

Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.

a. Instead of a man not to touch a woman, within marriage, a husband must render to his wife the affection due her. It is wrong for him to withhold affection from his wife.

i. The affection due her is an important phrase; since Paul meant this to apply to every Christian marriage, it shows that every wife has affection due her. Paul doesn't think only the young or pretty or submissive wives are due affection; every wife is due affection because she is a wife of a Christian man!

ii. Paul also emphasizes what the woman needs: not merely sexual relations, but the affection due her. If a husband is having sexual relations with his wife, but without true affection to her, he is not giving his wife what she is due.

iii. Affection also reminds us that when a couple is unable - for physical or other reasons - to have a complete sexual relationship, they can still have an affectionate relationship, and thus fulfill God's purpose for these commands.

b. On the same idea, also the wife to her husband - the wife is not to withhold marital affection from her husband. Paul strongly puts forth the idea that there is a mutual sexual responsibility in marriage; the husband has obligations towards his wife, and the wife has obligations towards her husband.

i. Render to his wife: The emphasis is on giving, on "I owe you" instead of "you owe me." In God's heart, sex is put on a much higher level than merely being the husband's privilege and the wife's duty.

c. The wife does not have authority over her own body: In fact, these obligations are so concrete, it could be said that the wife's body does not even belong to herself, but her husband. The same principle is true of the husband's body in regard to his wife.

i. This does not justify a husband abusing or coercing his wife, sexually or otherwise. Paul's point is that we have a binding obligation to serve our partner with physical affection.

ii. It is an awesome obligation: out of the billions of people on the earth, God has chosen one, and one alone, to meet our sexual needs. There is to be no one else.

d. Do not deprive one another: Paul rebuffs their idea that husband and wife could be more holy by sexual abstinence. In fact, harm can come when they deprive one another, as they open the door to the tempter (so that Satan does not tempt you).

i. The word for deprive is the same as defraud in 1 Corinthians 6:8. When we deny physical affection and sexual intimacy to our spouse, we are cheating them.

ii. Do not deprive: Sexual deprivation in marriage has not only to do with frequency, but with romance also. This is why Paul tells husbands to render to his wife the affection due her. Either deprivation gives occasion for the deprived to look elsewhere for fulfillment - to the destruction of the marriage.

iii. For your lack of self-control: It might be easy to think that self control is expressed by abstaining from sexual relations in marriage, but Paul says that to deprive one another is to show a lack of self-control, and a lack of self-control that will leave one easy to be tempted by Satan.

e. I say this as a concession: God will permit (reluctantly, as a concession) a married couple to abstain from sexual relations for a short time, for the sake of fasting and prayer. But if this concession is used, it is only to be for a time, and then husband and wife must come together again in a sexual sense.

i. Not as a commandment: God is not commanding, or even recommending, such abstaining from sex within marriage; but it can be done for a brief time for a specific spiritual reason.

f. The principle in this passage is important. God makes it clear that there is nothing wrong, and everything right, about sex in marriage. Satan's great strategy, when it comes to sex, is to do everything he can to encourage sex outside of marriage, and to discourage sex within marriage. It is an equal victory for Satan if he accomplishes either plan!

i. This can be seen in the way some of the Corinthian Christians thought it was just fine to hire the services of a prostitute (as in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20), and other Corinthian Christians thought it was more spiritual for a husband and wife to never have sexual relations!

ii. A Christian husband and wife must not accept a poor sexual relationship. The problems may not be easily overcome, or quickly solved, but God wants every Christian marriage to enjoy a sexual relationship that is a genuine blessings, instead of a burden or a curse.

3. (7-9) Paul recognizes the benefits of singleness, but also of marriage; all is according to how God gifts.

For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

a. For I wish that all men were even as I myself: Paul, at the time of this writing, was unmarried (putting himself among the unmarried and the widows). Here he is recognizing the benefit of being single (which he will speak more of later in the letter).

i. Though Paul was unmarried at when he wrote this letter, he probably had been married at one time. We can say this because we know Paul was an extremely observant Jew, and an example among his people (Philippians 3:4-6). In Paul's day, Jews considered that marriage was a duty, to the extent that a man reaching 20 years of age without having been married was considered to have sinned. Unmarried men were often considered excluded from heaven, and not real men at all.

ii. Also, by Paul's own words, it is likely that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin (in Acts 26:10, Paul says I cast my vote against them, speaking of the early Christians). An unmarried man could not be a member of the Sanhedrin.

iii. So, what happened to Paul's wife? The Scriptures are silent. Perhaps she left him when he became a Christian, or perhaps she died some time before or after he became a Christian. But we know that it was likely he was married before, and we know he was not married when writing this letter (and there is no appearance of a wife for Paul in Acts). Paul probably was a good one to speak of the relative gifts and responsibilities of both marriage and singleness.

b. Each one has his own gift from God: Though Paul knew singleness was good for him, he would not impose it on anyone. The important thing is what gift one has from God, either being gifted to singleness or marriage.

i. Significantly, Paul regards both marriage and singleness as gifts from God. Many find themselves in the "grass is greener" trap, with singles wishing they were married and married people wishing they were singles. Each state is a gift from God.

ii. And, to be single or married is a special gifting from God. When Paul writes his own gift, he uses the same word for spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12. Each state, married or single, needs special gifting from God to work.

iii. Paul's understanding that the unmarried state can be a gift is especially striking when we consider the Jewish background of Paul himself and the early church. It was regarded as a sin for a Jewish man to be unmarried. "Among the Jews marriage was not held a thing indifferent, or at their own liberty to choose or refuse, but a binding command." (Trapp) Clarke quotes from an ancient Jewish writing known as the Gemara: "It is forbidden a man to be without a wife; because it is written, It is not good for man to be alone. And whosoever gives not himself to generation and multiplying is all one with a murderer: he is as though he diminished from the image of God".

iv. While Paul recognizes that some are gifted for marriage, and some are gifted for the unmarried state, no one is "gifted" for sexual immorality! The married must live faithfully to their spouse, and the unmarried must live celibate.

c. If they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry: Paul's recommendation to marry in such cases is not based on marriage being more or less spiritual, but on very practical concerns, especially relevant to his day (as explained in 1 Corinthians 7:26, 29, 32). A godly sexual relationship within the covenant of marriage is God's plan for meeting our sexual needs.

i. Though Paul preferred the unmarried state for himself, he doesn't want anyone to think that being married was less spiritual, or more spiritual. It is all according to an individual's gifting. Remember that Paul told Timothy that forbidding to marry was a doctrine of demons (1 Timothy 4:1-3).

ii. Paul "was aware how powerfully a counterfeit show of purity deceives the godly." (Calvin)

d. It is better to marry than to burn with passion: Paul recognizes marriage as a legitimate refuge from pressures of sexual immorality. One should not feel they are immature or unspiritual because they desire to get married so as to not burn with passion.

i. Paul is not speaking about what we might consider "normal" sexual temptation. "It is one thing to burn, another to feel heat … what Paul calls burning here, is not merely a slight sensation, but being so aflame with passion that you cannot stand up against it." (Calvin)

ii. At the same time, if someone has a problem with lust or sexual sin, they should not think that getting married will automatically solve their problems. Many a Christian man has been grieved to find that his lust for other women did not magically "go away" when he got married.

B. Answers to questions about divorce.

1. (10-11) Divorce and separation for Christian couples.

Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.

a. Now to the married: Remember that in this chapter, Paul is answering questions written to him from the Corinthian Christians. He has already dealt with the questions about the relative merits of being married or single, and if it is more spiritual to abstain from sex in a marriage relationship. Now to the … indicates he is moving to another question, and these questions and answers have to do with marriage and divorce.

b. To the married: Here, Paul is addressing marriages where both partners are Christians. He will deal with other situations in following verses.

c. A wife is not to depart from her husband: The Corinthian Christians were wondering if it might be more spiritual to be single, and if they should break up existing marriages for the cause of greater holiness. Paul answers their question straight from the heart of the Lord: absolutely not!

d. Even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: Paul, in addressing a marriage where both partners are Christians, says that they should not - indeed, can not - break up the marriage in a misguided search for higher spirituality. In fact, if one were to depart their spouse, they must either remain unmarried or be reconciled.

i. This connects with the two specific grounds under which God will recognize a divorce: when there is sexual immorality (Matthew 19:3-9) and in the case when a believing partner is deserted by an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthians 7:15). On any other grounds, God will not recognize divorce, even if the state does. And, if God does not recognize the divorce, then the individual is not free to remarry - they can only be reconciled to their former spouse.

ii. Jesus said the one who divorces for invalid reasons, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery (Matthew 19:9). When Jesus' disciples understood how binding the marriage covenant was, and how it could not be broken (in the sight of God) for just any reason, they responded If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry (Matthew 19:10). They understood Jesus perfectly, and so should more people today, before they enter into the covenant of marriage!

iii. Therefore, if a person says "God just doesn't want me to be married to this person any more" or "God brought someone better to me," they are wrong and not speaking from God at all. God never recognizes a divorce for such reasons.

e. If she does depart: A Christian couple may in fact split up for reasons that do not justify a Biblical divorce. It may be because of a misguided sense of spirituality, it may be because of general unhappiness, or conflict, or abuse, or misery, addiction, or poverty. Paul recognizes (without at all encouraging) that one might depart in such circumstance, but they cannot consider themselves divorced, with the right to remarry, because their marriage had not split up for reasons that justify a Biblical divorce.

i. These problems may - perhaps ? justify a separation (depart), but the partners are expected to honor their marriage vows even in their separation, because as far as God is concerned, they are still married - their marriage covenant has not been broken for what God considers to be Biblical reasons.

f. And a husband is not to divorce his wife: Paul applies the same principle to husbands as to wives, and makes the important distinction between one who might depart (separation while still honoring the marriage covenant) and one who might divorce. Except for sexual immorality (as Jesus described in Matthew 19:3-9), two Christians never have a valid reason for divorce.

i. Just as importantly, Jesus never commands divorce in the case of sexual immorality. He carefully says it is permitted, and that the permission was given because of the hardness of your hearts. (Matthew 19:8)

2. (12-16) Divorce and remarriage when a Christian is married to an unbelieving spouse.

But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?

a. But to the rest indicates Paul is shifting the focus from the group previously addressed, couples where both partners were Christians. Now, he speaks to any brother who has a wife who does not believe, and the woman who has a husband who does not believe.

b. I, not the Lord, say: We should not think Paul is any less inspired by the Holy Spirit on this point. When he says not the Lord, he simply means that Jesus did not teach on this specific point, as He had in the previous situation in Matthew 19:3-9. So, if Jesus did not speak on this specific point, Jesus' inspired apostle will!

i. This is a clue that Paul may not have been conscious of the degree of inspiration he worked under as he wrote 1 Corinthians and perhaps other letters. He simply knows that though he based his remarks in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 on what Jesus taught in Matthew 19:3-9 (yet not I, but the Lord), he has no specific recorded command from Jesus in the case of a Christian married to an unbelieving spouse. He knew he was writing with God's authority to the Corinthians, but he may not have known he was speaking with authority to all the church in all ages, and being used to pen God's eternal Word. But if Paul was not fully aware of how inspired these words were, they are no less inspired because of that.

c. Let him not divorce her: If there were some Christian couples in the Corinthian church who thought they would be more spiritual if they divorced (addressed in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11), what about Corinthian Christians married to unbelievers? "Certainly," thought the Corinthians, "God can't be glorified if I'm married to an unbeliever; for the sake of spirituality, I should divorce them." To these, Paul says let him not divorce her.

i. This spiritual concern is a valid - and urgent - reason for not marrying an unbeliever (2 Corinthians 6:14). But it is not a reason for ending an existing marriage with an unbeliever.

d. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife: Why should a Christian try to keep their marriage to a non-Christian together? Because God can be glorified in such a marriage, and do a work through the believing spouse to draw the unbelieving spouse to Jesus Christ.

i. Sanctified, in this context, does not mean that the unbelieving spouse is saved just by being married to a Christian. It simply means that they are set apart for a special working in their lives by the Holy Spirit, by virtue of being so close to someone who is a Christian.

e. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy: Not only does the presence of a believing spouse do good for the unbelieving spouse, it also does good for the children - and great good, because it can be said now they are holy.

i. "Until he is old enough to take responsibility upon himself, the child of a believing parent is to be regarded as Christian. The parents 'holiness' extends to the child." (Morris)

ii. This is a beautiful assurance that the children of a Christian parent are saved, at least until they come to an age of personal accountability (which may differ for each child). However, we have no similar assurance for the children of parents who are not Christians. In fact, the sense of the text argues against it. How could Paul claim it as a benefit for a Christian parent to be in the home, if the same benefit automatically applies to the children of non-Christians also? As well, Paul says otherwise your children would be unclean - clearly giving the sense that apart from the presence of a Christian parent, the child is not regarded as holy, rather as unclean.

iii. If the children of non-Christian parents are saved, and do go to heaven - even some of them - it is important to understand that it is not because they are innocent. As sons and daughters of guilty Adam, we are each born guilty as well. If such children do go to heaven, it is not because they are deserving innocents, but because the rich mercy of God has been extended to them as well.

f. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart: Paul has counseled that the Christian partner should do what they can to keep the marriage together. But if the unbelieving spouse refuses to be married, then the marriage can be broken; but this isn't to be initiated or sought by the believer.

i. If the unbelieving spouse should depart, the Christian is not under bondage to the marriage covenant. This means they are, in fact, free to remarry because God has recognized their divorce as a valid divorce.

g. For how do you know: Paul ends this section with a great deal of hope, because many Christian who are married to unbelievers are discouraged. They should know that with faith and patience, they can look for God to work in their present circumstances, difficult as they might be.

i. Christians married to unbelievers should also know what Peter says in 1 Peter 3:1-6: that your unbelieving spouse will not likely be led to Jesus by your words, but by your godly and loving conduct.

h. Tragically, much of the early church did not heed God's word to keep marriages together, as much as possible, when married to unbelievers. One of the great heathen complaints against the early Christians was that Christianity broke up families. One of the first charges brought against Christians was "tampering with domestic relationships." (Barclay)

C. An overarching principle: live as you are called.

1. (17) The principle: you can live for God where you are right now.

But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches.

a. As the Lord has called each one, so let him walk: No matter what your station (married, single, divorced, widowed, remarried, whatever), God can work in your life. Instead of thinking that you can or will walk for the Lord when your station changes, walk for the Lord in the place you are at right now.

i. This also is a warning about trying to undo the past in regard to relationships; God tells us to repent of whatever sin is there and then to move on. If you are married to your second wife, after wrongfully divorcing your first wife, and become a Christian, don't think you must now leave your second wife and go back to your first wife, trying to undo the past. As the Lord has called you, walk in that place right now.

b. So let him walk is also a warning to beware the danger of thinking other people have it better than you, because of their different station in life. Married, single, divorced, remarried, don't matter nearly as much as an on-fire walk with Jesus right now.

2. (18-20) An example of this principle from the practice of circumcision.

Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.

a. Was anyone called while circumcised? Paul is saying that if you were circumcised when you became a Christian, fine. If you were not circumcised when you became a Christian, fine also. Those things do not matter. What matters is serving the Lord right where we are at right now.

i. How could one become uncircumcised? "Some Jews, for fear of Antiochus, made themselves uncircumcised, 1 Maccab. 1:16. Others for shame after they were gained to the knowledge of Christ, as here. This was done by drawing up the fore-skin with a chirurgeon's instrument." (Trapp) "By frequent stretching, the circumcised skin could be again so drawn over, as to prevent the ancient sign of circumcision from appearing." (Clarke)

b. Paul's point isn't really about circumcision; that is just an example. Even as being circumcised or uncircumcised is irrelevant when it comes to serving God, so is your current marital state. He could just as easily say, and is saying by analogy, Married is nothing and unmarried is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

3. (21-24) An example of this principle from the practice of slavery.

Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.

a. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it: A slave can please God as a slave. He should not live his life thinking, "I can't do anything for God now, but I sure could if I was a free man." He can, and should, serve God as he is able to now.

b. But if you can be made free, rather use it: In saying that a slave can please God, Paul does not want any slave to think God does not want him to be free. If he has the opportunity, he should take advantage of it.

c. Do not become slaves of men: This is true not only in regard to literal slavery, but spiritually also. We never to put ourselves under the inappropriate control or influence of others.

i. "Do not follow even good men slavishly. Do not say, 'I am of Paul; I am of Apollos; I am of Calvin; I am of Wesley.' Did Calvin redeem you? Did Wesley die for you? Who is Calvin and who is Wesley but ministers by whom ye believed as the Lord gave unto you? Do not so surrender yourself to any leadership that you rather follow the man than his Master. I will follow anybody if he goes Christ's way, but I will follow nobody, by the grace of God, if he does not go in that direction." (Spurgeon)

d. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that calling in which he was called: This principle applies across a broad spectrum: married, unmarried; circumcised, uncircumcised; slave, free. We can seek God's best and be used by Him right where we are.

i. "Marriage may be a distraction. Sorrow may become a distraction. Joy may become a distraction, or commerce, or the world. Then we are to turn our back upon all these things." (Morgan)

e. Of course, let each one remain with God in that calling in which he was called doesn't mean that if we are to continue in a sinful course or occupation once we are saved. "That is, supposing that he was in an honest course of life; for we read in the Acts that the conjurers burnt their books, and unlawful courses of life must not be adhered to after men have once given up their names to Christ." (Trapp)

D. Answering questions about marriage among Christians.

1. (25-28) Paul's advice: marriage isn't bad in the sight of God, and singleness has its advantages.

Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy. I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress; that it is good for a man to remain as he is: Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.

a. Concerning virgins: Paul now will deal with the unmarried, whom he refers to as virgins, even though they all might have not have been technically virgins (though in Christian homes, they should be!).

b. I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment: Again, we are not to think Paul is any less inspired here. But because he is dealing with life-situations that differ from person to person, he cannot, and will not, give a command. Yet, he will give inspired advice and principles.

c. It is good for a man to remain as he is: Paul, in speaking to the never-married men, recommends they remain as he is - that is, either remaining single or remaining married.

i. Why? Because of the present distress. Apparently, there was some kind of local persecution or problem in the city of Corinth, and because of this distress, Paul says there are definite advantages to remaining single. Also, because of this distress, a married man should also remain as he is.

ii. What is the advantage of remaining single? We can easily imagine, how in a time of persecution or great crisis, how much more of a burden a wife or a family can be for someone committed to standing strong for the Lord. We may say, "torture me, and I will never renounce Jesus"; but what if we were threatened with the rape of our wife, or the torture of our children? These may seem far away to us, but they were not to the Christians in the first century.

iii. What is the advantage in remaining married? At a time of great distress, your family needs you more than ever. Don't abandon your wife and children now!

iv. "These persecutions and distresses are at the door, and life itself will soon be run out. Even then Nero was plotting those grievous persecutions with which he not only afflicted, but devastated the Church of Christ." (Clarke)

d. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife: Paul is echoing the same principle laid down in 1 Corinthians 7:17-24: God can use us right where we are, and we should not be so quick to change our station in life.

i. In using the terms bound and loosed, Paul is using the vocabulary of the Jewish scribes. When a Jew in those days did not know if and how God's law applied to their situation, they would ask a scribe, and the scribe would declare them bound or loosed in regard to particular commands.

e. If you do marry, you have not sinned: Paul certainly will not forbid marriage; yet he tells those who will get married, nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you. Paul felt (especially for himself) that the greater advantages were found in being single, yet he knows that each one has his own gift from God (1 Corinthians 7:7).

i. Most significantly, Paul is never implying that being married or single is more spiritual than the other state; this was the big error of the Corinthian Christians.

2. (29-31) Paul warns against putting roots down too deep in a world that is passing away.

But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away.

a. The time is short: Some criticize Paul, or even declare him a false prophet, because he says the time is short. But Paul is true to the heart and teaching of Jesus, who told all Christians in all ages to be ready and anticipate His return.

i. Jesus told us all in Matthew 24:44, Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. We are to be ready, and to regard the time as short, not only because Jesus can return at any time, but also because it cultivates a more obedient, on-fire walk with Jesus Christ.

ii. Even without considering the return of Jesus, it is worthwhile and accurate for Christians to live as if the time is short. The Psalmist expressed this attitude in Psalm 39:5: Indeed, You have made my days as handbreadths, And my age is as nothing before You; Certainly every man at his best state is but vapor.

iii. The Greek word for short is sustello, "contracted and rolled up, as sails used to be by the mariners, when the ship draws nigh to the harbour." (Trapp) "The time (saith he) is short; furled up, like sails when the mariner comes near his port." (Poole) The harbor is near, and the sails are shortened! Get the ship ready for harbor!

b. Even those who have wives should be as though they had none: Paul is not encouraging the neglect of proper family duties, but encouraging living as if the time is short. It means that we will not live as if our earthly family was all that mattered, but also live with an eye to eternity.

c. A time is short attitude will also not indulge the feelings and things of this world; weeping, rejoicing, and having possessions must not get in the way of following hard after Jesus.

i. Morris on the form of this world is passing away: "There is nothing solid and lasting in this world system; it is its nature to pass away. It is folly for believers to act as though its values were permanent."

3. (32-35) The unmarried have the potential to please God with less distraction.

But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord; how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world; how he may please his wife. There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world; how she may please her husband. And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction.

a. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord: Here, Paul simply recognizes that when a person doesn't have family responsibilities, they are more "free" to serve God. This was the main reason Paul considered the unmarried state preferable for himself.

b. He who is married cares about the things of the world; how he may please his wife: Paul does not say this to condemn the married person; in fact, Paul is saying this is how it should be for the married person. There is something wrong if a married man does not care for how he may please his wife, and something is wrong if a married woman does not care about how she may please her husband.

c. Again, Paul's reason for explaining these things is not to forbid marriage, but to put it into an eternal perspective. He isn't putting a leash on anyone; he is merely sharing from his own heart and experience.

i. Significantly, for Paul, the most important thing in life was not romantic love, but pleasing God. For him, he could please God better as single, but another may please God better as married, all according to our calling.

ii. Though Paul insists he does not want his teaching here to be regarded as a noose around anyone's neck, this has happened in the church. Roman Catholics insist on celibacy for all its clergy, even if they are not gifted to be so. Many Protestant groups will not ordain or trust the single.

d. That you may serve the Lord without distraction: For Paul, being unmarried meant fewer distractions in his service of God. Tragically, many modern single Christians singleness a terrible distraction! Instead, they should regard their present unmarried state (be it temporary or permanent) as a special opportunity to please God.

4. (36-38) Paul deals with another question from the Corinthians: should I arrange a marriage for my daughter?

But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry. Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will, and has so determined in his heart that he will keep his virgin, does well. So then he who gives her in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better.

a. If any man thinks he is behaving improperly towards his virgin: The man Paul refers to is the father of a young woman or man of marrying age (his virgin). The behaving improperly has nothing to do with any kind of improper moral behavior, but with denying his daughter or son the right to marry, based on Paul's valuing of singleness.

i. Remember that in this ancient culture, a young person's parents had the primary responsibility for arranging their marriage. So, based on what Paul has already taught, should a Christian father recommend celibacy to his child?

ii. The term virgin includes the young of both sexes.

b. Let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry: Paul says it is not wrong for a father to allow his young daughter to marry, even allowing for the desirability of singleness at the present time.

c. But, because singleness does have its benefits, Paul will recommend it, not only to individuals, but also to fathers in regard to the marrying off of their daughters.

d. He who gives her in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better: For Paul, the choice between married and single was not the choice between good and bad, but between better and best. And for Paul, and the present circumstances, he regarded singleness as best.

5. (39-40) A final reminder regarding the remarriage of widows.

A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment; and I think I also have the Spirit of God.

a. Of course, a widow has the right to remarry (if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married). But a Christian widow, like any Christian, is really only free to remarry another Christian (only in the Lord).

b. At the same time, Paul believes such a widow is happier if she remains as she is ? that is, if she remains single. Essentially, Paul wants the widow not to remarry without carefully considering that God might be calling her to celibacy.

i. Again, Paul will affirm celibacy, but not because sex itself is evil (as some of the Corinthian Christians were thinking). Instead, the unmarried state can be superior because it offers a person (if they are so gifted) more opportunity to serve God.

 

1 Corinthians 8

Living By Knowledge or By Love
A. A question about meat sacrificed to idols: beginning principles.

1. (1-3) The principles of love and knowledge.

Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

a. Now concerning things offered to idols: Having dealt with their questions about marriage and singleness, Paul now addresses (in 1 Corinthians chapters 8-10) the next of their questions, regarding the eating of meat that had been sacrificed to idols.

b. The meat offered on pagan altars was usually divided up into three portions: one portion was burnt in honor of the god; one portion was given to the worshipper to take home and eat; and the third portion was given to the priest. If the priest didn't want to eat his portion, he sold it at the temple restaurant or meat market.

i. The meat served and sold at the temple was generally cheaper; and then, as well as now, people loved a bargain (including Christians!).

c. The issue raises many questions: can we eat meat purchased at the temple meat market? What if we are served meat purchased at the temple meat market when we are guests in someone's home? Can a Christian eat at the restaurant at the pagan temple?

d. We know that we all have knowledge: Instead of talking about food, Paul first talks about the principles of knowledge and love. Christian behavior is founded on love, not knowledge; and the goal of the Christian life is not knowledge, but love.

e. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies: Both knowledge and love have an effect on our lives; both of them make something grow. The difference between puffs up and edifies is striking; it is the difference between a bubble and a building. Some Christians grow, others just swell!

f. If anyone thinks that he knows anything: If we think we know it all, we really don't know anything - he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. Yet, there is a knowledge that is important: the knowledge God has of those who love Him (if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him).

2. (4-6) Understanding the reality of the idols meat is offered to.

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

a. We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one: Because there is only One True God, idols are not competing gods. Idols are therefore nothing in the world, and are only so-called gods.

i. If meat is offered to Zeus, there is no real Zeus. There is no other God but one. "He" is only one of the so-called gods. "There are many images that are supposed to be representations of divinities: but these divinities are nothing, the figments of mere fancy; and these images have no corresponding realities." (Clarke)

ii. What about Biblical passages which some take to suggest there are other gods? For example, in John 10:34, Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6-7, in saying You are gods. But the judges of Psalm 82 were called "gods" because in their office they determined the fate of other men. Also, in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9, God calls earthly judges "gods." In John 10, Jesus is saying "if God gives these unjust judges the title 'gods' because of their office, why do you consider it blasphemy that I call Myself the 'Son of God' in light of the testimony of Me and My works?" Jesus is not taking the you are gods of Psalm 82 and applying it to all humanity, or to all believers. The use of gods in Psalm 82 was a metaphor.

iii. As well, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Paul calls Satan the god of this age. Certain, he does not mean Satan is a true god, a rival god to the Lord God. Satan can be called the god of this age because he is regarded as a god by so many people!

iv. As there are many gods and many lords refers to the so-called gods. Indeed, in the ancient world, there were many, many different gods - and even gods known as the unknown god to cover any gods one might have missed! (Acts 17:23).

b. There is one God, the Father … and one Lord Jesus Christ: Paul isn't distinguishing Jesus from God, as if Jesus were not God. When Paul calls Jesus Lord, he uses the Greek word kurios, and this word would have meant something to Bible reading people in Paul's day.

i. Leon Morris on Lord: "This term could be no more than a polite form of address like our 'Sir.' But it could also be used of the deity one worships. The really significant background, though, is its use in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to render the divine name, Yahweh.... Christians who used this as their Bible would be familiar with the term as equivalent to deity."

ii. Certainly, no one can say through whom are all things, and through whom we live of anyone else than God!

c. The Corinthian Christians may have been reasoning like this: if idols are really nothing, it must mean nothing to eat meat sacrificed to nothing idols, and it must mean nothing to eat in the buildings used to worship these nothing idols. In the following section, Paul will show them a better way.

B. Acting on the principle of love.

1. (7) Not all have the same knowledge.

However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.

a. There is not in everyone that knowledge: The Corinthian Christians who felt free to eat at the pagan temple may have based their freedom on correct knowledge (knowing that idols are nothing). But for some, they have consciousness of the idol, and they eat meat sacrificed to the idol as a thing offered to an idol.

i. Paul is asking the Corinthian Christians who know there is nothing to an idol to remember that not everyone knows this. And if someone believes there is something to an idol, and they eat meat that has been sacrificed to an idol, their conscience, being weak, is defiled.

ii. Why is their conscience considered weak? Not because their conscience doesn't work. Indeed, it does work - in fact, if over-works. Their conscience is considered weak because it is wrongly informed; their conscience is operating on the idea that there really is something to an idol.

b. You can imagine the "free" Corinthian Christians, who have superior knowledge, saying "But we're right!" And, in this case, being right is important before God, but it is not more important than showing love to the family of God.

2. (8) What we eat or do not eat does not make us more spiritual.

But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

a. Food does not commend us to God: You aren't more spiritual if you know idols are nothing, and feel a personal freedom to eat meat sacrificed to idols (neither if we eat are we the better).

i. In Acts 15:29, the Jerusalem Council sent a letter commanding some churches to (among other things) abstain from things offered to idols. But Paul's discussion of the issue here does not contradict what the Jerusalem council decided in Acts 15. Instead, it shows that the council's decision was not intended to be normative for all the church all the time; it was a temporary expediency, meant to advance the cause of the gospel among Jews.

b. On the other hand, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. No one is less spiritual for abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols.

c. This is the very point where most stumble in issues relevant to Christian liberty (such as movies, drinking, music, or television): assuming that one stance or another is evidence of greater or lesser spirituality.

3. (9-13) What does matter: love towards those in God's family.

But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

a. Beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block: A Corinthian Christian with "superior knowledge" might feel the personal liberty to eat meat sacrificed to idols. But is he exercising this liberty in a way that becomes a stumbling block?

i. Paul says, "You Corinthian Christians who say you have knowledge are claiming your rights; what about the rights of the weak brother?" Because of your knowledge, shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

ii. "God hath not given people knowledge that they thereby should be a means to harm and to destroy, but to do good, and to save others; it is a most absurd thing for any to use their knowledge, therefore, to the destruction of others." (Poole)

b. Why is the brother who will not eat the meat sacrificed to an idol considered weak? Many Christians would consider such a one to be the "stronger" Christian. But Paul is not speaking about being weak or strong in regard to self-control, but in regard to knowledge.

c. To influence the weak brother to go against his conscience (and thereby wound their weak conscience) is actually to sin against Christ. The Corinthian Christians who were abusing their liberty might have been thinking it was a small matter to offend their weak brothers, but they did not understand they were offending Christ.

i. In doing so, they were actually "building up" their brother to sin! Emboldened comes from the word build up. Their misuse of liberty was building others up towards sin.

d. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat: Paul makes the principle clear. Our actions can never be based just on what we know to be right for ourselves; we also need to consider what is right in regard to our brothers and sisters in Jesus.

i. It is easy for a Christian to say, "I answer to God and God alone" and to ignore his brother or sister. It is true we will answer to God and God alone; but we will answer to God for how we have treated our brother or sister.

e. At the same time, the issue is making a brother stumble - and stumble over a issue that has direct relevance to the brother in question. Paul would never allow this principle to be a means by which a legalist could bind a Christian walking in liberty through their legalistic demands.

i. In Galatians 2, Paul rebuked Peter, who by his association and approval of Jewish legalists, was making Gentiles think they had to come under the Jewish customs and law to be saved. Even if the Jewish legalists would have said to the Gentiles, "Your lack of obedience to our customs stumbles us. We are stumbled brothers. You must do what we want." Paul would have said, you are not stumbled, because you aren't being tempted to sin through their actions. Your legalism is being offended. Out of love, I will never act in a way that might tempt you to sin, but I don't care at all about offending your legalism. In fact, I'm happy to do it!"

ii. "Many persons cover a spirit of envy and uncharitableness with the name of godly zeal and tender concern for the salvation of others; they find fault with all; their spirit is a spirit of universal censoriousness; none can please them; and every one suffers by them. These destroy more souls by tithing mint and cummin, than others do by neglecting the weightier matters of the law. Such persons have what is termed, and very properly too, sour godliness." (Clarke)

 

1 Corinthians 9

The Rights of An Apostle
A. Paul declares his rights as an apostle.

1. (1-2) Paul defends his status as an apostle.

Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

a. Remember the context: Paul is speaking to the Corinthian Christians about their "right" based on "knowledge" to eat meat sacrificed to idols in a temple restaurant.

i. Paul will ask them to let go of their "right" to eat meat sacrificed to idols, even as he has let go his own rights as an apostle. but Paul will also use the occasion to defend his apostolic position before the doubting Corinthian Christians.

b. Am I not an apostle? Such an obvious truth should hardly need stating. Of course Paul was an apostle! As obvious as this as this was, it was doubted and denied by some of the Corinthian Christians!

c. The evidence of Paul's true status as an apostle is shown in the following statements: Am I not free? Paul was not "under authority" to anyone but Jesus Christ, were other Christians were under apostolic authority. Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Paul insists that he did not merely see a vision of Jesus, but an authentic appearance of the post-resurrection Jesus. Are you not my work in the Lord? The proof is in the pudding. The work of God among the Corinthian Christians was evidence enough of Paul's apostolic credentials. In fact, they were the seal of [Paul's] apostleship in the Lord.

i. Some today, because of visions or experiences they claim to have had, claim to be apostles on the level of Paul. But seeing the resurrected Jesus is not the only qualification of a true apostle; Paul was specifically commissioned as an apostle when Jesus appeared to him on the Damascus Road (Acts 26:12-18).

d. If I am not an apostle to other, yet doubtless I am to you: Although some among the Corinthian Christians did doubt Paul's standing as an apostle, they shouldn't have. The Corinthian Christians had more reason than most to know Paul was a genuine apostle, because they had seen his work up-close.

i. This makes the doubt among the Corinthian Christians all the more ironic - something Paul is trying to let the Corinthians know!

2. (3-6) Paul's assertion of rights as an apostle.

My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we have no right to eat and drink? Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?

a. My defense: Paul will now assert his rights as an apostle, as if he were a lawyer arguing a case. The words defense (apologia) and examine (anakrino) are both legal words, taken from the Roman law court. Paul feels like he's on trial - or that he has already been condemned by the Corinthian Christians!

b. Paul, like all the apostles, had the right to eat and drink. It wasn't that the Corinthian Christians questioned Paul's right to eat, but Paul means that he has the right to eat and drink at the expense of the churches he served.

c. Paul, like all the apostles, had the right to take along a believing wife. Again, the Corinthian Christians would not mind him taking along a wife - as long as they did not have to support the apostle and his wife. But Paul is making it clear that he had the right to expect support for not only himself, but for his family also.

i. As do the other apostles: Apparently, most of the other apostles were married, and their wives traveled with them as they did ministry. This is especially interesting concerning Peter (Cephas), who was obviously married - yet still considered by the Roman Catholic church to be the first pope, in contradiction to the principle of mandatory celibacy!

d. Or is it only Barnabas and I: Most of the other apostles received support from the churches they ministered to. Paul and Barnabas were unique in this regard, choosing to work and support themselves, so no one could accuse them of preaching for a money motive.

i. We might think this would make Paul and Barnabas more respected in the sight of the Corinthian Christians. But curiously, it made them less respected. It was almost as if the Corinthian Christians would say, "if Paul and Barnabas were real apostles, we would support them, but since they are not supported, we suppose they aren't real apostles."

3. (7-14) Why Paul has the right to be supported by those he ministers to.

Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.

a. In an army, the soldiers are supported (Who ever goes to war at his own expense?); the farmer is fed by the field he works in (Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit?); the shepherd is supported by the sheep he cares for (who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?).

i. Therefore, it should not seem strange to the Corinthian Christians that Paul has the right to be supported by the people he ministers to.

b. Does not the law say the same also? Paul's right is also stated in the Mosaic law; he isn't merely using human illustrations (Do I say these things as a mere man?).

i. In Deuteronomy 25:4, God commanded You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain. This law simply commanded the humane treatment of a working animal. In those days, grain would be broken away from his husk by having an ox walk on it repeatedly (usually around a circle). It would be cruel for force the ox to walk on all the grain, yet to muzzle him so he couldn't eat of it.

ii. Is it oxen God is concerned about? The principle of Deuteronomy 25:4 is much more important than providing for the needs of oxen. God is establishing the principle that a minister has the right to be supported by the people he is ministering to. As Wiersbe says, "Since oxen cannot read, this verse was not written for them."

iii. The law about oxen stated a principle which had greater application. However, "We must not make the mistake of thinking that Paul means to explain that commandment allegorically; for some empty-headed creatures make this an excuse for turning everything into allegory, so that they change dogs into men, trees into angels, and convert the whole of Scripture into an amusing game." (Calvin)

c. Why? That he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partakers of this hope. It would be cruel to starve those who are providing and preparing your food. To do so would take away all their hope. It makes them feel abused and unappreciated.

d. If we have sown spiritual things: Paul here makes it plain that it is right for the spiritual work of God's ministers to be repaid with the material support of the people they minister unto.

e. If others are partakers of this right: It wasn't that the Corinthian Christians refused to support anyone in ministry. No; others are partakers of this right. The problem with the Corinthian Christians was they refused to support Paul, and thought less of him because he did not receive it!

f. Nevertheless we have not used the right … lest we hinder the gospel of Christ: Just as strongly as Paul affirms his right to be supported by the people he ministers unto, he will also affirm his right to not use that right - if using it might hinder the gospel of Christ.

i. Here we see Paul's real heart: paid or not paid, it did not matter to him. What mattered was the work of the gospel. Was it more effective for the gospel if Paul should receive support? Then he would receive it. Was it more effective for the gospel if Paul should work to support himself? Then he would do that. What mattered was that the gospel would in no way be hindered.

ii. If Paul was willing to deny himself such an important right, for the good of the gospel and the Corinthian Christians, then should not also the Corinthian Christians deny their "right" to eat meat sacrificed to idols, for the same good?

g. The Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel: This summary statement is conclusive. Some might say, "yes, the apostles had the right to be paid, but no one today has that right." But this command from the Lord means that anyone who preaches the gospel has the right to be supported by those he preaches to.

i. Should modern ministers assert or release their right to be supported? Whichever will serve the gospel and the church better! But if a minister does take money for support, he should work hard to earn that money.

ii. "If a man who does not labour takes his maintenance from the Church of God, it is not only a domestic theft but a sacrilege. He that gives up his time to this labour has a right to the support of himself and his family: he who takes more than is sufficient for this purpose is a covetous hireling. He who does nothing for the cause of God and religion, and yet obliges the Church to support him, and minister to his idleness, irregularities, luxury, avarice, and ambition, is a monster for whom human language has not yet got a name." (Clarke)

h. Where has the Lord commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel? In Matthew 10:10 (for a worker is worthy of his food); and in Luke 10:8 (Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you).

B. Paul's desire to leave his rights unclaimed.

1. (15-18) Paul's reward: to preach without relying on the support of any man.

But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it would be better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void. For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel.

a. I have used none of these things: Paul had the right to be supported, but he did not use that right.

b. Nor have I written these things: In writing this, Paul was not "hinting" for support by the Corinthian Christians. He is showing them the value, and the reasons, for giving up one's own rights.

c. It would be better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void: Paul's boasting wasn't that he preached the gospel (he had to do that: for necessity is laid upon me), but that he was able to do it without asking his hearers for support.

i. Remember that Greek culture, which the Corinthian Christians were so approving of, looked its nose down upon all manual labor. Even though the Corinthian Christians seemed to think less of Paul because he worked with his own hands to support himself, Paul was not embarrassed by this at all. He will boast about it!

d. Woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! Paul's ministry was not just a matter of choice or personal ambition. It was something he was called to do, something he had to do. He did not just have "preacher's itch." He was called to preach and felt compelled to fulfill that call.

e. If I do this willingly: Some are not supported by the ministry, but it has nothing to do with choice. It is just because of their circumstances. But if one does not receive support willingly, then they have a reward. However, if it is against my will that I am not supported, then I have been entrusted with a stewardship.

f. I may present the gospel of Christ without charge: In Paul's day, there were a lot of religious entrepreneurs, who were out to preach some message to get money. Paul was happy to distance himself from such by never taking an offering, so no one would think he might abuse [his] authority in the gospel. This was Paul's reward!

i. We may not ever be faced with the same decision Paul faced - to accept or deny support for the good of the gospel. But we each have a critical question to answer: what rights are you willing to sacrifice for the cause of Jesus?

2. (19-23) Paul's flexibility in ministry.

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.

a. I am free from all men … that I might win the more: Paul was free to do what he wanted, but bringing people to Jesus was more important to him than using the freedom selfishly.

b. To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win the Jews: To outside observers, it might have looked like Paul's life was inconsistent. But he consistently pursued one goal: to win people to Jesus.

i. In Acts 21:23-26, Paul participated in Jewish purification ceremonies, which he knew were not necessary for his own life, but he hoped would help build a bridge of ministry to the Jews. As well, in Acts 16:3, Paul had Timothy circumcised - again, not because it was necessary, but because it could be helpful in getting ministry done among the Jews.

ii. "To the Gentiles he behaved himself as if he himself had been a Gentile, that is, forbearing the observances of the Levitical law, to which the Gentiles had never any obligation at all." (Poole)

iii. "Paul sought to win people to Jesus Christ by being sensitive to their needs and identifying with them. We should try to reach people where they are today and expect to see changes later." (Smith)

c. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some: We should not think Paul changed his doctrine or message to appeal to different groups (he denies this in 1 Corinthians 1:22-23); but he would change his behavior and manner of approach.

i. "This passage has often been looked to for the idea of 'accommodation' in evangelism, that is, of adapting the message to the language and perspective of the recipients. Unfortunately, despite the need for that discussion to be carried on, this passage does not speak directly to it. This has to do with how one lives or behaves among those whom wishes to evangelize." (Fee)

ii. "Let those who plead for the system of accommodation on the example of St. Paul, attend to the end he had in view, and the manner in which he pursued that end. It was not to get money, influence, or honour, but to save SOULS! It was not to get ease but to increase his labours. It was not to save his life, but rather that it should be a sacrifice for the good of immortal souls!" (Clarke)

d. Now this I do for the gospel's sake: Paul was willing to offend people over the gospel; but wanted to offend them only over the gospel.

3. (24-27) Paul's attitude: an athlete's attitude.

Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

a. I run … I fight: Sporting events were big in Paul's day as well as in our own. This would have been especially meaningful to the Corinthians, because their city was the center for the Isthmian Games, second in prestige to the ancient Olympics.

i. Paul often uses figures from arena competition (at least twelve different references in his letters), including examples of runners, boxers, gladiators, chariot racers, and trophies.

b. Run in such a way that you may obtain it: Paul is telling us to train the compete as athletes who really want to win. Without effort, nothing can be won in a sporting event.

c. To compete as an athlete, one must be temperate. This term refers to the manner in which Roman athletes had to train for ten months before being allowed in the games.

i. An athlete must refuse things that may be fine in themselves, but would hinder the pursuit of his goal. Even so, the Corinthians might have to refuse things that are fine in themselves (like meat sacrificed to idols), because having them might hinder the pursuit of the important goal: an imperishable crown, a heavenly reward that will never pass away.

d. I discipline my body: Discipline is a weak translation; the word means "to strike under the eye; to give a black eye." Paul didn't want his body to lord it over his being.

i. Bring it into subjection is literally to lead about as a slave. Paul was going to make sure that his body was the servant, and his inner man was the master. The desires of his body were not going to rule over himself!

ii. But Paul did not think the body evil; after all, it belongs to Jesus (1 Corinthians 6:20). Nor would he agree with later ascetics who punished their bodies in a quest for super-holiness. Through the centuries, there have been Christians known as flagellants, who would literally whip, beat, and torture themselves in a misguided attempt to fulfill this verse. Usually, these Christians thought they could pay for their sins through such self-torture, and they refused to recognize that Jesus paid all the penalty of their sin.

e. Lest when I have preached to others: Paul sees himself as both a herald of the games (who announced the rules), and as a participant. Paul told others the rules of the game, and he had to follow the rules himself.

i. Preached: "refers to the office of the … herald, at these games, whose business it was to proclaim the conditions of the games, display the prizes, exhort the combatants, excite the emulation of those who were to contend, declare the terms of each contests, pronounce the names of the victors, and put the crown on their heads." (Clarke)

f. Lest … I myself should become disqualified: In this context, disqualified probably doesn't refer to the loss of salvation (no Greek's citizenship was revoked upon losing), but the loss of reward.

i. Disqualified: "signifies such a person as the … judges of the games, reject as not having deserved the prize. So Paul himself might be rejected by the great Judge; and to prevent this, he ran, he contended, he denied himself, and brought his body into subjection to his spirit, and had his spirit governed by the Spirit of God." (Clarke)

 

1 Corinthians 10

Idolatry Then and Now
A. Israel's bad example.

1. (1-5) Israel in the Exodus: blessed, with many spiritual experiences; yet they were disqualified.

Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

a. Moreover, brethren: 1 Corinthians 10 carries on the subject introduced in 1 Corinthians 8, and continued in chapter 9: what should the Corinthian Christians think and do in regard to meat which has been sacrificed to idols?

i. In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul established two principles. First, an idol really is nothing, and it was fine for Corinthian Christians who understood this to act according to this knowledge, in regard to themselves. Second, that as Christians, love is more important to us than knowledge. So even though I may "know" eating meat sacrificed to an idol is all right for myself, if it causes my brother to stumble, I won't do it, because it isn't the loving thing to do.

ii. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul showed how important it is for a Christian to give up their "rights." Just as Paul gave up his "right" to be supported by his own preaching of the gospel, so some of the Corinthian Christians must sometimes give up their "right" to eat meat sacrificed to idols, based on the principle of love towards a weaker brother. In the end of chapter 9, Paul shows how a Christian must be willing to give up some things - even "good" things - for the sake of winning the race God has set before us, or else we will become disqualified (1 Corinthians 9:27) in the competition God has set before us.

b. I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers: Paul has been writing about the need to finish what God has set before us, and how dangerous it is to not be willing to give up something which gets in the way of finishing. Now, he will use Israel's experience in the Exodus from Egypt to illustrate this principle.

c. Think of all the blessings Israel had in the Exodus from Egypt!

i. Our fathers passed through the cloud: The cloud of Shekinah glory overshadowed Israel throughout their journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. During the day, the cloud sheltered them from the brutal desert sun, and during the night, it burned as a pillar of fire. It was a constant, ready reminder of God's glory and presence (Exodus 13:21-22).

ii. All passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses: All of Israel came through the Red Sea and saw God's incredible power in holding up the walls of the sea so Israel could cross over on dry ground, and then God's work of sending the water back to drown the Egyptian army (Exodus 14:21-31). It was not only an amazing demonstration of God's love and power, but also a picture of baptism - by "passing through water," all of Israel was identified with Moses, even as by "passing through water," a Christian is identified with Jesus Christ (Romans 6:3-4).

iii. All ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink: All of Israel was sustained by God's miraculous provision of food and drink during their time in the wilderness (Exodus 16:35 and 17:6). This was a remarkable display of God's love and power for Israel, and a pre-figuring of the spiritual food and drink we receive at the Lord's table (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

iv. Israel even had ancient versions of the two Christian sacraments we receive to this day: baptism and communion. The word sacrament was used for the oath of allegiance which the soldiers of the Roman legion took to their emperor. The early Christians considered communion and baptism to be an "oath of allegiance" unto Jesus Christ.

v. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ: Israel even had the presence of Jesus Christ with them in the wilderness! Here, in identifying the Rock that followed them, Paul is building on a Rabbinical tradition which said Israel was supplied with water by the same rock all through the wilderness, a rock which followed them. Some Bible scholars today debate as to if the rock followed Israel, or if the water followed Israel (as in a stream). The point is the same: Jesus Christ was present with Israel in the wilderness, providing for their needs miraculously. What blessing, what privilege!

d. But with most of them God was not well pleased: Despite all these blessings and spiritual privileges, the Israelites in the wilderness did not please God. Because of all the blessings, out of gratitude, they should have been more pleasing to God, but they were not.

i. Most of them is a hard-hitting understatement. Only two men from the adult generation which left Egypt came into the Promised Land (Joshua and Caleb). Most indeed!

e. For their bodies were scattered in the wilderness: The displeasure of God with the Israelites was evident because they never entered into the Promised Land, but died in the wilderness instead. For all their blessings and spiritual experiences, they never entered into what God really had for them.

f. Paul's point hits hard: the Corinthian Christians were probably taking all sorts of liberties (like feasting in pagan temples, stumbling their brothers), thinking that they were "safe" because of their past blessings and spiritual experiences (especially baptism and communion). So, Paul warns them to beware, because just as Israel was blessed and had spiritual experiences, they still perished - and so some of the Corinthian Christians might also!

i. "It seems as if the Corinthians had supposed that their being made partakers of the ordinances of the Gospel, such as baptism and the Lord's Supper, would secure their salvation, notwithstanding, they might be found partaking of idolatrous feasts; as long, at least, as they considered an idol to be nothing in the world." (Clarke)

2. (6-10) Avoiding Israel's bad example.

Now these things became our examples, to the intent that we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. And do not become idolaters as were some of them. As it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." Nor let us commit sexual immorality, as some of them did, and in one day twenty-three thousand fell; nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer.

a. Now these things became our examples: We can, and should, learn from Israel's failure in the wilderness. How did Israel fail?

b. They failed in that they could not say "no" to their desires, and so we must not lust after evil things as they also lusted. The Corinthian Christians who insisted on eating meat sacrificed to idols even though they were leading other Christians into sin just couldn't say "no." They said, "the meat is so good!" or "it is such a bargain!" but they could not say "no" out of love for God and love for a brother.

c. And do not become idolaters as were some of them: Israel failed to keep their focus on God, and they started giving themselves to idolatry (as in Exodus 32:1-6 and Numbers 25:1-3). Some of the Corinthian Christians were not only getting too close in their association with idols, they were also making an idol out of their own "knowledge" and their own "rights."

d. Nor let us commit sexual immorality as some of them did: Israel, in their idolatry, surrendered to the temptation of sexual immorality. Rose up to play (quoted from Exodus 32:6) is a tasteful way to refer to rank immorality among the people of Israel. We know the Corinthian Christians were having trouble with sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18-20), and the context here suggests it is connected with their selfish desire to please themselves, expressed in insisting on the "right" to eat meat sacrificed to idols.

i. "The verb translated play suggests sex-play in Hebrew … and therefore we are probably to understand drunken orgies." (Cole, in his commentary on Exodus)

ii. And in one day twenty-three thousand fell: This number presents some difficulty. The quotation from Exodus 32:6 sets the context there, and in Exodus 32:28 tells us about three thousand men of the people fell that day. Perhaps there were more who died which the Scriptures do not record, or there were 20,000 women who died in the aftermath of the golden calf incident. Or, some think Paul has jumped ahead to another time when Israel's sexual immorality during the Exodus brought God's judgment upon them (Numbers 25:9). In the Numbers passage, we are told that 24,000 died from the judgment of God, but perhaps it was 23,000 who died in one day.

iii. "What a wonderful book is the Bible, written at intervals during a period of fifteen hundred years, when such apparitions of inaccuracy as this must be seized upon to impeach its infallibility!" (Hodge)

e. Nor let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; nor complain: Numbers 21:4-9 describes the incident where, in response to the complaining of the people, God sent fiery serpents among the people. Again, their complaining hearts show them to be self-focused and more concerned with their own desires than God's glory - the same issues causing trouble with the Corinthian Christians who will not yield their right to eat meat sacrificed to idols for the sake of another brother.

f. Because of the warning in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5, it seems the Corinthian Christians believed they were "safe" from the danger of being destroyed (as the Israelites were destroyed) because of their past spiritual experiences or accomplishments. But Paul's warning stands: "If it happened to Israel, it can happen to you. Be on guard."

i. The Corinthian Christians seem to have regarded this issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols and thereby stumbling their brother as a "small" issue. Paul wants them, and us, to know: it reflects a selfish, self-focused heart, which is the kind of heart God destroyed among the Israelites in the wilderness. It may have been a relatively small symptom, but it was a symptom of a great and dangerous disease.

3. (11-13) Summary of the lesson from Israel's history: standing strong against temptation.

Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

a. All these things happened to them as examples: Since we are those upon whom the ends of the ages have come, we can and should take warning from the bad example of Israel. We have a greater responsibility because we can learn from Israel's mistakes.

b. Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall: For the Corinthian Christians to resist the temptation to be selfish and self-focused, they must first understand they are vulnerable. The one who thinks he stands will not even be on guard against temptation, so he can easily fall.

i. Temptation works like rocks in a harbor; when the tide is low, everybody sees the danger and avoids it. But Satan's strategy in temptation is to raise the tide, and to cover over the dangers of temptation. Then he likes to crash you upon the covered rocks.

ii. "The highest saint under heaven can stand no longer than he depends upon God and continues in the obedience of faith. He that ceases to do so will fall into sin, and get a darkened understanding and a hardened heart." (Clarke)

c. No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man: We often want to excuse our particular tempting circumstances as "very unique" and a "special exception." But God reminds us that our temptation is not unique - many other men and women of God have faced the same or similar temptation, and have found the strength in God to overcome the temptation.

i. Others before you have found strength in the Lord to overcome your same temptation - and worse. So, you can be victorious - in the strength of Jesus, not in your own strength. We fight temptation with Jesus' power, like the girl who explained what she did when Satan came with temptation at the door of her heart: "I send Jesus to answer the door. When Satan sees Jesus, he says, 'OOPS, sorry, I must have the wrong house.'"

d. God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able: God has promised to supervise all temptation which comes at us through the world, the flesh or the devil. He promises to limit it according to our capability to endure it - according to our capability as we rely on Him, not relying on ourselves.

i. Satan would destroy us in a minute if God would let him, even as he wanted to destroy Job (Job 1:6-12) and Peter (Luke 22:31), but God will not let him. So, like a mom who keeps her child from the candy aisle in a store, knowing the child couldn't handle that temptation, God keeps us from things we can't handle. But what we can and can't handle changes over the years!

e. With the temptation will also make the way of escape: God has promised to not only limit our temptation, but also to provide a way of escape in tempting times. He will never force us to use the way of escape, but he will make the way of escape. It's up to us to take God's way of escape.

i. The way of escape isn't the same as mere "relief" from the pressure temptation, which some people find by giving into the temptation! There is often a wrong way to relieve a temptation, and we will often face the same temptations over and over again until we show Satan and our flesh we are able to bear it.

ii. Barclay says the word for a way of escape is really a mountain pass, with the idea of an army being surrounded by the enemy, and then suddenly seeing an escape route to safety. It isn't necessarily an easy way!

f. The way of escape does not lead us to a place where we escape all temptation (that is heaven alone); the way of escape leads us to the place where we may be able to bear it.

i. We are reminded that to be tempted is not sin; but to entertain temptation, or surrender to temptation is sin. When we bear temptation, Satan often condemns us for being tempted, but it that is condemnation from Satan the Christian does not need to accept!

ii. At a market, a little boy standing by some candy looked like he was going to put some in his pocket and walk out the door. A clerk watched the boy for a long time, and finally spoke to him. "Looks like you're trying to take some candy" the clerk asked. The boy replied, "You're wrong, mister. I'm trying not to." For the time being, he was able to bear it!

B. Back to the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols: what about eating in the restaurant of a pagan temple?

1. (14) The principle stated: flee from idolatry.

Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

a. Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry: In the original language, there is an article before idolatry, literally saying the idolatry. Paul is specifically referring to the idolatry at the pagan temples.

b. Though the Corinthian Christians may have the liberty to buy meat at the pagan temple butcher shop and prepare it in their own homes, they should flee from idolatry in regards to the restaurant of the pagan temple. Using the example of Israel, and their lapse into idolatry, Paul tells the Corinthian Christians to not participate in the dinners served at the pagan temple.

2. (15-22) The reason why: what goes on at the pagan temple is not as innocent as it may seem.

I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread. Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

a. I speak as to wise men: Since the Corinthian Christians tended to pride themselves on their "wisdom," Paul challenges them - if they are truly wise - to carefully consider what he says here.

b. The cup of blessing … Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? Paul's point may seem obscure to us, but it was plain to someone in that ancient culture. Just as the Christian practice of communion speaks of unity and fellowship with Jesus, so these pagan banquets, given in the honor of idols, speak of unity with demons who take advantage of misdirected worship. To eat at a pagan temple banquet was to have fellowship at the altar of idols.

i. The word partakers is the same word (koinonia) for communion in 1 Corinthians 10:16 and fellowship in 1 Corinthians 10:20.

ii. In the thinking of that part of the ancient world, to eat at the same table with someone indicated friendship and fellowship with that person. Since you ate of one bread, that made you one body, because you both shared of the same food at the same table. So to eat at the table of a pagan temple restaurant was not as innocent as it seemed.

iii. The cup of blessing was the last cup presented in the Jewish Passover ceremony; this was the cup that Jesus blessed at the Last Supper, and the one interpreted as "the new covenant in my blood." When early Christians took communion, they were aware of its connection to Passover, and with the last supper of Jesus with His disciples.

c. What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? … they sacrifice to demons: Paul has already acknowledged an idol is nothing in the world (1 Corinthians 8:4). Is he now saying idols are actually demons? No; but he is saying demonic spirits take advantage of idol worship to deceive and enslave people. Without knowing it, idol worshippers are glorifying demons in their sacrifice.

d. When Paul speaks of the Lord's table, he uses the term to contrast with "tables" used for pagan idol meals; an ancient invitation to such a meal reads "Chairemon invites you to a meal at the table of the lord Serapis in the temple of Serapis, tomorrow the fifteenth from nine o'clock onwards." If it means something to eat at the Lord's table, then it means something to eat at the table of demons.

i. Roman Catholics have used this passage to support the idea of the Mass as a sacrifice for sins. But it is reading far too much in the text to say that the Christian meal (communion) must be a sacrifice (as it is claimed to be in the Mass) because it is compared to the meal connected with pagan sacrifices and Jewish sacrifices. The emphasis, and the similarity here, is on the meal, not the sacrifice.

e. There may be two Corinthian ideas Paul is trying to answer:

i. The Corinthian Christians were thinking, "Since an idol is not real, it doesn't matter what we eat, and it doesn't matter where we eat it." Paul answers by agreeing that an idol is in itself nothing (1 Corinthians 8:4); but now explains that demons take advantage of man's ignorant and self-serving worship.

ii. The Corinthian Christians were thinking, "As long as we are participating in the Lord's Table, we are safe in Him." Paul answers that they are disgracing the Lord's table when they fellowship with idols.

f. The unwitting fellowship of some of the Corinthian Christians with demons, by participating in the dinners at the pagan temples, will provoke the Lord to jealousy. He has a right over all our worship, and has a right to be offended if we give our fellowship to demons.

i. It doesn't matter that the Corinthian Christians didn't intend to worship demons at these heathen feats in pagan temples; if a man puts his hand into the fire, it doesn't matter if he intends to burn himself or not. He is burned just the same.

ii. If a man dates a woman, and they get serious about their relationship, what will happen if he takes up the same kind of relationship with another woman? What will the first woman think? Why can't the man say, "well, I still give attention to you!"

g. Are we stronger than He? The Corinthian Christians claimed the right to eat at pagan temples because they were such strong Christians; but are they stronger than God?

C. Back to the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols: what about eating the same meat somewhere else?

1. (23-24) A principle to build on: don't just avoid what is harmful; pursue what is good.

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well-being.

a. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful: The Corinthian Christians, with their focus on their own "rights" and their own "knowledge," were only asking one question: what's the harm to me? Instead of only asking that question, they needed to also ask, what good can this be for me?

i. Just because something is permitted does not mean it is beneficial. The Corinthians were not seeking the helpful things, or the things that would edify. Essentially, instead of wanting to go forward with Jesus as much as they could, they wanted to know how much they could get away with and still be Christians. That's the wrong approach!

b. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well-being: As well, the Corinthian Christians were asking one question: what's the harm to me? They did not consider how their actions were harming others.

i. Just because something is fine for me does not mean should do it. My own "rights" or what I know to be permitted for myself are not the standards by which I judge my behavior. I must consider what is the loving thing to do towards my brothers and sisters in Jesus.

2. (25-30) Practical guidelines.

Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness." If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake. But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness." "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks?

a. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market: How can Paul say this, in light of what he said in 1 Corinthians 10:20-21 (the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons … I do not want you to have fellowship with demons … you cannot partake of the Lord's table and of the table of demons)? Simply because the meat itself isn't "infected by demons," and can thus be eaten. Paul's warnings in 1 Corinthians 10:15-22 have to do with the atmosphere of fellowship with demons at the pagan temple, which is to be avoided, not the food itself.

i. The sacrifices lost their religious character when sold in the meat market, so it was permitted to eat meat that may have been sacrificed to an idol at a private table.

b. Asking no questions: At the butcher shop, some of the meat was sacrificed to idols, and some of it was not. Paul says, "if you aren't going to partake of the atmosphere of the pagan temple, the meat itself doesn't matter. Don't even ask, and it won't even bother you."

i. This is directed towards those Corinthian Christians who had consciousness of the idol … and their conscience, being weak, is defiled (1 Corinthians 8:7). Paul says, "don't even ask!"

ii. What if one of the brothers with a weak conscience objects, saying "Wait a minute! That meat was sacrificed to an idol!" Paul responds by quoting, The earth is LORD'S, and all its fullness (Psalm 24:1). The cow belonged to the Lord when it was on the hoof, and it belongs to the Lord now that it is on the barbecue! The food wasn't the issue, the idol worshipping atmosphere was.

iii. This quotation from Psalm 24:1 was used as a Jewish blessing at mealtimes. Paul is saying it applies to this food also!

c. If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner … eat what is set before you: If an unbeliever invites you to dinner, don't get into a debate about the meat with them. Don't ask, and it won't bother you!

i. Notice that Paul does not prohibit socializing with non-Christians; only the meal of fellowship at the pagan temples.

d. But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it: Here, Paul has in mind the setting where a Christian is warned about the food by his unbelieving host, or a Christian host with a sensitive conscience. In that case, it is clear the person thinks it is wrong for Christians to partake of meat sacrificed to idols, so don't eat it - for the sake of conscience, not your own, but that of the other.

e. But if I partake with thanks - that is, if I can eat with a clear conscience, and offending no one else's conscience - why am I evil spoken of: Since the food itself is not the problem, no one should judge another Christian who can eat meat sacrificed to idols, as long as they don't violate their own conscience or someone else's.

i. It may seem that Paul is being inconsistent; but he is being very consistent according to one principle: liberty within the limits of love.

3. (31-33) Concluding principle: Do all to the glory of God.

Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

a. Do all to the glory of God: The purpose of our lives isn't to see how much we can get away with and still be Christians; rather, it is to glorify God. If the Corinthian Christian would have kept this principle in mind from the beginning in this issue, how much easier it would have made everything!

b. Give no offense: An offense is an occasion to stumble, of leading someone else into sin. Paul is saying none of our behavior should encourage another to sin.

i. Paul is not talking about offending the legalism of others, something he was not shy about doing (Galatians 5:11-12).

c. Paul's desire regarding men was that they may be saved; more often than we think, low conduct in Christian living is connected to little regard for the lost. Paul's concern was not seeking [his] own profit, but that all may be saved.

 

1 Corinthians 11

Concerning Women, and the Lord's Supper
A. Instruction concerning women in the worship service.

1. (1) A call to follow the example of Paul.

Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.

a. Imitate me: Paul knew he was following Jesus, so he did not hesitate to tell the Corinthian Christians to imitate his walk with the Lord. He knew the Corinthian Christians needed examples, and he was willing to be such an example.

i. In doing so, Paul was simply doing what he told his young associate Timothy to do: but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity. (1 Timothy 4:12)

ii. How few today are willing to say what Paul said! Instead, because of compromise and ungodliness, we are quick to say, "Don't look at me, look at Jesus." While it is true we must all ultimate look to Jesus, everyone one of us should be examples of those who are looking to Jesus.

iii. In the specific context, it is a little difficult to know if Paul's words here relate to the context before or after. Does Paul refer back to 1 Corinthians 10, and therefore mean, "Follow my example as I seek to bless others instead of pleasing myself"? Or, does Paul refer to what is to follow in 1 Corinthians 11, and therefore mean, "Follow my example as I respect God's order and authority in the church"? Though he most likely connects it with what went before in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul was a good example in both cases!

iv. "Interpreters judge, that these words to properly belong to the foregoing chapter, in the last verse of which he had propounded his own example to them; but whether they be applied to that chapter or this, is not much material. They teach us, that the examples of the apostles are part of our rule; yet the modesty of the apostle is remarkable, who requires of his people no further to follow him than as he followed Christ: nor indeed ought any man to require more of those that are under his charge, than to follow him so far forth as he imitates the Lord Jesus Christ." (Poole)

b. Just as I also imitate Christ: Paul knew he was an example, and a good example at that. At the same time, he also knew that it was not "Paul" who was a worthy example, but "Paul the follower of Jesus" who was the example.

i. This also sets a limit and a direction on the way we imitate others. Just as I also imitate Christ has the idea of "follow me as much as you see me following Jesus."

2. (2-3) The principle of headship.

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

a. I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions: Paul is again speaking sarcastically to the Corinthian Christians. In fact, they did not remember Paul in all things; they disregarded him as they sought fit. Additionally, they did not keep the traditions as they should have.

i. Keep the traditions is a scary phrase to many Christians. It brings forth the idea that Christians are to be bound by ancient, outdated traditions in their conduct and worship. But the traditions Paul delivered to the Corinthian Christians were simply the teachings and practices of the apostles, received from Jesus. Paul was not talking about ceremonies and rituals, but about basic teaching and doctrine.

b. The head of every man in Christ, the head of every woman is man, and the head of Christ is God: With these words, Paul sets a foundation for his teaching in the rest of the chapter. Simply put, Paul makes it clear that God has established principles of order, authority, and accountability.

i. Head is an important word in this chapter. Some consider head to mean nothing more than source, in the sense that the head of a river is its source. Though this word can mean this, Paul is not simply saying "man came from Jesus, woman came from man, and Jesus came from God." Though that simple understanding is true, it goes much deeper, because in Biblical thinking, a source has inherent authority. If something has come from me, there is some appropriate authority I have over that which has come from me.

ii. In its full sense, head has the idea of headship and authority. It means to have the appropriate responsibility to lead, and the matching accountability. It is right and appropriate to submit to someone who is our head.

iii. With this understanding, we see Paul describes three "headship" relationships: Jesus is head of every man; man is the head of woman, and God (the Father) is head of Christ. Because Paul connects the three relationships, the principles of headship are the same among them.

c. Therefore, women in the Church have two options in their attitude towards their head. They imitate the kind of attitude men have towards Christ: showing a rebelliousness that must be won over. Or, women can imitate the kind of attitude Christ displayed towards God the Father: loving submission to Him as an equal.

i. The idea of headship and authority is important to God. In His great plan for the ages, one great thing God looks for from man is voluntary submission. This is what Jesus showed in His life over and over again, and this is exactly what God looks for from both men and women, though it will be expressed in different ways.

ii. It is essential to understand that being under authority does not equal inferiority. Jesus was totally under the authority of God the Father (John 5:19, 8:28), yet He is equally God (John 1:1, 8:58, 10:30). When God calls women in the church to recognize the headship of men, it is not because women are unequal or inferior, but because there is a God-ordained order of authority to be respected.

iii. "God is the Head of Christ, not in respect of his essence and Divine nature, but in respect of his office as Mediator; as the man is the head of the woman, not in respect of a different and more excellent essence and nature, (for they are both of the same nature,) but in respect of office and place, as God hath set him over the woman." (Poole)

3. (4-6) The application of the principle of headship among the Corinthian Christians.

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

a. Dishonors his head … dishonors her head: Because of this order of authority, it is inappropriate for men to pray under a head covering, and inappropriate for women to pray without a head covering.

b. The idea of a head covering was important in this (and many other) ancient cultures. To wear the head covering (or, veil in some translations), was a public symbol of being under the authority and protection of another.

i. "It was a custom, both among the Greeks and Romans, and among the Jews an express law, that no woman should be seen abroad without a veil. This was, and is, a common custom through all the east, and none but public prostitutes go without veils." (Clarke)

ii. Even as today, among some, to wear a hat or some other kind of head covering is a picture of humility and modesty, so the head covering had an important cultural meaning among the ancient Corinthians.

iii. "The use of the word 'veil,' … is an unfortunate one since it tends to call to mind the full veil of contemporary Moslem cultures, which covers everything but the eyes. This is unknown in antiquity, at least from the evidence of paintings and sculpture." (Fee)

c. So, for a man praying or prophesying, having his head covered was for the man to say, "I am not in authority here. I am under the authority of others." Because God has established that the head of woman is man (1 Corinthians 11:3), it would be dishonoring to Jesus (his head) for a man to say this with the wearing of a head covering.

i. "Nothing in this is a further rule to Christians, than it is the duty of ministers, in praying and preaching, to use postures and habits that are not naturally, nor according to the custom of the place where they live, uncomely and irreverent, and ill looked upon." (Poole)

d. On the same principle, for a woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered is saying, "I am not under authority here." And because God has established that the head of woman is man (1 Corinthians 11:3), it would be dishonoring to men (her head) for a woman to say this with the refusal to wear a head covering.

i. Under these words of Paul, women are free to pray or prophesy, but only when as they demonstrate that they are under the authority of the male leadership of the church.

e. That is one and the same as if her head was shaved: If a woman refuses to demonstrate being under authority, she may as well be shaved of her hair (let her also be shorn). In some ancient cultures, the shaving of a woman's head was the punishment given to an adulteress.

i. Having a woman's head shorn or shaved meant different things in different cultures; in Jewish law, it was the mark of adultery (Numbers 5:11-31). In the Greek world, it could be the mark of a prostitute or lesbian.

f. Among the Corinthian Christians, there were probably certain "spiritual" women who declared that since Jesus, they did need not demonstrate with a hairstyle or head covering that they were under anyone's authority. In essence, Paul says to these women: "If you are going to forsake your head covering, go all the way and shave your head, and identify yourself with the women of the world, in all their shame."

4. (7-10) Why is it important to respect the principle of headship in the church?

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

a. The reason first stated is found in 1 Corinthians 11:3: the head of woman is man. God has established an order of authority, the principle of male headship, both in the church (1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2) and the home (Ephesians 5:23).

b. He is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. A second reason is found in the order of creation: God created Adam first, and gave Him responsibility over Eve.

i. Since one reason for male headship is the order and manner in which God created man and woman - something which was present before the fall - this passage makes it clear that before and after the fall, God has ordained there be a difference in the roles between genders, even in the church. Difference in gender roles (in the church and in the home) are not the result of the fall, and are not erased by our new life in Jesus.

ii. Trapp on woman is the glory of the man: "Either because he may glory in her, if she be good; or because she is to honour him, and give glory to him." Clarke also observes: "As the man is, among the creatures, the representative of the glory and perfections of God, so that the fear of him and dread of him are in every beast of the field … so the woman is, in the house and family, the representative of the power and authority of the man." Poole adds: "But the woman is the glory of the man, created for the honour of the man, and for his help and assistance, and originally made out of man, so as man may glory of her, as Adam did of Eve, Gen. ii. 23, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh."

iii. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man: Simply put, Adam was created for Eve, but Eve was created for Adam - and this principle applies to every "Adam" and every "Eve" through history. Genesis 2:18 declares God's intention in creating Eve: I will make him a helper comparable to him. Eve was created to be a helper to Adam, meaning that Adam was "head" over Eve, and she was called to share and help his vision and agenda. Genesis 2:22 says, He brought her to the man. Adam was not brought to Eve, Eve was brought to Adam - her head. It is an idea offensive to the spirit of our age, but the Bible in this passage clearly teaches that (in the church and in the home) man was not made for the benefit of woman, but woman for the benefit of man. "For the man, signifies to serve and help the man." (Poole)

c. Because of the angels: A third reason God has established male headship in the church is the presence of angels in corporate worship.

i. Angels are present at any assembly of Christians for worship and note any departure from reverent order; and apparently, angels are offended by any violation of propriety.

ii. Passages such as this remind us that our struggle is bigger than ourselves. God has eternal things to teach the universe through us (Ephesians 3:10-11; 1 Corinthians 4:9; 1 Peter 1:12).

iii. John Stott, commenting on Ephesians 3, explains the broader idea: "It is as if a great drama is being enacted. History is the theatre, the world is the stage, and the church members in every land are the actors. God himself has written the play, and he directs and produces it. Act by act, scene by scene, the story continues to unfold. But who are the audience? They are the cosmic intelligences, the principalities and powers in the heavenly places." (Stott)

iv. "And so it teaches us, that the good angels, who are ministering spirits for the good of God's elect, at all times have a special ministration, or at least are more particularly present, in the assemblies of people for religious worship, observing the persons, carriage, and demeanour; the sense of which ought to awe all persons attending those services, from any incident and unworthy behaviour." (Poole)

d. Significantly, none of these reasons are culture-dependent. The order and manner of creation and the presence of angels do not depend on culture. We cannot say, "Paul said this just because of the thinking of the Corinthian culture or the place of women in that culture." The principles are eternal, but the out-working of the principles may differ according to culture.

e. In this, we see God has established a clear chain of authority in both the home and in the church, and in those spheres, God has ordained that men are the "head" - that is, that they have the place of authority and responsibility.

i. Our culture, having rejected the idea in a difference in role between men and women, now rejects the idea of any difference between men and women! The driving trends in our culture point towards men who are more like women, and women who are more like men - and styles, clothes, perfumes, and all the rest are pushing this thought.

ii. The Bible is just as specific: there is no general submission of women unto men commanded in society; only in the spheres of the home and in the church. God has not commanded in His word that men have exclusive authority in the areas of politics, business, education, and so on.

iii. It also does not mean that every woman in the church is under the authority of every man - ridiculous! Instead it means that those who lead the church - pastors and ruling elders - must be men, and women must respect their authority.

iv. The failure of men to lead in the home and in the church, and to lead in the way Jesus would lead, has been a chief cause of the rejection of male authority - and is inexcusable.

v. Some feel this recognition and submission to authority is an unbearable burden; that it means, "I have to say that I'm inferior, I'm nothing, and I have to recognize this other person as being superior." Not at all! Inferiority or superiority has nothing to do with it! Remember the relationship between God the Father and God the Son - they are completely equal in their being, but have different roles when it comes to authority.

vi. Some may say that the church cannot work, or cannot work well, unless we get along with the times and put women into positions of spiritual and doctrinal authority in the church. From the standpoint of what works in our culture, they may be right. But how can such a church say they are led by the word of God?

f. The issues of headship and submission should be seen in their broader context - not just as a struggle between men and women, but as a struggle with the issue of authority in general. Since the 1960's, there has been a massive change in the way we see and accept authority.

i. Citizens do not have the same respect for government's authority, students do not have the same respect for teacher's authority, women do not have the same respect for men's authority, children do not have the same respect for parent's authority, employees do not have the same respect for their employer's authority, people do not have the same respect for the police's authority, and Christians no longer have the same respect for church authority.

ii. It's important to ask: have the changes been good? Do we feel safer? Are we more confident in our culture? Have television and other entertainment gotten better or worse? In fact, our society is presently in, and rushing towards, complete anarchy - the state where no authority is accepted, and the only thing that matters is what I want to do.

iii. It is fair to describe our present moral state as one of anarchy. There is no moral authority in our culture. When it comes to morality, the only thing that matters is what one wants to do. And in a civil sense, many neighborhoods in our nation are given over to anarchy. Do you think that government's authority is accepted in gang-infested portions of our inner city? The only thing that matters is what one wants to do.

iv. We must see the broader attack on authority as a direct Satanic strategy to destroy our society and millions of individual lives. The devil is accomplishing this with two main attacks: first, the corruption of authority; second, the rejection of authority.

v. This idea of authority and submission to authority are so important to God that they are part of His very being. The First Person of the Holy Trinity is called the Father; the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is called the Son. Inherent in those titles is a relationship of authority and submission to authority. The Father exercises authority over the Son, and the Son submits to the Father's authority - and this is in the very nature and being of God! Our failure to exercise Biblical authority, and our failure to submit to Biblical authority, isn't just wrong and sad - it sins against the very nature of God. Remember 1 Samuel 15:23: For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

5. (11-12) Headship in light of the interdependence of men and women.

Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

a. Nevertheless: On top of all Paul has said about male headship in the church, it would be wrong to consider headship as the only dynamic at work between men and women in the church. They must also remember neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man. Men and women need each other, so there is no place for a "lording over" of the men over the women.

i. "Even after he has stressed the subordination of women, Paul goes on to stress even more directly the essential partnership of man and woman. Neither can live without the other. If there is subordination, it is in order that the partnership may be more fruitful and lovely for both." (Barclay)

b. Though Paul has recognized the order of creation, and related it to the principle of male headship in the church, he is also careful to remember even so man also comes through woman. There is a critical interdependence which must be recognized, within the framework of male headship in the church and in the home.

i. "But on the other side, since the creation of the first man, all men are by the woman, who conceives them in her womb, suckles them at her breasts, is concerned in their education while children, and dandled upon her knees; the man therefore hath no reason to despise and too much to trample upon the woman." (Poole)

ii. Therefore, the man, or men, who rule in the church or in the home without love, without recognizing the important and vital place God has given women, is not doing God's will.

iii. "A man who can only rule by stamping his foot had better remain single. But a man who knows how to govern his house by the love of the Lord, through sacrificial submission to the Lord, is the man who is going to make a perfect husband. The woman who cannot submit to an authority like that had better remain single." (Redpath)

iv. G. Campbell Morgan recalls the story of the older Christian woman who had never married, explaining "I never met a man who could master me." She had the right idea.

6. (13-16) Appealing to experience, nature, common sense, and apostolic authority.

Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

a. Judge among yourselves: Paul appeals to something the Corinthian Christians should be able to figure out on their own.

b. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Here, Paul speaks to those Christians who come from a Jewish environment. In the Jewish community, even men would cover their heads while praying. It was therefore inconceivable for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered. Their own experience taught them that women should observe the custom of the head covering when the church meets.

c. Does not even nature itself teach: In both Jewish and Greek cultures, short hair was common for men. Therefore it was a dishonor for a man to wear long hair, because it was considered feminine.

i. From as long as we have known, women have generally worn their hair longer than men. In some cultures and at some times, men have worn their hair longer than others, but no matter how long men have worn their hair, women have always worn their hair longer.

ii. Based on this verse, many people have thought that it is a sin for a man to wear long hair - or, at least hair that is considered long by the culture. But long hair in itself can be no sin; after all, Paul apparently had long hair for a time in Corinth as a part of a vow (Acts 18:18). But, the vow would not have meant anything if long hair was the norm; that's what Paul is getting at!

iii. While it is true that it is wrong for a man to take the appearance of a woman (Deuteronomy 22:5), longer hair on a man is not necessarily an indication of this. It is far better for most preachers to be concerned about the length of their sermons instead of the length of people's hair!

d. Her hair is given to her for a covering: Because women wear their hair longer than men, Paul thinks of this longer hair as "nature's veil. So, if nature has given women long hair as a covering, that in itself points to their need to be covered (according to the ancient Corinthian custom).

e. If anyone seem to be contentious, we have no such custom: In this appeal to apostolic authority, Paul is telling the Corinthian Christians to not be contentious - especially because the other churches of God have adopted their custom according to God's truth.

B. Instruction concerning observance of the Lord's Supper.

1. (17-19) Introduction to the problem.

Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come together not for the better but for the worse. For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.

a. You come together not for the better but for the worse: Paul writes to the Corinthian Christians the way he might write to many congregations today: when they come together, it is not for the better but for the worse! It was to their credit that they gathered together (something neglected by too many Christians today, in disobedience to Hebrews 10:25); but sadly, it was not for the better but for the worse.

b. A large part of the problem with the gatherings of the Corinthian Christians was that there were divisions among them - something Paul had heard, and could believe, knowing the history and the character of the Corinthian Christians.

i. Paul has already dealt with the problem of divisions among the Corinthian Christians in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17. There, the approach was more theological; here, it is more practical, dealing with the problem of division as it shows itself in the Corinthian Christians during their gatherings.

c. There must also be factions: We usually think of factions and divisions among Christians to be nothing but a problem. But Paul reveals a purpose God has in allowing factions: that those who are approved may be recognized among you. God allows factions so that, over time, those who really belong to God would be made evident.

2. (20-22) The bad conduct of the Corinthian Christians at their common meal.

Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

a. When you come together in one place: In this, Paul refers to the early church custom of combining the love-feast (like a shared-dish supper) and the Lord's Supper.

i. Because the risen Jesus so often ate with His disciples, it made sense to the early church that eating together went together with celebrating the Lord's Supper.

b. Sadly, the Corinthian Christians were acting selfishly at their common meals: each one takes his own supper ahead of the others, and one is hungry and another is drunk. Their selfish conduct at the common meal was disgracing their observance of the Lord's Supper.

i. In the modern church, the Lord's Supper is commonly celebrated in an atmosphere of dignity. But the Corinthian Christians were coming from a culture where the pagans would commonly have wild, riotous banquets given in honor of a pagan god. This is how it might not seem so strange to the Corinthian Christians to even get drunk and a church common meal.

c. One takes his supper ahead of the others … one is hungry: Why would some be hungry at the church common meals? Because among the Corinthian Christians, some were more wealthy than others, and the poorer ones were being neglected (Or do you … shame those who have nothing?).

i. In that day, at common meals, it was expected that the "upper class" would receive better and more food than the "lower class." This cultural custom was being carried over into the church, and the Christians weren't really sharing with one another. At the agape feast, the rich brought more food and the poor brought less food; but in Corinth they were not sharing the food fairly.

ii. Ancient culture, much more than modern American culture, was extremely class concious. It was respect of these class divisions which so grieved Paul.

iii. Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God: Paul's message is both strong and plain. "If you want to eat or drink selfishly, do it at home!"

d. Using repetition, Paul makes it clear: I do not praise you is repeated three times in this brief section. The apostle is not happy with the Corinthian Christians at this point!

3. (23-26) How to conduct the true Lord's Supper.

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.

a. For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: Paul didn't just make this up, he received it from the Lord. It came to him from the Lord either personally or through the other apostles.

i. "Some think that Paul received this from the Lord by immediate revelation … Others think that he received it from St. Luke's writings (for the words are quoted according to his Gospel). Others think he received it from some other of the apostles. Certain it is, that he did receive it from the Lord; how, is uncertain." (Poole)

b. On the same night in which He was betrayed: Paul, in remembering the events of the night before Jesus' crucifixion, recalls that Jesus was not only executed by a foriegn power, He was betrayed by His own.

c. And when He had given thanks: In theology, and in church custom, the Lord's Supper is often called the eucharist. This word comes from the Greek phrase used here for given thanks.

d. He broke it and said: In conducting a communion service, Paul puts the emphasis on rembering Jesus, on what He said about the meaning of His own death for us.

i. We remember the Last Supper was actually a Passover meal, when Jesus, together with the disciples, according to Biblical commands and Jewish tradtions, celebrated the remembrance of Israel's deliverance from Egypt to the Promised Land, beginning in the book of Exodus.

ii. The breaking of bread and the drinking of wine were important parts of the Passover celebration. Jesus took these important pictures and reminders of Israel's deliverance from Egypt, and added to them the meanings connected with His own death on the cross for us.

e. This is My body: In taking the bread, we are called to remember Jesus' body broken for you. The Passover meal would feature unleavened bread, made without yeast both because yeast is picture of sin and corruption in the Bible, and because in bread, yeast needs time to work - and in their haste to leave Egypt, the Israelites had not time to let their bread rise.

i. The unleavened bread used at a Passover meal would have the scortch-mark "stripes" and holes from baking that would look like "pierce" marks. In the same way, the body of Jesus was broken for us. He was without sin (as the bread had no leaven), and His body bore stripes and was pierced (as the bread).

f. This cup is the new covenant in My blood: In receiving the cup, we are called to remember the blood of Jesus and the new covenant. The Passover meal featured several cups of wine, each with a different title. The cup Jesus refered to was known as the cup of redemption, and Jesus added to the reminder of redemption from slavery in Egypt the idea that His blood would confirm a new covenant which would change our relationship with God.

i. What mere man would have the audacity to institute a new covenant between God and man? But here, Jesus founds a new covenant, sealed with blood, even as the old covenant was sealed with blood (Exodus 24:8).

ii. What is the new covenant all about? It is all about an inner transformation, that cleanses us from all sin (For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more [Jeremiah 31:34]), and puts God's Word and will in us (I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts [Jeremiah 31:33]). It is all about a new, close, relationship with God (I will be there God, and they shall be My people [Jeremiah 31:33]).

iii. Because of what Jesus did on the cross, we have can have a new covenant relationship with God - but many of us live as if there is no inner transformation; there is no cleansing from sin; there is no word and will of God in our hearts; there is no new and close relationship with God.

g. You proclaim the Lord's death till He comes: While the Lord's Supper does look back to what Jesus did on the cross, it also looks forward to the coming of Jesus, and the marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:9).

i. In Matthew 26:29, Jesus spoke of His longing expectation for the day when He would take communion with His people in heaven, which is the ultimate Lord's Supper.

h. The precise nature of the bread and the cup in communion has been the source of great theological controversy.

i. The Roman Catholic Church holds the idea of transubstantiation, which teaches that the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.

ii. Martin Luther held the idea of consubstantiation, which teaches the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine, but by faith they are the same as Jesus' actual body. Luther did not believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, but he did not go far from it.

iii. John Calvin taught that Jesus' presence in the bread and wine was real, but only spiritual, not physical. Zwingli taught that the bread and wine are mere symbols that represent the body and blood of Jesus. When the Swiss Reformers debated the issue with Martin Luther at Marburg, there was a huge contention. Luther insisted on some kind of physical presence because Jesus said this is My body. He insisted over and over again, writing it on the velvet of the table, Hoc est corpus meum - "this is My body" in Latin. Zwingli replied, "Jesus also said I am the vine," and "I am the door," but we understand what He was saying. Luther replied, "I don't know, but if Christ told me to eat dung I would do it knowing that it was good for me." Luther was so strong on this because he saw it as an issue of believing Christ's words, and because he though Zwingli was compromising, he said he was of another spirit (andere geist). Ironically, later, Luther later read Calvin's writings on the Lord's Supper (which were essentially the same as Zwingli's) and seemed to agree with Calvin's views.

iv. Scripturally, we can understand that the bread and the wine are not mere symbols, but they are powerful pictures to partake of, to enter in to, as we see the Lord's table as the new Passover.

f. You proclaim the Lord's death until He comes: Proclaim is the same word translated preach in other places. When we take communion, we are preaching a sermon - to God Himself, to the Devil and all his allies, and to the world who watches.

i. "As you break bread and bow your heart before Him, what sort of sermon are you preaching? Often we have broken bread together around the Lord's table, and then we have gone out to do just what those disciples did - we have denied Him." (Redpath)

4. (27-28) How to prepare your conduct in receiving the Lord's Supper.

Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

a. Whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: Paul is warning the Corinthian Christians to treat the Lord's Supper with reverance, and to practice it in a spirit of self-examination. However, this is not written with the thought of excluding ourselves from the table, but of preparing us to receive with the right heart.

i. The King James Version of 1 Corinthians 11:27 has caused some misunderstanding in this regard: Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. The wording of unworthily has made some Christians believe they had to "make themselves worthy" to receive communion, or if they had sinned, they were unworthy to come and remember what Jesus had done on the cross for them.

ii. This is a serious misunderstanding, because if anyone needs to remember the work of Jesus on the cross, it is the one who has sinned! When we are repentant, our sin should drive us to our Savior, not away from Him! However, if a Christian is in sin, and stubbornly unrepentant, they are mocking what Jesus did on the cross to cleanse them from their sin.

iii. We can never really make ourselves "worthy" of what Jesus did for us on the cross. He did it because of His great love, not because some of us were so worthy. So, as we take the bread and cup, we should not stare at the floor, or struggle to achieve some sort of spiritual feeling. We should simply open our heart to Jesus and recognize His presence with us - in fact, in us!

b. Poole on as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup: "From hence it appears, that the bread and wine is not (as papists say) transubstantiated, or turned into the very substance of the flesh and blood of Christ, when the communicants eat it and drink it. It is still the same bread and cup it was."

c. Let a man examine himself: Again, not in a morbid display of self-checking to see if we are worthy of what Jesus did for us; but in a honest appraisal to see if, as we receive communion, we are conducting ourselves in way honoring to the Lord.

i. The idea is plain: examine yourself, but then let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. The idea is not to keep people away from the table of communion, but to prepare them to receive it in the right way.

5. (29-32) The potential results of being guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

a. Eats and drinks judgment to himself: Irreverant conduct at the Lord's table invites God's corrective discipline; so we should judge ourselves so we would not be judged. If we will discipline ourselves, the Lord will not need to do it with His hand of correction!

i. The words not discerning the Lord's body have been used by Roman Catholics to support their doctrine of transubstantiation. Their thinking is, "see, the Corinthians did not understand they were actually receiving the real body and the real blood of Jesus, and that is why they were guilty." But this is a very narrow foundation, that a huge building has been built upon! It is just as easy - and just as valid - to see the Lord's body as a reference to the church family, and it was the lack of respect and love for the church family that was causing the problems of selfishness among the Corinthian Christians.

b. The judgment is significant: For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. Evidently, among the Corinthian Christians, some were experience illness, and some had even died, as a result of God's corrective disicpline on the Corinthian church.

i. In writing eats and drinks judgment, Paul is not referring to eternal judgment, but to corrective judgement. There is no article "the" before "judgment," so it is not the judgment. So this chastening is not a judge condemning a criminal; it is a father dealing with disobedient children.

ii. As mentioned in 1 John 5:16, there is sin leading to death, and Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5 seem to be examples of this. Apparently, a believer can sin to the point where God believes it is just best to bring them home, probably because they have in some way compromised their testimony so significantly that they should just come on home to God.

iii. However, it is certainly presumptuous to think this about every case of an untimely death of a believer, or to use it as an enticement to suicide for the guilt-ridden Christian. Our lives are in God's hands, and if He sees fit to bring one of His children home, that is fine.

c. We are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world: This makes it clear Paul knew none of the Corinthian Christians - even those who had died as a result of God's corrective judgment - had lost their salvation. They were chastened so that they would not be condemned with the world.

6. (33-34) Summary: how to act at the church common meal.

Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come.

a. Wait for one another: It isn't just good manners, it is showing love towards others. If you wait for one another, then everyone gets enough to eat, instead of some being gorged and others going home hungry.

b. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home: Don't "pig out" at the church common meal, because it might mean someone else doesn't get enough to eat. If you are that hungry, eat at home!

c. Lest you come together for judgment: Because of this simple selfishness, the Corinthian Christians were bringing the judgment of God upon themselves. Just for the sake of food! Paul wants to put it all in perspective and remind them that it isn't worth it at all.

d. And the rest I will set in order when I come: Paul knows he isn't dealing with the whole issue here. There is more to say, but Paul will leave it for another time. Wouldn't we love to know all that is behind these words!

 

1 Corinthians 12

Diversity and Unity in Spiritual Gifts
A. The Holy Spirit is the source of the gifts.

1. (1-3) Introduction to the topic of spiritual gifts.

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant: You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led. Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

a. Now concerning spiritual gifts: Literally, Paul is now addressing spirituals, after discussing all the areas of Corinthian carnality. But adding gifts is justified by the context.

i. Clarke defines spiritual gifts as "Gracious endowments, leading to miraculous results … these all came by the extraordinary influences of the Holy Spirit."

b. I do not want you to be ignorant: The Corinthian Christians are given a reminder good for us also: perhaps we are ignorant of things regarding spiritual gifts, and we should not be.

i. Paul, in his letters, names three things he does not want Christians to be ignorant of. First, don't be ignorant of God's plan for Israel (Romans 11:25). Second, don't be ignorant of spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:1). Finally, don't be ignorant about the second coming of Jesus and the eternal state (1 Thessalonians 4:13). Sadly, so many Christians are ignorant on these exact points!

c. You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols: Paul wanted the Corinthian Christians to remember that their past of pagan idolatry did not prepare them for an accurate understanding of spiritual gifts. He did not want them to be ignorant, but because they were Gentiles, they did come to the issue of spiritual gifts as ignorant.

i. Our past teaching and experiences have perhaps built a poor understanding of the Holy Spirit and His gifts. It is easy for us to take our materialistic or superstitious views into our understanding of spiritual gifts.

d. Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed: Here, Paul lays down a broad principle for discerning matters regarding spiritual gifts: judge things by how they relate to Jesus Christ. Does a supposed spiritual gift glorify Jesus? Does it promote the true Jesus, or a false one?

i. Jesus made it plain, saying that when the Holy Spirit would come, He will testify of Me (John 15:26), and He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you (John 16:14). The ministry of the Holy Spirit is not to promote Himself or any man, but to glorify and represent Jesus. We can therefore trust that the true ministry of the Holy Spirit will be according to the nature of Jesus.

2. (4-6) Diversity and unity of the gifts.

There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.

a. There are diversities of gifts: Paul will go on to list some nine spiritual gifts in the following verses, and more in other places. There is indeed a diversity of gifts! Yet, there is only one Giver, who works through the diverse gifts.

b. The gifts are diverse, the ministries are different, and the activities are diverse: but it all the same Spirit, the same Lord, the same God doing the work through the gifts, the ministries, and the activities.

i. Ministries probably has in mind the different "gifted offices" in the church, such as apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers, as Paul also described in Ephesians 4. Paul's point is clear: though there are different offices, it is the same Lord granting the offices and directing the service.

ii. The Greek word for activities is energemata, where we get our words energy, energetic, and energize from. It is a word of active, miraculous power. Activities is the same word as working in verse ten of this chapter (the working of miracles). Differences of activities means that God displays and pours out His miraculous power in different ways, but it is always the same God doing the work.

c. What is the difference between gifts, ministries, activities, and the manifestation of the Spirit (verse seven)? All of these are gifts. Some gifts are ministries - standing offices or positions in the church. Some gifts are activities - miraculous events or outpourings at a particular time and place (such as the manifestation of the Spirit mentioned in verse seven).

i. "Habits and powers, by which men performed holy offices in the church, or wrought miracles, are called gifts. The acts or exercise of these powers are called administrations and operations. These latter differ one from another, as the former signify standing and continuing acts in the church; operations, rather signify miraculous events, such as healing the sick without the application of miraculous means, speaking with diverse tongues, [and so forth]." (Poole)

d. It is easy for us to focus on our own "little area" of gifts, ministries, or activities and believe that those who have other gifts, ministries, or activities are not really walking with God. Yet the One God has a glorious diversity in the way He does things. We should never expect it to be all according to our own emphasis and taste.

e. These verses also declare the Trinity in a typical, subtle New Testament flow. The gifts are the work of the Holy Spirit, the Lord Jesus, and Father God.

3. (7-11) The varieties of the manifestations of the Spirit.

But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

a. The manifestation of the Spirit is given: The Holy Spirit is always present in and among Christians. Jesus said of the Holy Spirit, He may abide with you forever (John 14:16). However, some times the Spirit's presence is more apparent than other times. There are times when He may choose to manifest Himself, that is, to make Himself apparent.

i. However, we should never think the Holy Spirit is "more" present when He is manifested through the gifts. The Holy Spirit is always present with believers, but at times He is more apparent through the manifestation of the Spirit.

b. Given to each one for the profit of all: The purpose of the manifestation of the Spirit is to benefit the whole church family, not just a particular individual.

c. As Paul begins to mention different manifestations of the Spirit, he begins by mentioning the word of wisdom. This is the unique ability to speak forth the wisdom of God, especially in an important situation, as shown in Stephen (Acts 7), and Paul (Acts 23).

d. The word of knowledge: The unique ability to declare knowledge which could only be revealed supernaturally, as shown in Jesus (Matthew 17:24-27) or Paul (Acts 27:10, 23-26). When Charles Spurgeon was saved, it was at the preaching of a man who directed a portion of his sermon right to young Spurgeon, and who supernaturally spoke right to where Spurgeon's heart was. This is another example of the word of knowledge.

i. We do well to understand the difference between the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge; one may have great knowledge, even supernatural knowledge, yet have no wisdom from God in the application of that knowledge.

ii. As well, we must always use discernment in the receiving of a word of knowledge, remembering that God is not the only source of supernatural knowledge - even if a word is true, it does not mean that it is from God and that the one speaking the word is truly representing God.

e. The gift of faith: Though faith is an essential part of every Christian's life, the gift of faith is the unique ability to trust God against all circumstances, as Peter did when he walked out of the boat on onto the water (Matthew 14:22-33). Another mighty example of the gift of faith was the Christian leader and philanthropist George Mueller, who in nineteenth century England provided for thousands of orphans completely by prayer, without even asking for donations.

f. Gifts of healing: This is God's healing power, either given or received, and has been repeatedly documented in the New Testament and since.

i. Clarke on gifts of healings: "the power which at particular times the apostles received from the Holy Spirit to cure diseases; a power which was not always resident in them; for Paul could not cure Timothy, nor remove his own thorn in the flesh; because it was given only on extraordinary occasions, though perhaps more generally than many others."

g. Working of miracles: Literally dynameis, or "acts of power." This describes when the Holy Spirit chooses to "over-ride" the laws of nature (as a pilot might use manual controls), working in or through an available person.

i. Gifts of healing and working of miracles often operate in conjunction with the gift of faith, as in Acts 3:1-8; these things are not done on the whim of the individual, as if the power to heal or work miracles was at their permanent disposal - instead, they operate as an individual is prompted by God and given the faith to perform such a work (another example of this is in Acts 14:8-10).

h. Prophecy: The telling-forth of God's message in a particular situation, always in accord with His Word and His current work. Sometimes this has the character of foretelling the future, as in Acts 21:10-11 and Acts 27:21-26.

i. Often times, people who believe the miraculous gifts have been removed from the church, wish to define prophecy as "preaching." Though this is common, it is inaccurate. There is a Greek word for preaching, and a Greek word for divinely inspired speech. Paul is using the word for divinely inspired speech, not preaching. Although good, Spirit anointed preaching will often use the spontaneous gift of prophecy, it is inaccurate to define prophecy as "good preaching."

i. Discerning of Spirits: The ability to tell the difference between true and false doctrine, and between what is of the Holy Spirit and what isn't (Acts 8:18-23; 16:16-18).

i. Satan appears as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). He deceives with a false, tempting message (Genesis 2:16-3:5). There can be lying spirits in the mouths of prophets (1 Kings 22:21-23; 2 Chronicles 18:20-22). Satan can speak right after God speaks (Matthew 16:23). Sometimes people who seem to say the right things are really from the devil (Acts 13:6-12; 16:16-18). It is important to test the word of anyone who claims to speak from God (1 John 4:1-3). Satan can work deceiving miracles (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10, Revelation 13:11-14). The devil will try to infiltrate the church with false teachers (Jude 4, 2 Peter 2:1-2). How we need the gift of discernment in the church today!

j. The gift of tongues is a personal language of prayer given by God, whereby the believer can communicate with God beyond the limits of knowledge and understanding (1 Corinthians 14:14-15). Language is an agreement between parties, where it is agreed that certain sounds represent certain objects or ideas. When using the gift of tongues, we agree with God that as the Holy Spirit prays through us, though we may not understand what we are praying, God does.

i. Tongues have an important place in the devotional life of the believer, but a small place in the corporate life of the church (1 Corinthians 14:18-19), especially in "public" meetings (1 Corinthians 14:23).

ii. When tongues are practiced in the corporate life of the church, it is to be carefully controlled, and never without an interpretation given by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 14:27-28).

iii. The ability to pray in an unknown tongue is not a gift given to every believer (1 Corinthians 12:20).

iv. The ability to pray in a tongue is not the evidence of the filling of the Holy Spirit; this emphasis has led people to seek the gift of tongues (and to counterfeit it) merely to prove to themselves and others that they really are filled with the Holy Spirit.

v. Many people believe the gift of tongues died with the apostles. Curiously, many of these define the gift of tongues as merely the ability to speak in other languages for the purpose of spreading the gospel in other languages. But that need has not changed one bit since the days of the apostles. Instead, the Bible clearly says that the gift of tongues is meant for an individual's communication with God, not with man (1 Corinthians 14:2). Even on the day of Pentecost, when the disciples were speaking in tongues, they were not preaching to the crowd (Peter did that in the Greek language which was common to them all). Rather, they were praising God (speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God, Acts 2:11), and the crowd at the day of Pentecost heard the disciples excitedly praise God.

vi. Often, those who speak in tongues today are mocked by those who deny the gift with the accusation that they are speaking "gibberish." Acts 2 is wrongly used to support this, because Acts 2 tells us that those speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost were speaking intelligible languages understood by others. But it does not tell us that all of the 120 or so who were speaking in tongues were speaking in languages which could be understood. And, we should not assume that those who were not immediately understood by the bystanders were speaking "gibberish," as tongues are referred to with derision. They may have been praising God in a language completely unknown, yet human (what would the language of the Aztecs sound like to Roman ears?), or in a completely unique language given by God and understood by Him and Him alone. After all, communication with God, not man, is the purpose of tongues (1 Corinthians 14:2). The repetition of simple phrases, unintelligible and perhaps nonsensical to human bystanders does not mean such speaking is "gibberish." Praise to God may be simple and repetitive, and part of the whole dynamic of tongues is that it by-passes the understanding of the speaker (1 Corinthians 14:14), being understood by God and God alone.

k. The gift of the interpretation of tongues: This gift allows the gift of tongues to be of benefit for those other than the speaker, as they are able to hear and agree with the tongue-speaker's words to God.

l. Though in these verses we tend to focus on the list of gifts, Paul does not. Since he does not give a detailed description of each gift, it is probable that the Corinthian Christians were well familiar with them all. What Paul wants to emphasize is that each of these is by or through the same Spirit, repeating the idea five times and concluding with the statement But one and the same Spirit works all these things.

i. Apparently, the tendency to division among the Corinthian Christians had made them think separately or competitively about the gifts. Perhaps the "tongues speakers" thought themselves superior to the "prophesiers," as if the gifts had come from two different gods! Paul emphasizes to them that one and the same Spirit works all these things, so they should reflect that same unity among themselves.

m. Distributing to each one individually as He wills: Here is another reason for unity, and a reason against any sense of superiority regarding the gifts. They are distributed not according to the will of man, but as the Spirit of God will - as He wills.

i. As they are given as He wills, and sometimes - if not often - the will and wisdom of God is different than our will and wisdom (Isaiah 55:8-9), we should never assume the gifts are distributed as we would distribute them.

ii. Often, we assume spiritual gifts are given because a person is especially spiritually mature or closer to God. But this may not be the case at all. We should never assume that giftedness equals maturity. God can and does, for His own glory and purpose, distribute spiritual gifts to those who are not especially spiritually mature or close to Him. This is why spiritual giftedness is never the criteria for positions of leadership among Christians, but Christian maturity and character is (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9). God can grant anyone remarkable spiritual gifts in a moment, but character and maturity take time to build.

n. If the Spirit distributes to each one individually as He wills, why would He choose to give a particular gift at a particular moment? The larger reasons may not be apparent, but the goal of the Holy Spirit's work is always to glorify Jesus and to build His nature and character in us. The Spirit's goal is never to amaze or confuse, but to build the fruit of the Spirit; and he will use or not use any gift He thinks right towards that end.

o. Distributing as He wills: Though the manifestations of the Spirit are given as the Spirit wills, they still must be received with faith by the believer. He distributes and we receive, and the receiving and exercising of the gifts is often very natural.

B. Are some of these gifts of the Holy Spirit no longer given to the Church today?

1. This is an issue that has greatly divided the body of Christ, both theologically, and spiritually. There are some who think those who believe all the gifts are for today (usually called "Charistmatics" or "Pentecostals) are deceived by the Devil. There are others who think those who believe some of the gifts are no longer given are unspiritual and dead in their walk with God.

a. Often, Calvary Chapel churches are respected for their Biblical balance when it comes to the gifts of the Holy Spirit and their place in church life. Calvary Chapels have sometimes been rightly seen as "too Pentecostal for the Baptists and too Baptist for the Pentecostals"; we have been called "Pentebaptist" or "Bapticostal."

b. However, balance is meaningless unless it is a Biblical balance; we don't want to strike a balance between heresy and truth.

2. First, we must understand the issue. Virtually no Christian believes all the gifts have ceased in the church today. All Christians believe the gifts of teaching and administration are given and needed in the church today. It is the gifts that have a miraculous nature which are in dispute.

a. Therefore, many people divide up the gifts into different categories: communicative, administrative, miraculous. Then, they often say the miraculous gifts died out with the apostles, or when the New Testament came together. Yet, it is important to observe that such divisions and categories are not Biblical. Nowhere does any Biblical writer categorize the gifts in such a way, and then say some categories of gifts will remain but others will cease.

b. So, more accurately, the question would be: "Are all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit for today? Are some of them no longer being given by God?" The teachers who teach against the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit definitely believe they have gift of teaching, and they believe God still gives that gift today!

3. What does the Bible say about the continuation of all the gifts of the Spirit?

a. Jesus made a promise in Mark 16:17-18: And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.

i. This is a simple and straightforward promise, in context, given to those who are involved in spreading the gospel - they will be unstoppable, and God will even use miraculous means to protect them and make them effective.

b. Acts 2:33, 39: Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear … For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call. The promise of the Holy Spirit - specifically including miraculous gifts - is a promise made to all generations.

c. 1 Corinthians 14:12: Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. The purpose for spiritual gifts - even miraculous gifts - is the building up of the body of Christ and individual Christians; that need remains today.

d. The natural, consistent testimony of the New Testament is that the miraculous gifts described in the New Testament have not been retracted; no one, with a fresh reading of the Scriptures could ever come to such an understanding.

i. There is no indication that miraculous gifts would die out when the apostles died out.

ii. There is no distinction made between "sign gifts" or "miraculous gifts" and other gifts in the New Testament; they come always and only as a package.

iii. Little is said about the continuation of all the gifts because it was a given among the apostles. One might just as well ask, "Where is the Scriptural evidence that someone can be saved beyond the time of the apostles?" and one would be hard pressed to find one conclusive verse to refute the argument, because it was simply assumed.

4. Why do some Christians believe some gifts of the Holy Spirit are no longer given by God today?

a. They have a wrong understanding of history, and they believe that historically, the miraculous gifts actually did cease when the apostles died (or perhaps even before).

b. They have a wrong understanding of 1 Corinthians 13:8, which says that tongues will cease (explained in the notes on 1 Corinthians 13).

c. They have a wrong understanding of Hebrews 2:3-4, which says that God bore witness with signs and wonders and various miracles by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The idea is that the only real reason miracles and gifts were given was to authenticate revelation, and there is no longer a need for that. As well, it is explained that there were three main areas of revelation (the times of Moses, Elijah and Elisha, and New Testament times), and that for the most part, miracles only happened then because God needed to authenticate revelation.

i. But if miracles only happened around certain times of revelation, then there is a substantial amount of revelation that is unaccounted for by miracles - everything from Judges through Song of Solomon.

ii. If miracles do authenticate revelation, then we are in trouble - because false prophets can and do perform authenticating miracles (Exodus 7:11-12, 22; 8:7; Deuteronomy 13:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10).

iii. The primary purpose of miracles, especially as they are seen in the New Testament, was not to authenticate God's messengers (though that is a secondary purpose), the primary purpose of miracles was to humbly meet the needs of people.

iv. In Matthew 12:38-40, Jesus condemned those who sought to authenticate revelation by miraculous signs; He offered them no other sign other than His own resurrection. In John 2:18-19, Jesus provided one miraculous sign to the seeking: His resurrection. In John 6:29-36, after the feeding of the 5,000, people followed Jesus just to receive more miraculous bread, and Jesus rebuked them for their refusal to believe in Him and to see what Jesus had already done. And, in 1 Corinthians 1:22, when Paul notes that the Jews request a sign, he doesn't mean it in a positive sense!

v. Miracles are an insufficient evidence of authentic revelation; they can always be explained away by the unbelieving heart, and the unbelieving heart will always be asking for more miracles to "prove." But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him (John 12:37).

vi. We agree that miracles do have a purpose in impressing unbelievers and believers with the power of God; but that is clearly their secondary purpose. If this were the primary purpose of miracles, one could argue that since we have the completed revelation of God's word, we would no longer need miracles to authenticate further revelation.

d. They make a wrong application of the truth that things like speaking in tongues have demonic counterparts, and are not unique to Christianity. This is certainly true, and recognized by Scripture; however, the existence of a counterfeit tends to prove the existence of the genuine, not deny it.

5. Does the history of Christianity demonstrate that some of the gifts passed away? If so, when and how?

a. Although the issue is finally settled with what the Bible says, the voice of history is also compelling. Those who believe the miraculous gifts ceased claim the testimony of history supports them.

i. For example, John MacArthur writes in his book The Charismatics: "By the second century the apostles were gone and things were changed. Alva McClain said, 'When the church appears the second century, the situation as regards the miraculous is so changed that we seem to be in another world.' … The apostolic age was unique and it ended. History says it, Jesus says it, theology says it, and the New Testament itself attests to the fact." (page 83)

b. But history has another testimony, and if we will just let history speak, it will tell us. Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all speak to the existence of miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit in their own day.

c. Actually, the idea that the miraculous gifts from God ceased with the apostles didn't arise in the church until the middle of the fourth century (350 A.D. or so and on). Later, at the end of the fourth century and into the middle ages, the gifts were said to have ceased, and they were certainly neglected. But that wasn't God's desire. It was the result of people who had convinced themselves that the supernatural working of the Holy Spirit was too "dangerous" for the institutional church. Other factors were also involved. But if you would have gone up to a Christian in 250 A.D. and told him, "we all know that the miraculous gifts ceased with the apostles," he would probably tell you, "You don't know what you are talking about."

C. The diversity and unity of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

1. (12-14) The fact of unity: believers all belong to a greater unit, the body of Jesus Christ.

For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body; whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free; and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many.

a. All the members of that one body, being many, are one body … for by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body: The "body-like" unity of Christians is not a goal to achieve; it is a fact to be recognized. Paul clearly says we were all baptized into one body.

i. Passages like this have led many to regard baptism as sort of the "initiation ceremony into the community of Christians." While this may be an aspect of baptism, it is not it's main point. The main idea behind Christian baptism is the identification of the believer - his "immersion" in Jesus Christ (Romans 6:3-5). The idea that baptism is primarily the initiation ceremony into the church has led to, and reinforced, unbiblical ideas such as the baptism of infants (upon the thinking, "who wants to exclude them from the church?").

ii. But here, Paul does not have in mind water baptism as much as Spirit baptism: For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Paul here is writing of the common "immersion" all believers have in the Holy Spirit and in Jesus, a common "immersion" which brings them into one body.

b. One body … many members: Paul uses the brilliant illustration of the human body to relate the working of the community of Christians. Even as every cell in a human body is linked by a common root (a common DNA code), yet the parts of our body (members) look different, are treated differently, work differently, and accomplish different purposes. Even so, there is great diversity in the body of Jesus Christ, both in appearance and function, yet each member has a common root and a common goal.

c. Whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free: Because of the fact of the "body" dynamic, the dividing lines created by the Corinthian Christians were strictly artificial. Jew, Greek, slave, free, did not matter anymore, because they were all in one body.

2. (15-20) Elaboration on the illustration of a body.

If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body," is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body," is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. And if they were all one member, where would the body be? But now indeed there are many members, yet one body.

a. If the foot should say: If the foot felt, or declared, itself not part of the body because it was not a hand, the foot would be both foolish and mistaken. Diversity does not disqualify one from the body.

i. Here, Paul puts the question in the mouth of the one who feels excluded from the body. It is as if some of the Corinthian Christians were saying, "I don't have this certain spiritual gift. I guess I'm not part of the body of Jesus Christ." After all, hands and eyes seem more important and more "glamorous" than feet and ears. So Paul wants these Christians who feel excluded that they are indeed members of the body, and their sense that they are not, is just as foolish as the foot or the ear who feel excluded.

ii. Yet, the same principle can be stated towards those who desire to exclude others from the body. Paul could have just as well said, "The hand cannot say the foot is not of the body because it is not a hand." Paul also wants Christians who might exclude others because they don't appreciate their place in the body to recognize the fact of unity.

b. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? Not only is this diversity in the body of Jesus Christ acceptable, it is essential. The body cannot work properly if all are hands, or if all are eyes. The body must have different parts and gifts, or it would not work together effectively as a body.

c. Just as He pleased: Why is the foot a foot and the hand a hand? Because it pleased the Designer to make it so. So, the hand can take no "pride" in being a hand, and the foot can take no "shame" in being a foot. Each is serving the pleasure of the Designer.

i. In the design, we see the wisdom of the Designer: everybody has something; but nobody has everything.

3. (21-26) Continued elaboration, showing that less "glamorous" parts of the body are just as important.

And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, but our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.

a. And the eye cannot say to the hand: Now, Paul writes to those tempted to pride and a sense of superiority because of their gifts or place in the body. They cannot say to such parts, "I have no need of you."

b. Those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary: Often, we consider a part of our body unnecessary or of low importance - until it is hurt. Then we realize how important it is! The hand or the eye may seem to be more important, and may have more "glamour" in its position - but it is not more necessary or important than other parts of the body.

c. Less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor: The parts of our bodies normally covered by clothes are often considered less honorable - but we give them greater honor by clothing them so carefully!

i. Clarke on the less honorable parts: "seem to mean the principle viscera, such as heart, lungs, stomach, and intestinal canal. These, when compared with the arms and limbs, are comparatively weak; and some of them, considered in themselves, uncomely and less honourable; yet these are more essential to life than any of the others."

ii. Even so, God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it: If someone feels they are a "hidden" or "unglamorous" member of the body of Jesus Christ, God knows how to bestow honor upon them.

d. That there should be no schism in the body: Seen from God's perspective, with the illustration of the body, there is never any reason for schism in the body. The "pride" of the "honorable" member is checked, as is the "shame" of the "less honorable" member.

e. That the members should have the same care for one another: Paul's theological point about the nature of the body of Jesus Christ has now come to a very practical application. The Corinthian Christians should care for one another because they are all part of the same body.

i. The parts of the body work together. The eyes and ears do not only serve themselves, but the whole body. The hands do not only feed and defend themselves, but the whole body. The heart does not only supply blood to itself, but serves the whole body. Sometimes there is a part of our body which only lives to serve itself. It doesn't contribute anything to the rest of the body, and everything it gets it uses to feed and grow itself. We call this cancer.

ii. "I want every member of this church to be a worker. We do not want any drones. If there are any of you who want to eat and drink, and do nothing, there are plenty of places elsewhere, where you can do it; there are empty pews about in abundance; go and fill them, for we do not want you. Every Christian who is not a bee is a wasp. The most quarrelsome persons are the most useless, and they who are the most happy are peaceable, are generally those who are doing most for Christ." (Spurgeon)

f. Paul could have, and some today think he should have, just come out and said " care for one another" and ignore the spiritually true foundation for such caring. "Come on, Paul. Don't bother us with theology. Just tell us what to do." But Paul wants more than a result from the Corinthian Christians; he wants them to have understanding also. He also knows that ultimately, the best results are based on understanding!

g. And if one member suffers: The care for one another mentioned in the previous verse is now explained. It means to have a heart towards, and sympathy with, our fellow members, though they be different.

4. (27-31) God distributes gifts and callings according to His pleasure.

Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

a. You are the body of Christ, and members individually: Paul sums up his previous point. Even as a human body is a unified whole with many different parts, so also is the body of Jesus Christ. Now, Paul will write about the different parts of the body.

i. "We could call one eye, because of his acute observation of men and things, and penetration into cases of conscience and Divine mysteries. Another hand, from his laborious exertions in the Church. Another foot, from his industrious travels to spread abroad the knowledge of Christ crucified: and so of others." (Clarke)

b. Apostles are "special ambassadors" of the church. Paul and others in his day had a unique apostolic authority, which will never be repeated because the foundation of the church has already been set (Ephesians 2:20). However, God still has His "special ambassadors" in the church today, though not with the same authority as the original apostles.

c. Prophets are those particularly called to speak forth for God with the gift of prophecy. There was a unique, foundational authority to this gift as well (Ephesians 2:19-20). However, God raises up those to speak to the church and the world with a special blessing and power.

i. However, if one will either claim or receive the title of "prophet" today, let them be held to the standard of a prophet: 100% accuracy, in every word (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).

d. Workers of miracles: Those used of God to do miracles. Yet, the Biblical pattern is for them though on the Holy Spirit's initiative, not their own.

e. Helps: This has in mind those who help, or assist, others in doing the work of the Lord. The term was used in Jewish context in this way: "The Levites were termed by the Talmudists helps of the priests." (Clarke)

i. Spurgeon on those with the gift of helps: "It strikes me that they were not persons who had any official standing, but that they were only moved by the natural impulse and the divine life within them to do anything and everything which would assist either teacher, pastor, or deacon, in the work of the Lord. They are the sort of brethren who are useful anywhere, who can always stop a gap, and who are only too glad when they find that they can make themselves serviceable to the church of God in any capacity whatever."

ii. In John Bunyan's book Pilgrim's Progress, "Help" came to Christian when he was mired in the "Slough of Despond." That is often when the gift of helps is most useful. "Dear, very dear to us, must ever be the hand that helped us out of the depth of the mire where there was no standing; and while we ascribe all the glory to the God of grace, we cannot but love most affectionately the instrument he sent to be the means of our deliverance." (Spurgeon)

iii. Spurgeon also describes the qualities of someone who is effective in the gift of helps:

1. A tender heart to really care.
2. A quick eye to see the need.
3. A quick foot to get to the needy.
4. A loving face to cheer them and bless them.
5. A firm foot so you will not fall yourself.
6. A strong hand to grip the needy with.
7. A bent back to reach the man.
iv. An old Puritan preacher once did a great sermon on this text: And Bartholomew (Matthew 10:3). His point was that Bartholomew is never mentioned by himself, but always with the phrase and Bartholomew. He is always spoken of doing something good with someone else. He was never the leader, but always a helper.

f. Do all speak with tongues? Paul's plain meaning is that the gift of tongues is not for every believer, just as the gifting of apostles, prophets, teachers, working of miracles or healings and so forth are not for every believer. Great damage has been done in the church by promoting tongues as necessary to really live as a Christian, or as the evidence of the Holy Spirit's presence. This has caused many to seek the gift of tongues, or to "fake" the gift of tongues, often only to assure one's self or others that they are indeed filled with the Holy Spirit.

i. Since tongues is a communicative gift, used in speaking to God, the gift of tongues should be desired when the individual feels a lack in their ability to communicate with God. When one feels hindered in their ability to talk to God using their given language, they can and should ask God for the empowering to communicate with God in a language which He understands, but which surpasses my understanding. If someone feels satisfied with their ability to communicate with God, there is really no need for the gift of tongues, and it should not be desired until one does want a communication with God which goes beyond understanding.

g. Earnestly desire the best gifts: Though the Holy Spirit gives the gifts, it is good and proper for us to desire them, and to ask for them, all in submission to the plan of God.

h. Paul will explain the more excellent way in chapter 13, with a focus on love, not the gifts themselves. The gifts are merely ways we can express and receive love from God and love to one another. They are the "containers" and what is in the container - love - is far more important. "A shopful of barrels enrich not, unless full of commodities." (Trapp)

 

1 Corinthians 13

Agape Love
G. Campbell Morgan said that examining this chapter is like dissecting a flower to understand it. If you tear it apart too much, you lose the beauty. Alan Redpath said one could get a spiritual suntan from the warmth of this chapter!

A. The supremacy of love.

1. (1-2) Love is superior to spiritual gifts in and of themselves.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

a. The Corinthians were enamored with spiritual gifts, particularly the gift of tongues. Paul reminds them even the gift of tongues is meaningless without love. Without love, a person may speak with the gift of tongues, but it is as meaningless as sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. It is nothing but empty noise.

i. "People of little religion are always noisy; he who has not the love of God and man filling his heart is like an empty wagon coming violently down a hill: it makes a great noise, because there is nothing in it." (Josiah Gregory, cited in Clarke)

b. Tongues of men and of angels: The Greek word translated tongues has the simple idea of "languages" in some places (Acts 2:11, Revelation 5:9). This has led some to say the gift of tongues is simply the ability to communicate the gospel in other languages; it is the capability of learning languages quickly. But the way tongues is used here shows it can, and usually does, refer to a supernatural language by which a believer communicates to God. There is no other way the reference to tongues of … angels can be understood.

i. In Paul's day, many Jews believe angels had their own language, and by the Spirit, one could speak it. The reference to tongues of … angels shows that though the genuine gift of tongues is a legitimate language, it may not be a "living" human language, or may not be a human language at all. Apparently, there are angelic languages men can speak by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

ii. Poole has a fascinating comment, suggesting that the tongues of … angels answer to how God may speak to us in a non-verbal way: "Angels have no tongues, nor make any articulate audible sounds, by which they understand one another; but yet there is certainly a society or intercourse among angels, which could not be upheld without some way amongst them to communicate their minds and wills to each other. How this is we cannot tell: some of the schoolmen say, it is by way of impression: that way God, indeed, communicates his mind sometimes to his people, making secret impressions of his will upon their minds and understandings."

c. Prophecy, knowledge, and faith to do miracles are likewise irrelevant apart from love. The Corinthian Christians were missing the motive and the goal of the gifts, making them their own end; Paul draws the attention back to love.

i. Paul, quoting the idea of Jesus, refers to faith which could remove mountains (Matthew 17:20). What an amazing thing it would be have faith which could work the impossible! Yet, even that faith makes us nothing if it is without love.

ii. A man with faith can move great mountains; but he will set them down right in the path of somebody else - or right on somebody else - if he doesn't have love!

iii. It isn't an issue of love versus the gifts. A church should never be forced to choose between love and gifts of the Holy Spirit. Paul is emphasizing the focus and goal of the gifts: love, not the gifts for their own sake.

iv. "Possession of the charismata is not the sign of the Spirit; Christian love is." (Fee)

d. Have not love: Paul is using the Greek word agape. The ancient Greeks had four different words we translate love. It is important to understand the difference between the words, and why the apostle Paul chose the Greek word agape here.

i. Eros was one word for love. It described, as we might guess from the word itself, erotic love. It refers to sexual love.

ii. Storge was the second word for love. It refers to family love, the kind of love there is between a parent and child, or between family members in general.

iii. Philia is the third word for love. It speaks of a brotherly friendship and affection. It is the love of deep friendship and partnership. It might be described as the highest love of which man, without God's help, is capable of.

iv. Agape is the fourth word for love. It is a love that loves without changing. It is a self-giving love that gives without demanding or expecting re-payment. It is love so great that it can be given to the unlovable or unappealing. It is love that loves even when it is rejected. Agape love gives and loves because it wants to; it does not demand or expect repayment from the love given. It gives because it loves, it does not love in order to receive. According to Alan Redpath, we get our English word agony from agape. "It means the actual absorption of our being in one great passion." (Redpath) Strictly speaking, agape can't be defined as "God's love," because men are said to agape sin and the world (John 3:19, 1 John 2:15). But it can be defined as a sacrificial, giving, absorbing, love. The word has little to do with emotion; it has much to do with self-denial for the sake of another.

v. We can read this chapter and think that Paul is saying that if we are unfriendly, then our lives mean nothing. But agape isn't really friendliness; it is self-denial for the sake of another.

2. (3) The most dramatic renunciations of self are, in the same way, profitless without love.

And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

a. Bestow all my goods to feed the poor: This is what Jesus told the rich young ruler to do (Matthew 16:19-23), and he refused. But even if the rich young ruler had done what Jesus said, yet had not love, it would have been of no profit.

b. Though I give my body to be burned: Even if I lay my life down in dramatic martyrdom, apart from love, it is of no profit. Normally, no one would doubt the spiritual credentials of someone who gave away everything they had, and gave up their life in dramatic martyrdom. But those are not the best measures of someone's true spiritual credentials. Love is the best measure.

i. There were some early Christians so arrogant as to think that the blood of martyrdom would wash away any sin. They were so proud about their ability to endure suffering for Jesus, they thought it was the most important thing in the Christian life. It is important, but not the most important. Without love, it profits me nothing. Even if it is done willingly (Poole notes "and not be dragged to the stake, but freely give up myself to that cruel kind of death"), without love, it profits me nothing.

ii. Some believe the burning referred to here is not execution, but branding as a criminal or as a slave for the sake of the gospel. The more likely sense is execution, but it really matters little, because the essential meaning is the same. Paul is writing about great personal sacrifice.

iii. As well, some Greek manuscripts have if I give up my body that I may glory instead of though I give my body to be burned. Again, the meaning is the same, and the difference is really minor.

iv. Many Christians believe the Christian life is all about sacrifice. Sacrificing your money, your life, for the cause of Jesus Christ. Sacrifice is important, but without love it is useless. It profits me nothing.

c. Each thing described in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 is a good thing. Tongues are good. Prophecy and knowledge and faith are good. Sacrifice is good. But love is so valuable, so important, that apart from it, every other good thing is useless. Sometimes, we make the great mistake of letting go of what is best for something else that is good, but not the best.

B. The description of love.

"Lest the Corinthians should say to the apostle, What is this love you discourse of? Or how shall we know if we have it? The apostle here gives thirteen notes of a charitable person." (Poole)

1. (4a) Two things love is: longsuffering and kind.

Love suffers long and is kind.

a. At the beginning, we see love is described by action words, not by ethereal concepts. Paul is not writing about how love feels, he is writing about how it can be seen in action. True love is always demonstrated by action.

b. Love suffers long: Love will endure a long time. It is the heart shown in God, when it is said of the Lord, The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). If God's love is in us, we will be longsuffering to those who annoy us and hurt us.

i. The ancient preacher John Chrysostem said this is the word used of the man who is wronged, and who easily has the power to avenge himself, but will not do it out of mercy and patience. Do you avenge yourself as soon as you have the opportunity?

c. Love is kind: When we have and show God's love, it will be seen in simple acts of kindness. A wonderful measure of kindness is to see how children receive us. Children won't receive and respond to unkind people!

i. Clarke on kind: "If called to suffer inspires the sufferer with the most amiable sweetness, and the most tender affection. It is also submissive to all the dispensations of God; and creates trouble to no one."

2. (4b-6) Eight things love is not: not envious, not proud, not arrogant, not rude, not cliquish, not touchy, not suspicious, not happy with evil.

Love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth.

a. Love does not envy: Envy is one of the least productive and most damaging of all sins. It accomplishes nothing, except to hurt. Love keeps its distance from envy, and does not resent it when someone else is promoted or blessed. Clarke describes the hear which does not envy: "They are ever willing that others should be preferred before them."

i. Is envy a small sin? Envy murdered Abel (Genesis 4:3-8). Envy enslaved Joseph (Genesis 37:11, 28). Envy put Jesus on the cross: For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy (Matthew 27:18).

ii. "Many persons cover a spirit of envy and uncharitableness with the name of godly zeal and tender concern for the salvation of others; they find fault with all; their spirit is a spirit of universal censoriousness; none can please them; and every one suffers by them. These destroy more souls by tithing mint and cummin, than others do by neglecting the weightier matters of the law. Such persons have what is termed, and very properly too, sour godliness." (Clarke)

b. Love does not parade itself: Love in action can work anonymously. It does not have to have the limelight or the attention to do a good job, or to be satisfied with the result. Love gives because it loves to give, not out of the sense of praise it can have from showing itself off.

i. Sometimes the people who work the hardest at love are those the furthest from it. They do things many would perceive as loving, yet they do them in a manner which would parade itself. This isn't love; it is pride looking for glory by the appearance of love.

c. Love … is not puffed up: To be puffed up is to be arrogant and self-focused. It speaks of someone who has a "big head." Love doesn't get it's head swelled, it focuses on the needs of others.

i. Both to parade itself and to be puffed up are simply rooted in pride. Among Christians, the worst pride is spiritual pride. Pride of face is obnoxious, pride of race is vulgar, but the worst pride is pride of grace!

ii. William Carey is thought by many to be the founder of the modern missionary movement. Christians all over the world know who he was and honor him. He came from a humble place; he was a shoe repairman when God called him to reach the world. Once, when Carey was at a dinner party, a snobbish lord tried to insult him by saying very loudly, "Mr. Carey, I hear you once were a shoemaker!" Carey replied, "No, your lordship, not a shoemaker, only a cobbler!" Today, the name of William Carey is remembered, but nobody remembers who that snobbish lord was! His love showed itself in not having a big head about himself.

d. Love … does not behave rudely: Where there is love, there will be kindness and good manners. Perhaps not in the stuffy, "look at how cultured I am" way of showing manners, but in the simply way people do not behave rudely.

i. "No ill-bred man, or what is termed rude or unmannerly, is a Christian." (Clarke)

e. Love … does not seek its own: Paul communicates the same idea in Romans 12:10: in honor giving preference to one another. Also, Philippians 2:4 carries the same thought: Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. This is being like Jesus in a most basic way, being an others-centered person instead of a self-centered person.

i. "Love is never satisfied but in the welfare, comfort, and salvation of all. That man is no Christian who is solicitous for his own happiness alone; and cares not how the world goes, so that himself be comfortable." (Clarke)

f. Love … is not provoked: We all find it easy to be provoked, to become irritated with those who are just plain annoying. But it is a sin to be provoked, and it isn't loving. Moses was kept from the Promised Land because he became provoked at the people of Israel (Numbers 20:2-11).

i. "When the man who possesses this love gives way to provocation, he loses the balance of his soul, and grieves the Spirit of God… surely if he get embittered against his neighbour, he does not love him as himself." (Clarke)

g. Love … thinks no evil: Literally, this means "love does not store up the memory of any wrong it has received." Love will put away the hurts of the past instead of clinging to them.

i. One writer tells of a tribe in Polynesia, where it was customary for each man to keep some reminders of his hatred for others. These reminders were suspended from the roofs of their huts to keep alive the memory of the wrongs, real or imagined. Most of us do the same.

ii. "Never supposes that a good action may have a bad motive … The original implies that he does not invent or devise any evil." (Clarke)

h. Love … does not rejoice in iniquity: It is willing to want the best for others, and refuses to color things against others. Instead, love rejoices in the truth. Love can always stand with and on truth, because love is pure and good like truth.

3. (7) Four more things love is: strong, believing, hopeful, and enduring. Spurgeon calls these four virtues love's four sweet companions.

Bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

a. All things: we might have hoped Paul would have chosen any phrase but this! All things encompasses everything! We can all bear some things, we can all believe some things, we can all hope some things, we can all endure some things. But God calls us father and deeper into love for Him, for one another, and for a perishing world.

i. "You must have fervent charity towards the saints, but you will find very much about the best of them which will try your patience; for, like yourself, they are imperfect, and they will not always turn their best side towards you, but sometimes sadly exhibit their infirmities. Be prepared, therefore, to contend with "all things" in them." (Spurgeon)

ii. "Love does not ask to have an easy life of it: self-love makes that her aim. Love denies herself, sacrifices herself, that she may win victories for God, and hers shall be no tinsel crown." (Spurgeon)

b. Love … bears all things: The word for bears can also be translated covers. Either way, Paul brings an important truth along with 1 Peter 4:8: And above all things have fervent love for one another, for "love will cover a multitude of sins."

i. "Love covers; that is, it never proclaims the errors of good men. There are busybodies abroad who never spy out a fault in a brother but they must needs hurry off to their next neighbour with the savoury news, and then they run up and down the street as though they had been elected common criers. It is by no means honorable to men or women to set up to be common informers. Yet I know some who are not half so eager to publish the gospel as to publish slander. Love stands in the presence of a fault, with a finger on her lip." (Spurgeon)

ii. "I would, my brothers and sisters, that we could all imitate the pearl oyster. A hurtful particle intrudes itself into its shell, and this vexes and grieves it. It cannot eject the evil, and what does it do but cover it with a precious substance extracted out of its own life, by which it turns the intruder into a pearl. Oh, that we could do so with the provocations we receive from our fellow Christians, so that pearls of patience, gentleness, long-suffering, and forgiveness might be bred within us by that which has harmed us." (Spurgeon)

c. Love … believes all things: We never believe a lie, but we never believe evil unless the facts demand it. We choose to believe the best of others.

i. "Love, as far as she can, believes in her fellows. I know some persons who habitually believe everything that is bad, but they are not the children of love.... I wish the chatterers would take a turn at exaggerating other people's virtues, and go from house to house trumping up pretty stories of their acquaintances." (Spurgeon)

d. Love … hopes all things: Love has a confidence in the future, not a pessimism. When hurt, it does not say, "It will be this way for ever, and even get worse." It hopes for the best, and it hopes in God.

e. Love … endures all things: Most of us can bear all things, and believe all things, and hope all things, but only for a while! The greatness of agape love is it keeps on bearing, believing, and hoping. It doesn't give up. It destroys enemies by turning them into friends.

i. "If your brethren are angry without a cause, be sorry for them, but do not let them conquer you by driving you into a bad temper. Stand fast in love; endure not some things, but all things, for Christ's sake; so you shall prove yourself to be a Christian indeed." (Spurgeon)

f. Spurgeon sees the four qualities mentioned as love's soldiers against evil. Evil is such a strong enemy, it comes at us again and again. First, we face evil with patience, for love bears all things. "Let the injury be inflicted, we will forgive it, and not be provoked: even seventy times seven will we bear in silence." If this isn't enough, we battle evil with faith, for love believes all things. We look to God and His promises and we believe them. If this is not enough, we overcome a third time by hope, for love hopes all things. "We rest in expectation that gentleness will win, and that long-suffering will wear out malice, for we look for the ultimate victory of everything that is true and gracious." Finally, we finish the battle with perseverance, for love endures all things. "We abide faithful to our resolve to love, we will not be irritated unto unkindness, we will not be perverted from generous, all-forgiving affection, and so we win the battle by steadfast non-resistance." Spurgeon concludes the thought: "Yes, brethren, and love conquers on all four sides.... What a brave mode of battle this is! Is not love a man of war? Is it not invincible?"

4. The best way to understand each of these is to see them in the life of Jesus. We could replace the word love with the name Jesus and the description would make perfect sense. We can easily say, Jesus suffers long and is kind; Jesus does not envy … and make it through the whole chapter.

a. We can measure our spiritual maturity by seeing how it sounds when we put our name in place of the word love. Does it sound totally ridiculous or just a "little" far-fetched?

b. There is a reason why Paul put this chapter in the midst of his discussion of spiritual gifts. Paul wants the Corinthian Christians to remember that giftedness is not the measure of maturity, the display of love is.

C. The permanence of love.

1. (8-10) Love will outlive all the gifts.

Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

a. Love never fails: Paul is addressing the over-emphasis the Corinthian Christians had on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. He shows they should emphasize love more than the gifts, because the gifts are temporary "containers" of God's work; love is the work itself.

b. Therefore, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are appropriate for the present time, but they are not permanent. They are imperfect gifts for an imperfect time.

c. That which is perfect: Paul says when that which is perfect has come, then the gifts will be "discontinued." But what is that which is perfect? Though some who believe the miraculous gifts ceased with the apostles say it refers to the completion of the New Testament, they are wrong. Virtually all commentators are agreed that which is perfect is when we are in the eternal presence of the Perfect One, when we are with the Lord forever either through the return of Christ or graduation to the eternal.

i. The Greek word for perfect is telos. Considering the way the New Testament uses telos in other passages, it certainly seems to be speaking about the coming of Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:8; 15:24; James 5:11; Revelation 20:5, 7; 21:6; 22:13).

d. Many who believe the miraculous gifts ended with the apostles (such as John MacArthur) claim since the verb will cease is not in the passive, but in the middle voice, it could be translated, tongues will stop by themselves. Their analysis sounds scholarly, but is disregarded by virtually all Greek scholars.

i. Even if this translation is correct, it does nothing to suggest when tongues will cease. John MacArthur claims, "tongues ceased in the apostolic age and that when they stopped, they stopped for good." But this passage doesn't tell us "tongues will stop by themselves," and it tells us tongues will cease only when that which is perfect has come.

ii. John Calvin was one who thought the will cease spoke of the eternal state. "But when will that perfection come? It begins, indeed, at death, because then we put off many weaknesses along with the body." (Calvin)

e. In his use of will fail and will cease and will vanish away, Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is not trying to say that prophecies, tongues, and knowledge have different fates. He is simply writing well, saying the same thing in three different ways. They will end, but love never fails.

i. "There is virtually no distinction between the two Greek verbs that describe the termination of both prophecies and tongues. True, the verb with prophecies is in the passive voice (believers are the implied agents), while the verb with tongues is interpreted as the active voice. The difference is only a stylistic change and nothing more." (Kistemaker)

f. We prophesy in part is air-tight evidence prophecy is not the exact same thing as preaching, or even "inspired" preaching. Who can listen to a preacher drone on and on, and say they only prophesy in part? It seems like a lot more than a part!

i. "Preaching is essentially a merging of the gifts of teaching and exhortation, prophecy has the primary elements of prediction and revelation." (Farnell, cited in Kistemaker)

2. (11-12) Illustrations of the temporary nature of the gifts and the permanence of love.

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

a. When I was a child: Childish things are appropriate for children, and the gifts are appropriate for our present time. But the gifts of the Holy Spirit will not be appropriate forever.

i. Paul is not trying to say that if we are spiritually mature, we will not need spiritual gifts. But he is saying that if we are spiritually mature, we will not over emphasize spiritual gifts, especially at the expense of love.

b. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face: When we can fully see Jesus (not as in a poorly reflected image) the need for the gifts will have vanished, and so the gifts will pass away. The gifts of the Holy Spirit will be overshadowed by the immediate presence of Jesus. When the sun rises, we turn off the lesser lights.

c. Face to face: Paul is using this term to describe complete, unhindered fellowship with God. 1 John 3:2 tells us when we get to heaven, we shall see Him as He is. There will be no more barriers to our relationship with God.

i. In Exodus 33:11, it says the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. In Exodus 33, face to face is a figurative expression, meaning free and open fellowship. Moses had not - and could not - see the actual face of God the Father in His glory. This is the sense in which John says No one has seen God at any time (1 John 4:12). In the spiritual sense which Moses had a face to face relationship with God, we can have a free and open relationship with God. But in the ultimate sense, it will wait until then, when we are united with Jesus in glory.

ii. So, in a passage like Numbers 12:8, where the Lord says of Moses, I speak with him face to face, the phrase face to face is a figure of speech, telling of great and unhindered intimacy. Moses' face was not literally beholding the literal face of God, but he did enjoy direct, intimate, conversation with the Lord. But the face to face Paul speaks of here is the "real" face to face.

d. For now we see in a mirror: This speaks again to the perfect fellowship with God we will have one day. Today, when we look in a good mirror, the image is clear. But in the ancient world, mirrors were made out of polished metal, and the image was always unclear and somewhat distorted. We see Jesus now only in a dim, unclear way, but one day we will see Him with perfect clarity. We will know just as I also am known.

i. The city of Corinth was famous for producing some of the best bronze mirrors in antiquity. But at their best, they couldn't give a really clear vision. When we get to heaven, we will have a really clear vision of the Lord.

ii. We couldn't handle this greater knowledge on this side of eternity. "If we knew more of our own sinfulness, we might be driven to despair; if we knew more of God's glory, we might die of terror; if we had more understanding, unless we had equivalent capacity to employ it, we might be filled with conceit and tormented with ambition. But up there we shall have our minds and our systems strengthened to receive more, without the damage that would come to us here from overleaping the boundaries of order, supremely appointed and divinely regulated." (Spurgeon)

e. God knows everything about me; this is how I also am known. But in heaven, I will know God as perfectly as I can; I will know just as I also am known. It doesn't mean I will be all-knowing as God is, but it means I will know Him as perfectly as I can.

i. Heaven is precious to us for many reasons. We long to be with loved ones who have passed before us and whom we miss so dearly. We long to be with the great men and women of God who have passed before us in centuries past. We want to walk the streets of gold, see the pearly gates, see the angels round the throne of God worshipping Him day and night. However, none of those things, precious as they are, make heaven really "heaven." What makes heaven heaven is the unhindered, unrestricted, presence of our Lord, and to know just as I also am known will be the greatest experience of our eternal existence.

ii. "The streets of gold will have small attraction to us, the harps of angels will but slightly enchant us, compared with the King in the midst of the throne. He it is who shall rivet our gaze, absorb our thoughts, enchain our affection, and move all our sacred passions to their highest pitch of celestial ardour. We shall see Jesus." (Spurgeon)

d. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are necessary and appropriate for this present age, when we are not yet fully mature, and we only know in part. There will come a day when the gifts are unnecessary, but that day has not come yet.

i. Clearly, the time of fulfillment Paul refers to with then face to face and then I shall know just as I also am known speaks of being in the glory of heaven with Jesus. Certainly, that is the that which is perfect spoken of in 1 Corinthians 13:10 as well. According to the context, it can't be anything else.

3. (13) A summary of love's permanence: love abides forever.

And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

a. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three: The three great pursuits of the Christian life are not "miracles, power, and gifts." The are faith, hope, and love. Though the gifts are precious, and given by the Holy Spirit today, they were never meant to be the focus or goal of our Christian lives. Instead, we pursue faith, hope, and love.

i. What is your Christian life focused on? What do you really want more of? It should all come back to faith, hope, and love. If it doesn't, we need to receive God's sense of priorities, and put our focus where it belongs.

b. Because faith, hope, and love are so important, we should expect to see them emphasized throughout the New Testament. And we do:

i. Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ in the sight of our God and Father. (1 Thessalonians 1:3)

ii. But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation. (1 Thessalonians 5:8)

iii. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. (Galatians 5:5-6)

iv. Who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart. (1 Peter 1:21-22)

v. Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of your love for all the saints; because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel. (Colossians 1:4-5)

vi. For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day. Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 1:12-13)

c. But the greatest of these is love: Love is greatest because it will continue, even grow, in the eternal state. When we are in heaven, faith and hope will have fulfilled their purpose. We won't need faith when we see God face to face. We won't need to hope in the coming of Jesus once He comes. But we will always love the Lord and each other, and grow in that love through eternity.

d. Love is also the greatest because it is an attribute of God (1 John 4:8), and faith and hope are not part of God's character and personality. God does not have faith in the way we have faith, because He never has to "trust" outside of Himself. God does not have hope the way we have hope, because He knows all things and is in complete control. But God is love, and will always be love.

i. Fortunately, we don't need to choose between faith, hope, and love. Paul isn't trying to make us choose. But he wants to emphasize the point to the Corinthian Christians: without love as the motive and goal, the gifts are meaningless distractions. If you lose love, you lose everything

 

1 Corinthians 15

The Resurrection of Jesus and Our Resurrection
A. The truth of Jesus' resurrection.

1. (1-2) Preface to the proclamation of Paul's gospel.

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you; unless you believed in vain.

a. The gospel which I preached to you: In verses three and four, Paul will describe the content of the gospel. Here, he describes how the gospel can be of benefit to man. The gospel is only of benefit if it is received and if one will stand in it.

i. The word gospel means, "good news." As the word was used in ancient times, it didn't have to describe the message of salvation in Jesus Christ. It could be used of any good news. But the best news ever is that we can be saved from the punishment we deserve from God because of what Jesus did for us.

ii. The Corinthian Christians first received the gospel. The message of the gospel must first be believed and embraced. As Paul wrote to the church in Thessalonica, For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

iii. The Corinthian Christians also did stand in the gospel. Despite all their problems with carnality, lack of understanding, strife, divisions, immorality, and weird spirituality, they still stood for the gospel. This is in contrast to the Galatian church, who was quickly being moved away to another gospel (Galatians 1:6).

b. By which you are also saved, if you hold fast that word I preached to you: The Corinthian Christians had done well (they received the gospel). They were doing well (they did stand in the gospel). But they had to continue to do well, and hold fast the gospel Paul preached to them. Every Christian must take seriously their responsibility to not only have a good past, and a good present, but to determine to have a great future with the Lord also.

i. Hold fast also implies there were some people or some things which might want to snatch the true gospel away from the Corinthian Christians. All the more, this is why they had to hold on!

c. Unless you believed in vain: If the Corinthian Christians did not continue to hold fast, one day they might let go of the gospel. And if one lets go of the gospel, all their previous belief won't do them any good. It was as if they had believed in vain.

2. (3-4) The content of the gospel Paul preached.

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.

a. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: Paul did not make up this gospel. He received it (and not from man, but from Jesus Christ, according to Galatians 1:11-12), and he delivered it. This is not "Paul's gospel" in the sense that he created it or fashioned it; it is "Paul's gospel" in the sense that he personally believes it and spreads it.

i. "Notice that the preacher does not make the gospel. If he makes it, it is not worth your having. Originality in preaching, if it be originality in the statement of doctrine, is falsehood. We are not makers and inventors; we are repeaters, we tell the message we have received." (Spurgeon)

b. As Paul describes the gospel in the following verses, it is important to notice that this gospel is not insightful teaching or good advice. At the core of the gospel are things that happened, actual, real, historical events. The gospel isn't a matter of religious opinions, platitudes, or fairy tales, but about real historical events.

i. "Our religion is not based upon opinions, but upon facts. We hear persons sometimes saying, 'Those are your views, and these are ours.' Whatever your 'views' may be, is a small matter; what are the facts of the case?" (Spurgeon)

c. Christ died: The death of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, the center of the gospel. Though the idea of glorying in the death of a Savior was foolishness to the word, it is salvation to those who will believe.

i. How did Jesus die? The Roman government executed Him, by one of the most cruel and excruciating forms of capital punishment ever devised, crucifixion.

ii. "Although the Romans did not invent crucifixion, they perfected it as a form of torture and capital punishment that was designed to produce a slow death with maximum pain and suffering." (Edwards) What exactly was it like to be crucified? In days the New Testament was first written, the practice needed no explanation. But we would do well to appreciate just what happened when someone was crucified.

iii. The victim's back would first be torn open by the scourging, and then the clotting blood would be ripped open again when the clothes were torn off the victim. When he was thrown on the ground to nail his hands to the crossbeam, the wounds would again be torn open and contaminated with dirt. Then, as he hung on the cross, with each breath, the painful wounds on the back would scrape against the rough wood of the upright beam and be further aggravated.

iv. When the nail was driven through the wrists, it would sever the large median nerve. This stimulated nerve would produce excruciating bolts of fiery pain in both arms, and could result in a claw-like grip in the victim's hands.

v. Beyond the excruciating pain, the major effect of crucifixion was to inhibit normal breathing. The weight of the body, pulling down on the arms and shoulders, would tend to fix the respiratory muscles in an inhalation state, and hinder exhalation. The lack of adequate respiration would result in severe muscle cramps, which would hinder breathing even further. To get a good breath, one would have to push against the feet, and flex the elbows, pulling from the shoulders. Putting the weight of the body on the feet would produce searing pain, and flexing of the elbows would twist the hands hanging on the nails. Lifting the body for a breath would also painfully scrape the back against the rough wooden post. Each effort to get a proper breath would be agonizing, exhausting, and lead to a sooner death.

vi. "Not uncommonly, insects would light upon or burrow into the open wounds or the eyes, ears, and nose of the dying and helpless victim, and birds of prey would tear at these sites. Moreover, it was customary to leave the corpse on the cross to be devoured by predatory animals." (Edwards)

vii. Death from crucifixion could come from many sources: acute shock from blood loss; being too exhausted to breathe any longer; dehydration; stress-induced heart attack, or congestive heart failure leading to a cardiac rupture. If the victim did not die quickly enough, the legs would be broken, and the victim would soon be unable to breathe.

viii. How bad was crucifixion? We get our English word excruciating from the Roman word "out of the cross." "Consider how heinous sin must be in the sight of God, when it requires such a sacrifice!" (Clarke)

ix. However, we never speak of the physical sufferings of Jesus to make us feel sorry for Jesus, as if He needed our pity. Save your pity for those who reject the complete work of Jesus on the cross at Calvary; for those preachers who do not have the heart of Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:23, when he proclaimed the center of the Christian message: we preach Christ crucified.

d. Christ died for our sins: What does it mean that Jesus died for our sins? How does His death do anything for our sins? Many noble men and women have died horrible deaths for righteous causes through the centuries. How does the death of Jesus do anything for our sins?

i. At some point before He died, before the veil was torn in two, before He cried out it is finished, an awesome spiritual transaction took place - the Father laid upon Jesus all the guilt and wrath our sin deserved, and He bore it in Himself perfectly, totally satisfying the wrath of God for us.

ii. As horrible as the physical suffering of Jesus was, this spiritual suffering - the act of being judged for sin in our place - was what Jesus really dreaded about the cross; this was the cup - the cup of God's righteous wrath - that He trembled at drinking (Luke 22:39-46; Psalm 75:8; Isaiah 51:17; Jeremiah 25:15). On the cross, Jesus became, as it were, an enemy of God, who was judged and forced to drink the cup of the Father's fury, so we would not have to drink that cup.

iii. Isaiah 53:3-5 puts it powerfully: He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.

iv. "Reader! one drop of this cup would bear down thy soul to endless ruin; and these agonies would annihilate the universe. He suffered alone: for the people there was none with him; because his sufferings were to make an atonement for the sins of the world: and in the work of redemption he had no helper." (Clarke)

v. And when that was accomplished (who knows how long it could have lasted?), there was no reason for Jesus to "hang around" on the cross - His work was done, He could go on now.

e. For our sins: Our sins were responsible for the death of Jesus. He did not die for a political cause, or as an enemy of the state, or for someone's envy. Jesus died for our sins. Jesus did not die as a mere martyr for a cause.

f. He was buried: We don't often think of the burial of Jesus as part of the gospel, but it is. The burial of Jesus is important for many reasons. It is proof positive that He really died, because you don't bury someone unless they are really dead, and Jesus' death was confirmed at the cross before He was taken down to be buried (John 19:31-37). Jesus' burial is also important because it fulfilled the Scriptures which declared, And they made His grave with the wicked; but with the rich at His death (Isaiah 53:9). Jesus was buried in the tomb of a rich man (Matthew 27:57-60).

g. He rose again: This truth is essential to the gospel. Why, if Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins and remove our guilt, why is the resurrection of Jesus so important?

i. Although Jesus bore the full wrath of God on the cross, as if He were a guilty sinner, guilty of all our sin, even being made sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21), He Himself did not become a sinner. Even the act of taking our sin was an act of holy, giving love for us - so that Jesus Himself did not become a sinner, even though He bore the full guilt of our sin. This is the gospel message! That Jesus took our punishment for sin on the cross, and remained a perfect Savior through the whole ordeal - proved by His resurrection.

ii. For this reason, He remained the Holy One (Acts 2:27, 31-32), even in His death. Since it was incomprehensible that God's Holy One could be bound by death, the resurrection was absolutely inevitable.

iii. Therefore, the resurrection of Jesus is not some "add on" to a "more important" work on the cross. If the cross is the payment for our sins, the empty tomb is the receipt, showing that the perfect Son of God made perfect payment for our sins. The payment itself is of little good without the receipt! This is why the resurrection of Jesus was such a prominent theme in the evangelistic preaching of the early church (Acts 2:24, 3:15, 4:10, 13:30-39).

iv. The cross was a time of victorious death, a negative triumph. Sin was defeated, but nothing positive was put in its place until the resurrection. The resurrection showed that Jesus did not succumb to the inevitable result of sin. The resurrection is proof of His conquest.

h. He rose again the third day: The fact that Jesus rose again the third day is part of the gospel. Jesus was a unique case. He did not or will not rise at some "general" resurrection of the dead. Instead He rose the third day after His death. This also demonstrates Jesus' credibility, because He proclaimed He would rise three days after His death (Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19).

i. Because of the reference to the third day, and because in Matthew 12:40 Jesus refers to three days and three nights, some have thought it necessary for Jesus to spend at least 72 hours in the grave. This upsets most chronologies of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and is unnecessary, being unaware of the use of ancient figures of speech. Eleazar ben Azariah (around the year 100 A.D.) said: "A day and a night make a whole day, and a portion of a whole day is reckoned as a whole day." This demonstrates how in Jesus' day, the phrase three days and three nights did not necessarily mean a 72-hour period, but a period including at least the portions of three days and three nights.

ii. "According to Jewish reckoning, 'three days' would include parts of Friday afternoon, all of Saturday, and Sunday morning." (Mare)

i. According to the Scriptures: Because this idea is so important, Paul repeats it twice in these two verses. Jesus' work for us didn't just come out of thin air; it was planned from all eternity and described prophetically in the Scriptures.

i. The plan for His death is described in places like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.

ii. The plan for His resurrection is described in places like Hosea 6:2, Jonah 1:17, Psalm 16:10, as well as the scenario in Genesis 22, where Isaac, as a type of Christ, is "raised" on the third day of their journey, at the beginning of which Abraham had reckoned his son dead.

iii. Admittedly, the Old Testament understanding of resurrection was shadowy; many passages look to a bleak existence after death (Psalms 6:5, 30:9, 39:13, 88:10-12, 115:17; Isaiah 38:18, Ecclesiastes 9:4-5, 10); yet there are other passages of hope and confidence after this life (Job 19:25-27; Psalm 16:9-11; 73:24).

iv. Remember though, that it was Jesus, not the Old Testament, which brought life and immortality to light through the gospel (2 Timothy 1:10).

3. (5-8) Concrete evidence of Jesus' resurrection.

And that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

a. No one saw the actual resurrection of Jesus. No one was present in the tomb with Him when His body transformed into a resurrection body. If someone were there, perhaps in a brilliant flash of light, they would have seen the dead body of Jesus transformed, and virtually vaporize out of the grave clothes. Perhaps it would be something along the lines of the way a body was transported on the old Star Trek series; the molecules would alter, and the person could pass through a solid object, and re-assemble themselves into a solid person. We know that Jesus could do this after His resurrection; He could miraculously appear in a room that had all the doors locked and the windows shut. Yet He was no phantom; He had a real flesh and bone body.

i. Though no one saw the actual resurrection of Jesus, many people saw the resurrected Jesus. Paul now calls forth these witnesses to the resurrection, to establish beyond all controversy that Jesus was raised from the dead in a resurrection body.

b. He was seen by Cephas: Jesus made a special resurrection appearance to Peter (Luke 24:34). We are not told much about this visit, but we can assume there was some special need for comfort and restoration in Peter that Jesus ministered to.

c. Then by the twelve: This probably refers to the first meeting Jesus had with His assembled disciples, mentioned in Mark 16:14, Luke 24:36-43, and John 20:19-25. This was the meeting where Jesus appeared in the room with the doors and windows shut, and breathed on the disciples, giving them the Holy Spirit.

i. When Paul writes by the twelve, he uses the term as a figurative title. At the first meeting of the resurrected Jesus with His disciples, Thomas was absent and Judas had killed himself. But they still were known as the twelve.

ii. "Perhaps the term twelve is used here merely to point out the society of the apostles, who, though at this time they were only eleven, were still called the twelve, because this was their original number." (Clarke)

d. The meeting of Jesus with over five hundred brethren at once isn't detailed in the gospels, but is suggested by Matthew 28:10, 16-17. During the time after His resurrection, but before His Ascension, Jesus seemed to meet with His followers on many different occasions.

i. Of whom the great part remain to the present is compelling testimony of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus. Paul is saying, "Go ask these people who saw the resurrected Jesus. There are not a handful of self-deluded souls; there are literally hundreds who saw the resurrected Jesus with their own eyes. They know Jesus rose from the dead."

ii. There really were five hundred followers of Jesus before His Ascension, though Acts 1:15 mentions only the 120 who were in the Jerusalem area. Jesus met with these 500 followers in the region of Galilee. They knew Jesus rose from the dead.

iii. We sometimes sing: "You ask me how I know He lives; He lives, He lives inside my heart." But that is not the best way to prove Jesus lives. He lives because the historical evidence demands we believe in the resurrection of Jesus. If we can believe anything in history, we can believe the reliable, confirmed testimony of these eyewitnesses. Jesus rose from the dead.

iv. Through the years, there have been many objections suggested to the resurrection of Jesus. Some say He didn't die at all, but just "swooned" on the cross and revived in the tomb. Others say He really died, but His body was stolen. Still others suggest He really died, but His desperate followers hallucinated His resurrection. A plain, simple understanding of these evidences of the resurrection of Jesus destroys all of these theories, and shows they take far more faith to believe than the Biblical account.

v. "I suppose, brethren, that we may have persons arise, who will doubt whether there was ever such a man as Julius Caesar, or Napoleon Bonaparte; and when they do, - when all reliable history is flung to the winds, - then, but not till then, may they begin to question whether Jesus Christ rose from the dead, for this historical fact is attested by more witnesses than almost any other fact that stands on record in history, whether sacred or profane." (Spurgeon)

e. He was seen by James: This would be James, the brother of Jesus, who is seen as a prominent leader in the church in Acts 15. Significantly, in the gospels, Jesus' brothers are hostile to Him and His mission (John 7:3-5). Yet in the first chapter of Acts, Jesus' brothers are among the followers of Jesus (Acts 1:14). What happened to change them? Certainly, this meeting of the resurrected Jesus with His brother James had some influence.

f. By all the apostles: Refers to a few different meetings, such as in John 20:26-31, 21:1-25, Matthew 28:16-20, and Luke 24:44-49. There may have been many more meetings, which are not described in the gospels. These meetings were important in proving to the disciples that Jesus was who He said He was. At these meetings He ate with them, comforted them, commanded them to preach the gospel, and told them to wait in Jerusalem for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit after His Ascension.

g. Last of all He was seen by me also: By saying as by one born out of due time, Paul may be saying that he did not have a three year "gestation" period as the other apostles; he came on the scene suddenly.

i. Others think Paul uses the term ektroma (which means, "abortion, stillbirth, miscarriage"; it speaks of an untimely birth with "freakish" associations) because the Corinthians were so consistently depreciating his stature as an apostle. They considered him truly a paulus ("little") apostle, but Paul will glory in his weakness.

h. The cumulative testimony of these witnesses is overwhelming. Not only did they see Jesus after His death, but they saw Him in a manner which revolutionized their faith and trust in Him.

i. The changed character of the apostles, and their willingness to die for the testimony of the resurrection, eliminate fraud as an explanation of the empty tomb.

ii. Why didn't Paul mention the appearances of Jesus to the women at the tomb as evidence of Jesus' resurrection? Probably because a woman's testimony was not received in law courts. It was true, and it was good evidence for the apostles at that time, but it was not evidence the world of that day would accept, because it came from a woman.

4. (9-11) Paul's testimony of grace.

For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

a. For I am the least of the apostles: Paul would argue hard for his apostolic credentials, because he knew he had to be respected as an apostle. But he had no desire to compete with other apostles for the "Most Valuable Apostle" award. He would gladly say, I am the least of the apostles. In fact, Paul believed he was not worthy to be called an apostle.

i. For some, this would just be spiritual sounding talk, which showed more pride than humility. But Paul meant it. He regarded himself as the least of the apostles because he persecuted the church of God. Paul always remembered how he had sinned against Jesus' church. He knew that he was forgiven; yet he remembered his sin.

ii. Paul felt - rightly so - his sins were worse because he was responsible for the death, imprisonment, and suffering of Christians, whom he persecuted before his life was changed by Jesus (Acts 8:3; 9:1-2, Galatians 1:13, Philippians 3:6, 1 Timothy 1:15).

iii. "This was literally true in reference to his being chosen last, and chosen not in the number of the twelve, but as an extra apostle. How much pains to some men take to make the apostle contradict himself, by attempting to show that he was the very greatest of the apostles, though he calls himself the least!" (Clarke)

iv. There are worse kinds of sin; sins that harm God's people are especially grievous in God's eyes. Are you guilty, now or in the past, of harming God's people? "[God] remembers jests and scoffs leveled at his little ones, and he bids those who indulge in them to take heed. You had better offend a king than one of the Lord's little ones." (Spurgeon)

b. But by the grace of God I am what I am: Paul gave the grace of God all the credit for the change in His life. He was a changed man, forgiven, cleansed, full of love when once he was full of hate. He knew this was not his own accomplishment, but it was the work of the grace of God in him.

i. The grace that saves us also changes us. Grace changed Paul. You can't receive the grace of God without being changed by it. The changes don't come all at once, and the changes are not complete until we pass to the next life, but we are indeed changed.

ii. "You see that the mark of a child of God is that by the grace of God he is what he is; what do you know about the grace of God? 'Well, I attend a place of worship regularly.' But what do you know about the grace of God? 'I have always been an upright, honest, truthful, respectable man.' I am glad to hear it; but what do you know about the grace of God?" (Spurgeon)

iii. "'By the grace of God' we not only are what we are, but we also remain what we are. We should long ago have ruined ourselves, and damned ourselves, if Christ had not kept us by his almighty grace." (Spurgeon)

c. His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: Though grace made Paul was he was, Paul still labored with grace, so that it wouldn't be given in vain.

i. Conceivably, if Paul would not have worked as hard as he did, the grace of God would still have been given to him, but in some measure it would have been given in vain. Grace, by definition, is given freely. But how we receive grace will help to determine how effective the gift of grace is.

ii. Grace isn't given because of any works, past, present or promised; yet it is given to encourage work, not to say work is not necessary. God doesn't want us to receive His grace and become passive.

iii. Paul knew that God gives His grace, we work hard, and the work of God is done. We work in a partnership with God, not because He needs us, but because He wants us to share in His work. Paul understood this principle well, writing, For we are God's fellow workers (1 Corinthians 3:9).

iv. Many Christians struggle at this very point. Is God supposed to do it or am I supposed to do it? The answer is, "Yes!" God does it and we do it. Trust God, rely on Him, and then get to work and work as hard as you can! That is how we see the work of God accomplished.

v. If I neglect my end of the partnership, God's grace doesn't accomplish all that it might, and is therefore given in vain. Later, in 2 Corinthians 6:1, Paul pleads that we might not receive the grace of God in vain: We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain.

d. I labored more abundantly than they all: Paul here is comparing himself to the other apostles. He was not shy about saying he worked harder than any of the other apostles. This is not to say the other apostles were lazy (although some of them may have been), but Paul was an exceptionally hard worker.

e. Yet not it, but the grace of God which was with me: Paul was honest enough to know and say that he worked hard. He was also humble enough to know that even his hard work was the work of God's grace in him.

i. If you were to ask Paul, "Paul, do you work hard as an apostle?" He wouldn't respond with that falsely spiritual, "Oh no, I don't do anything. It's all the work of God's grace." Paul would say, "You bet I work hard. In fact, I work harder than any other apostle." But then he would not dwell on it, but simply have the inward knowledge that it was all the work of God's grace in him.

d. Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed: Whether Paul or one of the other apostles brought the message, the result was the same. They preached the resurrection of Jesus, and the early Christians believed the resurrection of Jesus.

i. The verb we preach is in the present continuous tense; Paul is saying that he and the other apostles habitually preach this message.

B. The relevance of the resurrection of Jesus.

1. (12-13) The resurrection of Jesus proves there is a resurrection.

Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.

a. Why has Paul so carefully proved the resurrection of Jesus? It wasn't because the Corinthian Christians believed Jesus did not rise from the dead. In fact, he makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 15:11 that they did believe it: so we preach and so you believed. Then why was it important?

i. The Corinthian Christians were not denying Jesus' resurrection; they were denying our resurrection. They were influenced either by Greek philosophy (which considered the resurrection undesirable, thinking the state of "pure spirit" superior), or by the thinking of the Sadducees (which thought the world beyond to be just wishful thinking). The bottom line is that the Corinthian Christians believed we lived forever, but not in resurrected bodies.

ii. Remember that resurrection is not merely life after death. It is the continuation of life after death in glorified bodies, which are our present bodies in a glorified state.

b. How do some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? The Corinthian Christians just were not thinking carefully. Some of them were denying the reality of the resurrection, while believing in a resurrected Jesus. Paul shows how the resurrection of Jesus not only proves His own resurrection, but it proves the principle of resurrection.

c. If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen: If these few Corinthians were right about the resurrection, then Jesus was still dead!

2. (14-19) What if there is no resurrection?

And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up; if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

a. If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is in vain: If there is no resurrection, then Jesus is not risen, and Paul and the other apostles have been preaching in vain. There is no real, resurrected Jesus whom they are serving.

b. Worse, if Christ is not risen, then we are found false witnesses of God. If there is no principle of resurrection, and if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then the apostles are liars.

c. Worse yet, if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! If there is no principle resurrection, then Jesus did not rise from the dead. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then death has power over Him and has defeated Him. If death has power over Jesus, He is not God. If Jesus is not God, He cannot offer a complete sacrifice for sins. If Jesus cannot offer a complete sacrifice for sins, my sins are not completely paid for before God. If my sins are not completely paid for before God, then I am still in my sins! If Jesus is not risen, He is unable to save.

d. Worse still, if Christ is not risen, then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If there is no principle of resurrection, then the dead in Christ are gone forever.

e. Worst of all, if Christ is not risen, then in this life only we have hope in Christ, and we are of all men the most pitiable. If there is no principle of resurrection, then the whole Christian life is a pitiful joke! If we don't have something beyond this life to look forward to, why hassle with the problems being a Christian?

i. It is true that being a Christian solves many problems; but it also brings many others. Paul, (like the preacher in the book of Ecclesiastes) saw little ultimate value in life if there is only this life to live.

ii. It is true that knowing Jesus and loving Jesus can make this life better. But sometimes it will make life worse. We can appreciate some of the hardship Paul lived with, when we understand what hem means when he writes, If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. Paul thought, "with all I have endured for Jesus Christ, if there is not a resurrection and a heavenly reward beyond this life, I am a fool to be pitied." Can we, in our super-comfortable age, say the same thing? Trapp says Paul can write this "Because none out of hell ever suffered more than the saints have done."

iii. Paul only applies this principle to Christians. He writes, we are of all men the most pitiable. For the unbeliever, this life alone gives them any chance at pleasure, and whatever happiness they can find now is all the happiness they will ever know. How different for the Christian!

f. See how important the truth of the resurrection is! This is not some side doctrine, to be believed if someone likes it. If you do not believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead in a resurrection body the way the Bible says He did, you have no right to call yourself a Christian. This is one of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith.

i. "Everything depends on our retaining a firm hold on this doctrine in particular; for if this one totters and no longer counts, all the others will lose their value and validity." (Martin Luther)

ii. "If Jesus rose, then this gospel is what is professes to be; if He rose not from the dead, then it is all deceit and delusion." (Spurgeon)

g. When you know what rests on the resurrection, you know why if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

i. The divinity of Jesus rests on the resurrection of Jesus (Romans 1:4).

ii. The sovereignty of Jesus rests on the resurrection of Jesus (Romans 14:9).

iii. Our justification rests on the resurrection of Jesus (Romans 4:25).

iv. Our regeneration rests on the resurrection of Jesus (1 Peter 1:3).

v. Our ultimate resurrection rests on the resurrection of Jesus (Romans 8:11).

vi. "The fact is, that the silver thread of resurrection runs through all the blessings, from regeneration onward to our eternal glory, and binds them together." (Spurgeon)

3. (20-23) The resurrection of Jesus was the firstfruit of our resurrection.

But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming.

a. Now Christ is risen from the dead: In the previous part of the chapter, Paul has demonstrated beyond all doubt that Jesus rose from the dead, and the importance of the fact of His resurrection. Here, he simply states the fact: now Christ is risen from the dead.

b. And has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep: Firstfruits is the Greek word aparche. In the Septuagint, this word is used for the offering of firstfruits and in secular usage the word was used for an entrance fee.

i. Jesus was the firstfruits of our resurrection in both senses. In the Old Testament, the offering of firstfruits brought one sheaf of grain to represent and anticipate the rest of the harvest (Leviticus 23:9-14). The resurrection of Jesus represents our resurrection, because if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection (Romans 6:5). The resurrection of Jesus also anticipates our resurrection, because we will be raised with a body like His. "As in the firstfruits offered to God, the Jews were assured of God's blessing on the whole harvest; so by the resurrection of Christ, our resurrection is insured." (Trapp)

ii. The Feast of Firstfruits was observed on the day after the Sabbath following Passover (Leviticus 23:9-14). Significantly, Jesus rose from the dead on the exact day of the Feast of Firstfruits, the day after the Sabbath following the Passover.

iii. The offering at the Feast of Firstfruits was a bloodless grain offering (Leviticus 2). No atoning sacrifice was necessary, because the Passover lamb had just been sacrificed. This corresponds perfectly with the resurrection of Jesus, because His death ended the need for sacrifice, having provided a perfect and complete atonement.

iv. The resurrection of Jesus is also the firstfruits of our resurrection in the sense that He is our "entrance fee" to resurrection. Jesus paid our admission to the resurrection!

c. By man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead: Here, Paul is communicated the same ideas found in Romans 5:12-21. Adam (by man) is one "head" of the human race, and all mankind was brought under death by Adam. The second Adam, Jesus Christ (by Man) is the other head of the human race, and Jesus brings resurrection to all that are "under" His headship.

i. "Men admire the man who is first to discover a new country … Oh, then, sing it in songs, sound it with voice of trumpet to the ends of the earth - Christ is the first who returned from the jaws of death to tell of immortality and light." (Spurgeon)

d. In Christ, all shall be made alive: Does this mean everyone is resurrected? Yes and no. All will be resurrected in the sense that they will receive a resurrection body, and live forever. Jesus plainly spoke of both the resurrection of life and the resurrection of condemnation (John 5:29). So, all are resurrected, but not all will receive the resurrection of life. Some will receive the resurrection of condemnation, and live forever in a resurrected body in hell.

i. "But though this text doth not prove the general resurrection, (being only intended of believers, that are members of Christ,) yet it doth not oppose it. But that the all here mentioned is no more than all believers, appeareth not only from the term in Christ in this verse, but from the whole following discourse; which is only concerning the resurrection of believers to life, not that of the wicked to eternal condemnation." (Poole)

e. Each one in his own order: It would be strange, and inappropriate, for us to receive resurrection before Jesus. So, He receives resurrection first as the firstfruits, and then we receive it afterward … at His coming.

i. The coming of Jesus described here uses the Greek word parousia. This word can simply mean a person's presence (as in Philippians 2:12, not as in my presence only). But when it is used of Jesus, it has special reference to His Second Coming (as in Matthew 24:27).

ii. If Jesus is the firstfruits of our resurrection, does that mean He was the first one raised from the dead? What about the widow's son in the days of Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-24) and Lazarus (John 11:38-44) and Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12), among others? Each of these were resuscitated from death, but none of them were resurrected. Each of them were raised in the same body they died in, and were raised from the dead to eventually die again. Resurrection isn't just living again; it is living again in a new body, based on our old body, perfectly suited for life in eternity. Jesus was not the first one brought back from the dead, but He was the first one resurrected.

4. (24-28) The resurrection of Jesus leads to the resolution of all things.

Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

a. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father. In Ephesians 1:10, Paul reveals God's eternal purpose in history: that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth - in Him. Paul wrote of the "gathering together" of all things in Jesus, or of the "summing up" of all things in Him. Here, in 1 Corinthians, he looks forward to the time when all things are resolved in Jesus Christ and He presents it all to God the Father, giving glory to the God who authored this eternal plan of the ages.

b. When He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power: For now, God has granted a measure of rule and authority and power to men, to Satan, and even to death. But all that is temporary. Jesus will take His rightful place as the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Timothy 6:15). After the resurrection, God will finally resolve all of history according to His will.

i. "In raising Christ from the dead God has set in motion a chain of events that must culminate in the final destruction of death and thus of God's being once again, as in eternity past, 'all in all.'" (Fee)

c. He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet: Paul here refers to the 1,000 year reign of Jesus described in Revelation 20:1-6. After that time, there will be a final, Satan inspired rebellion (Revelation 20:7-10), which Jesus will crush and finally and forever put all enemies under His feet.

i. The expression under His feet is an Old Testament "figure for total conquest." (Mare)

d. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death: Death will be present during the millennial reign of Jesus (Revelation 20:9; Isaiah 65:20). But afterward, death will be abolished. It is truly the last enemy that will be destroyed.

i. Paul reminds us of something important: death is an enemy. When Jesus came upon the tomb of Lazarus, He groaned in the spirit and was troubled, and Jesus wept (John 11:33, 35). Why? Not simply because Lazarus was dead, for Jesus would raise him shortly. Instead, Jesus was troubled at death itself. It was an enemy. Today, some are told to embrace death as a friend, but that is not Biblical thinking. Death is a defeated enemy because of the work of Jesus, an enemy that will one day be destroyed, and therefore an enemy we need not fear. But death is an enemy nonetheless.

ii. The destruction of death was shown at the resurrection of Jesus, when the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many (Matthew 27:52-53). "When at the Redeemer's resurrection many of the saints arose and came out of their graves into the holy city then was the crucified Lord proclaimed to be victorious over death and the grave … these were but preliminary skirmishes and mere foreshadowings of the grand victory by which death was overthrown." (Spurgeon)

iii. If death is destroyed, why do Christians die? "Death since Jesus died is not a penal infliction upon the children of God: as such he has abolished it, and it can never be enforced. Why die the saints then? Why, because their bodies must be changed ere they can enter heaven … Saints die not now, but they are dissolved and depart." (Spurgeon)

iv. "Death is not the worst of enemies; death is an enemy, but he is much to be preferred to our other adversaries. It were better to die a thousand times than to sin. To be tried by death is nothing compared to being tempted by the devil. The mere physical pains connected with dissolution are comparative trifles compared with the hideous grief which is caused by sin and the burden which a sense of guilt causes to the soul." (Spurgeon)

v. "Notice, that death is the last enemy to each individual Christian and the last to be destroyed … Brother, do not dispute the appointed order, but let the last be last. I have known a brother wanting to vanquish death long before he died. But, brother, you do not want dying grace till dying moments. What would be the good of dying grace while you are yet alive? A boat will only be needful when you reach a river. Ask for living grace, and glorify Christ thereby, and then you shall have dying grace when dying time comes." (Spurgeon)

e. But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted: Paul reminds us that the Son will not someday be superior to the Father. The relationship of Father to Son will be eternal: the Son Himself will also be subject to Him.

i. Those who deny the deity of Jesus say this verse proves their point. They take the submission of God the Son as "proof" that He must not be equal in deity to God the Father. But the submission of Jesus to the Father doesn't come from any inherent inferiority. Instead, it comes from the administrative order of the Godhead. A Son is always in submission to His Father, even if both are "equal" in substance.

ii. "The son of a king may be the equal of his father in every attribute of his nature, though officially inferior. So the eternal Son of God may be coequal with the Father, though officially subordinate." (Hodge)

iii. "The Son's subjection to his Father, which is mentioned in this place, doth no where prove his inequality of essence or power with his Father; it only signifieth what was spoken before, that Christ should deliver up his mediatory kingdom to his Father." (Poole)

iv. Simply put, God the Father will always be God the Father, and God the Son will always be God the Son, and for all eternity they will continue to relate to each other as Father and Son.

f. That God may be all in all: Here, Paul refers to God the Son's desire to glorify God the Father through all eternity. Importantly, each person of the Trinity desires to glorify another person of the Trinity. The Son glorifies the Father (John 17:4), the Father glorifies the Son (John 17:5), and the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son (John 16:14). This aspect of the nature of God is something God wants us to walk in, having a concern for the glory of others, and not our own (Philippians 2:3-4).

5. (29-32) More reasons to believe in the principle of resurrection.

Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead? And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!"

a. Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead to not rise at all? What was being baptized for the dead? It is a mysterious passage, and there have been more than thirty different attempts to interpret it.

i. The plain meaning of the original language is that some people are being baptized on behalf of those who have died. Paul's point is "If there is no resurrection, why are they doing this? What is the point if there is no life after death?"

ii. Significantly, Paul does not say, "we baptize for the dead," but asks what will they do who are baptized for the dead, and Why then are they baptized for the dead? Therefore, Paul is referring to a pagan custom of vicarious baptism for the dead. "Paul simply mentions the superstitious custom without approving it and uses it to fortify his argument that there is a resurrection from the dead." (Mare)

iii. Paul certainly does not approve of the practice; he merely says that if there is no resurrection, why would the custom take place? The Mormon practice of baptism for the dead is neither Scriptural nor sensible.

iv. Paul's point is plain: "The pagans even believe in the resurrection because they baptize for the dead. The pagans have the sense to believe in resurrection, but some of you Corinthian Christians do not!"

v. Clarke said of this verse, "This is certainly the most difficult verse in the New Testament; for, notwithstanding the greatest and wisest of men have laboured to explain it, there are to this day nearly as many different interpretations of it as there are interpreters."

b. And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? If there were no resurrection, why would Paul place his life in jeopardy for the gospel? The way Paul lived his life all-out for the gospel was evidence of the truth of the resurrection.

i. Most of us are so concerned about living comfortable lives here on earth that our lives give no evidence of the resurrection. Paul lived such a committed Christian life, people could look at him and say, "There is no way he would live like that unless there was a reward waiting for him in heaven."

c. I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily: Paul will boast a little here. His boasting is both in you (that is, in the Corinthian Christians) and in Christ Jesus. What will Paul boast about? That he does die daily.

i. Vincent on I die daily: "I am in constant peril of my life." Paul's life was lived so on the edge for Jesus Christ that he could say I die daily. His life was always on the line; there were always people out to kill him. An example of this is in Acts 23:12-13, when more than forty men took a vow that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul. With enemies like that, no wonder Paul could say, I die daily! And this is his boast!

ii. It is important to understand that when Paul says, I die daily, he is not speaking of the spiritual identification he has with the death of Jesus. He is not speaking of the spiritual putting to death of the flesh. He is writing of the constant imminent danger to his physical life. It is important and useful for a Christian to daily reckon themselves dead to sin with Jesus Christ (as in Romans 6:11, Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord). But to use this statement I die daily to support that truth is wrong, because in context Paul is writing about the danger to his physical life.

iii. How can we die daily? Spurgeon says how in a sermon titled Dying Daily. First, by carefully considering every day the certainty of death. Next, to put your soul, by faith, through the whole process of death. Third, hold this world with a loose hand. Fourth, seriously test your hope and experience every day. Next, come every day, just as you did at conversion, to the cross of Jesus, as a poor guilty sinner. Sixth, live in such a manner that you would not be ashamed to die at any moment. Finally, have all your affairs in order so that you are ready to die.

d. I have fought with beasts at Ephesus: The book of Acts does not record an instance when Paul faced wild animals in an arena. It may simply be unrecorded, or Paul may be using the term beasts figuratively, in reference to his violent and wild human opponents (as he faced at Ephesus in Acts 19:21-41).

i. Paul faced all of this for the sake of the resurrection of the dead, both Jesus' resurrection and the believer's. Though at the time of his writing 1 Corinthians it was still future, Paul's whole arrest, imprisonment, and journey to Rome as done for the sake of the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6, 24:15 and 21).

e. If the dead do not rise, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Paul's third proof for the resurrection in this section is also compelling. If there is no resurrection, then there is no future judgment to consider. Then life is lived only "under the sun," as is considered in Ecclesiastes.

i. The ancient Egyptians, at the end of a big banquet, would often escort a wooden image of a man in a coffin around the tables, telling people to have a good time now, because you'll be dead sooner than you think. If there is no resurrection, and no future judgment, then we may as well have the best time we can right now - and Paul was a fool for putting himself in such discomfort and danger for the sake of the gospel.

6. (33-34) Knowing the truth about our resurrection should affect the way we live.

Do not be deceived: "Evil company corrupts good habits." Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.

a. Do not be deceived: "Evil company corrupts good habits." Where did the Corinthian Christians get their strange ideas about the resurrection, ideas Paul has spent this chapter trying to correct? They got this bad thinking by associating either with Jews who did not believe in the resurrection (such as the Sadducees) or by associating with pagan, Greek philosophical types, who did not believe in the resurrection (Acts 17:31-32). It was bad enough that these associations had affected their thinking on an important matter like the resurrection, but this evil company could corrupt far more.

i. This speaks to the vital need described in Romans 12:2: do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. The Corinthians, by their keeping of evil company, were being conformed to this world, and they needed to be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Christians must let the Word of God be their guide for thinking, not the evil company of this world.

ii. Through much of this book, Paul has dealt with the moral problems of the Corinthians: envy, divisions, pride, immorality, greed, irreverence, and selfishness. How much of this has come in because of their keeping of evil company? Their problem with the resurrection was an indicator of the source of their moral problems also.

b. Evil company corrupts good habits: This is not a quotation from the Old Testament, or even from the words of Jesus. Paul quotes from an ancient, secular comedy play, Thais, written by Menander. Menander, though a pagan, was telling the truth and Paul (more properly, the Holy Spirit!) had no problem quoting a pagan who did tell the truth at a particular point.

c. Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God: For a Christian to resist God's process of transformation by the renewing of our minds is to neglect the knowledge of God. To remain willfully ignorant of the truth is sin.

C. The nature of the resurrected body.

1. (35) What is the nature of the resurrected body?

But someone will say, "How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?"

a. Someone will say: Paul presents what may either be an honest question, or a foolish question, depending on how it is asked.

b. How are the dead raised up? This is a question Paul doesn't really answer in the following verses, because the answer is obvious. God raises the dead. As Paul said to Agrippa in Acts 26:8, Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the dead?

c. And with what body do they come? This may be a foolish question (Foolish one, 1 Corinthians 15:36), but it is a question Paul will answer.

2. (36-38) The analogy of the seed.

Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain; perhaps wheat or some other grain. But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body.

a. Foolish one: In the literal Greek, it is even stronger: Fools! "A hard knot must have a hard wedge, a dead heart a rousing reproof." (Trapp)

b. What you sow: Here, Paul says our bodies are like "seeds" which "grow" into resurrection bodies. When you bury the body of a believer, you are "sowing" a "seed" which will come out of the earth as a resurrection body.

i. "Truly it is never a pleasant sound, that rattle of the clay upon the coffin-lid, 'Earth to earth, dust to dust, ashes to ashes,' nor to the farmer, for its own sake, would it be a very pleasant thing to put his grain into the dull cold earth; yet I trow no farmer ever weeps when he sows his seed." (Spurgeon)

ii. "Dear friends, if such be death - if it be but a sowing, let us have done with all faithless, hopeless, graceless sorrow … 'Our family circle has been broken,' say you. Yes, but only broken that it may be re-formed. You have lost a dear friend: yes, but only lost that friend that you may find him again, and find more than you lost. They are not lost; they are sown." (Spurgeon)

c. You do not sow that body that shall be … But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each see its own body: When you plant a wheat seed, a big wheat seed does not come up. Instead, a stalk of wheat comes up. So, even though our resurrection bodies come from our present bodies, we should not expect that they will be the same bodies or just "improved" bodies.

i. Some mock the idea of resurrection. They say, "Here is a Christian's body, lying in a grave with no casket. The atoms in the body are taken up in grass and eaten by a steer, and the steer is slaughtered and another man eats the meat and takes the atom into his body. Where does that atom go in the resurrection?" But God does not need every atom of a man's body to make a resurrection body. Since every cell of my body contains the DNA blueprint to make a whole new body, God can no doubt take one atom of my dead body and make a glorious resurrection body out of that old blueprint.

3. (39-41) The analogy of living and heavenly bodies.

All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

a. All flesh is not the same flesh: There are all different kinds of "bodies" in God's creation. But there are also celestial bodies. Our resurrection body will be a heavenly (celestial) body, suited for life in heaven, not only life on this earth.

b. All flesh is not the same flesh explains why animals do not rise in the resurrection. "Man's flesh only is informed by a reasonable and immortal soul, not so the flesh of other creatures: and hence the difference." (Trapp)

c. There are different bodies or structures in the universe (sun … moon … stars), and each is created with its own glory, and is suited to its own particular environment and needs. While our present bodies are adapted for the environment of time and earth, our resurrection bodies will be adapted for the environment of eternity and heaven.

d. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory: many have taken this to mean there will be different degrees of glory for believers in heaven. "Whether there are degrees of glory, as it seems probable, so we shall certainly know, when we come to heaven." (Trapp)

4. (42-44) Comparison of the two kinds of bodies.

So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

a. Paul gives four contrasts between our present body and our future resurrection body: corruptible against incorruptible, dishonor against glory, weakness against power, and natural against spiritual. On all counts, the resurrection body wins!

i. What happens to the dead bodies of Christians before the resurrection? "As in the mean time their very dust is precious; the dead bodies consumed are not so destroyed, but that there is a substance preserved by a secret influence proceeding from Christ as a head. Hence they are said to be dead in Christ, who by rotting refineth them." (Trapp)

b. Raised in incorruption … raised in glory … raised in power: Our resurrection body will be glorious!

i. "There is nothing more uncomely, unlovely, and loathsome than a dead body; but it will not be so when it shall be raised again, then it shall be a beautiful, comely body. We shall rise in a full and perfect age, (as is generally thought,) and without those defects and deformities which may here make our bodies appear unlovely." (Poole)

ii. "Three glimpses of the body's glory were seen, in Moses' face, in Christ's transfiguration, and in Stephen's countenance." (Trapp)

iii. "The resurrection will cure all infirmities. At Straford-le-Bow were burned in Queen Mary's days, at one stake, a lame man and a blind man. The lame man after he was chained, casting away his crutch, bade the blind man be of good comfort, for death would heal them both; and so they patiently suffered." (Trapp)

iv. "Luther saith the body shall move up and down like thought. Augustine saith, they shall move to any place they will, as soon as they will … Whether they shall have that power as to toss the greatest mountains like a ball, yea, to shake the whole earth, at their pleasure, as Anselm and Luther think, I have not to say." (Trapp)

v. "The righteous are put into their graves all weary and worn; but as such they will not rise. They go there with the furrowed brow, the hollowed cheek, the wrinkled skin; they shall wake up in beauty and glory." (Spurgeon)

5. (45-49) The two Adams and their bodies.

And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.

a. The first perfect man, Adam, gave us one kind of body; the second perfect man (Jesus, the last Adam) can give us another kind of body. He is a life-giving spirit.

b. We have all borne the image of the first Adam, and those who put their trust in the last Adam will also bear His resurrection image. From the first Adam, we all are made of dust, but from the last Adam we can be made heavenly. For believers, the promise is sure: we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.

i. Philippians 3:21 repeats Paul's theme: Who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.

c. Since we will bear the image of the heavenly Man, the best example we have of what a resurrection body will be like is to see what Jesus' resurrection body was like.

i. It was material and could eat (Luke 24:39-43), yet it was not bound by the laws of nature (Luke 24:31; 36-37).

6. (50-53) The need for the resurrection.

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed; in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

a. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God: Paul is not saying, "material things can not inherit the kingdom of God," because Jesus' resurrection body was a material body. Flesh and blood, in this context, means "our present bodies." Jesus' resurrection body was not some "pure spirit" body, but a material body described as flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) instead of flesh and blood. This may seem like a small distinction to us, but it must be an important distinction to God.

b. Nor does corruption inherit incorruption: The word corruption does not mean moral or ethical corruption, but physical, material corruption. These bodies which are subject to sickness, disease, injury, and one-day decay, are unsuited to heaven. Corruption cannot inherit incorruption.

c. I tell you a mystery: A mystery is simply a thing to be understood by spiritual, rather than by merely human perception. Paul will tell the Corinthian Christians something they could not have known by reason or research. They could not have known this unless God revealed it to them.

d. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed: Since sleep is a softer way of describing the death of a believer, Paul is telling us that not all Christians will die, but there will be a "final generation" who will be transformed into resurrection bodies at the return of Jesus before they ever face death.

i. Does we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed mean that Paul predicted Jesus would come in his lifetime? Barclay says yes, and simply points out that Paul was dead wrong here. But Hodge recognizes that Paul isn't necessarily referring to only believers of his day with all; it is a word that properly embraces all believers, over all time. Secondly, it was right and proper for Paul to live as if the coming of Jesus was imminent, though he did not in fact know when Jesus would return. When writing Scripture, Paul was infallible, but not omniscient.

ii. "The plain fact is that Paul did not know when these events would take place, and nowhere does he claim to know. So when he says we he means 'we believers.'" (Morris)

e. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet … the dead will be raised incorruptable, and we shall be changed: In a single moment, Jesus will gather His people (both dead and on the earth) to Himself, for resurrection.

i. Paul expresses the same idea again: For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words. (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18) This remarkable, instant, gathering of Christians unto Jesus in the clouds has been called the rapture, after the Latin word for caught up.

ii. There will come a day, when in God's eternal plan, He gives those dead in the Lord their resurrection bodies, and then in an instant He gathers all His people to meet Jesus in the air. All the redeemed on the earth at that time will rise up to meet the Lord in the clouds, and will receive their resurrection bodies.

iii. What of the dead in Christ before that day? Are they lying in the grave, in some kind of soul sleep or suspended animation? No. Paul made it clear that to be absent from the body means to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:8) Either the present dead in Christ are with the Lord in a spiritual body, awaiting their final resurrection body; or, because of the nature of timeless eternity, they have received their resurrection bodies already because they live in the eternal "now."

f. At the last trumpet: What is the last trumpet? Those who believe Jesus gathers His people after He has poured out His wrath on a Jesus-rejecting world sometimes argue that it is the last trumpet of judgment, cited in Revelation 11:15-19. But this is not necessarily the case at all.

i. The last trumpet may not refer to the last trumpet of the seven trumpets of Revelation at all, but simply refer to the last trumpet believers hear on this earth.

ii. This last trumpet may be connected with the trumpet of God in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, but not with the trumpets of angels in Revelation 11. A distinction may be made between the trumpet of an angel and the trump of God.

iii. Ironside says that the last trumpet was a figure of speech that came from the Roman military, when they would break camp. The first trumpet meant, "strike the tents and prepare to leave." The second trumpet meant, "fall into line." The third and last trumpet meant "march away." The last trumpet Paul speaks of describes the Christian's "marching orders" at the rapture.

iv. Chuck Smith points to a grammatical construction that would be different if this trumpet were the trumpet of Revelation 11.

v. "This, as well as all the rest of the peculiar phraseology of this chapter, is merely Jewish, and we must go to the Jewish writers to know what is intended. On this subject, the rabbins use the very same expression. Thus Rabbi Akiba: 'How shall the holy blessed God raise the dead? We are taught that God has a trumpet a thousand ells long, according to the ell of God: this trumpet he shall blow, so that the sound of it shall extend from one extremity of the earth to the other. At the first blast the earth shall be shaken; at the second, the dust shall be separated; at the third, the bones shall be gathered together; at the fourth, the members shall wax warm; at the fifth, the heads shall be covered with skin; at the sixth, the souls shall be rejoined to their bodies; at the seventh, all shall revive and stand clothed.'" (Clarke)

g. So this corruptible must put on incorruption: Resurrection is a must for the Christian's destiny. In light of all this, how could the Corinthian Christians let go of such an important truth?

7. (54-57) Resurrection is the final defeat of death.

So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

a. Death is swallowed up in victory: A resurrected body is not a resuscitated corpse. It is a new order of life that will never die again. Death is defeated by resurrection.

i. Freud was wrong when he said: "And finally there is the painful riddle of death, for which no remedy at all has yet been found, nor probably ever will be." Compare that with Paul's triumphant declaration, Death is swallowed up in victory!

b. O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory? Paul, knowing death is a defeated enemy because of Jesus' work, can almost taunt death, and mock it. Death has no power over the person in Jesus Christ!

i. "This is the sharpest and the shrillest note, the boldest and the bravest challenge, that ever man rang in the ears of death... Death is here out-braved, called craven to his face, and bidden to do his worst." (Trapp)

ii. "I will not fear thee, death, why should I? Thou lookest like a dragon, but thy sting is gone. Thy teeth are broken, oh old lion, wherefore should I fear thee? I know thou art no more able to destroy me, but thou art sent as a messenger to conduct me to the golden gate wherein I shall enter and see my Saviour's unveiled face for ever. Expiring saints have often said that their last beds have been the best they have ever slept upon." (Spurgeon)

iii. For those who are not in Jesus Christ, death still has its sting. "The sting of death lay in this, that we had sinned and were summoned to appear before the God whom we had offended. This is the sting of death to you, unconverted ones, not that you are dying, but that after death is the judgment, and that you must stand before the Judge of the quick and dead to receive a sentence for the sins which you have committed in your body against him." (Spurgeon)

iv. "Brethren, the wicked must rise again from the dead. The lip with which you have drunk the intoxicating drink till you have reeled again, that lip shall be used in drinking down the fiery wrath of God. Remember, too, ungodly woman, the eyes that are full of lust will one day be full of horror; the ear with which you listen to lascivious conversation must listen to the sullen moans, the hollow groans, and shrieks of tortured ghosts. Be not deceived; you sinned in your body, you will be damned in your body … It must lie in the fire and burn, and crack, and writhe throughout eternity." (Spurgeon)

c. The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law: The principle of resurrection also proves that we are not under the law any longer. We are no longer subject to the penalty of the law (death), and we are set free from sin. Sin is the ultimate cause of death (Romans 6:23, Genesis 2:17), and the result cannot be defeated unless the cause is defeated also.

i. Paul brilliantly links together the ideas of sin, death, and our identification with Jesus' death and resurrection in Romans 6:1-14.

d. Through our Lord Jesus Christ: This defeat of death is only possible for those who live through our Lord Jesus Christ. For others, there is resurrection and eternal life, but unto damnation. If you are an unbeliever, death is not a friend, it is an enemy.

8. (58) Final application: how our destiny of resurrection means we should stand fast for the Lord right now.

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.

a. Therefore … be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord: Because we know death is defeated and we have an eternal, resurrected destiny with Jesus Christ, we should stand firm and unshakable all the more for Him right now. We should work hard in everything now, working for the Lord, because right now counts forever!

b. Knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord: Even if your labor is vain to everyone else, and everyone else discounts or doesn't appreciate what you do for the Lord, your labor is not in vain in the Lord. It doesn't matter if you get the praise or the encouragement. Sometimes you will and sometimes you won't. But resurrection means that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.

i. "You must not only work, but you must labour - put forth all your strength; and you must work and labour in the Lord - under his direction, and by his influence; for without him you can do nothing." (Clarke)

ii. This should make us steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord! We don't need to waver, we don't need to change direction, we don't need to fall, and we don't need to quit. For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister. (Hebrews 6:10) He will show His remembrance of our work and labor of love at the resurrection!

 

1 Corinthians 16

A Collection and a Conclusion
A. The collection for the Jerusalem church.

1. (1-2) Receiving the collection.

Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

a. Now concerning is used again in this letter (see also 1 Corinthians 7:1, 8:1, and 12:1). It means Paul is replying to something the Corinthian Christians were asking about.

b. The collection for the saints: Paul is referring to a collection he was gathering for the saints in Jerusalem. In several other passages it speaks of this effort among many different churches to help the poor Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30, 24:17, Romans 15: 26, 2 Corinthians 8:13, 9:9-12).

i. As I have given orders to the churches of Galatia: Paul mentioned his heart for the poor Christians in Jerusalem in Galatians 2:9-10. "The business of relieving the poor members of the church, is a moral duty, a sacrifice with which God is well pleased, Philippians 4:18; our faith must work by this love." (Poole)

ii. Why was the church in Jerusalem so needy? There may be many reasons. We know they supported a large number of widows (Acts 6:1-6) and were in the midst of famine (Acts 11:27-30).

iii. Generally, Christians have excelled in these efforts of practical ministry. For example, why do you think the Red Cross is named the Red Cross? It started as a Christian organization.

iv. Some have thought that because Christians are commanded to help the poor, especially Christians in need, that this is more important than supporting ministers of the gospel. But Paul, in 1 Timothy 5, speaks of the responsibility of the church to honor widows, and to consider ministers of the gospel worthy of double honor. So, while Christians have a responsibility to help the poor, it does not come before the responsibility to support ministers of the gospel.

c. General principles from the Bible for supporting the poor in the church:

i. Benevolence distribution is a potential source of conflict and division, and it is the job of deacons to prevent such problems by their wise, Spirit-led actions (Acts 6:1-7).

ii. The church has an absolute obligation to help the truly needy (James 1:27).

iii. The church must discern who the truly needy are (1 Timothy 5:3).

iv. If one can work to support himself, he is not truly needy and must provide for his own needs (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12; 1 Timothy 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:11).

v. If one can be supported by their family, he is not truly needy, and should not be supported by the church (1 Timothy 5:3-4).

vi. Those who are supported by the church must make some return to the church body (1 Timothy 5:5, 10).

vii. It is right for the church to examine moral conduct before giving support (1 Timothy 5:9-13).

viii. The support of the church should be for the most basic necessities of living (1 Timothy 6:8).

d. The Greek word for collection is logia. It means, "an extra collection," one that is not compulsory. This was not a "tax" upon the Christians of Corinth. They were free to give as their heart directed them.

i. It is also possible that the sense of "an extra collection" refers to the idea that this was a collect to receive gifts above their regular giving. Paul may be receiving a special offering for the poor of Jerusalem.

e. As I have given orders … so you must do also: For Paul, this was not an option. The Corinthian Christians were responsible to take an offering among themselves for the needs of the poor Christians of Jerusalem. They could not say, "Money is unspiritual. We will just pray for them."

i. The commandment coupled with the idea of "an extra collection" shows that they were commanded to take an offering, but not every Christian was commanded to individually give. They had to give as God put it on their heart to give.

f. On the first day of the week: Paul wanted their giving to be systematic, not haphazard. When they came together for worship and the word, they were commanded to receive an offering at the same time.

i. The first day of the week also refers to the fact that early Christians met on Sunday, not the Sabbath. They were not against meeting on the Sabbath; they just knew that all days were alike to the Lord (Colossians 2:16-17), and wanted to celebrate the day Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:1).

ii. "It is plain from hence, that the gospel churches were wont to assemble upon that day; nor do we read in Scripture of any assembly of Christians for religious worship on any other day." (Poole)

iii. "When the question was propounded, 'Hast thou kept the Lord's day?' The answer was returned, 'I am a Christian, I can do no less than keep the Lord's day.' But the world is now grown perfectly profane, and can play on the Lord's day without book; the sabbath of the Lord, the sanctified day of his rest, is shamelessly troubled and disquieted." (John Trapp, writing in 1647)

g. Let each one of you: Who was supposed to give? Each one. Paul wanted all to give. Every Christian should be a giver, because God is giver (John 3:16).

h. Lay something aside, storing up has the idea of coming to church with your gift already prepared. In other words, you should seek God about your gift at home, and prepare it at home. This makes one seek the Lord more in their giving, and helps them resist any manipulation to give.

i. Commentators Fee, Vincent, and Robertson all agree that Paul intends that each one should gather his money for giving at his own home.

i. As he may prosper means that believers who have more should give more. We should give proportionately; that is, if you give $10 a week when you make $100 a week, you should give more money when you make more money.

i. We shouldn't fear giving generously. Proverbs 11:24 is a great commentary on this idea: There is one who scatters, yet increases more; and there is one who withholds more than is right, but it leads to poverty. No one thinks a farmer is "wasting" grain when he scatters it as seed; the more he plants, the more he will harvest.

j. That there be no collections when I come means Paul didn't want to manipulate anyone! He wanted giving to be from the heart, as the heart heard from God, not in response to a high-pressure fund-raiser.

2. (3-4) Sending the gift to Jerusalem.

And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem. But if it is fitting that I go also, they will go with me.

a. Whomever you approve by your letters, I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem: Paul wanted a representative from the Christians in Corinth to deliver the gift to Jerusalem. And, the Corinthian Christians could choose their own representative. Paul did this to be above reproach in all financial matters.

b. Your gift: literally, Paul calls giving a charis - a grace, a gift freely given. Paul calls it a grace, "because it flowed from their free love towards their poor brethren … or because their sense of the free love and grace of God to them, was that which moved them to that charitable act." (Poole)

i. Sometimes Paul called giving a koinonia, which means "fellowship, sharing" (2 Corinthians 8:4; 9:13; Romans 15:6).

ii. Sometimes Paul called giving a diakonia, which means "a practical service or ministry" (2 Corinthians 8:4; 9:1, 12-13).

B. Concluding words.

1. (5-9) Paul's plan to visit the Corinthian Christians.

Now I will come to you when I pass through Macedonia (for I am passing through Macedonia). And it may be that I will remain, or even spend the winter with you, that you may send me on my journey, wherever I go. For I do not wish to see you now on the way; but I hope to stay a while with you, if the Lord permits. But I will tarry in Ephesus until Pentecost. For a great and effective door has opened to me, and there are many adversaries.

a. If the Lord permits: Paul leaves all his plans up to the will of the Lord. He planned to go through the region of Macedonia, visiting Corinth. But things happened differently than he had planned. Instead of what he had planned, Paul made a soon, painful visit to Corinth to personally confront them in some areas.

i. "I know the fascination of having a programme, and having everything in order, and knowing where we are going; but let us leave room, at any rate, for the interference of God." (Morgan)

b. I will tarry in Ephesus … for a great and effective door has opened to me. Why didn't Paul go to Corinth immediately? Because he sees that God had given opportunity now in Ephesus. Paul wisely relied not only on his own desires, but also on God's open doors. Paul knew the secret of directed service.

c. For a great and effective door has opened to me, and there are many adversaries: Paul also knew that opposition often accompanies opportunities. Acts 19 speaks of both the opportunities and opposition Paul had in Ephesus at this time.

2. (10-11) Timothy's coming to Corinth.

Now if Timothy comes, see that he may be with you without fear; for he does the work of the Lord, as I also do. Therefore let no one despise him. But send him on his journey in peace, that he may come to me; for I am waiting for him with the brethren.

a. See that he may be with you without fear: Paul had trouble with the Corinthians Christians not respecting his authority as an apostle and as a minister of the gospel. What might they do to a young man like Timothy? So, Paul asks the Corinthian Christians to respect Timothy when he comes.

b. Let no one despise him: This echoes Paul's later words to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4:12. Apparently, Timothy suffered from both a lack of confidence and a lack of respect. It was important for God's people to not take advantage of this in Timothy, and it was important for Timothy to never give others an occasion to despise him.

c. That he may come to me: Wherever Timothy was, he was on his way to see Paul, and would probably stop in Corinth on the way.

3. (12) Apollos will come to Corinth at a later time.

Now concerning our brother Apollos, I strongly urged him to come to you with the brethren, but he was quite unwilling to come at this time; however, he will come when he has a convenient time.

a. I strongly urged him … but he was quite unwilling … he will come when he has a convenient time: Paul did not sit as a "commanding officer" over Apollos, who is mentioned among the apostles (1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:22). This gives a rare insight about how the early church leaders related to each other. It was not a hierarchical relationship and Paul did not dictate his will to Apollos.

4. (13-14) Instructions to stand fast and to love.

Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong. Let all that you do be done with love.

a. Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong: In a sense, each of these mean the same thing, simply saying it in a different way. Christians are to be like strong soldiers, on guard, watching for their Lord's return.

i. Jesus commanded us to watch (Matthew 24:42, 26:41, Mark 13:37).

ii. Paul warned Christians to stand fast in their liberty in Jesus (Galatians 5:1), in Christian unity (Philippians 1:27), in the Lord Himself (Philippians 4:1), and in the teaching of the apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

iii. This is the only place in the New Testament where the word translated be brave is used (andrizomai). Literally, it means "to act like a man." Be brave in the King James Version is quit you like men. That is a good, accurate translation of the idea behind the Greek word.

iv. Christians are told to be strong in passages like Ephesians 6:10 and 2 Timothy 2:1.

v. "The terms in this verse are all military: Watch ye, watch, and be continually on your guard, lest you be surprised by your enemies … Stand fast in the faith - Keep in your ranks; do not be disorderly; be determined to keep your ranks unbroken; keep close together … Quit yourselves like men - When you are attacked, do not flinch; maintain your ground; resist; press forward; strike home; keep compact; conquer … Be strong - If one company or division be opposed by too great a force of the enemy, strengthen that division, and maintain your position … summon up all your courage, sustain each other; fear not, for fear will enervate you." (Clarke)

b. Let all that you do be done with love: All the watching, all the standing fast, all the bravery, and all the strength the Corinthian Christians might show meant nothing without love. They were called to do all those things in a meek, humble spirit of love.

5. (15-18) Concerning Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus.

I urge you, brethren; you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints; that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us. I am glad about the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, for what was lacking on your part they supplied. For they refreshed my spirit and yours. Therefore acknowledge such men.

a. These were the three men who brought the questions of the Corinthian Christians to Paul. Paul asks that as they are sent back by him with his letter, they be received as devoted servants of the Lord.

i. Apparently, Stephanas was the head of the household, and Fortunatus and Achaicus were two household slaves of his, who accompanied him on his journey to see Paul. Fortunatus and Achaicus were common names for slaves or freedmen (former slaves).

ii. Fortunatus: "This man is supposed to have survived St. Paul; and to be the same mentioned by Clement in his epistle to the Corinthians, sec. 59, as the bearer of that epistle from Clement at Rome to the Christians at Corinth." (Clarke)

b. Paul was especially grateful for their coming, because they ministered to Paul's needs when they visited (they refreshed my spirit), doing what the Corinthian church should have, but did not (what was lacking on your part they supplied).

c. Paul could call the Stephanas the firstfruits of Achaia because they were among the first saved in that region, and were baptized by Paul himself (1 Corinthians 1:16).

6. (19-20) Greetings from afar.

The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. All the brethren greet you. Greet one another with a holy kiss.

a. Aquilla and Priscilla were a married couple who ministered with Paul at Corinth (Acts 18:1-3, 24-28). Now, they were in Ephesus with Paul, and send their greetings to the Corinthian Christians.

b. The church that is in their house: The early church met in houses, because they had no meeting places of their own until the third century.

i. Clarke on the church that is in their house: "That is, the company of believers who generally worshipped there. There were no churches or chapels at that time built; and the assemblies of Christian were necessarily held in private houses … The house of Philemon was of the same kind; Philemon ver. 2. So likewise was the house of Nymphas, Colossians 4:15."

ii. Morris notes that the entertaining room in a moderately well to do household could hold about 30 people comfortably. Therefore, in any given city, there were probably many different "house churches."

c. Greet one another with a holy kiss: Jewish custom and early church tradition indicate that the holy kiss was a common greeting in that culture.

i. Trapp on holy kiss: "Not hollow, as Joab and Judas; not carnal, as that harlot, Proverbs 7:13."

7. (21-24) Paul's personal, final words.

The salutation with my own hand; Paul's. If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come! The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. My love be with you all in Christ Jesus. Amen.

a. With my own hand: Paul had a secretary write the letters as he dictated them. Often he would add a personal note at the end in his own hand-writing (which seemed to be poor, according to Galatians 6:11).

b. If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. Paul again stresses the importance of love, pronouncing a heavy curse on those who have the talk of commitment to Jesus, but no love for Him.

i. How can we tell if some does or does not love the Lord Jesus Christ? "Love is an affection of the heart, but discernible by overt acts." (Poole)

ii. Accursed uses the Greek word anathema. Paul said in Romans 9:3 that he was willing himself to be anathema from Jesus if it would accomplish the salvation of the Jews.

iii. In fact, anathema was the third of three levels of discipline among the ancient Jews. The first level was a simple separation or a man from the synagogue for thirty days. If one did not repent in the thirty days, he was under the second degree of discipline, giving him still an undefined time to repent, but warning him of the dire consequences to come. The third level was the anathema, and with that all hope of reconciliation and repentance was cut off. The man could never be reconciled to the synagogue, and was no longer accounted as a Jew at all.

iv. Clarke cites an ancient Jewish statement of anathema: "By the sentence of the Lord of lords, let P. the son of P. be anathematized in both houses of judgment; the superior and the inferior. Let him be anathematized among the highest saints; let him be anathematized among the seraphim and ophanim; and finally, let him be anathematized by all the congregations of the great and small! Let great and continual plagues rest upon him; with great and horrible diseases! Let his house be the habitation of dragons! And let his constellation be darkened in the clouds! Let him be for indignation, and wrath, and burning! Let his carcass be thrown to the wild beasts and serpents! Let his enemies and his adversaries triumph over him! Let his silver and gold be given to others! And let all his children be exposed at the doors of their enemies! And let posterity be astonished as his day … Let him be swallowed up like Korah and his companions! Let his soul depart with fear and terror! Let the chiding of the Lord slay him! In this anathema, let P. the son of P. be; and let this be his inheritance! But upon me and all Israel may God extend his peace and blessing, Amen." That is pretty strong! Yet, we can take comfort in Clarke's later comment: "The anathema of the apostle is denounced against him only who gives the anathema to Christ."

c. How can we grow in our love for the Lord Jesus Christ? Samuel Rutherford, on how to grow in love to Jesus: "Strive to make prayer, and reading, and holy conference, your delight; and when delight cometh in, you shall, little by little, find the sweetness of Christ, till at length your soul be over head and ears in Christ's sweetness. Then shall you be taken up to the top of the mountain with the Lord, to know the delights of spiritual love, and the glory and excellency of a seen, revealed, felt, and embraced Christ; and then you shall not be able to loose yourself off from Christ, and to bind your soul to old lovers; then, and never till then, are all the paces, motions, and wheels of your soul in a right tune and spiritual temper. But if this world and the lusts thereof be your delight, I know not what Christ can make of you; you cannot be metal for a vessel of glory and mercy. My desire is that that Lord would give me broader and deeper thoughts to feed myself with wondering at his love. I would I could weigh it, but I have no balance for it. When I have worn my tongue to the stump in praising Christ, I have done nothing to Him. What remaineth then, but that my debt to the love of Christ lie unpaid for all eternity!" (Cited in Meyer)

d. O Lord, come! Paul is looking for the return of Jesus. Marana tha is Aramaic for O Lord, come! This was one of the earliest words of the Christian vocabulary.

e. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. My love be with you all: The letter ends with a desire for grace and love towards the Corinthians. And Paul's final word (before the Amen) is Jesus. He has been emphasizing Jesus from beginning to end in this letter.

f. Paul's final words, written with his own hand, do much to reveal his heart of love, even though he had to rebuke these Corinthians strongly. It was Paul's love, for both Jesus and His church, which made him such a great apostle

 

Hebrews 1

A Superior Savior
A. Introduction to the book of Hebrews.

1. This is an essay or a sermon or a letter to the Hebrews - and everyone.

a. The structure of Hebrews is a different from other New Testament books; it begins like an essay, continues as a sermon and ends like a letter.

b. Obviously, the writer was trying to reach Jewish Christians; but it is also written to a Greek frame of mind with its analysis of Jesus as the ultimate reality. That approach to the nature of Jesus spoke to the thinking found in Greek philosophy.

2. Who wrote Hebrews? The human author is unknown, but the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is evident.

a. The earliest statement on the authorship of Hebrews comes from Clement of Alexandria, who said that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and Luke translated into Greek (Eusebius, History 6.14.2). But many commentators agree that it is unlikely that Paul wrote this book.

i. Dods quotes Farrar: "The writer cites differently from St. Paul; he writes differently; he argues differently; he declaims differently; he constructs and connects his sentences differently; he builds up his paragraphs on a wholly different model … His style is the style of a man who thinks as well as writes in Greek; whereas St. Paul wrote in Greek but thought in Syriac."

ii. Bruce quotes Calvin: "The manner of teaching and the style sufficiently show that Paul was not the author, and the writer himself confesses in the second chapter (Hebrews 2:3) that he was one of the disciples of the apostles, which is wholly different from the way in which Paul spoke of himself."

b. The early commentator Tertullian (who wrote in the early 200s) said Barnabas wrote Hebrews, but no support is offered other than that Barnabas was a Levite (Acts 4:36) and an man of encouragement (Acts 4:36).

c. Martin Luther believed that Apollos wrote the book of Hebrews, because Acts said that Apollos was eloquent and had a strong command of the Old Testament (Acts 18:24).

d. Adolf Harnack thought Priscilla (with her husband Aquilla) wrote Hebrews, and it remained anonymous so it would hide its controversial female authorship. But when the writer to the Hebrews speaks of himself in Hebrews 11:32, the masculine grammar of the passage argues against the idea that a woman wrote the letter.

3. When was Hebrews written? Probably somewhere around 67 to 69 A.D.

a. The reference to Timothy (Hebrews 13:23) places it fairly early.

b. The present lack of physical persecution (Hebrews 12:4) puts it fairly early.

c. The lack of any reference to the destruction of the temple probably puts it before 70 A.D., when Jerusalem and the second temple were destroyed. Since the writer to the Hebrews is so concerned with the passing of the Old Covenant, it seems unlikely that he would have ignored the destruction of the temple if it had happened before he wrote.

4. Hebrews is a book deeply rooted in the Old Testament.

a. Hebrews has 29 quotations and 53 allusions to the Old Testament, for a total of 82 references. Significantly, Hebrews does not refer even once to the books of the Apocrypha.

5. Hebrews is basically a book that exhorts discouraged Christians to continue on strong with Jesus in light of the complete superiority of who He is and what He has done for us.

B. The superior Savior.

1. (1-2a) Jesus brings a revelation superior to that of the prophets of old.

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son,

a. God: This is how the book begins. There is no attempt to prove God's existence; it is simply a self-evident given. Hebrews begins with an idea basic to the Bible: God exists, and He speaks to man; or as the title of a Francis Schaeffer book put it: He Is There And He Is Not Silent.

b. Who at various times and in different ways spoke: The revelation given through the prophets was brought in various ways - sometimes through parables, historical narrative, prophetic confrontation, dramatic presentation, psalms, proverbs, and the like.

i. The idea is that the prophets spoke to the fathers in various ways; not that God spoke to the prophets in various ways (though that is true also).

ii. God spoke to Moses by a burning bush (Exodus 2), to Elijah by a still, small voice (1 Kings 19), to Isaiah by a heavenly vision (Isaiah 6), to Hosea by his family crisis (Hosea 1:2) and to Amos by a basket of fruit (Amos 8:1).

iii. God spoke in a spectrum in the Old Testament; Jesus is a prism that which collects all those bands of light and focuses them into one pure beam.

c. These last days refers to the age of Messiah. It may be a long period, but it is the last period.

d. Spoken to us by His Son: It isn't so much that Jesus brought a message from the Father; He is a message from the Father.

i. The revelation from Jesus Himself was unique, because not only was it purely God's message (as was the case with every other inspired writer) but it was also God's personality through which the message came.

ii. "If men cannot learn about God from the Son, no amount of prophetic voices or actions would convince them." (Guthrie)

e. The Son does not speak in Hebrews; the Father speaks concerning the Son. The book of Hebrews is the Father telling us what the Son is all about.

2. (2b-3) A sevenfold description of the glorious Son.

Whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

a. He is heir of all things - befitting His status as firstborn over all creation (Colossians 1:15).

b. He made the worlds (the very ages).

c. He is the brightness of His (the Father's) glory. Brightness is apaugasma, which "denotes the radiance shining forth from the source of light"; Philo also used the term of the Logos.

i. Jesus is the "beam" of God's glory; we have never seen the sun, only the rays of its light as they come to us. Even so, we have never seen the Father, but we have seen Him through the "rays" of the Son.

d. He is the express image of His person: The idea is of an exact likeness as made by a stamp.

e. He is the One upholding all things by the word of His power, but upholding is better thought of as "maintaining." The word does not have the idea of passively holding something up (like the mythical Atlas held the earth), but of actively sustaining.

i. In His earthly ministry, Jesus constantly demonstrated the power of His word. He could heal, forgive, cast out demons, calm nature's fury all at the expression of one word.

f. He Himself purged our sins: Here, the important idea of an external purification for sins is introduced. This is far apart from the idea that we can purify ourselves (as the Pharisees thought).

g. He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high: His position alone is enough to set Him above all angels.

3. (4) Therefore, Jesus is so much better than the angels.

Having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

a. Having become so much better than the angels: In what sense did Jesus become better than the angels? Isn't He eternally better than the angels?

i. Jesus certainly is eternally better than the angels. But He became better in the sense that He was made perfect (complete as our redeemer) through sufferings (Hebrews 2:10) - something no angel has ever done.

b. A more excellent name than they: Jesus' superior status is demonstrated by a superior name (which isn't merely a title, but a description of nature and character).

4. The rest of Hebrews 1 will prove from the Scriptures that Jesus is better than the angels, but why is it important to understand that Jesus is better?

a. Because we often best understand things when they are set in contrast to other things.

b. Because the Old Covenant came by the hands of angels to Moses, but a better covenant came by a better being, Jesus. It might have been easy for first century Jews to dismiss the gospel thinking it came at the hands of mere men - the apostles. But here we see the Divine (superior to angelic) coming of the gospel.

c. Because there was a dangerous tendency to worship angels developing in the early Church (Colossians 2:18, Galatians 1:8), and Hebrews shows that Jesus is high above any angel.

d. Because there was the heretical idea that Jesus Himself was an angel, a concept which degrades His glory and majesty.

e. Because understanding how Jesus is better than the angels helps us to understand how He is better than any of the "competitors" to Him in our lives.

i. In this sense, the purpose of Hebrews is like the purpose of the Transfiguration. Each of them cry out and say, This is My beloved Son. Hear Him! (Mark 9:7)

C. The Scriptures prove Jesus is superior to the angels.

1. (5) Jesus is superior to the angels because He is the Son of God, as shown in Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14.

For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son"?

a. The more excellent name of Hebrews 1:4 is the name Son; though the angels may collectively be called "sons of God" (Job 1:6), but no angel is ever given that title individually.

b. Today I have begotten You: Begotten speaks of the equality of substance and essential nature between the Father and Son; it means that the Father and the Son share the same being.

c. We must avoid the tendency to promote Jesus' deity at the expense of His humanity. The incarnation means that He is fully God and fully man; no single book stresses both themes more than the book of Hebrews.

2. (6-7) Jesus is superior to the angels because angels worship and serve Jesus, who is their God, as shown in Deuteronomy 32:43 (in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls) and Psalm 104:4.

But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him." And of the angels He says: "Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire."

a. Firstborn was as much a concept as it was a designation for the one born first; since the firstborn son was "first in line" and received the position of favor and honor, the title "firstborn" could be given to indicate that someone was of the highest position and honor.

i. Many of those not born first in the Bible are given the title "firstborn." David is an example of this (Psalm 89:27) and so is Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9).

ii. According to Rabbi Bechai, quoted in Lightfoot, the ancient Rabbis called Yahweh Himself "Firstborn of the World." It was a title, not a description of origin.

iii. Rabbis used firstborn as specifically a Messianic title. One ancient Rabbi wrote, "God said, As I made Jacob a first-born (Exodus 4:22), so also will I make king Messiah a first-born (Psalm 89:28)."

b. Let all the angels of God worship Him: Jesus is superior because He is the object of angelic worship, not an angelic worshipper. They worship Him; He does not worship among them.

i. Revelation 5 gives a glimpse of the angelic worship of Jesus.

c. Furthermore, Jesus is Lord of the angels. They are His angels and His ministers. The angels belong to Jesus, and He is not among them.

3. (8-12) Jesus is superior to the angels because the Father Himself calls Him (and not any angel) God and Lord (Yahweh), as shown in Psalm 45:6-7 and 102:25-27 from the Septuagint.

But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions." And: "You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will fold them up, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not fail."

a. Your throne, O God: The mere address is enough; the Father calls the Son God.

i. Some argue that there are many beings called "gods" in the Bible, like Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4), and earthly judges (Psalm 82:1 and 6). So they say, "So what if Jesus is called a 'god'?"

ii. But these others are supposed gods, pretenders to their throne. If Jesus is not the true God, He is a false god, like Satan and the wicked judges of Psalm 82.

iii. But Jesus is the True and Living God, called so here by God the Father; and also by John in John 1:1, by Thomas in John 20:28, and by Paul in Titus 2:13 and 3:4.

b. Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You: This passage shows striking interaction between the Persons of the Trinity. God, Your God speaks of the Father, and His position of authority over the Second Person of the Trinity; You speaks of the Son; anointed has in mind the ministry and presence of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity.

c. The Son is not only called God, but Lord (Yahweh) as well (Hebrews 1:10), and the Son is described with attributes that God alone has.

i. Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, is the Creator (You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth).

ii. Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity is self-existent (They will perish, but You will remain).

iii. Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity is sovereign (Like a cloak You will fold them up, and they will be changed).

iv. Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity is immutable, unchanging (You are the same), and eternal (Your years will not fail).

4. (13-14) Jesus is superior to the angels because He has sat down, having completed His work, while the angels work on continually, as shown in Psalm 110:1.

But to which of the angels has He ever said: "Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool"? Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?

a. Sit at My right hand: Anyone who sits in the divine presence shows that they have the perfect right to be there; there are no seats for the angels around the throne of God, because they are constantly busy praising God and serving Him.

b. It isn't good to be too comfortable in the presence of majesty. There is a story about a man named Lear who was hired to give Queen Victoria art lessons. Things were going well, and Lear started to feel quite at home in the palace. He enjoyed standing in front of the fire, leaning on the hearth and warming himself in a relaxed manner, but every time he did, one of the Queen's attendants would invite him to look at something on the other side of the room, making him move. No one explained it to him, but after a while, he got the idea: good manners said it was wrong for a subject to have such a relaxed attitude in the presence of their Queen.

c. But to which of the angels has He ever said: "Sit at My right hand." In the same way, the angels don't "relax" before God. They "stand" before the Father, but the Son sits down - because He isn't a subject, He is the Sovereign.

i. The angels are ministering spirits, not governing spirits; service, not dominion is their calling.

ii. Angels, in that respect, are like a toy that won't quit; they have to keep working, while the Son can take a posture of rest, because He is the Son.

iii. Jesus is also called a servant and a minister, but this is part of His voluntary humiliation, not his essential nature-as is the case with the angels.

d. An interesting concept: angels work for us (those who will inherit salvation).

 

Hebrews 2

Jesus, Our Elder Brother
A. Therefore: Because of the superiority of Jesus to the angels, we must give heed to Jesus.

1. (1) The lesson of Hebrews 1 is applied: listen and don't drift away.

Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away.

a. The use of therefore in Hebrews is instructive; it makes us pay attention to a point of application after the writer has developed a principle. The Scriptural fact of Jesus' superiority over the angels has life-changing application - and now we must consider the application.

b. What we must do: give more earnest heed to the words of Jesus. It's easy to think this exhortation to give the more earnest heed is directed to unbelievers; but it is something "mature" Christians must be challenged with also. We can become desensitized to the glory of Jesus' message, thinking we know it all.

i. Give the more earnest heed has not only the idea of hearing carefully, but also in doing what we have heard - and we must give the more earnest heed.

c. If we do not give the more earnest heed, we will drift away. Drifting is something that happens quite automatically when we are not anchored to anything solid; if we are not "anchored" in the superiority of Jesus, we will drift with the currents of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

i. One doesn't have to do anything to simply drift away; most Christian regress comes from a slow drifting, not from a sudden departure.

ii. An ungodly farmer died, and they discovered in his will that he had left his farm to the Devil. In the court, they didn't quite know what to do with it-how do you give a farm to the Devil? Finally, the judge decided: "The best way to carry out the wishes of the deceased is to allow the farm to grow weeds, the soil to erode, and the house and barn to rot. In our opinion, the best way to leave something to the Devil is to do nothing." We can leave our lives to the Devil the same way- doing nothing, drifting with whatever currents will drive us.

2. (2-4) The lesson emphasized: how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?

For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?

a. The word spoken through angels is a way of describing the Mosaic Law, which was received … by the direction of angels (Acts 7:53). The idea is that the law was "delivered" to Moses by the hands of angels.

i. The concept that angels mediated the Law is found in Deuteronomy 33:2, Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19 and Josephus, Antiquities, 15.53.

b. The Mosaic Law was steadfast and strict (every transgression and disobedience received a just reward). It demanded to be taken seriously.

c. How shall we escape: If we must take the word which came by angels seriously, how much more seriously must we take the word which came by the Son of God - who has been proven to be greater than the angels?

i. A greater word, brought by a greater Person, having greater promises, will bring a greater condemnation if neglected.

d. Therefore, we must not neglect so great a salvation. The word neglect is amelesantes, which is used in Matthew 22:5 (they made light of it) of those who disregarded the invitation to the marriage supper. It means to have the opportunity, but to ignore or disregard it.

i. This is a word to believers, not to the unsaved. The danger described isn't rejecting salvation (though the principle certainly applies), but neglecting salvation.

ii. Remember that Hebrews was written not primarily as an evangelistic tract, but as an encouragement and warning to discouraged Christians, those who neglected an abiding walk with Jesus.

e. Spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders: This word was spoken by Jesus, then confirmed by eyewitnesses (those who heard Him). Then it was confirmed with signs, wonders, miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit given by God.

i. In saying and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, the writer confirms he is not a "first generation" Christian. He has heard the message second-hand through the apostles and eye-witnesses of Jesus' ministry.

ii. Hebrews 2:3 is one reason many believe Paul did not write Hebrews. In other passages, Paul seems to put himself on an equal level with the apostles and other eyewitnesses of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1; 15:3-11).

f. God does confirm His word with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit -but doing it all according to His own will.

i. Jesus said miraculous signs would follow those who believe (Mark 16:17); if there is no element of the miraculous, one may question whether there is true belief in Jesus or if the word of God is truly being preached. After all, is the preacher giving anything for God to confirm?

ii. On the other hand, the Spirit brings such miracles and gifts according to His will. Miracles can't be "worked up" and hyped; much damage has been done by those who don't think enough miracles are happening, and want to "prime the pump" through the enthusiasm of the flesh.

iii. It's hard to say which is worse - the denial of miracles and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, or the fleshly counterfeit of them. But the devil doesn't care which side of the boat he throws you over, just as long as you get soaking wet!

B. The glorious humanity of Jesus Christ

1. (5-8a) We know Jesus is human, because God has put the world in subjection to man, not angels (evidence: Psalm 8:4-6).

For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels. But one testified in a certain place, saying: "What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son of man that You take care of him? You have made him a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor, and set him over the works of Your hands. You have put all things in subjection under his feet." For in that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him.

a. You have made him a little lower than the angels: In chapter one, the writer to the Hebrews demonstrated the deity of Jesus and His superiority over all angels brilliantly from the Scriptures. Now he will demonstrate the humanity of Jesus from the Scriptures, and apply the implications of Jesus' humanity.

i. It is Scripturally wrong to think of Jesus as merely God or merely man. It is wrong to think of Him as 50% God, 50% man (or any other percentage split). It is wrong to think of Him as "man on the outside" and "God on the inside." The Bible teaches Jesus is fully God and fully man, that a human nature was added to His divine nature, and both natures existed in one Person, Jesus Christ.

ii. Significantly, the first false teaching about Jesus arising in the church was not that He wasn't God, but that He wasn't really human and He only seemed to be human. The heresy was called Docetism, coming from the Greek word to seem, and was taught by Cerinthus, who opposed the apostle John in the city of Ephesus, and whose teaching is probably the focus of 1 John 4:2 and 5:6.

b. He has not put the world to come … in subjection to angels: God never gave angels the kind of dominion man originally had over the earth (Genesis 1:26-30); angels do not have dominion over this world, or the world to come.

c. What is man: The quotation from Psalm 8:4-6 shows both the smallness of man in relation to the God of creation, and the dominion that God has given man, even though he is a little lower than the angels.

d. He left nothing that is not put under him: The writer emphasizes the point: God has put all things (not some things) under subjection to human beings.

i. So, how can Jesus rule and reign over the world to come if He is not human? Then God's promise to put the world under subjection to man would be untrue.

2. (8b-9) A problem and its solution.

But now we do not yet see all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

a. But now we do not yet see all things put under him: How can we say that all things are subject to man? It seems to be an unfulfilled promise.

b. But we see Jesus: The promise is fulfilled in Jesus, who is Lord over all, and through whom man can regain the dominion originally intended for Adam (Revelation 1:6, 5:10; Matthew 25:21).

i. How many things we do not understand are put into proper focus if we will only see Jesus! The answers to life's most perplexing questions are not questions of "Why?" though we often torture ourselves asking "Why?" The greatest answer is a Who - Jesus Christ!

c. This promise of dominion could only be fulfilled through the humility (a little lower than the angels) and suffering (the suffering of death) of Jesus, who defeated the evil Adam had introduced into the world - which was death (Romans 5:12).

i. God gave man dominion over the earth, but man forfeited his power (not his right or authority) to take that dominion through sin, and the principle of death took away the power to rule. But Jesus came, and through His humility and suffering, defeated the power of death, and makes possible the fulfillment of God's promise that humans will have dominion over the earth - fulfilled both through Jesus' own dominion, and the rule of believers with Him. (Revelation 20:4)

3. (10-13) We know Jesus is human, because He calls is brethren.

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying: "I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You." And again: "I will put My trust in Him." And again: "Here am I and the children whom God has given Me."

a. Not only was it necessary - it was fitting for the sovereign God - for whom are all things and by whom are all things to be made perfect through sufferings in the task of bringing many sons to glory.

i. Conceivably, God could have engineered a way to save us that did not require the suffering of the Son of God; but it was fitting for Jesus to save us at the cost of His own agony.

ii. This is the ultimate illustration of the fact that real love, real giving, involves sacrifice. As David said, nor will I offer … offerings to the LORD my God which costs me nothing (2 Samuel 24:24). God's love for us had to show itself in sacrifice, and what could God sacrifice unless He added humanity to His deity and suffered on our behalf?

b. Jesus was made perfect through sufferings. It isn't that there was anything lacking in His Deity, but only in His experience: how does God in heaven know suffering by experience?

i. "To make perfect does not imply moral imperfection in Jesus, but only the consummation of that human experience of sorrow and pain through which he must pass in order to become the leader of his people's salvation." (Vincent)

ii. The point is that it was fitting for the Father to do this, in the sense that it pleased the LORD to bruise Him (Isaiah 53:10) for the sake of bringing many sons to glory.

c. Therefore, we are sanctified by One who has been sanctified. We are all of the same human family, so Jesus is not ashamed to call them (that is, us) brethren. He could not be our brother unless He was also human like us.

i. Jesus is not ashamed to call us brethren. But are we ashamed to openly say that we belong to Jesus? Who should be more embarrassed?

d. The writer cites three evidences to the fact that Jesus the Messiah calls His people His brethren from the Old Testament: Psalm 22:22, Isaiah 8:17 and 18.

i. In each one of these examples, we see Messiah willing to associate Himself with His brethren, whether it be in a congregation of worship, a community of trust in the Father, or declaring a common family association.

4. (14-16) What Jesus did as our Brother.

Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

a. He Himself likewise shared in the same: For Jesus to truly fulfill the role of "Elder Brother" for the family of the redeemed, He had to take on flesh and blood. He had to enter into the prison to free the captives.

b. Through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil: Some take this as meaning that Jesus destroyed Satan's "right" to rule over man, which was presumably given to him in the garden of Eden through Adam's rebellion. The idea is that Jesus took away Satan's "right" to rule by allowing Satan to "unlawfully" take Jesus' life on the cross, and Satan's "unlawful" action against Jesus forfeited his right to rule over man. In this thinking, the end result is that the devil has no right over those who come to God through Jesus' work on the cross.

i. Since death only has dominion over those who are born sinners or who have sinned (Romans 5:12), Satan had no "right" to take the life of Jesus, who had never sinned nor was born a sinner- and the devil then committed an "unlawful" murder, according to his nature (John 8:44). Jesus allowed the devil to bruise His heel so that He could bruise his head (Genesis 3:15).

ii. The problem with this approach is that we know the devil did not take Jesus' life; He laid it down of His own accord, and no one took it from Him (John 10:17-18).

iii. However, one might say the devil is guilty of "attempted unlawful murder" over someone he had no rights over, because there was no stain of sin on Jesus. Satan certainly wanted to murder Jesus, and tried to, and is guilty of that.

c. Release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage: The fear of death rules as a tyrant over humanity. Some try to make peace with death by calling it their friend. But Christians have no fear of death (though perhaps a fear of dying), not because death is their friend, but because it is a defeated enemy who now serves God's purpose in the believer's life.

d. He does give aid to the seed of Abraham: The Father's work in Jesus was not primarily for the sake of angels (though it is for the angels in a secondary sense according to Ephesians 3:10), it is for the people of faith (the seed of Abraham).

i. Seed of Abraham here is used in the sense of those who are Abraham's children inwardly, not ethnically (Romans 2:28-29, Galatians 3:7).

4. (17-18) Therefore: Jesus is our faithful High Priest.

Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

a. Made like His brethren: If Jesus were not like us, He could not be our High Priest, representing us before the Father and making atonement (propitiation) for our sins.

i. Neither the Deity nor the Humanity of Jesus are negotiable. If we diminish either and He is unable to save us.

b. That He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest: The High Priest wore a breastplate that had stones, engraved with the names of the tribes of Israel, on both his chest and his shoulders. The High Priest would therefore be in constant sympathy with the people of God, carrying them on his heart and in his work (on the shoulders).

i. Jesus did not wear the High Priest's breastplate; but the wound in His chest and the cross on His shoulders are even more eloquent testimony to His heart for us and work on our behalf - to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

c. Because Jesus added humanity to His deity, and has experienced human suffering, Jesus is able to aid those who are being tempted, and when we are suffering. He really does know what you are going through!

d. It is astonishing: there is a God in Heaven who by experience knows what I am going through, and can aid me, not just feel bad for me!

i. "This is the most powerful preservative against despair, and the firmest ground of hope and comfort, that ever believing, penitent sinners could desire or have." (Poole) "Were the rest of the Scripture silent on this subject, this verse might be an ample support for every tempted soul." (Clarke)

 

Hebrews 3

Jesus, Superior to Moses
A. Considering Jesus.

1. (1a) Therefore: who we are in light of the previous paragraphs.

Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling,

a. Therefore: We have been left with the picture of Jesus, our heavenly High Priest. Since this is true, it teaches something about who we are. Understanding who we are in light of who Jesus is and what He has done is essential for a healthy Christian life. It keeps us from the depths of discouragement the Hebrew Christians faced.

b. We are holy brethren: Because our heavenly, holy High Priest is not ashamed to call them brethren. (Hebrews 2:11) It should bless and encourage us that Jesus calls us His holy brethren.

c. We are partakers of the heavenly calling: Because Jesus is committed to bringing many sons to glory (Hebrews 2:10), we are partners in His heavenly calling. This should bless and encourage us to press on, even through difficult times and trials.

2. (1b) Therefore: what we are to do in light of the previous paragraphs.

Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus,

a. Consider the Apostle: We don't often apply this word to Jesus, but He is our Apostle. The Greek word for apostle really means something like ambassador. In this sense, Jesus is the Father's ultimate ambassador (Hebrews 1:1-2). God had to send a message of love so important, He sent it through Christ Jesus.

i. The message is plain: consider this. Consider that God loves you so much He sent the ultimate Messenger, Christ Jesus. Consider also how important it is for you to pay attention to God's ultimate Apostle, Christ Jesus.

ii. God also chose His original, authoritative "ambassadors" for the church; these are what we think of as the original twelve apostles. God still chooses ambassadors in a less authoritative sense, and there is a sense in which we are all ambassadors for God.

b. Consider the … High Priest: Jesus is the One who supremely represents us before the Father, and who represents the Father to us. God cares for us so much that He put the ultimate mediator, the ultimate High Priest, between Himself and sinful man.

i. The message is plain: consider this. Consider that God loves you this much, and that if such a great High Priest has been given to us, we must honor and submit to this High Priest, who is Christ Jesus.

c. Consider the Jesus as the Apostle and High Priest of our confession: Jesus is the ambassador and the mediator of our confession. Christianity is a confession made with both the mouth (Matthew 10:32, Romans 10:9) and with the life.

3. (2) Consider Jesus as faithful in His duties before the Father, even as Moses was a faithful servant of God.

Who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house.

a. Who was faithful: When we consider the past faithfulness of Jesus, it makes us understand that He will continue to be faithful. And as He was faithful to God the Father (Him who appointed Him), so He will be faithful to us. This should bless and encourage us!

b. As Moses also was faithful in all His house: Moses showed an amazing faithfulness in his ministry; but Jesus showed a perfect faithfulness- surpassing even that of Moses!

B. Jesus, superior to Moses.

1. (3a) Jesus has received more glory than Moses did.

For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses,

a. Moses: Moses received much glory from God. This is seen in his shining face after spending time with God (Exodus 34:29-35), in his justification before Miriam and Aaron (Numbers 12:6-8), and before the sons of Korah (Numbers 16).

b. For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses did: But Jesus received far more glory from the Father, at His baptism (Matthew 3:16-17), at His transfiguration (Mark 9:7), and at His resurrection (Acts 2:26-27 and Acts 2:31-33).

2. (3b-6) Why did Jesus receive more glory than Moses? Because Moses was a servant in God's house, but Jesus is both the builder of the house and a Son in it.

Inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God. And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.

a. Inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house: Moses was a member of the household of God, but Jesus is the creator of that house, worthy of greater glory.

i. The ancient Rabbis considered Moses to be the greatest man ever, greater than the angels. The writer to the Hebrews does nothing to criticize Moses; he only looks to properly exalt Jesus.

b. Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant … but Christ as a Son over His own house: Moses was a faithful servant, but he was never called a Son in the way Jesus is.

c. Whose house we are if we hold fast: We are a part of Jesus' household if we hold fast. The writer to the Hebrews is encouraging those who felt like turning back, helping them to hold fast by explaining the benefits of hanging in there.

i. True commitment to Jesus is demonstrated over the long term, not just in an initial burst. We trust that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:6).

ii. Whose house we are: 1 Peter 2:4-5 says we are being built up a spiritual house. God has a work to build through His people, even as one might build a house.

C. The application of the fact of Jesus' superiority to Moses.

1. (7-11) A quotation from Psalm 95:7-11 and its relevance.

Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, in the day of trial in the wilderness, where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, and saw My works forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation, and said, 'They always go astray in their heart, and they have not known My ways.' So I swore in My wrath, 'They shall not enter My rest.'"

a. Do not harden your hearts: If those who followed Moses were responsible to surrender, trust and persevere in following God's leader, how much more are we responsible to do the same with a greater leader, Jesus?

b. As in the rebellion, in the day of trial: The day of trial refers first to the trial at Meribah (Numbers 20:1-13). But more generally, it speaks of Israel's refusal to trust and enter the Promised Land during the Exodus (Numbers 13:30-14:10). God did not accept their unbelief and condemned that generation of unbelief to die in the wilderness (Numbers 14:22-23; 28-32).

c. And saw My works forty years: Because of their unbelief, the people of Israel faced judgment which culminated after forty years. This warning in Hebrews was written about forty years after the Jews' initial rejection of Jesus. God's wrath was quickly coming upon the Jews who rejected Jesus, and would culminate with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

d. Therefore I was angry with that generation: God's anger was kindled against that generation on account of their unbelief. They refused to trust God for the great things He had promised, and were unwilling to persist in trust.

2. (12-15) Beware: Don't be like the generation that perished in the wilderness!

Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end, while it is said: "Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."

a. Lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief: This is strong language, but we often underestimate the terrible nature of our unbelief. Refusing to believe God is such a serious sin because it shows an evil heart and a departing from the living God.

i. "Unbelief is not inability to understand, but unwillingness to trust … it is the will, not the intelligence, that is involved." (Newell)

ii. One can truly believe God, yet be occasionally troubled by doubts. There is a doubt that wants God's promises but is weak in faith at the moment. Unbelief isn't weakness of faith; it sets itself in opposition to faith.

iii. "The great sin of not believing in the Lord Jesus Christ is often spoken of very lightly and in a very trifling spirit, as though it were scarcely any sin at all; yet, according to my text, and, indeed, according to the whole tenor of the Scriptures, unbelief is the giving of God the lie, and what can be worse?" (Spurgeon)

iv. "Hearken, O unbeliever, you have said, 'I cannot believe,' but it would be more honest if you had said, 'I will not believe.' The mischief lies there. Your unbelief is your fault, not your misfortune. It is a disease, but it is also a crime: it is a terrible source of misery to you, but it is justly so, for it is an atrocious offense against the God of truth." (Spurgeon)

v. "Did I not hear some one say, 'Ah, sir, I have been trying to believe for years.' Terrible words! They make the case still worse. Imagine that after I had made a statement, a man should declare that he did not believe me, in fact, he could not believe me though he would like to do so. I should feel aggrieved certainly; but it would make matters worse if he added, 'In fact I have been for years trying to believe you, and I cannot do it.' What does he mean by that? What can he mean but that I am so incorrigibly false, and such a confirmed liar, that though he would like to give me some credit, he really cannot do it? With all the effort he can make in my favour, he finds it quite beyond his power to believe me? Now, a man who says, 'I have been trying to believe in God,' in reality says just that with regard to the Most High." (Spurgeon)

b. Exhort one another daily: If we will strengthen our faith and avoid the ruin of unbelief, we must be around other Christians who will exhort - that is, "seriously encourage" us.

i. How seriously do we take our responsibility to exhort one another daily, and to be exhorted? We judge and criticize rather well, but how well do we really exhort?

ii. If you are out of fellowship altogether, how can you exhort or be exhorted? What will keep you from becoming hardened through the deceitfulness of sin?

iii. This emphasis flies in the face of our society's thinking. A survey found that more than 78% of the general public and 70% of churchgoing people believe "you can be a good Christian without attending church." (Roof and McKinney)

c. The deceitfulness of sin: The sin of unbelief has its roots in deceit; and unbelief hardens us (lest any of you be hardened). Unbelief and sin is deceitful because when we are unbelieving towards God, we don't stop believing - we simply start believing in a deception.

d. For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end: If we have really become partakers of Christ, if we have really heard His voice, we will hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end. Paul communicated the same idea in Philippians 1:6.

i. But it isn't enough to leave the matter with a fatalistic "if you are really saved, you will endure." We have to realize that God uses these warnings and appeals to our will as His appointed means to build endurance in us. There is no fatalism here!

e. Do not harden your hearts: We often say our hearts have been hardened by others or by circumstances. But the fact is that we harden our own hearts in response to what may be done to us.

3. (16-19) It isn't enough to make a good beginning.

For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses? Now with whom was He angry forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpses fell in the wilderness? And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

a. For who, having heard, rebelled? As a nation, Israel made a good beginning. After all, it took a lot of faith to cross the Red Sea! Yet all of that first generation perished in the wilderness, except for the two men of faith - Joshua and Caleb.

b. They would not enter His rest: 11 times in Hebrews chapters 3 and 4, Hebrews speaks of entering rest. That rest will be deeply detailed in the next chapter. But here, the key to entering rest is revealed: belief.

c. So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief: One might be tempted to think the key to entering rest is obedience, especially from Hebrews 3:18: to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey? But the disobedience mentioned in Hebrews 3:18 is an outgrowth of the unbelief mentioned in Hebrews 3:19. The unbelief came first, then the obedience.

i. In a New Testament context, our belief centers on the superiority of Jesus Christ, the truth of who He is (fully God and fully man) and His atoning work for us as a faithful High Priest (as in Hebrews 2:17).

ii. When we trust in these things, making them the "food" of our souls, we enter into God's rest.

d. Israel's great failure was to persevere in faith. After crossing much of the wilderness trusting in God, and after seeing so many reasons to trust in Him, they end up falling short- because they did not persevere in faith in God and His promise.

i. Jesus reminded us in the parable of the soils with the seeds cast on stony ground and among thorns: it isn't enough to make a good beginning, real belief perseveres to the end. If we have made a good start, praise God; but how we finish is even more important than how we start.

ii. C.S. Lewis speaks to the difficulty of persistence (from a tempting demon's fictional perspective): "The Enemy has guarded him from you through the first great wave of temptations. But, if only he can be kept alive, you have time itself for you ally. The long, dull monotonous years of middle-aged prosperity or middle-aged adversity are excellent campaigning weather. You see, it is so hard for these creatures to persevere. The routine of adversity, the gradual decay of youthful loves and youthful hopes, the quiet despair (hardly felt as pain) of ever overcoming the chronic temptations with which we have again and again defeated them, the drabness which we create in their lives and inarticulate resentment with which we teach them to respond to it-all this provides admirable opportunities of wearing out a soul by attrition. If, on the other hand, the middle years from prosperous, our position is even stronger. Prosperity knits a man to the World. He fells that he is 'finding his place in it' while really it is finding its place in him. . . . That is why we must often wish long life to our patients; seventy years is not a day too much for the difficult task of unraveling their souls from Heaven and building up a firm attachment to the earth." (The Screwtape Letters)

iii. Will the passing years wean us away from an on-fire, trusting relationship with the Lord? Or will they only serve to increase our life of trust and reliance on Jesus?

 

Hebrews 4

Entering Into His Rest
A. How to enter God's rest.

1. (1-2) The warning is repeated: don't miss God's rest.

Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.

a. Therefore: The idea is carried on without pause from Hebrews 3: unbelief kept the generation that escaped Egypt from entering Canaan. The promise remains of entering His rest, and we can enter into that rest by faith. Unbelief will make us fall short of the rest God has for us.

b. For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them: We have heard the promise of God's rest, just like the children of Israel did. They heard the word, but it did not profit them, because they did not receive it with faith.

i. They heard the promise. They had the opportunity to receive the promise. But they had actually enter by faith.

2. (3-9) Proof that a "rest" remains for the people of God, beyond it's original fulfillment under Joshua.

For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath, 'They shall not enter My rest,'" although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"; and again in this place: "They shall not enter My rest." Since therefore it remains that some must enter it, and those to whom it was first preached did not enter because of disobedience, again He designates a certain day, saying in David, "Today," after such a long time, as it has been said: "Today, if you will hear His voice, do not harden your hearts." For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.

a. So swore in My wrath: This quote from Psalm 95:11 demonstrates that God has a rest available to us. This rest is after the pattern of God's own rest on the seventh day from all His works, as described in the quote from Genesis 2:2.

b. Therefore it remains that some must enter it: God did not create this place of rest in vain. If Israel (those to whom it was first preached) did not enter because of disobedience, then someone else will enter into that rest.

c. Today, if you will hear His voice: The appeal in Psalm 95:7-8 proves that there is a rest that remains for God's people to enter, beyond the fulfillment under Joshua. If Joshua had completely fulfilled the promise of rest, God's appeal through David, saying "Today" would make no sense.

d. There remains therefore a rest for the people of God: All this together proves the point that there is a rest for the people of God. This is a rest that is spiritual, yet patterned after the rest provided through Joshua.

3. (10) What this rest is: a cessation from works.

For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His.

a. He who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works: Entering this rest means no longer needing to work. The idea isn't that there is no longer any place for doing good works. The idea is that there is no longer any place for works as a basis for our own righteousness.

b. Ceased from his works as God did from His: This cessation from works as a basis for righteousness fulfills our "Sabbath rest." God rested from His works on the original Sabbath of Genesis 2:2 because the work was finished. We cease from self-justifying works because the work is finished by Jesus on the cross.

4. (11) Application of the invitation to enter God's rest through faith.

Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

a. Let us therefore: This phrase, or this idea, appears repeatedly in Hebrews. A doctrinal truth is presented - in this case, the truth of a remaining rest available by faith - then the truth is applied.

b. Be diligent to enter that rest: The rest is there, but God does not force it upon us. We must enter that rest. Clearly, the rest is entered by faith; but it takes diligent faith. This shows us that faith is not passive; it takes diligence to trust in, rely on, and cling to Jesus and His work for us.

c. Lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience: If we are not diligent to enter that rest, the result can be a disaster. We may fall according to the same example of disobedience. We may fall, even as the children of Israel did in the wilderness.

5. (12-13) Found out by God's Word.

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.

a. For the word of God: God's Word has diagnosed our illness with a surgeon's precision. It has seen our hearts, and discerned that we are too ready to follow in the failure of the children of Israel, to give up belief.

b. When the word of God exposes our weakness and unbelief like this, it demonstrates the inherent power, sharpness, and accuracy of the word of God. It bears constant reminding that as we submit ourselves to the word of God, we do it for far, far more than intellectual knowledge of the learning of facts. We do it for the ministry of the Word, because God meets us in His Word, and the Holy Spirit works powerfully through the word of God. We should consider just what the Word of God says it will do in our lives:

i. God's word brings true health, fruitfulness, prosperity and success to the things we do. (Psalm 1:3)

ii. The word of God has healing power; it has the power to deliver us from oppression. (Psalm 107:20, Matthew 8:8, Matthew 8:16)

iii. God's word is cleansing - if we take heed according to God's word, our way will be cleansed. (Psalm 119:9, John 15:3, Ephesians 5:26)

iv. The word of God, hidden in our hearts, keeps us from sin. (Psalm 119:11)

v. God's word is our counselor; as we delight in God's word, it becomes a rich source of counsel and guidance for us. (Psalm 119:24)

vi. God's word is a source of strength. (Psalm 119:28)

vii. God's word imparts life to us. It is a continual source of life for us. (Psalm 119:93, Matthew 4:4)

viii. God's word is a source of illumination and guidance to us. When God's word comes in, so does light; it makes the simple wise and understanding. (Psalm 119:105, Psalm 119:130)

ix. God's word gives peace to those who love it; they are secure, standing in a safe place. (Psalm 119:165)

x. When the word of God is heard and understood, it bears fruit. (Matthew 13:23)

xi. The word of God has inherent power and authority against demonic powers. (Luke 4:36)

xii. Jesus Himself - His eternal person - is described as the Word. When we are into the Word of God, we are into Jesus. (John 1:1)

xiii. Hearing God's Word is essential to eternal life - you cannot pass from death into life unless you have heard the Word of God. (John 5:24, James 1:21, 1 Peter 1:23)

xiv. Abiding - living in - God's Word is evidence of true discipleship. (John 8:31)

xv. God's Word is the means to sanctification. (John 17:17)

xvi. God can do dramatic works with the Holy Spirit as His Word is being preached. (Acts 10:44)

xvii. Hearing God's Word builds faith in us. (Romans 10:17)

xviii. Holding fast to the Word of God can give us present assurance of salvation. (1 Corinthians 15:2)

xix. The faithful handling of the Word of God gives the ministers of the Word a clear conscience - they know that they have done all they can before God. (2 Corinthians 4:2, Philippians 2:16)

xx. The Word of God is our sword of the Spirit - it is our equipment for spiritual battle, especially in the idea of an offensive weapon. (Ephesians 6:17)

xxi. The Word of God comes with the power of the Holy Spirit - with "much assurance" - and critical aspect of the ministry of the Word. (1 Thessalonians 1:5)

xxii. The Word of God works effectively in those who believe. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

xxiii. The word of God sanctifies the very food we eat! (1 Timothy 4:5)

xxiv. The word of God is not dead; it is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword. The word of God can probe us like a surgeon's expert scalpel, cutting away what needs to be cut and keeping what needs to be kept. (Hebrews 4:12)

xxv. The word of God is our source of growth. (1 Peter 2:2, 1 Corinthians 2:1-5)

c. Is living and powerful: No wonder the writer to the Hebrews can say this. The Bible isn't a collection of musty stories and myths. It has an inherent life and power. The preacher doesn't make the Bible "come alive." The Bible is alive, and gives life to the preacher and anyone else who will really receive it.

i. Powerful (translated active in the KJV) reminds us that something might be alive, yet dormant. But God's Word is both living and powerful, in the sense of being active.

d. Sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow: God's Word can hit us with surprising precision, and the Holy Spirit empowers the ministry of the Word to do deep work in our hearts.

i. Often people wonder how a preacher's message can be so relevant to their life. They sometimes honestly wonder if the preacher doesn't know some "inside information" about their life. But it isn't necessarily the preacher at all. It is the sharpness of the Word of God, delivering the message in just the right place.

e. Even to the division of soul and spirit: Is there a deliberate and significant difference between soul and spirit here?

i. Certainly, there is some distinction between soul and spirit. "The New Testament use of pneuma for the human spirit focuses on the spiritual aspect of man, i.e. his life in relation to God, whereas psyche refers to man's life irrespective of his spiritual experience, i.e. his life in relation to himself, his emotions and thought. There is a strong antithesis between the two in the theology of Paul." (Guthrie)

ii. But the stress of this passage isn't to spell out a theology of the difference between soul and spirit. "Attempts to explain [these terms] on any psychological basis are futile. The form of expression is poetical, and signifies that the word penetrates to the inmost recesses of our spiritual being as a sword cuts through the joints and marrow of the body." (Vincent)

iii. However, it is important to understand what the Bible means when it speaks of and makes a distinction with soul and spirit. The Bible tells us that people have an "inner" and an "outer" nature (Genesis 2:7, 2 Corinthians 4:16). The inner man is described by both the terms spirit (Acts 7:59, Matthew 26:41, John 4:23-24) and soul (1 Peter 2:11, Hebrews 6:19, Hebrews 10:39). These two terms are often used synonymously, but not always. We can say that soul seems to focus more on individuality and life (often being defined as the mind, the will, and the emotions). The spirit seems to focus more on supernatural power and life in an individual.

iv. That there is some distinction between the spirit and the soul is made obvious by passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12. The fact that the terms are sometimes used interchangeable is shown by passages like Job 7:11 and Isaiah 26:9.

v. Because the soul and spirit both have reference to the "inner man," they are easily confused. Often an experience which only "blesses" the soul is supposed to be something which builds up the spirit. There is nothing wrong with "soulish" excitement and blessing, but there is nothing in it that builds us up spiritually. That is why many Christians go from one exciting experience to another but never really grow spiritually - the ministry they receive is "soulish." This is why the Word of God is so powerful and precise; it can pierce even to the division of soul and spirit, which isn't easy to do.

vi. The outer man is described by the terms flesh (Colossians 2:5, Matthew 26:41, Galatians 5:16-17) and body (Romans 6:6, Romans 8:13, 1 Corinthians 6:13 and 6:19-20). The terms flesh and body also seem to include aspects of our person such as the senses and habits. When we allow our flesh to direct our thoughts and actions, it ends in spiritual ruin. God wants us to be directed not by the spirit, not by the flesh, or even the soul.

f. All things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account: There is no one hidden before God. He sees our hearts and knows how to touch them, and we must give account for how we respond to His touch.

i. Naked reminds us of the way God saw through Adam's feeble hiding. God sees through our hiding the same way.

ii. Open is the ancient Greek word trachelizo, used only here in the New Testament. It was used of wrestlers who had a hold that involved gripping the neck and was such a powerful hold that it brought victory. So the term can mean "to prostrate" or "to overthrow;" but many scholars do adopt the simply meaning of "open."

g. Remember the context. The writer to the Hebrews trusts that he has pierced the hearts of his audience, who were contemplating "giving up" on Jesus. In this passage, he has made it plain that they can't give up on Jesus can keep it "hidden" from God. The word of God has discovered and exposed their condition.

B. Jesus our High Priest.

1. (14) Seeing Jesus, our great High Priest.

Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

a. Seeing then that we have a great High Priest: The idea that Jesus is our High Priest has been mentioned before (Hebrews 2:17 and Hebrews 3:1). But now the writer to the Hebrews will develop the idea more extensively.

b. Seeing then: The writer to the Hebrews wants to call attention to the specific, unique character of Jesus as our High Priest. No other High Priest was called great. No other High Priest … passed through the heavens. No other High Priest is the Son of God.

c. Let us hold fast our confession: Knowing that we have a High Priest, and know how unique and glorious He is, is wonderful. It is even greater to know that He has passed through the heavens, that He has ascended into heaven, and now ministers there on our behalf is even greater. Both of these things should encourage us to hold fast our confession.

2. (15) Our High Priest can sympathize with us.

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

a. We do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize: Though His deity has been documented (Hebrews 1:4-14), His compassionate humanity has also been demonstrated (Hebrews 2:5-18). It means that there is a Jesus, God the Son, enthroned in heaven, our High Priest, can sympathize with our weaknesses.

i. To the Greeks, the primary attribute of God was apatheia, the essential inability to feel anything at all. Jesus isn't like that. He knows, He feels what we go through. The ancient Greek word for sympathize literally means "to suffer along with."

ii. What makes the difference is that Jesus added humanity to His deity, and came and lived among us as a man. When you have been there, it makes all the difference. We might hear of some tragedy at a high school, and feel a measure of sorrow. But it is nothing like the pain we would feel if it were the high school we attended.

b. But was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin: Jesus knows what it is like to be tempted and to battle against sin, though He was never stained by sin. "His sinlessness was, at least in part, an earned sinlessness as he gained victory after victory in the constant battle with temptation that life in this world entails." (Morris)

i. Sometimes we think that because Jesus is God, He could never know temptation the way we do. In part, this is true: Jesus faced temptation much more severely than we ever have or ever will. The Sinless One knows temptation in a way we don't, because only the one who never gives into temptation knows the full strength of temptation. It is true that Jesus never faced temptation in an inner sense the way we do, because there was never a sinful nature pulling Him to sin from the inside. But He knew the strength and fury of external temptation in a way, and to a degree, that we can never know. He knows what we go through; He has faced worse.

3. (16) An invitation: come to the throne of grace.

Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

a. Let us therefore come boldly: Because we have a High Priest who is both omnipotent and compassionate, we can come boldly to His throne. Discouraging us from this access is a central strategy of Satan. The devil sometimes wants us to consider Jesus as unapproachable- perhaps encouraging us to come by Mary or the saints instead of Jesus. Sometimes the devil wants us to think of Jesus as being powerless to help, not as one who sits on a throne in heaven.

b. The throne of grace: The throne of God is a throne of grace. When we come, we may obtain mercy (this is not getting what we deserve) and find grace (this is getting what we don't deserve) in our time of need.

i. Rabbis taught that God had two thrones, one of mercy, and one of judgment. They said this because they knew that God was both merciful and just, but how could these two attributes of God be reconciled? Perhaps God had two thrones, displaying the two aspects of His character. On one throne He would show His judgment, and on the other His mercy. But here, in light of the finished work of Jesus, we see mercy and judgment reconciled into one throne of grace.

ii. Remember that grace does not ignore God's justice; it operates in fulfillment of God's justice, in light of the cross.

c. Find grace to help in time of need: Thankfully, God provides help in our time of need. No request is too small, because He wants us to be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer … let your requests be made known to God. (Philippians 4:6)

 

Hebrews 5

Jesus, A Priest Forever
A. Our Compassionate High Priest.

1. (1-4) Principles of priesthood under the Law of Moses.

For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. He can have compassion on those who are ignorant and going astray, since he himself is also subject to weakness. Because of this he is required as for the people, so also for himself, to offer sacrifices for sins. And no man takes this honor to himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was.

a. For every high priest taken from among men: God established both the priesthood and the office of high priest in the days of Moses, as described in Exodus 28:1 and following. The writer to the Hebrews neatly summarizes the work of the high priest, in saying that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. The primary job of the high priest was the officiate, either directly or indirectly through lower-ranking priests, sacrifices unto the Lord.

i. The phrase gifts and sacrifices for sins reminds us that not every sacrifice was a blood atonement for sins. Many of the ritual sacrifices were intended to be simple gifts to God, expressing thanks and desiring fellowship.

b. He can have compassion: Ideally, the high priest was more than a "butcher" offering sacrifice. He also had compassion on those who are ignorant and going astray, and ministered the atoning sacrifices with a loving heart for the people. In this ideal, the high priest has this compassion because he understands that he himself is also subject to weakness.

i. God made specific commands to help insure the high priest would minister with compassion. In the breastplate of the high priest were set twelve stones engraved with the names of the tribes of Israel, and on the shoulder straps were stones engraved with the names of the tribes. In this, the people of Israel were always on the heart and on the shoulders of the high priest (Exodus 28:4-30).

c. Because of this he is required as for the people, so also for himself, to offer sacrifices for sins: God also made specific commands to help insure the high priest would minister with awareness that he was also subject to weakness. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest had to sacrifice for himself first, to remind himself and the nation that he had sin to atone for, just like the rest of the people of Israel (Leviticus 16:1-6).

d. And no man takes this honor to himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was: Of course, the High Priest was taken from the community of God's people; but was not chosen by God's people, but appointed by God for His people. But it was important to state that no man takes this honor to himself. The office of high priest was nothing to aspire to or campaign for. It was given by right of birth, it was chosen by God. It was an honor no man could take to himself.

i. The true priesthood, and the high priest, came from a specific line of descent. Every priest came from Jacob, Abraham's grandson, whose name was changed to Israel. Every priest came from Levi, one of Israel's thirteen sons. God set the tribe of Levi apart as a tribe committed to His service and as representatives of the whole nation (Exodus 13:2; Numbers 3:40-41). Gershon, Kohath and Merari were Levi's three sons; each of these family lines had their own duties. The family of Gershon had care of the tabernacle's screen (veil), fence, and curtains (Numbers 3:25-26). The family of Kohath will this family had care of the tabernacle's furnishings, such as the lampstand, altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant (Numbers 3:31-32). The family of Merari had care of the boards and pillars of the tabernacle and the fence (Numbers 3:36-37). These families were not properly priests, though they were Levites. The priesthood itself came through Aaron, the brother of Moses, of the family of Kohath. Aaron's family and their descendants made up the priests and the high priest, those able to serve in the tabernacle itself and to offer sacrifice to God. The high priest was generally the eldest son of Aaron, except if they disqualified themselves like Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-3) or according to the regulations of Leviticus 21. In this sense, the priesthood was not popularly elected, but chosen by God, not appointed by man.

ii. There are some dreadful instances where men presumed to act as priests who were not priests, such as Korah (Numbers 16), Saul (1 Samuel 13) and Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:16).

iii. We can also not take the honor of being our own priest. It is great arrogance to think we can approach God on our own, without a priest; but it is great superstition to think we need any other priest other than Jesus Christ Himself. God has provided a mediator, a priest, and we must avail ourselves of the priest God has provided.

iv. "A sinner can undertake to manage nothing towards God immediately, or by himself, but with a mediating priest, who must know God's mind and perform it … The common sense of mankind about it since the fall doth evidence it; no nation being without a religion, a temple, a place of worship, or a priest." (Poole)

2. (5-6) Jesus is qualified to be our High Priest.

So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him: "You are My Son, today I have begotten You." As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek";

a. Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest: Jesus did not make Himself High Priest. Instead, just as much as Jesus was declared to be the Son (Psalm 2:7), He was also declared to be a priest forever (in Psalm 110:4).

i. It was easy to see why the priesthood of Jesus would be difficult for early Jewish Christians to grasp. He was not from the lineage of Aaron. Jesus claimed nor practiced no special ministry in the temple. He confronted the religious structure instead of joining it. In Jesus' day, the priesthood also become a corrupt institution. The custom had become High Priest in those days through intrigue and politicking among the corrupt priesthood.

ii. A priest forever is an important contrast. Jesus' priesthood (like Melchizedek's) is unending, but no High Priest descended from Aaron ever had a forever priesthood.

b. Today I have begotten You refers to Jesus' resurrection from the dead. At that time He fully assumed His role as our great High Priest, having been perfected (Hebrews 5:9).

i. Jesus' resurrection demonstrated that He was not a priest like Aaron, who had to atone for his own sin first. The resurrection vindicated Jesus as the Father's Holy One (Acts 2:2, 2:27), who bore the wrath sinners deserve, without becoming a sinner Himself.

c. Hebrews 7 will more fully develop the theme of Jesus as a High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

3. (7-11a) The compassion of Jesus, our High Priest.

Who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek," of whom we have much to say,

a. When He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears: The agony of Jesus in the Garden of Gesthemane (Matthew 26:36-39, Luke 22:44) proves He knows what it is like to struggle with the difficulty of obedience, yet He obeyed perfectly.

i. This answers the question, "How can this glorious, enthroned Jesus know what I am going through down here?" He knows; obedience did not always come easy for Jesus.

b. The word for supplications is hiketeria. This ancient Greek word essentially means "an olive branch wrapped in wool," because that is was someone in Greek culture would hold and wave to express their desperate prayer and desire. Significantly, this supplication of Jesus took place in a garden of olives - and he supplied the "wool," being the Lamb of God!

c. And was heard because of His godly fear: If Jesus asked that the cup be taken away from Him (Luke 22:42), and the cup was not taken away, how can it be said that He was heard? Because His prayer was not to escape His Father's will, but to accept it - and that prayer was definitely heard.

d. He learned obedience by the things which He suffered: How could Jesus (who never stopped being God) learn anything? Then again, how does God, enthroned in heaven experience obedience, except by casting off the glory of the throne and humbling Himself as Jesus did?

i. Jesus did not pass from disobedience to obedience. He learned obedience by actually obeying. Jesus did not learn how to obey; He learned what is involved in obedience.

e. He learned obedience by things which He suffered: Suffering was used to teach Jesus. If suffering was fit to teach the Son of God, we must never despise it as a tool of instruction in our lives.

i. Some say that we might learn through suffering; but such lessons are only God's second best. God really intends for us just to learn by His Word, and it is never His real plan for us to learn through trials and suffering. But was Jesus ever in the Father's second best?

ii. The Bible never teaches that strong faith will keep a Christian from all suffering. Christians are appointed to affliction (1 Thessalonians 3:3). It is through many tribulations we enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22), and our current suffering is the prelude to glorification (Romans 8:17).

f. Having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation: Jesus' experience of suffering makes Him perfectly suited to be the author (the source, the cause) of our salvation.

i. Some don't want Jesus to be the author of their salvation. They want to write their own book of salvation. God won't read it! Only Jesus can author your eternal salvation.

g. Notice that this salvation is extended to all who obey Him. In this sense, all who obey Him is used synonymously for believing on Him - which simply assumes that believers will obey!

h. Called by God as High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek": The emphasis is repeated. Jesus is a High Priest, who was called by God (not personal ambition), according to the order of Melchizedek. The much to say comes in Hebrews 7.

B. An exhortation to maturity.

1. (11b) Their dullness of hearing is exposed.

And hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

a. Since you have become dull of hearing: This explains why the writer doesn't go into the topic of Melchizedek right away. He wants to address some critical basics before going on to more intricate topics, but their spiritual condition makes it hard to explain.

i. He fears the discussion of Aaron and Melchizedek and Jesus will sound too academic and theoretical to his readers. At the same time, he recognizes this says more about his dull hearers than the message.

ii. Being dull of hearing is not a problem with the ears, but a problem with the heart - you just aren't really interested in what God has to say to you. Not wanting to hear the Word of God points to a genuine spiritual problem!

b. These Christians who felt like giving up with Jesus were also dull of hearing. The dullness usually comes first, then the desire to give up. Watch out when the Word of God starts seeming dull to you!

c. They have become dull of hearing. Become is an important word. It indicates that they didn't start out that dull of hearing, but became that way.

2. (12a) Their failure to mature is exposed.

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God;

a. By this time: According to the time they had been followers of Jesus, they should have been much more mature than they were.

b. You ought to be teachers: It wasn't that these were unique people who would hold a unique role of teaching. Instead, they ought to be teachers in the sense that all Christians should be teachers.

i. There is an important sense in which every Christian must be a teacher, because we can all help disciple others. We really only master something after we have effectively taught it to someone else. Teaching is the final step of learning.

c. You need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God: This isn't to their credit. It isn't that the first principles are "beneath" the mature Christian. Rather, the sense is that one should be able to teach one's self, and remind one's self of these first principles of the oracles of God.

3. (12b-14) A contrast between milk and solid food.

And you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

a. And you have come to need milk: Milk corresponds to the first principles of Hebrews 6:12. Solid food is the "meatier" material such as understanding the connection between Jesus and Melchizedek. It isn't that milk is bad; but these Christians should have added solid food to their diet. Peter reminds us all as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby (1 Peter 2:2).

b. In the original language, the sense of for he is a babe is for he has become a babe. There is nothing more delightful than a true babe in Jesus. But there is nothing more irritating and depressing than someone who should be mature but who has become a babe!

i. Have you become a babe? Perhaps your Christian life is unstable. Babies are handed from one person to another; babes are tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:14-16).

ii. Have you become a babe? Perhaps you are divisive in your Christian life. Babies each have their own crib that they stick to; babes have their particular denomination or church that they think of as "my church."

iii. Have you become a babe? Perhaps you are star-struck by Christian celebrities of one kind or another. Babies are focused on one particular person (mommy); babes glory in men (I am of Paul, I am of Apollos).

iv. Have you become a babe? Perhaps you are spiritually asleep. Babies need a lot of sleep; babes spend much time spiritually asleep.

v. Have you become a babe? Perhaps you are fussy and cranky with others. Babies can be cranky; babes will fuss over any little thing.

c. Is unskilled in the word of righteousness: Those who have become babes reveal themselves because they are unskilled in the word of righteousness. We don't expect brand new Christians to be skilled in the word of righteousness, but those who have been Christians for a time should be.

d. Who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil: Our senses are exercised (trained by practice and habit) to discern both good and evil (doctrinally, not morally). How are our senses exercised? Plainly, by reason of use. When we decide to use discernment, we mature.

i. These Christians demonstrated immaturity by both their lack of discernment between good and evil and in their contemplation of giving up with Jesus. The mature Christian is marked by their discernment and by their unshakable commitment to Jesus Christ.

ii. The ability to discern is a critical measure of spiritual maturity. Babies will put anything in their mouths! Babes are weak in discernment, and will accept any kind of spiritual food.

e. Have their senses exercised: It can be said that all five human senses have their spiritual counterparts.

i. We have a spiritual sense of taste: If indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious (1 Peter 2:3). Taste and see that the LORD is good! (Psalm 34:8)

ii. We have a spiritual sense of hearing: Hear and your soul shall live (Isaiah 55:3). He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches (Revelation 2:7).

iii. We have a spiritual sense of sight: Open my eyes, that I may see wondrous things from Your law (Psalm 119:18). The eyes of your understanding (heart) being enlightened (Ephesians 1:18).

iv. We have a spiritual sense of smell: He shall be of quick scent in the fear of the LORD (Isaiah 11:3, RV margin). I am full, having received from … you, a sweet-smelling aroma (Philippians 4:18).

v. We have a spiritual sense of touch or feeling: Because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself before the LORD (2 Kings 22:19). The hardening of their heart; who being past feeling, have given themselves over to licentiousness (Ephesians 4:18-19)

 

Hebrews 6

A Warning to Discouraged Believers
A. The essential nature of maturity.

1. (1a) Going beyond the basics.

Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection,

a. Therefore: The writer has just rebuked his readers for their spiritual immaturity; but he knows that nothing is gained by treating them as immature. So he moves on to other ideas.

b. Elementary principles: This has the idea of "rudiments" or "ABCs." They are basic building blocks that are necessary, but must be built upon - otherwise you just have a foundation and no structure.

c. Perfection: This is the ancient Greek word teleiotes, which is much better understood as "maturity." The writer to the Hebrews is not trying to tell us that we can reach perfection on this side of eternity, but we can and should reach a place of maturity in Jesus. So the call is plain: let us go on to perfection.

2. (1b-2) Some of the "basics" to go beyond.

Not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

a. These "basics" are given in three pairs: repentance and faith go together. Baptisms and laying on of hands go together. Resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment go together.

b. Not laying again the foundation: Many people regard this as a Biblical list of important "foundations" for the Christian life. Bible study series have been taught developing each one of these topics, out of the thought that this is good list of basic doctrines. But that isn't the writer's point here at all. To understand this list, you must ask a basic question: What is distinctively Christian about this list? Where is the specific mention of Jesus or salvation by grace alone? Can you believe or practice these things and not be a follower of Jesus Christ, believing Him to be the Messiah?

i. "When we consider the 'rudiments' one by one, it is remarkable how little in the list is distinctive of Christianity, for practically every item could have its place in a fairly orthodox Jewish community. . . . Each of them, indeed, acquires a new significance in a Christian context; but the impression we get is that existing Jewish beliefs and practices were used as a foundation on which to build Christian truth." (Bruce)

c. Not even baptisms, as it is used in this passage, is necessarily Christian. The specific ancient Greek word translated baptisms is not the word regularly used in the New Testament to describe Christian baptism. It is the word used on two other specific occasions (Hebrews 9:10 and Mark 7:4) to refer to Jewish ceremonial washings.

i. The New English Bible translation reflects this, translating doctrine of baptisms as "instruction about cleansing rites."

d. In this case, the elementary principles to move beyond are all items in the "common ground" between Christianity and Judaism. This was a "safe" common ground these Jewish Christians retreated to.

i. Because Christianity did grow out of Judaism, it was a more subtle temptation for a Jewish Christian to slip back into Judaism than it was for a formerly pagan Christian to go back to his pagan ways.

ii. Of course, these Jewish Christians did not want to abandon religion, but they did want to make it less distinctively Christian. Therefore, they went back to this "common ground" to avoid persecution. Living in this comfortable common ground, you would not stick out so much. A Jew and a Christian together could say, "Let's repent, let's have faith, let's perform ceremonial washings," and so forth. But this was a subtle denial of Jesus.

iii. This is entirely characteristic of those who feel discouraged, and wish to give up. There is always the temptation to still be religious, but not so "fanatical" about Jesus.

3. (3) A statement of hope and dependence on God.

And this we will do if God permits.

a. If God permits: This should not be taken as implying that God may not want them to go on to maturity, past those basics common to Christianity and Judaism.

b. Instead, if God permits expresses the believers' complete dependence on God. If we do press on to maturity, we realize that it only happens at God's pleasure.

B. The danger of falling away.

1. Understanding an approach to controversial passages like this.

a. We must first be concerned with understanding what the text says (exposition), before we are concerned with fitting what it says into a system of theology.

b. Systems of theology are important, because the Bible does not contradict itself; but the way to right systems begins with a right understanding of the text, not one that bends the text to fit into a system.

i. "We come to this passage ourselves with the intention to read it with the simplicity of a child, and whatever we find therein to state it; and if it may not seem to agree with something we have hitherto held, we are prepared to cast away every doctrine of our own, rather than one passage of Scripture." (Spurgeon)

ii. "We had better far be inconsistent with ourselves than with the inspired Word. I have been called an Arminian Calvinist or a Calvinistic Arminian, and I am quite content so long as I can keep close to my Bible." (Spurgeon)

c. Satan knows Scripture, and this passage has rightly been called "one of the Devil's favorite passages" for its ability to be taken out of context for condemning the struggling believer. Many have felt like giving up after hearing Satan "preach a sermon" on this text!

2. (4-6) The impossibility of repentance for those who have fallen away after receiving blessing from God.

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.

a. For it is impossible: The word impossible is put in a position of emphasis. The writer to the Hebrews is not saying it is just difficult, but truly without possibility.

i. Note the other uses of impossible in Hebrews: It is impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18). It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats can take away sin (Hebrews 10:4). Without faith it is impossible to please God (Hebrews 11:6).

ii. "This word *impossible stands immovable." (Alford)

b. Who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come: Their experience is impressive. The big debate is whether this is the experience of salvation, or the experience of something short of salvation.

i. Enlightened: This ancient Greek word has the same meaning as the English word. These people have experienced the light of God shining upon them.

ii. Tasted: This word speaks of a full, real experience (as in how Jesus tasted death in Hebrews 2:9). The heavenly gift is probably salvation (Romans 6:23 and Ephesians 2:8).

iii. Partakers of the Holy Spirit is an unique term, having to do with receiving the Holy Spirit and having fellowship with the Holy Spirit.

iv. Tasted the good word of God means they have experienced the goodness of God's word, and have seen its work in their lives.

v. The powers of the age of come is a way to describe God's supernatural power. The ones written of here have indeed tasted of these powers.

c. One of the most heated debates over any New Testament passage is focused on this text. The question is simple: Are these people who have had these impressive spiritual experiences in fact Christians? Are they God's elect, chosen before the foundation of the world?

i. Commentators divide on this issue, each deciding the issue with great certainty but with no agreement.

ii. Remember that one can have great spiritual experiences and still not be saved (Matthew 7:21-23). One can even do many religious things and still not be saved. The perfect example of this are the Pharisees, who evangelized (Matthew 23:15), prayed impressively (Matthew 23:14), made religious commitments (Matthew 23:16), tithed rigorously (Matthew 23:23), honored religious traditions (Matthew 23:29-31) and who fasted (Luke 18:12).

iii. Yet, from a human perspective, who would call anyone who seemed to have the credentials mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-5 a non-Christian? We might make that person an elder! From all human observation, we must say these are Christians spoken of in Hebrews 6:4-5.

iv. It is possible to display some fruit or spiritual growth, then to die spiritually, showing that the "soil of the heart" was never right (Mark 4:16-19).

v. So are they Christians? From a human perspective we would say they are. Yet, from God's perspective, it is impossible to say on this side of eternity.

d. For it is impossible … if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance: If these people are Christians or not, once they have come to this place, it is impossible for them to repent.

i. If these are just Christians who "lost their salvation," the terrible fact is that they can never regain it. This passage was used by some in the early church (like Montanists and Novatianists) to say that there was no possibility of restoration if one sinned significantly after their baptism.

ii. Others have explained it by saying that this is all merely a hypothetical warning, in light of Hebrews 6:9. So, they say, no one can really lose their salvation. But what good is it to warn someone against something that can't happen?

iii. Still others think that this penalty deals only with reward, not with salvation itself. They stress the idea that repentance is called impossible, not salvation.

iv. This difficult passage is best understood in the context of Hebrews 6:1-2. The writer to the Hebrews means that if they do retreat back to Judaism, all the religious "repentance" in the world will do them no good. Their forsaking of Jesus is tantamount to crucifying Him all over again, especially if they were to express their repentance in traditional Jewish forms: especially animal sacrifice, which denies the total work of Jesus for them on the cross.

e. If they fall away: Remember there is a great difference between falling and falling away. Falling away isn't just falling into some sin, it is actually departing from Jesus Himself. For a righteous man may fall seven times and rise again, but the wicked shall fall by calamity. (Proverbs 24:16) The difference is between a Peter and a Judas. If you depart from Jesus, there is no hope!

i. The message to these Christians who felt like giving up was clear: if you don't continue on with Jesus, don't suppose you will find salvation by just going on with the old basics that are common to Judaism; if you aren't saved in Jesus, you aren't saved!

ii. If one falls like this, does it mean they can't repent? That God prohibits their repentance? Remember first that repentance itself is a gift from God; no one genuinely repents without God's enabling. Second, if one does repent, that in itself is evidence that they have not truly fallen away.

iii. The idea is not that "if you fall away, you can't come back to Jesus ever," but that "if you turn your back on Jesus, don't expect to find salvation anywhere else, especially in the foundations of Judaism apart from the fullness of Jesus."

iv. "This passage has nothing to do with those who fear lest it condemns them. The presence of that anxiety, like the cry which betrayed the real mother in the days of Solomon, establishes beyond a doubt that you are not one that has fallen away beyond the possibility of renewal to repentance." (Meyer)

3. (7-8) An illustration of the serious consequences of falling away.

For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; but if it bears thorns and briars, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

a. For the earth which drinks in the rain … and bears herbs useful … receives blessing from God: When the earth receives rain, and then bears useful plants, it then fulfills its purpose and justifies the blessing of rain sent upon it. The writer to the Hebrews applies the point: "You've been blessed. But where's the fruit?" God is looking for what grows in us after He blesses us, especially what grows in terms of maturity.

b. But if it bears thorns and briars, it is rejected: If ground that is blessed by rain refuses to bear fruit, then who can blame the farmer for burning it?

c. The picture presented reminds us that growth and bearing fruit is important to keep from falling away. When we really bear fruit, we abide in Jesus (John 15:5) and in no danger of falling away.

C. Don't be discouraged!

1. (9) The writer admits he is being a little more harsh than he needs to be.

But, beloved, we are confident of better things concerning you, yes, things that accompany salvation, though we speak in this manner.

a. We are confident of better things concerning you: Though he spoke so severely, the writer to the Hebrews is confident that they really will continue on in Jesus, that their perseverance is one of the things that accompany salvation.

b. Though we speak in this manner: However, it would be wrong to take Hebrews 6:9 to mean the warnings in the previous verses were not serious, or warned of impossible things. If anything, verse nine is a verse of encouragement; these Christians are in danger of falling away not so much out of a calculated rebellion, as because of a depressing discouragement. They need to be warned, but they also need to be encouraged!

2. (10-12) Don't be discouraged into giving up on Jesus! God hasn't forgotten about you!

For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister. And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end, that you do not become sluggish, but imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

a. God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love: When we are discouraged, we often think God has forgotten all we have done for Him and His people. But God would cease to be God (He would be unjust) if He forgot such things. God sees and remembers.

i. How many lose sight of the fact that God sees their service? How many serve for the applause and attention of man, and are discouraged because it doesn't come?

b. We desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end: Keep up your good work; press on with that hope until the end; imitate those who inherit (not earn) God's promises. When we are discouraged as the Hebrew Christians were discouraged we can easily become sluggish. The writer to Hebrews encourages us like a coach, pressing us to press on.

c. But imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises: Imitate those who found the key to gaining God's promises - faith and patience, as demonstrated by Abraham.

i. But, praise God, Abraham did not have a perfect faith or a perfect patience! If Abraham had some of our weaknesses, then we can have some of his faith and patience.

d. Do not become sluggish: Don't let discouragement make you sluggish. It's that sluggish attitude that really makes us feel like giving up. First we lose the desire to press on then we lose the desire to go on.

i. You really don't have to give into discouragement. David encouraged himself in the Lord his God (1 Samuel 30:6, KJV). So can you! Encourage yourself in the Lord!

3. (13-18) Don't be discouraged: God's promises are reliable.

For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, saying, "Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you." And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.

a. After he had patiently endured: During this time of patient endurance, many Christians get attacked. They wonder if they too will obtain the promise. They often wonder "Will God really come through?"

b. After he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise: God came through for Abraham, even sealing His promise with an oath. In fact, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself. This oath showed that God's promises (like His character) are unchanging.

i. "This passage teaches us … that an oath may be lawfully used by Christians; and this ought to be particularly observed, on account of fanatical men who are disposed to abrogate the practices of solemn swearing which God has prescribed in his Law." (Calvin)

c. That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation: The two immutable (unchanging) things are God's promise and His oath. It is impossible for God to lie in either of these two things.

d. We might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us: Don't be discouraged! God has a refuge of hope ready for you. We can think of this refuge of hope are like the cities of refuge commanded by the Law of Moses, as described in Numbers 35.

i. Both Jesus and the cities of refuge are within easy reach of the needy person; they were of no use unless someone could get to the place of refuge.

ii. Both Jesus and the cities of refuge are open to all, not just the Israelite; no one needs to fear that they would be turned away from their place of refuge in their time of need.

iii. Both Jesus and the cities of refuge became a place where the one in need would live; you didn't come to a city of refuge in time of need just to look around.

iv. Both Jesus and the cities of refuge are the only alternative for the one in need; without this specific protection, they will be destroyed.

v. Both Jesus and the cities of refuge provide protection only within their boundaries; to go outside meant death.

vi. With both Jesus and the cities of refuge, full freedom comes with the death of the High Priest.

vii. However, there is a crucial distinction between Jesus and the cities of refuge. The cities of refuge only helped the innocent; the guilty can come to Jesus and find refuge.

4. (19-20) Don't be discouraged! Jesus will lead us into God's glory.

This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

a. This hope we have as an anchor: The anchor was a common figure for hope in the ancient world. Here it especially reminds us that we are anchored to something firm, but unseen (which enters the Presence behind the veil).

i. You don't need an anchor for calm seas. The rougher the weather, the more important your anchor!

ii. But the anchor analogy doesn't apply perfectly. We are anchored upward in heaven, not down in the ground; and we are anchored to move on, not to stand still!

b. Which enters the Presence behind the veil, where the forerunner has entered for us: This hope will see us into the very presence of God. Hope is the opposite of the discouragement these Jewish Christians have been battling against.

c. The forerunner … even Jesus: We are assured of this access into the presence of God because Jesus has entered as a forerunner. The Levitical high priest did not enter the veil as a forerunner, only as a representative. But Jesus has entered into the Father's intimate presence so that His people can follow Him there.

i. A forerunner (the ancient Greek word prodromos) was a reconnaissance man in the military. A forerunner goes forward, knowing that others are going to follow!

d. Behind the veil … having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek: The temple analogy (behind the veil) reminds the writer to the Hebrews that he was speaking of Jesus as our High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. The thought continues into the next chapter.

 

Ephesians 4:29 - NIV

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouth, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs. That it may benefit those who listen.

 

Hebrews 7

A Better Priesthood, a Better High Priest
A. The theme of Hebrews 7.

1. The writer to the Hebrews will explain a theme that he has introduced way back in Hebrews 2:17: Jesus as our High Priest.

a. He had begun to discuss the issue in Hebrews 5:10, but had to spend some time warning these discouraged Christians about the danger of not continuing and progressing in their Christian life.

2. These Jewish Christians would be very interested in Jesus as their High Priest, but would have a significant intellectual objection to the idea. This is because Jesus did not come from the priestly tribe (the tribe of Levi) or the priestly family (the family of Aaron).

a. The writer to the Hebrews wants to remove these intellectual problems the Jewish Christians had with the gospel. These intellectual hang-ups were keeping them from continuing on to maturity in Jesus.

b. In the same way, too many Christians are hung up on intellectual things that could be resolved so they could move on with Jesus. If a Christian is hung up on issues like creation and evolution, the validity of miracles, or other such things, they should get the issues resolved so they can move on with Jesus.

3. This chapter is also important because it shows us how we should think of the Old Testament institutions of the priesthood and the Law.

B. Melchizedek and his relation to the Aaronic priesthood.

1. (1-3) What we know of Melchizedek from Genesis 14:18-20.

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated "king of righteousness," and then also king of Salem, meaning "king of peace," without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

a. Who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings: After Abraham defeated the confederation of kings who took his nephew Lot captive, he met with a mysterious priest named Melchizedek, who was also king over the city of Salem (an ancient name for the city of Jerusalem).

i. History shows the danger of combining religious and civic authority. Therefore God forbade the kings of Israel to be priests and the priests to be kings. Melchizedek, who was king of Salem and priest of the Most High God is an unique exception.

b. Priest of the Most High God: Melchizedek was not merely a worshipper of the true God. He had the honored title priest of the Most High God. The greatness of God magnifies the greatness of Melchizedek's priesthood.

i. "Any priesthood is evaluated according to the status of the deity who is served, which means that Melchizedek's must have been of a highly exalted kind." (Guthrie)

c. And blessed him: Melchizedek blessed Abraham, and Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe, which is a tenth part of all. In this case, all refers either to all the spoils of battle, or all of Abraham's possessions in total.

d. First being translated "king of righteousness," and then also king of Salem, meaning "king of peace,": The name Melchizedek means "king of righteousness," and he was also king of peace (because the name Salem means "peace").

i. The order is subtle, but important. First, Melchizedek in his very name is called "king of righteousness". Then he is called "king of peace". As always, righteousness comes before peace. Righteousness is the only true path to peace. People look for that peace in escape, in evasion, or in compromise; but they will only find it in righteousness.

e. Without father, without mother: There is nothing said about the genealogy of Melchizedek in the Genesis 14 passage or anywhere else. As far as the Biblical record is concerned, he has no father or mother, no beginning of days nor end of life.

i. Though virtually all the commentators disagree with each other on this point, some think that without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God means that Melchizedek was a heavenly being, if not a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus Himself.

f. Made like the Son of God: Melchizedek was made like the Son of God. It really isn't that Jesus has Melchizedek's kind of priesthood. Instead, Melchizedek has Jesus' kind of priesthood.

i. Made like in Hebrews 7:3 is aphomoiomenos, a Greek word used nowhere else in the New Testament. "It is a suggestive word, used in the active of 'a facsimile copy or model' and in the passive of 'being made similar to.'" (Guthrie)

ii. "It was as if the Father could not await the day of His Son's priestly entrance within the veil; but must needs anticipate the marvels of His ministry, by embodying its leading features in miniature." (Meyer)

g. Remains a priest continually: Either this refers to the continuation of the priesthood of Melchizedek, or it is evidence that Melchizedek was actually Jesus appearing in the Old Testament. Jesus' priesthood does remain to this day, and into eternity.

2. (4-10) Melchizedek is greater than Abraham because Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, and because Melchizedek blessed Abraham.

Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

a. Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils … the sons of Levi … have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law: The priesthood of Levi received tithes from Israel as a commandment. Abraham voluntarily gave tithes to Melchizedek. This makes Abraham's giving to Melchizedek greater than Israel payment of tithes to the priesthood instituted by Moses.

b. Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him: Because the whole tribe of Levi was genetically in the loins of Abraham when he did this, we see the Levitical priesthood paying tithes to the priesthood of Melchizedek. This shows Melchizedek is in a position of authority over Abraham and his descendant Levi.

i. So to speak in Hebrews 7:9 is important. The writer to the Hebrews knows he is making an allegorical point, so he doesn't want to be taken too literally.

c. As well, the lesser is blessed by the greater. Therefore Melchizedek showed he was greater than Abraham when he blessed Abraham. On his part, Abraham accepted that Melchizedek was greater when he received the blessing.

i. "The blessing here spoken of … is not the simple wishing of good to others, which may be done by inferiors to superiors; but it is the action of a person authorized to declare God's intention to bestow good things on another." (Macknight, cited by Clarke)

C. The need for a new priesthood.

1. (11) The Levitical priesthood never made anything perfect.

Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

a. If perfection were through the Levitical priesthood: Why would God even make a different order of priesthood (displayed by Melchizedek) if the Levitical priesthood were entirely sufficient? If perfection could come through the Levitical priesthood, what need was there for another priesthood?

i. The simple fact that God describes a priest … according to the order of Melchizedek shows there is something lacking in the priesthood according to the order of Aaron.

b. Under it the people received the law: The Levitical priesthood is the priesthood associated with the Law of Moses. The priesthood of Melchizedek is associated with Abraham, not with Moses.

2. (12) The changing priesthood and the change of the place of Moses' Law.

For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

a. Of necessity: The priesthood of Aaron was connected to the Law of Moses. So if the priesthood is changed, we should anticipate some change of the Law's status or place.

3. (13-14) Jesus could not be a priest according to the Mosaic Law; He is from the wrong tribe.

For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.

a. Another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar: Under the Law of Moses, God strictly commanded that only those from the family of Aaron could serve at the altar in sacrifice.

b. He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe: Jesus is obviously not from the family of Aaron or even the tribe of Levi. The tribe of Judah (the tribe of Jesus' lineage) had nothing to do with Aaron's priesthood, the priesthood associated with the Law of Moses. Therefore according to the priesthood of Aaron and the Law of Moses, Jesus could never be a priest. If He is our High Priest, it must be under another principle.

4. (15-17) God's declaration that the Messiah belongs to another order of priesthood in Psalm 110:4.

And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies: "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek."

a. Not according to the law of a fleshly commandment: Jesus' priesthood is not based upon law or heredity (a fleshly commandment), but upon the power of God's endless life.

b. You are a priest forever: This could be said of the Messiah, who was a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. It could never be said of a priest according to the order of Aaron, none of whom had the power of an endless life and each of whom served a limited term as priests - limited to their own life-span.

c. Matthew 27:1 says: When morning came, all the chief priests and elders of the people plotted against Jesus to put Him to death. Among those who conspired to put Jesus to death, there were priests of the order of Aaron. But Jesus by the power of an endless life, Jesus showed that His priesthood was superior, when He triumphed over death!

5. (18-19) Why the law (the former commandment) is annulled as a means of establishing our relationship and access to God.

For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

a. In its weakness and unprofitableness, the law made nothing perfect, for while the law sets God's perfect standard, it gives no one the power to keep that standard.

i. *"Let all legalists mark this: The Law made nothing perfect. Let the Seventh Day Adventists mark: The Law made nothing perfect. Let all those who dream of the Law as a rule of life remember: The Law made nothing perfect." (Newell)

b. The law made nothing perfect: Therefore, the law is valuable as it shows us God's perfect standard, but it was not ultimately intended to be the basis of a man's walk with God. This is because the law is weak and unprofitable when it comes to saving my soul or giving me power over sin.

i. The law provides expert diagnosis of our sin problem, which is absolutely essential. But the law does not provide the cure to our sin problem. Only Jesus can save us from our sin problem.

c. On the other hand: Since now, in Jesus, we have a better hope, through which we draw near to God, we are wrong to go back to building our Christian walk on the law. Therefore the law is "annulled" in the sense that it no longer is the dominating principle of our life.

i. "The Greek word translated disannuling [annulling], athetesis, is the same as appears in Hebrews 9:26 for the putting away of sin 'by the sacrifice of Himself.' The disappearance of the Law is as absolute, therefore, as the putting away of sin!" (Newell)

ii. The law does not give you a better hope. The law does not draw you near to God the way God's grace given in Jesus does. Yet many Christians live a legal relationship with God, instead of a grace relationship with Him!

iii. "Although the law performed a valuable function, its essential weakness was that it could not give life and vitality even to those who kept it, let alone to those who did not. In fact its function was not to provide strength, but to provide a standard by which man could measure his own moral status. Its uselessness must not be regarded in the sense of being totally worthless, but in the sense of being ineffective in providing a constant means of approach to God based on a totally adequate sacrifice." (Guthrie)

d. The writer comes to the same conclusion about the law as Paul did in Galatians 3:19-25, but he gets there in a totally different way. In Galatians, Paul shows the law as being a tutor that brings us to Jesus; in Hebrews, the law is associated with a priesthood which has been made obsolete by a superior priesthood.

i. "Cease to think of cleansing, and consider the Cleanser; forbear to speculate on deliverance, and deal with the Deliverer." (Meyer)

e. But we have a better hope, and draw near to God through a better priesthood and High Priest. Our hope is in Jesus, not in the Law of Moses!

i. This should temper our excitement about the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. The small cadre of dedicated Jews absolutely committed to rebuilding the temple have an exciting place in God's prophetic plan. But anyone who restores the Aaronic priesthood and resumes Levitical sacrifice refuses to recognize the superior priesthood and ultimate sacrifice of Jesus.

D. The superiority of our High Priest.

1. (20-21) Jesus was made High Priest by the direct oath of God.

And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: "The LORD has sworn and will not relent, 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek'"),

a. They have become priests without an oath: The high priest of the order of Aaron was appointed by heredity, not by personal character. Not so with Jesus and the priestly order of Melchizedek! God even sealed His choice by an oath.

2. (22) Jesus: our guarantee of a better covenant.

By so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.

a. Jesus has become a surety: Surety (the ancient Greek word egguos) describes someone who gives security. It is a person who would cosign a loan to guarantee payment, or someone who puts up bail for a prisoner. Jesus Himself is the guaranteed of a better covenant.

b. A better covenant: The Old Covenant had a mediator (Moses), but no one to guarantee the people's side of the covenant; so they continually failed under it. But the New Covenant - a better covenant - has a cosigner on our behalf! Therefore, the New Covenant depends on what Jesus has done, not on what we have done. He is the surety, we are not.

c. Covenant: The word used for covenant (the ancient Greek word diatheke) is not the usual term for "covenant" (syntheke). The literal meaning of diatheke is closer to the idea of a "testament" in the sense of a "last will and testament." Perhaps the writer is trying to stress that while a covenant might be thought of as an agreement that two equal parties arrive at, a testament is dictated by the testator. The "agreement" under which we meet with God through Jesus is not something we have negotiated with Him. He has dictated the terms to us, and we will accept or reject the terms.

d. By so much more: This much more -the overwhelming superiority of Jesus Christ - proves He is worthy and able to be our guarantee, our cosigner of a better covenant.

3. (23-25) An unchanging priesthood means a lasting salvation.

Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

a. Also there were many priests: The priesthood under the Law of Moses constantly changed, and so could be better or worse through the years. But He … has an unchangeable priesthood. Jesus will never die, and has a permanent priesthood. We don't need to worry about a "bad priest" replacing Him!

b. Continues forever: This has the idea of "remaining as a servant." Jesus continues forever, and He continues as a servant, even after He ascended into heaven.

c. He is also able to save to the uttermost: The unchanging nature of Jesus' priesthood means that the salvation He gives is also unchanging, permanent, and secure. Most people read this verse as if it said Jesus is able to save fromthe uttermost. But it really says Jesus is able to save to the uttermost. Because He is our High Priest forever, He can save forever.

i. The evangelist Billy Sunday had a great sermon, where he talked about how God saved him "from the gutter-most," because he was a gutter-drunk when God saved him. A great line, but not true to what the Bible says - we are saved not from, but to the uttermost!

ii. "The verb 'to save' is used absolutely, which means that Christ will save in the most comprehensive sense; he saves from all that humanity needs saving from." (Morris)

d. Those who come to God through Him: This tells us who Jesus is able to save. It means those who abide in the Son and have fellowship with the Father.

i. Once saved always saved? Can a Christian lose his salvation? Abide in Jesus and you never need to worry about it.

e. He ever lives to make intercession for them: Certainly, this strengthens us - the knowledge that Jesus is praying for us, and that He ever lives to pray for us! How this would have encouraged these Jewish Christians who felt like giving up on the Christian life!

i. Romans 8:33-34 reflects how important Paul thought the intercessory work of Jesus was on our behalf. There, he pictures Jesus defending us against every charge or condemnation through His intercession for us.

ii. "Our blessed Lord is interceding for us, but He is in no sense appeasing God. All that God's holy Being and righteous government could demand was once for all, completely and forever, satisfied at the Cross." (Newell)

iii. Jesus' intercession on our behalf is not a matter of placating an angry Father who wants to destroy us. It is not a matter of continually chanting prayers on behalf of His people. It means He continually represents us before the Father, so that we can draw near through Him, and that He defends us against Satanic accusation and attack.

iv. Luke 22:31-32 gives an example of Jesus' intercession for His people: Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren. Jesus prays to strengthen us in trial and attack, and against Satan's accusations.

4. (26-28) Jesus is better qualified to be a High Priest than any priest from the order of the Law of Moses.

For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

a. For such a High Priest was fitting for us: The priests under the Law of Moses did not have the personal character of the Son of God. Jesus is holy, harmless (without guile or deception), undefiled, separate from sinners (in the sense of sharing in their sin). Jesus is far superior in His personal character than any earthly priest.

b. Has become higher than the heavens: The perfect character of Jesus is proven by two facts. First, by His exaltation in heaven. Second, by the fact that He did not need to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins - which the other priests needed to do daily!

c. For the law appoints as high priests men who have weaknesses: Under the Law of Moses, the priests were always men with weaknesses. But Jesus a Son who has been perfected forever. Because He is a perfect High Priest, He was able to offer up Himself as a perfect sacrifice for our sin. Jesus is perfectly qualified to be our perfect High Priest - perfected forever