Notes on

1 Corinthians
2 0 1 7 E d i t i o n
Dr. Thomas L. Constable

Introduction
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Corinth had a long history stretching back into the Bronze Age (before 1200 B.C.).1 In
Paul's day, it was a Roman colony, the capital of the province of Achaia, and "the fourth
perhaps in size in the empire."2 The population consisted of: Roman citizens who had
migrated from Italy, native Greeks, Jews (Acts 18:4), and other people from various
places who chose to settle there.
The ancient city of Corinth
enjoyed an ideal situation as a MACEDONIA
Philippi
commercial center. It stood *
* *
just southwest of the Isthmus Thessalonica
of Corinth, the land bridge Berea
that connected Northern
Greece and Southern Greece ASIA
(the Peloponnesus). This site ACHAIA
made Corinth a crossroads for Ephesus
trade by land, north and * *Athens *
Corinth
south, as well as by sea, east
and west.
In Paul's day, large ships
would transfer their cargoes
to land vehicles that would
cart them from the Corinthian
Gulf, west of the isthmus, to the Saronic Gulf, east of the isthmus, or vice versa. There,
stevedores would reload them onto other ships. If a ship was small enough, they would
drag the whole vessel across the four-and-a-half-mile isthmus, from one gulf to the other.
This did away with the long and dangerous voyage around the Peloponnesus by way of
Cape Malea. Later the Greeks cut a canal linking these two gulfs. Nero began this canal,
but it was finally completed in 1893.3

1See W. Harold Mare, "1 Corinthians," in Romans-Galatians, vol 10 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary,
pp. 175-76, for information helpful to most expositors.
2G. G. Findlay, "The First Epistle to the Corinthians," in The Expositor's Greek Testament, 2:730.
3C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 1. Cf. Flavius Josephus, The Wars
of the Jews, 3:10:9; J. S. Howson, in The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, p. 324, n. 7.

Copyright © 2017 by Thomas L. Constable

Published by Sonic Light: http://www.soniclight.com/
2 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"Her [Corinth's] colonies were spread over distant coasts in the East and
West; and ships came from every sea to her harbours. Thus she became
the common resort and the universal market of the Greeks."4

Corinth's strategic location brought commerce, and all that goes with it, to its populace:
wealth, a steady stream of travelers and merchants, and vice. In Paul's day, many of the
pagan religions included prostitution as part of the worship of their god or goddess.
Consequently fornication flourished in Corinth.

"Old Corinth had gained such a reputation for sexual vice that
Aristophanes (ca. 450-385 B.C.) coined the verb korinthiazo (= to act like a
Corinthian, i.e., to commit fornication)."5

". . . in our own literature 'a Corinthian' still means a polished rake."6

"The old city had been the most licentious city in Greece, and perhaps the
most licentious city in the Empire."7

The most notorious shrine was the Temple of Aphrodite, that stood on top of an
approximately 1,900 foot high mountain just south of the city, the Acrocorinthus.
Hundreds of female slaves served the men who "worshipped" there. The Greek
geographer Strabo wrote of 1,000 prostitutes, but this probably referred to the early
history of the old city, and it may have been an exaggeration.8 Other major deities
honored in Corinth included Melicertes, the patron of seafarers, and Poseidon, the sea
god.

"All of this evidence together suggests that Paul's Corinth was at once the
New York, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas of the ancient world."9

There were several other local sites of importance to the student of 1 Corinthians. These
included the bema ("judgment seat" or "platform"), the place where judges tried
important cases, including Paul's (Acts 18:12).10 Cenchrea, the port of Corinth on the
Saronic Gulf of the Aegean Sea, was the town from which Paul set sail for Ephesus
during his second missionary journey (Acts 18:18). Isthmia was another little town east
of Corinth, just north of Cenchrea, that hosted the Isthmian Games every two or three
years.11 These athletic contests were important in the life of the Greeks, and Paul referred
to them in this epistle (9:24-27).

4Ibid., p. 325.
5Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 2. See also David K. Lowery, "1 Corinthians," in
The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, p. 505, for other quotations about Corinth from
ancient writers.
6Findlay, 2:734.
7Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of
St Paul to the Corinthians, p. xii.
8See Fee, pp. 2-3.
9Ibid., p. 3.
10See the diagram of central Corinth in Mare, p. 186.
11Cf. Howson, p. 540.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 3

Paul had first arrived in Corinth from Athens, which lay to the east. In Corinth he
preached the gospel and planted a church. There, too, he met Priscilla and Aquila, Jews
who had recently left Rome. After local Jewish officials expelled the church from the
synagogue, it met in a large house next door that Titius Justus owned. Paul ministered in
Corinth for 18 months, probably in A.D. 51 and 52. He left, taking Priscilla and Aquila
with him to Ephesus. Paul then proceeded on to Syrian Antioch by way of Caesarea.
Returning to Ephesus on his third journey, Paul made that city his base of operations for
almost three years (A.D. 53-56). There he heard disquieting news about immorality in the
Corinthian church. Therefore he wrote a letter urging the believers not to tolerate such
conduct in their midst. Paul referred to this letter as his "former letter" (1 Cor. 5:9). It is
not extant today.
Then he heard from "Chloe's people" that factions had developed in the church (1:11). He
also received a letter from the church in Corinth requesting his guidance in certain
matters (7:1). These matters were: marriage, divorce, food offered to idols, the exercise
of spiritual gifts in the church, and the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem. Those
who carried this letter also reported other disturbing conditions in the church (5:1; 16:17).
These conditions were: the condoning rather than disciplining of immorality, Christians
suing one another in the pagan courts, and disorders in their church meetings.
These factors led Paul to compose another letter: "1 Corinthians." In it he dealt with the
problem of factions, promised to visit them soon, and said he was sending Timothy to
Corinth (chs. 1—4). Paul also included his responses to the Corinthians' questions about
what he had previously written. He next dealt with the oral reports (chs. 5—6), and then
with the questions that the Corinthian believers had written to him (chs. 7—16). Thus
1 Corinthians is an "occasional" epistle, namely, one occasioned by certain real
situations. Paul evidently sent this epistle from Ephesus, by trusted messengers, in the
late winter or early spring of A.D. 56 (cf. 16:8).12
It seems that a conflict had developed between the Corinthian church and its founder,
Paul. There was internal strife in the church, as the epistle makes clear. However, the
larger problem seems to have been that some in the community were leading the church
into a view of things that was contrary to that of Paul. This resulted in a questioning of
Paul's authority and his gospel (cf. Gal.). The key issue between Paul and the Corinthians
was what it means to be "spiritual."13
"It [1 Corinthians] is not the fullest and clearest statement of Paul's
Gospel; for this we must turn to Romans. Nor is it the letter that shows
Paul's own heart most clearly, for in this respect it is surpassed by
2 Corinthians, and perhaps by other epistles too. But it has the great value
of showing theology at work, theology being used as it was intended to be
used, in the criticism and establishing of persons, institutions, practices,
and ideas."14

12On the integrity of 1 Corinthians, see Donald A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New
Testament, pp. 442-44.
13See Fee, pp. 4-15.
14Barrett, p. 26.
4 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"If in Romans Paul resembles the modern professor of Biblical Theology,

in I Corinthians he resembles the pastor-teacher, faced with the care of the
church on the firing line of Christian warfare."15

"The letter is, in its contents, the most diversified of all St. Paul's Epistles
. . ."16

"No part of the Pauline corpus more clearly illuminates the character of
Paul the man, Paul the Christian, Paul the pastor, and Paul the apostle than
do these epistles [1 and 2 Corinthians]."17

"These two epistles constitute the most telling condemnation of arrogance,

self-promotion, boasting, and self-confidence in the Pauline corpus;
conversely, they describe in practical terms the nature of Christian life and
witness, emphasizing service, self-denial, purity, and weakness as the
matrix in which God displays his strength. Perhaps the high-water mark is
the emphasis on love as 'the most excellent way' (1 Cor. 12:31—13:13) all
Christians must pursue."18

PAUL'S CORINTHIAN CONTACTS

Paul's His The Paul's His
First Second Paul's
founding "former Corinthians' "painful "severe
Corinthians Corinthians anticipated visit
visit letter" letter to him visit" letter"

OUTLINE
I. Introduction 1:1-9
A. Salutation 1:1-3
B. Thanksgiving 1:4-9
II. Conditions reported to Paul 1:10—6:20
A. Divisions in the church 1:10—4:21
1. The manifestation of the problem 1:10-17
2. The gospel as a contradiction to human wisdom 1:18—2:5
3. The Spirit's ministry of revealing God's wisdom 2:6-16
4. The immature and carnal conditions 3:1-4
5. The role of God's servants 3:5-17
6. Human wisdom and limited blessing 3:18-23
7. The Corinthians' relationship with Paul ch. 4

15S. Lewis Johnson Jr., "The First Epistle to the Corinthians," in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1229.
16W. J. Conybeare, in The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, p. 380.
17Carson and Moo, p. 450.
18Ibid, p. 451.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 5

B. Lack of discipline in the church chs. 5—6

1. Incest in the church ch. 5
2. Litigation in the church 6:1-11
3. Prostitution in the church 6:12-20
III. Questions asked of Paul 7:1—16:12
A. Marriage and related matters ch. 7
1. Advice to the married or formerly married 7:1-16
2. Basic principles 7:17-24
3. Advice concerning virgins 7:25-40
B. Food offered to idols 8:1—11:1
1. The priority of love over knowledge in Christian conduct ch. 8
2. Paul's apostolic defense ch. 9
3. The sinfulness of idolatry 10:1-22
4. The issue of marketplace food 10:23—11:1
C. Propriety in worship 11:2-16
1. The argument from culture 11:2-6
2. The argument from creation 11:7-12
3. The argument from propriety 11:13-16
D. The Lord's Supper 11:17-34
1. The abuses 11:17-26
2. The correctives 11:27-34
E. Spiritual gifts and spiritual people chs. 12—14
1. The test of Spirit control 12:1-3
2. The need for varieties of spiritual gifts 12:4-31
3. The supremacy of love ch. 13
4. The need for intelligibility 14:1-25
5. The need for order 14:26-40
F. The resurrection of believers ch. 15
l. The resurrection of Jesus Christ 15:1-11
2. The certainty of resurrection 15:12-34
3. The resurrection body 15:35-49
4. The assurance of victory over death 15:50-58
G. The collection for the Jerusalem believers 16:1-12
1. Arrangements for the collection 16:1-4
2. The travel plans of Paul and his fellow apostles 16:5-12
IV. Conclusion 16:13-24
A. Final exhortations 16:13-18
B. Final greetings and benediction 16:19-24
6 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

MESSAGE
A phrase in 1 Corinthians 1:2 suggests the theme of this great epistle. That phrase is "the
church of God which is at Corinth." Two entities are in view in this phrase, and these are
the two entities with which the whole epistle deals. They are the church of God and the
city of Corinth. The church of God is a community of people who share the life of God,
are under the governing will of God, and cooperate in the work of God. The city of
Corinth was ignorant of the life of God, governed by self-will, and antagonistic to the
purposes of God. These two entities stand in vivid contrast to one another and account for
the conflict we find in this epistle. In the order in which Paul probably wrote them,
Galatians deals mainly with soteriology, 1 and 2 Thessalonians with eschatology, and
1 and 2 Corinthians with ecclesiology.

The "church of God" in view in this epistle is not the universal church but the local
church. These two churches are really not that different from one another. The local
church is the micro form of the universal church, and the universal church is the macro
form of the local church. What is true of one is true of the other. Whatever we find in a
local church exists on a larger scale in the universal church. Whatever we find in one
local church exists in many local churches. The New Testament consistently speaks of
the church as people, not buildings.

The Apostle Paul addressed these local church people as "believers," because that is what
they were (cf. 1 Thess. 5:5). They shared the life of God because the Holy Spirit indwelt
them (12:13). They had submitted to God's rule over them to some extent. They were
people whom God had commissioned to carry the gospel to every creature. We need to
bear these things in mind as we read about the church of God in Corinth, because we
might otherwise conclude that they were unbelievers in view of their conduct.

The city of Corinth is the other entity of primary importance in our grasping the major
significance of this epistle. What characterizes the world generally marked Corinth. In the
first century, when other people described a person as a Corinthian, they were implying
that lust, lasciviousness, and luxury characterized that one. These were the marks of
Corinth. Corinth as a city was ignorant of the true God, entirely self-governing as a
Roman colony, and self-centered in her world. These traits marked the lives of individual
unbelievers in Corinth as well. The city was going in the opposite direction from the
direction that God had called the church to go. The local culture always impacts the local
church.

My father wrote in a devotional booklet on 1 Corinthians, "It seems very often that those
communities which excel in the brightness of their shining are also characterized by the
darkness of their shadows."19

The atmosphere of this epistle is Paul's concept of the responsibilities of the church in
"the city" (its local culture). The apostle articulated this underlying emphasis in 1:9: "You
were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." Fellowship involves

19Robert L. Constable, Called Saints, devotional 3, page 2.

2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 7

both privilege and responsibility. On the one hand, all of God's resources are at our
disposal. On the other hand, all our resources should be at His disposal as well. The
church in any place has a debt to the people who live there to proclaim the gospel to them
(Rom. 1:14-16). Paul wrote this whole letter out of an underlying sense of the church's
responsibility for "the city" where it existed.

The church in Corinth was struggling to discharge its debt. It was failing in some very
important areas: in readiness, in courage, and in conviction to declare the gospel. The
Corinthian church was a carnal church. However, its carnality, as big a problem as that
was, was only part of a larger problem. The bigger problem was its failure to carry out its
God-given purpose in "the city," namely: to proclaim a powerful spiritual message to "the
city." The Christians could not fulfill their purpose unless they dealt with their carnality.
Why is carnality wrong? It is wrong, partially, because it keeps us from fulfilling the
purpose for which God has left us on this planet.

In this letter we discover the causes of this church's failure. Another major emphasis is
the secrets of the church's success. On the one hand, we find correctives of carnality. On
the other, we have construction of spirituality. We will consider the causes of failure first.

The first cause of failure was that the spirit of "the city" had invaded the church like a
virus. Every evil thing in the church to which Paul referred was prevalent in Corinth.
Three things merit particular mention.

One of the symptoms of Corinthian cultural influence was intellectual freedom. There
was much interest in intellectual speculation in Corinth, as there was in its neighbor city
of Athens. The phrase "Corinthian words" was a synonym for elaborate language in
Paul's day.20 Corinth glorified human wisdom. The Corinthians discussed and debated all
sorts of opinions. Each intellectual leader had his group of disciples. Discussion of every
subject under the sun prevailed with great diversity of opinion.

Unfortunately, this spirit of intellectualism had invaded the church. There was even a
veneration of human wisdom among the Christians. They had chosen their own Christian
leaders, whom they viewed as celebrities (ch. 1). Intellectual restlessness prevailed in the
church, as well as in the city. The believers sampled Christian teaching like the general
populace dabbled in philosophical argumentation. This extended to such fundamental
doctrines as the Resurrection (ch. 15). "Talk shows" would have been very popular in
Corinth.

Another evidence that "the city" had invaded the church was the moral laxity that
prevailed. Intellectual permissiveness led to the lowering of moral standards. When
people view any idea as legitimate, there are few moral absolutes. The worship of
"Aphrodite" on the mountain behind the city was extremely immoral, but the unsaved
citizens viewed this worship as perfectly acceptable. "Live and let live" could have been
their motto. Regrettably some Corinthians in the church were viewing morals the same
way (ch. 5). We face a similar spirit in our day.

20J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of St Paul, p. 170.

8 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

A third mark of the city's effect on the church was personal selfishness. In the city, every
person did what was right in his own eyes. The result was that there was very little
concern for other people and their welfare. One of the evidences of this attitude in the
church was the Christians' behavior when they assembled for fellowship and worship.
They were not sharing their food with one another (ch. 11). They were also interrupting
speakers in the meetings, rather than waiting for the speaker to finish what he had to say
(ch. 14). Where edification and order should have prevailed, self-glorification and chaos
reigned.

These were only symptoms of a deeper problem. The real root issue was that the church
had failed to recognize its uniqueness. The Christians had not grasped and retained some
central truths, that the apostles had taught them, that identified the essence of their
Christianity. Paul reminded them of these things in this epistle.

They had forgotten the central importance of the message of the Cross of Christ. This was
a message not subject to debate. It rested on eyewitness testimony and divine revelation,
not human speculation. Christians should unite around this message, share a common
commitment to it, and make it the subject of our proclamation. We should appreciate the
unity of the body of Christ while at the same time glorying in the diversity of its leaders.

The Corinthians had also forgotten the central importance of the power of the
resurrection of Christ. The same power that raised Christ from the dead is at work in
Christians today, to enable them to live morally pure lives. Immorality is not an option
for the believer. One of the most outstanding marks of a Christian should be moral purity.
Because Jesus Christ was pure, we should be pure. And because He was pure, we can be
pure.

The Corinthians had also forgotten the importance of Christ's command that we love one
another. Selfishness had invaded the church. The believers needed to put the welfare of
others, their fellow believers and their unsaved neighbors, before their own personal
inclinations and preferences.

One of the central revelations of this epistle, then, is that the church fails to fulfill her
function in her "city" (i.e., culture) when the spirit of "the city" invades her. The church
allows the spirit of "the city" to invade her when she forgets that God wants her to be
unique. The church fails when it adopts the ideas and activities of its environment rather
than those revealed for it in God's Word.

In view of this, Paul constantly appealed to his readers to be what they were in reality.
We are not the people that we once were. We are "saints" (1:2). We need to remember
that and act accordingly. We do not need to catch the spirit of our age. We need to correct
the spirit of our age. When the church catches the spirit of its age, it catches a disease and
becomes anemic, weak, and sickly. We avoid catching this spirit by staying spiritually
healthy and by constantly imbibing the message of the Cross. We do it by exercising the
power of the Resurrection, and by keeping others, rather than self, primary as we walk by
the Spirit.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 9

I have already begun to hint at the secrets of the church's success, which is the second
major revelation of this epistle.

The church must realize what it is to fulfill its function in its "city." We must appreciate
our life in Christ.

The life of the church is the life of an organism (ch. 12). It has "one Lord" whose life we
share. It has "one Spirit" who governs it: distributing abilities, assigning positions, and
determining results as He sees fit in view of God's overall purpose. The church has "one
God"—not many, as in Corinth—whose glory it should determine to promote. To the
extent that a church realizes these truths, it will be ready to be successful in the sight of
God. If it shares the spiritual life of her Lord, submits to the Spirit's leading, and seeks to
glorify God, it will succeed. By separating from the spirit of "the city," it can help and lift
"the city."

The law of the church must be the law of love. This is the opposite of the selfish outlook.
Paul emphasized the importance of love in chapter 13. It is no accident that Paul wrote
his classic chapter on love to this church, because the Corinthian church was sadly
lacking in love.

The power of the church is the resurrection life of Christ (ch. 15). We presently live
between two resurrections, the resurrection of Christ and our own resurrection. These
resurrections are literal realities. One has already taken place, and the other is yet to
come. Between these resurrections, the church must fulfill its function in the world. The
life that God has given to every believer is life that has power over death. One who
overcame death has given it to us. This life is essentially different from what unbelievers
possess. It is eternal, divine life. With such life, we can face any enemy as we serve God.
Even the final enemy, death, cannot hold us. It could not hold Him who gave us His life.

Not only must we appreciate the uniqueness of our life as a church to fulfill our function,
but we must also fulfill our function by invading "the city." Rather than allowing it to
invade us, we must "invade" it in order to be successful. We do this by proclaiming that
"Jesus is Lord." He is the only Lord. The proof of this is His resurrection. So who do we
promote: Christian celebrities, or the Savior?

We also fulfill our function by rebuking the immorality of "the city," not just by decrying
it but, what is more important, by overcoming it in our own lives. We do this by
demonstrating the power of Christ's life within us by living morally pure lives, by the
Spirit's enablement.

Third, we fulfill our function by counteracting the selfishness of our culture by practicing
genuine Christian love. This means living for the glory of God and the good of others,
rather than putting self first.

The church always fails when it becomes conformed to the maxims, methods, and
manners of its "city"—the world in which it lives. It always succeeds when it stands
10 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

separate from "the city" and touches it with its supernatural healing life. Christians have
always tended either to isolate themselves from the world or to compromise with the
world. We should live distinctively Christian lives in the world. Jesus, during His earthly
ministry, is our great example.

This epistle calls the church in every age to recognize its responsibility to its "city." The
church is responsible for the intellectual, moral, and social conditions in its "city."
Unfortunately, many churches believe they exist merely to conserve the life of their
members. We live in a cultural climate very similar to the one in which the Corinthian
Christians lived. It is a culture characterized by intellectual pluralism, situational ethics,
and personal selfishness. We face the same challenge the Corinthian believers did.
Consequently, what this epistle reveals is extremely relevant for us. We have
responsibility for how people in our "city" think, how they behave, and whom they
glorify. What they need is the message of the Cross delivered in the power of the
Resurrection.

This letter is also a call to separation.

First, we must separate from absolute intellectual freedom and willingly submit our
understanding and thinking to the revelation that God has given us in Scripture (chs. 1—
4). There is a growing belief that all religions lead to God. Increasingly we hear that it
does not matter too much what someone believes, because we will all supposedly end up
in the same place eventually. We need to counter that view with the revelation of the
exclusive way of salvation that God has provided for people who are hopelessly lost and
dead in their sins. Peter preached, "There is salvation in no other name . . ." (Acts 4:12).
Jesus said, "I am the way . . ." (John 14:6). Paul wrote, "There is one mediator . . ."
(2 Tim. 2:5).

God has also called us to separation from moral laxity. Our culture is playing down
personal morality and marital morality today. We need to proclaim the standards of God
in these areas, even though we may face strong opposition for doing so. Paul held these
standards up in chapters 5—7.

Likewise we need to separate from selfish living. We need to make a break with goals
and plans that are designed to glorify ourselves. Instead, we need to evaluate all of our
activities by the standard of chapter 13.

By way of application, we can conclude several things from these observations about the
emphases in this epistle.

First, the influence of the church is the influence of its individual members. The sum of
its individual members' influence is that church's influence. Everything that is true of the
church, therefore, is usually true of the individual believer in it, to some extent.

Second, there should be perpetual conflict between the church and "the city." If there is
no conflict, the church is not having its proper influence. It may be that "the city" has
invaded the church.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 11

Third, the message of the church must always be the message of the Cross and the
Resurrection. This is a message of failure and success, of success out of failure. That is
the message of hope "the city" needs to hear. Consequently, we need to "be steadfast,
immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord," because we know that our labor
is not in vain in the Lord (15:58).21

21Adapted from G. Campbell Morgan, Living Messages of the Books of the Bible, 2:1:111-28.
12 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Exposition
I. INTRODUCTION 1:1-9

To begin his letter, Paul greeted the Christians in Corinth and expressed gratitude to God
for them. This positive and complimentary introduction contrasts with the generally
critical spirit of the epistle that follows. Paul began with praise and commendation for his
readers' good qualities, as was his typical practice. He knew this congregation well,
having lived in Corinth for 18 months. The fact that he referred to "Jesus Christ" (or
"Christ Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ" or "Christ" or "Jesus Christ our Lord") nine times in
these first nine verses shows the central place that the Lord Jesus occupied in the apostle's
thinking and writing that follows.

A. SALUTATION 1:1-3

The Apostle Paul began this epistle, as he did his others, by identifying himself and a
fellow worker known to the readers. Then he identified and described the recipients of
the letter and greeted them with a benediction. This is the most extensive elaboration of
an address that we have in Paul's letters.

1:1 Paul's description of himself as one whom God had "called" to be "an
apostle of Jesus Christ" reminded his original readers of his privilege and
authority (cf. Rom. 1:1). The idea of authority received added strength
from the reference to "the will of God" (cf. 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1;
2 Tim. 1:1).

"Sosthenes" was probably the same Sosthenes who was the ruler of the
synagogue in Corinth (Acts 18:17). He was with Paul in Ephesus when
Paul penned this epistle. Though Luke did not record his conversion in the
Book of Acts, Sosthenes quite clearly became a believer, assuming this
was the same man. Probably he was the same man, and Paul referred to
him because the Corinthians knew him well. Sosthenes was probably not
the co-writer or amanuensis of this epistle, but only Paul's companion who
joined Paul in sending it to Corinth.22

1:2 Paul frequently referred to all the Christians in a particular locality as "the
church of God in that place" (cf. 11:16). However, to the Corinthian
church, where party spirit was a problem, this reminder focused on the
church's true Lord ("their Lord and ours"). This was not the church of
Cephas (Peter), or Apollos, or even Paul, each of whom had their admirers
in Corinth. There may or may not have been more than one house-church
in Corinth at this time.23

22Findlay, 2:758.
23Craig S. Keener, 1—2 Corinthians, p. 21, believed there were many.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 13

God had set the Corinthians apart from sin (but not from other sinners) to
be His holy people, by uniting them with Him through faith in His Son (cf.
John 17:17). "Sanctified" (set apart) may be a metaphor for conversion
here (cf. v. 30; 6:11). They were "saints" (Gr. hagios, holy) "by" divine
"calling" (i.e., positional sanctification; cf. Rom. 1:7; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1;
Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:2).

"All of mankind is divided between the 'saints' and the

'ain'ts.' If you 'ain't' in Christ, then you are an 'ain't.' If you
are in Christ, then you are a 'saint.'"24

The Corinthians were not saintly in their conduct (i.e., progressive

practical sanctification), as this letter makes clear. Perhaps Paul mentioned
their saintly "calling" to inspire them to be more saintly in their conduct.
They were saints who were sinning.25

"Biblical sanctification is fourfold: (1) primary, equivalent

to the 'efficacious grace' of systematic theology (cf. II
Thess 2:13; I Pet 1:2); (2) positional, a perfect standing in
holiness, true of all believers from the moment of
conversion (cf. Acts 20:32; 26:18); (3) progressive,
equivalent to daily growth in grace (cf. Jn 17:17; Eph 5:26;
II Cor 7:1); (4) prospective, or ultimate likeness to Christ
positionally and practically (cf. I Thess 5:23). The use of
the perfect participle here refers to positional
sanctification."26

"Paul understands Christian ethics in terms of 'becoming

what you are,' a perspective that emerges in 1 Corinthians
in a number of ways. . . .

"Perhaps the single greatest theological contribution of our

letter to the Christian faith is Paul's understanding of the
nature of the church, especially in its local expression. If
the gospel itself is at stake in the Corinthians' theology and
behavior, so also is its visible expression in the local
community of redeemed people. The net result is more
teaching on the church here than in any of Paul's letters."27

The saints "in every place" are probably those in churches in other places,
some of whom had come to the Savior through the witness of Christians
other than Paul. This seems more likely than that they were just Paul's

24J.Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee, 5:4-5.

25See Robert L. Saucy, "'Sinners' Who Are Forgiven or 'Saints' Who Sin?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608
(October-December 1995):400-12.
26Johnson, p. 1230.
27Fee, pp. 17-18.
14 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

converts near Corinth (cf. 2 Cor. 1:1; Rom. 16:1). This seems probable in
view of "every place" (NASB) or "everywhere" (NIV), and in view of how
this verse ends. Paul evidently wanted his readers to remember that they
were part of a large body of believers (cf. 12:12); they were not the only
church. They needed to fit into the family of God harmoniously, rather
than being a rebel congregation.

Calling "on the name of . . . Christ" means confessing faith in Him,

worshipping, and praying to Him (cf. Rom. 10:13-14).

1:3 This greeting is characteristically Christian (cf. Rom. 1:7; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal.
1:3). It sums up Paul's whole theological outlook.

B. THANKSGIVING 1:4-9

Paul followed his salutation with an expression of gratitude for his original readers, as he
usually did in his epistles. In this case, the focus of his thanksgiving was on God's grace
(help) in giving the Corinthians such great spiritual gifts (cf. Eph. 1:3-14). The Corinthian
church was weak in its spirituality, but it was strong in its giftedness. The believers were
blessed by the Spirit, but they were not walking by the Spirit (cf. Gal. 5:16).

"What is remarkable here is the apostle's ability to thank God for the very
things in the church that, because of the abuses, are also causing him
grief."28

1:4 Paul was grateful that God had poured out His unmerited favor and divine
enablement (i.e., His "grace") on the Corinthian believers through "Christ
Jesus." He usually referred to the Lord as "Christ Jesus" rather than as
Jesus Christ. This put the emphasis on His divine character as Messiah,
rather than on His human nature, and encouraged his readers to submit to
Him as their Lord.

1:5 By "speech" (NASB) or "speaking" (NIV; Gr. logos), the apostle meant
eloquence, the ability to express their "knowledge" (Gr. gnosis) fluently
and effectively. As we shall see, knowledge and eloquence were two
things the Corinthians valued very highly. These characteristics appear, by
their usage in this letter and in 2 Corinthians, to have been common
buzzwords in Corinth. Logos occurs 26 times in 1 and 2 Corinthians,
compared to 58 times in Paul's other epistles, and gnosis appears 16 times
in these two epistles, but only seven times in all of Paul's other writings.
Paul had to put these gifts in their proper place among the other gifts.
Nevertheless they were great gifts, and Paul was thankful that God had
given them to the Corinthians.

28Ibid., p. 36.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 15

1:6 The Corinthians' reception of these gifts had corroborated the truthfulness
of the gospel. Giving these gifts was one of the ways God validated
("confirmed") the gospel message in the early history of the church (cf.
Gal. 3:2-5; Heb. 2:3-4).

1:7 God had blessed the Corinthians greatly with spiritual gifts. Note that Paul
praised his readers for their gifts ("you are not lacking in any gift"), but
not their behavior. Ancient orators typically praised their audiences for
both.29 But Paul could not do that. The revealing ("revelation") of "the
(our) Lord Jesus Christ" to His saints at the Rapture would be God's
greatest gift to them. The early Christians awaited His return eagerly. This
reference to the Rapture is one of many indications that the apostles taught
the imminent (i.e., any moment) return of the Lord for His own (cf. 4:5;
15:51-52; 16:22; Phil. 3:20; 4:5; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2 Thess. 1:10-12; Titus
2:13; James 5:7-9; 1 John 2:28; Rev. 3:11; 22:7, 12, 17, 20).30

"Three words are prominently employed in connection with

the return of the Lord: (1) Parousia, also used by Paul of
the coming of Stephanas (1 Cor. 16:17), of Titus (2 Cor.
7:6, 7), and of his own coming to Philippi (Phil. 1:26). The
word means personal presence, and is used of the return of
the Lord as that event relates to the blessing of Christians
(1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Th. 4:14-17) and to the destruction of the
man of sin (2 Th. 2:8). (2) Apokalupsis, employed here, and
meaning unveiling, revelation. This word emphasizes the
visibility of the Lord's return. It is used of the Lord (2 Th.
1:7; 1 Pet. 1:7, 13; 4:13), of the sons of God in connection
with the Lord's return (Rom. 8:19), and of the man of sin
(2 Th. 2:3, 6, 8), and always implies perceptibility. And (3)
epiphaneia, translated 'brightness' (2 Th. 2:8) or
'manifestation' in some other versions. It means an
appearing, and is used of both advents (first advent, 2 Tim.
1:10; second advent, 2 Th. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8;
Ti. 2:13)."31

1:8 By God's sustaining power, Christians will stand free of guilt

("blameless") before Him on that "day." "The day of the (our) Lord Jesus
Christ" is the Rapture (cf. Phil. 1:6; Col. 3:4; 1 Thess 3:13; 5:23; et al.). It
is not the day of the Lord, which is a term both Old and New Testament
writers used to refer to the period beginning with the Tribulation and
extending through the Millennium.

29Keener, p. 22.
30See Wayne A. Brindle, "Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture," Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630
(April-June 2001):146-48.
31The New Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1233.
16 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"The expression 'the day of our Lord Jesus Christ,'

identified with 'the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ' (v. 7),
is the period of blessing for the Church beginning with the
rapture. This coming day is referred to as 'the day of the
Lord Jesus' (1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14), 'the day of Jesus
Christ' (Phil 1:6), and 'the day of Christ' (Phil. 1:10; 2:16).
('The day of Christ' in 2 Th. 2:2 should be rendered 'the day
of the Lord.') 'The day of Christ' in all six references in the
N.T. is described as relating to the reward and blessing of
the Church at the rapture and in contrast with the
expression 'the day of the Lord' (cp. Isa. 2:12, marg.; Joel
1:15, note; Rev. 19:19, note), which is related to judgment
upon unbelieving Jews and Gentiles, and blessing on
millennial saints (Zeph. 3:8-20)."32

The Greek word translated "blameless" (anegkletos) means not reprovable

or without accusation (cf. Col. 1:22; 1 Tim. 3:10; Titus 1:6-7). It does not
imply that at the judgment seat of Christ there will be complete equality
among believers (cf. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 5:10). Moreover, it does not mean
that once God regenerates a person, that individual never sins again (cf.
1 John 1:6-10). It means that every Christian will stand before the Lord
guiltless, unimpeachable, because God has imputed the guilt of our sins to
the Savior, and He has borne them (cf. Rom. 5:1; 8:1).

1:9 Paul's confidence that his readers would one day stand without guilt before
the Lord did not rest on the Corinthians' ability to persevere faithfully to
the end. It rested on God's ability and promises to preserve them. God had
begun the good work of calling them "into fellowship with His Son," and
He would be "faithful" to complete that work (cf. Phil. 1:6; 1 John 1:1-4).

"Fellowship" is a matter of degree. We enjoy more or less fellowship with

a variety of individuals in our various circles of acquaintances. The
Corinthians' fellowship with Christ began when they trusted Him as their
Savior. But Paul's major concern, in this epistle, was that they would enjoy
deeper, more intimate, and more satisfying fellowship with Christ, as they
dealt with things that were limiting that fellowship. Christians have more
or less fellowship with Christ to the extent that they trust and obey Him
(cf. 1 John 1:3).

". . . God is the subject of all the actions of the thanksgiving. And in every
case that work is mediated by or focused on 'his Son Jesus Christ our
Lord.' Thus the christological emphasis that began in the salutation is
carried through in an even more emphatic way in this introductory
thanksgiving. Everything God has done, and will do, for the Corinthians is
done expressly in 'Jesus Christ our Lord.'

32Ibid.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 17

"His concern here is to redirect their focus—from themselves to God and

Christ and from an over-realized eschatology to a healthy awareness of the
glory that is still future."33

An over-realized eschatology is an understanding of the future that stresses present

realities to the exclusion of related future realities. For example, an over-realized view of
the resurrection emphasizes the believer's present spiritually resurrected condition to the
exclusion of his or her future physical resurrection.

The apostle's confidence in God, as he expressed this in these verses (vv. 4-9), enabled
him to deal with the problems in the Corinthian church optimistically and realistically.
God was for the Corinthians. Now they needed to orient themselves properly toward
Him.

II. CONDITIONS REPORTED TO PAUL 1:10—6:20

The warm introduction to the epistle (1:1-9) led Paul to give a strong exhortation to unity.
In this exhortation, he expressed his reaction to reports of serious problems, in the
Corinthian church, that had reached his ears.

"Because Paul primarily, and in seriatim fashion, addresses behavioral

issues, it is easy to miss the intensely theological nature of 1 Corinthians.
Here Paul's understanding of the gospel and its ethical demands—his
theology, if you will—is getting its full workout.

". . . the central issue in 1 Corinthians is 'salvation in Christ as that

manifests itself in the behavior of those "who are being saved."' This is
what the Corinthians' misguided spirituality is effectively destroying.

"Thus three phenomena must be reckoned with in attempting a theology of

this Letter: (1) Behavioral issues ( = ethical concerns) predominate. . . .
(2) Even though Paul is clearly after behavioral change, his greater
concern is with the theological distortions that have allowed, or perhaps
even promoted, their behavior. This alone accounts for the unusual nature
of so much of the argumentation. . . . (3) In every case but two (11:2-16;
chaps. 12—14), Paul's basic theological appeal for right behavior is the
work of Christ in their behalf."34

A. DIVISIONS IN THE CHURCH 1:10—4:21

The first major problem that Paul addressed was the divisions that were fragmenting this
church.

33Fee, p. 46.
34Idem, "Toward a Theology of 1 Corinthians," in Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 38-39.
18 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

". . . this opening issue is the most crucial in the letter, not because their
'quarrels' were the most significant error in the church, but because the
nature of this particular strife had as its root cause their false theology,
which had exchanged the theology of the cross for a false triumphalism
that went beyond, or excluded, the cross."35
"Amongst the four Evangelical Epistles [i.e., Romans, 1 Corinthians,
2 Corinthians, and Galatians], this is the epistle of the cross in its social
application."36
"Triumphalism" is the belief that Christians are triumphing now over sin and its
consequences—to the exclusion of persecution, suffering, and some human limitations. It
is sometimes, and it was in Corinth, an evidence of an over-realized eschatology, which
is that we have already entered into certain blessings of salvation that really lie ahead of
us in the eschaton (end times). Prosperity theology is one popular form of triumphalism.

1. The manifestation of the problem 1:10-17

The surface manifestation of this serious problem was the party spirit that had developed.
Members of the church were appreciating their favorite leaders too much, and not
appreciating the others enough. This was really a manifestation of self-exaltation. They
boasted about their teachers of wisdom in order to boast about themselves.
1:10 By exhorting his readers "in the name of their (our) Lord Jesus Christ,"
Paul was putting what he was about to say on the highest level of
authority. This is the tenth reference to Jesus Christ in the first ten verses
of the epistle. Clearly Paul was focusing the attention of his audience on
Christ, who alone deserves the preeminence. The Corinthians were to
regard what he was about to say as coming from the Lord Himself.
"That the true source of the Corinthians' illicit behavior is
bad theology—ultimately a misunderstanding of God and
his ways—is evident from the beginning, especially with
Paul's use of crucifixion language in 1:10—2:16."37
Bad theology usually lies behind bad behavior. There was already
disagreement among members of the congregation, but there was not yet
division in the sense of a church split. Paul urged his original readers to
unite in their thinking ("that you all agree . . . in the same mind"). The
Greek word katartizo, translated "made complete," describes the mending
of nets in Mark 1:19. Paul wanted them to take the same view of things, to
have "the same mind" (cf. Phil. 2:2), and to experience unanimity in their
judgment of what they needed to do ("be made complete . . . in the same
judgment").

35Idem, The First . . ., p. 50.

36Findlay,2:739.
37Fee, "Toward a . . .," p. 41.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 19

". . . there is nothing more out of keeping for Christians

than their being divided from each other. For the most
important principle of our religion is this, that we be in
concord among ourselves."38

"The gospel that effects eschatological salvation also brings

about a radical change in the way people live. This is the
burden of this letter and the theological presupposition
behind every imperative. Therefore, although apocalyptic-
cosmological language is also found, salvation is expressed
primarily in ethical-moral language.39

1:11 Today no one knows exactly who "Chloe" was. She evidently had a
household or business that included servants, some of whom had traveled
to Corinth, and had returned to Ephesus carrying reports of conditions in
the Corinthian church. They had eventually shared this news with Paul.
Quarrels and dissension should never characterize the church (cf. Gal.
5:20).

"When I was a pastor in Pasadena, we had a nursery room

for babies, and we called it The Bawl Room. I have learned
that in some churches the entire church is a bawl room,
because of the bawling baby Christians."40

1:12 The Corinthians had overdone the natural tendency to appreciate some of
God's servants more than others based on their own personal qualities or
the blessings they had imparted.

It was normal that some would appreciate "Paul," since he had founded
the church, and had ministered in Corinth with God's blessing for 18
months. "Apollos" had followed Paul there, and was especially effective in
refuting Jewish unbelievers, and in showing that Jesus was the Messiah.
He was a gifted apologist and orator (Acts 18:24-28).

There is no scriptural record that Peter ever visited Corinth, though he

may have. "Cephas" is the Hellenized form of the Aramaic kepa, meaning
"rock" (cf. John 1:42). Since Peter was the leading apostle to the Jews, it is
understandable that many of the early Christians, especially the Jewish
believers, would have venerated him. Some may have been his converts.41
A fourth group apparently professed loyalty to no human leader, but
boasted of their allegiance to "Christ" alone. Perhaps they had had some
personal contact with Jesus in Judea. They appear to have regarded

38John Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians, p. 25.
39Fee,"Toward a . . .," p. 47.
40McGee, 5:8.
41Findlay, 2:764.
20 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

themselves as the most spiritual element in the church. They had devised
their own brand of spiritual elitism that made them no better than the
others.

1:13 This last group was using "Christ" as the name of a party within the
church. This, in a sense, "cut" Him "off" from the other members of the
church. Such an idea was unthinkable, and by stating it, Paul showed its
absurdity.

Next Paul addressed his own supporters. How foolish it was to elevate him
over Christ, since Christ did what was most important (was "crucified for"
them). Note the central importance of the Cross in Paul's thinking. Paul's
followers had not submitted to water baptism in order to identify with
Paul, but to identify with the Savior. This reference shows how highly
Paul regarded water baptism. It is God's specified way for the believer to
identify publicly with his or her Lord (Matt. 28:19; cf. Acts 8:16; 19:5;
Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). It implies turning over allegiance to the One named
in the rite.

"It is unsafe to infer from such expressions as this (cf. Acts

x. 48, xix. 5 . . . that the formula of baptism in the name of
the Trinity (as commanded Matt. xxviii. 19) was dispensed
with, and the name of Jesus alone pronounced. Baptism in
or into the name of Jesus is to be regarded as an abridged
expression to signify Christian baptism, retaining the
characteristic element in the formula."42

1:14 "Crispus" was the ruler of the synagogue in which Paul preached when he
first came to Corinth (Acts 18:8). "Gaius" may be the same person as
Titius Justus. This man was a Gentile convert who lived next door to the
synagogue, and who opened his home to the church after the Christians
could no longer meet in the synagogue (Acts 18:7; Rom. 16:23).

"Gaius Titius Justus would be a complete Roman name

(praenomen, nomen gentile, cognomen)."43

Some Christians contend that water baptism is essential for salvation. If it

is, it would seem natural that Paul would have emphasized its importance
by personally baptizing more than just two new believers in Corinth (cf.
John 4:2).

1:15 Paul deliberately did not baptize most of his converts, so that there would
be no question as to whose disciples they were ("no one would say you
were baptized in my name"). This was one way he kept Christ central in

42Lightfoot, p. 155.
43F. F. Bruce, ed., 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 34.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 21

his ministry. Paul believed baptism was important, but each baptism was
just as valid whether he, or any other believer, administered it. He was not
superior to other believers in this respect.

1:16 The members of Stephanas' family ("household of") were the first converts
in the Roman province of Achaia (16:15). It was unimportant to Paul
whom he personally baptized; he was not keeping score. This is clear
because he temporarily forgot (cf. v. 14) that he had baptized these people.
As he continued to write, the Lord brought them to mind.

"Paul casts no reflection on baptism, for he could not with

his conception of it as the picture of the new life in Christ
(Rom. 6:2-6), but he clearly denies here that he considers
baptism essential to the remission of sin or the means of
obtaining forgiveness."44

1:17 Baptizing is part of the Great Commission that all Christians are
responsible to carry out (Matt. 28:19). Paul's point was that "preach[ing]
the gospel" is more important than baptizing. He used a figure of speech,
litotes, for emphasis. In litotes, a writer makes a negative statement to
emphasize the positive alternative. For example, "No small storm" (Acts
27:20), means a very large storm. Paul would hardly have said what he did
if baptism were necessary for salvation.

"What he does here is simply to point out the chief thing in

his calling."45

"Cleverness of speech" (NASB) and "words of human wisdom" (NIV)

greatly impressed the Greeks.

"The Greeks were intoxicated with fine words; and to them

the Christian preacher with his blunt message seemed a
crude and uncultured figure, to be laughed at and ridiculed
rather than to be listened to and respected."46

One of the features of "Paul," "Apollos," Peter ("Cephas"), and "Christ,"

that made them attractive to various segments of the Corinthian church,
was evidently their individual oratorical styles. Later, Paul pointed out that
the Corinthian Christians were viewing things through carnal eyes,
namely, seeing things as unsaved people do (3:1-4). Paul did not
emphasize or place confidence in the method of his preaching, but rather
in the message of "the Cross." He did not want to draw attention away
from the gospel message to his style of delivering that message.

44A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 4:76.

45Calvin,p. 31.
46William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians, p. 22.
22 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"Paul represents himself as a preacher, not as an orator.

Preaching is the proclamation of the cross; it is the cross
that is the source of its power."47

"The Gospel's appeal is not to man's intellect, but to his

sense of guilt by sin. The cross clothed in wisdom of words
vitiates this appeal. The Gospel must never be presented as
a human philosophical system; it must be preached as a
salvation."48

"But what if someone in our day speaks in rather brilliant

fashion, and makes the teaching of the Gospel sparkle with
his eloquence? Should he be rejected on that account, as if
he spoiled it, or obscured the glory of Christ? I answer first
of all that eloquence is not in conflict with the simplicity of
the Gospel at all, when, free from contempt of the Gospel it
not only gives it first place, and is subject to it, but also
serves it as a handmaid serves her mistress."49

This verse provides a transition into the next section of the epistle, in
which Paul contrasted God's wisdom and human wisdom.

"With this observation Paul is fully launched on his epistle.

As in Romans (cf. i. 16 ff.), mention of the Gospel sets his
thought and language in motion."50

The crux of the Corinthians' party spirit lay in their viewing things as unbelievers did,
specifically Christian preachers and teachers. They failed to see the important issues at
stake in ministry, and instead paid too much attention to external, superficial matters.
This was a serious condition, so Paul invested many words in the following section to
deal with it (1:18—4:21). This is still a major problem for many Christians worldwide,
who have been too influenced by the attention given to celebrities in their respective
cultures.

2. The gospel as a contradiction to human wisdom 1:18—2:5

Paul set up a contrast between cleverness of speech (impressive oratory) and the Cross in
verse 17. Next he developed this contrast with a series of arguments. Boasting in men
impacts the nature of the gospel. He pointed out that the gospel is not a form of sophia
(human wisdom). Its message of a crucified Messiah does not appeal to human wisdom
(1:18-25). Second, its recipients are not especially wise in the eyes of humanity (1:26-
31). Third, Paul's preaching was not impressive in its human wisdom, but it bore
powerful results (2:1-5).

47Barrett, p. 49.
48Johnson, p. 1231.
49Calvin, p. 34.
50Barrett, p. 49.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 23

"There are . . . three particularly important expository passages in

1 Corinthians. They may be regarded as the letter's principal theological
discourses and as such deserve special attention.

"These three key discourses deal, respectively, with the wisdom of the
cross (1:18—2:16), the nature of Christian community (12:4—13:13), and
the resurrection of the dead (chap. 15). In each instance Paul's reflections
on the topic are deliberate and focused, and lead him to develop a more or
less extended and coherent argument. Moreover, each of these passages
occurs at an important point within the overall structure of the letter. The
discourse on wisdom, situated prominently at the beginning of the letter,
supports the apostle's urgent appeals for unity (1:10—4:21). It can be
argued that the discourse on Christian community undergirds, directly or
indirectly, all of the counsels and instructions in chaps. 8 through 14. And
the discourse on resurrection, a response to those who claim that 'there is
no resurrection of the dead' (15:12), is located prominently at the end of
the letter."51

"In this part of the [first] discourse [i.e., 1:18—2:5] the argument proceeds
in three steps: Paul makes his main point in 1:18-25, confirms it in 1:26-31
with an appeal to the Corinthians' own situation, and then further confirms
it in 2:1-5 with reference to what and how he had preached in Corinth.

"The apostle's thesis is registered first in 1:18 and then twice restated (in
1:21 and 1:23-24).52

Superficial displays of erudite oratory, which to the Corinthians appeared to be

demonstrations of wisdom, impressed them too greatly. Paul pointed out that the wisdom
of God, the gospel of Christ, had power that mere worldly wisdom lacked.

The folly of a crucified Messiah 1:18-25

"This paragraph is crucial not only to the present argument (1:10—4:21)

but to the entire letter as well. Indeed, it is one of the truly great moments
in the apostle Paul. Here he argues, with OT support, that what God had
always intended and had foretold in the prophets, he has now
accomplished through the crucifixion: He has brought an end to human
self-sufficiency as it is evidenced through human wisdom and devices."53

1:18 The "message ("word"; logos) of the Cross," in contrast to the speech
(logos) of human wisdom (v. 17), has the Cross as its central theme. When
people hear it, it produces opposite effects, in those "who are" on the way
to perdition ("perishing"), from those on the way to glory ("who are being

51Victor Paul Furnish, "Theology in 1 Corinthians," in Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, p. 63.
52Ibid.,p. 65.
53Fee, The First . . ., p. 68.
24 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

saved"). Paul contrasted "foolishness" and weakness with wisdom and

"power" (cf. Rom. 1:16).

"What would you think if a woman came to work wearing

earrings stamped with an image of the mushroom cloud of
the atomic bomb dropped over Hiroshima?

"What would you think of a church building adorned with a

fresco of the massed graves at Auschwitz? . . .

"The same sort of shocking horror was associated with

cross and crucifixion in the first century."54

1:19 Paul's quotation of Isaiah 29:14 ("I will destroy the wisdom of the wise
. . .") shows that it has always been God's method to expose the folly of
merely human wisdom.

1:20 The first three questions in this verse ("Where is the wise man" . . . the
scribe? . . . the debater of this age?") recall similar questions that Isaiah
voiced when the Assyrians' plans to destroy Jerusalem fell through (Isa.
33:18; cf. Job 12:17; Isa. 19:12). Paul's references to "this age" (Gr. aion)
and "the world" (kosmos) clarify that here he was speaking of purely
natural "wisdom," in contrast to the wisdom that God has revealed. God's
wisdom centers on the Cross.

"In first-century Corinth, 'wisdom' was not understood to

be practical skill in living under the fear of the Lord (as it
frequently is in Proverbs), nor was it perceived to be some
combination of intuition, insight, and people smarts (as it
frequently is today in the West). Rather, wisdom was a
public philosophy, a well-articulated world-view that made
sense of life and ordered the choices, values, and priorities
of those who adopted it. The 'wise man,' then, was someone
who adopted and defended one of the many competing
public world-views. Those who were 'wise' in this sense
might have been Epicureans or Stoics or Sophists or
Platonists, but they had this in common: they claimed to be
able to 'make sense' out of life and death and the
universe."55

". . . man with all his shrewdness is as stupid about

understanding by himself the mysteries of God as an ass is
incapable of understanding musical harmony."56

54D.A. Carson, The Cross & Christian Ministry, p. 12.

55Ibid.,
pp. 15-16.
56Calvin, p. 38.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 25

1:21 Human reasoning ("wisdom") does not enable people to get "to know
God," nor does it deliver ("save") them from their sins. These benefits
come only through the "foolishness" (in the eyes of the natural man) of
"the message preached" (Gr. kerygma), namely, the gospel.57 The true
estimation of things, therefore, is that human reasoning is folly.

Paul was not saying that all the "wisdom" that unbelievers have produced
is worthless. However, in comparison with what the wisdom that God has
revealed about Himself can accomplish, human wisdom is of little value.

"Not every human knowledge about any given topic—

physics or medicine, for instance—is under debate in our
text (at least not primarily). Paul has something more
specific in mind . . . Paul aims specifically at the human
wisdom about God as 'wisdom of the world,' at 'theo-logy'
as 'wisdom of the world.'"58

Neither did Paul mean that we can know nothing about God from the
things that He has made (cf. Rom. 1). He meant that we cannot obtain a
full knowledge of God through these things.

1:22 The "Jews" characteristically asked "for signs" as demonstrations of God's

power (cf. Matt. 16:1-4; Mark 8:11-12; John 2:18). In contrast, the
message of the Cross, "Christ crucified" (v. 23), seemed to be a
demonstration of weakness, specifically: Jesus' apparent inability to save
Himself from death.

Likewise, the Greeks typically respected "wisdom"—an explanation of

things that was reasonable and made sense to them. However, the message
of the Cross did not appear to make sense. How could anyone believe in,
and submit to, One who was apparently not smart enough to save Himself
from suffering execution as a criminal—when He was not one?
Furthermore, how could anyone look to such a One as a Teacher of
"wisdom"?

". . . the 'Jews' and 'Greeks' here illustrate the basic

idolatries of humanity. God must function as the all-
powerful or the all-wise, but always in terms of our best
interests—power in our behalf, wisdom like ours! For both
the ultimate idolatry is that of insisting that God conform to
our own prior views as to how 'the God who makes sense'
ought to do things."59

57See Larry J. Waters, "Paradoxes in the Pauline Epistles," Bibliotheca Sacra 167:668 (October-December
2010):430-35.
58Peter Lampe, "Theological Wisdom and the 'Word About the Cross': The Rhetorical Scheme in
I Corinthians 1—4," Interpretation 44:2 (April 1990):120.
59Fee, The First . . ., p. 74.
26 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

1:23 A crucified Messiah was "a stumbling block" to the Jews, because they
regarded Messiah as the Person on whom God's blessing rested to the
greatest degree (Isa. 11:2). After all, Jesus' executioners hung Him on a
tree, the sure proof that God had cursed Him (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13).

". . . the later Jews, recognizing the prediction of the

prophets that the Messiah should suffer, were driven to the
expedient of supposing two Christs, both a suffering and a
glorified Redeemer, called respectively Ben Joseph and
Ben David."60

Paul used the terms "Greeks" (v. 22) and "Gentiles" (v. 23)
interchangeably.

"It is hard for those in the christianized West, where the

cross for almost nineteen centuries has been the primary
symbol of the faith, to appreciate how utterly mad the
message of a God who got himself crucified by his enemies
must have seemed to the first-century Greek or Roman. But
it is precisely the depth of this scandal and folly that we
must appreciate if we are to understand both why the
Corinthians were moving away from it toward wisdom and
why it was well over a century before the cross appears
among Christians as a symbol of their faith."61

"Notice that men will be saved, not by foolish preaching,

but by the preaching of 'foolishness,' that is, by the
preaching of the Cross."62

1:24 The "called" contrast with the unsaved, among "both Jews and Gentiles
[Greeks]" (1:2; Rom. 8:28, 30). "Christ" is the instrument of God's
"power" in conquering the forces of evil and delivering people from their
control. He is also the instrument of God's "wisdom" in solving the
problem that human reasoning could not unravel, namely: how people can
know God and come to God. The wisdom literature of the Old Testament
personified wisdom as God's agent in revelation, creation, and redemption.
Jesus Christ personally is that wisdom, because He is "the power of God"
for the salvation of everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16; cf. v. 30).

"This is Paul's most brilliant epigrammatic description of

the world in which the Gospel is preached, and of the
Gospel itself."63

60Lightfoot, p. 163.
61Fee,The First . . ., p. 76.
62McGee, 5:12.
63Barrett, p. 54.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 27

1:25 The "foolishness" of God, the gospel of the Cross, is "wiser" than human
wisdom, and the "weakness" of God, in the eyes of unbelievers, is
"stronger" than human strength.

"At the moment, books are pouring off the presses telling
us how to plan for success, how 'vision' consists in clearly
articulated 'ministry goals,' how the knowledge of detailed
profiles of our communities constitutes the key to
successful outreach. I am not for a moment suggesting that
there is nothing to be learned from such studies. But after a
while one may perhaps be excused for marveling how
many churches were planted by Paul and Whitefield and
Wesley and Stanway and Judson without enjoying these
advantages. Of course all of us need to understand the
people to whom we minister, and all of us can benefit from
small doses of such literature. But massive doses sooner or
later dilute the gospel. Ever so subtly, we start to think that
success more critically depends on thoughtful sociological
analysis than on the gospel; Barna becomes more important
than the Bible. We depend on plans, programs, vision
statements—but somewhere along the way we have
succumbed to the temptation to displace the foolishness of
the cross with the wisdom of strategic planning. Again, I
insist, my position is not a thinly veiled plea for
obscurantism, for seat-of-the-pants ministry that plans
nothing. Rather, I fear that the cross, without ever being
disowned, is constantly in danger of being dismissed from
the central place it must enjoy, by relatively peripheral
insights that take on far too much weight. Whenever the
periphery is in danger of displacing the center, we are not
far removed from idolatry."64

In these verses (18-25), Paul sought to raise the Corinthians' regard for the gospel
message, by showing its superiority over anything humans can devise through reasoning
and philosophizing. His purpose in doing so was to encourage them to value the content
of the message more highly than the "wisdom" evident in the presentations of those who
delivered it.

"One can scarcely conceive a more important—and more difficult—

passage for the church today than this one. It is difficult, for the very
reason it was in Corinth. We simply cannot abide the scandal of God's
doing things his way, without our help. And to do it by means of such
weakness and folly! But we have often succeeded in blunting the scandal
by symbol, or creed, or propositions. God will not be so easily tamed, and,

64Carson, p. 26.
28 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

freed from its shackles, the preaching of the cross alone has the power to
set people free."65

The folly of the Corinthian believers 1:26-31

Paul turned from the content of the gospel to the Corinthian believers, to strengthen his
argument that the gospel he preached contradicted human expectations. God had chosen
"nobodies" rather than the "beautiful people" of Corinth. They themselves were evidence
that God's "foolishness" confounds the "wise." Jeremiah 9:23-24, with its emphasis on
boasting in one proper thing (knowing the Lord) rather than an improper thing (human
wisdom, power, or riches), lies behind this pericope.

1:26 This verse reflects that there were few in the Corinthian assembly who
came from the higher intellectual and influential levels of their society
("not many wise" or "mighty" or "noble"). The names of early converts to
Christianity indicate that the majority of them were either slaves or
freedmen (i.e., former slaves who had been freed, different from "free
men" who had never been slaves), as reflected, for example, in Paul's
salutations in Romans 16.66 This characteristic has marked most local
churches throughout history.

1:27-28 The Old Testament is full of illustrations of God choosing less than
promising material as His instruments. In the Book of Judges, for
example, we see Him using an ox goad (Judg. 3:31), a nail (4:21),
trumpets, pitchers, and lamps (Judg. 7:20), a millstone (Judg. 9:53), and
the jawbone of a donkey (Judg. 15:15). His method did not change with
the coming of Christ, nor has it changed since then.

"Things that are not" are things that are "nothing." They are non-entities in
the eyes of the world. The "things that are" are those things and
individuals that the world values highly. Paul did not mean that God
cannot or will not save the affluent, but the glory of the gospel is that
God's mercy extends to those whom the affluent tend to write off.

1:29 God has chosen this method so the glory might be His and His alone. How
wrong then to glorify His messengers! Glorying ("boast before God") here
has the idea of putting one's full confidence in some inappropriate object
in order to secure oneself.

1:30 God is the source ("by His doing") of the believer's life "in Christ" (cf.
v. 2). "Righteousness," "sanctification," and "redemption" are metaphors
of salvation, the result of the "wisdom" we find in Christ (cf. 6:11). The
"and" in this verse, that precedes "righteousness," can be translated
"even." "Righteousness" focuses on our right standing in the sight of God

65Fee, The First . . ., pp. 77-78.

66Lightfoot, p. 165.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 29

(justification), "sanctification" on His making us more holy

(sanctification), and "redemption" on our liberation from sin
(glorification).

1:31 This loose quotation from Jeremiah 9:24 ("Let him who boasts, boast in
the Lord") summarizes Paul's point. Instead of emphasizing the Lord's
servants and what they have done, we should focus on what the Lord
Himself has done in providing wisdom and power in Christ.

God's purpose was not to make a superficial splash but to transform lives, something the
Corinthians could see in their own experience.

"The issue of election is particularly strong in 1 Corinthians. Paul opens

the letter by affirming not only his call ('called to be an apostle of Christ
Jesus by the will of God') but also that of the Corinthians ('called to be
saints,' 1:2). This conviction reappears in the final verse of the
thanksgiving, functioning there as part of the ultimate ground for Paul's
confidence (1:9): 'God is faithful; by him you were called into the
fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.' When the issue surfaces
again a few verses later with renewed rhetorical emphasis (1:24, 26-30), it
becomes clear that the concept of election or call no longer merely
undergirds Paul's argument; it has instead become the focus of this
argument. The Corinthians, it seems, have not grasped what election
means."67

The folly of Paul's preaching 2:1-5

Paul offered the example of his preaching among the Corinthians as a further illustration
of what the wisdom of God can do, in contrast to what the words that humans regard as
wisdom can do.

"The matters of literary context and the continuity of the argument are all
important in understanding I Corinthians 2. Otherwise, much of the
chapter reads like pure gnosticism, and Paul is made the advocate of a
private religion reserved for the spiritual elite (2:6-16)."68

2:1 Some early texts have "mystery" (Gr. mysterion) instead of "testimony"
(martyrion). The difference is not very significant. The gospel was both
the message that God had previously not revealed, which the apostles
made known, and the message to which they bore witness. The apostle's
preaching in Corinth was "not in excellence of rhetorical display or of
philosophical subtlety."69

67Jouette M. Bassler, "Paul's Theology: Whence and Whither?" in Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2
Corinthians, p. 15.
68Charles B. Cousar, "Expository Articles: I Corinthians 2:1-13," Interpretation 44:2 (April 1990):169.
69Lightfoot, p. 170.
30 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"When a speaker would first come to a city (2:1), he would

advertise a meeting where he would declaim (normally
praising the city); if he proved successful and attracted
enough students, he would stay on in the city. Paul points
out that he did not come to them like such sophists,
pandering to popularity (see further 2 Cor 2:17)."70

2:2 As far as his preaching went, Paul only spoke about "Christ, and Him
crucified." This was his regular practice (Gal. 3:1). He left all other
knowledge aside ("determined to know nothing among you except . . .").

"In adding crucified Paul does not mean that he proclaimed

nothing about Christ except the Cross, but [that] the very
humiliation of the Cross did not keep him from proclaiming
Christ."71

"I think we make a mistake in supposing that just pinning

our faith to a verse of Scripture is salvation. I wonder
whether many have not been deceived in that way. I hear
people speak of knowing they are saved, and when asked
why, they reply, 'Because I believe John 3:16 or John
5:24," and you look for some evidence of a new life in
them and do not find it. . . . You see, believing a text does
not save anybody. Believing in CHRIST saves all who trust
Him."72

"According to Acts xviii. 1 Paul moved on to Corinth from

Athens, and it is often supposed that after an attempt to
marry the Gospel to Greek philosophy in his Areopagus
speech (Acts xvii. 22-31), which was attended with
indifferent success (Acts xvii. 32 ff.), he determined to
change his tactics and preach nothing but the cross.73 For
this imaginative picture there is no evidence whatever."74

". . . 1 Corinthians is more than a practical letter aimed at

telling the readers what to do and what not to do. The letter
in fact primarily seeks to influence the minds, dispositions,
intuitions of the audience in line with the message Paul had
initially preached in the community (2:2), to confront
readers with the critical nature of God's saving action in the
crucified Christ in such a fashion that it becomes the

70Keener, p. 34.
71Calvin, p. 49.
72Harry A. Ironside, Addresses on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 80-81.
73E.g., Barclay, p. 26.
74Barrett, p. 63.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 31

glasses to refocus their vision of God, their own

community, and the future. The advancing of such an
epistemology gives the letter a theological purpose that
unifies its otherwise unconnected structure."75

Centering his preaching on "Christ crucified" was not a new tack that Paul
took in Corinth—because of previous lack of response (cf. Acts 17:22-31).

"What Paul avoided was artificial communication that won

plaudits for the speaker but distracted from the message.
Lazy preachers have no right to appeal to 1 Corinthians
2:1-5 to justify indolence in the study and careless delivery
in the pulpit. These verses do not prohibit diligent
preparation, passion, clear articulation, and persuasive
presentation. Rather, they warn against any method that
leads people to say, 'What a marvelous preacher!' rather
than, 'What a marvelous Savior!'"76

2:3 The reason Paul felt ("was with you in") weak ("weakness"), fearful
("fear"), and "much trembling," was probably his sense of personal
inadequacy, in the face of the spiritual needs he faced when he entered
Corinth (cf. Acts 18:9-10).

"If this was epilepsy, or malarial fever (Ramsay), it might

well be the recurrent trouble which he calls a 'thorn for the
flesh' (2 Cor. xii. 7)."77

"By weakness Paul generally means, here and several times

afterwards, whatever can detract from the standing and
dignity of someone in the estimation of other people."78

2:4 Paul did not design his content ("message," logos), and or his delivery
("preaching," kerygma), to impress his hearers with his eloquence or
wisdom. Rather, he emphasized the simple message he announced.

"He had displayed among the Corinthians no tricks of

oratory, no flights of eloquence, no pretensions of
philosophy, in giving them his testimony of the saving
grace of God in Christ Jesus."79

75Charles B. Cousar, "The Theological Task of 1 Corinthians," in Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2
Corinthians, p. 102.
76Carson, p. 35.
77Robertson and Plummer, p. 31.
78Calvin, p. 50.
79Charles R. Erdman, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, p. 30.
32 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Paul's preaching was a "demonstration," not a performance. Conviction

came as a result of the Holy Spirit's "power," not the "wisdom" of the
preacher. We should not interpret this verse as deprecating persuasion (cf.
2 Cor. 5:11), but as an instruction that conviction does not come as a result
of persuasive arguments. It comes as the Holy Spirit opens blind eyes
when Christians herald the gospel. The warning is against self-reliance in
the preacher.

"Those who minister the Word must prepare and use every
gift God has given them—but they must not put their
confidence in themselves."80

"Mere human sophia may dazzle and overwhelm and seem

to be unanswerable, but . . . it does not penetrate to those
depths of the soul which are the seat of the decisions of a
lifetime."81

"It is possible for arguments to be logically irrefutable, yet

totally unconvincing."82

2:5 Paul's reason for this approach was so his converts would recognize that
their "faith" rested on a supernatural rather than a natural foundation,
namely, the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit by "the power of God" (cf.
Matt. 16:15-17).

The apostle's conviction concerning the importance of the superior power of the gospel
message was clear in his own preaching.

3. The Spirit's ministry of revealing God's wisdom 2:6-16

Paul's reference to the Holy Spirit's "power" (vv. 4-5) led him to elaborate on the Spirit's
ministry in enlightening the minds of believers and unbelievers alike. The Corinthians
needed to view ministry differently. The key to this change would be the Holy Spirit's
illumination of their thinking. People who are pursuing true wisdom (sophia) cannot
perceive it except as the Holy Spirit enlightens them.

Paul constructed his argument in this section with three contrasts that overlap slightly:
The first contrast is between those who receive God's wisdom and those who do not
(vv. 6-10a), and the second one contrasts the Spirit of God with the spirit of the world
(vv. 10b-13). The third contrast is between the "natural" person and the "spiritual" person
(vv. 14-16).83

80Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, 1:573.

81Robertson and Plummer, p. 33.
82Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, p. 52.
83Carson, pp. 46, 52, 56.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 33

"Paul is not here rebuilding what he has just torn down. He is retooling
their understanding of the Spirit and spirituality, in order that they might
perceive the truth of what he has been arguing to this point.

"While it is true that much of the language of this paragraph is not

common to Paul, the explanation of this phenomenon is, as before, to be
found in his using their language but filling it with his own content and
thus refuting them. The theology, however, is his own, and it differs
radically from theirs. . . . Paul's concern throughout is to get the
Corinthians to understand who they are—in terms of the cross—and to
stop acting as non-Spirit people."84

2:6 Even though Paul's preaching of the gospel was simple and clear, there
was a depth to his message that he did not want the Corinthians to
overlook. Immature Christians cannot understand the real depths of the
gospel fully ("we do speak wisdom among those who are mature"). Later,
in chapter 3, Paul would say the Corinthians were not mature (3:1-3).

Paul could have been using the word "mature" as synonymous with
"Christian." Or he may have selected the word "mature" because the
Corinthians loved to apply it to themselves.

"All Christians are 'mature' in the sense that they have

come to terms with the message of the cross, while all
others, by definition, have not."85

However, Paul later distinguished between the natural person, the spiritual
person, and the carnal person (2:14—3:4). Consequently by "spiritual" he
probably meant one who has followed God's Spirit for some time, not just
one who has His Spirit (cf. Heb. 6:1).

The deep things of God require a type of "wisdom" that is different from
secular wisdom ("not of this age"). In "this" present "age" between the two
advents, those who control the climate of public opinion dominate secular
wisdom. These "rulers" are those individuals who set the standard for what
unbelieving people, who disregard God's revelation, consider as true (cf.
1:20, 26), particularly those who were responsible for Jesus' crucifixion
(v. 8). However, these people are on the way out ("passing away"),
because the popular perception of what is true changes, and because Christ
will end their rule eventually (15:24-25; Col. 2:15).

"By rulers of the world he means those who are eminent in

the world because of some talent."86

84Fee,The First . . ., p. 100.

85Carson, p. 47.
86Calvin, p. 53.
34 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

2:7 The "wisdom" that Paul proclaimed was a "hidden" wisdom that God had
not previously revealed. It was not a revelation in addition to the gospel.
The message about "Christ crucified" embodies the wisdom of God. This
message was unknown ("a mystery") before Christ came. The message of
the Cross is a further unfolding of God's plan and purpose—beyond what
He had revealed and what people had known previously.

Paul expounded on the fact that God had decreed ("predestined") this
mystery from before creation ("before the ages") in Ephesians 3:2-12. The
Ephesian church was more mature and better able to understand this
revelation than was the Corinthian congregation.

The end purpose of this new revelation was the saints' ultimate
glorification ("to our glory") by conformity to the image of God's Son.

2:8 The "rulers of this age" are probably the same intellectual trend-setters
Paul mentioned above (v. 6). Those responsible for the death of Christ
were members of this group (cf. Acts 3:17-18; 4:25-28). "If they had
understood" the central place that Jesus Christ occupied in God's plan,
"they would not have crucified" Him, thus assuring their own doom (cf.
Luke 23:34).

"The key [to this section of Paul's argument] is verse 8. The

rulers of this age (whether understood as political and
religious figures or as apocalyptic powers) demonstrated
their ignorance of divine wisdom when they crucified the
Lord of glory. The very mention of the crucifixion shows
the argument very much in continuity with the preceding
section and reminds us that the wisdom of God, which is
incomprehensible to the world, is nothing other than the
word of the cross (1:23-24)."87

The phrase "Lord of glory" implies the divine fullness. It also ties in with
the saints' glory (v. 7). It is through union with Him that we will
experience glory.

"Men sometimes speak of 'the simple gospel.' The

expression is proper enough if by it they wish to describe
the Christian message when free from all human
admixtures and corruptions. However, in a truer sense, the
gospel is anything but simple. It involves the most
profound philosophy which has ever been presented to the
intellect of man. It comes directly from the mind and heart
of God. It is so subtle, so mysterious, it so far surpasses the
most exalted creations of human reason, that it cannot be

87Cousar, "Expository Articles . . ", p. 171.

2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 35

understood or appreciated by men unless they are aided by

the Spirit of God."88

2:9 The source of this quotation is evidently Isaiah 64:4 and 65:17. It
summarizes Paul's point well. There are many things we can know only by
revelation. The more God reveals, the more clearly we see that He has
designed His plans for humanity for our blessing.

"Paul's thought is that there is no method of apprehension

open to man (eyes, ears, or understanding) which can give
him any idea of the wonderful things that God has made
ready for them that love him (cf. Rom. viii. 28)."89

"These words do not refer to the unknown glories of

heaven, as commonly is supposed, but to the way of
salvation which God has prepared by the life and death and
resurrection and saving power of Christ."90

2:10 The wonderful mysteries that God has prepared for those who love Him
are not knowable only by a select group of Christians. Any and every
believer can understand and appreciate ("to us God revealed") them,
because the indwelling Holy "Spirit" can enlighten him or her.

"The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the

mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to
persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been
divinely commanded."91

The mystery religions of Greece promised deeper insights and new

knowledge to their devotees. However, any Christian can apprehend the
very best that God has revealed, because every believer possesses the
spiritual organ of perception, namely: the Holy Spirit. "Searches" (Gr.
ereuna) means continually examines.

"Apparently they have thought of spirituality mostly in

terms of ecstasy and experience, which has led some of
them to deny the physical body, on the one hand, and to a
sense of 'having arrived' (cf. 4:8), on the other. . . .

"They considered Paul's preaching to be 'milk'; on the

contrary, he implies, redemption through the cross comes
from the profound depths of God's own wisdom, which his

88Erdman, p. 33.
89Morris,p. 57.
90Erdman, p. 34.
91John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:7:4.
36 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Spirit, given to those who love him, has searched out and
revealed to us."92
2:11 It is necessary for someone to be a human being to understand things
having to do with human life. Animals cannot do it. Likewise it is
necessary for someone to have the indwelling "Spirit of God" to
understand (know) "the things (thoughts) of God." Unbelievers cannot do
it.
2:12 "We" is emphatic in the Greek text. All believers have received "the Spirit
who is from God," i.e., the Holy Spirit (12:13; Rom. 8:9). He helps us
understand ("know") the "mind ("thoughts," v. 11) of God" and "the
things" God has "freely given to us." This Spirit is vastly different from
"the spirit (viewpoint or mindset) of the world." Unbelievers cannot
understand (know) the things of God (as believers can), because they have
no one who can help them perceive these supernatural things.
". . . as a man's own spirit best understands his inner
thoughts, so the Spirit of God alone can grasp divine truths
(verse 11), and alone can interpret to those within whom he
dwells 'the things that are freely given to us by God'
(RV)."93
"The tragic failures of men to understand clearly God's
revealed will is but a commentary on the weakness and
limitation of the human intellect even when enlightened by
the Holy Spirit."94
2:13 Paul and the other apostles spoke the truths ("things") that the Holy Spirit
had helped them understand (cf. vv. 6-7). They did not choose their
"words" based on what people generally regarded as the best ones with
which to persuade ("words taught by human wisdom"). They did not rely
on the rhetorical devices that the orators used, either. The Holy Spirit
guided them not only in their communication of divine truth, but in their
perception of it. "Spiritual thoughts" or truths are concepts the Holy Spirit
enables us to understand. "Spiritual words" are those He guides us to use
in expressing these thoughts. The Spirit enables us to speak in language
appropriate to the message instead of "words taught by (according to)
human wisdom."
"In other words he properly combines that heavenly
wisdom of the Spirit with plainness of speech, and in such a
way that it shows openly the very power of the Spirit
Himself."95

92Fee,The First . . ., pp. 110, 111.

93Bruce, p. 40.
94Robertson, 4:87.
95Calvin, The First . . ., p. 60.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 37

In short, the Holy Spirit plays an indispensable role both in understanding

and in communicating God's revelation. Lightfoot translated this phrase:
"applying spiritual methods to explain spiritual truths."96

2:14 The "natural man" is any person who does not possess the Holy Spirit,
namely: unbelievers.97 Every human being is a natural man until he or she
trusts in Christ and receives the Spirit. Paul called this type of person a
"natural (Gr. psychikos) man" because he or she is only "natural" and is
spiritually dead, without God. He has no supernatural Person indwelling
him, and his viewpoints and ideas are exclusively the natural, human kind.
He "cannot" accept ("understand") all that God has revealed, because he
does not possess the indwelling Spirit of God, who enables believers to
understand spiritual matters, "that are spiritually appraised (evaluated,
discerned)."

The natural person can, of course, understand the gospel and experience
salvation but only when the Holy Spirit illuminates his or her
understanding. Paul did not mean that an unbeliever is mentally or
intellectually incapable of understanding the words of Scripture. However,
an unbeliever rejects, and does not accept, everything that God wants him
or her to have. One of these things is eternal life through faith in His Son.
It is as though God is speaking in a language that the unbeliever does not
understand ("it is foolishness to him"); he or she fails to respond properly.
He or she needs an interpreter. That is a ministry that only the Holy Spirit
can perform.98

"It will help us to think clearly about this issue if we

recognize that 1 Corinthians 2 is not concerned with the
mechanics of how people understand their Bibles generally,
or with the quality of a particular scholar's exegesis of
some specific Hebrew text. . . . His focus is the
fundamental message of the crucified Messiah. And this, he
insists, is fundamentally incomprehensible to the mind
without the Spirit."99

"Human ears cannot hear high-frequency radio waves; deaf

men are unable to judge music contests; blind men cannot
enjoy beautiful scenery, and the unsaved are incompetent to
judge spiritual things, a most important practical truth."100

96Lightfoot, p. 180.
97See Barrett, p. 77.
98See Robert A. Pyne, "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion," Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598 (April-June
1993):204-5.
99Carson, p. 64.
100Johnson, p. 1233.
38 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"The other day I read a letter from a man who is a

comedian. He says he is a comedian in a nightclub. He
listens to me teach the Bible by radio, and he thinks I am an
oddball. In fact, he thinks I am funnier than he is! Well,
that is the way he should feel. Why? Because he is a natural
man and cannot discern spiritual things."101

2:15 In contrast to the natural man stands the "spiritual" (Gr. pneumatikos)
man. He or she is a Christian, a person who possesses the Holy Spirit (cf.
3:1). One of the things the spiritual person is able to do is "appraise" or
make judgments (Gr. anakrino) regarding "all (spiritual) things." In other
words, the spiritual person has a discernment of spiritual truth that a
"natural" person lacks. This affects his values and decisions. For this very
reason he is a puzzle to the natural man. The unsaved person cannot
understand holiness, but the holy person can understand the depths of evil.
Even carnal fellow believers cannot fully understand the spiritually mature
person ("he himself is appraised by no man"). That is all right, in one
sense, because the spiritual person's judge is ultimately God, not other
people.102

When I was in Edinburgh, Scotland, I visited the tomb of John Knox, the
great Protestant reformer who made Scotland "Presbyterian." His burial
place is marked by a small plaque that is now on the pavement of the
parking lot behind his church, St. Giles Cathedral. A car was parked over
it, and I had difficulty finding it. It is ironic that Knox's grave is in a
parking lot covered by automobiles that occasionally drip oil on it,
whereas John Lennon's grave is beautifully preserved in Westminster
Cathedral. This reflects the world's distorted values.

This verse is not saying that believers are responsible only to God, but that
the Christian is ultimately answerable to God alone (cf. 4:3-4). Paul
recognized the value of church discipline (5:3-8), constructive criticism
(11:17-18), and self-judgment (11:31) as having immediate value.

2:16 To summarize his thought, Paul again cited Isaiah (Isa. 40:13; cf. Rom.
11:34). That prophet marveled at the mind of God. Who can fully
understand what God understands ("Who has known the mind of the
Lord")? Certainly no one can. On the other hand, mature believers can
understand—to a much greater degree than unbelievers—because they
have the Spirit of God in them, and He controls them. Consequently, the
mature Christian has "the mind of Christ." That is, he or she views life to
some extent as Jesus did, because that person understands things from
God's perspective, at least partially.

101McGee, 5:15.
102See Charles C. Ryrie, "What Is Spirituality?" Bibliotheca Sacra 126:503 (July-September 1969):204-13,
or idem, Balancing the Christian Life, pp. 12-23.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 39

In his epistle to the Philippians, Paul urged his readers to adopt "the mind
(attitude) of Christ" (Phil. 2:5). Even though we "have" (possess) "the
mind of Christ," we need to adopt it, that is, to use it to view life as He
did. One mark of Christian maturity is the believer's consistent
employment of Christ's attitude and viewpoint in all of life.
In this section (vv. 6-16), Paul elaborated on the subject of the Holy Spirit's ministry of
illuminating the believer about what God has revealed. He had previously reminded his
readers that he had conducted himself in their midst with this supernatural viewpoint
(vv. 1-5).
The basic theological point of tension, between Paul and the Corinthians in this epistle,
was over what it means to be a pneumatikos, a "Spirit-person." Because of their
experience of glossolalia (speaking in tongues), they considered themselves to be "as the
angels," and in need only of shedding their bodies. The sources of this distorted view
were popular philosophy tainted with Hellenistic dualism. "Hellenistic dualism" viewed
anything material as evil, and anything non-material, or "spiritual," as good. The result
was a "spirituality" and "higher wisdom" that had little connection with ethical
behavior.103
"The concern from here on will be to force them to acknowledge the folly
of their 'wisdom,' which is expressing itself in quarrels and thereby
destroying the very church for which Christ died.
"Paul's concern needs to be resurrected throughout the church. The gift of
the Spirit does not lead to special status among believers; rather, it leads to
special status vis-à-vis the world. But it should do so always in terms of
the centrality of the message of our crucified/risen Savior. The Spirit
should identify God's people in such a way that their values and
worldview are radically different from the wisdom of this age."104

4. The immature and carnal conditions 3:1-4

The apostle proceeded to tell the Corinthians that they had not been viewing things from
the spiritual point of view. He was referring specifically to their exaltation of one or
another of God's servants above the others (1:10-17). Paul urgently appealed to them to
change.
3:1 Here Paul introduced a third category of humanity, namely, the "fleshen"
(Gr. sarkinos) or immature Christian. The Corinthians were not spiritually
mature even though they possessed the Holy Spirit. Paul said he could
"not speak to" them "as to spiritual men." They were not demonstrating
the discernment that typically marks believers. He explained the reason in
verse 3. Instead he had to address them as "fleshen" people, even as
"babes (infants) in Christ." Immaturity is not blameworthy if one is very
young. However, if a person has been a Christian for some time, and is

103Fee, "Toward a . . .," pp. 37-38.

104Idem, The First . . ., p. 120.
40 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

still immature, his or her condition is blameworthy (cf. 2:6; Eph. 4:14).
Such was the condition of the Corinthians.
3:2 When Paul had been with them they were new converts, so he gave them
the "milk" of the Word, the ABCs of the faith (cf. 1 Pet. 2:2). Now, when
they should have been able to take in more advanced teaching ("solid
food"), they were not able to do so (cf. Heb. 5:11-14). Their party spirit
was an evidence of spiritual immaturity, lack of growth. Their
fundamental need was not a change of diet but a change of perspective.
Paul's use of the vocative ("brothers [and sisters]") and second person
plural pronouns in verses 1 and 2 indicates that he was addressing the
whole church, not just a faction within it (cf. 1:10). The actions of many in
the congregation had defiled the whole body.105
3:3 The reason Paul did not feel he should give them more advanced
instruction was that their flesh (Gr. sarkikos) still dominated them. As
believers, they were making provision for the flesh to fulfill its desires (cf.
Rom. 13:14), rather than following the leading of the Holy Spirit. They
were not only immature believers but also carnal ("fleshly") believers. The
carnal, "fleshly" believer is the fourth type of person Paul mentioned in
2:14—3:4.
Students of this section of the epistle have understood Paul as describing
several different kinds of people. Some believe he saw only a difference
between unbelievers (natural) and believers (spiritual).106 Others have seen
three kinds of people in view: unbelievers, spiritual believers, and carnal
believers.107 Still others have seen four: unbelievers (psychikos), believers
(pneumatikos), immature believers (sarkinos), and carnal believers
(sarkikos).108 I believe the last view is the best.
A saved person can behave like a Christian or like a non-Christian. Paul
called the Christian who behaves like a non-Christian "carnal." Galatians
5:16 proves that there is such a thing as the carnal Christian: "Walk by the
Spirit and you will not carry out the desires of the flesh." To turn this
verse around, it is possible for a Christian not to walk by the Spirit and so
to carry out the desires of the flesh: to be a carnal believer.
Paul let the Corinthians diagnose themselves: Are not "jealousy and strife"
the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20)? Did these qualities not indicate that
they were conducting themselves as unbelievers ("walking like mere
men"), as people who do not even possess the Holy Spirit?109 Their

105Ibid., p. 123.
106E.g., John F. MacArthur Jr., Faith Works, p. 126.
107E.g., Lewis S. Chafer, He That Is Spiritual, pp. 3-14.
108E.g., Stanley D. Toussaint, "The Spiritual Man," Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June 1968):139-46.
109For an excellent discussion of carnal believers, see Joseph C. Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings,
pp. 311-31.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 41

inability to get along with other Christians showed that their flesh (sinful
human nature) controlled them. So they were not only immature but
carnal.
"Being human is not a bad thing in itself, any more than
being sarkinoi ["fleshen"] is (v. 1). What is intolerable is to
have received the Spirit, which makes one more than
merely human, and to continue to live as though one were
nothing more."110
3:4 Partisanship is a manifestation of human wisdom. All the philosophical
schools in Greece had their chief teachers. There was keen competition
among these teachers, and there were strong preferences among the
students as to who was the best. However, this attitude is totally
inappropriate when it comes to evaluating the servants of Christ. It is
completely contrary to the mind of Christ, who Himself stooped to raise
others.
"It is sinful for church members to compare pastors, or for
believers to follow human leaders as disciples of men and
not disciples of Jesus Christ. The 'personality cults' in the
church today are in direct disobedience to the Word of
God. Only Jesus Christ should have the place of
preeminence (Col. 1:18)."111
This section of verses makes it very clear that it is possible for genuine Christians to
behave as, and to appear to be, unbelievers (cf. Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43). The Corinthians'
conduct indicated carnality, not lack of eternal life. Prolonged immaturity as a result of
carnality is a condition all too prevalent in modern Christianity. Often we mistake carnal
Christians for natural men, unbelievers.

BABES ADULTS
Immature OR Mature
3:1-2 2:15; 3:1
(Regarding
Growth )

NATURAL (Unsaved) OR SPIRITUAL (Saved)

Without the H.S. With the H.S.
2:14 2:15

(Regarding
Practice )

CARNAL OBEDIENT
Follows OR Follows the
the Flesh Spirit
3:3 2:15; 3:1

110Fee, The First . . ., p. 127.

111Wiersbe, 1:569.
42 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

5. The role of God's servants 3:5-17

Paul turned next to a positive explanation of how his readers should view him and his
fellow workers.

"At issue is their radically misguided perception of the nature of the

church and its leadership, in this case especially the role of the
teachers."112

"In the first place, they have not understood the nature and character of the
Christian message, the true wisdom (1:18—3:4). In the second place, their
sectarian spirit indicates that they have no real understanding of the
Christian ministry, its partnership under God in the propagation of the
truth (3:5—4:5)."113

Fellow workers under God 3:5-9

"Besides evidencing a misapprehension of the gospel itself, the
Corinthians' slogans bespeak a totally inadequate perception of the church
and its ministry."114

3:5 "Paul," "Apollos," and, of course, Cephas (mentioned previously), were

only "servants" of Christ, each serving in his own way and sphere of
opportunity under the Master's direction.

3:6-8 Obviously, "God" deserved more credit for the church in Corinth than
either its planter or its nurturer. Next to Him, the others were "nothing."
Human laborers are all equal, in the sense that they are human laborers
with human limitations. Nevertheless the Lord will reward each one at the
judgment seat of Christ because of his or her work. Note that it is our
"labor" that will be the basis of our "reward," not the fruit of our labor.

3:9 Paul and Apollos were "fellow workers" for God. Elsewhere Paul spoke of
believers as fellow workers with God (2 Cor. 6:1), but that was not his
point here.115

". . . they were called co-workers not because they bring

anything of themselves, but because God uses their work
after he has rendered them capable of it and has furnished
them with the necessary gifts."116

112Fee, The First . . ., p. 128.

113Johnson, p. 1231.
114Fee, The First . . ., p. 129. See Jay E. Smith, "Slogans in 1 Corinthians," Bibliotheca Sacra 167:655
(January-March 2010):68-88.
115See Erdman, p. 40.
116Calvin, 2:5:17.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 43

"Here an extraordinary thing is said about the ministry,

that, while God is able to carry things out by Himself, He
takes us, insignificant men that we are, to Himself as
helpers, and uses us as instruments."117

The Corinthians were "the (God's) field" in view in the preceding

illustration (vv. 6-8). Paul now compared them to "a (God's) building." He
proceeded to develop this illustration in the following verses (vv. 10-17).
This verse is transitional.

To help the Corinthians abandon the party spirit that marked their church, Paul stressed
the equality of their teachers as fellow workers under God's sovereign authority (vv. 5-9).

"Everything is God's—the church, its ministry, Paul, Apollos—

everything. Therefore, it is absolutely not permissible to say 'I belong to
Paul,' since the only legitimate 'slogan' is 'we all belong to God.'"118

"A sermon on our text [3:1-9] would focus on the attitudes of preachers
and congregations about one another as they relate to the gospel of the
cross. Peruse this brief sermon sketch:

"'I belong to Paul.' 'I belong to Apollos.' Familiar cries in a world of hi-
tech religion. See huge Sunday crowds squint under the glare of spotlights
as 'their' preachers dazzle millions of electronic viewers with wisdom and
rhetorical charm. Overhear the Christian public admire TV evangelists and
big-time clergy: 'Oh, I like to listen to _____.' 'Well, he's O.K. but I like
_____ better.' You fill in the blanks. Yes, everyone has their favorite
preacher nowadays. In spite of all the notorious hucksters, 'preacher
religion' is in. The result? An increasingly fragmented church. 'I belong to
Paul and you don't.' It is enough to make Corinth look tame by
comparison."119

Builders of God's temple 3:10-15

"The usual explanation of this passage is that it describes the building of
the Christian life. We all build on Christ, but some people use good
materials while others use poor materials. The kind of material you use
determines the kind of reward you will get.

"While this may be a valid application of this passage, it is not the basic
interpretation. Paul is discussing the building of the local church, the
temple of God."120

117Idem, The First . . ., p. 72.

118Smith, p. 134.
119C. Thomas Rhyne, "Expository Articles: I Corinthians 3:1-9," Interpretation 44:2 (April 1990):177.
120Wiersbe, 1: 579.
44 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

3:10 In the new illustration, Paul "laid the (a) foundation" of the church in
Corinth by founding the church, and others added the walls and continued
"building" on that foundation. Paul's special mission from God was to
"found" (plant) churches (Rom. 15:20). He readily acknowledged that it
was only by God's grace that he could do so as a skillful ("wise") "master
builder." He added a word of warning, that the quality of the materials and
workmanship that went into building the church are very important ("how
he builds").

"By laying the foundation he did—Jesus Christ and him

crucified—he was the truly 'wise' master-builder in contrast
to the 'wise' in Corinth, who are building the church of
totally incongenial materials and are therefore in danger of
attempting to lay another foundation as well."121

3:11 Christ Himself is the "foundation" of the church (Matt. 16:18; cf. Isa.
28:16; Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:6). Basing a church on the work of any other
person, even Peter, is improper. Paul laid the foundation for the church in
Corinth when he preached Christ and Him crucified there. The apostles
and prophets are the foundation of the church in a secondary sense only
(Eph. 2:20).122

3:12-13 Even though the quality of the foundation was the best, the condition of
the building also depended on what others built "on" top of "the
foundation." In Paul's day, contractors built buildings of durable and or
combustible materials, as they do today. In the building of the Corinthian
church, durable materials ("gold, silver, precious stones") were those
activities that sprang from reliance on Christ and Him crucified: the
Foundation. These works contributed to the permanent spiritual
strengthening of the believers.

The combustible materials ("wood, hay, straw") were activities that arose
out of human "wisdom" in all its forms. These made no lasting
contribution, although they may have served some temporary need.
"Wood," for example, has some value and can be used to build and
beautify. "Hay" has less value but can be used to feed animals. "Straw"
has the least value but still can serve a useful purpose: providing heat
when burned.

Examples of the former ("gold, silver, precious stones") pertain to God's

wisdom, and include: instruction in the Word of God, training in
evangelism, and the refutation of error. Illustrations of the latter ("wood,
hay, straw") would be: the teaching of popular ideas not rooted in
Scripture, social work that excluded the gospel message, and the use of

121Fee, The First . . ., p. 138.

122See Barrett, pp. 87-88.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 45

time and money for simply temporal purposes. However, Paul's main
concern in this metaphor was the people doing the building rather than the
building itself.

"The six materials in 1 Cor 3:12 are arranged to denote a

descending scale by moving from a unit of three good
qualities to a unit of three bad ones. The verse uses pictures
to represent what Paul calls 'work' in vv 13 and 14. Paul's
main point is to encourage building with quality materials
that will meet with God's approval and receive eternal
reward. Interpreters sometimes restrict the meaning of the
symbols either to doctrine, to people, to activity, or to
character. The [proper] conclusion is that Paul in the
symbols combines several things that lead to Christ's good
pleasure and a believer's reward. These are sound doctrine,
activity, motives and character in Christian service."123

God will expose the work ("show it") of each of God's servants on "the
day." This is a reference to the day when the believer will stand before
God, and give an account of the stewardship of his or her life—at Christ's
judgment seat (cf. Luke 19:11-27; 1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Cor. 5:10; Phil. 1:6, 10;
2 Tim. 1:12, 18; 4:8; Rev. 22:12; et al.).124 Then "the fire" of God's
judgment "will test the quality of each person's (man's) work" and his
workmanship, but not his person. The durability or transience of those
works will then become apparent ("evident").

3:14-15 If the servant of the Lord has made a lasting contribution to the building of
the church, by emphasizing some aspect of the gospel, "he (or she) will
receive a reward." If someone has not done so, because he or she has
pursued human "wisdom," that person will not be rewarded, although he
or she will retain his or her salvation ("be saved"). Paul likened the
unfaithful servant to a man pulled to safety "through the" flames ("fire") of
his burning house (cf. Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-27).

The context identifies those who "suffer loss" as being Christians who
seek to build the church with materials that fail to withstand God's
assessment. They do not refer to all carnal Christians (vv. 1-4), though
carnal Christians may fail to make lasting contributions to the church.125
Malachi 3:2-3 may have been in Paul's mind when he wrote verse 15.126
However, Malachi predicted a future cleansing of Israel, whereas Paul
spoke of a future testing of Christians.

123James E. Rosscup, "A New Look at 1 Corinthians 3:12—'Gold, Silver, Precious Stones,'" Master's
Seminary Journal 1:1 (Spring 1990):33.
124See Joe L. Wall, Going for the Gold, pp. 31-37; and Arlen L. Chitwood, Judgment Seat of Christ, p. 10.
125Cf. Carson, pp. 79-80.
126John Proctor, "Fire in God's House: Influence of Malachi 3 in the NT," Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):9-14.
46 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"A great deal that is called Christian work may be only the
energy of the flesh. It is not done for the glory of God at all.
What motives actuate us? How do we feel if others are
preferred before us? This is a good way to test ourselves as
to whether what we are doing is for the Lord."127

The rewards in view seem to refer to opportunities to glorify God by

serving Him (cf. Matt. 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-27). The Christian will have
greater or lesser opportunities to serve God—during the Millennium and
forever after—in proportion to his or her faithfulness on earth now.128

The New Testament writers spoke of these rewards, symbolically, as

"crowns" elsewhere (cf. 9:25; Phil. 4:1; 1 Thess. 2:19; 2 Tim. 4:8; James
1:12; 1 Pet. 5:4; Rev. 2:10; 3:11). It is perfectly proper to serve Christ in
order to gain a crown to one day lay at the feet of our Savior (cf. Matt.
6:20). The "crown" is a symbol of a life of faithful service that we
performed out of gratitude for His grace to us (cf. Rev. 4:4, 10).

If the idea of serving God for a reward makes you uncomfortable, may I
suggest that you read again the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5—7)? There
Jesus repeatedly appealed to His hearers to follow His teaching with the
prospect of receiving an eternal reward for doing so. Scripture appeals to
us on many levels to serve the Lord. Certainly love for Him should be our
primary motivation. However, the biblical writers also urged believers to
serve the Lord out of: love for other people, the fear of the Lord, the
prospect of having to give an account of our lives to Him at the judgment
seat, and for other reasons.129

"After we have been saved, there is superabounding grace

for, of course, the reward too is of grace, for we could not
have earned anything but by divine power. He enables us
and then rewards us."130

The testing in view here provides no support for the unbiblical doctrine of
purgatory. It is the believer's works that God subjects to the fires of
testing, not the believer personally. God applies the fire to determine the
quality of the works, not to purify the believer.131

"[The] whole subject of rewards for the believer is one, I

am afraid, rarely thought of by the ordinary Christian, or

127Ironside, p. 129.
128See Wall, pp. 112-21, for an explanation of the negative judgment at the bema.
129For a helpful introduction to the study of the Christian's rewards, see Wall, or Zane C. Hodges, Grace in
Eclipse.
130Ironside, p. 132.
131For further refutation of the doctrine of purgatory, see Calvin, Institutes of . . ., 3:5:6-9; and Lightfoot, p.
193.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 47

even the average student of the Scriptures. But it is both a

joyous and solemn theme and should serve as a potent
incentive for holiness of life."132

"The Bible describes the judgment seat of Christ for one

main purpose: to affect the way we think and live—to
motivate us to anticipate with joy His return and to live our
lives to please Him, not worrying about the way others treat
us or what they may think about us. . . .

"Though not the only motivating factor, I am convinced

that the doctrine of the judgment seat (bema) is meant to be
one of the major scriptural motivations for godly living."133

"It is unfortunately possible for people to attempt to build the church out
of every imaginable human system predicated on merely worldly wisdom,
be it philosophy, 'pop' psychology, managerial techniques, relational 'good
feelings,' or what have you. But at the final judgment, all such building
(and perhaps countless other forms, where systems have become more
important than the gospel itself) will be shown for what it is: something
merely human, with no character of Christ or his gospel in it."134

A warning against destroying the church 3:16-17

This is perhaps the strongest warning in the New Testament against taking the church
lightly, and destroying it with the world's wisdom and division.

3:16 The Corinthian church was a "temple" that God's Spirit indwelt. Paul was
not speaking here of individual believers being temples of God, though we
are (6:19), or of the church universal as the temple of God, though it is
(Eph. 2:19-22; 1 Pet. 2:5). He meant the collective body of believers that
made up the local church, as is clear from his use of the plural "you" in the
Greek text and the singular "temple." The local congregation was not just
any building (v. 9), but a sanctuary (Gr. naos) that God inhabited. The
presence of the "Spirit" alone marked them off as God's sanctuary in
Corinth ("the Spirit of God dwells in you"). Ten times in this epistle Paul
asked, "Do you not know?" (cf. 5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24), and
each time the question introduces an indisputable statement.

The New Testament writers spoke often of the church (a group of

believers) as God's temple. They did not usually make the distinction
between the holy place and the holy of holies that existed in the Israelites'
physical temples. They viewed the temple complex as a whole. However,

132Wilbur Smith, "Inheritance and Reward in Heaven," Eternity, March 1977, p. 79.
133Wall, pp. 19, 21.
134Fee, The First . . ., p. 145.
48 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

here, Paul did distinguish the place of God's dwelling, the temple building
itself (naos), from the temple precincts that surrounded and included the
sanctuary (Gr. hieron).

3:17 If "any (man)" servant of the Lord tears down ("destroys") the church
("temple"), instead of building it up, God will tear down ("destroy") him
or her (Acts 9:1-4). He usually does this by sending temporal discipline in
one form or another (cf. 5:5). The Greek word translated "destroys"
(phtheiro) also means "defiles." It is a very serious thing to destroy or
defile a holy temple, and that is what the local church is (cf. Matt.
16:18).135 In the ancient world, destroying a temple was a capital offense.
The church is "holy," in that God has set it aside to glorify Himself—even
though it is not always as holy in its conduct as it is in its calling. Verses
16 and 17 anticipate the discussion of church discipline in 5:1-13.136

"There are three types of builders—the wise man (vv. 12,

14), the unwise (v. 15), and the foolish, who injures the
building (v. 17)."137

Paul ended his discussion of the local church (vv. 5-17), as he did, to stress the
importance of the work that God's servants were doing at Corinth. He also did so to stress
the need for unity of viewpoint in the congregation.

". . . this is one of the few texts in the NT where we are exposed both to an
understanding of the nature of the local church (God's temple indwelt by
his Spirit) and where the warning of v. 17 makes it clear how important
the local church is to God himself."138

6. Human wisdom and limited blessing 3:18-23

The apostle now combined the threads of his argument, which began at 1:18, and drew a
preliminary conclusion. If his readers insisted on taking the natural view of their teachers
and continued to form coteries of followers, they would limit God's blessing on
themselves needlessly. Rather than their belonging to Paul or Apollos, both Paul and
Apollos, and much more, belonged to them because they were Christ's and Christ is
God's.

3:18 Paul continued the subject of spiritual rather than natural wisdom. He
urged his readers to turn away from attitudes the world regards as "wise,"
and to adopt God's viewpoint ("become foolish") so they would be truly
wise.

135See James Sweeney, "Jesus, Paul, and the Temple: An Exploration of Some Patterns of Continuity,"
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46:4 (December 2003):605-31.
136Brian S. Rosner, "Temple and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 5," Tyndale Bulletin 42 (1991):137-45.
137Johnson, pp. 1234-35. Cf. Lowery, p. 511.
138Fee, The First . . ., p. 149.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 49

3:19-20 Again Paul used Old Testament quotations to give added authority to his
statements (cf. 1:19, 31; 2:9, 16). Here he referred to Job 5:13 and Psalm
94:11. (This is the only New Testament quotation from Job.) The best
wisdom the natural man can produce ("the wisdom of this world") "is
foolishness," compared with the wisdom God has revealed in His Word.
Unbelieving humanity cannot avoid God's judgment through its own
rationalizing. The "reasoning(s) of the wise" of this world are "useless"
regarding the most important issues of life. In 1:18-25, Paul had said that
the wisdom of God, namely, "Christ crucified," is foolishness to the world.
Here he made the same point in reverse: the wisdom of the world is
foolishness in God's sight. Thus these statements form bookends for this
section of text (an inclusio).

3:21 "So then" marks the apostle's conclusion. It is wrong to line up in cliques
behind one or another of God's servants ("let no one boast in men"). In
doing so, the Corinthians were only limiting God's blessing on them. They
were rejecting God's good gifts by not appreciating all the people God had
sent to help them.

"Perhaps we cannot help but have our personal preferences

when it comes to the way different men minister the Word.
But we must not permit our personal preferences to become
divisive prejudices. In fact, the preacher I may enjoy the
least may be the one I need the most!"139

3:22 All of God's servants ("Paul or Apollos or Cephas") were His gifts to the
Corinthians. The "world" (Gr. kosmos, universe) belongs to the Christian,
in the sense that he or she will inherit it and reign over it with Christ one
day. "Life" and all it holds ("things present or things to come") contains
much blessing for us ("all things belong to you"). Even "death" is a good
gift for believers, because it will usher them into the presence of our
Savior. This list is similar to the one in Romans 8:38-39 and, as there, is a
way of saying "everything." The figure of speech here is a merism. In a
merism, objects that are poles apart are intended to encompass everything
between them.

"The five things . . . represent the fundamental tyrannies of

human life, the things that enslave us, the things that hold
us in bondage."140

3:23 All the Corinthians ("you") belonged "to Christ," not just those of the
"Christ party" (1:12). They belonged to Him, not to one of His servants.
Even "Christ belongs to God," in the sense of being under the authority
and protection of the Father (cf. 8:6; 11:3; 15:28; John 14:28). This is

139Wiersbe, 1:581.
140Carson, p. 86.
50 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

functional rather than ontological subordination. "All things" belong to the

Christian because the Christian belongs to Christ, and all things are His
(given over to Him; cf. 15:27; Col. 1:16). Thus in Him we possess all
things, but it is only in Him that we do.

Paul made several references to the administrative order of God when correcting
disorders of various kinds in the Corinthian church. This order is: the Father over the
Son, the Son over the man, and the man over the woman (e.g., 8:6; 11:3; 15:24-28; et al.).
The apostle stressed divine order because the Corinthians were disorderly, having failed
to submit to the Holy Spirit's control.

"The sovereignty of the Father is the corner-stone of authority in the

universe (xi. 3, xv. 28)."141

"On this high note Paul's response to the Corinthian pride in man and
wisdom has come to a fitting conclusion. But the problem is larger still; so
he turns next to deal with their attitudes toward him in particular."142

7. The Corinthians' relationship with Paul ch. 4

The apostle now returned to the subject of himself and the other teachers of the
Corinthians as "servants of God (Christ)." He did so to say more about what it means to
be a servant of God. In this section he clarified the essential features of an acceptable
servant of God. He did this so his readers would appreciate their leaders more, and so that
they themselves would follow Paul's example as a servant. However, Paul stressed his
authority, too, since the factions in the church that favored Apollos, Peter, or Christ—
actually were opposing Paul.

"Throughout 1 Corinthians 1—4 Paul is primarily concerned to address

the factionalism that was tearing the church apart with squabbles, jealousy,
and one-upmanship. But because not a little of this quarreling arose from
the habit of different groups in the church associating themselves with
various well-known Christian leaders ('I follow Paul,' . . .), Paul found it
necessary to address several Corinthian misconceptions regarding the
nature of genuine Christian leadership. These believers were adopting too
many models from their surrounding world."143

"What Paul is trying to do above all else is to get the Corinthians to enter
his orbit, to see things from his eschatological perspective. Therefore, it is
not simply a matter of his being right and their being wrong on certain
specific issues. It has to do with one's whole existence, one's whole way of
looking at life, since 'you are Christ's, and Christ is God's.'"144

141Findlay,2:796.
142Fee, The First . . ., p. 155.
143Carson, p. 93.
144Fee, The First . . ., p. 157.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 51

Judging God's servants 4:1-5

"The first paragraph (vv. 1-5) leads the way by making an application of
the servant model and showing how that relates to their treatment of him
[Paul]. He changes images from farm to household and insists that he is
God's servant, not theirs; and they are not allowed to judge another's
servant. While on the theme of judgment, he gently broadens the
perspective to remind them again of the future judgment that all must
experience."145
4:1 Learners should view teachers as "servants of God (Christ)" and "stewards
of God's mysteries," rather than as party leaders. Paul used a different
word for servants here (hyperetai) than he did in 3:5 (diakonoi). This word
means an under-rower, a figure taken from the galley ships of the time.
Slaves who rowed, under the authority of the man who coordinated their
individual efforts, propelled the ship. The ship sailed straight ahead, rather
than in circles, as the slaves followed the instructions of their leader. The
other word (diakonoi) is the normal word for a servant.
A "steward" ("those entrusted with," NIV) was a special servant whom his
master entrusted with the administration of his business or property. His
job was to devote his time, talents, and energy to executing his master's
interests, not his own. The figure stresses both the apostles' humble
position as belonging to Christ, and their important trusted, yet
accountable, position under God. The "mysteries of God" refer to the
truths of the Christian faith. The "stewards" of these "mysteries," then,
refers to teachers of these revealed truths.146
"('Mysteries' appear often in this letter, 2:7; 4:1; 13:2; 14:2;
and perhaps 2:1; this is consistent with their interest in
Hellenistic wisdom [cf. Wis 2:22; 6:22; as opposed to
pagan mysteries in Wis 14:15, 23].)"147
4:2 The most important quality in a steward is that he manage his master's
affairs so the desires of his lord materialize (cf. Matt. 25:14-30; Luke
16:1-13; 19:11-27; 1 Pet. 4:10). He must be faithful to his master's trust
("be found trustworthy"). For Paul, this meant remaining faithful to the
gospel as he had received it and preached it (cf. 15:1-11).
". . . as long as I am faithful in opening up the Word of God
I am not concerned whether my sermons particularly appeal
to you or not; as long as I know that I am pleasing Him that
sent me I am not greatly concerned if I displease you."148

145Ibid.,p. 156.
146Lightfoot, p. 197.
147Keener, p. 43.
148Ironside, p. 144.
52 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

4:3 It mattered little to Paul ("is a very small thing") how well the Corinthians
or anyone else thought he was carrying out his stewardship, or how
popular or unpopular he was. His personal evaluations of his own
performance were irrelevant too. What did matter to him was God's
estimation of his service. Paul did not give much time and attention to
introspection ("I do not even examine myself"), though he sought to live
with a good conscience before God. Rather, he concentrated on doing the
job God had put before him, to the best of his ability, since he was
accountable (cf. 3:13).

4:4 As far as Paul knew, he was serving God faithfully ("I am conscious of
nothing against myself"). However, he realized that his conscience might
not be as sensitive as it should be ("yet I am not by this acquitted"; he was
not totally in the clear).149 Only his Master ("the Lord") had the insight, as
well as the authority, to judge ("examine") him.

"No servant of God is capable of appraising his own

service. That which he might think to be excellent may be
so much wasted time. That which he thinks wasted time
may have just the message for the moment."150

4:5 Since only one Person has enough insight, and is authoritative enough, to
pass final judgment, it is unwise for us to try to do so ("do not go on
passing judgment"). Let there be no "pre-judgment seat judgment!"151 Of
course, we must make judgments from time to time, but we should always
do so with the knowledge that our understanding is imperfect. The place
God will judge our lives is the judgment seat of Christ. If Paul's references
to his judgment by God in his epistles are any measure of how he regarded
that event, he took it very seriously and thought about it often (cf. 2 Cor.
1:14; 5:10; Phil. 2:16; 1 Thess. 2:19-20; 2 Tim. 1:12, 18; 4:8; et al.).

"Paul lives in expectation of the imminent coming again of

Christ."152

The "things hidden in the darkness" probably include the unconscious

"motives" of God's servants. Evidently God will find something in every
Christian's life for which to praise him or her on that day. Paul did not just
say each servant would receive what he or she deserves, but that each
would receive some "praise."

149See Roy B. Zuck, "The Doctrine of Conscience," Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December
1969):329-40.
150Ironside, p. 145.
151Johnson, p. 1235.
152Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. "erchomai," by Johannes Schneider, 2(1964):674.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 53

"If you are in Christ, the Holy Spirit of God is dwelling in

you, and in that coming day it will be made manifest that
every Christian has accomplished something for God for
which he can be rewarded."153

Of course, the more faithful among us will receive more praise than the
less faithful.

"He [Paul] says nothing here about those who will receive
not praise but blame [cf. 1 John 2:28]; he is still thinking in
terms of the Corinthian situation, in which some have
praise for Paul, some for Apollos, some for Cephas."154

". . . when we leave the matter of our praise in God's hands,

we discount the acclamation of men and the hollow words
they use."155

Verses 1-5 help us view those who minister to us as God's servants, not our servants.
They also help us to remember, as "servants of God," to serve for the future approval of
our Lord, rather than for the present praise of people. The Corinthian church was not the
only congregation that ever became disillusioned with its minister because he lacked
"charismatic" qualities.

Taking pride in the wrong things 4:6-13

"With rhetoric full of sarcasm and irony he [Paul] goes for the jugular. His
own apostleship, which he portrays in bold relief, contrasting his own
'shame' with their perceived 'high station,' is alone consonant with a
theology of the cross."156

4:6 Paul had used various illustrations to describe himself ("these things . . . I
have figuratively applied to myself") "and Apollos": farmers, builders,
servants, and stewards. To "exceed what is [God has] written" would be to
go beyond the teaching of the Scriptures (cf. 15:3-4). If his readers
avoided this pitfall, they would not take pride in one of their teachers over
another.

In this letter, Paul often used the verb translated "become arrogant" or
"puffed up" (Gr. physioomai) to describe attitudes and activities that
smacked of human pride rather than godly wisdom and love (cf. vv. 18-19;
5:2; 8:1; 13:4). The frequent use of this word identifies one of the
Corinthians' main problems. Their attitude was wrong because their

153Ironside,p. 147.
154Barrett,p. 104.
155Calvin, The First . . ., p. 89.
156Fee, The First . . ., p. 156.
54 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

outlook was wrong. Paul proceeded to deal with it, and the rejection of
him that it produced, in the remainder of this pericope.

4:7 The apostle reminded the Corinthians that they were not intrinsically
"superior" to anyone else, an attitude that judging others presupposes. God
had given them everything they had. Consequently they should be grateful,
not boastful.

4:8 His readers were behaving as though they had already received their
commendation (rulership; kingship) at the judgment seat of Christ.

". . . spiritual satiety [the feeling of being well or overfed]

is a sign of arrested growth: contrast Phil. iii. 10-14, and cf.
Rev. iii. 17 . . ."157

Their behavior is also an indication of their over-realized eschatology.

They should have been conducting themselves as under-rowing servants,
and paying attention to managing God's work faithfully (v. 1).
Sarcastically, Paul said he wished the time for rewards had already
arrived, so he could enjoy reigning with his readers. Unfortunately,
suffering must precede glory.

"The theory that Christ and the saints are now reigning in a
present kingdom of God on earth, is specifically refuted by
the Apostle Paul [cf. vv. 5, 9-13; 2 Tim. 2:12]."158

"The irony is devastating: How they perceive themselves,

masterfully overstated in vv. 8 and 10, is undoubtedly the
way they think he ought to be. But the way he actually is,
set forth in the rhetoric of vv. 11-13, is the way they all
ought to be."159

Irony and sarcasm were popular modes of discourse in Greco-Roman

antiquity (cf. 2 Cor. 11:7).160

4:9 Paul may have had the Roman arena "games" (contests) in mind here,
specifically the battles between condemned criminals and wild beasts in
the coliseums, which were no small "spectacle."161 Another view is that
Paul was thinking of the Roman "triumph" (victory procession), an
illustration that he developed more fully elsewhere (2 Cor. 2:14). At the
end of that procession came the captives of war who would die in the

157Findlay, 2:801.
158Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, p. 433.
159Fee, The First . . ., p. 165.
160Keener, p. 45.
161Bruce, p. 50.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 55

arena.162 In either case, Paul seems to have been thinking of the apostles as
the ultimately humiliated group. They were the leaders, and their
sufferings for the cause of Christ were common knowledge. How
inappropriate it was, then, for the Corinthians to be living as "kings,"
rather than sharing in suffering with their teachers.

"The Corinthians in their blatant pride were like the

conquering general displaying the trophies of his prowess;
the apostles were like the little group of captives, men
doomed to die. To the Corinthians the Christian life meant
flaunting their pride and their privileges and reckoning up
their achievement; to Paul it meant a humble service, ready
to die for Christ."163

The Greek word theatron, from which we get the word "theater,"
translated "spectacle" in this verse, may indicate that the Corinthians were
viewing the apostles as entertainers. Perhaps the modern term "stage" to
describe what was formerly referred to as the "platform" (on which the
preacher stands to deliver his sermon) may indicate that today some
people are viewing our preachers more as entertainers than as proclaimers
of God's Word (cf. 2 Chron. 6:13; Neh. 9:4).

Paul evidently meant good "angels" here, since elsewhere he sometimes

used "principalities and powers" to refer to what we call bad angels (cf.
Eph. 3:10; 6:12; Col. 1:16; 2:15).

4:10 The contrasts in this verse, between the apostles and the Corinthians,
clarify the differences in their conditions. Natural men thought the
apostles were "fools," but they were willing to suffer this ridicule for
Christ's sake. The Corinthians and others, on the other hand, regarded
themselves as "prudent" in their behavior as Christians. To the naturally
"wise" person, the apostles looked "weak," but the Corinthians appeared
"strong." The Corinthians looked "distinguished," while the apostles
seemed to be dishonorable ("without honor").

". . . this church is on dangerously good terms with the

world (viii. 10, x. 14-33, cf. 2 Cor. vi. 14-vii. 1) . . ."164

4:11-13 Paul proceeded to detail the dishonor that befalls those who bear the
message of the cross. The Greeks despised people who did manual labor
("toil, working with our own hands"), as Paul had done in Corinth (cf. 9:4-
18; Acts 18:3, 5; 2 Cor. 11:9; 12:13-17); they regarded it as the work of
slaves.165 To the world, it is foolish for anyone to "bless" those who curse

162Fee,The First . . ., pp. 174-75; Findlay, p. 801.

163Barclay, p. 45.
164Findlay, 2:802.
165Morris, p. 81.
56 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

("revile") him or her, but that is exactly what Paul did, following the
teaching and example of Jesus (cf. Luke 6:28; 23:34).

"Both perikatharmata ["scum," off-scouring, refuse] and

peripsema ["dregs," what is wiped off, dirt rubbed off]
were used especially of those condemned criminals of the
lowest classes who were sacrificed as expiatory offerings,
as scapegoats in effect, because of their degraded life. It
was the custom at Athens to reserve certain worthless
persons who in case of plague, famine or other visitations
from heaven, might be thrown into the sea, in the belief that
they would cleanse away, or wipe off, the guilt of the
nation."166

All of these descriptions of the apostles emphasize the depths to which

they were willing to stoop to proclaim the gospel (cf. Phil. 2). They went
to these extremes despite the fact that unbelievers, as well as believers
who viewed things naturally, called them "fools."

In this section (vv. 6-13), Paul contrasted the viewpoint of the Corinthians with that of
the apostles. The viewpoint of the Corinthians was virtually identical to that of natural,
unsaved people. The viewpoint of the apostles, whom his readers professed to venerate
and follow, was quite different. Not only were the Corinthians unwise (foolish), but they
were also proud.

A final appeal and exhortation 4:14-21

Paul concluded this first major section of the epistle (1:10—4:21) by reasserting his
apostolic authority, which had led to his correcting the Corinthians' shameful conduct and
carnal philosophy. He changed the metaphor again, and now appealed to them as a father
to his children. He ended by warning them that if they did not respond to his gentle
approach, he would have to be more severe.

4:14-15 It was not Paul's purpose in writing the immediately preceding verses to
humiliate ("shame") the Corinthians. Other congregations would read this
epistle, too. Instead, he wanted to "admonish" them strongly as their
"father" in the faith. They had many "tutors" or "guardians" (Gr.
paidagogoi) who sought to bring them along in their growth in grace, but
he was their only spiritual father.

"The paidagogos was the personal attendant who

accompanied the boy, took him to school and home again,
heard him recite his 'lines', taught him good manners and
generally looked after him; he was entitled to respect and

166Lightfoot, p. 201.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 57

normally received it, but there was no comparison between

his relation to the boy and that of the boy's father."167

"Since Christ forbids us to call anybody father on the earth

because we have one Father in heaven (Matt. 23.9), how
does Paul dare to apply the name of father to himself? I
answer: properly speaking God alone is the Father, not only
of our soul, but also of our body. However, in view of the
fact that, in so far as the body is concerned, He grants the
name of 'father' to those to whom He gives children, but
retains for Himself alone the right and title of 'father' in
regard to souls, I confess that for this reason He has the
special title of 'the Father of spirits', and is to be
distinguished from earthly fathers, as the apostle says in
Heb. 12.9. However, because He alone begets souls by His
own power, then regenerates them and makes them alive,
but yet makes use of the ministry of His servants for this
purpose, there is no harm in calling them fathers with
regard to this ministry, for in doing so God's honour is left
intact."168

4:16 The Corinthians were to learn from Paul, as a son learns by observing the
example of his father.

"Imitation is the law of the child's life; cf. Eph. v. 1; and for
the highest illustration, John v. 17-20."169

Contemporary Greek philosophers of Paul's day also provided moral

examples for their followers to imitate, sometimes using themselves as the
model.170 Paul was doing that here (cf. 11:1).

". . . Paul's actual ethical instruction as it appears in his

Epistles rarely uses the language of Jesus as it is recorded
in the Gospels; but on every page it reflects his example
and his teaching . . ."171

For example, Paul never used the word "disciple" in his epistles. Instead
he appealed to his readers as his children or his brethren. The metaphor of
"father and children," as used to refer to a teacher and his disciples, was
also common in Judaism.

167Bruce, p. 51.
168Calvin, The First . . ., pp. 98-99.
169Findlay, 2:804.
170Keener, p. 45.
171Fee, The First . . ., p. 187.
58 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

4:17 "Timothy" would soon serve as Paul's personal representative in Corinth

(along with Erastus; Acts 19:22). Several factors point to the probability
that Timothy had already departed from Ephesus, but had not yet arrived
in Corinth, when Paul wrote this epistle (cf. Acts 19:22). One of these
factors is Paul's lack of reference to Timothy in this epistle's salutation. A
second is the tense of the verb translated "have sent" (NASB) or "am
sending" (NIV; epempsa, aorist tense). A third is Paul's later reference to
Timothy (16:10-11). Timothy was not only Paul's "beloved and faithful
child in the Lord," of course, but was also one of his closest and most
trusted fellow workers.
Paul's way of life ("my ways") here refers to the ethical principles that he
taught and practiced ("as I teach everywhere in every church").
". . . the Christian leader today not only must teach the
gospel, but also must teach how the gospel works out in
daily life and conduct. And that union must be modeled as
well as explained.
"The need is evident even at a confessional seminary like
the one at which I teach. Increasingly, we have students
who come from thoroughly pagan or secular backgrounds,
who have been converted in their late teens or twenties, and
who come to us in their thirties. Not uncommonly, they
spring from dysfunctional families, and they carry a fair bit
of baggage. More dramatically yet, a surprising number of
them cannot easily make connections between the truths of
the gospel and how to live.
"A couple of years ago a student who was about to graduate
was called in by one of our faculty members who had
learned the student was planning to return to computer
science and abandon plans to enter vocational ministry. The
student was pleasant, with a solid B+ to his credit. But as
the faculty member probed, it became obvious that this
student had not put it all together. He could define
propitiation but did not know what it was like to feel
forgiven. He could defend the priority of grace in salvation
but still felt as if he could never be good enough to be a
minister. He could define holiness but found himself
practicing firm self-discipline rather than pursuing holiness.
His life and his theological grasp had not come together.
"Mercifully, this particular faculty member was spiritually
insightful. He took the student back to the cross and
worked outward from that point. The student began to weep
and weep as he glimpsed the love of God for him. Today he
is in the ministry."172

172Carson, p. 111.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 59

Paul gave another gentle reminder that it was the Corinthians, and not he,
who had departed from the Christian way. What he reminded them of here
was standard teaching in all the churches (cf. 1:2; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33, 36).

4:18 "Some" of the Corinthians, who did not value Paul as highly as they
should have, had "become puffed up (arrogant)" in their own estimation of
themselves and their ideas (cf. v. 6). They had done so as if they would not
face him again ("as though I were not coming to you"). Evidently they felt
he would not return to Corinth, and even if he did, they could overcome
his influence.

4:19 However, Paul did plan to return if God allowed him to do so ("if the Lord
wills"). Evidently he was not able to return for some time. In
2 Corinthians, he responded to criticism from within the church, to the
effect that he had promised to come but did not (2 Cor. 1:15-18).

Paul knew that all the pretension to superior wisdom in the church was a
result of viewing things from a worldly perspective; there was no reality
behind it.

4:20 The apostle returned to his earlier contrast between "words" and true
"power" (2:1-5). Real, effective "power" that brings about change is the
power of the Holy Spirit working through humble messengers. The
"kingdom of God" here probably refers to the future millennial kingdom,
though some view it as referring to Christ's present rule in the hearts of
people.173

"Here we have . . . an assertion of the causal basis of the

future Messianic Kingdom for which the early Christians
were looking. It is characterized by 'power' (dunamis)
rather than boastful talk. The same Greek term is used to
describe the great public miracles which, according to
Hebrews 6:5, belong to 'the age to come,' i.e., the Kingdom
age. To interpret I Corinthians 4:20 as a present kingdom of
the saints would make Paul contradict what he had already
written in verses five and eight."174

4:21 The Corinthians' response to this epistle would determine whether the
apostle would return to them as a disciplining ("with a rod") or as a
delighted father ("with love"). A "spirit of gentleness" also marked the
Lord Jesus (Matt. 11:29), though it stood in stark contrast to the spirit of
arrogance in Corinth.

Paul concluded this part of 1 Corinthians with a strong and confronting challenge.

173E.g., The Nelson Study Bible, p. 1919.

174McClain, p. 435.
60 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"Christian leadership means being entrusted with the 'mysteries' of God

(4:1-7).

"Christian leadership means living life in the light of the cross (4:8-13).

"Christian leadership means encouraging—and if necessary, enforcing—

the way of the cross among the people of God (4:14-21)."175

The depreciation of some of their teachers resulted in the Corinthians not deriving
maximum benefit from them. It also manifested a serious error in the Corinthians'
outlook. They were evaluating God's servants the same way that natural, unbelieving
people do. This carnal perspective is the main subject of chapters 1—4. The Corinthians
had not allowed the Holy Spirit to transform their attitudes.

"Paul's view of the Christian ministry as revealed in this section (1 Cor.

3—4) may now be summed up. The ministry is a divine provision which is
responsible to Christ. It is a part of the Church given to the rest of the
Church to be employed in its service. It comprises a multiplicity of gifts
and functions, but is united by the unity of God and the unity of the
Church. It serves the Church by itself first living out the life of suffering
and sacrifice exhibited by the Lord on earth, thereby setting an example
for the Church as a whole to follow."176

"Even though at times Paul seems to be weaving in and out of several

topics, the concern throughout is singular: to stop a current fascination
with 'wisdom' on the part of the Corinthians that has allowed them not
only to 'boast,' but to stand over against Paul and his gospel. With a
variety of turns to the argument he sets forth his gospel over against their
'wisdom' and tries to reshape their understanding of ministry and
church. . . .

"The changes of tone in this passage reveal some of the real tensions that
continue to exist in Christian ministry. How to be prophetic without being
harsh or implying that one is above the sins of others. How to get people
to change their behavior to conform to the gospel when they think too
highly of themselves. There is no easy answer, as this passage reveals. But
one called to minister in the church must ever strive to do it; calling people
to repentance is part of the task."177

Some scholars think Paul originally intended to end this epistle here.178 This opinion rests
on the fact that the first four chapters could stand alone. This view points out the unity of
this section of the letter. However, it is impossible to prove or to disprove this hypothesis.

175Carson, pp. 94, 103, 108.

176Ronald Y. K. Fung, "The Nature of the Ministry according to Paul," Evangelical Quarterly 54
(1982):132.
177Fee, The First . . ., pp. 193-94.
178Bruce, pp. 52-53.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 61

"It becomes evident in chaps. 5 through 14 as specific problems in the

Corinthian community are considered and as pastoral directions are given
that at the same time something else is going on. With statements here and
there, the epistemology presented in 1:18—2:16 is kept before the readers.
They are nudged into viewing themselves and their congregational life in
new and different ways, consistent with the message of the crucified
Messiah."179

B. LACK OF DISCIPLINE IN THE CHURCH CHS. 5—6

The second characteristic in the Corinthian church reported to Paul that he addressed
concerned a lack of discipline (cf. Gal. 5:22-23). This section of the epistle has strong
connections with the first major section. The lack of discipline in the church (chs. 5—6)
reflected a crisis of authority in the church (1:10—4:21).

"Unity must be established before drastic action could be urged; otherwise

the action would have been that of a party and the division in the church
might have been made worse."180

The Corinthians were arrogant and valued a worldly concept of power. This carnal
attitude had produced the three problems in the church that Paul proceeded to deal with
next: incest, litigation, and prostitution.

"It is frequently said that the only Bible the world will read is the daily life
of the Christian, and that what the world needs is a revised version! The
next two chapters are designed by Paul to produce a Corinthian revised
version, so that orthodoxy might be followed by orthopraxy . . ."181

1. Incest in the church ch. 5

First, the church had manifested a very permissive attitude toward a man in the
congregation who was committing incest. Paul explained his own reaction to this
situation, and demanded that his readers take a different view of immorality than the one
they held (vv. 1-8). Then he spoke to the larger issue of the Christian's relationship to the
immoral, both within and outside the church (vv. 9-13).

"What is at stake is not simply a low view of sin; rather, it is the church
itself: Will it follow Paul's gospel with its ethical implications? or will it
continue in its present 'spirituality,' one that tolerates such sin and thereby
destroys God's temple in Corinth (3:16-17)? Thus Paul uses this concrete
example both to assert his authority and to speak to the larger issue of
sexual immorality."182

179Cousar, "The Theological . . .," p. 101.

180Erdman, p. 55.
181Johnson, p. 1236.
182Fee, The First . . ., p. 197.
62 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"The unusual feature of 5:1-13 is the manner in which the community is

addressed first and more extensively than the man involved in an
incestuous relationship. The congregation is distinguished by its arrogance
and boasting and its failure to mourn. At the heart of Paul's rebuke is an
urgent plea for a new, communal self-understanding (5:6-8). Mixing the
cultic images of unleavened bread and the Passover lamb, the text pushes
the Corinthians to think of themselves differently—as an unleavened
community that demonstrates honesty and dependability, as a community
for whom the paschal lamb has been sacrificed. The crucified Messiah lies
at the heart of the new perspective, critically needed by the readers."183

Paul's judgment of this case 5:1-5

5:1 "Immorality" is a general translation of the Greek word porneia, which

means fornication, specifically sexual relations (union) with a forbidden
mate.

"Porneia ["immorality"] signifies any immoral sexual

relation, whether including (as in Matt. v. 32) or
distinguished from (Matt. xv. 19) moicheia ["adultery"]."184

The precise offense in this case was sexual union with the woman who
had married the man's father (cf. Matt. 5:27-28, 32; 15:19; 19:9; Mark
7:21). Had she been his actual physical mother, other terms would have
been more appropriate to use. Evidently the woman was his step-mother
(i.e., "his father's wife"), and she may have been close to his own age.

"The woman was clearly not the mother of the offender,

and probably (although the use of porneia rather than
moicheia [adultery] does not prove this) she was not, at the
time, the wife of the offender's father. She may have been
divorced, for divorce was very common, or her husband
may have been dead."185

The verb translated "to have" (present tense in Gr.), when used in sexual
or marital contexts, is a euphemism for a continuing relationship, in
contrast to a "one night stand" (cf. 7:2). This man and this woman were
"living together." Since the man is the sole object of Paul's censure, it
seems that the woman was not in the church. She was probably not a
Christian but was one of "those who are outside" whom God would judge
(v. 13).186

183Cousar, "The Theological . . .," p. 98.

184Findlay, 2:807.
185Robertson and Plummer, p. 96. Cf. Barclay, p. 49.
186Lightfoot, pp. 202-203; Findlay, 2:807.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 63

"The word porneia ('sexual immorality') in the Greek world

simply meant 'prostitution,' in the sense of going to the
prostitutes and paying for sexual pleasure. The Greeks were
ambivalent on that matter, depending on whether one went
openly to the brothels or was more discreet and went with a
paramour [lover]. But the word had been picked up in
Hellenistic Judaism, always pejoratively, to cover all
extramarital sexual sins and aberrations, including
homosexuality. It could also refer to any of these sins
specifically, as it does here. In the NT the word is thus used
to refer to that particular blight on Greco-Roman culture,
which was almost universally countenanced, except among
the Stoics. That is why porneia appears so often as the first
item in the NT vice lists, not because Christians were
sexually 'hung up,' nor because they considered this the
primary sin, the 'scarlet letter,' as it were. It is the result of
its prevalence in the culture, and the difficulty the early
church experienced with its Gentile converts breaking with
their former ways, which they did not consider
immoral."187
The leaders of Israel and the early churches regarded fornication—of all
kinds—as sin to avoid (Lev. 18:8; Deut. 22:30; 27:20; Acts 15:20, 29;
21:25). If the guilty man's father was still alive and married to the woman,
adultery would also have been involved. Most interpreters have concluded
that this was a case of incest rather than incest plus adultery. If Paul had
been living under the Mosaic Law, he should have prescribed the death
penalty for both the guilty man and the woman (Lev. 18:8, 29), but he
lived under the New Covenant and advocated a different penalty (v. 5). As
depraved as Greek culture was, even the pagans looked down on incest,
and Roman law prohibited it.188
5:2 The Corinthians' attitude about this situation was even worse than the sin
itself. Rather than mourning over it, and disciplining the offender, they
took pride in it (became "arrogant"). They may have viewed it as within
the bounds of Christian liberty, thinking that their position in Christ made
sexual morality unimportant. Another possibility is that their worldly
"wisdom" encouraged them to cast off sexual restraints.
". . . Paul is not here dealing with 'church discipline' as
such; rather, out of his Jewish heritage he is expressing
what should be the normal consequences of being the
people of God, who are called to be his holy people (1:2). It
is this lack of a sense of sin, and therefore of any ethical
consequences to their life in the Spirit, that marks the
Corinthian brand of spirituality as radically different from

187Fee, The First . . ., pp. 199-200.

188Johnson, p. 1236.
64 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

that which flows out of the gospel of Christ crucified. And

it is precisely this failure to recognize the depth of their
corporate sinfulness due to their arrogance that causes Paul
to take such strong action as is described in the next
sentence (vv. 3-5)."189
Why should the Corinthian Christians have mourned over this man's sin?
First, because as a fellowship of brothers and sisters in Christ, they should
have been affected by the sin of one of their number. Second, because
when one person in the church sinned, his sin contaminated the whole
group. For example, when one member of a human family disgraces
himself, his action disgraces his whole family.190
5:3 Paul had spoken earlier about not judging others (4:5). That kind of
judging had to do with one's degree of faithfulness to the Lord. Here the
issue was blatant immorality. This needed dealing with, and Paul had
already determined ("judged") what the Corinthian Christians should do,
in this case, even though he was not present ("in body") with them. The
case was so clear that he did not need to be "present" to know the man was
guilty of a serious offense that required strong treatment.
5:4 The apostle wanted the believers to view his ruling as the will of the Lord.
He assured them that God would back it up with His "power" as they
enforced the discipline. The phrase "in the name of the Lord Jesus"
probably modifies "I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the
destruction of the flesh" (v. 5).191 In passing the following judgment, Paul
was acting in Jesus' "name," or with His authority.
"The church's refusal to act against the offender in 5:2
provides the most striking example of their arrogance and
doubt that Paul would execute discipline (4:18). Here,
therefore, he does execute discipline (5:5). They may doubt
his 'power' (4:19-21), but he acts by Jesus' power (5:4)."192
5:5 Paul had determined to "deliver" the man "to Satan for the destruction of
his flesh." Probably Paul meant that he had delivered the man over to the
world, which Satan controls, with God's permission of course, for bodily
chastisement that might even result in his premature death.193 Premature
death was the result of Peter's dealings with Ananias and Sapphira, though

189Fee, The First . . ., p. 203. See also Barrett, p. 122.

190Calvin, The First . . ., p. 105.
191See Fee, The First . . ., pp. 206-8, for supporting arguments.
192Keener, p. 48.
193Calvin, Institutes of . . ., 4:12:5-6; Lightfoot, p. 204; Findlay, 2:809; H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A
Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 97; S. M. Gilmour, "Pastoral Care in the New
Testament Church," New Testament Studies 10 (1963-64):395; J. C. Hurd Jr., The Origin of I Corinthians,
p.137, p. 286, n. 5; G. W. H. Lampe, "Church Discipline and the Interpretation of the Epistles to the
Corinthians," in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, pp. 349, 353;
Morris, pp. 88-89; Johnson, p. 1237; and Bruce, pp. 54-55.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 65

the text does not specifically say that he delivered them to Satan for the
destruction of their flesh (Acts 5:1-11; cf. Acts 13:8-11). God was
bringing premature death on other Corinthians for their improper conduct
during the Lord's Supper (11:30; cf. 1 John 5:16). We have no record that
this man died prematurely, though he may have. Premature death might be
his judgment (the "worst case scenario") if he did not repent.

Paul passed similar judgment on Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim. 1:20).

In that case, he simply said he "delivered them to Satan." There he wrote
nothing about the "destruction of the flesh." Deliverance to Satan must
mean deliverance to the authority and control of Satan, in a way that is
different from the way all believers are under Satan's influence (cf. Job
1—2). Everyone is subject to temptation and demonic influence under the
sovereign authority of God.194

A variation of this view is that the delivery to Satan would eventuate in a

wasting physical illness but not death.195 However, the term "the
destruction of the flesh" seems to imply death rather than simply disease.

A third interpretation understands the term "flesh" metaphorically, as

referring to the destruction of the man's sinful nature.196 The "destruction
of the flesh," in this case, refers to the mortification of the lusts of the
flesh. However, it seems unusual that Paul would deliver the man to Satan
for this purpose. Satan would not normally put the lusts of the flesh to
death, but would instead stir them up in the man. It is hard to see how
handing a person over to Satan would purify him.

Still another view takes the flesh and spirit as referring to the sinful and
godly character of the church rather than the individual.197 Paul may have
been identifying the sinful element within the Corinthian church that
needed destroying. This would result in the preservation of the "spirit" of
the church. The main problem with this view is that Paul seems to be
referring to an individual rather than to the church as a whole. Certainly

194See Sydney H. T. Page, "Satan: God's Servant," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50:3
(September 2007):449-65.
195William Barclay, By What Authority? p. 118; M. Dods, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 118; H.
Olshausen, Biblical Commentary on St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, p. 90; H.
Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, p. 471; W. G. H. Simon, The First Epistle to the Corinthians:
Introduction and Commentary, p. 78; and M. E. Thrall, The First and Second Letters of Paul to the
Corinthians, p. 40.
196F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistles to the Corinthians, p. 123; R. C. H. Lenski, The
Interpretation of St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, p. 217; J. J. Lias, The First Epistle
to the Corinthians, p. 67; and G. Campbell Morgan, The Corinthian Letters of Paul, p. 83.
197B. Campbell, "Flesh and Spirit in 1 Cor 5:5: An Exercise in Rhetorical Criticism of the NT," Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 36:3 (September 1993):341; K. P. Donfried, "Justification and Last
Judgment in Paul," Interpretation 30 (April 1976):150-51; H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority
and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, pp. 134-135, n. 50; and the early church
father Tertullian.
66 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

the man's actions would affect the church, so it is probably proper to see
some involvement of the church here, even though the judgment itself
seems to be primarily against the man.

Another interpretation is that Paul was speaking of the man's

excommunication from the church.198 In this view, Paul meant that he was
turning the man over to live in the sphere of Satan's authority, the world—
isolated and cut off from the sphere of the Spirit's authority, the church.

"But there is no proof that such a formula of

excommunication existed either in the Synagogue or the
early Church; and the added words, eis olethron tes sarkos
k.t.l. [unto destruction of the flesh], point to some
physically punitive and spiritually remedial visitation of the
sinner."199

"What the grammar suggests . . . is that the 'destruction of

his flesh' is the anticipated result [Gr. eis] of the man's
being being [sic] put back out into Satan's domain, while
the express purpose [Gr. hina] of the action is his
redemption."200

Some have thought that Paul meant excommunication with the possibility
of premature death.201 His analogy concerning the Passover (vv. 6-8)
stresses separating what is sinful (the sinner) from what it pollutes (the
church). Paul meant that the Lamb was already slain on Calvary (Christ),
but the Corinthians had not yet gotten rid of the leaven (the sinner).

Is this a form of church discipline that we can and should practice today?
There are no other Scripture passages in which the Lord instructed church
leaders to turn sinners over to Satan. Consequently some interpreters
believe this was one way in which the apostles, in particular, exercised
their authority in the early church for the establishment of the church (cf.
Acts 5). I think modern church leaders can turn people over to Satan by
removing them from the fellowship of other Christians and the church, but
not by calling down physical punishment on them. People may commit
sins that may ultimately lead to their premature deaths today, and there
are, of course, other biblical examples of excommunication as church
discipline (cf. v. 13; Matt. 18:17; 2 Cor. 2:6; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15).

198Calvin, The First . . ., p. 108; Fee, The First . . ., pp. 208-15; Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 50; Robertson,
4:113.
199Findlay, 2:809.
200Fee, The First . . ., p. 209. See also Craig L. Blomberg's discussion of this verse in William D. Mounce,
Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar: Second Edition, p. 54.
201Cf. Lowery, p. 514.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 67

"Somebody might say, 'The way to help him is to keep him

in the circle, let him sit down with you at the Communion
table; do not be hard on him, try to win him back, throw
your arms of love about him and sympathize with him.' The
unrepentant man will be more hardened in his iniquity if
you do that. Put him outside in the devil's domain, let him
know that he has forfeited all title to a place with the people
of God—that he has been put back into the world where
Satan rules. . . . When he finds himself abhorred by men
and women who love Christ, when he finds his sin is a
stench in the nostrils of Christian people, he may break
before God. If, in spite of his sin, he has really been born
again, he will break. If he has been a false professor, he
will plunger [sic] deeper and deeper into evil things."202

The last part of the verse gives the purpose of Paul's discipline. "Spirit"
contrasts with "flesh." "Flesh" evidently refers to the body, so "spirit"
probably refers to the immaterial part of the man. The "day of the Lord
Jesus" refers to the return of Christ at the Rapture and the judgment of
believers connected with it (cf. 1:8).

From what would his punishment "save" the incestuous man's spirit? It
would not save him eternally, since faith in Christ does that. It might save
him from physical death if he repented, but the reference to "his spirit"
makes this interpretation unlikely. Probably it would guard him from a
worse verdict, when the Lord will evaluate the stewardship of his life at
the judgment seat of Christ. Evidently Paul regarded it better for this
sinning Christian, as well as best for the church, that he die prematurely,
assuming that he would not repent, than that he go on living. Perhaps Paul
had reason to believe that he would not turn from his sin but only worsen.

Some have interpreted Paul's allusion to "such a one" in 2 Corinthians 2:6-

7 as referring to this incestuous man. The text does not warrant so definite
a connection. "Such a one" is simply a way of referring to someone,
anyone, without using his or her name.203

The analogy of the Passover 5:6-8

Paul argued for the man's removal from the church with this analogy. It was primarily for
the sake of the church that they should remove him, not for the man's sake.

5:6 It was not good for the Corinthians to feel proud of their permissiveness
(cf. v. 2). Sin spreads in the church as yeast ("leaven") does in dough (cf.
Gal. 5:9; Mark 8:15). Eventually the whole moral fabric of the

202Ironside, pp. 169-70.

203Bruce, p. 54.
68 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

congregation would suffer if the believers did not expunge this sin from its
midst.

"The Church of God is largely afraid to exercise discipline

today, but where this is carried out in obedience to the
Word of God the Church is kept in a condition where God
can work."204

5:7 In Jewish life, it was customary to throw away ("clean out") all the "old
leaven" (yeast) in the house, when the family prepared for the Passover
celebration (Exod. 12:15; 13:6-7).205 They did this so that the bread they
made for Passover, and the Feast of Unleavened Bread that followed,
would be completely free of leaven. The Jews considered Zephaniah 1:12
to be their authority to search for leaven with candles.206 This search may
have been for hygienic reasons as well as because of the symbolism of the
act.

This is what the Corinthians needed to do, as a church, so they could

worship God acceptably. In one sense, they were already free of leaven;
their trust in Christ had removed their sins. However, in another sense they
possessed leaven, since they had tolerated, and were still tolerating, sin in
their midst. Paul had described the same situation earlier, in this epistle,
when he said the Corinthians were saints (1:2) even though they were not
behaving as saints. God had sanctified them in their position, but they
were in need of progressive sanctification. They needed to become what
they were. This was Paul's basic exhortation.

"1 Corinthians emphasizes that the gospel issues in

transformed lives, that salvation in Christ is not complete
without God/Christlike attitudes and behavior.

"The classic expression of Paul's understanding of the

relationship between gospel and ethics (indicative and
imperative) is to be found in 5:7.

"Ethics for Paul is ultimately a theological issue pure and

simple. Everything has to do with God and with what God
is about in Christ and the Spirit. Thus (1) the purpose (or
basis) of Christian ethics is the glory of God (10:31);
(2) the pattern for such ethics is Christ (11:1); (3) the
principle is love, precisely because it alone reflects God's
character (8:2-3; 13:1-8); and (4) the power is the Spirit
(6:11, 19)."207

204Ironside,p. 171.
205Alfred Edersheim, The Temple, p. 220.
206Lightfoot, p. 205.
207Fee, "Toward a . . .," pp. 51, 53.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 69

The mention of the removal of leaven before the Passover led Paul to
develop his analogy further. Christ, the final Passover Lamb, had already
died. A type is a divinely intended illustration of something else, the
antitype. A type may be a person (cf. Rom. 5:14), a thing (cf. Heb. 10:19-
20), an event (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11), a ceremony, as here, or an institution (cf.
Heb 9:11-12). Therefore it was all the more important that the believers
"clean out" the remaining leaven immediately. Paul was probably referring
to sin in his reference to "old leaven," not to the sinner.208

5:8 The Feast of Unleavened Bread began the day after Passover. The Jews
regarded the Passover, combined with the Feast of Unleavened Bread, as
one festival (cf. Exod. 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:6). As believers whose
Pascal Lamb had died, it was necessary that the Corinthians keep
celebrating the feast and worshipping God, free from "leaven" which
symbolically represented sin. The "old leaven" probably refers to the sins
that marked the Corinthians before their conversion. "Malice and
wickedness" probably stand for all sins of motive and action. "Sincerity
and truth" are the proper motive and action with which we should worship
God. This verse constitutes a summary exhortation.

The Christian's relationship to fornicators 5:9-13

Paul proceeded to deal with the larger issue of the believer's relationship to fornicators,
inside and outside the church. He did this so his readers would understand their
responsibility in this area of their lives, in their immoral city, and abandon their arrogant
self-righteousness.

5:9 Paul had written this congregation a ("wrote you in my") previous "letter"
that is no longer in existence.209 In it, he had urged the Corinthians to
avoid associating with fornicators ("immoral people"). The same Greek
word, pornois, occurs here as in verse 1. In view of this instruction, the
Corinthians' toleration of the incestuous brother in the church was
especially serious.

5:10 However, Paul hastened to clarify that in writing what he had, he did not
mean a believer should never associate with fornicators outside the church
("immoral people of this world"). He did not mean, either, that they should
avoid contact with unbelievers who were sinful in their attitudes and
actions ("covetous . . . swindlers . . . idolaters") toward people and God.
Even our holy Lord Jesus Christ ate with publicans and sinners.

That kind of extreme isolationism would have required that they stop
living in the real world ("would have to go out of the world"), and exist in
a Christian ghetto, insulated from all contact with unbelievers. This

208Findlay, 2:810.
209See my comments on this letter in the Introduction section of these notes.
70 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

approach to life is both unrealistic and unfaithful to God, who has called
us to be salt and light in the world (Matt. 5:13-16; 28:19-20). Many
Christians today struggle with an unbiblical view of separation that tends
more toward isolationism than sanctification.

Some interpreters view this discipline as excluding the offender from the
community of believers gathered for worship: excommunication.210 Others
view it as social ostracism.

"The Apostle is not thinking of Holy Communion, in which

case the mede ["not even"] would be quite out of place: he
is thinking of social meals; 'Do not invite him to your house
or accept his invitations.'"211

In 2 Thessalonians 3:14, Paul used the same phrase (Gr.

sunanamignusthai, lit. mix up together), translated "to associate with"
(v. 9), with regard to busybodies in the church. There, "not associating"
was to be the last resort of faithful believers in their social dealings with
their disobedient brethren (cf. 1 Thess. 4:11-12; 5:14). They were not to
treat them as enemies, however, but as brothers. Probably Paul had the
same type of disciplinary behavior in view here. I tend to think it means
excommunication combined with social ostracism in view of the next
verse.

5:11 Paul now clarified that he had meant that the Corinthian Christians should
not associate with such a person if he or she professed to be a believer
("brother"). The Greek phrase tis adelphos onomazomenos literally means
"one who bears the name brother." The translation "so-called brother"
(NASB) implies that the sinner was only a professing Christian.212
However, he could have been a genuine Christian.213 Only God and that
person knew for sure whether he or she was a genuine Christian. The
important point is that this person's behavior threw into question whether
he was a genuine Christian. The Corinthian Christians were to exclude
such a person from table fellowship with the other Christians in the
church.

In the early history of the church, eating together was a large part of the
fellowship that the Christians enjoyed with one another (cf. Acts 2:46-47;
6:1; et al.). To exclude a Christian from this circle of fellowship would
have made a much stronger statement to him, at that time, than it normally
does in many parts of the world today.

210E.g.,Fee, The First . . ., p. 226.

211Robertson and Plummer, p. 107.
212Calvin, The First . . ., p. 114; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, p. 210.
213Robert N. Wilkin, "The So-Called So-Called Brother," Grace Evangelical Society News 6:10 (October
1991):2-3.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 71

This exclusion was a strong form of discipline that Paul designed to

confront the offender with his or her behavior and encourage him or her to
repent. Some modern congregations have adopted the policy of excluding
such offenders from participation in the Lord's Supper. However, this
form of discipline does not carry much impact when a congregation
observes the Lord's Supper only monthly or quarterly. Modern church
leaders need to give careful thought to what form of discipline would have
the same impact and effect on such a person in their particular society.

"Church discipline is not a group of 'pious policemen' out

to catch a criminal. Rather, it is a group of brokenhearted
brothers and sisters seeking to restore an erring member of
the family."214

Paul's list of sins here seems to be suggestive rather than comprehensive

(cf. 6:9-10). It includes fornicators ("immoral" people), the greedy
("covetous"), idolaters, people who abuse others verbally ("revilers"),
drunkards and perhaps others addicted to enslaving substances, and
swindlers.215 The failure of many church leaders to discipline professing
Christians who practice these things today is a sad commentary on the
carnality of the modern church. In some cases, it is evidence of
unwillingness or inability to exercise "tough love."

5:12 Paul's authority as an apostle did not extend to "judging" and prescribing
discipline on unbelievers ("outsiders") for their sins. He did, of course,
assess the condition of unbelievers (e.g., Rom. 1; et al.), but that is not
what is in view here. His disciplining ministry, and the ministry of other
Christians in judging and disciplining sin, took place only within church
life. "Judging" here means more than criticizing. It involves disciplining,
too, as the context shows.

5:13 Judging and disciplining unbelievers ("those who are outside") is the
Lord's work ("God judges"). Obviously this does not mean that Christians
should remain aloof when justice needs maintaining in the world. God has
delegated human government to people as His vice-regents (e.g., Gen. 9:5-
6). As human beings, Christians should bear their fair share of the weight
of responsibility in these matters. The point here is that the Corinthians—
and all Christians—should exercise discipline in church life to an extent
beyond what is their responsibility in civil life.

Paul did not explain, in this passage, the objective in view in church
discipline. Elsewhere we learn that it is always for the restoration of the

214Wiersbe,1:586.
215SeeRené A. López, "A Study of Pauline Passages with Vice Lists," Bibliotheca Sacra 168:671 (July-
September 2011):301-16.
72 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

offender to fellowship with God and His people (2 Cor. 2:5-11). It is also
for the purity of the church.216

Chapter 5 deals with the subject of immoral conduct by professing Christians.217 The first
part (vv. 1-8) contains directions for dealing with a particular case of fornication that
existed in the church. The Corinthian Christians were taking a much too permissive
attitude toward sin, which reflects the impact of their culture on their church. The second
part (vv. 9-13) clarifies our duty in all instances of immoral conduct inside and outside of
the church.

2. Litigation in the church 6:1-11

The apostle continued to deal with the general subject of discipline in the church that he
began in 5:1. He proceeded to point out some other glaring instances of inconsistency
that had their roots in the Corinthians' lax view of sin. Rather than looking to unsaved
judges to solve their internal conflicts, they should have exercised discipline among
themselves in these cases. Gallio had refused to get involved in Jewish controversies in
Corinth, and had told the Jews to deal with these matters themselves (Acts 18:14-16).
Paul now counseled a similar approach for the Christians.

"In this section Paul is dealing with a problem which specially affected the
Greeks. The Jews did not ordinarily go to law in the public law-courts at
all; they settled things before the elders of the village or the elders of the
Synagogue; to them justice was far more a thing to be settled in a family
spirit than in a legal spirit. . . . The Greeks were in fact famous, or
notorious, for their love of going to law."218

"Roman society was notoriously litigious, and Corinth, with its rising class
of nouveau riche, was even more so."219

". . . the congregation's root problem lies in its lack of theological depth. It
shames itself by not understanding itself as an eschatological community
('Do you not know that we are to judge angels?') and as a community
redeemed by Christ."220

216For general studies of church discipline, see J. Carl Laney, "The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):353-64; and Ted G. Kitchens, "Perimeters of
Corrective Church Discipline," Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13. On the subject of
lawsuits against local churches and church leaders who practice church discipline, see Jay A. Quine, "Court
Involvement in Church Discipline," Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (January-March 1992):60-73, and 594
(April-June 1992):223-36.
217See also Timothy D. Howell, "The Church and the AIDS Crisis," Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (January-
March 1992):74-82.
218Barclay, The Letters . . ., pp. 55, 56.
219Keener, p. 52.
220Cousar, "The Theological . . .," pp. 98-99.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 73

"Paul has not finished with the theme of church discipline in regard to
sexual life; see vi. 12 and chapter vii; but in v. 12 f. he had spoken of
judgement [sic], and this brings to his mind another feature of Corinthian
life of which he had heard . . ."221

The shame on the church 6:1-6

The failure of the two men who were suing each other was another evidence that the
Corinthian church was not functioning properly. It indicated how lacking in true wisdom
these Christians were. Paul argued with a series of rhetorical questions in this pericope.

6:1 Again Paul used a rhetorical question to make a point (cf. 3:16; 4:21). The
answer was self-evident to him.

In view of the context, the "neighbor" (NASB) must be a fellow Christian.

The "unrighteous" or "ungodly" (NIV) contrasts with the "saints," and
refers to an unbeliever (v. 6). When people had disputes with each other in
Corinth, and wanted official arbitration, they went to the bema (judgment
seat) in the center of town.

"The phrase translated 'has a dispute' is a technical term for

a lawsuit, or legal action; and the verb krino ('judge') in the
middle voice can carry the sense of 'going to law,' or
'bringing something for judgment,' as it does here."222

"He does not mean that Christian courts ought to be

instituted, but that Christian disputants should submit to
Christian arbitration."223

"It [believers quarreling with one another in the world's law

courts] is saying to the world, 'We Christians are just as
covetous and just as quarrelsome, we are just as much
concerned about having our own way and about self-
pleasing as you of the world are. We recognize your judges
as having authority over the Church of God,' and it is
degrading to the Christian thus to act."224

6:2 "Do you not know?" appears six times in this chapter (vv. 2, 3, 9, 15, 16,
19). In each case, this question introduces a subject that the Corinthian
Christians should have known, probably because Paul or others had
previously instructed them.

221Barrett,p. 134.
222Fee, The First . . ., p. 231.
223Robertson and Plummer, p. 111.
224Ironside, p. 178.
74 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

The earlier revelation alluded to, that the saints will have a part in judging
unbelievers in the future, may be Daniel 7:18, 22, and 27. This judgment
will evidently take place just after the Lord returns to earth at His Second
Coming to set up His millennial kingdom. We will be with Him then
(1 Thess. 4:17).

Since the Lord will delegate the authority to judge unbelievers to

Christians in the future, Paul concluded that we are competent to settle
disputes among ourselves now. In the light of future eschatological
judgment, any decisions that believers must make in church courts now
are relatively trifling. The marginal reading in the NASB "try the trivial
cases" probably gives the better sense than "constitute the smallest
courts."225 Obviously, some cases involving Christians, arguing with one
another, are more difficult to sort out, than some of those involving
unbelievers. Paul's point was that Christians are generally competent to
settle disputes between people. After all, we have the help and wisdom of
the indwelling Holy Spirit available to us, as well as the Scriptures.

Earlier Paul wrote that the Corinthians were judging him (cf. 4:3-5, 7),
which was inappropriate in view of God's final judgment. Now they were
judging in the courts, which also was inappropriate, since the saints will
participate in eschatological judging.

6:3 Evidently God had not revealed the fact that believers will play a role in
judging "angels" earlier in Scripture. He apparently revealed this for the
first time, here, through Paul (cf. Jude 6). Christians do not become angels
when they die; the saints will judge angels after they die.

6:4 The first part of this verse seems to refer to the disputes and judicial
procedures ("law courts") the Christians should have used with one
another, rather than to the heathen law courts. The context seems to argue
for this interpretation. Paul was speaking here of Christians resolving their
differences in the church rather than in the civil law courts.

The second part of the verse is capable of two interpretations. Paul may
have been speaking ironically, as the next verse might imply (cf. 4:8). If
so, he may have been telling the Corinthians, facetiously, that they should
go ahead and select the least qualified people in the church to settle these
disputes. His meaning, in this case, was that any Christian was capable of
settling disputes among his brethren. He did not mean that the Corinthians
should really choose as judges the most feeble-minded Christians in the
church. The statement is ironical. This is the interpretation of the NIV.226

225See Fee, The First . . ., pp. 233-34.

226See also Robertson and Plummer, p. 113.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 75

On the other hand, he may have been asking a question rather than making
an ironical statement. This is how the NASB translators took Paul's words.
In this case, he was asking if the Corinthians selected judges, in their
church disputes, from the members who had the fewest qualifications to
arbitrate. The obvious answer would be no. They would choose the
brethren with the best qualifications. This interpretation understands Paul
as forthrightly advocating the choice of the best qualified in the church,
rather than the worst qualified, facetiously. This seems to me to be a better
interpretation.227

A third possibility is that Paul really actually advocated the selection of

the least qualified in the church for these judicial functions. He was not
speaking ironically. The main argument against this view is its
improbability. Why choose less qualified people for any job when better
qualified people are available?

". . . he [Paul] preferred the meanest among [average]

believers to unbelievers, when it was a question of ability
to judge."228

6:5-6 What was to the Corinthians' "shame"? It was that, by going into secular
courts to settle their church problems, they seemed to be saying that there
was no one in their church wise enough to settle these matters. Certainly
they could count on the Holy Spirit to give them both the wisdom and the
proper spirit they needed to accomplish this (cf. John 14:26; 16:13).

"A church has come to a pretty pass when its members

believe that they are more likely to get justice from
unbelievers than from their own brothers."229

Clearly this church did not understand its identity as an eschatological

community, nor did it demonstrate much concern about its witness to the
world.

"Every Jewish community throughout the Roman Empire

and beyond its frontiers had its own bet-din, its own
competent machinery for the administration of civil justice
within its own membership; the least that could be expected
of a Christian church was that it should make similar
arrangements if necessary, and not wash its dirty linen in
public."230

227See also Lightfoot, p. 211; and Barrett, p. 137.

228Calvin, The First . . ., p. 120.
229Barrett, p. 138.
230Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 59.
76 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Paul's judgment in the matter 6:7-11

The apostle now addressed the two men involved in the lawsuit, but at the same time
wrote with the whole church in view.

6:7 By hauling one another into court, the Corinthians were intent on winning
damages for themselves. Evidently a business or property dispute was the
root of this case (cf. v. 10). Paul reminded them that they had already lost
("it is already a defeat for you"), even before the judge gave his verdict.
The shame of people who professed to love one another, and who
supposedly put the welfare of others before their own, suing each other,
was a defeat in itself. This defeat was far more serious than any damages
they may have had to pay. It would be better to suffer the wrong ("be
wronged") or the cheating ("be defrauded"), than to fight back in such an
unchristian way (Matt. 5:39-40; 1 Pet. 2:19-24).

"It is possible that this use of meth heauton ["with your

own selves"] for met allelon ["with one another"] is
deliberate, in order to show that in bringing a suit against a
fellow-Christian they were bringing a suit against
themselves, so close was the relationship."231

Christians should be willing to give to one another, rather than trying to

get from one another. In other words, there should be no going to court
with one another at all. Nevertheless if the Corinthians insisted on going to
court, it should be a court of believers in the church, not unbelievers
outside the church.

6:8 An even more shocking condition was that some of the Christians in
Corinth were not simply the victims of wrong and fraud. They were even
the perpetrators of these things (cf. Matt. 5:39-41).

6:9-10 Who are the "unrighteous" (NASB) or "wicked" (NIV) in view? Paul
previously used this word (Gr. adikos) of the unsaved in verse 1 (cf. v. 6
where he called them "unbelievers"). However, he also used it of the
Corinthian Christians in verse 8: "you yourselves wrong [adikeo]."
Christians, not just unbelievers, have been guilty of unrighteous conduct—
including all the offenses listed in these verses. Therefore, what Paul said
about the "unrighteous" in this verse seems to apply to anyone who is
unrighteous in his or her behavior, whether saved or unsaved. This
warning does not apply exclusively to the unrighteous in their standing
before God, namely: unbelievers. Some interpreters, however, have
concluded that "the unrighteous" refers only to unbelievers.232

231Robertson and Plummer, p. 116.

232E.g., MacArthur, pp. 127-29; and J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come, p. 283.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 77

What will be true of the unrighteous? They will "not inherit the kingdom
of God." Jesus explained who will inherit the messianic kingdom (Matt.
5:3, 10; Mark 10:14), whereas Paul explained who will not. In some
passages, Paul used this expression to describe the consequences of the
behavior of unbelievers when he compared it to the behavior of believers
(cf. Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5). That appears to be its meaning here, too.233

"Inheriting the kingdom" and "entering the kingdom" are synonyms in the
Gospels (cf. Matt. 19:16; Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18). Paul was apparently
contrasting what the Corinthians did before their conversion with their
conduct after conversion (v. 11). He did not mean that Christians are
incapable of practicing these sins, but that these practices typically
characterize unbelievers. Paul was exhorting the Corinthian believers to
live like saints.234

Paul warned his readers about being deceived on this subject (v. 9).
Probably many of them failed to see that the way Christians choose to live
here and now will affect their eternal reward. Many Christians today fail
to see this too. The fact that we are eternally secure should not lead us to
conclude that it does not matter how we live now, even though we will all
end up in heaven.

The meanings of most of these sins are clear, but a few require some
comment. "Effeminate" (NASB) or "male prostitutes" (NIV; Gr. malakoi)
refers to the passive role in a homosexual union, whereas "homosexuals"
refers to the active role.235 David Malick showed that Paul was
condemning all homosexual relationships, not just "abuses" in homosexual
behavior.236

"Bisexuality was extremely common among Greeks,

especially because of the shortage of available wives,
which apparently occasioned the late age of marriage for
most Greek men."237

"We can scarcely realize how riddled the ancient world was
with it [homosexuality]. Even so great a man as Socrates
practised [sic] it; Plato's dialogue The Symposium is always

233See René A. López, "Views on Paul's Vice Lists and Inheriting the Kingdom," Bibliotheca Sacra
168:669 (January-March 2011)81-97.
234See idem, "Does the Vice List in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Describe Believers or Unbelievers?" Bibliotheca
Sacra 164:653 (January-March 2007):59-73.
235See P. Michael Ukleja, "Homosexuality in the New Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 140:560 (October-
December 1983):350-58; and Sherwood A. Cole, "Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 154:615 (July-September 1997):355-66.
236David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9," Bibliotheca Sacra
150:600 (October-December 1993):479-92.
237Keener, p. 55.
78 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

said to be one of the greatest works on love in the world,

but its subject is not natural but unnatural love. Fourteen
out of the first fifteen Roman Emperors practised unnatural
vice."238

Note the seriousness of the sin, the fact it is included in the list, of
covetousness or greed (cf. 5:10-11; 6:8). Greed may manifest itself in a
desire for what one should not have (Exod. 20:17; Rom. 7:7), or in an
excessive desire for what one may legitimately have (Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5).

"The universality of wine drinking was of course due to the

inadequate water-supplies. But normally the Greeks were
sober people, for their drink was three parts of wine mixed
with two of water."239

"The order of the ten kinds of offenders is unstudied. He

enumerates sins which were prevalent at Corinth just as
they occur to him."240

6:11 Some of the Corinthian Christians had been fornicators, and had practiced
the other sins Paul cited, before they trusted in Christ. However, the blood
of Christ had cleansed ("washed") them, and God had set them apart
("sanctified") to a life of holiness (1:2). The Lord had declared them
righteous ("justified") through union with Christ by faith (cf. 1:30), and
through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit who indwelt them. He had
made them saints. Consequently they needed to live like saints.

"The quite unconscious Trinitarianism of the concluding

words should be noted: the Lord Jesus Christ, the Spirit,
our God. Trinitarian theology, at least in its New Testament
form, did not arise out of speculation, but out of the fact
that when Christians spoke of what God had done for them
and in them they often found themselves obliged to use
threefold language of this kind."241

This verse does not support the idea that once a person has experienced
eternal salvation, he will live a life free of gross sin. Normally this is the
consequence of conversion, thanks to the sanctifying work of the Holy
Spirit. However, believers can grieve and quench the Holy Spirit's
ministry in their lives. In this letter, we have seen that not only were some
of the Corinthian saints fornicators before their conversion, but one of
them had continued in, or returned to that sin (5:1)—afterwards.

238Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 60.

239Ibid.,
p. 59.
240Robertson and Plummer, p. 119.
241Barrett, p. 143.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 79

Paul's point in this whole section (vv. 1-11) was that genuine Christians should not
continue in, or return to, the sinful practices that mark unbelievers. We should become
what we are because of what Jesus Christ has done for us. This appeal runs throughout
the New Testament, and is latent in every exhortation to pursue godliness. It is especially
strong in this epistle. Rather than assuming that believers will not continually practice
sin, the inspired writers constantly warned us of that possibility.

This passage does not deal with how we as Christians should respond when pagans
defraud or sue us. But if we apply the principles Paul advocated in dealing with fellow
believers, we should participate in public litigation only as a last resort.

3. Prostitution in the church 6:12-20

The apostle proceeded to point out the sanctity of the believer's body as the temple of the
Holy Spirit. He wanted to help his readers realize the seriousness of the sins that marked
them to some extent as a church.

"The Greeks always looked down on the body. There was a proverbial
saying, 'The body is a tomb.' Epictetus said, 'I am a poor soul shackled to a
corpse.'"242

"The question is: If there are no restrictions in food, one appetite of the
body, why must there be in sexual things, another physical desire?"243

"Apparently some men within the Christian community are going to

prostitutes and are arguing for the right to do so. Being people of the
Spirit, they imply, has moved them to a higher plane, the realm of the
spirit, where they are unaffected by behavior that has merely to do with
the body. So Paul proceeds from the affirmation of v. 11 to an attack on
this theological justification.

"As before, the gospel itself is at stake, not simply the resolution of an
ethical question. The Corinthian pneumatics' understanding of spirituality
has allowed them both a false view of freedom ('everything is
permissible') and of the body ('God will destroy it'), from which basis they
have argued that going to prostitutes is permissible because the body
doesn't matter."244

This is one of the more important passages in the New Testament on the human body.

Refutation of the Corinthians' false premises 6:12-14

Paul began by arguing against his recipients' distortion of Christian freedom and their
misunderstanding of the nature of the body. The influence of Greek dualism on the

242Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 62.

243Johnson, p. 1238.
244Fee, The First . . ., pp. 250-51.
80 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Corinthians continues to be obvious. He presented his teaching in the form of a dialogue

with his readers, the diatribe style, which was familiar to them.

6:12 Paul was and is famous as the apostle of Christian liberty. He saw early in
his Christian life, and clearly, that the Christian is not under the Mosaic
Law. His Epistle to the Galatians is an exposition of this theme. He
preached this freedom wherever he went. Unfortunately he was always
subject to misinterpretation. Some of his hearers concluded that he
advocated no restraints whatsoever in Christian living ("all things are
lawful for me").

Similarly, the Protestant reformers fell under the same criticism by their
Roman Catholic opponents. The Catholics said that the reformers were
teaching that since Christians are saved by grace, they could live sinful
lives. Unfortunately John Calvin's successor in Geneva, Theodore Beza
(1519-1605), overreacted and argued that a true Christian cannot commit
gross sin. This assertion led to the conclusion that the basis of assurance of
salvation is the presence of fruit in the life, rather than the promise of God
(e.g., John 6:47; et al.). This view, that a true Christian will not commit
gross sin, has become popular in reformed theology, but it goes further
than Scripture does. Scripture never makes this claim, but constantly
warns Christians against abusing their liberty in Christ and turning it into a
license to sin.245

Perhaps those in Corinth, who were practicing sexual immorality and

suing their brethren in pagan courts, appealed to Paul to support their
actions, though they took liberty further than Paul did.246

"'Everything is permissible for me' is almost certainly a

Corinthian theological slogan."247

"It could have been argued in Corinth . . . that the right

course was for a husband to keep his wife 'pure', and, if
necessary, find occasional sexual satisfaction in a
harlot."248

In this verse, the apostle restated his general maxim but qualified it (cf.
10:23). Legality is not the only test the Christian should apply to his or her
behavior. Is the practice also "profitable" (helpful, admirable, beneficial,
expedient, good)? Furthermore, even though I have authority (mastery)
over some practice, might it gain control over me ("I . . . be mastered by
anything")?

245See Dillow, pp. 245-69.

246See Robert N. Wilkin, "Are All Things Lawful for Believers?" Grace Evangelical Society Newsletter
4:7 (July 1989):2.
247Fee, The First . . ., p. 251. Cf. 10:23.
248Barrett, p. 145.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 81

"The reasonable use of my liberty cannot go to the length

of involving my own loss of it."249

"It is a bad thing to create habits that are not easily broken
. . ."250

The Christian should always be able to submit to the Lord's control. We

should give the Lord, not anyone or anything else, primary control of our
bodies.

"Addictions have always plagued mankind, but they seem

to enslave more today. Satan is wily. When we become
wise to his old tricks, he invents new ones. He has more
enslaving addictions in his arsenal than ever before.

"Be careful here. No one intends to become an addict. It all

starts innocently. You never expect you will become
addicted. But it happens—far too often."251

"Freedom is not to be for self but for others. The real

question is not whether an action is 'lawful' or 'right' or
even 'all right,' but whether it is good, whether it
benefits. . . . Truly Christian conduct is not predicated on
whether I have the right to do something, but whether my
conduct is helpful to those about me."252

"We have no longer any right to do what in itself is

innocent, when our doing it will have a bad effect on
others. . . . We have no longer any right to do what in itself
is innocent, when experience has proved that our doing it
has a bad effect on ourselves."253

6:13-14 The first part of this verse is similar to the two parts of the previous verse.
It contains a statement that is true, and it may have been a Corinthian
slogan, but a qualifier follows. "Food" is not a matter of spiritual
significance for the Christian, except that gluttony is a sin. As far as what
we eat goes, we may eat anything and be pleasing to God (Mark 7:19). He
has not forbidden any foods for spiritual reasons, though there may be
physical reasons we may choose not to eat certain things.

249Erdman, p. 63.
250Ironside,p. 192.
251J. Paul Nyquist, The Post-Church Christian, p. 115.
252Fee, The First . . ., p. 252.
253Robertson and Plummer, p. 122.
82 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Both "food" and the "stomach" are physical and temporal. Paul probably
referred to food here, not because it was the main issue, but to explain the
issue of the "body" and sexual "immorality." However, gluttony and
immorality often went together in Greek and Roman feasts. So gluttony
may also have been an issue.254 As food is for the stomach, so the body is
for the Lord.

"Not only are meats made for the belly, but the belly, which
is essential to physical existence, is made for meats, and
cannot exist without them."255

The same is not true of the body and fornication. Paul constructed his
argument like this:

Proposition 1:
Part 1: Food is for the stomach [A, B], and the stomach is for food
[B, A].
Part 2: God will destroy the stomach [B] and the food [A].

Proposition 2:
Part 1: The body is for the Lord [A, B] (not for sexual immorality),
and the Lord is for the body [B, A].
Part 2: God has raised the Lord [B], and He will raise us [A] (by
His power).

One might conclude, and some in Corinth were evidently doing so, that
since sex was also physical and temporal, it was also irrelevant
spiritually.256 However, this is a false conclusion. The body is part of what
the Lord saved and sanctified. Therefore it is for Him, and we should use
it for His glory, not for fornication. Furthermore, the Lord has a noble
purpose and destiny for our bodies. He is for them in that sense.

"To it [the body] he must give directions for the proper use
of all its impulses and powers. Without him it can never
attain its true dignity and its immortal destiny."257

The Lord will resurrect the bodies of most Christians in the future, all but
those that He catches away at the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:17). The
resurrection of our bodies shows that God has plans for them. Some in
Corinth did not believe in the resurrection, but Paul dealt with that later
(ch. 15). Here he simply stated the facts without defending them.

254Keener, p. 57.
255Robertson and Plummer, p. 123.
256Barrett, p. 147.
257Erdman, p. 63.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 83

"The body of the believer is for the Lord because through

Christ's resurrection God has set in motion the reality of
our own resurrection. This means that the believer's
physical body is to be understood as 'joined' to Christ's own
'body' that was raised from the dead."258

Arguments against participating in prostitution 6:15-17

Building on the preceding theological base, Paul argued against participating in

fornication with prostitutes. The Corinthians had not correctly understood the nature of
sexual intercourse or the nature of Christian conversion.

6:15 Another rhetorical question affirmed the truth. As we are members of

Christ's body, so our "bodies are members" of Him. This is not just clever
wordplay. Our physical bodies are just as much a part of Christ—united
with Him in a genuine spiritual union—as we are part of the mystical body
of Christ, the church. However, Paul was not speaking here of the
believer's union with Christ by becoming a member of His mystical body,
the church (12:12-26). He was metaphorically speaking of our individual
union with Christ's physical body.

When a Christian has sexual relations with a prostitute, he or she takes

what belongs to God (his or her body) and gives it to someone else. This is
stealing from God. When a Christian marries, this does not happen,
because God has ordained and approves of marriage (cf. 7:14). He permits
us to share our bodies with our lawful mates. Taking a member of Christ
(a Christian's body), and uniting it to a prostitute's body, also involves the
Lord in that immoral act. Paul's revulsion at the thought of this comes
through graphically in his characteristic me genoito (lit. "May it not
happen!").

"Sex outside of marriage is like a man robbing a bank: he

gets something, but it is not his and he will one day pay for
it. Sex within marriage can be like a person putting money
into a bank: there is safety, security, and he will collect
dividends. Sex within marriage can build a relationship that
brings joys in the future; but sex apart from marriage has a
way of weakening future relationships, as every Christian
marriage counselor will tell you."259

"Young folks today think that they can live together

without being married. One such couple came to me
wanting to talk about going into Christian service. They
weren't married, but they were living together! I told them,

258Fee, The First . . ., p. 258.

259Wiersbe, 1:589.
84 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

'You get married.' They asked, 'Why?' I said, 'Because God

commands it. That is the way God wants it to be. Until you
are willing to do that, you cannot serve Him.'"260

6:16 Paul urged his readers not to think of sexual intercourse as simply a
physical linking of two people for the duration of their act. God views
intercourse as involving the whole person, not just the body. It is the most
intimate sharing that human beings experience. A physical union takes
place that symbolizes the spiritual union of a husband and wife in
marriage. Sexual relations very deeply affect the inner unseen (emotional
and spiritual) conditions of the individuals involved. This is what is in
view in the reference to two people becoming "one flesh" in Genesis 2:24.
Consequently it is improper to put sexual relations on the same level of
significance as eating food.

"Ho kollomenos ["the one who joins himself"] . . . indicates

that sexual union constitutes a permanent bond between the
parties. What has been done lives, morally, in both; neither
is henceforth free of the other."261

6:17 Compared to the union that takes place when two people have sex, the
person who trusts Christ unites with Him in an even stronger and more
pervasive oneness. This is an even stronger spiritual union (we have
become "one spirit with Him"). Consequently it is a very serious thing to
give to a prostitute what God has so strongly united to Christ.

"Adhesion by the act of faith (i. 21, etc.) to Christ (as Lord,
cf. xii. 3, etc.) establishes a spiritual communion of the man
with Him as real and close as the other, bodily communion
. . ., and as much more influential and enduring as the spirit
is above the flesh."262

Paul expressed his argument in a chiasm.

A Your bodies are members of Christ's body.

B So they must not be members of a prostitute's body.
B' Joined to a prostitute your members become one body with
her.
A' Joined to Christ your members become one spirit with Him.

260McGee, 5:29-30.
261Findlay, 2:820.
262Ibid.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 85

The reason participating in prostitution is wrong 6:18-20

Sexual immorality is wrong, Paul concluded, because it involves sinning against one's
body, which in the case of believers belongs to the Lord through divine purchase.

6:18 In conclusion, believers should "flee" from fornication (porneian). Joseph

is a good example to follow (Gen. 39:12). Fornication ("immorality") is
more destructive to the sinner than other sins, because the people who
engage in it cannot undo their act. Gluttony and drunkenness hurt the body
as well, but they involve excess in things morally neutral, and abstinence
may correct their effects.

Fornication is also an especially serious sin because it involves placing the

body, which is the Lord's (vv. 19-20), under the control of another
illegitimate partner (cf. 7:4).263 No other sin has this result. All other sins
are "outside," or apart from the body, in this sense. "Every sin that a man
commits is outside the body," could be another incorrect Corinthian slogan
that Paul proceeded to correct (cf. vv. 12, 13).

"Does God then forbid the restoration of fallen leaders? No.

Does He leave open the possibility? Yes. Does that
possibility look promising? Yes and no. If both the life and
reputation of the fallen elder can be rehabilitated, his
prospects for restoration are promising. However,
rehabilitating his reputation, not to mention his life, will be
particularly difficult, for squandering one's reputation is 'a
snare of the devil' (1 Tim. 3:7), and he does not yield up his
prey easily."264

6:19 Another rhetorical question makes a strong, important statement.

Previously Paul taught his readers that the Corinthian church was a temple
(naos; 3:16). The believer's body is also "a temple." The "Holy Spirit" is
actually indwelling each of these temples (Rom. 8:9; cf. Matt. 12:6; 18:15-
20; 28:16-20; Mark 13:11; John 14:17, 23).265 He is a gift to us ("whom
you have") "from God" (cf. 1 Thess. 4:8). He is the best gift God has given
us thus far. Consequently we have a moral obligation to the Giver.
Moreover, because He indwells us, we belong to Him.

"In the temple of Aphrodite prostitutes were priestesses,

and commerce with them was counted a consecration; it is
an absolute desecration of God's true temple in the man
himself."266

263Fee,The First . . ., p. 262.

264Jay E. Smith, "Can Fallen Leaders Be Restored to Leadership? Bibliotheca Sacra 151:604 (October-
December 1994):480.
265See Sweeney, p. 629.
266Findlay, 2:821.
86 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

6:20 Furthermore, God has purchased (Gr. agorazo) every Christian "with a
[great] price," the blood of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:24-25; Eph. 1:7; et al.).
So we belong to Him for a second reason. In view of this, we should
"glorify God" in our bodies, rather than degrading Him through
fornication (cf. Rom. 12:1-2). Usually the New Testament emphasis is on
redemption leading to freedom from sin (e.g., Gal. 3:13; 4:5; Rev. 5:9;
14:3), but here it is on redemption leading to faithfulness to God. Even our
physical bodies are to be faithful to the Lord with whom we are joined.

"The reason to glorify God in the body and not engage in

sexual immorality is rooted in a new way of understanding
the self."267

"What Paul seems to be doing is taking over their own

theological starting point, namely, that they are 'spiritual'
because they have the Spirit, and redirecting it to include
the sanctity of the body. The reality of the indwelling Spirit
is now turned against them. They thought the presence of
the Spirit meant a negation of the body; Paul argues the
exact opposite: The presence of the Spirit in their present
bodily existence is God's affirmation of the body."268

Paul's solution to the problem of the lack of discipline (chs. 5—6) was the same as his
solution to the problem of divisions in the church (1:10—4:21). He led his readers back
to the Cross (6:20; cf. 1:23-25).

Incest was one manifestation of carnality in the church (ch. 5), suing fellow believers in
the public courts was another (6:1-11), and going to prostitutes was a third (6:12-20).
Nevertheless, the underlying problem was a loose view of sin, a view taken by the
unbelievers among whom the Corinthian Christians lived. In this attitude, as in their
attitude toward wisdom (1:10—4:21), their viewpoint was different from that of the
Apostle Paul and God. God inspired these sections of the epistle to transform their
outlook and ours on these subjects.

III. QUESTIONS ASKED OF PAUL 7:1—16:12

The remainder of the body of this epistle deals with questions the Corinthians had put to
Paul in a letter. Paul introduced each of these with the phrase peri de ("now concerning,"
7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12), a phrase commonly used in antiquity.269

"Rather than a friendly exchange, in which the new believers in Corinth

are asking spiritual advice of their mentor in the Lord, their letter was
probably a response to Paul's Previous Letter mentioned in 5:9, in which

267Cousar, "The Theological . . .," p. 99.

268Fee,The First . . ., p. 264.
269Keener, p. 62.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 87

they were taking exception to his position on point after point. In light of
their own theology of spirit, with heavy emphasis on 'wisdom' and
'knowledge,' they have answered Paul with a kind of 'Why can't we?'
attitude, in which they are looking for his response."270

A. MARRIAGE AND RELATED MATTERS CH. 7

The first subject with which Paul dealt was marriage. He began with some general
comments (vv. 1-7), and then dealt with specific situations.

"The transition from chapter 6 to chapter 7 illustrates the necessity Paul

was under of waging a campaign on two fronts. In chapter 6 he dealt with
libertines who argued that everything was permissible, and in particular
that sexual licence [sic] was a matter of ethical indifference. In chapter 7
he deals with ascetics who, partly perhaps in reaction against the
libertines, argued that sexual relations of every kind were to be
deprecated, that Christians who were married should henceforth live as
though they were unmarried, and those who were unmarried should
remain so, even if they were already engaged to be married."271

". . . the controlling motif of Paul's answer is: 'Do not seek a change in
status.' This occurs in every subsection (vv. 2, 8, 10. 11. 12-16, 26-27, 37,
40) and is the singular theme of the paragraph that ties the . . . sections
together (vv. 17-24)—although in each case an exception is allowed."272

"Two other features about the nature of the argument need to be noted:
First, along with 11:2-16, this is one of the least combative sections of the
letter. Indeed, after the argumentation of 1:10—6:20, this section is
altogether placid. Furthermore, also along with 11:2-16, this is one of the
least 'authority-conscious' sections in all of his letters. Phrases like 'I say
this by way of concession, not of command' (v. 6), 'it is good for them'
(vv. 8, 26), 'I have no command, but I give my opinion' (v. 25; cf. 40) are
not your standard Paul. Second, in a way quite unlike anything else in all
his letters, the argument alternates between men and women (12 times in
all). And in every case there is complete mutuality between the two
sexes."273

1. Advice to the married or formerly married 7:1-16

Paul proceeded to give guidelines to the married or formerly married. The statement "It is
good for a man not to touch a woman" (v. 1) may well have been a Corinthian slogan.274
This hypothesis, which seems valid to me in light of Paul's argumentation, results in a

270Fee, The First . . ., pp. 266-67.

271Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 66.
272Fee, The First . . ., p. 268.
273Ibid., pp. 269-70.
274Ibid., p. 270.
88 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

different interpretation of the text than has been traditional. The traditional view takes the
entire section as explaining Paul's position on marriage in general in response to the
Corinthians' question about its advisability.275 I believe Paul responded to the
Corinthians' false view, as expressed in this slogan, in all that follows in this section.

The importance of sexual relations in marriage 7:1-7

Paul advised married people not to abstain from normal sexual relations.

7:1 Again Paul began what he had to say by citing a general truth. Then he
proceeded to qualify it (cf. 6:12-13). The use of the Greek word anthropos
("man" generically, people), rather than aner ("man" as distinguished from
woman), indicates that the statement pertains to human beings generally.
To "touch a woman" (NASB) was a common ancient euphemism for
sexual intercourse.276 It was probably another Corinthian slogan (cf. 6:12,
13, 18). Evidently the Corinthians' question was something like this: Isn't
it preferable for a Christian man to abstain from sexual relations with any
woman (even one's own wife)? This would reflect the "spiritual"
viewpoint of the Corinthians, which held a negative attitude toward the
material world and the body (cf. 6:13; 15:12).

"Some difficulty is alleviated if these words [the slogan]

are regarded as a quotation from the Corinthian letter, and
this is a hypothesis that may very probably be accepted [cf.
6:12-13] . . ."277

Another view is that "touch a woman" was a euphemism for marrying.278

However, this meaning is difficult to prove, and I do not prefer it. If this is
what he meant, Paul's advice was to abstain from marrying. Paul wrote
later that "because of the present distress," his readers would do well to
remain in their present marital state (v. 26). Furthermore, throughout this
passage Paul viewed marriage as God-ordained and perfectly proper for
Christians. He also wrote that a single life is not wrong, but "good" (Gr.
kalon), though not necessarily better than a married life.

7:2 This verse probably begins Paul's extended correction of the Corinthians'
view of marriage. He proceeded to strongly urge them that the type of
abstinence that they were arguing for—within marriage—was totally
wrong. Notice the three sets of balanced pairs in verses 2-4. In this verse,
Paul urged married couples to have sexual relations with one another,
because of the prevalence of temptations to satisfy sexual desire

275Advocates of the traditional interpretation include Godet, Lightfoot, Grosheide, Morris, Mare, and
Wiersbe.
276Fee, The First . . ., p. 275; Lowery, p. 517; Keener, p. 62.
277Barrett, p. 154.
278Findlay, 2:822; Morris, p. 105.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 89

inappropriately. "Having" one's spouse was a common euphemism in non-

biblical Greek for having that person sexually.279

The view of verse 1 that understands Paul to be saying that it is better to

avoid marrying, sees Paul as making a concession to that statement here.
Those who hold this view believe that Paul was now saying in verse 2 that
it is better to marry, since many single people cannot live in the single
state without eventually committing "immoralities" (fornication, Gr.
porneias). This is obviously not the only reason to marry (cf. Gen. 2:18-
24), but it appears to have been an important consideration in Corinth,
where temptations to fornicate abounded. As noted above, I do not favor
this interpretation.

"This [i.e., "each . . . each," also] forbids polygamy, which

was advocated by some Jewish teachers."280

7:3 In view of the temptation to commit fornication, each partner in marriage

needs to "fulfill his" or her sexual "duty" to the spouse. Part of the
responsibility of marriage is to meet the various needs of the partner (Gen.
2:18), including sexual needs.

7:4 Moreover, in marriage each partner relinquishes certain personal rights,

including the exclusive right to ("authority over") "his (or her) own body,"
to which he or she gives the mate a claim. Neither person has complete
authority over his or her own body in marriage. Note that Paul was careful
to give both husband and wife equal rights in these verses. He did not
regard the man as having sexual rights or needs that the woman does not
have, or vice versa.

7:5 Evidently the Corinthians, at least some of them, had concluded that since
they were "spiritual," they did not need to continue to have sexual
relations as husband and wife. Another, less probable situation, I think, is
that there were some married Christians in the church who were
overreacting to the immorality in Corinth—by abstaining from sexual
relations with their mates. For whatever reason, Paul viewed this as
"depriving one another" of their normal sexual needs, and he urged them
to stop doing it. Husbands and wives should commit themselves to
honoring the spirit of mutual ownership that these verses describe.

There are legitimate reasons for temporary abstinence, but couples should
temporarily abstain only with the "agreement" of both partners. When
there are greater needs, i.e., spiritual needs, the couple may want to set
aside their normal physical needs. However, they should only do so
temporarily ("for a time"). Laying aside eating (fasting) or sleeping

279Keener, p. 62.
280Robertson and Plummer, p. 133.
90 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

(watching) temporarily, to engage in more important spiritual duties (e.g.,

"prayer"), is similar.

"Three conditions are required for lawful abstention: it

must be by mutual consent, for a good object, and
temporary."281

Normally we think of sexual activity as an indication of lack of self-

control, but Paul also viewed the failure to engage in sex as a lack of self-
control for a married person.

7:6 Paul's "concession" was allowing temporary abstinence from sex. The
concession was not permitting them to have sex. He never commanded
abstinence in his teaching. He viewed regular marital relations as the
norm. Paul was not an ascetic who favored as little sex as possible.
Abstinence was the exception to what was normal in his view.

7:7 Paul evidently was not a married man when he wrote this epistle (v. 8).
We do not have enough information about his life to know whether he had
never married, had become a widower, or if his wife had left him.

To Paul, the single state had certain advantages for a servant of the Lord
like himself. He had to put up with many hardships in his ministry that
would have been difficult for a wife to share. Moreover, God had given
him grace to live as a single person who did not feel consumed by the fires
of lust (cf. v. 9). "Burning" was a very common description of unfulfilled
passion in Greek and Roman literature.282

He wished everyone could live as he did ("I wish that all men were even
as I myself am"), but he realized that most could not. "Each" person has
his or her own special "gift (Gr. charisma) from God," some to live single,
and some to live married (cf. Matt. 19:12). These are spiritual gifts just as
much as those gifts listed in chapters 12—14 are. The gift of celibacy is a
special ability, that God gives only some people, to feel free from the
desire or need of sexual fulfillment in marriage.283

The legitimate option of singleness 7:8-9

Paul moved from advice to the married, regarding sexual abstinence, to advice to the
unmarried. He advised this group, as he had the former one, to remain in the state in
which they found themselves, but he allowed them an exception too.

281Ibid.,p. 134.
282Keener, p. 63.
283Fee, The First . . ., p. 284.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 91

7:8 Who are the "unmarried" (Gr. agamois) that Paul had in view? Most
interpreters have taken this word in its broadest possible meaning, namely,
all categories of unmarried people. Others, however, take it to refer to
"widowers," since Paul also specified "widows" in this verse, and since he
dealt with males and females in balance in this chapter. There is a Greek
word for "widowers," but it does not appear in the koine Greek period.
Agamos served in its place.284 I prefer the former view: all unmarried
people.

The unmarried state has some advantages over the married state, even
though it is better for most people to marry (Gen. 2:18). Since singleness
is not a sinful condition, married people should not look down on single
people, or pity them because they are unmarried. Sometimes married
people tend to do this because singles do not enjoy the pleasures of
married life. In any event, they enjoy the pleasures of single life that
married individuals do not. Married people should not pressure single
people to get married just because they are single.

7:9 However, if a single person cannot or does not control his or her passions
("have self-control"), it would be "better to marry than to burn" with
lustful temptation (cf. v. 2).

". . . it is one thing to burn, another to feel heat.

Accordingly, what Paul calls burning here, is not merely a
slight sensation, but being so aflame with passion that you
cannot stand up against it."285

If a single has very strong sexual urges that may very well drive him or
her into fornication, he or she would be wise to get married if possible. Of
course a believer should marry a suitable Christian mate. This may be
easier said than done, especially for a woman. The Lord has promised to
provide the basic needs of those who put Him first in their lives (e.g.,
Matt. 6:33). I believe He will do so, in answer to prayer, either by
providing a suitable mate, or by enabling the single person to control his
or her sexual passions. In either case, He gives more grace (10:13).

No divorce for Christians whose mates are believers 7:10-11

Some Corinthian spouses wanted to abstain from intercourse (7:1-7), but some others
apparently wanted to extricate themselves from their marriages altogether (7:10-16).286
Again Paul advised remaining as they were, but he also allowed an exception.

284Seeibid., pp. 287-88 for additional support for this view.

285Calvin,The First . . ., p. 144.
286Keener, p. 64.
92 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"While Paul displays ambivalence toward whether widowers and widows

should get married (vv. 8-9), he consistently rejects the notion that the
married may dissolve their marriages."287

7:10 The Lord Jesus Christ gave instruction concerning what believers are to do
in marriage when He taught during His earthly ministry (Matt. 5:27-32;
19:3-12; Mark 10:1-12). Paul cited some of this teaching and added more
of his own. This is one of the rare instances when Paul appealed directly to
Jesus' teachings (cf. 9:14; 11:23; 1 Tim. 5:18). Usually he taught in
harmony with Jesus without citing Him. Of course, God's instructions
through Paul are just as inspired and authoritative as His teaching through
Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. This is one of Paul's few
commands in this chapter (cf. vv. 2-5).

The main point of Paul's advice is that Christians should not break up their
marriages (Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 10:7-9). "Leaving" and divorcing (vv. 12-
13) were virtually the same in Greco-Roman culture.288 "Separate" (Gr.
chorizo) was vernacular for "divorce."289 In our day, one popular way to
deal with marriage problems is to split up, and this has always been an
attractive option for many people. Nevertheless, the Lord's will is that all
people, including believers, work through their marital problems—rather
than giving up on them by separating permanently.

7:11 If separation (divorce) occurs ("if she does leave"), they should ("she
must") "remain unmarried" (i.e., stay as they are), "or else be reconciled"
with their mate. Paul phrased this as the wife's course of action, only
because if she was the one who left, then she would be the mate who had
to decide what to do. However, the same procedure would be appropriate
for the husband in the reverse situation. In Greco-Roman culture, wives
could divorce their husbands, but among the Jews they could not.290 Only
the husband could initiate a divorce (Deut. 24:1).

I believe Paul did not deal with the exception that Jesus Christ allowed on
the grounds of fornication (Gr. porneia; Matt. 5:32; 19:9), because it is an
exception. Paul wanted to reinforce the main teaching of Christ on this
subject, namely, that couples should not dissolve their marriages.

Some of the Corinthian Christians appear to have been separating for ascetic reasons: to
get away from sexual activity. In many modern cultures, the reason is often the opposite;
people often divorce to marry someone else. Regardless of the reason for the temptation,
Paul commanded Christian husbands and wives to stay together, and to share their
bodies—as well as their lives—with each other. It is impossible for a Christian husband

287Fee, The First . . ., p. 291.

288Ibid.,p. 293.
289William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 899.
290Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 69.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 93

and wife couple to provide a model of reconciliation to the world if they cannot reconcile
with each other.

No divorce for Christians whose mates are unbelievers 7:12-16

In this situation, too, Paul granted an exception, but the exceptional is not the ideal. He
also reiterated his principle of staying in the condition in which one finds himself or
herself.

". . . one of the great heathen complaints against Christianity was exactly
the complaint that Christianity did break up families and was a disruptive
influence in society. 'Tampering with domestic relationships' was in fact
one of the first charges brought against the Christians."291

7:12-13 "The rest" refers to persons not in the general category of verse 10. Paul
had been speaking of the typical married persons in the church, namely,
those married to another believer. Now he dealt with mixed marriages
between a believer and an unbeliever, as the following verses make clear.

For mixed couples, Paul could not cite a teaching of Jesus, because He had
not spoken on this subject. At least, as far as Paul knew He had not.
Nevertheless, the risen Lord inspired Paul's instructions on this subject, so
they were every bit as authoritative as the teaching Jesus gave during His
earthly ministry.

The Corinthians may have asked Paul: Should a believing partner divorce
an unbelieving mate instead of continue living mismatched with him or
her? This was the problem he addressed. He counseled the believer to go
on living with the unbeliever as long as the unbeliever was willing to do
so.

"The point is clear: in a mixed marriage the Christian

partner is not to take the initiative . . . in a move towards
[permanent] separation."292

7:14 Even though an unbeliever might affect his or her mate negatively,
morally or ethically, it is still better to keep the marriage together. This is
because the believing mate will positively affect the unbeliever.
"Sanctified" (Gr. hagiadzo) means to be set apart for a special purpose.
God has set aside the unsaved ("unbelieving") spouse of a believer for
special blessing, some of which comes through his or her mate (cf. Exod.
29:37; Lev. 6:18). God will deal with such a person differently than He
deals with those not married to Christians.

291Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 70.

292Barrett, p. 164.
94 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"Observe the large and liberal view which the Apostle here
adopts. The lesser takes its character from the greater, not
the greater from the lesser. God does not reject the better
because of its alliance with the worse, but accepts the
worse on account of its alliance with the better."293

I do not believe Paul would have objected to a couple separating

temporarily, if the believer was in physical danger from the unbeliever (cf.
v. 15). What he did not want was for believers to initiate the termination of
their marriages, for this or any other reason. Paul did not get into all the
possible situations that married people face.

Likewise, the "children" in such a marriage would enjoy special treatment

from God, rather than being in a worse condition than the children in a
Christian home. This special "setting apart" probably involves their
protection in the mixed home, and the supply of grace needed for that
sometimes difficult situation. "Holy" (Gr. hagios) means "set apart as
different."

I do not believe Paul was saying unsaved spouses and children of mixed
marriages are better off than the spouses and children in Christian
families. His point was that God would offset the disadvantages of such a
situation with special grace.

"This verse throws no light on the question of infant

baptism."294

7:15 On the other hand, "if the unbeliever (unbelieving one)" in a mixed
marriage wants to break up the marriage ("leaves"), the believing partner
should allow him or her to do so ("let him [(or her)] leave"). The reason
for this is that God wants peace to exist in human relationships. It is better
to have a peaceful relationship with an unbelieving spouse who has
departed, than it is to try to hold the marriage together. This is true if
holding the marriage together will only result in constant antagonism and
increasing hostility in the home. However, notice that the Christian does
not have the option, apart from a threatening situation, of departing
(vv. 10-11).

Another view is that Paul meant that separation should be prevented, if at

all possible, since that would disrupt the peace of the marriage union.295
However, this view presupposes that peace existed between the husband
and wife, which seems unlikely since one of them wanted a divorce from
the other.

293Lightfoot,p. 226.
294Robertson and Plummer, p. 142.
295Johnson, p. 1240.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 95

When the unbeliever departs, the Christian is no longer "under bondage"

(Gr. douleuo, lit. to be a slave). Does this refer to bondage to hold the
marriage together, or to bondage to remain unmarried? Many of the
commentators believed it means that the Christian is free to let the
unbeliever depart; he or she does not have an obligation to maintain the
marriage.296 Among these, some hold that the believer is not free to
remarry (cf. v. 11).297 Most of these, however, believe that the Christian is
free to remarry.298 The Greek text does not solve this problem. I think Paul
was not addressing the idea of remarrying here.

I would counsel a Christian, whose unsaved spouse has divorced him or

her, to remain unmarried as long as there is a possibility that the unsaved
person may return. However, if the unsaved spouse who has departed
remarries, I believe the Christian would be free to remarry since, by
remarrying, the unsaved partner has closed the door on reconciliation.299

7:16 It is possible that Paul meant Christians should not separate from their
unbelieving spouses because, by staying together, the unbeliever might
eventually become a Christian (cf. 1 Pet. 3:1).300 He might have meant that
the believer should not oppose the unbeliever's departing because he could
possibly become a Christian through channels other than the witness of the
believing spouse. Both possibilities are realistic, so even though we cannot
tell exactly what the apostle meant here, what we should do is clear. The
Christian can have hope that God may bring the unsaved spouse to
salvation while the believer does the Lord's will.

Verse 16 is a positive note on which to close the instructions to Christians

who have unsaved spouses.

2. Basic principles 7:17-24

At this point, Paul moved back from specific situations to basic principles his readers
needed to keep in mind when thinking about marriage (cf. vv. 1-7). He drew his
illustrations in this section from circumcision and slavery.

"Under the rubric 'It is good not to have relations with a woman,' they
were seeking to change their present status, apparently because as
believers they saw this as conforming to the more spiritual existence that
they had already attained. Thus they saw one's status with regard to

296E.g., Robertson and Plummer, p. 143; Fee, The First . . ., pp. 302-3.
297E.g., William A. Heth and Gordon J. Wenham, Jesus and Divorce.
298E.g., Barrett, p. 166; Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 70; Lenski, pp. 294-95; Lowery, p. 518; Morris, p.
111; and Keener, p. 65.
299See Robertson, 4:128. See also Appendix 1 "What ends a marriage in God's sight?" at the end of these
notes.
300Barrett, p. 167.
96 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

marriage/celibacy as having religious significance and sought change

because of it. Under the theme of 'call' Paul seeks to put their 'spirituality'
into a radically different perspective. They should remain in whatever
social setting they were at the time of their call since God's call to be in
Christ (cf. 1:9) transcends such settings so as to make them essentially
irrelevant."301

7:17 Whether he or she is unmarried or married, married to a believer or to an

unbeliever, the Christian should regard his or her current "condition"
(v. 20) as what God has placed him or her in ("as the Lord has assigned to
each one") for the time being. The concept of "call" is a way of describing
Christian conversion (cf. 1:2, 9). He or she should concentrate on serving
the Lord in that condition ("as God has called each"), rather than spending
most of one's time and energy on trying to change it. Paul taught the
priority of serving Christ, over trying to change one's circumstances, "in
all the churches."

"Paul's intent is not to lay down a rule that one may not
change; rather, by thus hallowing one's situation in life, he
is trying to help the Corinthians see that their social status
is ultimately irrelevant as such (i.e., they can live out their
Christian life in any of the various options) and therefore
their desire to change is equally irrelevant—because it has
nothing to do with genuine spirituality as their slogan
would infer (v. 1b)."302

This is the second of four instances where Paul appealed to what was
customary "in all the churches" (cf. 4:17; 11:16; 14:33). He never did this
in any of his other letters. He was reminding this church that its theology
was off track, not his.

7:18-19 This principle of remaining in one's present condition applies to being

"circumcised" or "uncircumcised," as well as to being married or
unmarried. Both conditions were secondary to following the Lord
obediently. God did not command celibacy or marriage, circumcision or
uncircumcision (under the New Covenant). These are matters of personal
choice in the church. One's ministry might be one factor, however, in his
or her decision (e.g., Acts 16:3; cf. Gal. 5:6; 6:15).

The idea of becoming "uncircumcised" after one has been circumcised

seems strange, but some Jews actually did this to avoid being known as
Jews, when they participated in activities at the public gymnasiums.303
They underwent an operation that reversed their circumcision.

301Fee, The First . . ., p. 307.

302Ibid., p. 311. Cf. Robertson and Plummer, p. 144.
303Ibid., p. 146. See also Keener, p. 66.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 97

7:20 The "condition" (NASB) or "situation" (NIV; Gr. klesis) is the calling
(v. 17) in life (station; position), in which a person was at the time God
called him or her into His family (cf. 1:2; Eph. 4:1). Our calling as
Christians, to bear witness to Jesus Christ, is more important than our
"calling" in life, namely, the place we occupy in the social, economic,
political, and geographical scheme of things.

"From this passage comes the common usage of the word

'calling' or 'vocation,' for our profession in life regarded as
sanctified, as given to us by God."304

7:21 Paul did not mean that a Christian should take a fatalistic view of life, and
regard his or her condition (station) as something he or she should
definitely remain in forever. If we have the opportunity to improve
ourselves for the glory of God, we should do so. If we do not, we should
not fret about our state, but bloom where God has planted us. We should
regard our calling by Christ as sanctifying our present situation. In the
context, of course, Paul was appealing to those who felt compelled to
dissolve their marriages.

Another example of this principle would be: if a person became a

Christian while uneducated, he could still serve Christ effectively—
without a formal education—in a variety of ways. Many outstanding
servants of the Lord have done so. If he has the opportunity to get an
education, and so serve God more effectively, he should feel free to take
advantage of that opportunity. Unfortunately some Christians put more
emphasis on getting an education than they do on serving the Lord. This is
putting the cart before the horse, and is the very thing Paul warned against
here.

7:22 Paul's emphasis on the wisdom of the world versus the wisdom of God
comes back into view in this section of verses (cf. 1:10—4:21). Priorities
are in view. Does the Corinthian slave view himself primarily as a "slave"
or as a "freedman"? (A freedman was a person who had formerly been a
slave but had received "manumission": had been set free.) The Corinthian
slave was both: a slave of men but the freedman of God. Does the
freedman view himself primarily as a freedman or as a slave? The
freedman was both: a freedman socially but the Lord's slave spiritually.

"This imagery, of course, must be understood in light of

Greco-Roman slavery, not that of recent American history.
Slavery was in fact the bottom rung on the social order, but
for the most part it provided generally well for up to one-
third of the population in a city like Corinth or Rome. The
slave had considerable freedom and very often experienced

304Lightfoot, p. 228.
98 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

mutual benefit along with the master. The owner received

the benefit of the slave's services; and the slave had steady
'employment,' including having all his or her basic needs
met—indeed, for many to be a slave was preferable to
being a freedman, whose securities were often tenuous at
best. But the one thing that marked the slave was that in the
final analysis, he did not belong to himself but to another.
That is Paul's point with this imagery."305

It is unfortunate that many Christians today choose to focus on their

limitations and not on their possibilities as representatives of Jesus Christ.
We should use the abilities and opportunities that God gives us, rather
than feeling sorry for ourselves because we do not have other abilities or
opportunities.

7:23 Paul's thought returned to the Cross again (cf. 6:20). God has set us free
from the worst kind of slavery, having purchased us with the precious
blood of His Son. How foolish, then, it would be for us to give up any of
the liberties we enjoy—that enable us to serve Jesus Christ! How
ridiculous it would be to place ourselves back into a slave relationship to
anyone or anything but Him ("do not become slaves of men"). This
applies to both physical and spiritual bondage.

7:24 For the third time in this pericope (vv. 17, 20, 24), Paul stated the basic
principle that he advocated. Evidently there was much need for this
exhortation in the Corinthian church.

In our day, upward mobility has become a god to many Christians, and its
worship has polluted the church. We need to be content to serve the Lord,
to live out our calling, whether in a mixed marriage, singleness, a white
collar or blue collar job, or whatever socioeconomic condition we may
occupy.

In this section, Paul chose his examples from circumcision and uncircumcision, slavery
and freedom. However, the larger context of the chapter is singleness and marriage. His
point was that those who were single, when God called them to follow Him, should be
content to remain single, and that those who were married should stay married.
Faithfulness to God or effectiveness for God do not require a change. Yet if opportunity
for more effective service of Christ presents itself, one should feel free to take advantage
of it.

3. Advice concerning virgins 7:25-40

The second occurrence of the phrase peri de ("now concerning") occurs in verse 25 and
indicates another subject about which the Corinthians had written Paul (cf. v. 1). This
was the subject of single women. This section belongs with the rest of chapter 7 because

305Fee, The First . . ., p. 319.

2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 99

this subject relates closely to what immediately precedes. Paul continued to deal with
questions about marriage that the Corinthians' asceticism raised.

The advantage of the single state 7:25-28

In view of the verses in this section, it seems that the question the Corinthians had asked
Paul was: Should an engaged girl get married or remain single? One might understand
verses 17-24 as saying that no unmarried person should change her (or his) situation
(station; position) and get married (cf. v. 8), but this was not necessarily what Paul
advocated.

7:25 The "virgins" (Gr. parthenoi) were a group within the "unmarried"
(agamoi) of verse 8. Paul used the feminine gender in five out of the six
uses of this noun in verses 25-38. Consequently it seems clear that he was
speaking of female virgins in particular.

There are three major views about the identity of these virgins. One view
is that they were the "virgin daughters" of men in the Corinthian church,
and that these fathers had questions about giving their daughters in
marriage. A second view is that the virgins were both men and women
who were living together in a "spiritual marriage" (i.e., without sexual
relations). A third view is that the virgins were females who were
engaged, or thinking of becoming engaged, but were experiencing
pressure from the "spiritual" ones in the church to forgo marriage. I
believe the text supports the first and third views best.

The Lord Jesus had not addressed this problem during His earthly
ministry, as far as Paul knew (cf. v. 12). Paul gave his inspired opinion as
a "trustworthy" (wise) steward of the Lord who had received "mercy" to
be such (4:2). Note that Paul appealed to the Lord's mercy, not His
command. As in the first part of this chapter, Paul was offering good
advice, but he was not commanding that everyone do the same thing.
Therefore, to choose not to follow Paul's advice did not amount to sinning.

7:26 What was the "present distress" or crisis (Gr. anagke) to which the apostle
referred? It may have been a crisis in the Corinthian church or in Corinth,
about which we have no more specific information. However, in view of
Paul's description of this distress (vv. 29-31), it seems as though he was
speaking of the fact that we live in the last days.306 They are "last days"
because the Lord's return for us could end them at any time.

If this is correct, we live in the same "present distress" as the Corinthian

believers did. It is a time of distress because of the hostility of unbelievers
and increasing apostasy (cf. 1 Tim. 4; 2 Tim. 3). Committed Christians
constantly face opposition, antagonism, and stress because they hold

306Barrett, p. 175; Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 77; et al.

100 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

values, morals, and priorities that the world rejects. The Apostle Paul
consistently viewed the inter-advent age as a time of crisis and distress.

The last part of the verse restates Paul's basic principle of abiding in one's
calling (vv. 17, 20, 24). "Man" (NASB) or "you" (NIV) is anthropos,
meaning "person."

7:27 Paul thought it prudent to stay married, rather than to seek a life of
singleness with a view to serving the Lord more effectively. Obviously it
would be wrong to split up a marriage for this purpose. If an unbelieving
spouse had abandoned the Christian, or if he or she had lost his or her
spouse to death, a single life would provide greater opportunity for
Christian ministry.

7:28 Nevertheless, marrying in such a case is not sinful. Furthermore if a young

woman decides to marry, rather than staying single, "she has not sinned."
However, the decision to marry may complicate her service for the Lord.

For example, suppose a single woman gets into a position where an

adversary may torture her for her faith. She could face that possibility
more easily than a married woman could, who has children for whom she
has responsibility. It is that kind of "trouble" that Paul evidently had in
mind.

"One of the unfortunate things that has happened to this text in the church
is that the very pastoral concern of Paul that caused him to express himself
in this way has been a source of anxiety rather than comfort. Part of the
reason for this is that in Western cultures we do not generally live in a
time of 'present distress.' Thus we fail to sense the kind of care that this
text represents. Beyond that, what is often heard is that Paul prefers
singleness to marriage, which he does. But quite in contrast to Paul's own
position over against the Corinthians, we often read into that preference
that singleness is somehow a superior status. That causes some who do not
wish to remain single to become anxious about God's will in their lives.
Such people need to hear it again: Marriage or singleness per se lies totally
outside the category of 'commandments' to be obeyed or 'sin' if one
indulges; and Paul's preference here is not predicated on 'spiritual' grounds
but on pastoral concern. It is perfectly all right to marry."307

Reasons for remaining single 7:29-35

Paul next called his readers to take a different view of their relationship to the world,
since they lived in distressing times, and the form of the world was passing away. We,
too, need this view of the world, because we also live in distressing times, and the form
of the world is still passing away.

307Fee, The First . . ., p. 334.

2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 101

7:29a While it is true that "the time" a person has to serve Christ grows shorter
("has been shortened") with every day he or she lives, Paul probably
meant that the Lord's return is closer every day. However, it is not the
amount of time that we have left that concerned Paul, but the fact that we
need to know our time is limited. Christians should live with a certain
perspective on the future and, therefore, we should live with eternity's
values consciously in view. We should be ready to make sacrifices now in
view of the possibility of greater reward later (3:14; cf. Matt. 6:19-21).

7:29b-31a Married men ("those who have wives") should live as soldiers of the
Cross, willing to forgo some of the comforts and pleasures of family life,
but not its responsibilities, since we are in a spiritual battle. "Those who
weep" should remember that present sorrow will be comparatively short
(cf. Luke 6:21). Likewise, "those who rejoice" should bear in mind that we
have a serious purpose to fulfill in life (Luke 6:25).

When we make purchases ("those who buy"), we need to consider that we

are only stewards of God and that everything really belongs to Him ("as
though they did not possess"). The Christian should "use the world" and
everything in it to serve the Lord, but he (or she) must not get completely
wrapped up in the things of this world ("as though they did not make full
use of it"). Therefore, whether a person is single or married, he or she
should live with an attitude of detachment from the world. We should not
let it engross or absorb us.

7:31b The reason for viewing life this way is that earthly life ("the world"), as
we know it, is only temporary and "is passing away." This world is not our
home; we're just a-pass'n' through.

7:32a Paul wanted his readers to be "free from concern[s]" about this present
life, so that their devotion to the Lord would be consistent (v. 35; cf. Matt.
6:25-34; Phil. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:7). He wanted us believers to live as
eschatological people. Our new existence in Christ should determine our
lives, not the world in its present form. Buying and marrying should not
determine our existence. A clear view of the future should do that.

7:32b-34 Comparing two equally committed Christians, an "unmarried" man can

give more concentrated attention to "the things of the Lord." A "married"
man needs to also be concerned about his family responsibilities. This is
true of women, and particularly virgins, as well as men. Queen Elizabeth I
said that England was her husband.308 Some interpreters put more
emphasis on the negative anxiety feeling ("concern"), while others stress
the positive, legitimate "care" (caring concern) that each person needs to
show. Both aspects of "concern" are probably in view. Even though the

308Robertson and Plummer, p. 158.

102 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

unmarried state is in one sense preferable, it is not intrinsically better.309

Unfortunately, many single people—who have more time to devote to
serving the Lord—choose to live for themselves.

7:35 Paul did not want his readers to regard his preceding comments as an
attempt to build too strong a case for celibacy, as ascetics do. He wanted
to help his readers appreciate the realities of the single and married states,
so they could express unhindered (or "undistracted") "devotion to the
Lord." Christians have genuine freedom under the Lord to choose to be
single or married. Similarly, believers have freedom to choose how many
children to have, and when to have them, assuming they are able to have
them. There is no New Covenant legislation in this regard. However, we
need to consider life in view of the "present distress" and the "shortened
time" as we consider our options.

Paul counseled, not commanded, single women to remain unmarried for three reasons:
the present difficult time for Christians (vv. 26-28), the imminent return of Christ (vv. 29-
31), and the opportunity to serve Christ undistracted (vv. 32-35). Nevertheless, single
women have freedom to choose whether they want to get married, as do single men. Yet
the realities of life in Christ, that Paul outlined in this pericope, need to inform that
decision.

The legitimacy of marriage 7:36-40

This section concludes Paul's entire teaching on marriage in this chapter. However, it
contains problems related to the meaning of "virgin," as is clear from the three different
interpretations translated in: the NASB, the NIV, and the NEB. These verses may
introduce a special case (advice to fathers of virgins310) or connect with verse 35. Perhaps
the man in view is the fiancé of the virgin who is considering the possibility of marriage
with her.311 In the second case, the pericope then summarizes what Paul has already
taught. I prefer the second view, but the first one has much to commend it.

7:36 Paul urged "any man" not to feel that he must remain single, or that he and
his "virgin" girlfriend (or daughter) must forgo sexual fulfillment after
marriage (vv. 1-7). He might have been reluctant to marry (or give her in
marriage) because of what Paul had written about the single state being
preferable (vv. 8, 28-34). Or he might have hesitated because of ascetic
influences in the church that were due to a false sense of "spirituality," and
possibly an overreaction to the fornication in Corinth.

"Roman and Greek fathers had the control of the marriage

of their daughters."312

309Barrett, p. 181.
310E.g.,Robertson and Plummer, p. 158; Lowery, p. 520.
311Barrett, p. 184.
312Robertson, 4:135.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 103

7:37 Likewise, the man who preferred to take Paul's advice to remain single
should feel at peace ("stands firm in his heart") about his decision.
External pressure from the ascetic Corinthians, or from what Paul himself
had just written, need not constrain him ("being under no constraint, but
has authority over his own will"). He should follow his own convictions
("has decided this in his own heart") about marrying or not marrying,
guided, of course, by the Holy Spirit.

7:38 The decision in view is one involving a choice between the good and the
better, rather than right versus wrong, or not sinning versus sinning. This
is a good example of an amoral (non-moral) situation. Paul addressed
other non-moral situations later in this epistle (cf. 8:1—11:1).

"So at the end Paul has agreed, and disagreed, with the
Corinthians in their letter. They prefer celibacy for
'spiritual' reasons; he prefers it for pastoral and
eschatological ones. But quite in contrast to them, he also
affirms marriage; indeed, he does so strongly: Such a man
'does well.' But there is one final word. These verses are
addressed to the man; but in keeping with his response
throughout, there is a final word for married women as
well."313

7:39 The remaining two verses conclude both major sections of the discussion,
by repeating that wives should not separate from their husbands (cf. vv. 1-
24). This concluding reminder is especially important for virgins who are
considering the possibility of marrying. Again Paul referred to marriage as
a binding relationship (cf. vv. 15, 27). The wife "is bound" (Gr. deo) to
"her husband," "as long as" he "lives." Does this mean that even if he
leaves her the marriage tie is unbroken? That is what many interpreters
have concluded. If that is the case, remarriage after a divorce or separation
would constitute adultery (cf. Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11-12). In that case,
one should avoid remarriage before the death of the spouse.

Another possibility is that Paul conceded, but did not restate, the fact that
desertion by an unbelieving spouse freed the Christian, and he or she was
no longer under bondage to the mate (v. 15). This applied only to mixed
marriages, however.

Paul regarded death as the only thing that always breaks the marriage
bond. This may imply that present marital relationships will not continue
in heaven in their current form (cf. Luke 20:34-36). Jesus taught that
divorce (separation) may lead to adultery if the marriage partners do not
reunite (Matt. 19:9). God may permit separation or divorce in certain

313Fee, The First . . ., p. 355.

104 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

circumstances (cf. Matt. 19:9; 1 Cor. 7:15), but remarriage usually results
in adultery, unless the former spouse of the divorced person has died.

When a Christian woman's husband dies, she is at liberty to marry

whomever she chooses, provided he is a believer (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14). The
same rule would apply to a Christian man whose wife dies.

"Long, long ago Plutarch, the wise old Greek, laid it down,
that 'marriage cannot be happy unless husband and wife are
of the same religion.'"314

Surprisingly, Lightfoot took a different view:

"This expression ["only in the Lord"] is generally

interpreted to imply that she must marry a Christian
husband, if she marry at all. But the expression cannot be
so pressed. It will only signify that she must remember that
she is a member of Christ's body; and not forget her
Christian duties and responsibilities, when she takes such a
step. Marriage with a Christian only does not seem to be
contained in the words, though that might be the
consequence of her attempt to fulfill those duties."315

7:40 Paul expressed his opinion, that a widow would probably be better off to
remain unmarried, with a very light touch, one that he used throughout this
chapter. This decision, as well as all decisions about whether to marry or
not, pivots on a delicate balance. Paul later acknowledged that given
certain conditions some widows would usually be better off to marry (cf.
1 Tim. 5:9-13). For example, faced with the prospect of choosing between
a fine Christian husband and a life of destitute poverty, it would probably
be better for her to remarry. However, if all other things were equal, the
single state seemed preferable to the apostle. Notice that the issue is the
widow's happiness ("in my opinion she is happier if she remains as she
is"), not her obedience. She will have "fewer distractions, and more
freedom from worldly cares."316

Paul undoubtedly knew he represented "the mind of the Spirit" in what he

said. He simply expressed himself as he did to avoid laying too much
weight on his preference.

This chapter is one of the central passages on the subject of marriage in the Bible (cf.
Deut. 24; Matt. 5; 19; Mark 10).317 It reveals that Paul was not a hard-nosed bigot and
advocate of celibacy, as some have accused him of being. He was extremely careful to

314Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 79.

315Lightfoot, p. 235.
316Calvin, The First . . ., p. 168.
317See the bibliography of these notes for other helpful resources on this subject.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 105

distinguish his personal preferences in non-moral aspects of this subject from the Lord's
will. Even when the will of God was unequivocal (e.g., v. 39), he did not "pound the
pulpit," but simply explained God's will in irenic fashion. May all of us who preach and
teach on this sensitive subject follow his example.

B. FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS 8:1—11:1

The Corinthians had asked Paul another question, evidently in a combative spirit, judging
by the apostle's response. It involved a practice common in their culture.

The commentators understand the situation that Paul addressed in two different ways.
Some of them believe that the eating of marketplace food that pagans had previously
offered to idols was non-moral (not a moral issue) in itself, but it was controversial
enough to cause division among the church members. If this was indeed the issue that
Paul addressed, it is only one of many similar "doubtful things." Advocates of this view
believe that the apostle's directions to his readers, here, give us guidance in dealing with
contemporary doubtful (non-moral, "in between" things that are neither good nor bad in
themselves, neutral) matters.

Other interpreters believe that eating food sacrificed to idols involved a specific form of
idolatry and was, therefore, not non-moral but sinful (cf. 5:10-11). They assume that Paul
was responding to the Corinthians' objection to his prohibition of this practice that he had
written in his former letter to them. This view sees 8:10 and 10:1-22 as expressing the
basic problem to which Paul was responding. I believe the text supports this
interpretation of the facts better than the former one.

"That going to the temples is the real issue is supported by the fact that the
eating of cultic meals was a regular part of worship in antiquity. This is
true not only of the nations that surrounded Israel, but of Israel itself. In
the Corinth of Paul's time, such meals were still the regular practice both
at state festivals and private celebrations of various kinds. There were
three parts to these meals: the preparation, the sacrifice proper, and the
feast. The meat of the sacrifices apparently was divided into three
portions: that burned before the god, that apportioned to the worshipers,
and that placed on the 'table of the god,' which was tended by cultic
ministrants but also eaten by the worshipers. The significance of these
meals has been much debated, but most likely they involved a
combination of religious and social factors. The gods were thought to be
present since the meals were held in their honor and sacrifices were made;
nonetheless, they were also intensely social occasions for the participants.
For the most part the Gentiles who had become believers in Corinth had
probably attended such meals all their lives; this was the basic 'restaurant'
in antiquity, and every kind of occasion was celebrated in this fashion.

"The problem, then, is best reconstructed along the following lines. After
their conversion—and most likely after the departure of Paul—some of
them returned to the practice of attending the cultic meals. In his earlier
106 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

letter Paul forbade such 'idolatry'; but they have taken exception to that
prohibition and in their letter have made four points:

"(1) They argue that 'all have knowledge' about idols [i.e., that there are no
such things, so participation in these meals is not an issue, cf. vv. 1, 4]. . . .

"(2) They also have knowledge about food, that it is a matter of

indifference to God (8:8) . . .

"(3) They seem to have a somewhat 'magical' view of the sacraments;

those who have had Christian baptism and who partake of the Lord's Table
are not in any danger of falling (10:1-4).

"(4) Besides, there is considerable question in the minds of many whether

Paul has the proper apostolic authority to forbid them on this matter. In
their minds this has been substantiated by two factors: first, his failure to
accept support while with them; and second, his own apparently
compromising stance on idol food sold in the marketplace (he abstained
when eating with Jews, but ate when eating with Gentiles; cf. 9:19-23)."318

1. The priority of love over knowledge in Christian conduct ch. 8

The amount of corrective instruction concerning knowledge in this epistle makes clear
that the Corinthian Christians valued knowledge too highly. Paul wrote that the real aim
of the faith should not be knowledge but love.

Knowledge and love compared 8:1-3

Paul began by comparing the way of love and the way of knowledge to show their
relative importance.

8:1 The key phrase peri de ("now concerning" or "now about"), as well as a
change in subject matter, mark off a new section of this epistle.

Traditional interpreters of this passage have pointed out that in the Greco-
Roman world of Paul's day, pagan Gentiles offered sacrificial animals
daily to various pagan gods and goddesses in their temples. Only a token
portion went to the deity and burned up on the altar. The temple priests,
attendants, and their families ate most of the meat, but frequently they
could not eat all that the worshippers brought. Consequently they sold
what remained to the meat market operators in the agora (marketplace).

There in the open marketplace the general public purchased the portion of
the meat left over from the idol sacrifice. This meat was very desirable and
popular, because the pagans usually offered only the best animals in

318Fee, The First . . ., pp. 360-62.

2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 107

sacrifice. However, the butchers did not usually identify it as meat that
someone had offered to an idol. Traditional interpreters believe that this is
the meat in view in the discussion.319 As mentioned above, I think eating
in an idol temple has better support.

In dealing with this issue, Paul began as he customarily did in this epistle,
by identifying common ground of belief with his readers (cf. 6:2; 7:1).
"We all have knowledge" may have been another Corinthian slogan. All
the believers knew that there were no other gods besides the one true God.
This knowledge was leading some in the church to think that eating in an
idol temple was insignificant. It probably led others to make no distinction
between the kinds of meat they bought in the market. This was perfectly
proper, as Paul pointed out later. Nevertheless, knowledge of this fact was
not the only factor his readers needed to consider in their relationship to
eating this food.

The apostle established at the beginning of his discussion of this important

subject that "knowledge" by itself produces arrogance ("makes arrogant";
cf. 1:5; 12:8). We have already seen that arrogance was one of the
Corinthians' major weaknesses (4:6, 18-19; 5:2). In contrast, "love
edifies." Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (13:4). Paul did not mean
his readers should abandon the knowledge that was foundational to their
correct conduct. He meant that knowledge without love is incomplete, and
by itself will not lead them to correct conduct.

"Knowledge operating alone makes it an engine of

destruction (11 f.)."320

8:2 Paul warned that "if anyone" thinks he or she has fully mastered any
subject, he or she can count on the fact that he or she has not. The reason
for this is that there is always more to any subject than any one person can
ever learn or know. There is always another facet to it, another point of
view that one has not considered when examining it, or more information
about it.

This person's knowledge is deficient in another sense. His attitude toward

his knowledge is wrong. He arrogantly and unrealistically claims to have
exhausted his subject, rather than humbly realizing that he has not done so.
To think one has fully mastered any subject is the height of arrogance.
Paul said what he did here to humble some of his readers. Some claimed
that since there are no such things as idols, it was perfectly obvious what
the Christian's relation to eating meat in an idol's temple should be.

319E.g., Barrett, pp. 188-89; and Wiersbe, 1:594.

320Findlay, 2:839.
108 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"True gnosis ["knowledge"] consists not in the

accumulation of so much data, nor even in the correctness
of one's theology, but in the fact that one has learned to live
in love toward all."321

"The distinction which it seems that these rather

cumbersome clauses seek to express is between, on the one
hand, the collection of pieces of information (gnosis) about
God, and, on the other, the state of being personally, and
rightly, related to him."322

"A famous preacher used to say, 'Some Christians grow;

others just swell.'"323

8:3 Paul chose one subject to illustrate the proper view. Accumulating all the
facts about God that one possibly could will not result in the most realistic
knowledge of Him. One must also love God. If a person "loves God," then
God knows (recognizes) him in an intimate way, and reveals Himself to
him (2:10; Matt. 11:27). Consequently it is really more important that God
knows us than that we know Him ("he is known by Him"). When He
knows us intimately, He will enable us to know Him intimately.

". . . If a man loves God, this is a sign that God has taken
the initiative."324

Logically, not only will God enable those who love Him to know Him
better, but He will also enable those who love Him to understand other
subjects as well. Paul said this to establish the priority of love over
knowledge in determining our behavior in various situations.

The content of the way of knowledge 8:4-6

Paul resumed his discussion of knowledge here, after digressing briefly in verses 2 and 3
to comment on the superiority of love over knowledge.

8:4 In this verse, Paul returned to the original subject of eating meals in idol
temples, and applied the priority of love over knowledge to it.
Unquestionably, idols are not spirit beings like God is—who is real ("there
is no such thing as an idol in the world"). There is only "one" true God
(Deut. 6:4). Every Christian should know that, and the Corinthians did.
"We know that" affirms what they all knew as true.

321Fee,The First . . ., p. 368.

322Barrett, p. 190.
323Wiersbe, 1:595.
324Barrett, p. 190.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 109

8:5 Nevertheless for many people, the pagans and even Christians who do not
have a correct concept of deity, there are "many" beings they regard as
"gods" and "lords" over various areas of life. The Greeks applied the term
"gods" to their traditional deities, and the term "lords" to the deities of
their mystery cults.325
8:6 For instructed Christians, there is only "one God" ("from whom are all
things"), and "one Lord" ("by whom are all things"). Paul did not mean
that there are two separate "God"-beings or two Gods: "God" and "Lord."
These are two names for the one true God, who exists as united Father and
Son. The Scriptures establish the deity of Jesus Christ elsewhere (e.g.,
John 1:1, 14; 10:30; Col. 1:15-19; et al.). Paul did not argue that point
here, but simply stated the Son's equality with the Father within the triune
Godhead.
The point of difference is this: The Father is the source ("from whom")
and goal ("for whom") of "all things," whereas the Son is the agent
"through" and "by whom all things" have come from God and will return
to God ("exist"). Since Paul's point was the unity of the Godhead, there
was no need to complicate matters by referring to the Holy Spirit here.

The criterion of care for a brother 8:7-13

"He [Paul] develops an airtight case based on a solid theological
foundation (8:6). But then comes the alla ('however' [v. 7]), and the
argument moves in an entirely different direction.
"At issue is the nature of the community. Is it a community where those
with a correct theology can ignore others who have an aversion to eating
the idol-consecrated food? What must prevail is not the principle of
superior knowledge but the realization that those who lack knowledge are
those 'for whom Christ died' (8:11). Edification takes precedence over
freedom; the other person's advantage takes precedence over one's own
(10:23-24). The christological epistemology of 1:18—2:16 applied to the
controversy over eating food offered to idols calls for a community of
sensitivity and love."326
8:7 The traditional interpretation of this verse is as follows: Whereas every
Christian should know that there are no other gods but the one true God,
some of the Corinthians, because of their previous belief in idols, had
difficulty shaking that belief. They still had needless false guilt ("their
conscience being weak is defiled") about eating meat that someone had
previously dedicated to a heathen deity. They thought they were doing
something wrong, even though they were not. This false guilt created a
problem for them in their relationship with God.

325Fee, The First . . ., p. 373.

326Cousar, "The Theological . . .," p. 99.
110 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

A modern equivalent might be a Christian who gets saved out of a pagan

background in which he was spending all of his free time and money on
recreation of various kinds. He becomes a Christian and realizes that
recreation had been his god. As a conscientious Christian, he wants to
avoid slipping back into that trap, so he avoids recreation. He may even
become critical of other believers who enjoy the forms of recreation to
which he considers himself previously enslaved. He has trouble accepting
recreation as a legitimate activity for Christians. When he sees other
Christians enjoying recreation, he tends to look down on them as carnal.
He has false guilt about participating in recreation.

Probably Paul was describing a Corinthian Christian who would attend a

feast in an idol temple, in the same way he or she had done before
conversion (eat meat "as if it were sacrificed to an idol"). That person
would have pangs of true guilt, because by participating, he or she was
tacitly approving the worship, and consequently the existence of the idol.
Paul said the person's conscience was "weak," because even though he or
she intellectually believed there was only one God, his or her emotions
had not fully assimilated that truth. Evidently this was Peter's problem
when he compromised by withdrawing from eating with Gentiles (Gal.
2:11-14).

"When Paul speaks of a weak brother, he does not mean

one who might easily be influenced to do wrong, but one
who is weak in faith, who is overscrupulous, who does not
understand the meaning of Christian liberty, and who does
not see that the eating of food which has been offered in the
worship of false gods is a matter of moral indifference."327

8:8 Foods do not make us more or less pleasing ("food does not commend
us") "to God." In our relationship to Him, we are no better or worse
whether we participate or abstain. However, eating food in a pagan temple
was something else.

"It is the clean heart, and not clean food, that will matter;
and the weak brother confounds the two."328

8:9 The knowledge that some food is all right in itself is not the only factor
that should determine whether we eat it or not. Love for a brother that our
participation bothers is also important. The weak brother is weak because
his emotions have not caught up to his intellect. In this context, "a
stumbling block" is any barrier to another individual's personal
relationship with God. The Corinthian Christians, who had returned to the
pagan temples for their feasts, were disregarding how their participation

327Erdman, p. 79.
328Robertson and Plummer, p. 170.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 111

was affecting their brethren, who still viewed participation as worship, or

at least approval, of the idol.

In the United States, the law permits a driver to turn right at most
stoplights, provided there is no oncoming traffic. Turning right into
oncoming traffic would pose a danger to others. The driver must make his
or her decision to turn right, or to wait, on the basis of the welfare of
everyone concerned. Just so, Christians must choose to exercise their
liberty on the basis of the welfare of everyone concerned.

Some Christians have found it helpful to remember the acronym JOY:

Jesus first, Others next, Yourself last.

8:10 In verses 10-12, Paul proceeded to appeal on behalf of the rights of the
weak. Suppose a Corinthian Christian appreciated the fact that eating meat
offered to an idol was insignificant in itself. He might accept an invitation
from friends to share a meal in a pagan temple, at which the cultic leader,
conducting an idolatrous ritual, served sacrificed meat—if he saw another
Corinthian believer there. Undoubtedly some of the believers in Corinth
were attending these feasts, and were encouraging other Christians to take
this "knowledgeable" stand. Some have argued that the meals there were
spiritually harmless temple meals.329 But this seems indefensible to me.
This verse is one of the clearest evidences that participating in feasts in
idol temples was the issue Paul was addressing, rather than simply eating
marketplace meat.

8:11 Paul explained what had taken place in such a situation. The
knowledgeable Christian had, by his "knowledge" of what he considered
legitimate, and by acting on the basis of that knowledge alone, destroyed
("ruined") his brother's relationship with God. "Ruined" seems strong, but
Paul evidently anticipated the weaker brother returning to idolatry, the
next step after participating in a feast in an idol temple. The apostle
stressed the value of the weaker brother ("he who is weak") by referring to
the fact that "Christ died" for him. Therefore the stronger brother dare not
view him and his scruples as insignificant or unimportant.

"For one can imagine nothing more despicable than this,

that while Christ did not hesitate to die so that the weak
might not perish, we, on the other hand, do not care a straw
for the salvation of the men and women who have been
redeemed at such a price. This is a memorable saying, from
which we learn how precious the salvation of our brothers
ought to be to us, and not only that of all, but of each

329E.g.,Bruce K. Fisk, "Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behavior and Pauline Response in 1
Corinthians 8—10 (A Response to Gordon Fee)," Trinity Journal 10 NS:1 (Spring 1989):49-70.
112 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

individual, in view of the fact that the blood of Christ was

poured out for each one."330

8:12 We are not free to damage another person's relationship with God. We "sin
against" God ("Christ") and that person when we put an occasion for
stumbling before him or her. This is the very opposite of what God has
called us to do, namely, love God and other people (cf. Matt. 22:37-39).
The ultimate wrong of the person, who lives only by his "knowledge," is
not just that he lacks true knowledge, or that he causes a brother to
stumble. It is that he sins "against Christ."

8:13 Paul drew a conclusion about his own behavior from what he had said on
this subject. He would make love for his brethren the "governor" over his
knowledge of what was permissible.

The Greek word translated "causes to stumble [or fall]" is skandalidzo. A

skandalon, the noun form of the word, described the trigger on a trap. Paul
viewed eating in an idol temple as a kind of trigger that might set off a trap
that could ensnare a fellow believer. It could retard his progress and cause
him pain. Paul was willing to forgo all such eating if, by doing so, he
could avoid creating problems for other Christians in their relationships
with God (cf. Rom. 14:13-23).

"You place a high value on relationships. You have a

passion to engage culture. But should engagement with an
unbeliever take precedence over love for another believer?
I understand your heart. Make sure you understand God's
heart. Weak believers exist everywhere. It takes time to
develop maturity. Strong believers have a responsibility to
them."331

Causing someone to stumble in his or her journey to come to faith in

Christ, or to grow in Christ, is not necessarily the same as doing
something that others do not like. Someone may not like your choice of
clothing, for example—assuming it is not immodest or sexually
provocative. But Paul did not mean that you should always try to please
everyone by what you do. He meant that we should be careful, that what
we are doing does not hinder someone else from coming to know Christ,
or keep him from growing in Christ. Inviting an observant Muslim to
dinner, and then feeding him pork, would be a modern example of what
Paul warned against.

"I read an interesting story after the Texas Rangers won the
American League championship title in 2010. Their all-star
outfielder, Josh Hamilton has a history of drug and alcohol

330Calvin, The First . . ., p. 179.

331Nyquist, pp. 115-16.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 113

abuse. Now a Christian, he knows he cannot even sniff the

stuff or he will be pulled again into its clutches. As you
may know, it's traditional for a baseball team to celebrate
after clinching the pennant by drinking champagne in the
clubhouse. Hamilton's teammates knew this would be
disastrous for him. So, in an intentional break from
tradition, and perhaps contrary to most of their deep
desires, they celebrated in the clubhouse with ginger
ale."332

". . . Paul is not telling us to make sure before hand that

what we do will not cause 'offence', except where there is
immediate and obvious danger of doing so."333

The issue in this chapter is not that of offending someone in the church. Paul dealt with
that subject in 10:31—11:1 and Romans 14. It is, rather, doing something that someone
else might repeat to his or her own hurt ("causing my brother to stumble"). Paul dealt
with an attitude in the Corinthians. They were arguing for a behavior on the basis of
knowledge. Paul said the proper basis was love.

"Love is the solution, not knowledge, in all social problems."334

Our culture, wherever we may live, promotes our personal rights very strongly. This
emphasis has permeated the thinking of most Christians. We need to remember that there
is something more important than our freedom to do as we please. That something is the
spiritual development of other people. As those to whom other Christians look as
examples, it is especially important for you and me to recall this principle as we live. Our
willingness to accept this standard for ourselves will reveal our true love for God and
people. Our failure to do so will reveal not only our lack of knowledge, but also our lack
of love.

"As a final note to this chapter it should be understood that Paul did not
say that a knowledgeable Christian must abandon his freedom to the
ignorant prejudice of a 'spiritual' bigot. The 'weak brother' (v. 11) was one
who followed the example of another Christian, not one who carped and
coerced that knowledgeable Christian into a particular behavioral pattern.
Also it was unlikely that Paul saw this weak brother as permanently
shackling the freedom of the knowledgeable Christian. The 'weak brother'
was no omnipresent phantom but an individual who was to be taught so
that he too could enjoy his freedom (Gal. 5:1)."335

332Ibid.,
p. 114.
333Calvin,The First . . ., p. 181.
334Robertson, 4:137-38.
335Lowery, p. 522.
114 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

2. Paul's apostolic defense ch. 9

The absence of the key phrase "now concerning" is the clue that this chapter does not
deal with a new subject. It is a continuation of the discussion of eating in idol temples
that Paul began in 8:1. Subjecting our freedom for the welfare of other people is not
something any of us does naturally. Paul knew that his readers would profit from more
instruction on this subject. He used himself as an illustration of the proper attitude toward
one's freedom and responsibility in Christ.

Evidently the Corinthian Christians had misunderstood Paul's policy of limiting the
exercise of his activities to help others (8:13). Some in the church had apparently
concluded that because he did not exercise his rights, he therefore did not have them: for
example, his right to material support (cf. 2 Cor. 12:13). His apparently vacillating
conduct also raised questions in their minds about his full apostolic authority. For
example, he ate marketplace food with Gentiles but not with Jews. Paul responded to this
viewpoint in this chapter. There have been evidences of the Corinthians' unwillingness to
yield to Paul's authority throughout this letter (4:1-5; 5—6; cf. 14:36-37). This was an
appropriate place for him to confront the issue.

Apostolic identity 9:1-2

9:1 The apostle's four rhetorical questions all expect a positive answer, and
they become increasingly specific: "Am I not free?" Certainly he enjoyed
the liberty that every other believer had. "Am I not an apostle?"
Furthermore he possessed the rights and privileges of an apostle. The
proof of his apostleship was twofold, and addressed the third and fourth
questions: "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" "Are you not my work in the
Lord?" He had "seen" the risen Christ (Acts 1:21-22) on the Damascus
road (Acts 22:14-15; 26:15-18), and he had founded the church in Corinth,
which was his apostolic "work" (cf. Rom. 15:15-21). Clearly Paul's
apostleship was at stake in Corinth (cf. 1:1, 12; 4:1-5, 8-13, 14-21; 5:1-2).

9:2 "Others" might have doubts about Paul's "apostleship," but the Corinthians
certainly should not in view of his ministry among them. They themselves
were the proof that he was an apostle ("seal of [his] apostleship").

Apostolic rights 9:3-14

The issue of Paul's right to their material support underlies this whole pericope.

"Philosophers and wandering missionaries in the Greco-Roman world

were 'supported' by four means: fees, patronage, begging, and working.
Each of these had both proponents and detractors, who viewed rival forms
as not worthy of philosophy."336

336Fee, The First . . ., p. 399.

2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 115

Paul did not begin by justifying his renunciation of his apostolic rights, but by
establishing that he had these rights. He evidently had to begin there because the
Corinthians were challenging these rights. They were assuming that Paul had worked
with his hands because he lacked apostolic rights, not because he had chosen to forgo
them.
9:3 If anyone was challenging his practice of forgoing his rights as an apostle,
his response follows.
9:4 Paul used the series of rhetorical questions that begins here to force the
Corinthians to recognize—they should already have known—that he
possessed full apostolic rights. In view of the other rights that follow,
Paul's reference to eating and drinking here probably means "to eat and
drink" at the expense of others. It means to accept financial support in his
ministry.
9:5 Evidently it was customary for the other "apostles" and the Lord's physical
"brothers" to take their wives with them when they traveled to minister.
The churches they served covered the expenses of these women as well as
those of their husbands. Paul may have mentioned Peter ("Cephas"), in
particular, because he had a strong following in Corinth (1:12). His
references to the Lord's "brothers" in this verse, and to "Barnabas" in the
next, do not necessarily mean that these men had visited Corinth. Perhaps
the Corinthians knew second-hand about their habits of ministering.
9:6 The Corinthians had acknowledged the right of the other apostles to
refrain from secular employment. Paul and Barnabas had chosen to work
with their hands, at times, so their financial support would not burden their
converts (4:12; 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:7-9; Acts 20:34). Evidently the
practice of Barnabas was well known. Paul had stooped to the demeaning
work (in the Corinthians' eyes) of making tents while he ministered in
Corinth (Acts 18:3). Apparently some of the Corinthian Christians took
Paul's action as an indication that he did not think of himself as worthy of
support because he was not equal with the other apostles.
9:7 Paul used six arguments in the following verses to support his point that
those who work have a right to receive pay. First, it is customary. Three
illustrations support the fact that Paul, as a servant of the Lord, had a right
to accept support from those to whom he ministered. The Lord's servants
are certainly not inferior to soldiers, farmers, and shepherds.
9:8-9 Second, the Old Testament supported this point. God made special
provision in the Mosaic "Law" for the "oxen" that served people by
threshing their grain (Deut. 25:4). In so doing, Paul said, God was
teaching His concern for the maintenance of all who serve others, not just
oxen ("God is not [only] concerned about oxen, is He?").337

337See Jan L. Verbruggen, "Of Muzzles and Oxen: Deuteronomy 25:4 and 1 Corinthians 9:9," Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 49:4 (December 2006):699-711, for a study of various ways Paul may
have understood and used Deut. 25:4.
116 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"I heard a story about a preacher in Kentucky who drove a

very fine, beautiful horse, but the preacher himself was a
very skinny fellow. One day one of his church officers
asked him the question (which had been a matter of
discussion), 'How is it, preacher, that your horse is so fine
looking and you are such a skinny fellow?' The preacher
answered, 'I will tell you. I feed my horse, and you are the
ones who feed me.'"338

"Keep in mind that, for the most part, the Greeks despised
manual labor. They had slaves to do manual labor so that
the citizens could enjoy sports, philosophy, and leisure. The
Jews, of course, magnified honest labor."339

9:10 God meant to encourage human laborers with His provision for animals
that labored. He wanted human laborers to work with the "hope" of pay
("sharing the crops"). The people who profited from those services should
consider those who served them worthy of support.

"Not muzzling an ox . . . was probably a proverbial

expression concerning just remuneration, properly
understood and interpreted as such by Paul. A modern
parallel would be the adage, 'You can't teach an old dog
new tricks,' which is commonly applied in contexts other
than canine obedience."340

"I heard Torrey Johnson down in Bibletown in Florida say

several times—and I think it is a good principle—that you
ought to support the place where you get your blessing.
Suppose you go down to eat at a certain restaurant. You
don't walk down the street and around the corner into
another restaurant to pay your bill; you pay the restaurant
that fed you. Yet many people do that sort of thing with
their spiritual food. They get their spiritual blessings in one
place, and they give their offerings in another place."341

9:11 Third, the basic principle of community reciprocity supports Paul's point.
"Spiritual things" are intrinsically more important than "physical
(material) things." The former will last forever, whereas the latter are only
temporary. How much more, then, should those who benefit from spiritual
ministry, physically support those who minister to them (cf. Gal. 6:6)! "Is
it too much . . .?" reveals that Paul was contending with the Corinthians,
not just exhorting them.

338McGee, 5:41-42.
339Wiersbe,1:599.
340Lowery, p. 523.
341McGee, 5:42.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 117

9:12 Fourth, the precedent of the practice of other Christian leaders supported
Paul's point. As the planter of the Corinthian church, Paul had a "right" to
the support of the Corinthians more than any of their other ministers did.
Yet he did not insist on his ("we did not use this") "right." He chose rather
to support himself, so his work of establishing the church might not suffer
from the criticism that he was serving for the material benefits he derived
from his converts.

9:13 Fifth, the practice of the priesthood further supported Paul's point. Paul
appealed to the common Jewish practice, which was also prevalent in
pagan religions, of allowing those who minister in spiritual matters to gain
physical support from those they serve. The priests "eat the food of the
temple" and "have their share from the altar."

9:14 Sixth, Paul appealed to the teaching of Jesus ("so also the Lord directed")
to support his point: "those who proclaim the gospel to get their living
from the gospel." The Lord Jesus taught the same right (Matt. 10:10; Luke
10:7).

"All too often, one fears, the objective of this text is lost in concerns over
'rights' that reflect bald professionalism rather than a concern for the
gospel itself."342

Apostolic restraint 9:15-18

Having argued vigorously for his right to the Corinthians' support, Paul now proceeded to
argue just as strongly for his right to give up this right, his point from the beginning. He
explained why he had deliberately not accepted their patronage. This pericope gives the
reader a window into the apostle's soul. We see here what made him tick.

9:15 Paul had this right, but he chose not to use it. He did not want his readers
to interpret what he had said on this subject as a veiled request for support
("I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case"). He
had made his decision to support himself while he preached freely; the
Lord did not require this of him. Consequently he could take justifiable
pride in it, as anyone who makes a sacrifice for the welfare of others can.

9:16 He could not take justifiable pride ("I have nothing to boast of") in the fact
that he preached the gospel, however. Even though it involved sacrificing
for the benefit of others, he had made those sacrifices in obedience to the
Lord (Acts 26:16-18; cf. Matt. 28:19-20). He had no choice about
preaching the gospel, but he could choose how to make a living while he
did so. Preaching was his divine destiny. Indeed he would be in serious
trouble with his Lord ("woe is me") if he did not preach the gospel. (And
so will we.)

342Fee, The First . . ., p. 414.

118 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

9:17 If he preached the gospel willingly, he would receive a "reward" (pay)

from the Lord. If he preached unwillingly, he would not receive a reward,
because he would only be doing his duty as a steward (manager of a
household; cf. 4:1-2; Luke 17:7-10).

9:18 Paul's reward for preaching the gospel willingly was the privilege of
preaching it "without cost (charge)" to his hearers. His "highest pay" was
the privilege of preaching "without pay."343 This choice may seem as
though it was Paul's decision rather than a reward from the Lord, but he
viewed it as a privilege that came to him from the Lord (cf. 2 Cor. 11:7-
12).

"Just as he has been willing to sacrifice his salary for the

sake of the gospel, so these Christians must be willing to
refrain from the use of such meat, should their partaking of
it in any case lessen their influence with their fellow
Christians."344

Paul had all the rights of an apostle, and was free to insist on them if he chose to do so.
He also had the freedom not to insist on them. Relinquishing his right to support
corresponds to giving up his right to eat in a pagan temple (8:13). In both cases, it was the
welfare of others that led him to forgo the right.

"In the previous chapter Paul was insisting that one must refrain from
some things which are morally indifferent for the sake of his weaker
brother; here he insists that one must at times refrain for the sake of his
work."345

Apostolic freedom 9:19-23

The extent to which the apostle was willing to lay aside his rights comes out in this
pericope. Since Paul chose not to receive pay for his ministry in Corinth, he was free
from the restrictions that patronage might impose. This left him free to become the slave
of all.

9:19 Paul was a "free" man, not a slave of any other human being. Nevertheless
as the Lord's servant, he had made himself subject to every other human
being ("a slave to all") so he might win some ("that I may win more") to
Christ. Serving people rather than commanding them is the way to win
them (cf. Mark 10:45).

9:20 It was the apostle's custom to follow Jewish ways when he was in the
company of Jews ("to the Jews I became a Jew"). He did so to make them
receptive to him and his message rather than antagonistic (cf. Acts 21:20-

343Morris, p. 137. See also Barrett, p. 210.

344Erdman, p. 81.
345Ibid., p. 84.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 119

26). He did not do this because he felt obligated to keep the Mosaic Law
("not being myself under the Law"). He did not feel obligated to do so
(Rom. 6:14). The salvation of Jews was his objective in observing Jewish
laws and customs ("as under the Law . . . that I might win those who are
under the Law"), many of which dealt with abstaining from certain foods
(cf. 8:13). He had circumcised Timothy at Lystra for this purpose, namely,
more effective ministry to and among Jews (Acts 16:3).

9:21 Likewise when Paul was with Gentiles ("to those who are without law"),
he behaved as a Gentile ("as without law"). This would have involved
eating what they did, among other things.

The references to law in this verse may be confusing. In describing

Gentiles as being "without law," Paul did not mean that Gentiles are
totally lawless (cf. Rom. 2:14). He meant they were not under the Law of
Moses like the Jews were (v. 20). Paul wanted his readers to understand
that, even though he did not observe the Mosaic Law when he was with
Gentiles (Gr. anomos), he was still under God's authority (ennomos).

As a Christian, Paul was not under the Law of Moses, but he was "under
the Law (law) of Christ" (cf. Gal. 6:2). The law of God for Jews, before
the Cross, was the Law of Moses, but His law for Christians, in the present
age, is the Law of Christ. The Law of Christ is the code of responsibilities
that Christ and His apostles taught, which the New Testament contains.
Some of the same commands are in the Mosaic Law, although the codes—
the Mosaic Law and the Law of Christ—are not the same.346

"This is one of the most difficult sentences in the epistle,

and also one of the most important, for in it Paul shows
how the new relation to God which he has in Christ
expresses his debt of obedience to God."347

9:22 The "weak" are those who have extremely sensitive consciences in the
area of non-moral practices (cf. 8:9), such as the Jews. Here the apostle
meant unbelievers, as is clear from what he said about them. Paul
accommodated himself to their scruples. This policy undoubtedly led
some people to conclude that Paul was inconsistent. His superficial
inconsistency really manifested a more fundamental consistency. He did
everything non-moral ("I have become all things to all men") with a view
to bringing people to the Savior ("that I may by all means save some").348

346Femi Adeyemi, "The New Covenant Law and the Law of Christ," Bibliotheca Sacra 163:652 (October-
December 2006):438-52, correctly equated the Law of Christ with the New Covenant Law (cf. Jer. 31:31-
34).
347Barrett, p. 212.
348See H. Chadwick, "'All Things to All Men' (I Cor. IX. 22)," New Testament Studies 1 (1954-55):261-75.
120 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"By this phrase Paul means exactly the opposite of what it

means in common speech to-day [sic]. He does not signify
any weak compliance with the wrong actions and immoral
practices of others. He is not approving the maxim: 'When
in Rome do as the Romans do.' Paul is referring to matters
of moral indifference, to weak prejudices, and to foolish
scruples."349

9:23 The work of "the gospel" was the great axis around which everything in
Paul's life revolved. He made it such so he might share in its blessings
("become a fellow partaker of it"). He proceeded to explain what this
involves in the following verses.

Apostolic exhortation and example 9:24-27

This passage is transitional, concluding Paul's defense of his apostolic authority (9:1-23),
and returning to the argument against participating in cultic meals (ch. 8). Metaphors
from the athletic games fill the pericope. Philosophers and other orators in Paul's world
frequently used athletic metaphors to describe their labors.350

9:24 The Corinthians were familiar with athletic contests. The Isthmian Games
took place in a nearby town every two or three years. They were second
only to the Olympic Games in importance, in all of Greece.351 The Greek
word translated "race" is stadion, the word used to describe the standard
600-foot Greek race.352

Paul's emphasis in this verse was on the last statement. We should "run"
our race "in such a way" that we will receive a reward from the Judge. In
the Christian race, we do not compete with one another for the prize. We
compete with ourselves. The emphasis is on self-discipline, not
competition. In a foot race only one person is the winner, but in the
Christian race all who keep the rules and run hard will receive a reward
(cf. Matt. 6:19-21; 2 Tim. 2:5).

9:25 "Competes" is a translation of agonidzomai, from which we get the

English word "agonizes." To receive the prize of our Lord's "well done"
we need to give all our effort. We also need to exercise self-control.
Competitors in the Isthmian Games had to train for 10 months.353 An
athlete in training denies himself or herself many lawful pleasures, in
order to gain an extra edge of superiority. Likewise, as spiritual athletes,
we may need to limit our liberty ("exercise(s) self-control") for a higher
goal.

349Erdman, p. 86.
350Keener, pp. 81-82.
351Morris, p. 139.
352Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 89.
353See Findlay, 2:855-56; Morris, p. 139.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 121

"I think every Christian ought to work for a reward. We do

not work for salvation; that is a gift given by the grace of
God. My friend, if you are going to get a reward, you will
have to work for it. If you are going to get a reward, then
you had better get out on the racetrack and start moving."354

Winners in the Isthmian Games received a "perishable" wreath of parsley,

wild celery, or pine.355 In the Olympian Games, the prize was a wild olive
wreath.356 In contrast, the victorious Christian's reward is "imperishable"
(cf. 2 Tim. 4:8), and it lies in the eschaton.357 How much more important it
is, to be willing to forgo our rights for the spiritual advancement of others,
than it is to train for a physical footrace (cf. 2 Cor. 4:17-18)!

BELIEVERS' CROWNS
Title Reason Reference
An Imperishable Crown For leading a disciplined life 1 Cor. 9:25
1 Thess.
A Crown of Rejoicing For evangelism and discipleship
2:19
A Crown of
For loving the Lord's appearing 2 Tim. 4:8
Righteousness
James 1:12;
A Crown of Life For enduring trials
Rev. 2:10
For shepherding God's flock
A Crown of Glory 1 Pet. 5:4
faithfully

9:26 In view of the comparative value of these rewards, Paul ran the Christian
race purposefully, not aimlessly or halfheartedly. He wanted to gain a
prize at the judgment seat of Christ. To use a different figure and make the
same point, he did not throw wild punches but sought to make every
punch score ("I box . . . not beating the air"). Christian service is not just
activity. It is activity focused on a target, namely: the building of the
church, and the defeat of the enemy who wants to destroy people. It is the
work of the gospel.

Good parents adapt their behavior to the limitations of their small children.
For example, they often walk more slowly with a toddler in hand than they
would normally. So Paul adapted his behavior to the needs of others, and
we should too.

354McGee, 5:43.
355Bruce,1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 89.
356Robertson, 4:149.
357See Wall, pp. 79-89.
122 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

9:27 In another sense, Paul viewed his flesh as his enemy. He recognized the
need to exercise strict self-discipline ("I discipline my body and make it
my slave"). Obviously Paul was not speaking of self-discipline in the
physical realm alone. He also had in mind moral discipline, and discipline
in the non-moral areas of his life, including voluntary curtailment of
personal rights and liberties (cf. ch. 8; 1 Tim. 4:8).358

We must be careful not to confuse the fear of disqualification with the fear
of damnation. Paul had no fear that he would lose his salvation (Rom. 8:1,
29-39). In the context, what he could lose would be a reward ("so that . . .
I myself will not be disqualified").359 How ironic and pathetic it would be
for Paul to forfeit a crown by his own lack of self-discipline, or by
breaking the Judge's rules, since he had instructed others concerning how
to win one.

This whole chapter is an explanation of the last verse of the preceding chapter. More
generally it clarifies the importance of limiting our legitimate liberty as Christians for
higher goals, namely, the glory of God and the welfare of other people.

"Almost in reaction against . . . globalization, many people are responding

with increasing nationalism, sometimes with almost frightening
ethnocentrism. Christians are not immune to these sweeping currents of
thought. They, too, can be caught up in flag-waving nationalism that puts
the interests of my nation or my class or my race or my tribe or my
heritage above the demands of the kingdom of God. Instead of feeling that
their most important citizenship is in heaven, and that they are just passing
through down here on their way 'home' to the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb.
12:22-23), they become embroiled with petty priorities that constitute an
implicit denial of the lordship of Christ."360

3. The sinfulness of idolatry 10:1-22

Paul continued dealing with the subject of going to idol temples to participate in pagan
feasts in this section. In it, he gave a warning to the believer who considered himself
strong, the individual who knew there were really no gods but the one true God. Such a
person felt free to accept the invitation of a pagan neighbor to dine in a pagan temple
(8:10). The apostle cautioned this group in the Corinthian church because, even though
there are no other gods, the possibility of participating in idolatry was very real. He drew
his lesson from the experience of Israel during the wilderness wanderings (cf. Exod. 13—
17; Num. 10—15).

358See Jerry M. Hullinger, "The Historical Background of Paul's Athletic Allusions," Bibliotheca Sacra
161:643 July-September 2004):343-59.
359See J. Smith, "Can Fallen . . .," pp. 466-67.
360Carson, p. 116.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 123

The tragic example of Israel 10:1-5

The point of this example is that God's people can practice idolatry, and persisting in
idolatry has dire consequences. Paul stressed the similarity of experience that the church,
the Corinthian church particularly, and Israel shared, by pointing out that each group had
its own "baptism" and "Lord's Supper." Israel had five advantages, according to the
following verses.
10:1-2 Paul did not want his readers to overlook a very important possibility as
they thought about eating special meals in idol temples. He reminded them
that their fathers in the faith, Israelite believers, were also "all under" the
protective influence of God ("the cloud"). The Corinthians knew these
facts from the Old Testament, but they did not appreciate their
significance sufficiently.
First, "the cloud" that led them in their wilderness wanderings symbolized
God's loving care, and evidenced His prolonged supernatural guidance.
Likewise, second, they all experienced a supernatural deliverance when
they crossed the Red Sea ("passed through the sea"). Moreover, third, all
of them associated with (were "baptized into") "Moses," who was their
leader and God's instrument in their redemption. Moses provided
supernatural leadership for them under God.
Baptism is the outward expression of the believer's identification with the
object of his or her faith (cf. Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). Consequently Paul
could say the Israelites were "baptized into Moses," even though they did
not undergo literal water baptism in the name of Moses. By following him,
and submitting to his authority, they expressed their identification with
him. The parallel with water baptism was most vivid when they went
under the cloud and crossed the Red Sea. These experiences constituted a
dry baptism for the Israelites.
10:3-4 Furthermore, fourth and fifth, all the Israelites, not just some of them, ate
the manna and drank water from the rock. They ate supernatural food and
received supernatural sustenance. They ate manna throughout their
wilderness sojourn (Deut. 8:2-4), and they drank from the rock at the
beginning (Exod. 17:1-7) and at the end of it (Num. 20:2-13), namely,
throughout their wilderness experience.
Paul called the manna and water "spiritual food" and "spiritual drink,"
because God provided them supernaturally, and because they have
spiritual significance. Both of them came, ultimately, from "Christ," and
point to Christ, the real Sustainer of His people (cf. John 6:35, 48-51;
7:37-38). The Israelites thought of God as a "rock" (Deut. 32: 4, 15, 18,
30-31; et al.). He ("Christ"), as "a spiritual rock," not some physical rock,
accompanied them in the wilderness.361 Their eating and drinking of God
is similar to and anticipated the Christian Lord's Supper.

361See Findlay, 2:858.

124 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Paul's point in these first four verses was that the Israelites were the
chosen people of God then, just as Christians are now the chosen people of
God. God accompanied them and provided for them faithfully, in the past,
just as He does for all Christians now.

10:5 In spite of these blessings, similar to those that Christians enjoy, God was
not happy ("not well-pleased") with His people Israel ("most of them").
He permitted none of the adult generation of military age, 20 years old and
older, to enter the Promised Land, except Caleb and Joshua, not even
Moses (Num. 20:12). All but those two individuals, from that generation,
died ("were laid low") "in the wilderness." How the majority displeased
God and lost their privileges follows next.

The application of Israel's example 10:6-13

Though idolatry was the main cause of Israel's failure, as well as the focus of Paul's
warning to this church, four other evil characteristics of Israel also seem to have marked
the Corinthians. These characteristics also resulted in the Israelites dying in the
wilderness.

10:6 The experiences of the Israelites provide lessons ("examples") for us.
Their baptism and partaking of spiritual food and drink did not protect
them from God's discipline when they "craved . . . evil things."
Participation in baptism and the Lord's Supper will not protect Christians
either. We should never regard participation in these ordinances as
immunizing us against God's discipline if we sin against Him. The
Israelites had sometimes felt immunized against God's judgment because
they were His chosen people.

The Greek word translated "examples" is typos, from which we get the
English word "type." The experiences of the Israelites in the wilderness
are types. They were early examples of situations that would recur later in
history, that God designed for teaching His people lessons.362

10:7 In verses 7-10, Paul cited four practices that got the Israelites into trouble
with God. All of them were hazards for the Corinthians as well, since they
fraternized with pagans by participating in their feasts. They are all
possible pitfalls for us, too.

First, the Israelites participated in "idolatry" when they ate and played in
the presence of the golden calf (Exod. 32:6).363 It is possible that their
"play" involved sexual immorality (cf. Gen. 26:8; Num. 25:1-3). The

362For further information on types, see Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, pp. 196-219;
Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, pp. 334-46; Patrick Fairbairn, The Typology of Scripture; and
Elliott E. Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction, pp. 126, 208-9.
363See Jerry Hwang, "Turning the Tables on Idol Feasts: Paul's Use of Exodus 32:6 in 1 Corinthians 10:7,"
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54:3 (September 2011):573-87.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 125

scene on that occasion could well have been similar to what happened at
the feasts that some of the Corinthians attended. There is a danger that we
believers may compromise our commitment to God, as the Israelites did,
when we participate in sinful pagan celebrations—perhaps some forms of
entertainment. We can make an idol out of just about anything by giving it
too much emphasis (time, money, or attention) in our lives.

10:8 Second, the Israelites practiced immorality, or "acted immorally" (lit.

fornication), when they participated in one of the Moabites' religious
feasts (Num. 25:1-9). Paul said "23,000" Israelites "died in one day."
Moses, in Numbers 25:9, wrote that "24,000" died as a result of the plague
God sent to judge the people. There is, therefore, no conflict between the
numbers, since they describe somewhat different groups of people.

Another explanation that has been suggested is that the larger number
included Israel's leaders, and the smaller one did not. If immorality is only
implicit in the record of the Golden Calf incident, it is explicit in the
account of the Baal Peor incident. Clearly this was taking place in the
Corinthian church (5:1-5, 10-11; 6:9-10, 12-20). Some modern Christians
have participated in fornication that unbelievers have lured them into.

10:9 Third, the Israelites tested Christ by taxing His patience. The best
manuscript evidence suggests that "Christ" rather than "Lord" is the
correct word here. If so, Paul again stressed that it was Christ Himself
whom both the Israelites and the Corinthians were testing (cf. v. 4). He
made the apostasy in both cases Christological. They dared Him to live up
to His promise to discipline them if they doubted His word. They
continued to complain even though He faithfully provided for them (Num.
21:4-9). His provision of manna and water was not adequate from their
point of view, and they despised it (Num. 21:5). The Corinthians had
given evidence of being dissatisfied with God's prohibition of participation
in pagan feasts by opposing Paul's teaching on this point.

Likewise, contemporary Christians are in danger of failing to appreciate

God's provisions for them in Christ, and thus despising Him. We can feel
(become) dissatisfied, rather than thankful and content. Evidence that this
attitude existed in the Corinthian church surfaces in 1:12 and 11:17-34.
Perhaps the fact that some of the believers were participating in pagan
feasts also indicated their dissatisfaction with the Christians' special feast,
the Lord's Supper. We can also "test (try) the Lord" by demanding that He
perform for us, on our timetable and in the way that we prefer, rather than
waiting for Him to work in His own time and way. "Name it and claim it"
theology tends to encourage people to put God to the test.

"Indulgence in some forms of amusement, not in

themselves sinful, and in practices which other persons
regard as harmless, may make us discontented with our
126 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

lives of more rigid morality, until continued dissatisfaction

deepens into disloyalty and ends in actual defiance of
God."364

10:10 Fourth, the Israelites grumbled frequently against the Lord during the
wilderness wanderings. Moses recorded 10 separate instances in Exodus
and Numbers. However, the occasion Paul had in mind was when God
sent fire that consumed some of the people at the outer edge of the camp
(Num. 11:1-3). Here Paul added that God executed His wrath ("they were
destroyed") by using an angel ("the destroyer"), a fact that Moses did not
mention in Numbers. The Septuagint translators used the same term, "the
destroyer" (Gr. olothreutes), to describe the angel who executed the
Egyptians' first-born on the night of the Exodus (Exod. 12:23; cf. Heb.
11:28).

Many instances of the Corinthian Christians' dissatisfactions with God's

provisions for them come out in this epistle. Not the least of these was
their rejection of some of the Lord's servants, who had come to minister to
them, because they preferred some others (1:10—4:21). They did not
appreciate Paul's earlier instruction to break off company with idolaters
and the sexually immoral (5:9-11). Another example is the impatience of
the "strong" in the church with the "weak" (8:1-3). Grumbling is a telltale
sign of selfishness and discontent with what God has given us. Yet we too
often grumble about our church leaders, what a preacher says, or our lot in
life.

10:11 Having cited four specific examples of Israelite failure (vv. 7-10), Paul
restated the general principle (cf. v. 6).

This verse testifies to the historical reality of Israel's experiences: "these

things happened to them." These are not mere stories or legends; they are
the factual records of real events!

The last phrase in this verse ("upon whom the ends of the ages have
come") refers to the present age, as the time of fulfillment about which the
Old Testament prophet had spoken. We should be careful that we do not
overlook the lessons of history, since we live in these referred to times.

10:12 Paul concluded with a word of warning to those who were overconfident
("him who thinks he stands") that they were all right with God (cf. vv. 1-4;
8:4-6): "take heed that he does not fall." The "strong," who felt free to
participate in pagan feasts, seem to be those he had in mind. Self-
confidence could lead to a spiritual fall, as it had so often done in Israel's
history.

364Erdman, p. 91.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 127

10:13 The apostle did not want his readers to overreact and become paranoid,
either, as they considered Israel's record. Failure was not inevitable. The
temptations the Corinthians faced were not unique, and the Lord would
give them grace to handle any "temptation" they might face.365 In the
context, the temptations Paul had just mentioned were idolatry,
immorality, testing the Lord, and grumbling. Perhaps these were still in his
mind, though verse 13 covers more temptations than these. This is a
general promise of victory over any temptation ("no temptation has
overtaken you").

God has promised to enable us to do His will in any and every situation,
and He will stand true to His promise (cf. Matt. 28:20; et al.). He provides
"a (the) way of escape" with every temptation He allows to touch us,
namely: the power to overcome every temptation. The use of the definite
article "the" with both "temptation" and "way of escape" suggests a
particular way of escape that is available in each temptation. However,
Paul did not mean there is one way of escape that is available regardless of
the temptation. If we deliberately position ourselves in the way (path;
allurement) of temptation, and so put God to the test (v. 9), we are not
taking advantage of the way of escape. We may fall. Therefore we should
flee from idolatry (v. 14; cf. 1 John 5:21).

"One of the reasons we yield to temptation is that we are

like the little boy in the pantry. His mother heard a noise
because he had taken down the cookie jar. She said, 'Willie,
where are you?' He answered that he was in the pantry.
'What are you doing there?' He said, 'I'm fighting
temptation.' My friend, that is not the place to fight
temptation! That is the place to start running."366

The Corinthians were putting themselves in danger by continuing to attend

cultic meals, which they needed to stop doing. Nevertheless God had
made a way of escape open to them, as He had with Israel. The Lord's
Supper, and the Christian fellowship connected with it, were His divine
replacement for this idolatrous activity (v. 16).

This whole section (vv. 1-13) deals with the dangers involved in participating in pagan
activities. Some of these activities are wrong in themselves, because they involve
idolatry, and Christians should not participate in them. If we do participate, we need to be
aware that in doing so, we are walking on the edge of a precipice over which many other
believers have fallen, including the Israelites in the wilderness. We dare not
underestimate the danger of the situation, or overestimate our own ability to handle it. We
need to walk closely with God every day.

365For other verses dealing with God's part in temptation, see Exod. 16:4; Deut. 8:2; 1 Chron. 21:1; Job
1:12; 2:6; Matt. 6:13; and James 1:13.
366McGee, 5:46.
128 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

The incompatibility of Christianity and idolatry 10:14-22

The apostle proceeded to further warn his readers of the danger of idolatry (cf. v. 7). This
paragraph concludes the long argument that Paul began in 8:1 concerning going to temple
feasts.

10:14 Formerly Paul urged the Corinthians to flee fornication (6:18; cf. v. 8).
Now he concluded all he said in verses 1-13 with the charge to "flee from
idolatry," the worship of idols (cf. 1 John 5:21). He commanded his
readers to use the way of escape, God's enabling grace, immediately. He
softened his strong command with an affectionate address ("my beloved").
Non-moral activities are all right for the Christian, but if they involve or
lead to idolatry we should avoid them.

10:15 This statement prepares for what follows. The apostle was confident that
the Corinthians had the wisdom to understand the correctness of what he
was about to tell them. He believed they could make correct judgments
about what they should do. Still, to follow his logic they would need to use
their minds. As we have seen, the Corinthians considered themselves very
"wise." They therefore should "judge" for themselves that Paul was right.

10:16 The apostle employed rhetorical questions again to make his point. He was
setting the Corinthians up for what he would say in verses 19-21.

Most New Testament references to the bread and the cup in the Lord's
Supper occur in that order. Here Paul reversed the normal order. He
probably turned them around because he wanted to give more attention to
the bread in the verses that follow. "The cup" may focus on the vertical
dimension of fellowship between the believer and the Lord, whereas "the
bread" focuses on the horizontal dimension (cf. v. 17).367 The pagan feasts
also emphasized both dimensions of fellowship, with the god and with the
fellow-worshippers.

The "cup of blessing" was a technical term for the third of four cups of
wine that the Jews drank in the Passover celebration. At the "Last Supper,"
the drinking of this cup preceded the giving of thanks for the bread (cf.
Luke 22:17-20). However, the Lord's Supper after this only involved
eating bread and drinking one cup (cf. 11:23-29).

Paul described the cup as a "cup of blessing," a common Jewish

expression for the last cup of wine drunk at many meals. The Jews used it
as a kind of toast to God for His goodness.368 However, Paul turned this
around by saying that "we bless" the cup. Meaning, we give thanks to God
for the cup because of what it symbolizes, namely, our "sharing in" the
benefits of Christ's shed "blood" (cf. 11:25).

367Fee, The First . . ., p. 467.

368Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 94.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 129

"Therefore 'blessing the cup' means setting it apart for this

one purpose, that it might be for us a sign of the blood of
Christ."369

Likewise "the bread," used at the Christian feast, the Lord's Supper,
symbolizes our participation ("sharing") in the effects of Christ's slain
"body" (cf. 11:24). The Greek word here translated "sharing" (NASB) or
"participation" (NIV; koinonia), in other places reads "fellowship" or
"communion." This is why another name for the Lord's Supper is the
"communion service."

". . . eating from the common loaf attests and seals the
union of the participants in Christ."370

"Baptism speaks of my death with Christ; the Lord's

Supper speaks of Christ's death for me as the only ground
of approach to and fellowship with God."371

10:17 When Christians take communion, they all eat from "one bread," symbolic
of the physical body of Christ. In the early church, believers apparently
used one "loaf," the literal meaning of the word translated "bread" in this
verse (artos). Paul stressed that many people eating from one loaf
symbolized the solidarity of our relationship as a redeemed community
("we who are many are one body") in Christ. (He developed the idea of
the unity of the body more fully in 12:14-27, in his explanation of the
diversity that exists within the unity of the spiritual body of Christ, the
church.) The emphasis here is on the solidarity of believers that forbids all
other unions.

10:18 We can see the partnership of those who partake of ("sharers in")
sacrifices with everything the altar stands for in Judaism (cf. Deut. 14:22-
27). Paul generally referred to Israel literally as "Israel according to the
flesh." He contrasted all the physical Israelites ("the nation of Israel") with
those who are Jewish Christians (cf. Phil. 3:3). This description ("those
who eat the sacrifices") lends no support to the idea that the church
replaces Israel in the program of God. "Israel" always refers to Jewish
people in the New Testament.

Paul's line of reasoning was proceeding as follows. Christians who eat the
bread at the Lord's Supper thereby express their solidarity with one
another and with Christ. Likewise, Jews who ate the meat of animals
offered in the sacrifices of Judaism, expressed their solidarity with one
another and with God. Therefore, Christians who eat the meat offered to

369Calvin, The First . . ., p. 215.

370Findlay, 2:864.
371Ironside, p. 295.
130 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

pagan gods, as part of pagan worship, express their solidarity with pagans
and with the pagan deities.

"As in the Holy Communion, therefore, so also in the

Temple services, participating in sacrificial feasts is
sacrificial fellowship with an unseen power, a power that is
Divine. There is something analogous to this in the
sacrificial feasts of the heathen; but in that case the unseen
power is not Divine."372

The "wise" man in Corinth (v. 15) could have replied to Paul's conclusion
as follows: "Yes, Paul, but you agreed before that idols have no real
existence and there is only one true God."

10:19 Paul proceeded to clarify what he meant. He was not saying that
"sacrifices" to idols, or idols themselves, were "anything." That is,
sacrifices to idols were not in themselves sinful, nor were idols genuine
entities. On this point, he and the Corinthians agreed. Idols were only
pieces of wood or stone, not gods with supernatural powers. Nevertheless
these idols represented supernatural powers (v. 20), and so eating cultic
meals had genuine significance.

10:20 The power behind pagan religion is demonic (cf. Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37).
Consequently, people who sacrifice to idols express solidarity with
demonic powers ("sacrifice to demons"). Eating the food sacrificed to
idols means that the people who participated, shared in what had been
sacrificed to demons, just as the Israelites shared in what had been
sacrificed to God. The cultic feasts were really sacrifices to demons, so
they involved the worship of demons.

". . . when St. Paul told the Corinthians that though 'idols' in
themselves are nothing, yet the sacrifices offered to them
were, in reality, offered to 'daemons [sic],' he spoke of
those false divinities which were the enemies of the
True."373

10:21 It is inconsistent for a Christian to partake in the Lord's Supper and to also
take part in pagan religious feasts. In the former, he eats and drinks in
union with Christ, and in the latter, he is in union with demons who direct
the devotees to worship idols. What the Lord promotes, and what the
demons promote, are opposite. This inconsistency must be obvious to
"wise men" (v. 15). Christians have a unique relationship with the Lord
and with fellow believers, which the Lord's Supper symbolizes. It is,
therefore, inappropriate for us to have a similar association with demons

372Robertson and Plummer, p. 215.

373Howson, p. 230.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 131

and unbelievers (vv. 20-21), which participation in pagan cultic events

involves. (This verse gives the name "The Lord's Table" to the Lord's
Supper, the "table" being a symbol of fellowship.)

"A table is the expression of fellowship, there is no place

where we enjoy one another's companionship so much as
there. We sit down to partake of the good things provided,
and there is a feast of reason and a flow of soul, and we
find ourselves enjoying fellowship together."374

10:22 The Israelites "provoke[d] the Lord to jealousy" by doing just such a thing
when they joined in Moabite worship (Num. 25; cf. Deut. 32:17, 21-22).
We are to learn from their experiences. It would be folly to provoke the
Lord unless we are "stronger than He." If we provoke Him and are not
stronger, we can count on His chastening, since He is a jealous God.

The Corinthians were arguing for the right to attend pagan religious meals. They even
viewed pagan temple attendance as a way of building their "weaker" brethren. Paul
responded that attending pagan meals was wrong on two counts: it was unloving, and it
was incompatible with life in Christ, which their participation at the Lord's Table
symbolized. He forbade any relationship with the demonic. The demonic is not as remote
as some modern Western Christians would like to believe.

4. The issue of marketplace food 10:23—11:1

As with the issue of marriage, however, Paul granted that there are some matters
connected with idolatry that are not wrong. He next gave his readers some help in making
the tough choices needed, in view of the non-moral nature of some practices connected
with pagan worship, and the immoral nature of others. Paul suggested applying the test of
"What is edifying?" to these decisions. He proceeded to explain that food, formerly
offered to idols but sold in the marketplace, was all right for Christians to eat at home. He
himself had eaten such food (9:19-23), and the Corinthians had challenged him for doing
so (10:29).

"But the real issues seem to lie deeper than the mere question of eating
food. Both the nature of their argument for eating at the temples (8:1, 4, 8)
and their criticism of Paul (9:1-3, 19-23) have revealed a basic confusion
between absolutes and adiaphora (nonessentials). They had tried to make
temple attendance an adiaphoron; for Paul it was an absolute because it
was idolatry. At the same time they had confused the true basis for
Christian behavior. For them it was a question of knowledge and rights
(gnosis and exousia). For Paul it is a question of love and freedom (agape
and eleutheria).375

374Ironside, p. 305.
375Fee, The First . . ., p. 477.
132 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

This section's chiastic structure reflects Paul's alternating concern for personal freedom
and love for others.

A The criterion stated: the good of others (10:23-24)

B Personal freedom explained (10:25-27)
C The criterion illustrated: love governing liberty (10:28-29a)
B' Personal freedom defended (10:29b-30)
A' The criterion generalized: that all may be saved (10:33—11:1)

10:23 Earlier, Paul had addressed the issue of Christian liberty, and had said that
"all things" were lawful for him, but not all things were beneficial
("profitable"; 6:12). Now he went further and clarified that "profitable"
(beneficial) means beneficial for others, not just self. Thus he sought to
bring the rights-conscious Corinthians to their knees.

10:24 The well-being of one's "neighbor" is of primary importance. The exercise

of all one's liberties is of secondary importance (cf. Rom. 15:2; Phil. 2:4).
The Corinthians viewed their freedom as an opportunity to pursue their
own interests. Paul viewed it as an opportunity to benefit ("seek [the]
good") and build up ("edify") another person.

"Let's be honest. The exercise of your Christian freedom

can be all about your own 'good.' It is something you want
to do. And you know there are no biblical prohibitions
against it. So, why not enjoy?

"Answer: it's not all about you. You have other believers
around you. Will the exercise of your liberty build them
up? Will they be edified? Think about that before you make
a decision."376

10:25-26 It was not wrong in itself to eat the meat that pagans had offered in
sacrifice to an idol. Any food ("anything sold in the meat market") for
which one thanks God thereby becomes acceptable for human
consumption, assuming it is wholesome (healthful; v. 30; cf. 1 Tim. 4:3-
5). This was a very un-Jewish viewpoint coming from a Jew. As he did
earlier in this epistle, and elsewhere in his writings, Paul appealed to
Scripture for a supporting summary statement (Ps. 24:1; 50:12).

Remember, Paul was talking about distinctions based on spiritual issues.

In Christianity, there is no distinction between kosher (fit) and non-kosher
(unfit) food (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15). Paul was not talking about
distinctions in food based on physical factors such as fat content, calories,
and nutritional value. The issue was whether certain foods commend us to
or condemn us before God. They do not.

376Nyquist, p. 116.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 133

10:27 The invitation in view must be to the home of an unbeliever, for a meal,
rather than to a pagan temple for participation in a religious feast. This
seems clear from the next verse. This freedom may have been hard for
many Jewish Christians to accept (cf. Acts 10:28; 11:2-3). Nevertheless it
belonged to them. It was wise not to ask ("without asking questions") if
someone had offered the meat to an idol. A Christian might have naturally
posed this question in the home of a pagan host or in the marketplace
(v. 25). Not inquiring would obviate the possibility of unnecessary guilt
arising in the mind of a scrupulous believer ("without asking questions for
conscience' sake").

10:28-29a A pagan host might warn his Christian guest that the food before him had
been offered in an idol temple. The context (v. 27) and the terminology
(Gr. hierothyton, "sacrificial meat," rather than eidolothyton, "idol meat,"
the standard Jewish and Christian designation) present a situation in which
a Christian is eating privately with a pagan, not in a temple, as in 8:10.
Only in verse 32 does the broader principle of not giving offense to fellow
believers arise.

The pagan's "conscience" is not a reference to his convictions about what

is right and wrong for himself, but his moral consciousness.377 He does not
want his Christian guest to be unaware that he is being served food that the
Christian might object to, and might choose to abstain from eating.
Another view is that the pagan host is trying to test the Christian's
commitment to Christ, but this seems less probable. Pagans often
associated Christians with Jews at this stage of church history, and many
pagans would have assumed that Christians observed the same dietary
restrictions as the Jews.

We might think, that in such a situation, Paul would have advocated

exercising Christian liberty to eat the meat, but he did not. He advocated
abstaining, not because such meat was out of bounds for believers. It was
not out of bounds; normally Christians could eat such meat. He advocated
abstaining for the sake of the pagan's moral consciousness. Specifically, if
the Christian ate the meat, the pagan might conclude that his guest was
doing something Christians should not do. He would be wrong, of course.
Yet Paul advocated not violating the pagan's understanding of what
Christians should or should not do, rather than have the Christian instruct
the pagan about Christian freedom at the table.

"A present-day analogy may be imagined if someone with

strong principles on total abstention from alcohol were the
guest of friends who did not share these principles. He
would be well advised not to enquire too carefully about
the ingredients of some specially palatable sauce or trifle,

377Fee, The First . . ., p. 485.

134 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

but if someone said to him pointedly, 'There is alcohol in

this, you know', he might feel that he was being put on the
spot and could reasonably ask to be excused from having
any of it."378

10:29b This question resumes the thought of verses 26 and 27. Verses 28-29a are
somewhat parenthetical, being an illustration. We could restate Paul's
thought this way: Why should another person's scruples determine my
liberty? The answer is: They should affect you, because his spiritual
welfare is more important than my Christian freedom.

10:30 Paul brought into the picture his own conduct in similar situations. He had
eaten non-kosher food with Gentiles, but in the argument preceding this
verse, he advocated abstaining from such food when eating with pagans.
The key, of course, is that sacrificial meat was only off limits for Paul
when it offended the moral consciousness of the pagans he was with, not
all the time.

"The blessing offered at one's meal, predicated on God's

prior ownership of all things, means that no fellow
Christian may condemn another on this question."379

The Christian can give thanks to God for whatever he or she eats, but
should limit one's own liberty out of consideration for what other people
think is proper. We do not need to alter our convictions for the sake of
others even if they speak evil of us, as the Corinthians "slandered" Paul
(cf. 9:19-23). Nevertheless we should be willing to change our behavior
for the sake of unbelievers.

10:31 What glorifies God? Consideration for the consciences of other people and
promotion of their well-being does. This contrasts with the observance of
distinctions between foods, the satisfaction of one's personal preferences,
and insistence on one's own rights. What glorifies God is what puts His
preferences, plans, and program first (cf. Col. 3:17). Paul not only
advocated asking, "Is this non-moral activity edifying?" (vv. 23-30; cf.
6:12), but "Will it glorify God?"

". . . God's own glory is the ultimate foundation of Pauline

ethics (10:31)."380

10:32 To "give no offense" means putting no obstacle in the path of a person, be

he "Jew" (cf. 9:20) or "Gentile" (cf. 9:21), so that he might come to faith
in Christ. If he is already a believer, it means putting nothing in his way

378Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 100.

379Fee,The First . . ., p. 488.
380Idem, "Toward a . . .," p. 40.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 135

that would hinder his growth in Christ (cf. 9:22). It is not a matter of
simply not "hurting someone's feelings."

Paul regarded these three groups (Jews, Gentiles, and Christians) as equal
in this verse. Therefore he was probably thinking of three religious groups
rather than two racial groups and one religious group. If so, he
distinguished between Israel and the church in this verse. This distinction
is basic to Dispensationalism.

10:33 If we took the first part of this verse out of context, we might conclude
that Paul was a "man pleaser" (cf. Gal. 1:10). Obviously he meant he did
not allow any of his own attitudes or activities in non-moral areas to
create barriers between himself and those he sought to help spiritually.

He tried to practice what he preached about putting the welfare of others

first (cf. v. 24). "Saved" in this context probably includes Christians, and
means saved in the wide sense of "delivered from anything that keeps
someone from advancing spiritually" (cf. Rom. 15:1-3). "Will this non-
moral activity profit others and possibly lead them closer to God?"

"If you're seeking to engage the unbelieving world, you

want to avoid offending them. Could the exercise of your
Christian freedom offend an unbeliever? Possibly. Don't
immediately assume they will embrace all you plan to do.
Some may be unsaved but still have very conservative
values. Would your actions offend them? If so, you've not
moved them closer to Christ. You've nudged them further
away."381

"Christian freedom is not given to us for our own sake but

for the sake of others."382

11:1 Paul recommended that his readers follow his example of exercising and
limiting their Christian liberty, glorifying God, and giving no offense, as
well as in other areas of their lives (cf. 4:16).383

All of chapters 8, 9, and 10, including 11:1, deal with the subject of the Christian's
relationship to food sacrificed to idols. In summary, Paul prohibited going to pagan
temples for cultic meals. However, he permitted the eating of marketplace meat under
normal circumstances. If something is not sinful, it is permissible for the believer, but
even so it may be wise to avoid it for the sake of the spiritual welfare of others. The
Christian should be willing to limit his or her exercise of his or her Christian liberty
because of love for others.

381Nyquist, p. 117.
382Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 105.
383See Robert L. Plummer, "Imitation of Paul and the Church's Missionary Role in 1 Corinthians," Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:2 (June 2001):219-35.
136 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

The four principles Paul taught were these: Balance your knowledge with love (ch. 8).
Balance your authority with discipline (ch. 9). Balance your experience with caution
(10:1-22). And balance your freedom with responsibility (10:23-33).384

C. PROPRIETY IN WORSHIP 11:2-16

This section and the next (11:17-34) deal with other subjects than meat offered to idols,
but Paul did not introduce them with the phrase "now concerning." These were additional
subjects about which he wanted to give the Corinthians guidance. He had evidently
learned of the Corinthians' need for instruction in these matters, either through their letter
to him, from the messengers that brought that letter to him, or from other sources.

1. The argument from culture 11:2-6

Paul introduced the first of the two subjects he dealt with in this chapter, the Corinthian
women's participation in church worship, with "praise." He did not introduce the second
subject this way (vv. 17, 22). As with the other sections of this epistle, we can see the
influence of Corinthian culture and worldview in this one, particularly in the behavior of
the women in the church.

11:2 Paul commended his original readers for remembering his teaching and
example. This chapter deals primarily with things that were going on in
the meetings of the church, as the context shows (cf. v. 16). The
"traditions" (NASB) were "teachings" (NIV; Gr. paradoseis) the
Corinthians had received from the apostle. Some of these involved
divinely inspired revelations, and others just prudent advice (cf. 2 Thess.
3:6-10). The Corinthians may have been following his instructions, but not
in the proper ways, as his following discussion makes clear.

"The traditions (as the other references show) were the

central truths of the Christian faith, handed on at this stage
(before the emergence of Christian literature) orally from
evangelist and teacher to convert."385

Of course, there were already a few inspired New Testament documents

circulating among the churches.

11:3 "But" indicates that things were not quite as Paul thought they should be.
He began dealing with his subject by reminding the Corinthians again (cf.
3:23; 8:6) of God's administrative order. This is the order through which
He has chosen to conduct His dealings with humans.

Jesus "Christ" is the "head" of every "man," i.e., every male human being
(Gr. aner). Second, the male ("man") is the "head" of "woman" (Gr. gune).
This Greek word for woman is very broad and covers women of any age,

384Wiersbe, 1:594.
385Barrett, p. 247.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 137

virgins, married women, or widows. Paul used it earlier in this epistle of a

wife (7:3-4, 10-12, 14, 16). In this chapter, it evidently refers to any
woman who was in a dependent relationship to a man, such as a wife to a
husband, or a daughter to a father.

Paul probably did not mean every woman universally, since he said the
male is the head of woman, or "a woman," but not the woman. He was
evidently not talking about every relationship involving men and women,
for example the relationship between men and women in the workplace.
Third, "God" the Father is the "head" of God the Son ("Christ"). This
shows that headship exists even within the Godhead.

"Submission in office, whether of woman to man or Christ

to God, consists with equality of nature."386

The New Testament uses the term "head" (Gr. kephale) to describe
headship in two ways. Sometimes it describes origin (source), but more
often it describes authority (leader), especially when it is used in the
context of human relationships.387 Some scholars favor one interpretation
and others the other.388 Both meanings are true to reality, so it is difficult
to decide what Paul meant here.

In favor of the origin view, it is true that Christ created mankind, Eve
came from Adam, and Christ came from the Father in the Incarnation to
provide redemption. In favor of the authority view, humanity is under
Christ's authority, God created woman under man's authority, and the Son
is under the Father's authority. The idea of origin is more fundamental
than that of authority. Also "head" occurs later in this passage with the
idea of source (vv. 8, 12), so origin may be the preferable idea here too.389
This could be a double entendre, in which Paul intended both meanings.

11:4 In this verse Paul used the word "head" twice. In the first instance he
clearly meant the man's physical head. What did he mean the second time
he referred to the man's head? He could have meant his physical head
again. However, in view of what he just said (v. 3) and would say, he
probably meant his spiritual head: Jesus Christ. In Judaism, when a man
prayed with his physical head covered, as was common, he did not thereby
dishonor himself.

386Findlay, 2:872.
387The Nelson . . ., p. 1928.
388For helpful studies, see Stephen Bedale, "The Meaning of kephale in the Pauline Epistles," Journal of
Theological Studies NS5 (1954):211-15; Paul S. Fiddes, "'Woman's Head Is Man:' A Doctrinal Reflection
upon a Pauline Text," Baptist Quarterly 31:8 (October 1986):370-83; Wayne Grudem, "Does kephale
('Head') Mean 'Source' or 'Authority Over' in Greek Literature? A survey of 2,336 Examples," Trinity
Journal 6NS (1985):38-59; idem. "The Meaning of kephale: A Response to Recent Studies," Trinity
Journal 11NS (1990):3-72; and idem, "The Meaning of kephale ('head'): An Evaluation of New Evidence,
Real and Alleged," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:1 (March 2001):25-65.
389Barrett, p. 248.
138 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

In Roman, but not in Greek worship, both men and women covered their
heads. However, in both Roman and Greek cultures, both men and women
covered their heads as signs of shame and mourning.390 It was later, in the
Middle Ages, that Jewish men began to cover their heads when praying,
and in fact, most of the time. In Christian worship, the men did not wear
head coverings in Paul's day.

Paul's reference to praying and prophesying seems to set his instructions in

the context of the church at public worship.

"The words 'praying and prophesying' include all the

ordinary parts and acts of public worship."391

Others have argued that 11:2-16 does not address congregational

settings.392 "Praying" involves expressing one's thoughts and feelings to
God and, specifically, asking things of God.

"Prophesying" might involve any of four things: Prophets (and

prophetesses) led God's people in worship (cf. Exod. 15:20-21; 1 Chron.
25:1). Second, they foretold future events pertaining especially to the
kingdom of God (Matt. 11:13; Acts 2:17-18; 21:9). Third, they declared
new revelation from God, though not necessarily having to do with future
events (Matt. 26:68; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64; cf. 7:39; John 4:19).

Fourth, they could, under divine impulse, utter some lofty statement or
message that would glorify God (Luke 1:67; Acts 9:6; cf. 1 Chron. 25:1),
or a word of instruction, refutation, reproof, admonition, or comfort for
others (1 Cor. 13:9; 14:1, 3-5, 24, 31, 39). This last type of prophecy did
not contain a new revelation or a prediction involving the future. It was
what we call preaching today, though not expository teaching, which the
New Testament calls teaching.393 The fourth activity is what seems to be
in view in other references to prophesying in this epistle, and it suits the

390Keener, p. 91.
391W. M. Thomson, The Land and the Book, 1:34.
392E.g., Harold R. Holmyard III, "Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Refer to Women Praying and Prophesying in
Church?" Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):461-72; J. N. Darby, Notes of Readings on
the Epistles to the Corinthians, pp. 85-87; Olshausen, p. 174; C. T. Ellicott, St. Paul's First Epistle to the
Corinthians, p. 202; W. E. Vine, 1 Corinthians, p. 147; J. A. Beet, A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to
the Corinthians, p. 181; Lenski, p. 437; Grosheide, pp. 341-42; and J. MacArthur Jr., 1 Corinthians, p. 256.
393A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. "propheteuo," p. 553. See also Wayne A. Grudem,
"Prophecy—Yes, But Teaching—No: Paul's Consistent Advocacy of Women's Participation Without
Governing Authority," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:1 (March 1987):11-23; and idem,
"Why Christians Can Still Prophesy," Christianity Today, September 16, 1988, pp. 29-31, 34-35. Grudem
sought a middle position between the charismatic and non-charismatic interpretations of the gift of
prophecy. See his The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians and The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament
and Today. Robert L. Thomas, "Prophecy Rediscovered? A Review of The Gift of Prophecy in the New
Testament and Today," Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (January-March 1992):83-96, gave a helpful critique of
Grudem's views.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 139

context here as well. Praying and prophesying were two major features of
Christian worship services (cf. Acts 2:42).

11:5a The opposite condition existed when women prayed or prophesied in the
church meetings. Every woman who had her physical head uncovered
thereby dishonored ("disgraced") her metaphorical head, namely: her
husband (if married) or father (if single; v. 3).

What did Paul mean when he described a woman's head as "uncovered"?

There have been three major explanations. He may have meant that her
head lacked some type of external cover, such as a shawl. Second, he
could have meant that she had short hair that did not cover her head as
completely as long hair. Third, he may have meant that she had let her hair
down rather than leaving it piled up on her head. In this culture, it was
customary for women to wear their hair up when they went out in public.
Probably he meant that she did not have an external covering on her head
(view one).394 The woman would dishonor her man by participating in
public worship as he did, namely, with head uncovered.

Christian women typically wore a head-covering in the church meetings.

This was not a stylish hat, skullcap, or inconspicuous doily, as some
western women do today, but a shawl that covered her entire head and
concealed her hair.395

"Her face was hidden by an arrangement of two head veils,

a head-band on the forehead with bands to the chin, and a
hairnet with ribbons and knots, so that her features could
not be recognized."396

This was similar to what some modern Islamic women wear: a head-
covering (Arabic hijab) and a face-veil (Arabic niqab). In Paul's culture
most women, Christians and non-Christians alike, wore such a covering
whenever they went out in public. Conservative Islamic women still veil
themselves similarly when they go out in public.

Probably the issue in the Corinthian church, that Paul was addressing, was
that certain "wise," "spiritual," so-called liberated women had stopped
wearing this covering in the church meetings. Paul had previously written
that in Christ, males and females are equal before God (Gal. 3:28). He
meant they are equal in their standing before God. This teaching,
combined with the Corinthians' carnal tendencies, were evidently the root
of the problem.

394See Fee, The First . . ., pp. 495-97, 509-10.

395Bruce,1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 104.
396Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, p. 359.
140 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"It seems that the Corinthian slogan, 'everything is

permissible,' had been applied to meetings of the church as
well, and the Corinthian women had expressed that
principle by throwing off their distinguishing dress. More
importantly they seem to have rejected the concept of
subordination within the church (and perhaps in society)
and with it any cultural symbol (e.g., a head-covering)
which might have been attached to it. According to Paul,
for a woman to throw off the covering was an act not of
liberation but of degradation."397

11:5b-6 A woman who shaved her head in Greco-Roman culture did so to look
like a man. This resulted in the blurring of the relationship between men
and women, particularly the sexual distinctions. Men typically wore their
hair shorter, and women wore theirs longer. If a woman cut her hair short,
it indicated that she wanted to be regarded as a man. Not covering her
head made the same statement in that society.

"The prostitutes wore their hair very short, and they did not
wear a head-covering in public. Their hairstyle and manner
announced to others just what they were and what they
were offering. . . .

"In Jewish law, a woman proved guilty of adultery had her

hair cut off (Num. 5:11-31)."398

It was a shameful ("disgraceful") thing for a woman not to cover her head
in the early New Testament churches. Such an act made a statement that
she was either repudiating her position as a woman, or that she was an
immoral woman. It was not so much a repudiation of her submission to
her male authority, as it was a repudiation of her origin as being a woman
who had come from man (v. 3). The issue again appears to be primarily
origin throughout the passage, not primarily authority. Obviously a
woman who repudiated her origin as a woman might also repudiate her
authority to function under her male head. However, in this passage, Paul
seems to have been dealing with the more fundamental issue of origin.

"The veil is, in fact, the beautiful ladies' strength and

defense. Modestly veiled, she appears any where and every
where in perfect safety. She is held inviolate by a sensitive
and most jealous public sentiment, and no man insults her
but at the risk of being torn in pieces by an infuriated mob;
but without the veil she is a weak, helpless thing, at the

397Lowery, p. 529. See also H. Wayne House, "Should a Woman Prophesy or Preach before Men?"
Bibliotheca Sacra 145:578 (April-June 1988):141-61, who concluded that she should not.
398Wiersbe, 1:604.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 141

mercy of every brute who may choose to abuse her. The

veil is therefore the virtuous woman's 'power ["authority"],'
and whenever she appears in public she ought to have this
'power on her head;' in church, 'because of the angels;' that
is, the messengers and ministers, as I suppose."399

Today it is not shameful for a woman to have short hair, but it was in
Paul's day. There are many short hairstyles that no one regards as
"disgraceful." However in Paul's culture, short hair for a woman
represented rebellion, and people considered it shameful. Paul used the
common reaction to women's short hair, in his day, to urge his female
readers to wear a head-covering. His point was that, since it was shameful
for a woman to have short hair, it was also shameful for her to have her
head uncovered when she prayed or prophesied.

"To sum up, the one guiding principle is to prepon,

propriety; if that is preserved, Paul asks for no more."400

Must a Christian woman cover her head in church meetings today? I think
not. Covering the head and wearing short hair do not normally mean the
same thing in modern times, at least in the West, as they did in Paul's
culture. If he were writing to a western church today, for example, I do not
believe Paul would have said it is a shameful thing for a woman to have
short hair. Therefore I do not think he would have said she ought to cover
her head.

Covering the head was a sign of acknowledgement of origin in Paul's day,

which implied some acknowledgement of authority, but it is not today
typically. Today there is no item of clothing that makes such a statement,
nor does the length of a woman's hair. Perhaps her willingness to take her
husband's family name when she marries does,401 or her willingness to
wear a wedding ring might, or the way she speaks about her husband to
others, or her modest dress, but not necessarily. A woman's whole
personal demeanor, especially how she views herself as a woman, reveals
this about her.402

"Although various Christian groups have fostered the

practice of some sort of head covering for women in the
assembled church, the difficulties with the practice are
obvious. For Paul the issue was directly tied to a cultural

399Thomson, 1:35.
400Calvin, The First . . ., p. 231.
401See Ironside, pp. 330-31.
402For defenses of the view that women should wear head coverings today in church meetings, see Bruce
K. Waltke, "1 Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretation," Bibliotheca Sacra 135:537 (January-March
1978):46-57; Ironside, pp. 323-40; and S. L. Johnson Jr., pp. 1247-48.
142 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

shame that scarcely prevails in most cultures today.

Furthermore, we simply do not know what the practice was
that they were abusing. Thus literal 'obedience' to the text is
often merely symbolic. Unfortunately, the symbol that
tends to be reinforced is the subordination of women,
which is hardly Paul's point. Furthermore, it would seem
that in cultures where women's heads are seldom covered,
the enforcement of such in the church turns Paul's point on
its head."403

2. The argument from creation 11:7-12

Paul proceeded with a second supporting argument to correct the Corinthians' perversion
regarding women's head-coverings.

11:7 Men should not cover their heads in Christian worship because they are
the glory of God. Whereas Paul referred to man being "the image and
glory of God," his primary point was that man is the "glory of God." His
reference to man as the "image" of God clearly goes back to Genesis 1:26-
28, but there "glory" does not appear. "Glory" is Paul's word, his reflection
on the creation of man. This is the word that he proceeded to use to
contrast man and woman.

Notice that Paul did not say that the woman is to cover her head because
she is the "glory of man." Instead he proceeded to describe what being
man's "glory" means. A subordinate glorifies the one in authority over him
or her just by being in a subordinate position.

". . . he [Paul] says that woman is the glory of man—not his

image, for she too shares the image of God, and is not (as
some commentators have thought) more remote from God
than is man."404

11:8 Woman is the glory of man, first, because she came (originated) "from"
him in creation. As Adam glorified God by being the product of His
creation, so Eve glorified Adam because she came from him. The female
sex did not produce the male sex, but the first woman came from the first
man. God formed Eve out of a part of Adam whom He created first (Gen.
2:21-22).

403Fee, The First . . ., p. 512. See also David K. Lowery, "The Head Covering and the Lord's Supper in 1
Corinthians 11:2-34," Bibliotheca Sacra 143:570 (April-June 1986):159; Kenneth T. Wilson, "Should
Women Wear Headcoverings?" Bibliotheca Sacra 148:592 (October-December 1991):442-62; and Barclay,
The Letters . . ., p. 110.
404Barrett, p. 249.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 143

11:9 Furthermore woman is the glory of man because God created Eve to
complete Adam. God did not create the man as a companion for the
woman, but the woman "for (the) man's sake" (Gen. 2:18, 20).405

"Man, then, was God's authoritative representative who

found in woman a divinely made ally in fulfilling this role
(Gen. 2:18-24). In this sense she as a wife is the glory of
man, her husband."406

When Adam saw Eve for the first time, he "gloried" in her (Gen. 2:23).
Neither of these verses (vv. 8-9) refers to the subordination of woman
under man, though many interpreters have read this into the text. Rather
they refer to her origin as being from man.

11:10 Paul drew a conclusion ("Therefore . . .") from what he had already said
(vv. 7-9), and gave a supporting reason for his conclusion.

Unfortunately the NASB translators have added "a symbol of" to the
original text, thus implying that the head-covering is what women ought to
wear on their heads. The Greek text simply says "the woman ought to
have authority on her head." In the preceding verses, the reason given is
that she is the man's glory. In light of verse 7, we might have expected
Paul to say that because the woman is the glory of the man, she should
cover her head. Yet that is not what Paul said.

What is this "authority" that women ought to have on their heads? Some
interpreters believe it refers to the man in her life who is in authority over
her. The covering is the sign that she recognizes him in this role. The
Living Bible gives this interpretation by paraphrasing the verse, "So a
woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign that she is under
man's authority."407 This view lacks support in the passive use of exousia
("authority"). Furthermore, the idiom "to have authority over" never
elsewhere refers to an external authority different from the subject of the
sentence.

Other interpreters view "authority" as a metonym for "veil." A metonym is

a figure of speech in which one word appears in place of another
associated with or suggested by it (e.g., "the White House says" for "the
President says"). The RSV translation gives this interpretation: "That is
why a woman ought to have a veil on her head." This view is unlikely

405See Benjamin L. Merkle, "Paul's Arguments from Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and 1 Timothy 2:13-
14: An Apparent Inconsistency Answered," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49:3
(September 2006):527-48.
406Lowery, "1 Corinthians," p. 529.
407See also F. Godet, Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 2:122; and Charles
Hodge, A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians, p. 211.
144 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

because "authority" is an unclear word to use if Paul really meant "veil." It

would have been more natural for him simply to say "veil" or "covering."

A third view is to take "to have authority" as meaning "a sign of authority,
namely, as a means of exercising authority." Advocates believe Paul
meant that women were to have authority to do things in worship
previously forbidden, such as praying and prophesying along with men.
Her covering would serve as a sign of her new liberty in Christ.408 There
does not seem to be adequate basis of support for this view in the passage.

The fourth major view takes having "authority" in its usual meaning of
having the freedom or right to choose. The meaning in this case would be
that the woman has authority over her head (man) to do as she pleases.409
Obviously this view seems to run contrary to what Paul taught in the
passage and elsewhere. I think perhaps Paul meant that women have
freedom to decide how they will pray and prophesy—within the constraint
that Paul had imposed, namely, with heads covered. The head-covering,
then, symbolized both the woman's subordinate position under the man
and the authority that she had to pray and prophesy in public.410

The other major interpretive problem in this verse is "because of the

angels." Why did Paul introduce angels into this discussion? Perhaps the
Corinthian women needed to wear a head-covering because angels
observe with great interest what is taking place among God's people as
they worship (cf. 4:9; Eph. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:21). "Angels" are the guardians
of God's created order, they are submissive to God, and they—too—praise
God. For other people to see Christian women unveiled was bad enough,
because it was a sign of insubordination, but for angels to see it would be
worse.411 They would really be offended!

There may also be something to the suggestion that these Corinthian

women, and some of the men as well, may have been exalting themselves
to the position of angels (cf. 7:1; 13:1).412 Paul may have mentioned the
angels to remind these Corinthians that they were still under angelic
scrutiny.

Other, less acceptable interpretations of "because of the angels" are these:

Women should cover their heads because evil angels were lusting after
women in the church (cf. Gen. 6:2). If this were the reason, should not all
women wear veils at all times, since angels apparently view humans
elsewhere than in church meetings?

408Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 106; M. D. Hooker, "Authority on Her Head: An Examination of I Cor.
XI. 10," New Testament Studies 10 (1963-64):410-16.
409William M. Ramsay, The Cities of St. Paul, pp. 202-5; Morris, p. 154.
410See Barrett, p. 255.
411Robertson and Plummer, p. 233.
412Fee, The First . . ., p. 522.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 145

Or, they should do so, because the word "angels" (lit. "messengers") refers
to pastors of the churches—who might lust after them! Or, they should
wear head-coverings, because good angels learn to be submissive to
authority from the women's example. They need to cover themselves
because good angels are an example of subordination and would take
offense if they viewed insubordinate women. Or, finally, they should wear
head-coverings, because a woman's insubordination would tempt good
angels to be insubordinate.

Is observance by angels not a reason Christian women should cover their

heads in church meetings today? Again I think not. In that culture, a
woman's appearance in public, unveiled, was a declaration of her rejection
of her God-given place in creation. The angels would have recognized it
as such, and it would have offended them. However today, a woman's
decision to appear unveiled does not usually make that statement.
Consequently her unveiled condition probably does not offend the angels.

11:11 Even though the positions of man and woman differ in God's
administrative order, this does not mean they can get along without each
other. They are mutually dependent on each other, and they complement
one another. They are interdependent, even as the Son and the Father are.
Paul's main point was that woman is not "independent" of man. This is
further evidence that he was countering an illegitimate spirit of
independence among some Corinthian women.

In a family, companionship should replace isolation and loneliness. There

must be oneness in marriage for a husband and a wife to complete one
another. Self-centered individuality destroys unity in marriage. If you are
married, you need your husband or wife. Your spouse is necessary for you
to be a more well-rounded person.

11:12 Even though God created Eve from Adam, now every male comes from a
female ("has his birth through the woman"). This fact illustrates
male/female interdependence, and balances Paul's emphasis in verse 11.
Together, verses 11 and 12 form a chiasm structurally. Husbands and
wives have equal worth. Still, "God . . . originate[s]" both of them ("all
things"), and both are subordinate to Him.

The apostle's emphasis in this section was on the authority that a woman has in her own
right by virtue of creation. She must not leave her divinely appointed place in creation by
seeking to function exactly as a man in church worship. Furthermore, she should express
her submission to this aspect of God's will in a culturally approved way. At the same
time, she must maintain a healthy appreciation for the opposite sex, as should the men.

3. The argument from propriety 11:13-16

Paul returned to the main argument (vv. 4-6), but now he appealed to the Corinthians'
own judgment and sense of propriety. He raised two more rhetorical questions. The first
146 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

question (v. 13b) expects a negative answer, and the second (vv. 14-15) a positive one.
The apostle appealed to the nature of things. His points were that "nature" itself
distinguishes between the sexes, and that a woman's naturally longer hair reinforces the
propriety of covering her head in worship (in that culture).

11:13 In Paul's culture, it was not proper for a woman to act as a spokesman for
people with God by praying publicly "with her head uncovered." To do so
would be tantamount to claiming the position of a man in God's order. The
apostle did not think it wise for Christian women to exercise their liberty
in a way that would go against socially accepted behavior, even if they
were personally submissive. Today what is socially accepted is different,
but her attitude is still crucial. Notice the similarity of what Paul
advocated here with what he advocated in 8:1—11:1, namely, doing what
is generally perceived as appropriate (as well as what is morally correct).

11:14-15 Women's hair naturally grows longer than men's hair. Paul reasoned from
this fact that God intended for women to have more head-covering than
men ("her hair is given to her for a covering"). People generally regard the
reverse of what is natural as dishonorable: In the man's case this would be
"long hair," and in the woman's case short hair ("if a woman has long hair,
it is a glory to her"). By "nature," Paul evidently meant how his culture felt
about what was natural ("Does not even nature itself teach you . . .?").413
"Glory" means "honor."

This is a very general observation. The fact that some acceptable men's
hairstyles are longer than some women's, does not mean these styles are
perversions of the natural order. Men are usually taller than women, but
this does not mean that short men or tall women are dishonorable. I
understand that women's hair generally grows fuller and faster due to the
estrogen in women, whereas men's hair tends to become thinner and fall
out faster because of the testosterone in men.

11:16 If any of his readers still did not feel inclined to accept Paul's reasoning
("inclined to be contentious"), he informed them that the other churches
("the churches of God") followed what he had just explained. This is one
of four similar statements in this epistle that served to inform the
Corinthians that they were out of step with the other churches in their
conduct (cf. 3:18; 8:2; 14:37). Some women were evidently discarding
their head-covering in public worship because they were repudiating their
place in God's administrative order.

This section contains five arguments for women wearing head-coverings in that culture.
First, Paul referred to the divine order (God, Christ, man, and woman; vv. 3-6), second,
creation (vv. 7-9), third, the angels (v. 10), fourth, nature (vv. 13-15), and fifth, universal
church practice (v. 16).

413Calvin, The First . . ., p. 235; Barrett, p. 257.

2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 147

As with the issues of eating in idol temples and meat offered to idols, Paul dealt with a
cultural practice when he dealt with head-coverings. As should be clear from his
argumentation, he did not feel that this was a major issue. He appealed to maintain a
custom, not to obey God, and he used shame, propriety, and custom to urge the
Corinthians to cooperate, not Scriptural imperatives or apostolic authority. However,
important issues lay behind the practices. In the case of head-coverings, the issue is
women's position in the life of the church, in particular their relationship to the men. In
modern society, no item of clothing consistently identifies a woman's acceptance or
rejection of her role in God's administrative order. At least none does in western culture.
It is usually her speech and her behavior that do. The important thing is her attitude
toward her womanhood and how she expresses it, not whether she wears a particular item
of clothing.

D. THE LORD'S SUPPER 11:17-34

Most of the Corinthians had been following Paul's instructions regarding women's head-
coverings, so he commended them for this (v. 2), but he could not approve their behavior
at the Lord's Supper. They needed to make some major changes there. What they were
doing cut at the heart of both the gospel and the church. This was the one certain situation
in the Corinthian church, that Paul addressed in chapters 7—16, that the Corinthians
themselves had not asked him about. He wrote that he had heard about it (v. 18).

By way of background, we need to remember that in antiquity, meals typically

accompanied public worship: in the early church, in Judaism, and in the pagan world.
The early Christians observed the Lord's Supper as part of such a meal, often called "the
love feast." Paul's concern was that the love feast had become an occasion, not of love for
fellow believers, but of selfishness.

1. The abuses 11:17-26

The first abuse reflects a problem on the horizontal level, between believers in the
church. The second, more serious abuse, was vertical, involving the church and its Lord.

Abuse of the poor 11:17-22

This aspect of the problem involved showing disregard for the poorer members of the
church.

"Because there was no landed aristocracy in the new Corinth, there arose
an aristocracy of wealth."414

11:17 The Corinthians' behavior at the Lord's Supper was so bad that Paul could
say they were "worse" off, for observing it as they did, rather than "better"
off. Their failure was not that they failed to observe the Lord's Supper. It
was that when they gathered, they did not behave as the church—in which

414Carson and Moo, p. 420.

148 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

there is no distinction between "Jews or Greeks," "slaves or free" (12:13).

In the unsaved Gentile culture of Paul's day, it was typical for hosts to give
preferential treatment to persons of status.415

11:18 "In the first place" evidently refers to all that follows in verses 18-34. Paul
decided to wait to deal with other similar matters until he arrived in
Corinth (v. 34).

The context of the occasion in view was the assembling of the whole
church family (cf. 14:23). When Paul later wrote his epistle to the Romans
from Corinth, the Corinthian church was meeting in the home of Gaius
(Rom. 16:23). If there were several house-churches in Corinth at this time,
probably all of them were guilty of this abuse.

The "divisions" (Gr. schismata) to which Paul referred here were social
groupings within the church, not differences involving loyalty to leaders
(1:12).

Evidently, those who had reported this abuse in the Corinthian church to
Paul, had given him much detail about what was happening. Paul said he
believed enough of this ("in part I believe it") to conclude that there was a
serious problem.

11:19 Divisions or factions (Gr. haireseis) of this type have a positive aspect.
They clarify whom God approves as faithful and trustworthy ("those who
are approved"), and those who are not (cf. Matt. 10:34-37; 18:7; 24:9-13).
God's approval (Gr. dokimoi) contrasts with what Paul had written earlier
about being disapproved (disqualified, adokimos; 9:27) by God.

11:20 In the Christian church's early years, the Lord's Supper occupied a more
central position in the life of local assemblies than it does in most
churches today. The early believers often celebrated it daily or weekly (cf.
Acts 2:42-46; 20:7). However, it was just as impossible to observe this
feast properly, in an atmosphere of social discrimination, as it was to do so
while also attending feasts that honored idols (10:21).

11:21 The Lord's Supper was usually part of a meal the Christians shared
together, the so-called "love feast." In Corinth, instead of sharing their
food and drinks, each family was bringing its own and eating what they
had brought. The result was that the rich had plenty, but the poor had little
(were "hungry")—and suffered embarrassment as well. This was hardly a
picture of Christian love and unity (cf. Acts 2:44-46; 4:32, 34-35).
Furthermore some, with plenty of wine to drink, were evidently drinking
too heavily (got "drunk"). They were eating their "own" private meals,
rather than sharing a meal consecrated to the Lord.

415Keener, p. 98.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 149

11:22 This verse contains some of the apostle's most critical statements in this
epistle. If his original readers chose to behave in such a selfish way, they
should stay home and "eat" there, rather than humiliating their less
fortunate brethren ("shame those who have nothing"). Such conduct
showed disrespect for the church as the temple of God (cf. 3:17).

"The early Church was the one place in all the ancient
world where the barriers which divided the world were
down. The ancient world was very rigidly divided; there
were the free men and the slaves; there were the Greeks
and the barbarians—the people who did not speak Greek;
there were the Jews and the Gentiles; there were the Roman
citizens and the lesser breeds without the law; there were
the cultured and the ignorant. The Church was the one
place where all men could and did come together. . . . A
Church where social and class distinctions exist is no true
Church at all. A real Church is a body of men and women
united to each other because all are united to Christ.

"A Church is not true Church where the art of sharing is

forgotten."416

Abuse of the Lord 11:23-26

There was an even more serious dimension to this problem. The Corinthians were sinning
against the Lord as well as one another.

11:23 What Paul taught here came ultimately from the Lord Jesus Himself. This
reminder stresses the importance of this revelation.

"The verbs 'received' and 'passed on,' which occur again in

combination in 15:3, are technical terms from Paul's Jewish
heritage for the transmission of religious instruction. His
present concern is to establish that the tradition about the
Supper they had received from him came from Jesus
himself: 'I received [it] from the Lord.'"417

The terminology used here ("I received from the Lord") does not require
us to understand that the Lord Jesus communicated this information to
Paul personally. Paul's wording suggests that he may have been repeating
exactly what others had taught him. This is not a verbatim quotation from
one of the Gospel accounts.418

416Barclay, The Letters . . ., pp. 112-13.

417Fee, The First . . ., p. 548.
418See David Lincicum, "Paul and the Testimonia: Quo Vademus?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 51:2 (June 2008):297-308.
150 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Paul described "the night" Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper as "the night
in which He was betrayed." This draws attention to the Savior's great love
for His own. The Lord was graciously providing for His disciples while
one of them was plotting to do away with Him.

11:24 The Greek word eucharisteo, "to give thanks," accounts for the fact that
another name for the Lord's Supper is "the Eucharist." Likewise, some
Christians call it "the Breaking of Bread" because Jesus "broke" the
"bread," as Paul stated here.

There have been various interpretations of what Jesus meant when He

said, "This is My body." There are four main views. Roman Catholics take
it as a literal statement, meaning they believe the bread really becomes the
body of Christ, and the contents of the cup become the blood of Christ.
They believe this is true only when duly authorized representatives of the
church conduct the service properly. This is the transubstantiation view.
Adherents believe God transfers the body and blood of Christ into the
substance of the elements. The bread and wine actually become the
physical body and blood of Christ, according to this view.

A second view is not quite so literal. It is the consubstantiation view and,

as the word implies, its advocates see the body and blood of Christ as
present "in, with, and under" the elements. Christ is "really" present,
though not physically present, in this Lutheran view.

The third major view is the spiritual presence view, that Presbyterians and
some other followers of Calvin hold. For them the spiritual presence of
Christ is in the elements and, as in the former views, God ministers grace
to the communicant in a concrete way through participation.419

The fourth view is the memorial view. Advocates believe that when Jesus
said, "This is My body," He meant, "This represents My body." In other
words, they understand His statement as completely metaphorical. They
view the elements as pictures or emblems of the body and blood of Christ.
In contrast to the preceding views, this one does not see Christ present in
any special sense in the elements. Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss reformer,
promoted this view. Today most of the churches from the Anabaptist
branch of Protestantism (i.e., Baptists, Methodists, independent Bible
churches, et al.) follow this interpretation.420 As the following quotation
clarifies, this view expresses how Jesus' Jewish disciples probably first
understood "This is My body (and blood)."

419Calvin,The First . . ., p. 250.

420For more information on these views, see articles on the Lord's Supper and synonymous terms in Bible
encyclopedias.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 151

"The identification of the bread with the body is semitic

imagery in its heightened form. As in all such
identifications, he means 'this signifies/represents my
body.' It lies quite beyond both Jesus' intent and the
framework within which he and the disciples lived to
imagine that some actual change took place, or was
intended to take place, in the bread itself. Such a view
could only have arisen in the church at a much later stage
when Greek modes of thinking had rather thoroughly
replaced semitic ones."421

Jesus invited His disciples to take the bread that represented His body. He
thus gave them a share in His body, and invited them to participate in the
meaning and benefits of His death. His body was "for" them in a double
sense. It was what secured atonement on their behalf (cf. 15:3; Rom. 5:6,
8), and it was a body offered in their place (e.g., Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21).

The Lord's request that His disciples remember Him by partaking of bread
and the fruit of the vine is rich with significance. Many followers
remember their leaders by erecting stone monuments to their memories
and making pilgrimages to these sites. In contrast, the Lord Jesus made
remembering Him easy, yet profound. Partaking the elements helps us
appreciate the fact that Christ is really within us, and eating together
reminds us of our unity with other believers in Christ's body, the church.

"Remembering," in biblical terminology, does not mean only calling to

memory. It includes realizing what the event remembered involved (cf.
Exod. 13:3; 20:8; Deut. 5:15; 7:18; et al.). The Lord's Supper is not just
something Christians do to bring the memory of Jesus back into fresh
view, though it does that too. It is a memorial of the salvation that He
accomplished by His death and resurrection. First Corinthians 11:24
contains the Lord's command to observe the Eucharist, as do the Gospel
accounts of the institution of this ordinance.422 It is impossible to be an
obedient Christian without observing the Lord's Supper.

Some Christian groups refer to the Lord's Supper as one of the

"sacraments." They mean by this that the elements minister grace to the
participant in a more direct and physical way, than those who speak of it
as an "ordinance," assuming they are using these terms properly. An
"ordinance" or a "sacrament" is a rite that the Lord commanded His
followers to observe.

421Fee, The First . . ., p. 550.

422For further study of the ordinances, see Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, pp. 421-27, or any of the
standard theologies.
152 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Most Protestants believe there are two ordinances, baptism and the Lord's
Supper. A few Protestant groups include "foot-washing" as a third
ordinance on the basis of John 13:12-17 (e.g., the Grace Brethren, some
Mennonites, et al.).
11:25 As Jesus had taken the bread and given thanks for it, so ("in the same
way") He also took the cup and gave thanks for it (Matt. 26:28; Mark
14:24; Luke 22:20).
When Jesus shed His blood on Calvary, that blood ratified (gave formal
sanction to, authoritative approval of) the New Covenant that Jeremiah
had predicted (Jer. 31:31-34, cf. Exod. 24:8). The New Covenant replaced
the old Mosaic Covenant (Heb. 8:8-13; 9:18-28). Even though the Jews
will be the major beneficiaries of the benefits of this covenant in the
Millennium, all believers began to benefit from the death of Christ when
He died.423
This arrangement resembles one that is possible to set up in a Charitable
Lead Unit Trust under the Internal Revenue Code of the United States.
Suppose there was a vastly wealthy and generous philanthropist of the
magnitude of a John D. Rockefeller or Bill Gates. As he prepared his will,
he bequeathed millions of dollars to various charitable causes that would
benefit millions of people all over the world when he died. He also wrote
into his will that when his only son reached the age of 21, the son would
inherit billions of dollars. When the man died, his son was only five years
old, so for 16 years he did not enter into his father's inheritance. However,
as soon as the philanthropist died, the millions of dollars he had
bequeathed to charity went to work immediately to help many people.
This illustration shows how the church enters into the blessings of the
New Covenant. When Christ established the Lord's Supper, it was as
though He notarized His will; it became official right then. The "will" is
the New Covenant. When Jesus died, His "estate" immediately became
available to those He chose to profit from it. Soon many people around the
world, Jews and Gentiles alike in the church, began to benefit from the
blessings of His death. However, His chosen people, His "son" Israel, will
not enter into his inheritance until the appointed time, namely, the
Millennium. Blessings for the church began almost immediately after
Christ's death. Blessings for Israel will not begin until Christ's appointed
time arrives.
Whenever the Jews celebrated the Passover, the father who was
conducting the service would explain the significance of each part to the
rest of the family (cf. Deut. 16:3). Jesus did the same for His disciples
when He instituted the Lord's Supper.

423See Rodney J. Decker, "The Church's Relationship to the New Covenant," Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607
(July-September 1995):290-305.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 153

"Our Lord prescribed no set times: P.[aul] assumes that

celebration will be frequent, for he directs that, however
frequent, it must be guided by the Lord's instructions, so as
to keep the remembrance of Him unimpaired."424

11:26 Paul continued Jesus' explanation. Participation in the Lord's Supper

dramatizes the gospel. The service becomes a visual, as well as an audio
setting forth, of the death of Christ and its significance.

"The Eucharist is an acted sermon, an acted proclamation

of the death which it commemorates; but it is possible that
there is reference to some expression of belief in the
atoning death of Christ as being a usual element in the
service."425

Paul may have referred to "the cup" rather than "the wine," which would
have been parallel to "the bread," in order to avoid the direct identification
of the wine in the cup with blood. The idea of drinking blood was
revolting to most people in the ancient world, particularly the Jews.426 On
the other hand, he may have viewed both elements symbolically, the cup
being a symbol of one's lot in life, particularly judgment, and the bread a
symbol of what sustains life.

The Lord's Supper is not only a memorial celebration looking back to

Jesus Christ's first advent. It is also an anticipatory celebration looking
forward to His second advent. Paul used the same term ("proclaim"), that
the Jews used to describe the Passover liturgy, the Haggadah (lit.
"showing forth"), to describe the Lord's Supper.427 It "shows forth"
("proclaims") His death "until He comes" (cf. Exod. 13:8).

". . . to 'declare the Lord's death till he come' in judgment

means nothing else than that we should by the confession
of our mouth declare what our faith recognizes in the
Sacrament: that the death of Christ is our life."428

Evidently when the Lord returns to set up His earthly kingdom, He will
establish a new form of worship that will include the offering of certain
animal sacrifices (Ezek. 40—46). These will be similar to the animal
sacrifices the Jews offered under the Old Covenant. However, since Jesus
Christ has made a final sacrifice, these animal offerings will evidently be
for memorial purposes, and entirely for worship, not for the expiation of

424Findlay, 2:881.
425Robertson and Plummer, p. 249.
426Barrett, p. 268.
427Edersheim, p. 232.
428Calvin, Institutes of . . ., 4:17:37.
154 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

sin. Another possibility is that they will have some role in restoring
fellowship with God then.429

"The Communion is not supposed to be a time of 'spiritual

autopsy' and grief, even though confession of sin is
important. It should be a time of thanksgiving and joyful
anticipation of seeing the Lord!"430

In this section, Paul reviewed and expounded the significance of the Lord's Supper so that
his readers would value and celebrate it appropriately.

"In short, Paul is doing one thing and one thing alone. He is impressing on
the Corinthians the tremendous importance of doing just this: eating this
bread and drinking this cup. It is, after all, a matter of celebrating the
Lord's death."431

"It is interesting that nowhere are we commanded to remember the Lord's

birthday [though it is not wrong to do so], but we are requested and
commanded that those who are His own should remember His
deathday."432

2. The correctives 11:27-34

Paul proceeded to urge the Corinthians to change their observance of the Lord's Supper,
and explained what they should do to correct their conduct.

Discerning the body 11:27-32

He explained that the Lord's Supper is more than a personal, introspective remembering.
It has implications for the church, because in His death, Jesus Christ laid the foundation
for a new community of believers who bear His name. Thus, the Lord's Supper should
lead us to reflect on our relationship to one another as fellow Christians, as well as to
recall Calvary.

11:27 "An unworthy manner" is any manner that is not consistent with the
significance of Christ's death. This does not mean that every participant
must grasp the fullness of this significance, which is hardly possible.
Nevertheless, everyone should conduct himself or herself appropriately, in
view of the significance of the Lord's death. Even a child is capable of
doing this. The divisions that existed in their church (v. 18), plus their

429See Jerry M. Hullinger, "The Problem of Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40—48," Bibliotheca Sacra
152:607 (July-September 1995):279-89.
430Wiersbe, 1:607.
431Troels Engberg-Pedersen, "Proclaiming the Lord's Death," in Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2
Corinthians, p. 116.
432McGee, p. 52.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 155

selfish behavior (v. 21), constituted the unworthiness of the manner in

which the Corinthians were observing the Lord's Supper. They had also
lost the point of the memorial, which involves proclaiming salvation
through Christ's death portrayed in ritual. The gospel goes out when we
observe the Lord's Supper in a worthy manner.

Being "guilty" of Christ's "body and blood" means being guilty of treating
them in an unworthy manner, i.e., guilty of profaning them. It does not
mean that such a person is in some special sense responsible for the death
of Christ.

"To outrage the emblem is to outrage its original—as if one

should mock at the Queen's picture or at his country's
flag."433

Paul was not warning unworthy persons so that they should refrain from
attending the Lord's Supper. He was not discussing the character of the
participants, but their conduct in worship. No believer is worthy to
participate, in view of our flawed character, but we can and must
participate in a worthy manner.

11:28 "The Corinthians neglected to examine themselves, but

they were experts at examining everybody else."434

The reason for examining oneself is to determine that we are partaking in

a worthy manner rather than in an unworthy manner. In the context, this
would involve behaving in a loving and unselfish way toward our fellow
Christians, as well as being appreciative of the significance of the Lord's
body and blood. We need to "examine" ourselves, or else the Lord will
have to examine and judge us for failing to participate worthily (v. 31).

Having conducted this brief self-examination, the believer should then

proceed to participate. An unusually sensitive Christian might hesitate to
participate, after thoughtful reflection, feeling overwhelmed by his or her
personal unworthiness. However, no one is ever worthy to partake. If
someone thinks he is, he is not. We are only worthy because Christ has
made us worthy. We ought to partake feeling unworthy to do so. This
attitude is part of what it means to partake in a worthy manner.

This simple reflection and participation lie at the very root of the
motivation for living a life that glorifies God. The church has invented
many ways to motivate Christians to "put Jesus Christ first" in their lives.
These include altar calls, "revival" services, campfire dedication services,
and many others—all of which have value. Unfortunately, we have also

433Findlay, 2:882.
434Wiersbe, 1:606.
156 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

neglected what the Lord Jesus instructed us here to do, which will
motivate His people to live for Him better than anything else. If this
observance has lost its punch, it is because those who lead it have failed to
give it the preparation, attention, and priority it deserves in church life.

The frequent observance of the Lord's Supper—in a way that takes us

back to the Cross—is one of the most powerful and effective motivators
for living the Christian life. If you think a frequent observance of the
Lord's Supper tends to become tiresome, remember that your spouse never
tires of your frequent expressions of love for him or her.

11:29 Eating and drinking in an unworthy manner results in divine "judgment."

Judgment is inevitable at the Lord's Table. We must "judge" ourselves
(Gr. diakrino) before we partake, and then participate in a worthy manner,
or else God will judge (krino) us. The "body" has a double sense: the body
of Christ given on the cross, and the mystical body of Christ, the church.

"The 'unworthy' or 'inappropriate' participation in the Lord's

Supper that entails eating and drinking judgment against
the participants comes in not 'discerning (diakrinon) the
body' (11:29). How members of the community view one
another, whether they are sensitive to the poor and
latecomers or whether the prevailing social customs dictate
their behavior, becomes the decisive issue. Does the
congregation recognize itself as the distinctive body of
Christ?"435

11:30 In Corinth, God was judging with sickness ("many . . . are weak and sick")
and death ("a number sleep"). The reasons were the unjudged sin of selfish
living (v. 21) and thoughtless participation in the communion service.436

11:31 If God's people do not judge their own sins themselves, God will judge
them. This judgment may involve physical illness—or even, in extreme
cases, premature physical death (cf. Acts 5; 1 John 5:16).

11:32 We should regard this kind of God's punishment of Christians as discipline

(Gr. paideia, lit. child training; cf. Heb. 12:5-11). The condemnation
which God intends this discipline to spare us from experiencing, is not the
eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord that the unsaved world
will suffer (Rom. 8:1). It is premature death, and or the Lord's disapproval
at the judgment seat of Christ (cf. 3:15; 5:5). This is another instance of
wordplay in the Greek text. If we discerned (diakrino) ourselves, we
would not come under divine judgment (krino). When God judges us

435Cousar, "The Theological . . .," p. 100.

436See Stanley D. Toussaint, "Suffering in Acts and the Pauline Epistles," in Why, O God? Suffering and
Disability in the Bible and Church, pp. 188-89.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 157

(krino), it is to correct us, so that "we will not be condemned" (katakrino)

"with the world."

Waiting for one another 11:33-34

Practical application now follows theological explanation.

11:33 Rather than disregarding the members of the congregation, who had little
or no food to bring to the love feasts, those who had plenty should share
what they had. They should also "wait" to eat until all had been served.

Many churches these days have potluck suppers, periodically, that provide
a modern counterpart to the first-century love feast. Some Christians have
felt that we should practice the love feast whenever we observe the Lord's
Supper today. Most have concluded that the love feast was just the setting
in which the Lord's Supper took place in the early church. Jesus did not
specifically command His disciples to observe the love feast when He
urged them to eat the Lord's Supper. Therefore most Christians believe the
love feast is not an ordinance of the church, and thus we are not bound to
perpetuate it as the early church practiced it.

11:34 If some of the Corinthian Christians were too "hungry" to wait before
eating, they should "eat" something "at home" before they came to the
service. Otherwise, their unloving selfishness might result in the Lord's
"judgment." It is very important to the Lord that we put the needs of others
before our own needs (cf. 9:22; 10:33; Mark 10:45; Rom. 15:2; Gal. 1:10;
Phil. 2:3; et al.).

Evidently there were other details ("the remaining matters"), of how the
Corinthians were behaving when they congregated, that Paul did not want
to comment on in this letter. Perhaps they were of local importance only.
He planned to address these issues when he visited Corinth again (cf.
4:18-21; 16:2-3, 5-7).

The selfish attitude that marked the Corinthian church comes through strongly in this
section of the epistle. It manifested itself in a particularly ugly display at the Lord's Table.
Paul dealt with it severely, both for the sake of the reputation of the Savior, and for the
welfare of the saints.

E. SPIRITUAL GIFTS AND SPIRITUAL PEOPLE CHS. 12—14

Paul had been dealing with matters related to worship since 8:1. He had forbidden the
Corinthians from participating in temple meals, but had allowed eating marketplace meat
under certain circumstances (8:1—11:1). Then he dealt with two issues involving their
own gatherings for worship: head-coverings and the Lord's Supper (11:2-34). The issue
of spiritual gifts (chs. 12—14) was the third issue involving their own gatherings for
worship. This is the most important of the three as evidenced by the amount of text Paul
devoted to it and by the issue itself. Paul moved from the outward and visible social
158 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

decorum issue of women's head coverings, to the more inward issue of the church's
communion service, to the most inward issue of how the Spirit operates in the church.437
Paul explained that being "spiritual" at present, since the perfect state has not yet come
(13:8-13), means to edify the church in worship.

"More than any other issue, the Corinthians and Paul are at odds over the
role of the Spirit. For them 'Spirit' has been their entrée to life in the realm
of sophia ('wisdom') and gnosis ('knowledge'), with their consequent
rejection of the material order, both now (7:1-7) and for the future (15:12),
as well as their rejection of the Christian life as modeled by Paul's
imitation of Christ (4:15-21). Their experience of tongues as the
language(s) of angels had allowed them to assume heavenly existence now
(4:8), thought of primarily in terms of nonmaterial existence, rather than
ethical-moral life in the present. Thus Paul tries to disabuse them of their
singular and overly enthusiastic emphasis on tongues (the point of chaps.
12—14); but in so doing, he tries to retool their understanding of the Spirit
so as to bring it into line with the gospel."438

Paul wanted to correct the Corinthians in this section, not just provide more teaching, as
he did throughout this epistle. This becomes clear in chapter 14. They were abusing the
gift of tongues. The whole section divides into three parts and structurally follows an A-
B-A chiastic pattern, as do other parts of this letter (i.e., chs. 1—3; 7:25-40; chs. 8—10).
First there is general instruction (ch. 12), then a theological interlude (ch. 13), and finally
specific correction (ch. 14).

". . . there is not a single suggestion in Paul's response that they were
themselves divided on this issue or that they were politely asking his
advice. More likely, the crucial issue is their decided position over against
him as to what it means to be pneumatikos ('spiritual'). Their view
apparently not only denied the material/physical side of Christian
existence (hence the reason why chap. 15 follows hard on the heels of this
section), but had an element of 'spiritualized (or overrealized) eschatology'
as well.

"The key probably lies with 13:1, where tongues is associated with angels.
As noted elsewhere (7:1-7; 11:2-16), the Corinthians seem to have
considered themselves to be already like the angels, thus truly 'spiritual,'
needing neither sex in the present (7:1-7) nor a body in the future (15:1-
58). Speaking angelic dialects by the Spirit was evidence enough for them
of their participation in the new spirituality, hence their singular
enthusiasm for this gift."439

437Findlay,2:884.
438Fee,"Toward a . . .," p. 45.
439Idem, The First . . ., pp. 572-73.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 159

1. The test of Spirit control 12:1-3

The apostle began his discussion by clarifying the indicators that a person is under the
control of the indwelling Spirit of God. With this approach, he set the Corinthians' former
experience as idolaters in contrast to their present experience as Christians. "Inspired
utterance" in itself does not identify what is truly "spiritual." The intelligible content of
such an utterance does, when the content is the basic confession that Jesus Christ is Lord.

12:1 The presence of the phrase peri de ("Now concerning" or "Now about"),
plus the change in subject, mark another matter about which the
Corinthians had written Paul with a question (cf. 7:1; 8:1). It has to do
with the "gifts" (abilities) that the Holy Spirit gives those believers He
indwells.440 This subject is the focus of all that Paul wrote in chapters
12—14, including the famous thirteenth chapter on love.

As in 10:1, Paul implied that what followed was instruction his readers
needed. "Spiritual gifts" is literally "the spirituals" (Gr. ton pneumatikon).
Paul used pneumatika when he wanted to emphasize the Spirit, and he
used charismata when he wanted to stress the gift. Pneumatikon is a
broader term than the gifts themselves, though it includes them. It appears
to refer primarily to the people who are spiritual (cf. 2:15; 3:1). Evidently
the Corinthians' question dealt with the characteristics of a spiritual
Christian.

A "spiritual Christian" is a believer under the control of the Holy Spirit,

compared to one under the control of his or her flesh (Gal. 5:16), or a
demonic spirit (10:20-21). In 2:15, Paul described mature Christians as
"spiritual" (Gr. pneumatikos, having the Spirit) in contrast to "natural"
(i.e., unsaved, not having the Spirit). However, he proceeded immediately
to clarify that it is not only possession of the Spirit, but also control by the
Spirit, that marks one as truly spiritual (3:3).

12:2 Many of the Corinthian believers had been "pagans." Various influences
had led them away from worship of the true God into idolatry.

"Corinth was experience-oriented and self-oriented.

Mystery religions and other pagan cults were in great
abundance, from which cults many of the members at the
Corinthian church received their initial religious
instruction. After being converted they had failed to free
themselves from pagan attitudes and they confused the true
work of the Spirit of God with the former pneumatic and

440For defense of the view that spiritual gifts are ministries rather than abilities, see Kenneth Berding,
"Confusing Word and Concept in 'Spiritual Gifts': Have We Forgotten James Barr's Exhortations?" Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 2000):37-51.
160 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

ecstatic experiences of the pagan religions, especially the

Dionysian mystery or the religion of Apollo."441

"Dumb (mute) idols" are idols that do not speak, in contrast with the living
God who does speak. Paul previously said that demons are behind the
worship of idols (10:20). He did not specifically say that the prophecy or
glossolalia (speaking in tongues), being spoken in the Corinthian church,
proceeded from demonic sources. He only reminded his readers that there
are "inspired" utterances that come from sources other than the Holy
Spirit. Probably some of them had spoken in tongues when they were
pagans.

"In classical [Greek] literature, Apollo was particularly

renowned as the source of ecstatic utterances, as on the lips
of Cassandra of Troy, the priestess of Delphi or the Sibyl of
Cumae (whose frenzy as she prophesied under the god's
control is vividly described by Virgil); at a humbler level
the fortune-telling slave-girl of Ac. 16.16 was dominated
by the same kind of 'pythonic' spirit."442

12:3 Enthusiasm or ecstasy or "inspired" utterance do not necessarily indicate

spirituality. By "inspired" utterance, I mean any utterance that the speaker
claimed came from God, not necessarily a truly inspired new revelation
from God. Paul's original readers needed to pay attention to what the
person speaking in such a state said.

"Not the manner but the content of ecstatic speech

determines its authenticity."443

What the person said about Jesus Christ was especially important. No one
motivated by the Holy Spirit would curse Jesus Christ (or say Jesus is
"accursed"). Probably no one in the Corinthian church had. In the
Septuagint, anathema means a thing devoted to God without being
redeemed, something doomed to destruction (Lev. 27:28-29; Josh. 6:17;
7:12).444 Anathema is an Aramaic term carried over from the church's
Jewish background.

Likewise, no one would sincerely acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, Savior,

and or Sovereign, unless the Holy Spirit had some influence over him or
her. This was true regardless of whether the person was speaking in an
ecstatic condition or in plain speech. Paul was not instructing his readers
to test the spirits to see if they were of God (cf. 1 John 4:1-3). His point

441H. Wayne House, "Tongues and the Mystery Religions of Corinth," Bibliotheca Sacra 140:558 (April-
June 1983):147-48.
442Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 117.
443Barrett, p. 279. Cf. Deut. 13:2-6; 18:21-22.
444Robertson, 4:167.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 161

was that "inspired" utterance as such does not indicate that the Holy Spirit
is leading a person.

The "Holy Spirit" leads those under His control to glorify "Jesus" Christ, not dumb idols,
with their speech (cf. 2:10-13).

"The ultimate criterion of the Spirit's activity is the exaltation of Jesus as

Lord. Whatever takes away from that, even if they be legitimate
expressions of the Spirit, begins to move away from Christ to a more
pagan fascination with spiritual activity as an end in itself."445

2. The need for varieties of spiritual gifts 12:4-31

Paul planned to return to the subject of glossolalia (ch. 14), but first he wanted to talk
more generally about spiritual gifts. In the verses that follow, he dealt with differences in
gifts in the church.

"Having given the negative and positive criterion of genuine spiritual

endowments as manifested in speech, the Apostle goes on to point out the
essential oneness of these very varied gifts."446

Diversity, not uniformity, is necessary for a healthy church, and God has seen to it that
diversity exists (vv. 6, 7, 11, 18, 24, 28). Notice that the Corinthians were doing in the
area of spiritual gifts essentially what they were doing in relation to their teachers (3:4-
23). They were preferring one over others, and thereby failing to benefit from them all.
This section of Paul's argument puts the subject of gifts into proper theological
perspective, whereas the previous pericope put it into its proper Christological
perspective.

Diversity in the Godhead and the gifts 12:4-11

12:4 Although there is only one ("the same") Holy "Spirit," He gives many
different abilities ("varieties of gifts") to different people. Everything in
this pericope revolves around these two ideas. "Gifts" (Gr. charismata,
from charis, meaning "grace") are abilities that enable a person to glorify
and serve God. God gives them freely and graciously. That they are
abilities seems clear from how Paul described them here and elsewhere
(cf. Rom. 12).447

12:5 Likewise there are different ("varieties of") "ministries" or services (Gr.
diakonia; opportunities for service) that the one ("same") "Lord" over the
church gives.

445Fee,The First . . ., p. 582.

446Robertson and Plummer, p. 262.
447See Eliezer Gonzalez, "Healing in the Pauline Epistles: Why the Silence?" Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 56:3 (September 2013):557-75.
162 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

12:6 Furthermore there are different ("varieties of") "effects" or workings (Gr.
energemata; manifestations of the Spirit's power at work) that the one
("same") "God," who is responsible for all of them, bestows. Just as
"Spirit," "Lord," and "God" are distinct yet closely related in verses 4-6, so
are "gifts," "ministries," and "effects." We should probably not view these
words as representing entirely separate ideas, but as facets of God's work
in and through the believer. It is God who is responsible for our abilities,
our opportunities for service, and the individual ways in which we
minister, including the results.

"With each person in this Trinity he associates one aspect

of the spiritual gifts which had been granted to the church.
As to their quality and source they are gracious bestowals,
talents, abilities. As to their purpose, they are 'ministrations'
intended for the service and help and strength of the
church. As to their effect, they are workings or operations
or manifestations of divine power."448

12:7 Each believer, regardless of his or her gifts, ministries, and the manner and
extent of God's blessing, demonstrates the Holy Spirit through his or her
life. Paul's point here was not that each believer has a gift, though that is
true (cf. 1 Pet. 4:10). His point was that the Spirit manifests Himself in a
great variety of ways. Gifts, ministries, and effects, all working in concert,
"manifest" the Spirit's presence, not just the more spectacular ones in each
category. Believers who have spectacular gifts, ministries, or effectiveness
are not necessarily more spiritual than Christians who do not. Each
believer makes a unique contribution "for the common good," not just
certain believers (cf. vv. 12-27; 3:4-10). Several examples of this fact
follow in verses 8-10.

12:8 Paul mentioned nine ways in which the Spirit manifests Himself through
believers. The list is representative rather than exhaustive, as is clear when
we compare this list with other similar ones (cf. vv. 28, 29-30; 7:7; 13:1-3,
8; 14:6, 26; Rom. 12:4-8; Eph. 4:11).

"It is not fanciful to suppose that, as some have claimed,

they [these gifts] may be divided into three classes: one
associated particularly with the intellect, the second with
the will, and the third with the feelings or emotions."449

In this verse, there is no definite article before the word "word" in either of
its uses. This probably points to Paul's referring to an utterance of wisdom
or of knowledge, namely, a wise or a knowledgeable utterance (cf. 1:17—
2:16).450 The difference between the utterances probably lies in "wisdom"

448Erdman, p. 108.
449Ibid.,
p. 109.
450Morris, p. 170.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 163

representing a mature perception of what is true to reality (cf. 1:24; 2:6-

13; 14:6), and "knowledge" being the understanding of God's mysteries
(revelations) in particular (cf. 13:2; 14:6).

". . . I take knowledge to mean an understanding of holy

things; but wisdom a thorough-going grasp of them. . . . Let
knowledge therefore be understood as the ordinary grasp of
things, but wisdom as including an insight, by their
unveiling, into things of a more secret and lofty nature."451

"It is the discourse, not the wisdom or knowledge behind it,

that is the spiritual gift, for it is this that is of direct service
to the church . . ."452

12:9 "Faith" is trust in God. Every Christian has some faith, just as every
Christian has some wisdom and knowledge. However, some believers
have more God-given ability to trust God than others, just as some have
more God-given wisdom or knowledge than others. All believers should
seek to cultivate wisdom, knowledge, and faith, but some have a larger
God-given capacity for one or another of them than other Christians do.

The "gifts of healings" (literally) by definition refer to abilities to cause

healing to take place. Evidently there were various types of healings that
those so gifted could produce, for example: physical, psychological, and
spiritual healings. Counselors and medical doctors have a degree of ability
to produce healing today. However, most Christians believe God has not
given the ability to restore people to health instantaneously, today, as He
did in the early church.453

12:10 "Miracles" are mighty works (Gr. dynameis) that alter the natural course
of events. Probably all types of miracles other than healings are in view.
Calvin limited these miracles to power over demons and hypocrites.454
God gave the ability to do miracles to His Son, and to some Christians in
the early church, to signify that He was with them and empowering them
(cf. Luke 4:14—9:50; Gal. 3:5; Heb. 2:4). Luke's Gospel, in particular,
presents Jesus as teaching and then validating His teaching by doing
miracles. Acts shows the apostles doing the same thing.

451Calvin, The First . . ., p. 262.

452Barrett,pp. 284-85.
453For a discussion of the temporary nature of some of the gifts, namely, that they were in use in the early
church but not thereafter, see Thomas R. Edgar, "The Cessation of the Sign Gifts," Bibliotheca Sacra
145:580 (October-December 1988):371-86; and John F. Walvoord, "Contemporary Issues in the Doctrine
of the Holy Spirit. Part IV: Spiritual Gifts Today," Bibliotheca Sacra 130:520 (October-December
1973):315-28. This article was reprinted under the title "The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts" in Bibliotheca
Sacra 143:570 (April-June 1986):109-21. See also Vern S. Poythress, "Modern Spiritual Gifts as
Analogous to Apostolic Gifts: Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology,"
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:1 (March 1996):71-101.
454Calvin, The First . . ., p. 262.
164 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"Prophecy" has a four-fold meaning in the New Testament: Prophets

foretold future events. They also declared things known only by special
new revelation from God. Third, they uttered under the Spirit's prompting
some lofty statement or message in praise of God, or a word of instruction,
refutation, reproof, admonition, or comfort for others (cf. 11:4; 13:9; 14:1,
3-5, 24, 31, 39). Fourth, they led in worship (Exod. 15:20-21; 1 Chron.
25:1). Evidently the first and second of these abilities passed out of
existence with the composition of the last New Testament books. The last
of the New Testament books that God inspired was probably Revelation,
which most likely dates from about A.D. 95.455

"First, although prophecy was an especially widespread

phenomenon in the religions of antiquity, Paul's
understanding—as well as that of the other NT writers—
was thoroughly conditioned by his own history in Judaism.
The prophet was a person who spoke to God's people under
the inspiration of the Spirit. The 'inspired utterance' came
by revelation and announced judgment (usually) or
salvation. Although the prophets often performed symbolic
acts, which they then interpreted, the mainstream of
prophetic activity, at least as it came to be canonized, had
very little to do with 'ecstasy,' especially 'frenzy' or 'mania.'
For the most part the prophets were understood only too
well! Often the word spoken had a futuristic element, so in
that sense they also came to be seen as 'predicters'; but that
was only one element, and not necessarily the crucial
one."456

The ability called "distinguishing of spirits" was apparently a gift of

unusual discernment. It enabled a person to tell whether a propounded
prophecy was genuine or counterfeit, namely, from the Holy Spirit or a
false spirit (cf. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:20-21). Thus it had a connection to
prophecy similar to that between interpretation and tongues.457

The gift of "tongues," about which Paul would say much more in chapter
14, was the ability to speak in one or more languages that the speaker had
not learned. However, the languages do not seem limited to human
languages (cf. 13:1). Nevertheless they were intelligible with
interpretation (14:10-14). They were not just gibberish.458 The New
Testament writers did not consider the ecstatic utterances of pagans or
Christians, that were other than languages, to be manifestations of the
Spirit's gift of tongues.

455See Mark L. Hitchcock, "A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation" (Ph.D.
dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary), 2005.
456Fee, The First . . ., p. 595.
457Keener, p. 101.
458Findlay, 2:889; Erdman, pp. 110, 126-27; and others held that the "tongues" were ecstatic phenomena.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 165

It should be noted . . . that only tongues is included in every

list of 'gifts' in these three chapters [12:8-10, 28, 29-30;
13:1-3, 8; 14:6, 26]. Its place at the conclusion of each list
in chap. 12, but at the beginning in 13:1 and 14:6, suggests
that the problem lies here. It is listed last not because it is
'least,' but because it is the problem. He always includes it,
but at the end, after the greater concern for diversity has
been heard."459

The person with the ability to interpret ("interpretation of") "tongues"

(languages) could accurately translate what a tongues-speaker said, so that
others present could know the meaning of what he or she said. Presumably
some Christians with the gift of tongues also had the gift of interpreting
tongues, so they were also able to explain or translate what they had said.

"With the possible exception of faith, all these gifts seem to

have been confirmatory and foundational gifts for the
establishment of the church (cf. Heb. 2:4; Eph. 2:20) and
were therefore temporary."460

12:11 This section concludes with another reminder that, though these
manifestations of the Spirit vary, they all indicate the presence and
working of the ("one and the same") Spirit of God. Paul also stressed
again the Spirit's sovereignty in "distributing" the gifts (cf. John 3:8). The
Corinthians should not try to manipulate the Spirit, but should accept and
submit to His distribution of the gifts as He saw fit. By the way, the fact
that the Spirit "wills" indicates that He is God, and not just an influence.

There is a general progression in this list from the more common to the more uncommon
and esoteric gifts (cf. v. 28). The more unusual gifts that appear toward the end of this list
attracted the Corinthians. Some gifts were probably more common at one place and in
one church, than were others, depending on the Spirit's sovereign distribution (cf. 1:4-5).
Some were probably more common at some times than at others, too, as the Spirit
bestowed them.

Since spiritual gifts are abilities that God gives Christians to serve Him with, it behooves
us to know what our gifts are. Though some Christians have become overly preoccupied
with analyzing themselves, we need to know the equipment that God has given us if we
are to put our abilities to their best use. A helpful free tool to use is the "Spiritual Gifts
Analysis" available at www.churchgrowth.org. Often people who know us well, and or
have observed us in a variety of ministry situations, can spot our spiritual gifts better than
we can. What do other people say you do well? What do you enjoy doing? What has God

459Fee,The First . . ., p. 572. Cf. idem, "Tongues—Least of the Gifts? Some Exegetical Observations on 1
Corinthians 12—14," Pneuma 2 (1980):3-14.
460Lowery, "1 Corinthians," p. 533. See also Erdman, pp. 110, 122
166 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

blessed that you have done? What do you believe is important for you to do? The answers
to these questions can also help to identify one's gifts.

Some Christians struggle because they do not like the gifts, ministries, and or fruit that
God has given them. They would prefer to have something else. In this case, one needs to
yield to the Spirit's control and accept the abilities, ministries, and results that He has
given. I struggled with this issue, but eventually God gave me peace about my giftedness.
I have learned that I can make the greatest contribution to the building of Christ's church
by using what He has provided, not by insisting on serving Him as I prefer.

The body and its members 12:12-14

Paul now compared the body of Christ, the universal church, though by extension the
local church as well, to a human body. Again, his point was not that the church needs to
have unity, but that it needs to have diversity.

12:12 The apostle spoke of this comparison in other epistles as well (Rom. 12:4-
5; Eph. 4:11-13; Col. 1:18; 2:19). He probably adapted the idea of the
body politic, an essentially secular but commonly understood concept, to
illustrate the church. There can be unity in a body without uniformity.
Here the apostle stressed the fact that diversity among the members is an
essential part of a unified body. Evidently the Corinthians were striving
for unanimity (toward all having the same function), and did not
appreciate that there can and must be diversity in a "spiritual" church.

"One of the marks of an individual's maturity is a growing

understanding of, and appreciation for, his own body.
There is a parallel in the spiritual life: as we mature in
Christ, we gain a better understanding of the church, which
is Christ's body. The emphasis in recent years on 'body life'
has been a good one. It has helped to counteract the wrong
emphasis on 'individual Christianity' that can lead to
isolation from the local church."461

12:13 The baptism of the Spirit took place initially on the day of Pentecost (Acts
1:5; 2:33; 11:16). Since then, individual believers experienced Spirit
baptism ("by one Spirit . . . were all baptized") when they personally
trusted Christ as their Savior (Acts 11:15-17; Rom. 8:9).

In Spirit baptism, the Holy Spirit baptizes (Gr. baptidzo, lit. submerges)
the believer into the body of Christ. He makes us a part of it. Water
baptism simply illustrates this. Every believer experiences Spirit baptism,
regardless of his or her race or social status. We are now on equal footing
in the sense that we are all members of the body of Christ.

461Wiersbe, 1:607.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 167

The figure of drinking "of one Spirit" recalls John 7:37-39, where Jesus
invited the thirsty to come and drink of Him to find refreshment. Baptism
and drinking are both initiation experiences, and take place at the same
time. In the first figure, the Spirit places the believer into Christ, and in the
second, the Spirit comes into the Christian. This is probably a case of
Semitic parallelism, in which both clauses make essentially the same
point. We have come into the body of Christ, and the Holy Spirit has come
into us.

". . . the Spirit not only surrounds us, but is within us."462

12:14 Both bodies, the physical human body and the spiritual body of Christ,
consist of "many" members. This fact helps us realize our limited
contribution to the larger organism. A body composed of only "one organ
(member)" would be a monstrosity.

The modern church often uses this pericope to stress the importance of unity, which is a
great need today. However, Paul's emphasis originally was on the importance of
diversity.

The application of the figure 12:15-26

Paul proceeded to spell out the implications of his analogy.

12:15-16 Perhaps Paul chose the feet, hands, ears, and eyes as examples because of
their prominence in the body. Even though they are prominent and
important, they cannot function alone. They need each other.

". . . Chrysostom remarks that the foot contrasts itself with

the hand rather than with the ear, because we do not envy
those who are very much higher than ourselves so much as
those who have got a little above us . . ."463

12:17 Different functions as well as different members are necessary in the body
(cf. v. 4). Paul's point was not the inferiority of some members, but the
need for all the members.

"Our bodies are not all tongue. (I have met a few people
who seemed to be all tongue, but they are exceptions!)"464

12:18 Paul again stressed, in this verse, God's sovereignty in placing each
member in the body as He has chosen. We need to discover how God has
gifted us, and to become as effective as possible where He has "placed"

462Barrett,
p. 289.
463Robertsonand Plummer, p. 273.
464McGee, 5:61.
168 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

us. We should concentrate on using the abilities we have received, rather

than longing to be different, or insisting on doing things that God has not
gifted us to do (cf. 7:26-27).

"Whenever we begin to think about our own importance in

the Christian Church, the possibility of really Christian
work is gone."465

12:19 If all the members of the human body were the same ("all one member"),
it would not be able to function as a body (". . . where would the body
be?"). It would be incapable of getting anything accomplished. For
example, if all had the gift of tongues, the gift that the Corinthians valued
so highly, the body would not function.

12:20 Uniformity (all one member or function) is not the case in the human
body, however. It has a variety of ("many") "members" and many
functions, but it is one unified organism.

12:21 It is interesting that Paul used the "head" and the "feet" as examples—the
top of the body and the bottom. He was probably reminding those who felt
superior that those whom they regarded as inferior were also necessary for
the body to function (cf. 11:17-34). Too often, because we differ from
each other, we also differ with each other.

12:22 Rather than regarding themselves as superior, the "haves" in the church
needed to remember that the "have nots" were important for the effective
operation of the whole organism. Even the "weaker" little toe, or the rarely
appreciated pancreas, plays a crucial role in the physical body. "Weaker"
here means feebler, or more contemptible (unimpressive; cf. 2 Cor. 12:9).

12:23-24a When dealing with our human bodies, "we bestow more . . . honor" on our
less honorable parts by covering them up. This makes our unseemly
members more seemly. Paul may have been referring to the sexual
organs.466 On the other hand, the more honorable parts, such as our faces,
do not require special covering. The point is that we take special pains to
honor our less esteemed physical members, and we should do the same in
the church, rather than neglecting or despising them. When was the last
time your church gave public recognition to the nursery workers or the
cleanup crew?

12:24b-25 God has so constructed ("composed") bodies, both human and spiritual, so
the different members can "care for one another" equally. He does not
ignore any member, but makes "the same" (sufficient) provision for each
one. We do not always see this in the human body, but it is true. Likewise,

465Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 127.

466Fee, The First . . ., pp. 613-14.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 169

God's honoring the less prominent members in the church may not be
apparent now, but it will be at the judgment seat of Christ—if not before
then.

God does not want dissension ("division"; Gr. schisma) in His body. There
was some in the Corinthian church (1:10; 11:18). Rather ("But"; strong
contrast in the Greek, alla), the members should have concerned, loving
care for one another. Paul illustrated this attitude with what follows.

12:26 The suffering of "one" means the suffering of "all," and the well-being
(honor) of one means the well-being (rejoicing) of all.

"Plato had pointed out that we do not say, 'My finger has a
pain,' we say, 'I have a pain.'"467

In view of this, we can and should honestly "rejoice with those who
rejoice and weep with those who weep" (Rom. 12:15).

"Ancients emphasized that true friends shared each other's

joys and sorrows."468

Paul's preceding comments about the body (vv. 12-26) are applicable to both a physical
body and the spiritual body of Christ. However, he was speaking about the human body
mainly as an illustration of the spiritual body.

The fact of diversity restated 12:27-31

Next, the apostle spoke more specifically about the members of the body of Christ again
(cf. vv. 1-11).

12:27 "You" is emphatic in the Greek text and is plural. The Corinthian
Christians are in view, but what Paul said of them applies to all groups of
Christians. Together we make up "the body of Christ," and each of us is an
"individual member" of it. Again, what Paul said of the church is true of it
in its macro and in its micro forms: the universal church and the local
church.

12:28 Paul listed eight kinds of members with special functions. This list differs
somewhat from the one in verses 8-10, where he identified nine
manifestations of the Spirit's working. This list, as the former one, is
selective rather than exhaustive.

The ranking of these gifted individuals is evidently in the order of the

importance of their ministries. When Paul said earlier that all the members
were essential (v. 21), he did not mean that some did not have a more

467Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 126.

468Keener, p. 104.
170 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

crucial function to perform than others. He did not mention this distinction
there, because he wanted each member to appreciate the essential
necessity of all the other members. In another sense, however, some gifts
are more important than others (v. 31; 14:1).

God called and gifted the apostles to plant and to establish the church in
places the gospel had not yet gone. Apostello means "to send out," so it is
proper to think of "apostles" as missionaries sent out. "Prophets" were the
channels through whom God sent His revelations to His people (cf. Eph.
2:20). Some of them also wrote the books of the New Testament.

"I am certain, in my own mind, that he [Paul] means by

prophets, not those endowed with the gift of foretelling, but
those who were blessed with the unique gift of dealing with
Scripture, not only by interpreting it, but also by the
wisdom they showed in making it meet the needs of the
hour."469

"Teachers" gave believers instruction in the Scriptures. Teachers were

more important in the church than the prophets, who simply gave words of
edification, exhortation, and consolation (14:3), but they were less
important than the prophets who announced authoritative revelation. The
latter type of prophet is in view in this verse.

". . . the task of teachers consists in preserving and

propagating sound doctrine (sana dogmata) so that purity
of religion may remain in the Church."470

". . . a scholar will learn more from a good teacher than he

will from any book. We have books in plenty nowadays,
but it is still true that it is through people that we really
learn of Christ."471

"God has not given teachers to the Church in order that

they may supplant [replace] the Bible and save His people
the trouble of studying the Word for themselves, but that
they may spur the people of God on to more intensive
searching of the Scriptures."472

"Workers of miracles" and healers ("gifts of healings") gave dramatic

proof that the power of God was working in the church, so that others
would trust Christ. They may have ministered especially to the Jews, since

469Calvin, The First . . ., p. 271.

470Ibid.
471Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 129.
472Ironside, p. 152.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 171

the Jews looked for such indications (signs) of God's presence and
blessing (cf. 1:22). Helpers seem to have provided assistance of various
kinds ("helps") for people in need. Administrators managed and directed
the affairs of the churches ("administrations"). "Tongues"-speakers bring
up the rear in this list, as being the least important of those mentioned.
Paul said more about their relative importance in chapter 14.

". . . sometimes a person, who spoke many languages, did

not, however, know the tongue of the actual church, that he
had to deal with; and interpreters made up for such a
deficiency."473

"The shortness of the list of charismata in Eph. iv. II as

compared with the list here is perhaps an indication that the
regular exercise of extraordinary gifts in public worship
was already dying out."474

The traditional view is that Paul wrote Ephesians (ca. A.D. 62) about six
years after he wrote 1 Corinthians (ca. A.D. 56).

12:29-30 These two verses contain a third list of gifts, in a descending order of
priority. Each of Paul's seven questions expects a negative answer. The
apostle's point was that it would be ridiculous for everyone to have the
same gift. Variety is essential. It is wrong to equate one gift, particularly
speaking in tongues, with spirituality.

"All of the believers in the Corinthian assembly had been

baptized by the Spirit [v. 13], but not all of them spoke in
tongues (1 Cor. 12:30)."475

". . . in these verses Paul strikes a deathblow to the theory

that speaking in tongues is the sign of the possession of the
Spirit, for the answer 'No' is expected to each question (cf.
Greek)."476

12:31 Paul advised the Corinthians to seek ("earnestly desire") some "gifts"
more than others, because some are more significant ("greater") in the
functioning of the body than others. While the bestowal of gifts is the
sovereign prerogative of the Spirit (vv. 8-11, 18), human desire plays a
part in His bestowal (cf. James 4:2). This seems to indicate that the Spirit
does not give all His gifts to us at the moment of our salvation. I see

473Calvin, The First . . ., p. 272

474Robertson and Plummer, p. 281, footnote. Cf. A Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. "Lord's Day," by N. J. D.
White, 3:141.
475Wiersbe, 1:609.
476S. L. Johnson Jr., p. 1251.
172 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

nothing in Scripture that prohibits our viewing the abilities God gives us at
birth as part of His spiritual gifts. Likewise, a believer can receive a gift or
an opportunity for service, or the Spirit's blessing on his ministry, years
after his conversion. Everything we have or ever will have is a gift from
God.477

God did not give the gift of apostleship, in the technical sense, to any other
than those whom Christ Himself selected—who had seen the risen Lord. It
went to a small group in the first generation of the church's history.
Apostleship, in the general sense of "one sent out with a message,"
continues today. Normally we refer to these gifted people as
"missionaries" to distinguish them from Paul and the 12 apostles.

Likewise, we use the term "prophet" in both a technical and in a general

sense today. Usually we think of prophets as people who gave new
revelation from God or predicted the future. As I mentioned previously,
prophets also spoke forth a word from the Lord, by exhorting or
encouraging the church, and some of them led the church in worship. The
Greek word prophetes means "one who speaks forth." In the first,
technical sense, prophets have ceased in the church. In the second, general
sense, they are still with us.478 We usually refer to the exhorters and
encouragers as "preachers," to distinguish them from first-century
prophets who gave new revelation and predicted the future.

Today, some people who desire to sharpen their ability to preach and teach
the Scriptures, enroll in Bible college or seminary to do so. This is one
example of "zealously (earnestly) desir[ing] the greater gifts." J. Vernon
McGee shared his personal testimony of earnestly desiring a greater gift:

"Not having been brought up in a Christian home, I had no

Christian training at all. When I went away to seminary, I
didn't even know the books of the Bible. I had graduated
from a college where the emphasis was placed on the
intellectual and the philosophical, and I was trying to be
that kind of preacher. Then I heard Dr. Harry Ironside
speak. He explained Scripture in a simple manner. And I
heard him make the statement, 'Put the cookies on the
bottom shelf so the kiddies can get them.' And I
remembered that My Lord had said, 'Feed my sheep' (see
John 21:16). He hadn't said, 'Feed my giraffes.' So I went to
God and prayed, 'Lord, I want to be that kind of preacher.'

477SeeBarclay, The Letters . . ., p. 120.

478SeeJohn E. Johnson, "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity," Bibliotheca Sacra
152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 173

"Later, I substituted for Dr. Ironside at Dallas Theological

Seminary, and when he passed on, the seminary's president,
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, called me on the phone. He
asked, 'Would you take Dr. Ironside's lectures here at the
seminary?' I could hardly answer him clearly, and I almost
rudely hung up the phone. I dropped to my knees, and I
confess that I wept as I thanked God. I said, 'Lord I prayed
that You would let me teach like Dr. Ironside, and you have
answered my prayer!' I coveted earnestly the best gift, and
He answered my prayer. Although I am no Dr. Ironside,
how I thrill today at the experience and the privilege of
teaching the Word of God!"479

However, Paul said there is an even more important discipline that a

believer should cultivate to reach the goal of being maximally effective,
besides earnestly desiring the best gifts. That way involves valuing and
cultivating love (ch. 13). The apostle did not mean, of course, that one
should disregard the most important gifts in order to seek love. We should
give attention to both: cultivating love and cultivating abilities that are
strategically important in Christ's body. Nevertheless, as important as
sharpening abilities is, it is even more important that we excel in loving.

"'The most excellent way' which Paul will now show his
friends at Corinth is not one more gift among many, but 'a
way beyond all this.' That extraordinary way is, of course,
the way of agape, that fruit of the Spirit which is of
primary importance to every believer and to the body of
Christ."480

"The most excellent way then is where love is the

controlling power in all our actions."481

"What Paul is about to embark on is a description of what

he calls 'a way that is beyond comparison.' The way they
are going is basically destructive to the church as a
community; the way they are being called to is one that
seeks the good of others before oneself. It is the way of
edifying the church (14:1-5), of seeking the common good
(12:7). In that context one will still earnestly desire the
things of the Spirit (14:1), but precisely so that others will
be edified. Thus it is not 'love versus gifts' that Paul has in
mind, but 'love as the only context for gifts'; for without the

479McGee, 5:62.
480Thomas A. Jackson, "Concerning Spiritual Gifts: A Study of I Corinthians 12," Faith and Mission 7:1
(Fall 1989):68.
481Calvin, The First . . ., p. 274.
174 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

former, the latter have no usefulness at all—but then

neither does much of anything else in the Christian life."482

Chapter 12 is a chapter that stresses balance (cf. Gal. 5). On the one hand, each Christian
is only a part of a larger organism, but each is an indispensable part. In one sense, we are
equally important because we all serve an essential function, but in another sense, some
are more crucial than others. God determines our gifts, ministries, and individual
effectiveness, yet our desire and initiative have something to do with our service as well.
Ability, ministry opportunity, and individuality are very important, but love is even more
important. A good measure of our personal maturity as Christians will be how well we
can keep these paradoxes in balance in our personal lives and ministries. The Corinthians
needed help in this area.

"The Church is neither a dead mass of similar particles, like a heap of

sand, nor a living swarm of antagonistic individuals, like a cage of wild
beasts: it has the unity of a living organism, in which no two parts are
exactly alike, but all discharge different functions for the good of the
whole. All men are not equal, and no individual can be independent of the
rest: everywhere there is subordination and dependence. Some have
special gifts, some have none; some have several gifts, some only one;
some have higher gifts, some have lower: but every individual has some
function to discharge, and all must work together for the common good.
This is the all-important point—unity in loving service."483

UNITY DIVERSITY MATURITY

1 Corinthians 12:1-13 12:14-31 13:1-13
Romans 12:1-5 12:6-8 12:9-21
Ephesians 4:1-6 4:7-12 4:13-16484

3. The supremacy of love ch. 13

Paul now proceeded to elaborate on the fact that love surpasses the most important
spiritual gifts. Some of the Corinthian Christians may not have possessed any of the gifts
mentioned in the previous three lists in chapter 12, but all of them could practice love.
Clearly all of them needed to practice love more fully. The fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-
23) is a more obvious demonstration of the Spirit's presence in a life, and His control over
a life, than the other gifts of the Spirit.

Love is the most fundamental and prominent of these graces. The love in view is God's
love, that He has placed in the believer by the indwelling Spirit, that should overflow to
God and others. It is the love that only the indwelling Holy Spirit can produce in a

482Fee,The First . . ., p. 625.

483Robertson and Plummer, pp. 269-70.
484Wiersbe, 1:607.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 175

believer and manifest through a believer. Fortunately we do not have to produce it. We
just need to cooperate with God by doing His will, with His help, and the Spirit will
produce it. I believe that love is a spiritual gift, not just a spiritual grace and a fruit of the
Spirit, because God gives us the ability to love.

"A Christian community can make shift somehow if the 'gifts' of chapter
12 be lacking: it will die if love is absent. The most lavish exercise of
spiritual gifts cannot compensate for lack of love."485

This chapter is something of a digression in Paul's argument concerning keeping the gift
of tongues in its proper perspective (cf. 14:1), but it strengthens his argument
considerably. As we have seen throughout this epistle, the Corinthians needed to love one
another and others. It is not coincidental that the great chapter on love in the Bible
appears in a letter to this unloving church.

The necessity of love 13:1-3

In these first three verses, Paul showed that love is superior to the spiritual gifts he listed
in chapter 12. He progressed from the lesser to the greater gifts, and from the easier to the
more difficult abilities.

"It is hard to escape the implication that what is involved here are two
opposing views as to what it means to be 'spiritual.' For the Corinthians it
meant 'tongues, wisdom, knowledge' (and pride), but without a
commensurate concern for truly Christian behavior. For Paul it meant first
of all to be full of the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, which therefore meant to
behave as those 'sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be his holy people'
(1:2), of which the ultimate expression always is to 'walk in love.' Thus,
even though these sentences reflect the immediate context, Paul's concern
is not simply with their over-enthusiasm about tongues but with the larger
issue of the letter as a whole, where their view of spirituality has caused
them to miss rather widely both the gospel and its ethics."486

"All four classes of gifts (xii. 28) are included here: the ecstatic in v. 1; the
teaching (propheteia) and the wonder-working (pistis) gifts in v. 2; and the
administrative in v. 3."487

"It has well been said that love is the 'circulatory system' of the body of
Christ."488

13:1 Probably Paul began with tongues because of the Corinthians' fascination
with this gift (cf. ch. 14). That is where the problem lay. He also built to a
climax in verses 1-3, moving from the less to the more difficult actions.

485Bruce,1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 124.

486Fee,The First . . ., p. 630.
487Robertson and Plummer, p. 288.
488Wiersbe, 1:610.
176 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Evidently Paul used the first person here, because the Corinthians believed
that they themselves spoke with the tongues of men and of angels (cf.
14:14-15).

Speaking with "the tongues of men and of angels" does not refer to simple
eloquence, as the context makes clear (cf. 12:10, 28, 30). The "tongues of
men" probably refer to languages that humans speak. The "tongues of
angels" probably refer to the more exalted and expressive language(s) with
which angels communicate with one another.489 They may refer to
languages unknown to humans, namely: ecstatic utterance. However,
throughout this whole discussion of the gift of tongues, there is no
evidence that Paul regarded tongues as anything but languages.
Throughout the whole New Testament, "tongues" means languages.490

"In speaking of tongues of angels he is using hyperbole for

something remarkable or rare. . . . Paul is saying, 'You may
have a grasp of all the languages, not only those of all men,
but of the angels over and above.'"491

Of course, humans do not know the language of the angels, but it is an

exalted (higher, more advanced) language because angels are superior
beings. The Corinthians evidently believed that they could speak in
angelic languages. Some writers have concluded that "tongues of angels"
is part of the hyperbole that appears in verse 2.492 That is, there is really no
such thing as angelic tongues; the phrase simply depicts exalted speech.

In Psalm 78:25, the poet Asaph described the manna that the Israelites ate
in the wilderness as "the bread of angels [lit. 'mighty ones']." This is
clearly a reference to the manna that stresses its heavenly origin and high
quality—not that angels actually feed on manna. Perhaps Paul was using
"the tongues of angels" in a similar way here: to emphasize the heavenly
origin and high quality of messages from God given in tongues.

Paul's point seems to have been that, even if one could speak in this
exalted language, but the person did not have love (i.e., act lovingly), his
or her speech would be hollow and empty. To act lovingly, of course,
means to actively seek the benefit of someone else. "Gongs" and
"cymbals" were common in some of the popular pagan cults of the time.493
They made much noise but no sense. Some so-called tongues-speakers
today claim that their gibberish is the language of angels, but it needs to be

489See John C. Poirier, The Tongues of Angels: The Concept of Angelic Languages in Classical Jewish and
Christian Texts.
490See Lowery, "1 Corinthians," pp. 537-38.
491Calvin, The First . . ., pp. 274-75.
492E.g., Lowery, "1 Corinthians," p. 535; Keener, p. 108.
493Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 125; Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 131; Robertson and Plummer, p. 289.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 177

interpreted coherently to qualify as a language. Usually this claim is just a

way to justify speaking gibberish.

13:2 "Prophecy" was a higher gift than glossolalia (speaking in tongues), but
was still inferior to "love" (cf. 14:1-5). Earlier Paul wrote of the
importance of understanding life from God's perspective, and grasping the
truths previously not revealed but now made known by His apostles (2:6-
13). Nevertheless, the truth without love is like food without drink.
Possession of spiritual gifts is not the sign of the Spirit, but loving
behavior is.

Even "faith" great enough "to move (remove) mountains" is not as

important as love (12:9; cf. Matt. 17:20; Mark 11:23; Luke 17:6). A
mountain is a universal symbol of something immovable. This is
hyperbole and metaphor.

13:3 Even what passed for charity, or self-sacrifice for less fortunate
individuals ("give all my possessions to feed the poor"), is not the same as
real love (Gr. agape). It is inferior to it. It might profit the receiver, but it
did not profit the giver.

Paul's personal sufferings for the salvation of others were also worthless
without love (cf. 2 Cor. 11:23-29; 12:10). Even one's acceptance of
martyrdom ("if I surrender my body") might or might not spring from
love. But if it did not, it was valueless in the sight of God, and would bring
no divine reward to the one who submitted to it ("profits me nothing"; cf.
Dan. 3:28; Rom. 5:2-3; 2 Cor. 1:14).

Paul was not setting love in contrast to gifts in this pericope. He was arguing for the
necessity and supremacy of love if one is to behave as a true Christian.

"Love is the indispensable addition which alone gives worth to all other
Christian gifts."494

"Love defines which gifts are the 'best': those that build up the body."495

The character of love 13:4-7

The apostle next pointed out the qualities of "love" that make it so important—its
character or nature. He described these in relationship to a person whose character love
rules over. We see them most clearly in God and in Christ, but also in the life of anyone
in whose heart God's love reigns.

494Barrett, p. 303.
495Keener, p. 107.
178 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"Love may be difficult to define; it is not difficult to discern. Paul attempts

no definition, analysis, or description; he pictures love in action. He shows
what it does and feels, and what it refrains from doing. He records the
ways in which it manifests itself."496

"The observance of the truths of this chapter . . . would have solved their
[the Corinthians'] problems."497

"Paul's central section [vv. 4-7] uses anaphora (repetition of the first
element) extensively. One of the three major types of rhetoric was
epideictic (involving praise or blame), and one of the three types of
epideictic rhetoric was the encomium, a praise of a person or subject. One
common rhetorical exercise was an encomium on a particular virtue, as
here (or Heb 11:3-31, also using anaphora)."498

Love was notably absent in the Corinthian church. This was probably why Paul wrote so
much about it in this epistle.

13:4a Patience and kindness, like love, are aspects of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal.
5:22). The first characteristic is love's passive response, and the second its
active initiative. Patience and kindness characterize God, Christ, and truly
Christian behavior.

13:4b-5 Paul followed the two positive expressions of love with seven verbs that
indicate how it does not behave. The first five of these typified the
Corinthians, as we have seen: They were envious or "jealous" (cf. 3:3;
4:18), boastful or "brag"-gadocio (ostentatious; 3:18; 8:2; 14:37), proud or
"arrogant" (4:6, 18-19; 5:2; 8:1), rude or acting "unbecomingly" (7:36;
11:2-16), and self-seeking or seeking their "own" interest (10:24, 33).
Their behavior was not loving.

"Love" does not deal with other people in a way that injures their dignity.
It does not insist on having its own way ("not seek its own"), nor does it
put its own interests before the needs of others (cf. Phil. 2:4). It is not
irritable or touchy ("not provoked"), but it absorbs offenses, insults, and
inconveniences for the sake of others' welfare. It does not keep a record of
offenses received ("not take into account a wrong") to pay them back (cf.
Luke 23:34; Rom. 12:17-21; 2 Cor. 5:19).

"One of the great arts in life is to learn what to forget."499

496Erdman, p. 118.
497S.L. Johnson Jr., p. 1251.
498Keener, p. 107.
499Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 136.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 179

"One of the most miserable men I ever met was a professed

Christian who actually kept in a notebook a list of the
wrongs he felt others had committed against him.
Forgiveness means that we wipe the record clean and never
hold things against people (Eph. 4:26, 32)."500

In the last two characteristics, Paul moved beyond what this letter reveals
marked the Corinthians.

13:6 Love takes no delight in evil or the misfortunes of others ("does not
rejoice in unrighteousness"), but it takes great pleasure in what is right
("rejoices with the truth").

"Love cannot share the glee of the successful

transgressor."501

"Love absolutely rejects that most pernicious form of

rejoicing over evil, gossiping about the misdeeds of others;
it is not gladdened when someone else falls. Love stands on
the side of the gospel and looks for mercy and justice for
all, including those with whom one disagrees."502

"Christian love has no wish to veil the truth; it is brave

enough to face the truth; it has nothing to conceal and so is
glad when the truth prevails."503

13:7 Love covers unworthy things, rather than bringing them to the light and
magnifying them (cf. 1 Pet. 4:8). It puts up with everything ("bears all
things"). It is always eager to believe the best ("believes all things") and to
"put the most favorable construction on ambiguous actions."504

"This does not mean . . . that a Christian is to allow himself

to be fooled by every rogue, or to pretend that he believes
that white is black. But in doubtful cases he will prefer
being too generous in his conclusions to suspecting another
unjustly."505

"Love ever is ready to make excuses for others; it throws a

kindly mantle over all their faults."506

500Wiersbe, 1:611.
501Robertson and Plummer, p. 294.
502Fee, The First . . ., p. 639.
503Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 137.
504Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 127.
505Robertson and Plummer, p. 295.
506Erdman, p. 120.
180 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Love is hopeful that those who have failed will not fail again ("hopes all
things"), rather than concluding that failure is inevitable (cf. Matt. 18:22).
It does not allow itself to become overwhelmed but perseveres steadfastly
through difficult trials ("endures all things").

The permanence of love 13:8-13

Paul moved on to point out that Christian love (agape) characterizes our existence now
and forever, but gifts (charismata) are only for the present. The Corinthians were
apparently viewing the gifts as one evidence that they were already in the eschatological
stage of their salvation. Paul heightened appreciation for love by expounding on its
permanence in this section.

13:8 "Love never fails" in the sense of falling away (dropping out) when the
physical and temporal things on which affection rests pass away; it
outlasts temporal things. Gifts of the Spirit will pass away ("be done
away" or "cease") because they are temporary provisions, but the fruit of
the Spirit will abide.

"It is so wrong to tell children that God won't love them. I

used to be in a Sunday school class of little fellows. They
were a bunch of mean brats—I was the only good boy in
the class! The teacher would say to us, 'God won't love you
boys if you keep acting that way.' I used to think God
surely can't love me very much. But He did in spite of my
meanness. How wonderful it is to know that God loves
us!"507

"Prophecies" are messages from God, but when we stand before Him and
hear His voice, there will be no more need for prophets to relay His words
to us. Likewise, when we stand before God, there will be no need to speak
in other languages ("tongues"), since we will all understand God when He
speaks. The knowledge that is so important to us now, will be irrelevant
then, because when we are in God's presence we will know perfectly
(v. 12; cf. 1:5; 8:1; 12:8). The knowledge in view seems to be knowledge
of God's ways in the present age. As will become clearer in chapter 14,
Paul's preference regarding the gifts was prophecy, but the Corinthians
favored tongues and knowledge.

The verb Paul used to describe what will happen to "prophecy" and
"knowledge" is in the passive voice in Greek, and means "shall be
terminated" (from katargeo; cf. 2:6). The verb he used to describe what
will happen to "tongues" is in the middle voice, and means "automatically
cease of themselves" (from pauo).508 The passive voice points to God

507McGee, 5:65.
508Robertson, 4:179.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 181

terminating prophecy and knowledge when we see Him. The middle voice
suggests that tongues will peter out before we see God.509 Church history
testifies that this is what happened to the gift of tongues shortly after the
apostolic age.510 Paul dropped tongues from his discussion at this point,
which supports the fact that the gift of tongues would not last as long as
knowledge and prophecy. He continued to speak of knowledge and
prophecy in the next verses.

13:9 In the meantime, before we see the Lord, our knowledge and prophecy are
imperfect ("in part"),in contrast with what they will be when we see Him.
Prophecy is imperfect in the sense that revelations and explanations of
God's mind are only partial, or incomplete.

13:10 In the light of the context, what is "perfect" (Gr. teleion, mature, whole,
complete) probably refers to the whole truth about God.511 Another
possibility is that it refers to our state when we stand in the Lord's
presence.512 When we reach that point in history, the Lord will remove
(katargeo, cf. v. 8) what is "partial," doing away with the limits on our
knowledge, as well as the other limitations we suffer in our present
condition. Variations on this second view state that "the perfect" refers to
the Rapture,513 to the Lord's return,514 or to the maturing of Christ's body
through the course of the Church Age.515

Another view is that "the perfect" refers to the completion of the New
Testament canon, and "the partial" to the incomplete canon and the

509See Stanley D. Toussaint, "First Corinthians Thirteen and The Tongues Question," Bibliotheca Sacra
120:480 (October-December 1963):311-16.
510Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254 A.D.), "Against Celsus," 7:8 in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4:614; Chrysostom
(347-407 A.D.), "Homily 12 on Matthew," in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 10:77; idem, "Homily
14 on Romans," ibid., 11:447; idem, "Homily 29 on 1 Corinthians," ibid., 12:168; idem, "Homily 6 on
1 Corinthians," ibid., 12:31; Augustine (354-430 A.D.), "On Baptism, Against the Donatists," 3:16:21,
ibid., 4:443; idem, "The Epistle of St. John," 6:10, ibid., 7:497-98; idem, "The Epistle of 1 John. Homily,"
6:10, ibid., 7:497-98; idem, "The Answer to the Letters of Petition, to Donatist," 2:32:74, ibid., 4:548; and
idem, "On the Gospel of St. John, Tractate," 32:7, ibid., 7:195. See also Calvin, Institutes of . . ., 4:19:6, 19;
Dillow, Speaking in Tongues, pp. 147-64; and Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 1:236-37; for
further information about the historical cessation of the gift of tongues. See also George W. Dollar,
"Church History and the Tongues Movement," Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):316-
21; and the series of four articles by F. David Farnell, "Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today?" Bibliotheca
Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):277-303; 596 (October-December 1992):387-410; 150:597
(January-March 1993):62-88; and 598 (April-June 1993):171-202.
511Barrett, p. 306.
512Fee, The First . . ., p. 645; Lowery, "1 Corinthians," p. 536; Thomas R. Edgar, Miraculous Gifts: Are
They for Today? pp. 333-34; Keener, p. 109.
513Toussaint, "First Corinthians . . .," pp. 312-14.
514Charles C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1744; Robertson and Plummer, p. 297.
515Robert L. Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts: An exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 12-14, pp. 106-
13; idem, "'Tongues . . . Will Cease,'" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 17:2 (Spring
1974):81-89; and idem, "1 Cor 13:11 Revisited: an Exegetical Update," Master's Seminary Journal 4:2
(Fall 1993):187-201. See also Farnell, 150:598:191-93.
182 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Corinthians' partial knowledge.516 They were both incomplete because

God had not yet given all the prophecy He would eventually give to
complete the New Testament. However, this view puts too much weight
on prophecy and knowledge, and not enough on our other temporary
limitations, to which Paul also referred (v. 12).

A third possibility is that "the perfect" refers to the new heavens and new
earth.517 However, the New Testament does not reveal if God will remove
Christians' limitations—to any greater extent—sometime after we see the
Lord Jesus, than He will when we see Him (cf. Rom 8:32).

13:11 Paul compared our present phase of maturity to childhood ("when I was a
child"), and that of our later phase, when we are with the Lord, to
adulthood ("when I became a man"). It is characteristic of children to
preoccupy themselves with things of very temporary value ("childish
things"). Likewise, the Corinthians took great interest in the things that
would soon pass away soon, namely: knowledge, tongues, and prophecy.
A sign of spiritual maturity is occupation with things of eternal value such
as love. Again, Paul was stressing the difference between the present and
the future.

13:12 Another illustration of the difference between our present and future states
as Christians is the mirror. In Paul's day, craftsmen made mirrors out of
metal.

". . . Corinth was famous as the producer of some of the

finest bronze mirrors in antiquity."518

Consequently the apostle's point was not that our present perception of
reality is somewhat distorted, but in the future it will be completely
realistic.519 Rather, it was that now we see indirectly ("in a mirror dimly"),
but then we shall see directly, "face to face." Today we might say that we
presently look at a photograph, but in the future we will see what the
photograph pictures, but in full color, motion video, and surround sound.

Now we know (Gr. ginosko) only partially. When the Lord has resurrected
or "raptured" us, and we stand in His presence, we "will know fully" (Gr.
epignosko), as fully as God now knows us ("as [we] have been fully
known"). I do not mean that we will be omniscient; we will not be. We
will be fully aware. Now He knows us directly, but then we will also know
Him directly.

516Merrill F. Unger, New Testament Teaching on Tongues, p. 95; Myron J. Houghton, "A Reexamination
of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13," Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):344-56.
517John F. MacArthur Jr., Charismatic Chaos, p. 231.
518Fee, The First . . ., pp. 647-48. Cf. Robertson and Plummer, p. 298; Findlay, 2:901.
519See Michael Fishbane, "Through the Looking Glass: Reflections on Ezek 43:3, Num 12:8 and 1 Cor
13:8," Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1986):63-74.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 183

13:13 "Now" resumes Paul's original thought about the supremacy of love. It
does not carry on the contrast between what is now and what will be later.
In contrast to what will pass away—namely, knowledge, tongues, and
prophecy—"faith," "hope," and "love" will "abide" or endure (cf. Rom
5:1-5; Gal. 5:5-6; Eph. 4:2-5; 1 Thess. 1:3; 5:8; Heb. 6:10-12; 10:22-24;
1 Pet. 1:3-8, 21-22). Faith here is not the gift of faith (v. 2; cf. 12:9) but
the trust in God that characterizes all His children.

"By some student of the hymn the word 'now' has been
taken to imply that at the present time, during the present
age, faith, hope, and love are abiding, but that in the age to
come faith and hope will cease to exist, and of the three
only love will remain. Quite on the contrary, Paul affirms
that all are to abide and yet that love ever will be supreme
among the three."520

Among the enduring virtues, "love" is the "greatest"—because it will only

increase when we see the Lord, rather than decreasing in us, as faith and
hope will. In the future, we will continue to trust God and hope in Him,
but the reality of His presence will make it easier for us to do so then than
it is now.

Apparently Paul introduced "faith" and "hope," at this point, to show that
"love" is not only superior to the gifts, but it is superior even to other great
virtues. Faith and hope are gifts, and they are also Christian virtues of the
same type as love. Yet love even outstrips the other major Christian
virtues because it will outlast them.

"It is clear . . . that love is said to be greater here, not in

every respect, but because it will last for ever, and now has
a primary role in keeping the Church in being."521

"Love is a property of God himself. . . . But God does not

himself trust (in the sense of placing his whole confidence
in and committing himself to some other being); if he did,
he would not be God. . . . If God hoped he would not be
God. But if God did not love he would not be God. Love is
an activity, the essential activity, of God himself, and when
men love either him or their fellow-men they are doing
(however imperfectly) what God does."522

The point of this beautiful classic exposition of love is this: We should value and give
attention to the cultivation and practice of love, even more than to that of even the so-
called "greatest" spiritual gifts (cf. 12:31). The other gifts, as important as they are, are

520Erdman, p. 125.
521Calvin, The First . . ., p. 283.
522Barrett, p. 311.
184 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

only partial and temporary. As love is the greatest of the virtues that will endure forever,
so the gift of tongues is the least of all the gifts. It will last only a short time.

4. The need for intelligibility 14:1-25

"Paul had discussed the gift of the Spirit, the gifts of the Spirit, and the
graces of the Spirit; and now he concluded this section by explaining the
government of the Spirit in the public worship services of the church.
Apparently there was a tendency for some of the Corinthians to lose
control of themselves as they exercised their gifts, and Paul had to remind
them of the fundamental principles that ought to govern the public
meetings of the church. There are three principles: edification,
understanding, and order."523

Paul went on to elaborate on the inferiority of the gift of tongues, that the Corinthians
elevated, to convince them to pursue the more important gifts. His point was that
intelligible speech (i.e., prophecy) is superior to unintelligible speech (i.e., tongues) in the
assembly. He argued first for intelligible speech, which benefits the believers gathered to
worship (vv. 1-25). In this whole comparison, Paul was dealing with the gift of tongues
unaccompanied by the gift of interpretation.

The superiority of prophecy to tongues 14:1-5

The apostle began this discussion of tongues by comparing it to the gift of prophecy, that
the Corinthians also appreciated (cf. 12:10, 28; 13:8). He urged the Corinthians to value
prophecy above tongues, because prophecy can edify believers, and or lead to
unbelievers' conversion—since it involves intelligible "inspired" speech.

14:1 This verse sums up what Paul had just written about love, and it resumes
the thought in 12:31 by restating that exhortation. In contrast to some of
the milder advice he gave in this epistle, Paul strongly urged his readers to
follow the way of "love." This imperative advances the thought by urging
the readers to seek the gift of prophesying in particular ("desire . . . that
you may prophesy"). This indicates that, while spiritual gifts are
sovereignly bestowed, God does not necessarily grant them all at
conversion. One may strongly ("earnestly") "desire" a gift.

"At the end of chap. 12, where he had been speaking

specifically of the gifts themselves as gracious
endowments, he told them, 'eagerly desire the greater
charismata.' Now in a context where the emphasis will be
on the activity of the Spirit in the community at worship, he
says, 'eagerly desire the things of the Spirit [ta
pneumatika].'"524

523Wiersbe, 1:612.
524Fee, The First . . ., p. 655.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 185

14:2 Glossolalia (ecstatic "speaking in tongues") by itself is not edifying to

other people, but prophecy is. This statement again raises a question about
what speaking in tongues involved.

On the day of Pentecost, some people spoke in tongues and other people,
who knew the languages spoken, received edification, because they heard
of God's mighty deeds in their native languages (Acts 2:1-11). Interpreters
were unnecessary on that occasion (cf. Acts 10:46; 19:6). Evidently what
was taking place in the Corinthian church was different from what took
place on the day of Pentecost.

In Corinth, and perhaps in other early churches, people spoke in tongues

among people who did not understand the languages. An interpreter was
necessary in order to enable those present to understand and benefit from
what the tongues-speaker was saying in a strange language (vv. 5, 13).
Paul used "tongues" and "languages" interchangeably in this passage (cf.
vv. 2, 10, 11, 13, et al.). Two different Greek words appear (glossa and
phone), but they both refer to languages. This is an important proof that
tongues were languages.

Some Christians have suggested another distinction. They have claimed

that the tongues in Acts were foreign languages, but that the tongues in
Corinthians were ecstatic utterances—not languages—but unintelligible
speech.525 There is no basis for this distinction in the Greek text, however.
The terminology used is the same, and the passages make good sense if we
take tongues as languages wherever they occur. In 13:1, Paul wrote "of the
tongues of men and of angels," evidently two types of languages.526

If someone spoke in an unknown language, and no one could interpret

what he was saying, the person speaking was not speaking to men. God
knew what he was saying, even if no one else did, including the person
doing the speaking. "In his" human "spirit," the speaker was uttering
"mysteries" (Gr. mysteria, things hidden or secret from the understanding
of those in the church who were listening). Obviously Paul's concern was
the edification of the church. He did not disparage the gift of tongues
itself, but he put it in its rightful place.

Paul described the spirit as distinct from the mind (cf. vv. 14-19).

"Contrary to the opinion of many, spiritual edification can

take place in ways other than through the cortex of the
brain. Paul believed in an immediate communing with God
by means of the S/spirit that sometimes bypassed the mind;

525E.g.,Robertson and Plummer, pp. 301, 306.

526See Keener, pp. 112-13, and S. Lewis Johnson Jr., "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):310-11.
186 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

and in vv. 14-15 he argues that for his own edification he

will have both. But in church he will have only what can
also communicate to other believers through their
minds."527

14:3 In contrast to the foreign speech uttered by tongues-speakers, those

present could understand what a prophet ("one who prophesies") spoke
because it was in the language of his audience. The words benefited the
hearers by building them up, encouraging them, and consoling them.
"Edification," "exhortation," and "consolation" set forth the primary ways
in which prophecy (preaching) builds up the church. Its main purpose as a
gift was not to predict events in the future, but to build up believers in the
present.

Official Apostles The Twelve and the Apostle Paul

Functional (unofficial) apostles Church planters and missionaries
Official Prophets Communicated new revelation
Functional (unofficial) prophets Communicated edification,
exhortation, and consolation

14:4 The person who spoke in tongues in church edified ("edifies") only
"himself" or herself. He or she praised God and prayed to God while
speaking in a tongue. He or she also benefited from realizing that the Holy
Spirit was enabling him or her to speak a language that he or she had not
studied. This would have encouraged the tongues-speaker, but this speaker
did not edify himself or herself in the sense of profiting from the message
the Holy Spirit had given. He did not know what his own words meant,
unless he also had the gift of interpretation, but in this discussion Paul left
that gift out of the picture almost entirely (cf. v. 5).

Had the tongues-speaker understood what he himself was saying, he could

have communicated this to those present in their language. That is what a
prophet did. Prophets did not just foretell the future or announce new
special revelation from God. They also delivered statements or messages
in praise of God, or a word of instruction, refutation, reproof, admonition,
or comfort for others.528 Paul's point was that edifying the church is more
important than edifying oneself. He did not deny that speaking in tongues
does on some level edify the tongues-speaker (cf. vv. 14-15, 18-19).

"Though he himself would not comprehend the content of

that praise, his feelings and emotions would be enlivened,
leading to a general exhilaration and euphoria. This was not
a bad thing. Paul certainly was no advocate of cold,

527Fee, The First . . ., p. 657.

528See my note on 11:4.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 187

dispassionate worship. The gifts were not given for

personal enrichment, however, but for the benefit of others
(12:7; cf. 10:24; 1 Peter 4:10). Personal edification and
exhilaration were often natural by-products of the
legitimate exercise of one's gift, but they were not the main
reasons for its exercise."529

14:5 Paul acknowledged the value of the gift of tongues, even though it also
required an interpreter. Nevertheless he made it clear that the ability to
prophesy was more important ("greater is one who prophesies"). The
issue, again, is private versus public benefit. Since Paul depreciated
speaking in tongues without interpretation ("unless he interprets") so
strongly, it seems very likely that this is what the Corinthians were doing
in their meetings. The real issue was not a conflict between tongues and
prophecy, however, but between unintelligible and intelligible speech.

In this whole discussion, "prophecy" evidently refers primarily to an impromptu word

that someone would share in a service—in which congregational participation was
possible—more than to a prepared sermon.

Supporting analogies 14:6-12

Paul illustrated his point that hearers do not benefit at all from what they do not
understand. He used musical instruments as examples and clarified more about foreign
languages.

14:6 This verse sets the scene for what follows in this pericope. "Revelation,"
"knowledge," "prophecy," and "teaching" are all intelligible utterances.
These four words, respectively, probably refer to: a new revelation (cf.
12:8); an insight into truth; a word of edification, exhortation, or
consolation from the Lord (v. 3); an instruction in the faith.

14:7-8 Even the sounds people make using inanimate musical instruments need to
be intelligible to profit anyone. This is especially obvious in the case of a
call to "battle": If the bugler blows a confused tune, the army will not
know whether to attack or retreat. The "harp" and the "flute," as well as
the bugle, were commonplace in the Greco-Roman world.

14:9 Incomprehensible speech may be personally satisfying to the one talking,

but it profits only a little those who are listening. The only profit would be
entertainment. For example, when a foreigner sings a solo in a church
service, in his or her native language, almost everyone enjoys the song
because of its beauty. Yet we do not receive edification from it, since the
words are unintelligible to us.

529Lowery, "1 Corinthians," p. 538.

188 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"Charles H. Spurgeon said: 'I am afraid that many of my

ministerial brethren must imagine that when Scripture tells
them to "Feed My sheep," it means "Feed My giraffes," for
they put the food so high that people would have to be
giraffes to reach it.' Scripture says, 'Feed My sheep.'
Always put the food down where the sheep can get it. It
should be the ambition of the preacher of the Word to use
language so simple and so plain that everybody can
understand."530

14:10-11 Clearly Paul was speaking about languages, not gibberish, even though the
Greek word translated "languages" (phone) means "sounds" or "voices."
The context shows he had languages in mind. A non-Greek was a
foreigner (Gr. barbaros, "barbarian") to a Greek. The word barbaros is
onomatopoetic, meaning the foreigner's language sounded like so much
"bar bar bar" to the Greek. Paul's point was that, for communicating, the
tongues-speaker who did not have an interpreter was no better than an
incomprehensible barbarian. Even though his speech may have had
meaning to the speaker, it had none to the hearers.

Someone may enjoy watching and listening to an Italian or other foreign

language opera occasionally. He or she may like to listen to the music for
its own beauty, even if he or she may not be able to understand the words.
However, when the foreign words being sung are translated into English,
with captions above the stage or on the screen, the listener can enjoy it
even more. Then one can profit from following the story, which he or she
cannot do otherwise, if all that one takes away from the performance is the
memory of beautiful sounds.

14:12 In view of this, the Corinthians who were "zealous" for "spiritual gifts"
would be better off pursuing the gifts that would enable them to build up
"the church." They should value these, rather than the gifts that gave them
some personal satisfaction when they exercised them without edifying
others. The Corinthians were zealots when it came to spirits ("spirituals";
Gr. pneumaton). The English translators often interpreted this word as
synonymous with pneumatikon (spiritual gifts, v. 1), but it is different.
Probably Paul meant that they were zealous over a particular manifestation
of the Spirit, what they considered the mark of a truly "spiritual" Christian,
namely, the gift of tongues (cf. vv. 14-15, 32).

"Utterances that are not understood, even if they come from

the Spirit, are of no benefit, that is, edification, to the
hearer. Thus, since they have such zeal for the
manifestation of the Spirit, they should direct that zeal in

530Ironside, p. 444.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 189

corporate worship away from being 'foreigners' to one

another toward the edification of one another in Christ."531

Application in view of believers 14:13-19

Paul continued his argument by clarifying the effect that unintelligible speech has on
believers gathered for worship.
14:13 The Corinthian who already had the gift of tongues should ask the Lord
for the ability to ("pray that he may") "interpret" his or her utterances, so
that the whole church could benefit from them (cf. v. 5). Note that Paul
did not say tongues-speakers should abandon this gift, but that their
practice of it needed correcting.
14:14 Public prayer is in view here, as it is in this whole chapter (v. 16), but
some may have been praying in tongues privately as well. While praying
in a tongue might give the person doing so a certain sense of exultation in
his "spirit," his "mind" would not benefit ("is unfruitful"). He would not
know what he was saying without interpretation. The "spirit" (Gr.
pneuma) seems to refer to that part of the person that exercises this
spiritual gift. It is separate from the mind obviously (cf. v. 4). The person's
spirit prays as the Holy Spirit gives him or her utterance.
". . . it is likely that the Corinthians also went wrong in this
respect, that, just as they were in the habit of speaking in
foreign languages, so they were also using them in
prayer."532
"If the gift of speaking in a tongue is kept distinct from the
understanding, so that the speaker is a foreigner to himself,
as well as to others, what good will he do by stammering
along like that?"533
"That, my friend, is the answer to those who say that they
speak in tongues for their private devotions. If the
'understanding is unfruitful,' you don't get a spiritual lift out
of it; that is, the Holy Spirit is not ministering to you. If you
get a lift, it is merely psychological. Paul says our
understanding is unfruitful."534
14:15 Paul advocated praising and praying to God with both the spirit (emotions)
and the mind (understanding). The spirit and the mind are both receptors
as well as expressers of impressions. Music without words can make a real
impression on us, but that impression is not intellectual. One reason

531Fee, The First . . ., p. 666.

532Calvin, The First . . ., p. 291.
533Ibid., p. 292.
534McGee, 5:68.
190 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

tongues is an inferior gift is that in its expression, the speaker's reason has
no control.

Sometimes modern Christians who believe they have the gift of tongues
wonder if they should speak in tongues in private, since they do not know
what they are saying. Some of them claim that doing so edifies them
(v. 4). Let us assume they are speaking some language that they have not
studied, which is what the tongues-speakers in the early church were
speaking. This, by the way, eliminates most modern tongues-speakers,
since most modern tongues-speakers simply repeat gibberish.

A pastor friend of mine, who used to "speak in tongues" (gibberish), said

he had taught many Christians to "speak in tongues," and he could teach
anyone to do so. According to him, it just requires learning a few phrases,
getting oneself into the proper emotional state, and releasing one's
inhibitions. Paul did not discourage speaking unknown languages in
private. Nonetheless, the relative value and profitability of such an
experience are so minimal, that its practice seems almost foolish, in view
of the more edifying options that are open to Christians. Perhaps the
current preoccupation with feeling good, in contrast to having to work
hard with one's mind to edify the church, is what makes this practice so
attractive to many today.

"It is, of course, impossible for anyone to prove

experimentally that speaking in tongues cannot occur
today. It may be demonstrated, however, that speaking in
tongues is not essential to God's purpose now, and that
there are good reasons to believe that most if not all the
phenomena which are advanced as proof of modern
speaking in tongues is either psychological or demonic
activity."535

If the New Testament gift of tongues were still in the church today, we
would expect that missionaries with this gift would not have to go to
language school to learn the language of the people they were preparing to
minister to. But this is not the case.

14:16-17 Paul substituted the word "bless" for "pray" here. When we praise God in
prayer, we say a benediction on Him, a word of blessing. Those believers
(Gr. idiotes), who do not understand what the person praying in tongues is
saying ("who fills the place of the ungifted"), are unable to add their
affirmation at the end of the prayer. "Amen" means "So be it." Whenever
we lead in public prayer, we should do it so the other people praying can
join us and affirm our words (cf. 1 Chron. 16:36; Neh. 5:13; 8:6; Ps.
106:48). It is clear in verse 16 that Paul was speaking about a public

535John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit, pp. 185-86.

2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 191

worship situation. Giving "thanks" in public worship is important, even if

no one else joins in, but it is even more important that other believers be
allowed to join in.

14:18-19 Corinthian tongues-enthusiasts could not reject Paul's instruction because

he did not have the gift himself and so failed to appreciate its value ("I
speak in tongues more than you all"). He believed in the validity of the gift
but did not value it highly.536 He almost deprecated it. Edifying instruction
was "10,000" times more important, than personal private exultation, for
the building up of the church gathered for worship. This is another use of
hyperbole, which was common in antiquity.537 The edification (building
up) of the body is, of course, God's great purpose for Christians today
(Matt. 16:18).

"Occasionally, in conversation, someone will say, 'Oh, I

don't speak in tongues in public; I only do so in my private
devotions. It is my own prayer language.' . . . Two
responses are in order. First, there is no instance in the New
Testament of anyone speaking in tongues in private; it is
always public. Furthermore, tongues 'are for a sign' (v. 22),
which indicates tongues were meant to be public. Second,
when Paul said that he spoke in tongues more than all of
them he was not necessarily talking about private
devotions. He probably was looking back to 1 Corinthians
13:1, where he discussed the degree of the gift of tongues.
This then would mean Paul could speak in more different
languages than any of the Corinthians."538

Paul affirmed the gift that the Corinthians apparently regarded as the sign of genuine
spirituality, but he did so by correcting their thinking about what was really important in
their meetings. Worship should never be selfish, and it should always be intelligible.539

Application in view of unbelievers 14:20-25

Uninterpreted tongues did not benefit visiting unbelievers any more than they edified the
believers in church meetings. Prophecy, on the other hand, benefited both groups.

14:20 "Thinking" that tongues-speaking demonstrates spirituality evidences

immaturity ("do not be children in your thinking").

536See Chadwick, p. 269.

537Keener, p. 114.
538Stanley D. Toussaint, "Rethinking Tongues," Bibliotheca Sacra 172:686 (April-June 2015):184.
539Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 145.
192 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"Children prefer what glitters and makes a show to what is

much more valuable; and it was childish to prefer ecstatic
utterance to other and far more useful gifts."540

"Some people have the idea that speaking in a tongue is an

evidence of spiritual maturity, but Paul taught that it is
possible to exercise the gift in an unspiritual and immature
manner."541

There is a sense in which it is good for Christians to be childlike, namely,

in our innocence regarding "evil" ("in evil be infants"). Still, in
understanding ("thinking"), we need to "be mature" (cf. 3:1-2). The
Corinthians were not innocent in their behavior, any more than they were
mature in their thinking.

14:21 The "Law" refers to the Old Testament here, since the passage Paul cited
is Isaiah 28:11-12 (cf. Deut. 28:49; Isa. 29:10-12; 30:9-11; 33:19). The
context of this passage was the Israelites' refusal to accept Isaiah's
warnings concerning the coming Assyrian invasion. God told them that
because they refused to listen to the prophet's words, He would "teach"
them by using their foreign-speaking invading enemy. Nevertheless even
then, God said, they would not repent. Isaiah preached repentance to the
Israelites in their own language, but they did not repent. Then God brought
the invading Assyrians into Israel. Even then His people did not repent,
though God "spoke" to them again of their need to repent, reminding them
by allowing them to hear the foreign language of this enemy.

14:22 The "then" in this verse anticipates what was to come, rather than drawing
a conclusion from what had preceded. Tongues-speaking in the church
signified to visiting unbelievers that the Christians were "mad" (v. 23).542
"Prophecy" signified (was a "sign") to the believers that God was present
and speaking.

14:23 Paul painted a picture of the Corinthian church: assembled and engaged in
a frenzy of unintelligible tongues-speaking ("all [are speaking] in
tongues"). Two types of individuals walk in: one is a believer untaught in
the matter of spiritual gifts, and the other is an unbeliever. To both of them
the worshippers appear to be insane ("mad"), rather than soberly engaged
in worship and instruction. The church meeting would resemble the
meetings of a mystery cult, in which such "mania" was common.

540Robertson and Plummer, p. 315.

541Wiersbe, 1:614.
542See Zane C. Hodges, "The Purpose of Tongues," Bibliotheca Sacra 120:479 (July-September
1963):226-33; J. Lanier Burns, "A Reemphasis on the Purpose of Tongues," Bibliotheca Sacra 132:527
(July-September 1975):242-49; and Harold W. Hoehner, "The Purpose of Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:20-
25," in Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 53-66.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 193

"It was strange that what the Corinthians specially prided

themselves on was a gift which, if exercised in public,
would excite the derision of unbelievers."543

14:24-25 If, on the other hand, someone in the church was prophesying, and the
congregation was receiving instruction, both visitors would gain a positive
impression from the conduct of the believers. More importantly, what the
prophet said would also convict them (cf. 2:14-15). Paul's description of
the visitors' response came from Isaiah 45:14 (cf. Zech. 8:23), and
contrasts with the unresponsiveness of the Israelites to the messages God
had sent them in foreign languages. Prophecy would result in the
repentance of visiting unbelievers ("he will fall on his face"), but tongues-
speaking would not. These verses summarize the effects of good Christian
preaching on unbelievers.

"The gift of prophesying, however successful, is no glory to

the possessor of it. It is the Spirit of God, not the preacher's
own power, that works the wonderful effect."544

Paul did not mean that every individual in the church ("all speak in
tongues . . . all prophesy") would either speak in tongues or prophesy (cf.
v. 23). He meant that, if one of those gifts dominated to the exclusion of
the other, the stated results would normally follow.

"The Corinthians tend to shut their ears to prophecy

because they gain more satisfaction from listening to
tongues than from hearing their faults exposed and their
duties pointed out in plain rational language."545

To summarize, Paul permitted only intelligible utterances when the church gathered for
worship, because they edify believers and bring the lost to conviction of their need for
salvation. As inferior as the gift of tongues was, it did have a legitimate purpose, namely:
to impress unbelievers, especially Jews, with the gospel. Speaking in tongues was a
feature of some of the pagan Greek mystery religions, so it would not have made as big
of an impression on Greeks as it did on Jews.

5. The need for order 14:26-40

The Corinthians' public worship practices not only failed to be edifying and convicting,
but they also involved disorderly conduct. Paul proceeded to deal with this additional
need to help his readers value these qualities over the pseudo-spirituality that they
associated with sensational glossolalia.

543Robertson and Plummer, p. 317.

544Ibid.,p. 318.
545Barrett, p. 324.
194 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

The ordering of these gifts 14:26-33

The apostle now began to regulate the use of tongues with interpretation, and he urged
the use of discernment with prophecy.

"St Paul has here completed his treatment (xii.—xiv.) of pneumatika. He

now gives detailed directions as to their use."546

14:26 The apostle did not want any one gift to dominate the meetings of this
richly gifted church. Again, his list of utterance gifts was limited and
selective: "a psalm," "a teaching," "a revelation," "a tongue," "an
interpretation." Many Christians could make a variety of contributions to
the general spiritual welfare of the congregation. He permitted the use of
tongues, but not their exclusive use, and only if someone provided "an
interpretation" (v. 27).

"That many in Corinth exercised their gifts in the interests

of self-development and even of self-display can hardly be
doubted; this was contrary to the law of love which
regulates all Christian behaviour."547

"Those gifts should be most highly prized which are most

helpful to the Church and to one's fellow believers."548

14:27-28 Paul laid down three guidelines for the use of tongues in public worship:
First, the believers should permit only "two or at the most three"
interpreted tongues messages. This is in harmony with the inferior
contribution that tongues make compared with prophecy. Second, the
speakers should give them consecutively ("each in turn"), rather than
concurrently, to minimize confusion.

The Spirit does not overpower the speaker, but is subject to the speaker,
and the Spirit leads speakers to contribute in appropriate times and ways.
The Spirit's leading of the Old Testament prophets to speak at appropriate
times and settings illustrates this. Third, the Christians should not allow
tongues without interpretation in the church services, though Paul did
permit private tongues-speaking (vv. 2, 4, 27). However, remember that
tongues were languages, and Paul valued private tongues-speaking quite
low (vv. 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, et al.).

14:29 Likewise, the "prophets" should minister in an orderly fashion, and limit
themselves to "two or three" messages at a service. The others in the
congregation (not just other prophets) should pay attention to what they

546Robertson and Plummer, p. 319.

547Barrett,
p. 327.
548Erdman, p. 132.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 195

said. The Greek word diakrino means "pass judgment" (NASB) or "weigh
carefully" (NIV). In 12:10 it reads "distinguish." Here it probably means
to evaluate it carefully and, if need be, to reject it if the ministry was not in
harmony with Scripture.

"The apostle does not instruct the churches to sort out the
true and false elements in any particular prophecy. Rather,
he instructs them to sort out the true and false prophecies
among the many they would hear."549

14:30-31 Here we seem to have an example of two of the different kinds of

prophesying, that took place in the early church, conflicting with each
other. What Paul seems to have envisioned was one person—both men
and women could prophesy in this sense (11:4-5)—"sharing a word" from
the Lord. This type of prophesying was open to almost anyone in the
church. While this person was still speaking, "another" prophet ("who
[was] seated") received "a revelation" from the Lord.

This second "prophet" appears to have had a more direct revelation, than
just the casual desire to address the congregation that had "moved" the
first speaker to minister. In such a case, the first speaker was to give
preference to the person making the new revelation. Presumably the first
speaker could finish what he was saying—later—if he or she desired to do
so. An example of this happening took place in Acts 11:28 and 21:10-11,
when the prophet Agabus made revelations to the Christians in Antioch
and Caesarea, respectively.

"There was obviously a flexibility about the order of

service in the early Church which is now totally
lacking. . . . Everything was informal enough to allow any
man who felt that he had a message to give to give it."550

14:32-33 Prophets were to control themselves when speaking ("the spirits of

prophets are subject to prophets"), even when giving new revelation (cf.
vv. 27-28). The nature of this gift was that it did not sweep the prophet
into a mindless frenzy. Pagans, on the other hand, who received demonic
revelations, frequently lost control of themselves. Inability to control
oneself was no evidence that the prophet spoke from God. On the
contrary, it indicated that he was not submitting to God's control, because
"God" produces "peace," not "confusion."

549R. Fowler White, "Does God Speak Today Apart from the Bible? in The Coming Evangelical Crisis, p.
84. This essay is a rebuttal of the teaching of Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, pp. 133-43,
209-15; and Grudem, The Gift . . .; idem, Systematic Theology, pp. 1049-61, on this subject.
550Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 150.
196 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"The theological point is crucial: the character of one's

deity is reflected in the character of one's worship. The
Corinthians must therefore cease worship that reflects the
pagan deities more than the God whom they have come to
know through the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 12:2-3). God is
neither characterized by disorder nor the cause of it in the
assembly."551

Again the apostle reminded his readers that what he was commanding was
standard policy in the other churches ("as in all the churches of the saints";
cf. 1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:36). This reminds us again that this church
had some serious underlying problems.

Confusion and disorder in church services are not in keeping with the character of God,
and such conditions dishonor Him.

The ordering of the women 14:34-35

Paul had formerly acknowledged that women could share a word from the Lord in the
church meetings (11:4-16). Now he clarified one point about their participation in this
context of prophesying.

14:34 The word translated "silent" (Gr. sige) means just that, namely, "to keep
silent" or to hold one's tongue. However, in 11:5, Paul spoke as though
women prophesying in the church was a common and acceptable practice.
I think the best explanation of this apparent contradiction comes out of the
context, as is usually true. Paul had just permitted others in the
congregation to evaluate the comments that a prophet made (v. 29). Now
he qualified this by saying the women should not do so vocally in the
church meetings, as the men could. The teaching of the Law on this
subject appears to be a reference ("as the Law also says") to woman's
subordination to the authoritative man in her family (Gen. 3:16). The
"Law" then would refer to the Old Testament, as in verse 21.

". . . we should understand this as referring to the situation

where things can be done in the regular way, or where the
Church is well established. For a situation can arise where
there is a need of such a kind as calls for a woman to speak.
But Paul is confining himself to what is fitting in a properly
organized congregation."552

"Although some philosophic schools included women

disciples (and Jesus seems to have allowed them, Mk
15:40-41; Lk 8:1-3; 10:38-42), most schools, whether

551Fee, The First . . ., p. 697.

552Calvin, The First . . ., p. 306
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 197

Jewish or Gentile, did not, and society expected men rather

than women to absorb and question public lectures."553
". . . ancient society rarely allowed teaching roles to
women."554
14:35 Rather than calling out a question in the middle of some male or female
prophet's message, the women were to wait and "ask their own husbands"
about it "at home" after the service. Presumably, unmarried women would
ask their father, or some other man in the church, after the service.
"In these [modern] days, it is often the men that do not
understand and they ask the women at home!"555
"Although he says 'husbands', he is not forbidding the
women from consulting the prophets themselves, if
necessary; for all husbands are not capable of giving an
answer."556
Men could raise questions or make comments, but too much of this could
ruin the order of the service and the edifying value of the message.
Consequently Paul instructed the women, evidently in harmony with their
position of subordination, to refrain. It is improper for a woman to speak
in church meetings in the situation Paul addressed in the context. That
situation is: the questioning and or perhaps challenging of what a prophet
said, who was sharing something he or she believed God had given him or
her to pass on to the church.557
"To suggest that the women should learn by asking their
husbands at home (14:35) would sound repressive to most
of us today (at least where questions can be asked in public
meetings), but probably seemed comparatively progressive
in Paul's environment (and in some traditional cultures
today)."558
There have been many other explanations of this apparent contradiction.
The view that women should not speak at all in the church, under any
circumstances, has a long history.559 But it does not resolve the apparent
contradiction:

553Keener, p. 119.
554Idem, "Women's Education and Public Speech in Antiquity," Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 50:4 (December 2007):759.
555Ironside, p. 455.
556Calvin, The First . . ., p. 307.
557Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, pp. 136-37; Morris, pp. 201-2; Robertson and Plummer, p. 325; James B.
Hurley, Man and Woman In Biblical Perspective, pp. 188, 190; the NET Bible; et al.
558Keener, 1—2 Corinthians, p. 119.
559One fairly recent advocate was James Greenbury, "1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Evaluation of Prophecy
Revisited," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51:4 (December 2008):721-31.
198 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Richard Lenski assumed that all of what Paul said in 14:26-32 applies only
to men, and that he added verses 33-36 as an appendix to deal with
women's participation.560 However, this does not harmonize with 11:4-5.
William Barclay believed that at that point in history, Paul was not able to
rise above the spirit of his age, that said women should not participate in
intellectual activities on a par with men.561 This view fails to appreciate
the implications of Paul's inspiration by the Spirit as he wrote, as well as
his high regard for women that he expressed elsewhere in his writings.
G. Campbell Morgan seems to have regarded Paul's prohibition as
necessary, in view of conditions unique in Corinth.562
C. K. Barrett believed Paul did not write verses 34-35. He presumed that
some other person added them to the text, later, when Christians thought
good order was more important than the freedom of the Spirit.563
Gordon Fee also argued that these verses are inauthentic.564
Harry Ironside believed the occasions at which women could speak were
different than the official meetings of the church, at which they were to be
silent.565
David Lowery wrote that Paul wanted only the married women whose
husbands were present in the meeting to be silent, but that other women
could speak if properly covered.566
S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., seems to have felt that women were not permitted to
speak in the church meetings, except when they prayed or prophesied.567
B. B. Findlay and H. Wayne House concluded that women could not
speak if others considered that what they said was authoritative.568
Anne Blampied said Paul told the women to keep silent because they were
violating the principle of order in the church, not because they were
women.569

560Lenski, p. 614.
561Barclay, The Letters . . ., p. 151.
562Morgan, The Corinthians, pp. 180-81.
563Barrett, pp. 332-33.
564Fee, The First . . ., pp. 699-702.
565Ironside, pp. 454-55. Cf. Wiersbe, 1:616.
566Lowery, "1 Corinthians," p. 541.
567S. L. Johnson Jr., "The First . . .," p. 1255.
568Findlay, 2:915; H. Wayne House, "Caught in the Middle," Kindred Spirit 13:2 (Summer 1989):14; idem,
"The Speaking of Women and the Prohibition of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 145:579 (July-September
1988):301-18.
569Anne B. Blampied, "Paul and Silence for 'The Women' in I Corinthians 14:34-35," Studia Biblica et
Theologica 18:2 (October 1983):143-65. See also Calvin, The First . . ., pp. 306-7.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 199

Andrew Spurgeon interpreted the imperatives as permissive; he believed

that they expressed Paul's approval of what the Corinthian women were
doing.570

The most common view is that Paul forbade some form of inappropriate
speech, not all speech.571 The second most popular interpretation is that
Paul forbade some form of "inspired" speech other than prophecy, perhaps
speech contradicting the prophets, or speaking in tongues.

"Paul's long response to the Corinthians' enthusiasm for tongues is now

finished. The basic issue is over what it means to be pneumatikos
('spiritual'); and on this issue Paul and they are deeply divided. They think
it has to do with speaking in tongues, the language(s) of the angels, the
sure evidence that they are already living in the pneumatic existence of the
future. For this reason they have great zeal for this gift (cf. v. 12),
including an insistence on its practice in the gathered assembly.
Apparently in their letter they have not only defended this practice, but by
the same criterion have called Paul into question for his lack of
'spirituality.' Hence the undercurrent of apologetic for his own speaking in
tongues in vv. 6, 15, and 18.

"Paul's response to all this has been twofold. First, they are to broaden
their perspective to recognize that being Spirit people by its very nature
means a great variety of gifts and ministries in the church (chap. 12).
Second, the whole point of the gathered people of God is edification, the
true expression of love for the saints. Whatever they do in the assembly
must be both intelligible and orderly so that the whole community may be
edified; thus it must reflect the character of God, which is how it is (or is
to be) in all the churches of the saints (v. 33)."572

Concluding confrontation 14:36-40

Paul concluded his answer to the Corinthians' question concerning spiritual gifts (chs.
12—14), and his teaching on tongues (ch. 14), with a strong call to cooperation. He
zeroed in on their individualism (v. 36; cf. v. 33), and confronted them on the issue of
who indeed was "spiritual" (v. 37). Like the prophets of old, he warned anyone who
disagreed with his instructions (v. 38), and finally summarized his argument (vv. 39-40;
cf. 4:18-21).

14:36 In this verse, Paul reminded the Corinthians that they did not set the
standard for how the church meetings should proceed! Their arrogance
evidently drew this warning. The Corinthian church was not the mother

570Andrew B. Spurgeon, "Pauline Commands and Women in 1 Corinthians 14," Bibliotheca Sacra 168:671
(July-September 2011):317-33.
571E.g., Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 135.
572Fee, The First . . ., p. 709.
200 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

church, nor was it the only church to which the gospel had come (cf.
11:16; 14:33b). Therefore the Corinthian readers should submit to the
apostle's direction (cf. 9:1-23).
14:37 Anyone could easily validate a Corinthian's claim to being "a prophet or
spiritual." He could do so by checking to see if he or she acknowledged
that what Paul had written was authoritative because he was an apostle of
the Lord ("the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment").
Submission to apostolic authority was the test, not speaking in tongues.
Submissiveness to the apostles and their teaching was an expression of
submission to the Lord Himself (cf. 7:10, 25). It still is.
14:38 The Corinthians should not recognize as a prophet, or as a person under
the control of the Holy Spirit ("he is not recognized"), anyone who refused
to acknowledge the apostle's authority ("if he does not recognize this").
Failure to recognize the Lord as the source of Paul's teaching would lead
to that person's failure to "be recognized" (i.e., acknowledged with
approval) by the Lord (cf. 8:2-3)
14:39 "Therefore" signals a summation of the entire argument on spiritual gifts.
"My brethren" sounds a loving note at the end of this very stern discussion
(cf. 1:10). "Desire earnestly to prophesy" repeats the imperative with
which Paul began (v. 1). "Do not forbid to speak in tongues" concedes the
legitimacy of their favorite gift. Paul heartily encouraged the exercise of
the gift of prophecy, but he only permitted the gift of speaking in tongues
with certain qualifiers.
As time passed, God no longer gave prophets revelations concerning the
future. The Apostle John was evidently the last person to function as a
prophet in this sense (cf. Rev. 22:18). Prophets after John no longer
received new revelation directly from the Lord, either. We can see that this
was beginning to pass away, even during the history of the church that
Luke recorded in Acts. Much of the revelation contained in the books of
the New Testament was of this type. In this sense, the gift of prophecy was
foundational to the establishment of the church—and has ceased (Eph.
2:20). Nevertheless people continued to speak forth messages from the
Lord, the basic meaning of the Greek word propheteuo (to prophesy). In
the more general sense, this gift is still with us today (cf. v. 3).
Paul said his readers were not to forbid speaking in tongues. He meant
they were not to do so, provided they followed the rules he had just
explained for the exercise of the gift. Certainly if someone has the New
Testament gift of tongues, he or she should observe these rules today as
well. However, many Christians seriously doubt that anyone has this gift
today. Christians involved in the charismatic movement believe the gift
does exist today. Nevertheless the differences between tongues-speaking
as practiced today, and what took place in first-century churches, has led
many believers to conclude that these are very different experiences.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 201

14:40 The foundational principles that should underlie what takes place in
church meetings are these: Christians should do everything "properly," in
a decent and "orderly manner," and everything should be edifying (v. 26),
and a spirit of peace should prevail (v. 33).

This chapter on speaking in tongues is extremely relevant because of current interest in

the charismatic gifts of the Spirit. If believers followed the teaching in this chapter alone,
even in charismatic churches, there would be far less confusion in the church over this
subject.

"In these three chapters (xii.—xiv.) the Apostle has been contending with
the danger of spiritual anarchy, which would be the result if every
Christian who believed that he had a charisma were allowed to exercise it
without consideration for others."573

Some members of the Corinthian church continued to resist Paul's apostolic authority, as
2 Corinthians makes clear.

What about "tongues" that are not languages? They are not what the New Testament
deals with. But how should we deal with them? I suggest five things: First, recognize that
"forbid not to speak in tongues" (v. 39) does not refer to this type of tongues but to
languages. Church leaders can forbid speaking in the "non-language" type of tongues.
Second, recognize that interpreting the "non-language" type of tongues is not what the
New Testament is talking about. Third, since this type of tongues does not edify the
church, and often disrupts the church, church leaders can disallow it in church meetings.
Fourth, if someone wants to practice this type of tongues in private, it will only make him
or her feel good. It will not help others. Fifth, this type of tongues can be learned by
almost anyone, including unbelievers. It is not a supernatural ability that God gives to
only some Christians, as many advocates of non-language "tongues" claim.574

F. THE RESURRECTION OF BELIEVERS CH. 15

The Apostle Paul did not introduce the instruction on the resurrection, that follows, with
the formula that identifies it as a response to a specific question from the Corinthians
(i.e., peri de). From what he said in this chapter, he apparently knew that some in the
church had adopted a belief concerning the resurrection, that was contrary to apostolic
teaching. They believed that there is no resurrection of the dead (cf. vv. 12, 16, 29, 32;
Acts 17:32).

"Educated, elite Corinthians probably followed views held by many

philosophers, such as immortality of the soul after the body's death. . . .

"Some Greeks (like Epicureans and popular doubts on tombstones) denied

even an afterlife. Yet even Greeks who expected an afterlife for the soul

573Robertson and Plummer, p. 328.

574See Appendix 2 "Summary of my understanding of spiritual gifts" at the end of these notes.
202 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

could not conceive of bodily resurrection (which they would view as the
reanimation of corpses) or glorified bodies."575

Apparently Paul included this teaching to correct this error, and to reaffirm the central
importance of the doctrine of the resurrection in the Christian faith.

". . . the letter itself is not finished. Lying behind their view of spirituality
is not simply a false view of spiritual gifts, but a false theology of spiritual
existence as such. Since their view of 'spirituality' had also brought them
to deny a future resurrection of the body, it is fitting that this matter be
taken up next. The result is the grand climax of the letter as a whole, at
least in terms of its argument."576

"This chapter has been called 'the earliest Christian doctrinal essay,' and it
is the only part of the letter which deals directly with doctrine."577

Evidently most of the Corinthian church believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ
(15:3-4), but belief in His resurrection did not necessarily involve believing that God
would raise all believers in Christ. Christ's resurrection gave hope to believers about the
future, but that hope did not necessarily involve the believer's resurrection. This seems to
have been the viewpoint of the early Christians—until Paul taught them that their bodily
resurrection was part of their hope, which he did here. Thus this chapter has great
theological value for the church.

". . . apparently soon after Paul's departure from Corinth [after his 18
months of ministry there] things took a turn for the worse in this church. A
false theology began to gain ground, rooted in a radical pneumatism that
denied the value/significance of the body and expressed in a somewhat
'overrealized,' or 'spiritualized,' eschatology. Along with this there arose a
decided movement against Paul. These two matters climax in this letter in
their pneumatic behavior (chaps. 12—14) and their denial of a resurrection
of the dead (chap. 15), which included their questioning of his status as
pneumatikos ([spiritual] 14:36-38) and perhaps their calling him an
'abortion' or a 'freak' (15:8). Thus, as elsewhere, Paul sets out not only to
correct some bad theology but at the same time to remind them of his right
to do so."578

l. The resurrection of Jesus Christ 15:1-11

Paul began by reaffirming their commonly held belief: Jesus Christ was raised from the
dead. In this section, the apostle stressed the objective reality of both Jesus Christ's death
and resurrection.

575Keener, 1—2 Corinthians, p. 122.

576Fee, The First . . ., p. 713.
577Robertson and Plummer, p. 329.
578Fee, The First . . ., p. 716.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 203

15:1 The Corinthians and all Christians have their standing in Christ as a result
of "the gospel" message ("gospel . . . in which also you stand").

15:2 Paul did not entertain the possibility that his readers could lose their
salvation by abandoning the gospel he had preached to them. The NIV
translation captures his thought well. If they "held (hold) fast" to the
gospel that they had received ("the word which I preached to you"), they
would continue to experience God's deliverance as they lived day by day.
Their denial of the Resurrection, a major aspect of the gospel message
they had heard, might indicate that some of them had not really believed
the gospel.

15:3 As with the events of the Lord's Supper (11:23), Paul had heard of the
Lord Jesus' death, burial, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances,
and had then passed this information along to others. Elsewhere he wrote
that he had not received the gospel from other people, but directly from
the Lord (Gal. 1:11). Probably some aspects of it came to him one way,
and others in other ways. He apparently received the essence of the gospel
on the Damascus Road, and later learned more details from other sources.

"He received the facts from the Apostles and others; the
import of the facts was made known to him by Christ (Gal.
i. 12)."579

Three facts are primary concerning Jesus' death: He "died," He "died for
people's (our) sins," and He died as the Scriptures revealed He would
("according to the Scriptures"). These facts received constant reaffirmation
in the early preaching of the church (cf. Acts 3:13-18; 8:32-35).

"People are wicked and sinful; they do not know God. But
Christ died 'for our sins,' not only to forgive but also to free
people from their sins. Hence Paul's extreme agitation at
the Corinthians' sinfulness, because they are thereby
persisting in the very sins from which God in Christ has
saved them. This, after all, is what most of the letter is
about."580

"The language 'for our sins' is a direct reflection of the

LXX of Isa. 53. Since Judaism did not interpret this
passage messianically, at least not in terms of a personal
Messiah,581 and since there is no immediate connection
between the death of Jesus and the idea that his death was

579Robertson and Plummer, p. 333.

580Fee, "Toward a . . .," p. 49.
581Footnote 56: See A. Neubauer, ed., The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, According to [the] Jewish
Interpreters, 2 vols.
204 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

'for our sins,' it is fair to say that whoever made that

connection is the 'founder of Christianity.' All the evidence
points to Jesus himself, especially at the Last Supper with
his interpretation of his death in the language of Isa. 53 as
'for you' (see on 11:23-25)."582

15:4 Burial emphasizes the finality of the Messiah's death (cf. Acts 2:29), and
serves as evidence of the reality of His resurrection (cf. Acts 13:29-30).
He could not have truly arisen if He had not truly died.

". . . apart from His bodily resurrection we could have no

proof that God had accepted His propitiatory work . . ."583

The perfect tense and passive voice of the Greek verb translated—"was
raised"—implies that since God raised Him, He is still alive. The "third
day" was Sunday. Friday, the day of the crucifixion, was the first day, and
Saturday was the second.584 The phrase "according to the Scriptures"
probably describes the Resurrection alone, in view of the structure of the
sentence in Greek (cf. Lev. 23:10-14; Ps. 16:10-11; 17:15; Isa. 53:10b;
Hos. 6:2; Matt. 12:38-41). According to the Scriptures, all three persons of
the Godhead had a part in Jesus' resurrection: the Son (John 2:19, 21), the
Father (Rom. 6:4; cf. Heb. 13:20), and the Spirit (Rom. 8:11).

"Though the resurrection is part of the gospel message, it is

not part of the saving work of Christ on the cross. The
resurrection is stated as proof of the efficacy of Christ's
death. Having accomplished redemption by His death,
Jesus Christ was 'raised because of our justification' (Rom.
4:25). The fact that Jesus Christ is alive is part of the
Christian's good news, but individuals are saved by His
death, not by His resurrection."585

15:5 Peter ("Cephas") was, of course, the leader of the disciples. Perhaps Paul
referred to the Lord's special appearance to Peter (Luke 24:34), because
some individuals in the Corinthian church revered Peter (1:12), as well as
because he was the key disciple. "The twelve" refers to the 12 disciples,
even though only 11 of them were alive when the Lord appeared to them.
This was a way of referring to that particular group of Jesus' followers
during His earthly ministry (Matt. 10:1).586

582Fee, The First . . ., p. 724.

583Ironside,p. 468. See also p. 478.
584See Martin Pickup, "'On the Third Day': The Time Frame of Jesus' Death and Resurrection," Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 56:3 (September 2013):511-42.
585Thomas L. Constable, "The Gospel Message," in Walvoord: A Tribute, p. 203. See also John R. W.
Stott, The Cross of Christ, p. 232; and Gavin Ortlund, "Resurrected as Messiah: The Risen Christ as
Prophet, Priest, and King," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54:4 (December 2011):749-66.
586See Daniel J. Pfeifer, "Which Came First, the Symbol or the Referent? A Study of the Historical
Twelve," Bibliotheca Sacra 172:688 (October-December 2015):433-49.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 205

15:6 This is the only record of this particular appearance in the New Testament.
That Jesus appeared to so many people ("more than five hundred") "at one
time," is evidence that His resurrection body was not a spirit. Many people
testified that they had seen Him on this single occasion. Since the
Resurrection took place about 23 years before Paul wrote this epistle, it is
reasonable that the majority of this group of witnesses was still alive
("most of whom remain until now"). Any skeptical Corinthians could
check with them.

15:7 This "James" was most likely the half-brother of Jesus. He became the
leader of the Jerusalem church (cf. Acts 15:13-21). The apostles as a group
included Matthias, who was not one of the 12 original disciples. "All the
apostles" probably refers to a collective appearance to literally "all" the
apostles (except Judas).

15:8 Paul regarded the Lord's appearance to him on the Damascus Road as an
equivalent post-resurrection appearance—and the Lord's "last" one.

"Paul thinks of himself here as an Israelite whose time to be

born again had not come nationally (cp. Mt. 23:39), so that
his conversion by the appearing of the Lord in glory (Acts
9:3-6) was an illustration, or instance, before the time of the
future national conversion of Israel. See Ezek. 20:35-38;
Hos. 2:14-17; Zech. 12:10—13:6; Rom. 11:25-27; 1 Tim.
1:16)."587

Another view, I think a better one, is that Paul meant by "one untimely
born" that he had become an apostle after the Twelve had become
apostles.

Paul may have referred to himself as he did (lit. "an abortion") not because
his apostleship came to him prematurely. The Lord appointed him some
time after the others. He may have done so because, compared with the
backgrounds and appointments of the other apostles, Paul's background
and appointment were unusual. He lacked the normal "gestation period" of
having accompanied the Lord during His earthly ministry (cf. Acts 1:21-
22). Calvin believed that Paul was referring to his sudden conversion.588

"Since this is such an unusual term of deprecation, and

since it occurs with the article, the 'abortion,' it has often
been suggested that the Corinthians themselves have used
the term to describe Paul, as one who because of his
personal weaknesses is something of a 'freak' in
comparison with other apostles, especially Apollos and

587The New Scofield . . ., p. 1247.

588Calvin, The First . . ., p. 315.
206 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Peter. Others have suggested that the term is a play on

Paul's name—Paulus, 'the little one.' Hence they dismissed
him as a 'dwarf.' This has the advantage of helping to
explain the unusual 'digression' in vv. 9-10, where he in
fact allows that he is 'least' of all the apostles; nonetheless
God's grace worked the more abundantly in his behalf.

"In any case, whether it originated with them, which seems

altogether likely, or with Paul himself in a sudden outburst
of self-disparagement, it seems hardly possible to
understand this usage except as a term that describes him
vis-à-vis the Corinthians' own view of apostleship."589

Paul stressed the appearances of the risen Christ (vv. 5-9) because they
prove that His resurrection was not to a form of "spiritual" (i.e., non-
corporeal, not physical or material) existence. Just as His body died and
was buried, so also His body was raised—and many witnesses saw it
(Jesus' raised body), often many witnesses at one time.

15:9 The apostle probably used their view of him as a "freak" to comment on
his view of himself, in this verse and the next one. Evidently Paul truly felt
himself "the least" worthy to be ("not fit to be called") an "apostle." He did
not regard his apostleship as inferior to that of the other apostles, however
(cf. 2 Cor. 10:1—13:10; Gal. 1:11—2:21). The reason he felt so unworthy
was because, while the other apostles were building up the church, he was
tearing it down ("I persecuted the church of God").

15:10 Paul's apostolic calling was a gracious gift from God ("by the grace of
God I am what I am"). The giving of God's grace proves "vain" when it
does not elicit the appropriate response of loving service. Paul responded
to God's unusually great grace to him by offering back unusually great
service to God ("I labored even more than all of them"). However, he did
not view his service as self-generated ("yet not I"), but as the product of
God's continual supply of "grace" to him ("the grace of God with me").
God saved Paul by grace, and Paul served God by God's grace.

15:11 Paul and the other apostles all believed and preached the same gospel.
Paul did not proclaim a different message from what Peter, James, and the
others did (cf. Gal. 2:1-10). This commonly agreed on message is what the
Corinthians had "believed" when those who had ministered in Corinth had
"preached" to them. By denying the Resurrection, the Corinthians were
following neither Apollos, nor Cephas, nor Christ. They were pursuing a
theology of their own.

589Fee, The First . . ., p. 733.

2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 207

The point of this section of verses was to present the gospel message, including the
account of Jesus Christ's resurrection, as what many reliable eyewitnesses saw—and all
the apostles preached. Paul did this to stress that Jesus Christ's resurrection, which most
of the Corinthian Christians accepted, had "objective reality," not to "prove" that He
arose from the dead. Even though Paul had a different background from the other
apostles, he heralded the same message they did. Consequently his original readers did
not need to fear that what they had heard from him was some cultic perversion of the
truth. It was the true gospel, and they should continue to believe it.

2. The certainty of resurrection 15:12-34

In the preceding paragraph, Paul firmly established that the gospel the Corinthians had
believed, contained the fact that God had raised Jesus Christ bodily, along with other
equally crucial facts. Next he proceeded to show the consequences of rejecting belief in
the resurrection of the body.

"Paul uses reductio ad absurdum: if there is no resurrection (i.e., of

believers in the future), then Jesus did not rise (15:12-13), a point on
which he dwells at length (15:12-19, where Paul provides rhetorical
emphasis through a series of seven if-then statements)."590

The negative alternative 15:12-19

Paul first appealed to the Corinthians' logic. In this form of logic, called modus tollens,
Paul's argument was that since Christ was raised, there must also be a resurrection of
believers. That Paul had believers in view, rather than all people, seems clear in that he
was discussing the hope of believers. Other passages teach the resurrection of other
groups of people, even all others (e.g., Dan. 12:2; Rev. 20:4-5, 12; et al.). Here it
becomes clear, for the first time in the chapter, that some of the Corinthians were saying
there is no resurrection of the dead. If they were correct, then Christ did not arise, and
they had neither a past nor a future.

15:12 Belief in the "resurrection of the (dead) body" seems to have been difficult
for Greeks to accept in other places as well, not just in Corinth (cf. Acts
17:32; 2 Tim. 2:17-18). Evidently some of the Corinthian Christians were
having second thoughts about this doctrine.

"These deniers apparently believe that those who are truly

'spiritual' (in the Corinthians' sense) are already 'reigning
with Christ' in glory (see 4:8)."591

"On the whole the Greek did believe in the immortality of

the soul, but the Greek would never have dreamed of
believing in the resurrection of the body."592

590Keener, 1—2 Corinthians, p. 126.

591Furnish, p. 74.
592Barclay, The Letter . . ., p. 156.
208 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

To most Greeks, the idea of the resurrection of the body was abhorrent,
because they viewed the body as a hindrance to attaining the highest
aspects of life. They had a proverb that said, "The body is a tomb," and
one of the Greek writers wrote, "I am a poor soul shackled to a corpse."593
So the idea of a resurrected Christ conflicted with their disbelief in bodily
resurrection.

15:13-14 Belief in bodily resurrection is foundational to the Christian faith. If the

resurrection of the body is impossible ("if there is no resurrection of the
dead"), then the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a fiction ("not even Christ
has been raised"). If He did not rise, the apostles' preaching rested on a lie
(was "vain"), and consequently the Corinthians' "faith" would have been
valueless and misplaced ("vain").

This is the first in a series of conditional statements that run through verse
19. They are first class conditions in the Greek text, which express the
assumption of reality for the sake of the argument. In verse 13, Paul did
not express disbelief in the resurrection from the dead. He assumed there
is none, in order to make a point. This was also his tactic in verses 14, 16,
17, and 19.

15:15 If there were no resurrection of the body, the apostles would not only be in
error, they would also be "false witnesses . . . against God." They would
have been preaching something untrue about God, namely, that He raised
Jesus Christ—when He really had not. This would be a serious charge to
be making against the man who had founded their church (Paul), who
claimed to represent God. Really, by denying the Resurrection, the
unbelieving Corinthians were the false witnesses.

15:16-18 Paul repeated his line of thought, contained in verses 12-14, using other
terms to emphasize a different point. If Christ was still dead and in the
grave, then confidence ("faith") in Him for salvation is futile
("worthless").594 This means the believer is "still" dead "in his or her
(your) sins." He or she is without any hope of forgiveness or eternal life.
So Christians who had already died ("fallen asleep in Christ") would be
lost forever ("have perished"), eternally separated from God. Even though
it is the death of Christ that saves us, if He had not been raised from the
dead, His death would have been in vain.

"The denial of their future, that they are destined for

resurrection on the basis of Christ's resurrection, has the net
effect of a denial of their past, that they have received
forgiveness of sins on the basis of Christ's death."595

593Ibid.
594See Norman L. Geisler, "The Significance of Christ's Physical Resurrection," Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582
(April-June 1989):148-70.
595Fee, The First . . ., p. 743.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 209

Paul evidently meant that, given the Corinthians' position, the believer has
no future of any kind. "Perished" probably has this meaning, since even
though they denied the Resurrection, they were still baptizing "for the
dead" (v. 29). It seems unlikely that they would have kept baptizing for
dead people if they believed death ended everything.

15:19 If the Christian's hope in Christ is just for what he or she can expect this
side of the grave ("in this life only"), then that one deserves pity. Of
course there are some benefits to trusting Christ as we live here and now
(cf. 1 Tim. 4:8). However, we have to place these things in the balance
with what we lose in this life for taking a stand for Him (cf. Phil. 3:8;
1 Cor. 4:4-5; 9:25). If we have nothing to hope for on the other side of the
grave, the Christian life would not be worth living ("we are of all men
most to be pitied").

To summarize his argument, Paul claimed that if believers have no future, specifically
resurrected bodies like Christ's, we have no past or present to speak of, either. That is, we
have no forgiveness of our sins in the past, and we have no advantage over unbelievers in
the present.

"It is a point of very great importance to remember that the Corinthians

were not denying the Resurrection of Jesus Christ; what they were
denying is the resurrection of the body; and what Paul is insistent upon is
that if a man denies the possibility of the resurrection of the body he has
thereby denied the possibility of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and has
therefore emptied the Christian message of its truth and the Christian life
of its reality."596

The positive reality 15:20-28

Paul turned next to show that the resurrection of Christ makes the resurrection of
believers both necessary and inevitable. The consequences of this fact are as glorious as
the effects of His not being raised are dismal. Those "in Christ" must arise, since Christ
Himself arose. His resurrection was in the past, but ours will be in the future. Christ's
resurrection set in motion the defeat of all God's enemies, including death. His
resurrection demands our resurrection, since otherwise death would remain undefeated.

15:20 The argument advances here by connecting the believer with Christ. Christ
was the "first fruits" of the larger group of those whom God has chosen for
salvation. This is the last mention of Christ's resurrection in the argument,
but all that follows rests on this fact.

". . . we remember the statement made by Horace Bushnell,

'The resurrection of Jesus Christ is absolutely the best
attested fact in ancient history.' You cannot think of any

596Barclay, The Letter . . ., p. 153.

210 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

other incident in ancient history that has anything like the

number of witnesses to its truth as we have to the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ."597

The Jews celebrated Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month on
their sacred calendar. Jesus died on the day Jewish fathers slew the
Passover lamb, which was a Friday that year. The Jews offered a sacrifice
of first fruits the day after the Sabbath (Saturday) following the Passover
(Lev. 23:10-11), namely, Sunday. This was the day Jesus arose. Fifty days
later, on Pentecost, they presented another offering of new grain that they
also called an offering of first fruits (Lev. 23:15-17).

The "first fruits" they offered following the Passover were only the first of
the crops that they offered later. Paul saw in this comparison the fact that
other believers would rise from the dead just as Jesus Christ did. He used
the "first fruits" metaphor to assert that the resurrection of believers is
absolutely inevitable. God Himself has guaranteed it.

15:21-22 The apostle also drew a lesson from two uniquely representative men:
"Adam" and "Christ." Adam derived life from another, God; but Christ is,
Himself, the Fountain of Life. "Adam" was the first man in the old
creation, and, like him, "all" of his sons (descendants) die physically.
"Christ" is the first man in the new creation, and, like Him, "all" of His
sons (descendants) will live physically (cf. Rom. 5:12-19). Obviously Paul
was referring only to believers as sons (descendants) of Christ. Both Adam
and Jesus were men. Therefore our resurrection will be a human
resurrection, not some "spiritual" type of resurrection. Physical
resurrection is as inevitable for the sons of Jesus Christ (believers) as
physical death is for the sons of Adam (humans).

15:23 The word translated "order" or "turn" is a military one, used of ranks of
soldiers (tagma). Paul's idea was that Christ was the "first" rank, and He
experienced resurrection first. Christians are in a different rank, and will
experience resurrection together as a group, and at a different time,
namely: "at the Lord's (His) coming" (Gr. parousia, lit. "appearing," i.e.,
at the Rapture). The apostle did not go on to give a complete explanation
of the various resurrections here. There will be other ranks of people who
will rise at other times, including Tribulation saints, Old Testament
believers, and the unsaved.

"Passages like John 5:25-29 and Revelation 20 indicate that

there is no such thing taught in Scripture as a 'general
resurrection.'"598

597Ironside, p. 475.
598Wiersbe, 1:618.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 211

Paul's point here was that the resurrection of Christians is just as certain to
take place as the fact that Christ's already took place. He did not mean that
our resurrection will be of a different type than Christ's (i.e., "spiritual"
rather than physical).

15:24-26 "The end" refers to the end of the present heavens and earth, in view of
what Paul said about it here. This will come more than 1,000 years after
the Rapture. Then Christ, who will have been reigning over His earthly
millennial kingdom, will turn ("hands") over that reign ("the kingdom") to
His "Father." Christ's abolition of all other "rule," "authority," and
"power" will take place when He subdues the rebels that rise up against
Him at the end of the Millennium (Rev. 20:7-10). He will also defeat
"death," and from then on, no one will die. The saved will enter the new
heavens and new earth to enjoy bliss with God forever, while the lost will
suffer everlasting torment (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:11—21:1).

"Many see evidence of the millennium in Paul's discourse

on resurrection (1 Co 15, esp. vv. 20-28)."599

". . . it is not only possible but probable that Paul

understood this final triumph to take place during the
millennial reign of Christ. To sum up the principal
evidence, Paul's use of epeita ('after that') and eita ('then')
in 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, the syntax of 15:24-25, and the
parallel use of Psalms 8 and 110 in 1 Corinthians 15 and
Hebrews 1 and 2 all point to the understanding that when
Paul mentioned a kingdom and reign in 15:24-25, he
referred to the reign of Christ on this earth following His
return and prior to the eternal state, a time that Revelation
20:4-6 calls 'the thousand years.'"600

Even though Jesus triumphed over "death" in His resurrection, believers

still die. Therefore we must experience resurrection at some point, because
we are "in Christ," and because only then (after all believers have been
raised) will the final enemy, Death, be subdued. Only then will God
become all in all (i.e., everything that matters; cf. Col. 3:11).

15:27 Paul saw Jesus Christ as the person who fulfilled the prophecy recorded in
Psalm 8:7.601 In the psalm, the ruler in view is man, but Christ will be the
Man who will have regained for humanity all that Adam lost (cf. Ps.

599Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, p. 280.

600D. Edmond Hiebert, "Evidence from 1 Corinthians 15," in A Case for Premillennialism: A New
Consensus, p. 234.
601See Donald R. Glenn, "Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2: A Case Study in Biblical Hermeneutics and Biblical
Theology," in Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 44-45; and Martin Pickup, "New Testament Interpretation of the
Old Testament: The Theological Rationale of Midrashic Exegesis," Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 51:2 (June 2008):353-81.
212 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

110:1). Of course, God Himself "is excepted," and will not be under the
rule of the Son of God. The Father is "the One" who will finally bring "all
things" into subjection to Christ.

15:28 Finally, God will be the head of everything (cf. Rom. 11:36): "all in all."
The earthly millennial kingdom will end, and everything will merge into
the eternal kingdom of God (cf. Isa. 9:7; Luke 1:33).602 Some interpreters
believe that the "kingdom" Paul referred to is Christ's present cosmic
Lordship that He exercises from heaven.603 But this view does not
harmonize well with biblical eschatology. Christ will be submissive to His
Father forever.

This is the central passage that affirms the eternal "functional" (not
ontological) subordination of the Son to the Father (cf. 3:22-23; 8:6; 11:3;
Mark 13:32; 14:62; John 1:1; 14:28; 17:24; Eph. 3:21; Phil. 2:9-11; 4:19-
20).604 The Resurrection set in motion a chain of events that will
ultimately culminate in the death of Death. Then God will continue being
what He has always been: "all in all."

"The meaning seems to be that there will no longer be need

of a Mediator: all relations between Creator and creatures,
between Father and offspring, will be direct."605

In this pericope, Paul traced the stations of Christ from His resurrection to His final
exaltation, which will occur at the end of the present heavens and earth. Undoubtedly he
intended his readers to identify with the Savior, since he had taught them that believers
reproduce the experiences of their Lord when they reproduce His attitudes and actions. In
view of what lies ahead, how foolish it would be to deny the resurrection of the body.
This passage clarifies the true significance of Easter.

Other arguments for resurrection 15:29-34

Paul turned from Christ's stations to the Christian's experience, to argue ad hominem for
the resurrection. An ad hominem argument is one that appeals to self-interest rather than
to logic. The Corinthians' actions, and his, bordered on absurdity if the dead will not rise.
This paragraph is something of a digression, and the main argument resumes in verse 35.

15:29 This verse probably refers to proxy baptism, the custom of undergoing
baptism for someone who died before he or she could experience baptism.
Morris wrote that there have been 30 to 40 interpretations of this verse.606

602Cf.Saucy, The Case . . ., pp. 321-22.

603E.g., C. E. Hill, "Paul's Understanding of Christ's Kingdom in I Corinthians 15:20-28," Novum
Testamentum 30:4 (October 1988):297-320.
604John V. Dahms, "The Subordination of the Son," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3
(September 1994):351-64.
605Robertson and Plummer, p. 358.
606Morris, p. 219. See the commentaries for other views and John D. Reaume, "Another Look at 1
Corinthians 15:29, 'Baptized for the Dead'," Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):457-75.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 213

Baptism "for the dead" was a custom in at least one of the mystery
religions, one based close to Corinth in the neighboring town of Eleusis:
the Eleusian mystery religion.607
Perhaps the Corinthians were practicing baptism for the dead, for people
who became Christians, either on their deathbeds or under other
conditions, that made it difficult or impossible for them to undergo
baptism in water. However, Paul did not say they were doing this, only
that some people did this: "Why then are they baptized for them?" not
"Why then are you baptized for them?" Paul's mention of the custom is not
necessarily an endorsement of it, but, on the other hand, he did not
specifically condemn it either.
Whether he approved of it or not, the Corinthian believers were evidently
influenced by it. It appears again that the spirit of the city of Corinth had
invaded the church. Paul used this practice to argue for the reality of
resurrection. His point was that if there is no physical resurrection, it is
foolish to undergo baptism for someone who had died, because in that
case they are dead and gone forever.608 Suppose, on the other hand, there
is a resurrection. When God raises those baptized by proxy, they would
not be the ones to suffer shame, for failure to undergo baptism while they
were alive. But those who had not benefited from performing proxy
baptism for the dead would suffer embarrassment.
The Corinthians may have carried proxy baptism over into the church
from pagan religions. That is a distinct possibility, since we have seen that
they had done this with other pagan practices. There is nothing in
Scripture that encourages this practice, though some have interpreted this
verse as an encouragement. Some Christian groups that believe water
baptism contributes to a person's salvation advocate it. Today Mormons
do. However, the mention of a practice in Scripture does not always
constitute endorsement of it. We have seen this in chapters 8—11
especially.
One writer believed the first reference to "the dead" in this verse refers
metaphorically to the apostles who had died (cf. v. 31).609 This seems
unlikely to me, in view of the prevalence of this custom in and around
Corinth.
Another possible interpretation is that, by being baptized, the Corinthian
Christians were publicly taking the places of their fellow believers who
had died. They were filling up the ranks of baptized Christians who, by
dying, had left vacancies in those ranks.610

607Lowery, "1 Corinthians," p. 544.

608See Barrett, pp. 362-63; and Robertson and Plummer, p. 360.
609Joel R. White, "Baptized on Account of the Dead": The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its Context,"
Journal of Biblical Literature 116:3 (1997):487-99.
610Ironside, pp. 496-504.
214 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

15:30 If there is no resurrection, why did Paul endure so many hardships and
dangers in his ministry? The apostle's sacrifices do not prove there will be
a resurrection, but they do show that he believed there would be one. He
willingly faced death daily (was "in danger every hour"), because he
believed God would raise him, and that his resurrected body would
continue beyond the grave.

15:31 Paul backed up this assertion with a kind of oath. He said he faced death
daily ("I die daily"), just as surely as he boasted about the Corinthians. In
this epistle Paul was quite critical of his readers. Probably he meant that he
was "boasting" in their very existence as Christians, rather than that he
was boasting to other churches about their behavior.

15:32 One example of facing death occurred in Ephesus, where Paul was when
he wrote this epistle. His fight with "wild beasts" was not with wild
animals. This expression describes his conflict with very hostile human
adversaries. The phrase kata anthropon ("from human motives" or "for . . .
human reasons," lit. "according to man") identifies Paul's words as
figurative language. Furthermore, Roman citizens did not participate in
hand-to-hand combat with animals in the arenas.611 Perhaps Demetrius and
or Alexander were Paul's antagonists (Acts 19:24-41; 2 Tim. 4:14).

Paul quoted Isaiah 22:13 to prove his point (cf. Eccles. 2:24; 9:7-10). If
there is no resurrection, we may as well live only for the present.

15:33 This quotation, contained in a comedy by Menander titled Thais, but

perhaps dating back to Euripides,612 had become proverbial. The Greeks
generally recognized this saying like a proverb encapsulating a wise
thought. Therefore Paul used it to warn his readers, that if they kept
"company" with people who denied the resurrection, their character would
eventually suffer: "Bad company corrupts good morals."

15:34 The Corinthians needed to think correctly. Rather than living for the
present, as their pagan neighbors were undoubtedly encouraging them to
do, they needed to "stop sinning" and fulfill their present purpose, namely:
to propagate the gospel. It was a shame that they had neighbors who still
had "no knowledge of God," since they had much knowledge of God (1:5;
8:1).

"Since salvation finally has to do with being known by and

knowing God (13:12), what makes the Corinthians'
persisting in sin so culpable is that it keeps others from the
knowledge of God (15:34).613

611Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 149; Robertson and Plummer, p. 362.

612Morris, p. 221.
613Fee, "Toward a . . .," p. 40.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 215

It may be that Paul was also using irony to refer to the "spiritual"
viewpoint of the Corinthians. The appearance of "knowledge" here again
raises that possibility since, as we have seen, "knowledge" fascinated the
Corinthians. Paul had also spoken something to their "shame" earlier (cf.
6:5). If he was intending to be ironic, the apostle was probably putting
down those responsible for taking the church in the dangerous direction
that it had gone. If so, he meant that his readers should sober up ("become
sober-minded") and "stop sinning," because some of them did not have the
truth (true "knowledge"), which was "to [their] shame."

These ad hominem (experiential) arguments do not prove beyond doubt that God will
raise the bodies of people from the dead, but they support Paul's stronger historical (vv.
1-11), logical (vv. 12-19), and theological (vv. 20-28) arguments in the preceding
sections. They show that Christians generally, and the apostle in particular, believed in
the Resurrection deeply. It affected the way they lived, as it should.614

3. The resurrection body 15:35-49

Paul next addressed the objection that: the resurrection of the body is impossible, because
when a person dies, his or her body decomposes and no one can reassemble it. The
Corinthians seem to have wanted to avoid thinking that the material body was essentially
good. Hellenistic dualism seems to have influenced their thinking about the human body
and, therefore, the resurrection. Dualism is the philosophy, so common in pagan Greek
thought, that the body is only the husk of the real "person" who dwells within. The more
that one can live without the constraints that the body imposes, the better.

The biblical view, on the other hand, is that the body is essentially good, and just as much
a part of the real "person" as the immaterial part (cf. Gen. 2:7). The original readers did
not, and most people do not, view very positively a resurrection that involves simply
resuscitating human corpses. Paul proceeded to show that the resurrection of believers
was not simply a resuscitation of dead bodies, but instead a powerful re-creation of new,
glorified, [Christ-resembling] bodies. Paul taught a more glorious future for believers
than the present "spiritual" existence that some in Corinth lauded.

"The Corinthians are convinced that by the gift of the Spirit, and
especially the manifestation of tongues, they have already entered into the
spiritual, 'heavenly' existence that is to be. Only the body, to be sloughed
off at death, lies between them and their ultimate spirituality. Thus they
have denied the body in the present, and have no use for it in the
future."615

"Dead" (Gr. nekros) appears 11 times in verses 1-34, but only three times after verse 34.
This indicates a shift in Paul's argument.

614For an introduction to reincarnation, which denies resurrection, see H. Wayne House, "Resurrection,
Reincarnation, and Humanness," Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):131-50.
615Fee, The First . . ., p. 778.
216 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Analogies from nature 15:35-44

A key word in this section of Paul's argument is "body" (Gr. soma), which occurs 10
times, compared to zero times in the first 34 verses. The apostle proceeded to offer two
sets of analogies (seeds, vv. 36-38; and types of bodies, vv. 39-41), which he then applied
to the resurrection of the dead (vv. 42-44).

15:35 This objection to the resurrection has to do with the reconstruction of the
body, after decomposition, out of the same physical elements that it
formerly possessed. Obviously it would be impossible (from the human
standpoint) to reassemble the original cells, and to reconstruct a person,
after he or she had been dead for some time. This is the primary problem
that Paul solved in the rest of this pericope.

For example, if someone died at sea and sailors buried him, a fish might
eat his body. The atoms and molecules of his body would become part of
the fish. If a fisherman caught and ate the fish, its body would become part
of the fisherman's body. If the fisherman died, and an undertaker buried
him in the ground, and someone eventually sowed wheat over his grave,
the fisherman's atoms and molecules would go into the wheat. A third
person might eat the wheat, and so on. How could the first person's body
ever come together again?

Celsus, a critic of Christianity who lived about A.D. 220, ridiculed the
Christians' belief in the resurrection of the body with these words:

"Really it is the hope of worms! For what soul of a man

would any longer wish for a body that had rotted?"616

15:36-38 Such an objection sounds very reasonable on the surface, but it is really
foolish, and it drew a sharp rebuke from Paul. The "wise" Corinthians
were "fools"! The body that God resurrects will not be the same type of
body that died, even though it is identified as the "body" of the same
person. Paul proceeded to illustrate with a seed of grain. A new form of
life springs forth from death.

"True, the seed does not so literally die as does the body,
but it ceases to exist in the form of a seed to appear in the
higher form of the fruitful stalk."617

The body surrounding (that houses) the life is different before and after
death (seed/grain). Likewise, human life exists in one form of body before
death, but after death it exists in a different type of body. God does this
with grain, so He can do it with humans, too. This is so obvious in nature

616Barclay, p. 157.
617Erdman, p. 147.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 217

that we can understand Paul's sharp retort in verse 36. A "fool" in biblical
literature is someone who excludes God from consideration. That is
exactly what the Corinthians were doing, when they failed to observe what
God did to the seed that they sowed in their fields.

15:39-41 This passage begins and ends by stressing the differences within kinds of
"bodies."

"(Pet lovers take note: Paul did not teach here that animals
will be resurrected. He only used them as an example.)"618

The second and fifth sentences stress the differences within genus (class or
family of bodies), while contrasting the "earthly" with the "heavenly." The
central elements state the realities of earthly and heavenly "bodies."
Structurally the passage is a chiasm.619

A Not all flesh is the same (i.e., earthly bodies).

B Examples of different kinds of flesh: people, animals, birds,
fish
C There are heavenly and earthly kinds of bodies.
C' The splendor of heavenly bodies is of one kind and
the splendor of earthly bodies is of another kind.
B' Examples of different kinds of splendor: sun, moon, stars
A' Not all stars (i.e., heavenly bodies) have the same splendor.

In verse 39, Paul used animal life to point out the different types
(substance) of flesh: humans, land animals, birds, and fish. This
anticipates what he said later about the earthly versus the heavenly
existence of believers. A body can be genuinely fleshly, and still subsist in
different forms for different environments. The fact that there are different
kinds of bodies ("flesh") among the animals, should help us to understand
(and believe) that there can also be different kinds of human bodies
("flesh"). Some human bodies are mortal and some are immortal. Some
are corruptible and others incorruptible.

Likewise, the fact that celestial bodies differ in "glory" (brightness),

should help us realize that human bodies can also differ in glory. The
glory of a perishable, mortal human body, is much less than that of an
imperishable, immortal human body. Also, the differing glory of the
heavenly bodies argues for differences among glorified believers.

15:42-43 The human body goes into the ground "perishable," as a seed. However,
God raises it "imperishable," as grain. It goes into the ground in a lowly

618Wiersbe, 1:620.
619Fee, The First . . ., p. 783.
218 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

condition (in "dishonor"), but it arises with honor ("glory"). It is weak ("in
weakness") when it dies, but it is powerful when it arises ("raised in
power").

15:44 It is "natural" (Gr. psychikon, soulish), belonging to the present age; but it
becomes "spiritual" (pneumatikos, i.e., supernatural), belonging to the
future age. The Corinthians had not entered into their eschatological states
yet. This would come with their resurrections. Their bodies would become
"spiritual," namely: fitted for their future existence. Thus "spiritual" here
also refers to the body's use, not just its substance.620

". . . for pagans in and outside the church, Paul seeks to

show that the fundamental relation of creation to
resurrection (and behind that the identification of the
Creator as the Redeemer) is a non-negotiable of the
metanarrative of the Christian gospel, an essential sine qua
non of the Bible's world view, without which one is lost (1
Cor 15:17; cf. Acts 17:30-31)."621

The Corinthians believed that they were alive in a new kind of "spiritual" existence from
the time they trusted Christ. This is the only type of resurrection they saw. They did not
believe that human bodies had any future beyond the grave. Paul wrote to help them see
that their physical bodies would be raised to continuing life, but that those bodies, while
physical, would be of a different type than their present physical bodies. They would be
spiritual, but of a different type than what they thought of as spiritual.

The analogy from Scripture 15:45-49

Paul now returned to his analogy between Adam and Christ (cf. vv. 21-22) to reinforce
his argument, which he had brought to a head in verse 44.

15:45 The natural body is physical, the product of "the first man, Adam," who
received life ("a living soul") from God (Gen. 2:7). That life resides in a
body characterized as "soulish" (i.e., alive with both material and
immaterial components). It eventually dies. However, the resurrection
body is spiritual, the product of Jesus Christ, "the second (last) Adam,"
who gives new "life." That life will inhabit a body that will never die. Paul
called it "spiritual" because it is prepared for the spiritual rather than the
physical realm. Moreover, it comes to us from a spirit-being ("a life-giving
spirit")—Jesus Christ—rather than a physical being—Adam. One can

620See René A. López, "The Nature of the Resurrection Body of Jesus and Believers," Bibliotheca Sacra
170:678 (April-June 2013):143-53.
621Peter Jones, "Paul Confronts Paganism in the Church: A Case Study of First Corinthians 15:45," Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society (49:4 (December 2006):736. See also René A. López, "Does The
Jesus Family Tomb Disprove His Physical Resurrection?" Bibliotheca Sacra 165:660 (October-December
2008):425-46.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 219

assume (take on) full "spiritual" existence, including a spiritual body, only
as Christ did, namely, by resurrection.622

15:46 Even though God breathed life into Adam at Creation, that gift constituted
Adam a "natural" person, fitted only for the present order. The breathing
of new life into believers at their resurrection, so to speak, will make them
"spiritual" persons fitted for the eschaton (end times; the Millennium and
the eternal state). We have the physical body until the eschaton, not before
it begins.

Paul may have included this word of clarification to refute the Platonic
idea that the ideal precedes the real. Plato taught that the ultimate realities
are purely and simply spiritual, and physical things only represent them.
This is probably a view that some in Corinth held. Paul said the physical
("natural") body comes "first," and precedes the "spiritual" body, which is
the ultimate super-body—a body that is both super-physical and super-
spiritual, and fitted for the eternal realm.

15:47-48 God formed Adam out of dust ("earthy") to live on this planet (Gen. 2:7).
Jesus Christ had a "heavenly" origin. However, Paul seems to have meant
more than this, since he compared two human beings: "the first Adam
(man)" and "the last Adam (second man)." His emphasis seems to have
been that the first Adam was fitted for life in this age, with natural life,
whereas the second Adam was fitted for life in the age to come, with
spiritual life. God equipped both to live in the realm that they would
occupy.

Similarly, the bodies we inherit from Adam are for earthly ("earthy")
existence. The bodies we will receive from Christ at our resurrection will
be for living in the spiritual ("heavenly") realm. Paul was not speaking of
heavenly existence as distinct from life in hell, but of spiritual in contrast
with earthly ("earthy," natural).

"Each race has the attributes of its Head. As a consequence

of this law . . . we who once wore the likeness of the
earthly Adam shall hereafter wear that of the glorified
Christ. What Adam was, made of dust to be dissolved into
dust again, such are all who share his life; and what Christ
is, risen and eternally glorified, such will be all those who
share His life."623

15:49 Those born only of the first Adam, whom God equipped to live in the
natural world, likewise exist in that world. However, those born also of
the last Adam ("born again" in Christ), whom God equipped to live in the

622See Richard B. Gaffin Jr., "'Life-Giving Spirit': Probing the Center of Paul's Pneumatology," Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 41:4 (December 1998):573-89.
623Robertson and Plummer, p. 374.
220 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

supernatural world by resurrection, will also exist in that world. Paul

concluded this pericope by reminding his readers that "bear[ing] the image
of the heavenly" Adam (Christ) was still future, and it is certain: "Just as
we have borne . . . earthy, we will also bear . . . heavenly."

God's intent to make man in His own image (Gen. 1:26) will finally reach
fulfillment when believers finally receive their "heavenly" bodies that
enable them to live in the spiritual sphere, the dimension in which He
lives. God forming man out of the dust of the ground, and breathing into
his nostrils the breath of life, was only the first step toward His
accomplishing of His goal. His creation of resurrection bodies for us will
be the second and final step.

Should a Christian be buried or cremated after he or she dies? It used to be

mainly atheists and agnostics who were cremated, in Western countries.
They did so to challenge God (if He existed) to try to put all of the atoms
of their bodies together again.624 Today, it is probably true that most
people who choose cremation do so for practical reasons (cost,
convenience, etc.), rather than for religious reasons.

I have chosen to be buried (if I die before the Rapture), rather than
cremated, because it seems to me that burial honors the body, which is a
revelation of the "image of God" (cf. Gen. 1:27), more than cremation
does. However, I do not believe that choosing cremation violates any
biblical command, so it is one of those matters in which Christians have
freedom to choose (cf. chs. 8—10). Paul's point was that God will
resurrect everyone, regardless of the condition of their bodies after they
die.

"The problem is that the Corinthians believed that they had already
assumed the heavenly existence that was to be, an existence in the Spirit
that discounted earthly existence both in its physical and in its behavioral
expressions. What Paul appears to be doing once again is refuting both
notions. They have indeed borne—and still bear—the likeness of the man
of earth. Because of that they are destined to die. But in Christ's
resurrection and their being 'in him' they have also begun to bear the
likeness of the man of heaven. The urgency is that they truly do so now as
they await the consummation when they shall do so fully."625

4. The assurance of victory over death 15:50-58

Paul brought his revelation of the resurrection to a climax, in this paragraph, by clarifying
what all this means for the believer in Christ. Here he also dealt with the exceptional case
of living believers' transformation at the Rapture. Transformation of each believer's spirit,

624See McGee, 5:79.

625Fee, The First . . ., p. 795.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 221

soul, and body is absolutely necessary for him or her to enter the spiritual mode of future
existence. This transformation will happen when Christ comes.

15:50 The apostle's introductory words indicate a new departure in his thought.
The phrase "flesh and blood" refers generally to the mortal body, and to
living mortals in particular in this verse. This was a familiar idiom in
Paul's world for humans and human bodies.626 It is impossible for us, in
our present physical forms, to enter into, as an inheritance, the heavenly
glories in "the kingdom of God"—that Christ said He was going to prepare
for us (i.e., the messianic kingdom on earth; John 14:2-3).627 They are of
the spiritual order. "The perishable" is another term that describes us now,
but it highlights the destruction of our present bodies through death.

15:51 "Behold" or "Listen" grabs the reader's attention and announces something
important. Paul was about to explain something never before revealed, "a
mystery" (Gr. mysterion; cf. Matt. 13:11; Rom. 11:25; 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7;
4:1; 13:2; 14:2; Eph. 1:9; 3:3-4, 9; 5:32; 6:19; et al.). A "mystery," as the
New Testament writers used the word, was not something presently
concealed, but something formerly concealed but now revealed. Paul had
previously written that at the Rapture, dead Christians will rise first,
before God "catches (snatches) up" us living Christians to meet the Lord
in the air (1 Thess. 4:15-17).

But Paul had only just previously revealed a mystery, here in

1 Corinthians 15, that resurrection bodies will be different from our
present bodies: spiritual rather than natural (vv. 35-39). And now he
revealed, further, in verses 51-52, that living believers, "translated" at the
Rapture, would not only be taken up, but also, simultaneously receive
spiritual bodies: "we will all be changed." Three key New Testament
passages that deal with the Rapture are John 14:1-3, 1 Corinthians 15:51-
53, and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

Not every Christian will die before he or she receives a new body, but
each and every one must experience this change, even the "spiritual"
Corinthians. Whether we believers are alive or dead when the Rapture
takes place, we will all receive spiritual bodies at that moment. "All"
negates the doctrine of the "partial rapture" of the church, the view that
only watchful Christians will participate in the Rapture.

15:52 This transformation will not be a gradual process, but instantaneous. The
Greek word translated "moment" or "flash" (atomos) refers to an
indivisible fragment of time. "The blinking (twinkling) of an eye" takes
only a fraction of a second.

626Keener,1—2 Corinthians, p. 133.

627See René A. López, "A Study of Pauline Passages on Inheriting the Kingdom," Bibliotheca Sacra
168:672 (October-December 2011):447-48.
222 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

A "trumpet" blast "sound" will summon Christians home to heaven (cf.

1 Thess. 4:16). It is "the last trumpet" that connects with our destiny, the
one that signals the end of our present existence and the beginning of our
future existence.628

"When a Roman camp was about to be broken up, whether

in the middle of the night or in the day, a trumpet was
sounded. The first blast meant, 'Strike tents and prepare to
depart.' The second meant, 'Fall into line,' and when what
was called 'the last trump' sounded it meant, 'March
away.'"629

"We need not suppose that St Paul believed that an actual

trumpet would awaken and summon the dead. The
language is symbolical in accordance with the apocalyptic
ideas of the time. The point is that the resurrection of the
dead and the transformation of the living will be
simultaneous, as of two companies obeying the same
signal."630

Some posttribulationists equate this trumpet with the seventh or last

trumpet of Revelation 11:15-18.631 This does not seem to me to be valid.
Other trumpets will "sound," announcing various other events in the future
(cf. Matt. 24:31; Rev. 8:2, 6, 13; 9:14; et al.). However, Christians,
believers living in the Church Age, will not be on the earth then, and those
trumpets will not affect us. This "last trumpet" is not the very last one that
the Bible speaks of.632 The fact that Paul included himself, in the group
living at the time of the Rapture, shows that he expected that event to take
place imminently (i.e., "at any moment"; cf. 1 Thess. 4:15, 17). If he had
believed the Tribulation precedes the Rapture, it would have been natural
for him to mention that here.633

"Christ's return is always imminent; we must never cease to

watch for it. The first Christians thought it so near that they
faced the possibility of Jesus' return in their lifetime. Paul
thinks he too may perhaps be alive when it happens."634

628See Barnabas Lindars, "The Sound of the Trumpet: Paul and Eschatology," Bulletin of the John Rylands
University Library of Manchester 67:2 (Spring 1985):766-82.
629Ironside, p. 529.
630Robertson and Plummer, p. 377.
631E.g., Alexander Reese, The Approaching Advent of Christ, p. 73.
632Renald E. Showers, Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church, pp.
259-69.
633For more evidence that the Rapture takes place before the Tribulation, see J. Dwight Pentecost, Things
to Come, pp. 193-218; John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question; idem, The Blessed Hope and the
Tribulation; and Ryrie, Basic Theology, pp. 482-87.
634Gaston Deluz, A Companion to I Corinthians, p. 248. See also Gerald B. Stanton, Kept from the Hour,
ch. 6: "The Imminency of the Coming of Christ for the Church," pp. 108-37.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 223

"The simple fact is that Paul did not know when Christ
would return. He was in the exact position in which we are.
All that he knew, and all that we know, is that Christ may
come at any time."635

Paul did not answer the interesting questions of "Who will blow . . .?" or
"Who will hear . . .?" this trumpet, probably because the trumpet appears
to be a metaphor for God's summons. Throughout Israel's history, God
announced His working for the nation, and He summoned His people to
Himself, with the blowing of literal trumpets (Exod. 19:16, 19; 20:18;
Lev. 25:9; Num. 10:2, 8-10; et al.). So He might use a literal trumpet for
this purpose at the Rapture as well.

The Scriptures reveal at least four times in history when there will be a
resurrection: Christ's resurrection was the first. People who were raised
back to life in Old Testament times experienced resuscitation, and later
died again. The bodies of the saints who were raised shortly after Christ
arose (Matt. 27:52-53) also evidently experienced resuscitation—like
Jairus' daughter, the widow of Nain's son, and Lazarus—and died again
later.

Second, Christians (believers in Christ alive during the Church Age) who
have died will experience resurrection at the Rapture of the church (v. 52;
1 Thess. 4:16). Third, Old Testament saints and Tribulation saints will be
resurrected shortly after Christ's Second Coming (Dan. 12:2; Rev. 20:4).
Fourth, all unbelievers throughout history, and presumably believers who
died during the Millennium, will be raised at the end of the Millennium
(Rev. 20:13).636

Will believers have scars on their resurrection bodies, as Jesus' resurrected

body did? Will we be overweight then, if we were overweight when we
died? These and many similar questions are unanswerable at the present
time. I tend to think that the bodies that we will have in the future will be
those that glorify God the most, whatever that may involve.

People sometimes ask if their pets will go to heaven when they die.
Heaven appears (from Scripture) to be a place reserved for human beings
and spirit beings such as angels. A mother was trying to comfort her
daughter after her pet cat had died. She said, "Don't worry, dear. Fluffy
will be in heaven." Her pragmatic little daughter replied, "What would
God want with a dead cat?" A little boy asked his father if his beloved dog
would be in heaven. The father wisely answered, "If he has to be in
heaven to make you happy, I'm sure he'll be there."

635Lenski, p. 737.
636See Appendix 3 "What happens to a person after he dies?" at the end of these notes.
224 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

15:53 The dead will rise in bodies that are not subject to corruption, and the
living will receive immortal bodies, too. Paul may have wanted to contrast
the dead and the living, by the different terms he chose for each, in the
first and second parts of this verse respectively.637 Still, the distinction is
not strong enough to be significant. Both the dead and the living will
receive "imperishable" (i.e., immortal) bodies.

15:54 This transformation will fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 25:8. What Paul had
just revealed harmonizes with prophetic Scripture: God will overcome
"death" (cf. vv. 23-28).

15:55 Paul modified, for his own purposes, Hosea's defiant challenge for "death"
(personified) to do its worst (Hos. 13:14), and used the passage to taunt
Death himself. "Death" is man's last enemy (cf. v. 25). God will defeat it
when He raises His people to life.

15:56 The fatal "sting of death" touches humans through "sin" (Rom. 6:23).
What makes "sin" sinful is the law of God (Rom. 7:7-11). Because Jesus
Christ overcame sin, and fulfilled the law, death cannot hold its prey
(Rom. 5:12-21). Death is still an enemy, in the sense that it robs us of
mortal life. In spite of this, it is not a terror to the believer, because it is the
doorway into an immortal life of glory.

15:57 The "victory" over the condemnation of the law, sin, and death, comes to
us "through (our Lord) Jesus Christ" (cf. Rom. 8:2). For this, Paul was
very grateful to God, as every believer should be (cf. Rom. 7:25): "Thanks
be to God!"

15:58 Paul concluded his discussion of the resurrection with an exhortation to be

faithful ("steadfast" and "immovable") in the present (cf. 4:16-17; 5:13;
6:20; 7:40; 10:31-33; 11:33-34; 12:31; 14:39-40).

"Despite the magnificent crescendo with which Paul brings

the argument of chap. 15 to its climax, the last word is not
the sure word of future hope and triumph of vv. 50-57;
rather, in light of such realities, the last word is an
exhortation to Christian living (v. 58). Thus, eschatological
salvation, the great concern of the epistle, includes proper
behavior or it simply is not the gospel Paul preaches."638

"Eschatology has moral implications (6:13-14; 15:30-32,

58)."639

637Joachim Jeremias, "Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God," New Testament Studies 2
(1955-56):152.
638Fee, "Toward a . . .," p. 58.
639Keener, 1—2 Corinthians, p. 135.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 225

Specifically, Paul's exhortation does not just call for ethical behavior (cf.
vv. 33-34), but for continued involvement in fulfilling the Great
Commission, which is the work of the gospel: "always abounding in the
work of the Lord." Paul closed the chapter with an encouraging incentive
to help the Corinthians focus on the goal, which would one day include
rewards for faithful service: "knowing that your toil is not in vain in the
Lord."

This chapter began with a review of the gospel message, from which some in the
Corinthian church were in danger of departing by denying the resurrection. The charge to
remain "steadfast" (v. 58), therefore, probably means to remain steadfast in "the gospel,"
as the Lord and the apostles had handed it down. Paul's readers should not move away
from it, but should remain "immovable" in it. They should also increase their efforts to
serve the Lord ("always abounding"), even as Paul had done (v. 10). Rather than living
for the present (v. 32) only, believers should live in the present with the future clearly in
view (cf. 1:9; 9:26). One day we will have to give an account of our stewardship (3:12-
15).

No one, except Jesus Christ, has come back from the dead to tell us what is on the other
side. However, His testimony through His apostles is sufficient to give us confidence that
there is life and bodily resurrection after death. We will live that life in a changed body
which will be incapable of perishing. It is therefore imperative that we make sure that we,
and all around us, enter that phase of our existence with our sins covered by the sacrifice
of Christ.640

G. THE COLLECTION FOR THE JERUSALEM BELIEVERS 16:1-12

I have chosen to include this section with the others that deal with questions the
Corinthians had asked Paul, rather than with Paul's concluding comments, because it
begins with "peri de" (7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:12; cf. 8:4). Probably they had asked about
the collection Paul was assembling in a letter or through messengers. This is the least
confrontational section in this epistle, though we can detect tension here too. Problems
over this collection emerge clearly in 2 Corinthians.

"Most ancient letters were brief, and a large number were business-related.
Whereas most of Paul's correspondence more closely resembles
philosophers' letters discoursing on moral topics, he is ready to address
business as well."641

"This chapter may seem unrelated to our needs today, but actually it deals
in a very helpful way with three areas of stewardship: money (1 Cor. 16:1-
4), opportunities (1 Cor. 16:5-9), and people (1 Cor. 16:10-24). These are

640See also Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew, Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?; John Wenham, The Easter
Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict?; Josh McDowell, More Than A Carpenter; Stephen T.
Davis, Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection; and Frank Morison, Who Moved the Stone?
641Keener, 1—2 Corinthians, p. 136.
226 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

probably the greatest resources the church has today, and they must not be
wasted."642

There is a logical connection between the last verse of chapter 15 and the first verse of
chapter 16: This collection was part of "the work of the Lord" in which the Corinthian
believers were to "abound," in view of the victory that was theirs through the Lord Jesus
Christ.643

1. Arrangements for the collection 16:1-4

16:1 It seems that the Corinthian Christians had heard about the "collection"
(Gr. logeias, extra collection) Paul was getting together for the poor saints
in Jerusalem (v. 3), and that they wanted to make a contribution. James,
Peter, and John had encouraged Paul and Barnabas to remember the poor
when they were in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:10; cf. Acts 11:27-30).

"In a city of which the prosperity depended in large

measure upon Jewish rites and ceremonies, converts to
Christianity would have peculiar [particular] difficulty in
securing employment and obtaining financial support."644

There is no record of the directions Paul gave the Galatian churches, to

which he referred here, in any of his other surviving epistles. The
"churches of Galatia" evidently were those in southern Galatia, including
Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. Paul had passed through
this region as he moved toward Ephesus, from which he wrote this epistle
(Acts 18:23).

16:2 From the earliest days of the church's existence, Christians assembled on
Sundays to worship in commemoration of the Lord's resurrection. The
Lord had not commanded this, but it quickly became customary. The
unsaved Jews met on Saturdays.

"This is our earliest evidence respecting the early

consecration of the first day of the week by the Apostolic
Church. Apparently, the name 'Lord's Day' was not yet in
use, and the first day of the week is never called 'the
sabbath' in Scripture."645

Sunday would have been a natural occasion to put money aside for fellow
believers, since it was particularly on this day that Christians reviewed
their responsibilities. Paul did not specify whether the individual Christian

642Wiersbe, 1:621.
643Erdman, p. 154.
644Ibid., p. 153.
645Robertson and Plummer, p. 384.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 227

should keep ("save") the money in his possession, or if a church official

should. The former alternative seems more probable in view of the
apostle's language.646

Note also that Paul did not say how much to set aside, except that it was to
be as the Lord had blessed them ("as he may prosper"). The amount was
entirely up to the givers. Paul mentioned nothing specifically here about
giving proportionately to one's income. We saw earlier that both rich and
poor made up this church (11:21). Paul's counsel amounted to: Set aside a
little regularly now, so that you will not need to make a major withdrawal
from your funds later.

"The essential features of Christian giving are stated here:

(1) the time of giving; (2) the regularity of giving; (3) the
participants in giving; (4) the basis of giving; and (5) the
manner of giving."647

"When I was pastoring a church in Texas, one of my

officers owned several Coca-Cola plants, and one of them
was in our town. He was a man of means, and he owned a
ranch where we used to go to hunt and fish. Often he would
ask me why I didn't preach on tithing. One day I said, 'Why
should I preach on tithing?' He said, 'Because it is the Bible
way of giving." I agreed, "Yes, it was the Old Testament
way of giving, but under grace I don't believe tithing is the
way it should be done.' So he asked me, "How do you think
it ought to be done?' I took him to this verse: 'As God hath
prospered him.' Now this was during the depression. If you
are as old as I am, you will remember that the depression in
the 1930s was a very serious time. So I said to him, 'For
some strange reason, Coca-Cola is selling, and you are
doing very well. However, there are some members in our
church who couldn't give a tithe right now. I don't believe
God is asking them to give a tenth. There are a few people
who are doing well, and they are to give as they have been
prospered—and they ought to give a half.' Do you know
that this man never again suggested that I preach on tithing!
The reason was that he was tithing, but he didn't want to
give as God had prospered him."648

16:3 Paul planned to send a representative from each of the contributing

churches, or possibly from each group of churches, "to Jerusalem" with
the "gift." The "letters" he spoke of may have been letters of introduction

646Fee,
The First . . ., p. 813.
647TheNew Scofield . . ., p. 1250.
648McGee, 5:82.
228 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

from himself, since it appears that at this time, Paul did not plan to make
this trip himself. Such a procedure would guarantee that the money would
arrive safely, and that people would view the whole project as honest (cf.
2 Cor. 8:21).

16:4 The apostle was open to the possibility of going to Jerusalem—as part of
the group ("they will go with me")—if this seemed best ("if it is fitting for
me to go also"). After he wrote this letter, he decided to go (Rom. 15:25-
26), and indeed went (Acts 20:16, 22; 21:17; 24:17).

"It is these practical ministries that show that believers have

the same love that animated our Saviour when He came
from Heaven to give Himself for a lost world. So Christians
are to look out those [sic] in need and seek to make things
easier for them."649

These few verses, along with 2 Corinthians 8—9, as well as statements in Philippians
4:10-19 and Romans 12:8, provide guidelines for individual Christians and churches in
giving. The principles Paul advocated were: saving up for giving should be regular, and
giving should be in response to the Lord's material provision. The believers should
manage their gifts with integrity. Everything they did should not only be above reproach,
but other people should perceive it as such.

Notice that Paul made no mention of tithing—here or elsewhere. Tithing is a method of

giving that God prescribed for the Israelites under the Mosaic Law. People commonly
practiced tithing as an act of worship in the ancient Near East (cf. Gen. 28:22).650 It was
also a common tax.651 This is still true in some modern countries. For example, in
England a part of every person's taxes goes to maintain the Church of England. Some
residents regard this part of their tax as their contribution to the church, or their tithe. The
Mosaic Law actually required that the Israelites give back to God about one-third of their
incomes.

However, Christians are not under the Mosaic Law (Rom. 10:4; et al.). It is therefore
understandable that neither Jesus Christ, nor the apostles, commanded tithing. Some
Christians believe that, because Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:20), and
Jacob tithed (Gen. 28:22), tithing thus antedates the Mosaic Law, and is therefore binding
on Christians. Nevertheless a practice is not the same as a precept. Moreover, the absence
of any reference to tithing in the New Testament, plus the teaching of other guidelines,
strongly suggest that God wants us to follow a different method. The principles that
should govern Christians in our giving appear throughout the New Testament but mainly
in 1 Corinthians 16, 2 Corinthians 8—9, and Philippians 4.

649Ironside,
p. 538.
650SeeC. F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Pentateuch, 1:207.
651W. Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, pp. 245-51.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 229

"No pressure, no gimmicks, no emotion. A need had to be met, and the

Corinthians were capable of playing a role in it. In a day of highly visible
campaigns for money on every side, there is something to be said for the
more consistent, purposeful approach outlined here."652

"Many Christians today are more interested in competing with neighbors'

status symbols than in caring for the poor."653

2. The travel plans of Paul and his fellow apostles 16:5-12

As the preceding verse revealed, Paul's plans were tentative to some extent. He wanted
the Corinthians to know that he anticipated a return to Corinth, and hopefully a stay of
several months. Timothy and Apollos might return as well.

16:5 At the time he wrote, Paul planned to head north from Ephesus and then
west, and to spend some time in Macedonia. "Macedonia" was the Roman
province north of Corinth, where Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea stood.
His plan was to then to travel south to Corinth. Paul later changed this
plan, and instead traveled directly from Ephesus to Corinth (2 Cor. 2:1;
12:14; 13:1-2), then returning to Ephesus (cf. 2 Cor. 2:5-8; 7:12). Later he
did visit Macedonia and then Corinth (2 Cor. 2:12-13; 7:6-16).654

16:6-7 Paul did "spend the winter" in Corinth, but it was the winter after the one
when he expected to be there, the winter of A.D. 57-58 rather than 56-57
(cf. Acts 20:2-3; Rom. 16:1, 23). He sensed the need to spend a good long
visit in Corinth ("I hope to remain with you for some time"), and in view
of the problems in the church that he mentioned in this letter, we can
understand why.

16:8 The Jews celebrated "Pentecost" in late May or early June, so Paul
probably wrote 1 Corinthians in the spring of the year (cf. 5:7; 15:20). It is
not unusual that, since he was a Jewish believer with the evangelization of
Jews on his heart, he would refer to important events in the Jewish
calendar such as Pentecost (Lev. 23:15-21). Perhaps the early Christians
paid more attention to the significant events in the life of the church than
many churches do today. Churches that observe "the Christian year" tend
to make more of these observances. The Feast of Pentecost, of course, also
marked the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).

16:9 Paul occasionally used the "door" as a metaphor for opportunity (cf. 2 Cor.
2:12; Col. 4:3). He stayed in Ephesus three years to take advantage of his
opportunities ("for effective service") there. He did not regard

652Fee,The First . . ., p. 817.

653Keener,1—2 Corinthians, p. 139.
654See Richard Batey, "Paul's Interaction with the Corinthians," Journal of Biblical Literature 84
(1985):139-43.
230 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

"adversaries" there as an indication of a closed door, or as a sign that God

wanted him to move on to a more comfortable ministry. He followed his
own advice, and remained "immovable" and "abounding in the work of the
Lord" in Ephesus (15:58).
16:10-11 Timothy's visit to Corinth from Ephesus was not very tentative. Paul had
already sent him (and Erastus; Acts 19:22), or was about to send him,
when he penned this epistle (4:17). Evidently Timothy's relative youth
tended to make some people look down on ("despise") him, and he tended
to be fearful (cf. 1 Tim. 4:12). Paul advised the Corinthians, who judged
by external appearances, to give Timothy the respect he deserved, for
doing "the Lord's work," as Paul was also doing—not just for Timothy's
own sake.
It may have been Timothy's report of conditions in Corinth, when he
returned to Ephesus, that moved Paul to go directly to Corinth himself,
rather than waiting until he had visited Macedonia. Paul later referred to
this visit as "painful," because while in Corinth he encountered strong
opposition (cf. 2 Cor. 2:1-8; 7:12; 12:14; 13:1-2).
16:12 This verse may contain Paul's final response to the questions the
Corinthians had asked him. It is the sixth instance of that key phrase peri
de ("Now concerning"). Paul's relations with eloquent "Apollos" were
perfectly friendly ("our brother"; "I encouraged him greatly"), as this verse
reveals (cf. 1:12). We do not know why Apollos did not want to revisit
Corinth with Timothy, or whether he ever did visit that city again.

IV. CONCLUSION 16:13-24

The Apostle Paul concluded this epistle with a series of imperatives, exhortations, and
news items.

A. FINAL EXHORTATIONS 16:13-18

Each section in this epistle concludes with some practical admonition. These verses
constitute a summary exhortation for the whole letter.
16:13-14 Paul urged his somewhat unstable readers to be watchful regarding
danger, from inside as well as from outside the church (cf. Acts 20:29-30).
Most of the problems in this church evidently arose from within the
congregation as a result of pagan influences. "Be on the alert" sometimes
occurs with anticipation of the Lord's coming again, so that event (the
Rapture) may have been in Paul's mind as well (e.g., Matt. 24:42). His
readers should also "stand firm" in their trust ("faith") in God, and in their
commitment to His Word and will (cf. 15:58).
Rather than acting like immature children, the Corinthian believers should
behave as ("act like") mature "men" (cf. 1:12). This exhortation is a call to
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 231

both bravery and maturity.655 They should "be strong" in the Lord, rather
than weak in the faith (cf. Josh. 1:7-8).

"You show me a weak, wobbling believer, and I will show

you a Christian not giving very much time to meditation
upon the Word of God. Show me one who is a strong,
devoted, earnest Christian, seeking only the glory of the
Lord Jesus Christ, and I will show you one who is living on
the Book."656

"And so, if you want strength, this is how you get it. Live
in fellowship with Christ, walk in the Spirit, feed upon His
Word, obey His Word, and then when the hour of trial
comes, you will not be weak-kneed, you will not be
vacillating, you will not be carried about like a leaf before
the wind. You will have strength to stand, and you will be
able to glorify God even in the fire."657

Above all, "love" should motivate and distinguish Paul's readers (ch. 13):
"Let all that you do be done in love." This was the greatest need of this
church. These verses summarize what Paul expected of his readers in all
that he wrote in this letter.

16:15-16 The Corinthians had a special problem with submission to authority, as we

have seen. Many in the church wanted to do their own thing. Verses 16-18
would have encouraged them to appreciate some less flashy servants of
the Lord.

"Stephanas" and his family ("household") were Paul's first converts ("first
fruits") in "Achaia," the province in which Corinth stood (1:16). They had
given themselves unselfishly to serving the Corinthians. They were
probably loyal to Paul, and may have been the source from which the
apostle received some of his information about conditions in this church.
Paul urged his readers to appreciate Stephanas and his family for their
"ministry," and not to ignore them, but to submit humbly to ("be in
subjection to") them. They should treat others such as them with similar
honor ("such men and to everyone who helps in the work and [who]
labors"). Service, not status, should be the basis for honor in the church.

16:17-18 "Stephanas" had recently visited Paul in Ephesus with the two other
Corinthian brothers the apostle named ("Fortunatus and Achaicus"). They
may have carried the questions that Paul had answered in this letter, as
well as information about conditions in the church. Travelers carried all

655The Nelson . . ., p. 1941.

656Ironside, p. 558.
657Ibid., p. 560.
232 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

the mail except government business in the ancient biblical world.658

These people had all given refreshing ministry to Paul ("refreshed my
spirit"), as they typically did in Corinth. Paul wanted the Corinthians to be
sure to recognize ("acknowledge") them as well.

B. FINAL GREETINGS AND BENEDICTION 16:19-24

"The letter now concludes with a series of standard (for Paul) greetings (vv. 19-
22) and the grace-benediction (v. 23). But Paul cannot quite give up the urgency
of the letter, so he interrupts these two rather constant elements of his conclusions
with one final word of warning to those who have been causing him grief, this
time in the form of an extraordinary curse formula (v. 22). The apparent harshness
of this warning is matched by the equally unusual addition of a final word of
affirmation of his love for them (v. 24), found only here in his extant letters. Thus
even to the end the unique concerns that have forged this letter find their
expression."659

16:19 Several "churches" in the Roman province of "Asia" had come into
existence while Paul used its capital city, Ephesus, as his base of
operations (Acts 19:10). References to "Asia" in the New Testament
consistently refer to the Roman province of Asia, which lay in the west
and southwest of the geographical region of Asia Minor.

The names of "Aquila" and "Prisca" (Priscilla) usually occur in reverse

order in the New Testament. Evidently their friends, of which Paul was
one, felt free to use both orders. This suggests that they served the Lord as
a harmonious team with individual strengths and talents. They had lived in
Corinth after leaving Rome (Acts 18:2), and it apparently was there that
Paul first met them. Later they had left Corinth to travel to Ephesus with
Paul, and had settled in that city (Acts 18:18-21). Their house in Corinth
then became a meeting place for the church (cf. Rom. 16:5). Church
buildings were unknown until the third century.660

16:20 The "holy kiss," holy because saints (1:2) exchanged it, was a common
practice among believers, and it still is today in some parts of the world.

"The holy kiss (cf. 2 Cor. 13:12; Rom. 16:16; 1 Thes. 5:25
[sic, 26]; 1 Peter 5:14) was primarily a symbolic expression
of the love, forgiveness, and unity which should exist
among Christians. As such, it became associated with the
celebration of the Lord's Supper as a prelude to its
observance (cf. Justin Apology 1. 65. 2). It was a mark of
the familial bond which united believers. There is no

658Keener, 1—2 Corinthians, p. 140.

659Fee,The First . . ., p. 834.
660Barclay, The Letter . . ., p. 187
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 233

indication that it was restricted to one's own sex in the New

Testament era (cf. Luke 7:37, 45). The suggestion to
separate the sexes for the exchange of the kiss arose in the
late second century due to concern about criticism from
non-Christians and the danger of erotic abuse (cf.
Athenagorus Supplication 32; Clement of Alexandria
Pedagogue 3. 81. 2-4)."661

16:21 Paul customarily dictated his letters, and a secretary wrote them down (cf.
Rom. 16:22). However, he usually added a word of greeting at the end, in
his own hand, that authenticated his epistles as coming from him (cf. Gal.
6:11; Col. 4:18; 2 Thess. 3:17). All of what follows is probably what he
added.

16:22 Normally Paul used the Greek word agape for "love" (except in Titus
3:15). Here he used phileo: "If anyone does not love the Lord, he is to be
accursed." Consequently this may have been a saying believers used in the
congregational worship of the churches. "Maranatha" (NASB) is an
Aramaic expression meaning "Our Lord, come." Probably Paul did not
translate it into Greek, because believers commonly spoke it in Aramaic in
the services of the early church (cf. Rev. 22:20). Since it was Aramaic, the
word probably originated in Palestine where people spoke that language.
They likely exported it to the Greek-speaking congregations that retained
its form.

"It is strange to meet with an Aramaic phrase in a Greek

letter to a Greek Church. The explanation is that that phrase
had become a watchword and a password. It summed up
the vital hope of the early Church, and Christians
whispered it to each other, identified each other by it, in a
language which the heathen could not understand."662

"It would appear, then, that the fixed usage of the term
'Maranatha' by the early Christians was a witness to their
strong belief in the imminent return of Christ. If they knew
that Christ could not return at any moment because of other
events or a time period that had to transpire first [i.e., the
Tribulation], why did they petition Him in a way that
implied that He could come at any moment?"663

"Maranatha" can mean "Come, Lord," or "The Lord is coming."

661Lowery, "1 Corinthians," p. 548.

662Barclay,The Letter . . ., p. 188.
663Showers, p. 131. Cf. Rev. 3:11; 22:7, 12, 17, 20.
234 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

16:23-24 Paul concluded this strong, but loving epistle, with a prayerful benediction
of God's "grace." Note that this letter also began, "Grace to you" (1:3).

"Grace is the beginning and the end of the Chrstian [sic]

gospel; it is the single word that most fully expresses what
God has done and will do for his people in Christ Jesus."664

Paul also added assurance of his own ("my") "love" for "all" the believers
in Corinth ("you all"), not just those who supported him.

664Fee, The First . . ., p. 839.

2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 235

Appendix 1
What ends a marriage in God's sight?

Jesus' teaching
Matthew 5:27-32
1. Adultery is a sin. v. 27 (Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18)
2. Lusting after someone sexually is a form of adultery, so it's sin. v. 28
3. Therefore, Jesus' disciples need to deal with sexual temptations seriously. vv.
29-30
4. Moses allowed the Israelites to divorce. v. 31
5. People who divorce and then remarry someone else commit adultery. v. 32
6. But, remarriage by the innocent party in a divorce doesn't result in adultery if
the guilty party was sexually unfaithful. v. 32
7. (Marital unfaithfulness, Gr. pornea, means having sexual intercourse with
anyone other than one's spouse.)
8. Summary: Divorce is permissible, but it's never God's best (Mal. 2:16).

Matthew 19:9
(Same as points 5-7 above.)

Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18

(Same as point 5 above.)

Paul's teaching
1 Cor. 7:11-16
1. Christians who divorce have two options: remain unmarried or be reconciled.
vv. 11-12
2. Christians who are married to non-Christians shouldn't initiate a divorce. v. 13
3. Christians who are married to non-Christians shouldn't refuse to grant a
divorce if their mate insists on getting one. vv. 14-16

1 Cor. 7:39-40
1. Only death ends a marriage in God's sight (not adultery, marital
unfaithfulness, or a divorce). v. 39
2. Widows and widowers are free to remarry other Christians. v. 39
3. But they may be happier if they remain unmarried. v. 40
236 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Appendix 2
Summary of my understanding of spiritual gifts

It seems to me that the New Testament presents spiritual gifts as abilities that God gives
Christians. Every ability that any human being has is God-given, so in one sense all
human abilities are spiritual gifts in that they are gifts of the Holy Spirit. In this sense,
non-Christians as well as Christians have spiritual gifts. All that anyone has comes from
God and is a gift of His grace. God gives people abilities at birth and at various times
after birth.

But in the sense in which the New Testament uses the term “spirituals” (1 Cor. 12:1; Gr.
charismata), it refers to gifts (abilities) that pertain particularly to spiritual life and
ministry. Therefore, such natural abilities as manual dexterity, athletic prowess,
intellectual quickness, etc., are not what is in view in the New Testament discussions of
spiritual gifts. What is in view is abilities with which Christians can function in the
spiritual realm of life, and in the church, serving Christ.

The lists of these gifts in the New Testament seem to allow for other gifts besides those
listed. This seems clear since the gift of celibacy is called a charisma (1 Cor. 7:7), and yet
it does not appear in any of the lists of spiritual gifts. Since "faith," "hope," and "love" are
abilities with which Christians can function in the spiritual realm of life, and in the
church, serving Christ, I consider them spiritual gifts, in addition to being fruits of the
Spirit. Furthermore, they occur prominently in the heart of Paul’s discussion of spiritual
gifts in 1 Corinthians 12—14.

The gift of "apostle" and the gift of "prophet" are especially difficult to understand
because they have both a technical meaning and a general meaning in the New
Testament. There were official "Apostles" and "Prophets," but there were, and still are,
unofficial "apostles" and "prophets." I am capitalizing the words or not capitalizing them
deliberately in order to highlight the distinction between the two types of apostles and the
two types of prophets.

Technically, the Apostles totaled 13, being the Twelve plus Paul: individuals who saw
Christ, and whom Christ personally appointed to establish the church (1 Cor. 9:1). In the
general sense, "apostles" are, by definition (Gr. apostolos), those sent out with a message.
In this sense, there have been many apostles, not only in the first century, but throughout
the history of the church. The New Testament refers to Barnabas, Timothy, and others, in
this sense, as "apostles" (Acts 14:4; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). The function of all apostles,
both official Apostles and functional apostles, was to plant and establish new churches.

Likewise, the New Testament also uses "prophets" in a technical sense and in a general
sense. Technically, "Prophets" were individuals who received new authoritative
revelation from the Lord and communicated it to God’s people. This sometimes involved
foretelling the future. In the general sense of the word, "prophets" spoke forth words from
the Lord: words of exhortation, edification, and consolation (1 Cor. 14:3). In this sense,
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 237

"prophets" led in the worship of God (cf. 1 Chron. 25:1). This kind of prophesying was
giving, not new revelation, but just a message that the Lord had laid on the prophet's
heart to share. This is what Agabus did in Acts 21:11, and what Philip’s daughters did
(Acts 21:9). There are no "Prophets" in the church today, but there are many "prophets."
Preachers typically do what prophets in the New Testament did when they exhort,
encourage, and comfort Christians with their words. Old Testament prophets were of both
types: official Prophets, and functional prophets.

Official Apostles The Twelve and the Apostle Paul

Functional apostles Church planters and missionaries
Official Prophets Communicators of new revelation
Functional prophets Communicators of exhortation, edification,
and consolation

The list of gifted men that God gave the church in Ephesians 4 appears to be in the order
of their importance to the church throughout its history. The Apostles and Prophets
established the church, the body of Christ, and evangelists and pastor-teachers have built
on that foundation. The list in 1 Corinthians 12 also appears to be in order of importance.
This seems clear since, in the context, Paul is arguing that all gifts are important, not just
the Apostles and Prophets, who were very prominent and highly regarded.

The difference between the gift of prophesying and the gift of teaching, in the early
church, was that prophesying involved sharing a word that the Lord had laid on the heart
of the prophet, but teaching involved the interpretation and explanation of the Scriptures.
Paul allowed women to prophesy in the church meetings, but not to teach, because
teaching was the more authoritative gift compared to unofficial prophesying (1 Cor. 11:5;
1 Tim. 2:11-12). “Teachers” occurs after “Prophets” in the list of gifts in 1 Corinthians
12, because official Prophets are in view, not unofficial prophets. Official Prophets had
more authority than teachers.

Regarding the cessation of the sign gifts, it seems to me that the best argument for their
cessation is from church history. While Scripture states and implies that the gift of
tongues, for example, would fade away (1 Cor. 13:8; Eph. 2:20; Heb. 2:3-4), it does not
say when. Some of the church fathers who lived in the early generations following the
Apostles, however, referred to the fading out of these phenomena. (See my note on Acts
19:6 in my Notes on Acts for some references in the Fathers.) So the conclusion that
tongues, and the other sign gifts, have ceased is a deduction based on several Scriptures
(like the doctrine of the Trinity), rather than the teaching of any one verse.665

The practice of speaking in tongues in private is something that Paul did not discuss, but
it is something that some Christians advocate. Paul wrote that speaking in tongues in
private edifies the one speaking in tongues, but it does not edify the church (1 Cor. 14:4).
In the whole discussion of tongues in this passage, he was speaking about speaking in a

665See also Cliff Allcorn, "On the Futility of Accepting the Charismatic Sign Gifts for Current Use,"
Journal of Dispensational Theology 16:49 (December 2012):61-79.
238 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

foreign language. He was also speaking about the regular exercise of this ability. If the
gift of tongues has ceased, and I believe it has, then the point is moot: we do not exercise
an ability in public or in private that is no longer available to Christians. Nonetheless
some claim that they have the ability to speak in foreign languages in private. If they
cannot interpret their tongues, Paul's admonition to keep silent applies to the private use
of "the gift" as well as to its public use, because it is not building up the speaker
spiritually. What Paul meant when he wrote that the person speaking in a tongue in
private edifies himself is, I believe, that he or she is encouraged that he or she has been
given this ability, and that person feels a measure of euphoria as he or she does so.

I also make a distinction between the phenomenon of speaking in tongues (or healing, or
performing miracles, etc.), and the gift of speaking in tongues (et al.). The phenomenon
describes random instances in which people have spoken in tongues, often much to their
own surprise. This typically happens only once or a few times in a person's life. The gift
describes the ability to speak in tongues frequently and at will (subject to the Holy Spirit's
control). Today, we describe a person as gifted if that one has a continuing ability to
demonstrate proficiency in some practice, and I think this accurately reflects the gifts of
the Spirit in the New Testament. The difference is not only in the duration, however. The
phenomenon is something God initiates in a more direct way than is true in the exercise
of the gift, in which the gifted person plays a more assertive part, though empowered by
the Spirit. Whereas I do not believe the gift of tongues (or healing, or performing
miracles) is in the church today, I do believe God enables a few individuals to speak a
language that they have not studied (or to heal another person, etc.) on rare occasions. I
regard these as divine interventions rather than examples of divine giftedness. Perhaps the
tongues spoken on the Day of Pentecost illustrate divine intervention rather than gifted
Christians using their gift. We do not have enough information about whether the
Christians who spoke in tongues on the Day of Pentecost had the continuing ability to do
this or not. I suspect that they did not, and that this was a case of divine intervention.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 239

Appendix 3
240 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Bibliography
Adams, Jay. Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. Phillipsburg, N.J.:
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980.
Adeyemi, Femi. "The New Covenant Law and the Law of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra
163:652 (October-December 2006):438-52.
Allcorn, Cliff. "On the Futility of Accepting the Charismatic Sign Gifts for Current Use."
Journal of Dispensational Theology 16:49 (December 2012):61-79.
Andrews, J. N. "May Women Speak in Meeting?" Review and Herald. January 2, 1879.
Reprinted in Adventist Review 165:5 (February 4, 1988):17.
Arndt, William F., and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament. Fourth ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville:
Word Publishing Co., 1999. Reprinted as Nelson's New Testament Survey.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1999.
Barclay, William. By What Authority? Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1974.
_____. The Letters to the Corinthians. The Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh:
Saint Andrew Press, 1962.
Barrett, Charles Kingsley. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
Harper's New Testament Commentaries series. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.
Bassler, Jouette M. "Paul's Theology: Whence and Whither?" In Pauline Theology. Vol.
II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 3-17. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1993.
Batey, Richard. "Paul's Interaction with the Corinthians." Journal of Biblical Literature
84 (1965):139-46.
Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.
Bedale, Stephen. "The Meaning of kephale in the Pauline Epistles." Journal of
Theological Studies NS5 (1954):211-15.
Beet, J. Agar. A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians. 6th ed. London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1895.
Berding, Kenneth. "Confusing Word and Concept in 'Spiritual Gifts': Have We Forgotten
James Barr's Exhortations?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1
(March 2000):37-51.
Bilezikian, Gilbert G. Beyond Sex Roles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985.
Blampied, Anne B. "Paul and Silence for 'The Women' in I Corinthians 14:34-35." Studia
Biblica et Theologica 18:2 (October 1983):143-65.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 241

Blomquist, Jean M. "The Effect of the Divorce Experience on Spiritual Growth."

Pastoral Psychology 34:2 (Winter 1985):82-91.
Brindle, Wayne A. "Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture." Bibliotheca
Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):138-51.
Bruce, F. F., ed. 1 and 2 Corinthians. New Century Bible series. London: Marshall,
Morgan and Scott, Oliphants, 1971.
_____. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books,
1982.
Buckley, Jack. "Paul, Women, and the Church." Eternity 31:11 (December 1980):30-35.
Burns, J. Lanier. "A Reemphasis on the Purpose of Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:527
(July-September 1975):242-49.
Caird, George Bradford. Principalities and Powers. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.
Calvin, John. The First Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians. Translated by
John W. Fraser. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. Calvin's
Commentaries series. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1973.
_____. Institutes of the Christian Religion. The Library of Christian Classics series,
volumes 20 and 21. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.
Campbell, Barth. "Flesh and Spirit in 1 Cor 5:5: An Exercise in Rhetorical Criticism of
the NT." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:3 (September
1993):331-42.
Carson, Donald. A. The Cross & Christian Ministry: An Exposition of Passages from 1
Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, and Leicester, England:
InterVarsity Press, 1993.
Carson, Donald A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.
Chadwick, H. "'All Things to All Men' (I Cor. IX. 22)." New Testament Studies 1 (1954-
55):261-75.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry. He That Is Spiritual. 1918; revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, Academie Books, 1967.
_____. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.
Chitwood, Arlen L. Judgment Seat of Christ. Norman, Okla.: The Lamp Broadcast, Inc.,
1986.
Clagett, John Y. "The Concept of Conscience and Its Relation to the Christian Ethic in
the Corinthian Epistles." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1971.
242 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Clark, Stephen B. Man and Woman in Christ. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant Books, 1980.
Cole, Sherwood A. "Biology, Homosexuality, and Moral Culpability." Bibliotheca Sacra
154:615 (July-September 1997):355-66.
Constable, Robert L. Called Saints: Studies in I Corinthians 1-3 Moody Manna series.
Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1962.
_____. Live Saints: Studies in I Corinthians 4-16. Moody Manna series. Chicago: Moody
Bible Institute, 1966.
Constable, Thomas L. "The Gospel Message." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 201-17.
Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.
Conybeare, William John, and John Saul Howson. The Life and Epistles of St. Paul.
London: n.p., 1851; New ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1964.
Conzelmann, H. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.
Cousar, Charles B. "Expository Articles: I Corinthians 2:1-13." Interpretation 44:2 (April
1990):169-73.
_____. "The Theological Task of 1 Corinthians." In Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2
Corinthians, pp. 90-102. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1993.
Dahms, John V. "The Subordination of the Son." Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 37:3 (September 1994):351-64.
Darby, John Nelson. Notes of Readings on the Epistles to the Corinthians. London:
Moorish, n.d.
_____. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux
Brothers Publishers, 1942.
Davis, Stephen T. Risen Indeed: Making Sense of the Resurrection. Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993.
Decker, Rodney J. "The Church's Relationship to the New Covenant." Bibliotheca Sacra
152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305.
Deere, Jack. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1993.
Deluz, Gaston. A Companion to I Corinthians. Edited and translated by Grace E. Watt.
London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1963.
A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1898 ed. 4 vols. S.v. "Lord's Day,"
by N. J. D. White, 3:138-41.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 243

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle
Publishing Co., 1992.
_____. Speaking in Tongues: Seven Crucial Questions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1975.
Dobbins, Richard. "Two Sinister Forces Undermining Clergy Marriages." Ministries 4:1
(Winter 1985-86):31-32, 39.
Dods, Marcus. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1889.
Dollar, George W. "Church History and the Tongues Movement." Bibliotheca Sacra
120:480 (October-December 1963):316-21.
Donfried, K. P. "Justification and Last Judgment in Paul." Interpretation 30:2 (April
1976):140-52.
Edersheim, Alfred. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services As They Were at the Time of
Jesus Christ. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972.
Edgar, Thomas R. "The Cessation of the Sign Gifts." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:580
(October-December 1988):371-86.
_____. Miraculous Gifts: Are They for Today? Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers
Publishers, 1983.
Ellicott, Charles T. St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Longmans, Green,
1887.
Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. "Proclaiming the Lord's Death." In Pauline Theology. Vol. II:
1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 103-32. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1993.
Erdman, Charles R. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1928.
Fairbairn, Patrick. The Typology of Scripture. 2 vols. Sixth ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1876.
Farnell, F. David. "Is the Gift of Prophecy for Today?" Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-
September 1992):277-303; 596 (October-December 1992):387-410; 150:597
(January-March 1993):62-88; and 598 (April-June 1993):171-202.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on
the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1987.
_____. "Tongues—Least of the Gifts? Some Exegetical Observations on 1 Corinthians
12—14." Pneuma 2 (1980):3-14.
244 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

_____. "Toward a Theology of 1 Corinthians." In Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2

Corinthians, pp. 37-58. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1993.

Fiddes, Paul S. "'Woman's Head Is Man:' A Doctrinal Reflection upon a Pauline Text."
Baptist Quarterly 31:8 (October 1986):370-83.

Findlay, G. G. "The First Epistle to the Corinthians." In The Expositor's Greek

Testament. 2 (1912):727-953. 4th ed. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. London:
5 vols. Hodder and Stoughton, 1900-12.

Fishbane, Michael, "Through the Looking Glass: Reflections on Ezek 43:3, Num 12:8
and 1 Cor 13:8." Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1986):63-74.

Fisk, Bruce K. "Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behavior and Pauline Response
in 1 Corinthians 8—10 (A Response to Gordon Fee)," Trinity Journal 10 NS:1
(Spring 1989):49-70.

Foh, Susan T. Women and the Word of God. Philipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1979.

Fung, Ronald Y. K. "The Nature of the Ministry according to Paul," Evangelical

Quarterly 54 (1982):129-46.

Furnish, Victor Paul. "Theology in 1 Corinthians." In Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2
Corinthians, pp. 59-89. Edited by David M. Hay. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1993.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and
New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gaffin, Richard B., Jr. "'Life-Giving Spirit': Probing the Center of Paul's Pneumatology."
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:4 (December 1998):573-89.

Gangel, Kenneth O. "Biblical Feminism and Church Leadership." Bibliotheca Sacra

140:557 (January-March 1983):55-63.
Geisler, Norman L. "The Significance of Christ's Physical Resurrection." Bibliotheca
Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):148-70.

Geldard, Mark. "Jesus' Teaching on Divorce: Thoughts on the Meaning of porneia in

Matthew 5:32 and 19:9." Churchman 92:2 (1978):134-43.

Gilmour, S. M. "Pastoral Care in the New Testament Church." New Testament Studies 10
(1963-64):393-98.

Glenn, Donald R. "Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2: A Case Study in Biblical Hermeneutics and
Biblical Theology." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 39-51. Edited by Donald K.
Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 245

Godet, F. Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. 2 vols.
Translated by A. Cusin. Classic Commentary Library series. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1886; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.
Gonzalez, Eliezer. "Healing in the Pauline Epistles: Why the Silence?" Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 56:3 (September 2013):557-75.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L.
Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.
Greenbury, James. "1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Evaluation of Prophecy Revisited." Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 51:4 (December 2008):721-31.
Gromacki, Robert Glenn. The Modern Tongues Movement. Philadelphia: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1967.
Grosheide, F. W. Commentary on the First Epistles to the Corinthians. New International
Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1953.
Grudem, Wayne. "Does kephale ('Head') Mean 'Source' or 'Authority Over' in Greek
Literature? A survey of 2,336 Examples." Trinity Journal 6NS (1985):38-59.
_____. The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians. Washington, D.C.: University Press of
America, 1982.
_____. The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. Westchester, Ill.:
Crossway Books, 1988.
_____ "The Meaning of kephale: A Response to Recent Studies." Trinity Journal 11NS
(1990):3-72.
_____. "The Meaning of kephale ('head'): An Evaluation of New Evidence, Real and
Alleged." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:1 (March 2001):25-
65.
_____. "Prophecy—Yes, But Teaching—No: Paul's Consistent Advocacy of Women's
Participation Without Governing Authority." Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 30:1 (March 1987):11-23.
_____. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.
_____. "Why Christians Can Still Prophesy." Christianity Today, September 16, 1988,
pp.29-31, 34-35.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press,
1966.
Habermas, Gary, and Anthony Flew. Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1987.
Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Edited by Leslie F. Church. 1 vol. ed.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.
246 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Heth, William A., and Gordon J. Wenham. Jesus and Divorce. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1984.
Hiebert, D. Edmond. "Evidence from 1 Corinthians 15." In A Case for Premillennialism:
A New Consensus, pp. 225-34. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L.
Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.
Hill, C. E. "Paul's Understanding of Christ's Kingdom in I Corinthians 15:20-28." Novum
Testamentum 30:4 (October 1988):297-320.
Hitchcock, Mark L. "A Defense of the Domitianic Date of the Book of Revelation."
Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2005.
Hodge, Charles. A Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians. 1857 and 1859; reprint ed.
Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1983.
Hodges, Zane C. Grace in Eclipse. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.
_____. The Hungry Inherit. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.
_____. "The Purpose of Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:479 (July-September
1963):226-33.
Hoehner, Harold W. "The Purpose of Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:20-25." In Walvoord:
A Tribute, pp. 53-66. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press,
1982.
Holmyard, Harold R., III. "Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Refer to Women Praying and
Prophesying in Church?" Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December
1997):461-72.
Hooker, Morna D. "Authority on Her Head: An Examination of I Cor. XI. 10." New
Testament Studies 10 (1963-64):410-16.
Houghton, Myron J. "A Reexamination of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13." Bibliotheca Sacra
153:611 (July-September 1996):344-56.
House, H. Wayne. "Caught in the Middle," Kindred Spirit 13:2 (Summer 1989):12-14.
_____. "The Ministry of Women in the Apostolic and Postapostolic Periods." Bibliotheca
Sacra 145:580 (October-December 1988):387-99.
_____. "Resurrection, Reincarnation, and Humanness." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590
(April-June 1991):131-50.
_____. "Should a Woman Prophesy or Preach before Men?" Bibliotheca Sacra 145:578
(April-June 1988):141-61.
_____. "The Speaking of Women and the Prohibition of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra
145:579 (July-September 1988):301-18.
_____. "Tongues and the Mystery Religions of Corinth." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:558
(April-June 1983):134-50.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 247

Howell, Timothy D. "The Church and the AIDS Crisis." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593
(January-March 1992):74-82.
Hoyt, Samuel L. "The Judgment Seat of Christ and Unconfessed Sins." Bibliotheca Sacra
137:545 (January-March 1980):32-40.
_____. "The Negative Aspects of the Christian's Judgment." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:546
(April-June 1980):125-32.
Hullinger, Jerry M. "The Historical Background of Paul's Athletic Allusions."
Bibliotheca Sacra 161:643 July-September 2004):343-59.
_____. "The Problem of Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40—48." Bibliotheca Sacra
152:607 (July-September 1995):279-89.
Hurd, J. C., Jr. The Origin of I Corinthians. New York: Seabury Press, 1965.
Hurley, James B. Man and Woman In Biblical Perspective. Contemporary Evangelical
Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.
Hwang, Jerry. "Turning the Tables on Idol Feasts: Paul's Use of Exodus 32:6 in 1
Corinthians 10:7." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54:3
(September 2011):573-87.
Ironside, Harry A. Addresses on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. New York:
Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1938.
Irvin, Dorothy. "The Ministry of Women in the Early Church: The Archaeological
Evidence." Touchstone 4:1 (January 1986):24-33.
Isaksson, Abel. "Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple." Translated by Neil
Tomkinson. Th.D. dissertation, University of Uppsala, Sweden, 1965.
Jackson, Thomas A. "Concerning Spiritual Gifts: A Study of I Corinthians 12." Faith and
Mission 7:1 (Fall 1989):61-69.
Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. Commentary Practical and
Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1961.
Jeremias, Joachim. "Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God." New
Testament Studies 2 (1955-56):151-59.
_____. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1969.
Jewett, Paul K. Man as Male and Female. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1975.
Johnson, Elliott E. Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, Academie Books, 1990.
248 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity."
Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.
Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "1 Corinthians." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1227-60.
Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press,
1962.
_____. "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480
(October-December 1963):309-11.
Jones, Peter. "Paul Confronts Paganism in the Church: A Case Study of First Corinthians
15:45." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (49:4 (December
2006):713-37.
Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston.
London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866; reprint ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1988.
Justice, Sam. "Clergy Divorce: A Perplexing Problem." Ministries 4:1 (Winter 1985-
86):24-25, 29-30.
Keener, Craig S. 1—2 Corinthians. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
_____. "Women's Education and Public Speech in Antiquity." Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 50:4 (December 2007):747-59.
Keil, C. F. and Franz Delitzsch. The Pentateuch. 3 vols. Translated by James Martin.
Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.
Kitchens, Ted G. "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra
148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.
Knight, George W., III. The New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men
and Women. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.
Lacey, W. K. The Family in Classical Greece. London: Thames and Hudson, 1968.
Lampe, Peter. "Theological Wisdom and the 'Word About the Cross': The Rhetorical
Scheme in I Corinthians 1—4." Interpretation 44:2 (April 1990):117-31.
Lampe, W. H. "Church Discipline and the Interpretation of the Epistles to the
Corinthians." In Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John
Knox. Edited by W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, and R. R. Niebuhr. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Laney, J. Carl. "The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572
(October-December 1986):353-64.
_____. The Divorce Myth. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1981.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 249

Lange, John Peter, ed. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 10: Romans and Corinthians, by
J. P. Lange, F. R. Fay, and Christian Friedrich Kling. Translated by J. F. Hurst,
Daniel W. Poor, and Conway P. Wing.
Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the
Corinthians. 1937. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.
Lester, Andrew D. "Some Observations on the Psychological Effects of Women in
Ministry." Review and Expositor 83:1 (Winter 1986):63-70.
Lias, J. J. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary
series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1888.
Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on the Epistles of St Paul. Reprint ed. Winona Lake, Ind.: Alpha
Publications, n.d.
Lightner, Robert P. Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.
_____. Speaking in Tongues and Divine Healing. Second ed. Schaumburg, Ill.: Regular
Baptist Press, 1978.
Lincicum, David. "Paul and the Testimonia: Quo Vademus?" Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 51:2 (June 2008):297-308.
Lindars, Barnabas. "The Sound of the Trumpet: Paul and Eschatology." Bulletin of the
John Rylands University Library of Manchester 67:2 (Spring 1985):766-82.
Litfin, A. Duane. "Evangelical Feminism: Why Traditionalists Reject It." Bibliotheca
Sacra 136:543 (July-September 1979):259-71.
López, René A. "Does The Jesus Family Tomb Disprove His Physical Resurrection?"
Bibliotheca Sacra 165:660 (October-December 2008):425-46.
_____. "Does the Vice List in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Describe Believers or Unbelievers?"
Bibliotheca Sacra 164:653 (January-March 2007):59-73.
_____. "The Nature of the Resurrection Body of Jesus and Believers." Bibliotheca Sacra
170:678 (April-June 2013):143-53.
_____. "A Study of Pauline Passages on Inheriting the Kingdom." Bibliotheca Sacra
168:672 (October-December 2011):443-59.
_____. "A Study of Pauline Passages with Vice Lists." Bibliotheca Sacra 168:671 (July-
September 2011):301-16.
_____. "Views on Paul's Vice Lists and Inheriting the Kingdom." Bibliotheca Sacra
168:669 (January-March 2011)81-97.
Lowery, David K. "1 Corinthians." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New
Testament pp. 505-49. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton:
Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.
250 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

_____. "The Head Covering and the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:2-34." Bibliotheca
Sacra 143:570 (April-June 1986):155-63.
_____. "A Theology of Paul's Missionary Epistles." In A Biblical Theology of the New
Testament, pp. 243-97. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.
MacArthur, John F., Jr. 1 Corinthians. MacArthur New Testament Commentary series.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1984.
_____. Charismatic Chaos. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.
_____. The Charismatics: A Doctrinal Perspective. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1979.
_____. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing,
1993.
Malick, David E. "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9."
Bibliotheca Sacra 150:600 (October-December 1993):479-92.
Mare, W. Harold. "1 Corinthians." In Romans-Galatians. Vol. 10 of The Expositor's
Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.
McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom, An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of
God. Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1959; Chicago: Moody Press, 1968.
McDowell, Josh. More Than A Carpenter. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1977.
McGee, J. Vernon. Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee. 5 vols. Pasadena, Calif.: Thru
The Bible Radio; and Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983.
McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. revised by C.
S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.
McRae, William. Dynamics of Spiritual Gifts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1976.
Merkle, Benjamin L. "Paul's Arguments from Creation in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and 1
Timothy 2:13-14: An Apparent Inconsistency Answered." Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 49:3 (September 2006):527-48.
Mollenkott, Virginia. Women, Men and the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 1977.
Morgan, G. Campbell. The Corinthian Letters of Paul. New York: Fleming H. Revell
Co., 1946.
_____. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell
Co., 1912.
Morison, Frank. Who Moved the Stone? Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,
1958.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 251

Morris, Leon. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958.
Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar: Second Edition. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 2003.
Murray, John. Divorce. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972.
The Nelson Study Bible. Edited by Earl D. Radmacher. Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1997.
The NET (New English Translation) Bible. First beta printing. Spokane, Wash.: Biblical
Studies Press, 2001.
Neubauer, Adolf, ed. The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, According to the Jewish
Interpreters. 2 vols. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1969.
The New Scofield Reference Bible. Edited by E. Schuyler English, et al. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1967.
Nyquist, J. Paul, and Carson Nyquist. The Post-Church Christian. Chicago: Moody
Publishers, 2013.
Oldham, Roger Singleton. "Positional and Functional Equality: An Appraisal of the
Major Arguments for the Ordination of Women." Mid-America Theological
Journal 9:2 (Fall 1985):1-29.
Olshausen, H. Biblical Commentary on St. Paul's First and Second Epistles to the
Corinthians. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1851.
Ortlund, Gavin. "Resurrected as Messiah: The Risen Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King."
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54:4 (December 2011):749-66.
Page, Sydney H. T. "Satan: God's Servant." Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 50:3 (September 2007):449-65.
Pentecost, J. Dwight. Pattern for Maturity. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.
_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1963.
_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.
Pfeifer, Daniel J. "Which Came First, the Symbol or the Referent? A Study of the
Historical Twelve." Bibliotheca Sacra 172:688 (October-December 2015):433-
49.
Pickup, Martin. "New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament: The Theological
Rationale of Midrashic Exegesis." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
51:2 (June 2008):353-81.
_____. "'On the Third Day': The Time Frame of Jesus' Death and Resurrection." Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 56:3 (September 2013):511-42.
252 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Plummer, Robert L. "Imitation of Paul and the Church's Missionary Role in 1

Corinthians." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:2 (June
2001):219-35.
Poirier, John C. The Tongues of Angels: The Concept of Angelic Languages in Classical
Jewish and Christian Texts. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament 2/287. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Poythress, Vern Sheridan. "Modern Spiritual Gifts as Analogous to Apostolic Gifts:
Affirming Extraordinary Works of the Spirit within Cessationist Theology."
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:1 (March 1996):71-101.
Proctor, John. "Fire in God's House: Influence of Malachi 3 in the NT." Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):9-14.
Pyne, Robert A. "The Role of the Holy Spirit in Conversion." Bibliotheca Sacra 150:598
(April-June 1993):203-18.
Quine, Jay A. "Court Involvement in Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593
(January-March 1992):60-73, and 594 (April-June 1992):223-36.
Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Revised ed. Boston: W. A. Wilde
Co., 1956.
Ramsay, William M. The Cities of St. Paul. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1907.
Reaume, John D. "Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15:29, 'Baptized for the Dead'."
Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):457-75.
Reese, Alexander. The Approaching Advent of Christ. London: Marshall, Morgan and
Scott, 1937; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications,
1975.
Rhyne, C. Thomas. "Expository Articles: I Corinthians 3:1-9." Interpretation 44:2 (April
1990):174-78.
Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1975.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1931.
Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. International Critical Commentary
series. Second ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.
Rosner, Brian S. "Temple and Holiness in 1 Corinthians 5." Tyndale Bulletin 42
(1991):137-45.
Rosscup, James E. "A New Look at 1 Corinthians 3:12—'Gold, Silver, Precious Stones.'"
Master's Seminary Journal 1:1 (Spring (1990):33-51.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 253

Ryrie, Charles C. Balancing the Christian Life. Chicago: Moody Press, 1969.
_____. Basic Theology. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1986.
_____. "Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage." By the Author, 1981.
_____. "Contrasting Views on Sanctification." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 189-200.
Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.
_____. The Grace of God. Chicago: Moody Press, 1963.
_____. The Holy Spirit. Handbook of Bible Doctrine series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.
_____. The Place of Women in the Church. New York: Macmillan, 1958; reprint ed.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1968. (A 1978 edition, also published by Moody Press,
was titled The Role of Women in the Church.)
_____. The Ryrie Study Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978.
_____. "What Is Spirituality?" Bibliotheca Sacra 126:503 (July-September 1969):204-13.
_____. You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . .. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.
Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1993.
_____. "'Sinners' Who Are Forgiven or 'Saints' Who Sin?" Biblitheca Sacra 152:608
(October-December 1995):400-12.
Savage, Paula A. "Greek Women's Dress." Biblical Illustrator 12:2 (Winter 1986):17-23.
Scanzoni, Letha and Nancy Hardesty. All We're Meant to Be. Waco: Word Books, 1975.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. 8 vols. 1910. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.
Sellers, C. Norman. Biblical Conclusions Concerning Tongues. Miami: By the author,
n.d.
Simon, W. G. H. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: Introduction and Commentary.
London: SCM, 1959.
Smith, Jay E. "Can Fallen Leaders Be Restored to Leadership? Bibliotheca Sacra
151:604 (October-December 1994):455-80.
_____. "Slogans in 1 Corinthians." Bibliotheca Sacra 167:655 (January-March 2010):68-
88.
Smith, Wilbur. "Inheritance and Reward in Heaven." Eternity, March 1977, p. 79.
Smith, William Robertson. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. 3rd ed. New York:
Ktav Publishing House, 1969.
254 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Spurgeon, Andrew B. "Pauline Commands and Women in 1 Corinthians 14." Bibliotheca

Sacra 168:671 (July-September 2011):317-33.
Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle
Publishing Co., 1991.
Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986.
Sweeney, James. "Jesus, Paul, and the Temple: An Exploration of Some Patterns of
Continuity." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46:4 (December
2003):605-31.
Sweeting, George. Love Is the Greatest. 1968; revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.
Terry, Milton S. Biblical Hermeneutics. Second ed. Reprinted. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1964.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 1964-76 ed. 10 vols.
S.v. "erchomai," by Johannes Schneider, 2(1964):666-75..
Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.
Thomas, Robert L. "1 Cor 13:11 Revisited: an Exegetical Update." Master's Seminary
Journal 4:2 (Fall 1993):187-201.
_____. "Prophecy Rediscovered? A Review of The Gift of Prophecy in the New
Testament and Today." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (January-March 1992):83-96.
_____. "'Tongues . . . Will Cease'." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 17:2
(Spring 1974):81-89.
_____. Understanding Spiritual Gifts: An exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 12-14.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1978.
Thomson, W. M. The Land and the Book. 2 vols. New York: Harper & Brothers
Publishers, 1873.
Thrall, M. E. The First and Second Letters of Paul to the Corinthians. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1965.
Toussaint, Stanley D. "First Corinthians Thirteen and The Tongues Question,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):311-16.
_____. "Rethinking Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 172:686 (April-June 2015):177-189.
_____. "The Spiritual Man." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June 1968):139-46.
_____. "Suffering in Acts and the Pauline Epistles." In Why, O God? Suffering and
Disability in the Bible and the Church, pp. 183-93. Edited by Larry J. Waters and
Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Crossway, 2011.
2017 Edition Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 255

Ukleja, P. Michael. "Homosexuality in the New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:560

(October-December 1983):350-58.
Unger, Merrill F. New Testament Teaching on Tongues. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids:
Kregel, 1971.
Verbruggen, Jan L. "Of Muzzles and Oxen: Deuteronomy 25:4 and 1 Corinthians 9:9."
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49:4 (December 2006):699-711.
Vine, W. E. 1 Corinthians. London: Oliphants, 1951.
von Campenhausen, H. Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the
First Three Centuries. Stanford: Stanford University, 1969.
Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.
Waltke, Bruce K. "1 Corinthians 11:2-16: An Interpretation." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:537
(January-March 1978):46-57.
Walvoord, John F. The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation. Contemporary Evangelical
Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
_____. "Contemporary Issues in the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Part IV: Spiritual Gifts
Today." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:520 (October-December 1973):315-28. Reprinted
as "The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:570 (April-June
1986):109-21.
_____. The Holy Spirit. 1954. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.
_____. The Rapture Question. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1957.
Waters, Larry J. "Paradoxes in the Pauline Epistles." Bibliotheca Sacra 167:668
(October-December 2010):423-41.
Wenham, John. The Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? Second
ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.
White, Joel R. "Baptized on Account of the Dead": The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29
in its Context." Journal of Biblical Literature 116:3 (1997):487-99.
White, R. Fowler. "Does God Speak Today Apart from the Bible? In The Coming
Evangelical Crisis, pp. 77-90. Edited by John H. Armstrong. Chicago: Moody
Press, 1996.
Wiersbe, Warren W. The Bible Exposition Commentary. 2 vols. Wheaton: Scripture
Press, Victor Books, 1989.
Wilkin, Robert N. "Are All Things Lawful for Believers?" Grace Evangelical Society
Newsletter 4:7 (July 1989):2.
_____. "The So-Called So-Called Brother." Grace Evangelical Society News 6:10
(October 1991):2-3.
256 Dr. Constable's Notes on 1 Corinthians 2017 Edition

Wilson, Kenneth T. "Should Women Wear Headcoverings?" Bibliotheca Sacra 148:592

(October-December 1991):442-62.
Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca
Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.
Zuck, Roy B. "The Doctrine of Conscience." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-
December 1969):329-40.