The Cross of Christ

THE CROSS: PARADIGM OF FAITHFULNESS. Paul's letters offer very little information about the man Jesus. But when Paul refers to what Jesus did, the references point, over and over again, to the cross. This concentration on the death of Jesus is the outworking of Paul's determination "to know nothing … except Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2).

Gentle, Meek and Humble (Matthew 11:29)

Taking up Jesus' yoke and burden doesn't give you freedom from suffering, but a freedom from self, which to say the least is suffocating.

Taking up Jesus' yoke is also to give up control over your life and over others. You think you have safety and security when you're in control. Yet the precise opposite is true. Wanting control is to play God over your life and the lives of others, which God never intends. Acting in control is the root of sin [for you think you're in control and in charge like God] and will only bring disappointment, despair, despondency, desperation and destruction.

If you're gentle, meek, humble and accommodating in heart toward others, you'll be a lot more peaceful and the world--including the church--will be a much better place.

No Choice but to Preach the Gospel (1 Cor 9:15-18)

Outline of 1 Corinthians 9:

1. I'm not using my rights (9:1-14). I have rights, but I'm not using it.
   • In defense of his apostleship (9:1-2)
   • Paul's apostolic rights (9:3-14)
2. I'm freely renouncing my rights (9:15-23)
   • Paul's apostolic restraint (9:15-18)
   • Paul's apostolic freedom (9:19-23). I'm a truly free man. [Those who want to be in control won't like such a man.]
3. Self Discipline required to renounce rights (9:24-27). Exhortation and example.

Paul renounces his rights (9:15–18): The apostolic model. From 9:4-14 Paul listed all of his rights in detail. He provided elaborate extensive explanation, and with support from Scripture, and from Jesus as to why he should absolutely be receiving financial support from them. It's his unquestionable undeniable right for them to support him, for he had ministered to them for 18 months. After all this buildup, one expects Paul to demand and insist that they pay up and pay him what they rightfully ought to give him. But, as he's stated (1 Cor 9:12b), this is the exact opposite of his intent!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Paul never wanted anyone to be able to accuse him of preaching for money (2 Cor 2:17). Yet--by not accepting any money from them--they accused him for not being a real apostle (1 Cor 9:1), for if he was, he'd have accepted payment for his apostolic services like the other apostles (1 Cor 9:4-5, 12). Paul was indeed in a no win situation! There'd always be someone on one side or the other to judge and criticize him. Yet, he was a truly free man (1 Cor 9:19a), whose singular motivation was to preach the gospel (1 Cor 1:17, 23; 2:2; 9:17), believing that the gospel is the only power of God for salvation (1 Cor 1:18; Rom 1:16).

The dramatic climax and pivot-point of ch. 9 (1 Cor 9:15). "I'd rather die than make use of any of my rights..." (1 Cor 9:15b). The sentence in Gk halts abruptly. Then he blurts out that no one will deprive him of his "boast." He explains in 1 Cor 9:16–18. Despite all the biblical reasons to receive financial support, including Jesus' command (1 Cor 9:14), Paul won't take money because he's NOT working voluntarily as an apostle. Unlike the sophists, he won't receive fees for his services. His service is rendered to God, NOT willingly (!) but because he has been "entrusted with a commission / trust" (1 Cor 9:17). It's the image of the slave as steward (4:1–4).

Paul's divine call (1 Cor 9:16-17). Preaching the gospel was not just a job with Paul. It wasn't another way for him to make a living, just a profession. Rather, it was a divine call, an imperative call, an inescapable responsibility. He was not a preacher by choice. He was a preacher by conviction / obligation / necessity. He wasn't in it to make an easy living. Paul preaches because "necessity is laid upon me" (1 Cor 9:16; 7:26). "Necessity" ["obligation"] has been laid upon him by God. To Jeremiah, it's "something like a burning fire shut up in my bones" (Jer. 20:9). He has no choice but to proclaim the gospel. Therefore, his "reward" is, paradoxically, to make the gospel available to others "free of charge" [(1 Cor 9:18); cf. his caustic description of other preachers as "peddlers of God's Word" (2 Cor 2:17)], and NOT make use of his rights.

How is this a "reward" (1 Cor 9:18)? "In offering the 'free' gospel 'free of charge' his own ministry becomes a living paradigm of the gospel itself" (Gordon Fee). His renunciation of rights allows him to share in the pattern of Christ's own sacrificial action and thereby paradoxically to share in the life giving blessings of God.

Reference:

1. Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. 1997.
2. Gordon D. Fee. First Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the NT. 1987.
   
3. Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. A Contemporary Introduction to N.T. Ethics. 1996.
4. M.R. De Haan. Studies in First Corinthians. 1995.

Gender Distinction and Equality (1 Cor 11:2-16)

Hairstyles and Gender Distinctions (11:2–16) Distinction and Equality. Distinct and Different, yet Equal.

Does our culture today erase distinctions between men and women in the name of freedom? Would Paul think that's cool? What's the big deal anyway if we do? Should there be a hierarchy in society or in the church between men and women? Isn't egalitarianism "better"? How do you use your freedom to be your authentic self and not abuse it? Are there any guiding principles in using your freedom?

From something they wrote Paul, they affirm their loyalty to the traditions he'd handed to them (1 Cor 11:2). From what follows, they're arguing for certain practices that would erase the distinctions between men and women in worship—which Paul disapproves. Hearing only Paul's side of the conversation, perhaps they wrote to him as follows:

Dear Paul, We remember you fondly and wish that we could see you again. Some of us are trying hard to maintain the traditions you taught us, such as the tradition we learned at our baptism that in Christ there's no longer any distinction between male and female [Gal 3:27–28]. You'd be glad to know that, when we come together for worship, the women in church continue to play a role equal to the men, praying and prophesying freely in the assembly under the inspiration of the Spirit, just as they did when you were here with us. But a dispute has now arisen: some women, acting in the freedom and power of the Spirit, have begun to remove their head coverings and loose their hair when they prophesy, as a sign of their freedom in Christ. Some of the more timid and conservative members of the community have objected, thinking it unseemly and disgraceful for women to let their hair down in public. Most of us believe that you'd surely approve of this, for it's an outward and visible sign of the tradition we received from you. Could comment on this in order to dispel any doubt about this point? We remain

Your devoted followers,
The church in Corinth

Rather than endorse the women's freedom to prophesy with unbound hair, Paul instead instructs them to maintain the discipline symbolized by head coverings. His reasoning is obscure, without knowing how to interpret some of the key terms in the argument and because his argument is labored and convoluted. In view of the uncertainty surrounding these matters, it's impossible to give a fully confident interpretation. But it's possible to affirm some things clearly about Paul's argument, which must be kept in mind:

• Paul endorses the freedom of women to pray and prophesy in the assembly; the only question is what sort of headdress is appropriate for them while exercising this freedom.
• The patriarchal order (1 Cor 11:3, 7–9) is set in counterpoint with mutual interdependence of men and women "in the Lord" (1 Cor 11:11–12).
• The passage is  a symbolic distinction between the sexes and doesn't require subordination of women—even though some of Paul's arguments presuppose a hierarchical ordering.
• The immediate concern of the passage is for them to avoid bringing shame on the church.

Free to not wear head coverings. Some women enthusiastically embraced the early Christian tradition that in Christ there is no male and female (Gal 3:28), and they're seeking to transcend their sexuality. Some women removed their head coverings or let their hair down in worship to discard a traditional marker of gender distinction. The head covering—whatever it was—symbolized their femininity and simultaneously their inferior status as women. To throw it off was to throw off a symbol of confinement and to enter the realm of freedom and autonomy traditionally accorded only to men. This symbolic function of the head covering is expressed in the Hellenistic Jewish narrative Joseph and Aseneth (1st century B.C.E. or 1st or 2nd century C.E.): after her conversion to Judaism, the young woman Aseneth is ordered by an angel to remove her head covering, "because you are a holy virgin today and your head is as that of a young man" (Joseph and Aseneth 15:1–2). The Corinthian women who rejected head coverings were giving expression to a similar claim of transformed spiritual status. Paul shares the view that women enjoy a new spiritual status in Christ; however, just as in ch. 7, he rejects some of the behavioral inferences that they're drawing from this theological truth.

A hierarchical chain of being (1 Cor 11:3) with "head" (kephal) as a metaphorical sense is how Paul 1st comes at their question about head coverings indirectly. [Some explain away the hierarchical implications by arguing that kephal means "source" rather than "ruler." This is a possible meaning when Paul alludes to Genesis describing the creation of woman out of man (1 Cor 11:8). But in the whole shape of the argument, the patriarchal implications of 1 Cor 11:3 are undeniable. Cf. 1 Cor 11:7–9.] The argument about bare heads in worship is thereby placed within a symbolic framework different from the one they had been presupposing. The covering or uncovering of the head is not a sign of individual freedom, but it signifies either respect or disrespect for one's superior in the hierarchy. So, to display the head inappropriately attired in worship is to bring shame upon one's figurative "head" (1 Cor 11:4–5). Analogous customs persist in our social world. If a man shows up at a formal dinner—or in church—wearing a baseball cap it'd be perceived as rude and irreverent. In ancient Mediterranean culture such a breach of etiquette brings disgrace not only on the perpetrator but also on the "head" to whom that person was responsible. Paul's concern is that women who pray and prophesy with "uncovered" heads (1 Cor 11:5) are in effect shaming the men of the congregation. [For men to cover their heads would bring shame to Christ. Since Paul focuses primarily on the women, his comments about men's head coverings are purely hypothetical.]

Paul's directives apply to everyone in the church, married or unmarried: women should cover heads in worship; men should not. In Greek there are no words equivalent to the English "husband" and "wife": the generic words for "man" (anr) and "woman" (gyn) do double duty, and the context determines whether reference to a married couple is intended. Here the context doesn't help. [NRSV translates as "husband" and "wife" (1 Cor 11:3), but as "man" and "woman" elsewhere the passage; this seems arbitrary.]

"Covered" and "uncovered" heads. What does Paul want the women to do? Traditionally it was understood that women should wear veils, and this continues to exert influence over English translations (NRSV, NEB, JB). But "veil" occurs nowhere in the passage. A more literal translation is by the NIV: "every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head" (1 Cor 11:5-6). Paul is clearly discussing hair (1 Cor 11:13-15); he affirms that a woman's long hair is "given to her for a covering." Some suggest that the whole passage deals not with wearing a veil but with having the hair bound or unbound. To have the head "covered" would mean to have the hair tied up on top of the head rather than hanging loose. This makes excellent sense.

Women having loose hair in public in Greek/Roman cultures was conventionally shameful, a sign associated with prostitutes or—perhaps worse from Paul's point of view—with women caught up in the cult worship practices associated with Dionysius, Cybele, and Isis. [It wasn't the normal custom for women to be veiled; thus, it's hard to see how their being unveiled in worship would be controversial or shameful.] Paul is concerned that the practice of Christian prophecy be sharply distinguished from the frenzied behavior of prophetesses in pagan worship (14:26–33, 37–40). The symbolic confusion introduced by women with loose, disheveled hair in the Christian assembly would therefore be shameful. If women won't keep their hair bound up, they should cut it off—an action which is self-evidently disgraceful.

Strictly an argument about honor and shame (1 Cor 11:4-6). Some women were acting in ways that brought shame on the community by blurring the traditional lines of gender distinction and/or by appearing to act in a disgraceful or disorderly manner. Such conduct brings shame on the men in the church, whose "headship" is discredited by the disorderly behavior of the women. The logic of Paul's advice depends upon unspoken and undefended (because "self-evident") assumptions about what is honorable and shameful behavior for men and women in 1st-century Greco-Roman culture. For our culture, it'd be as though Paul had written, "Men shouldn't come to church wearing dresses, and women shouldn't come to church topless." Whatever one may think about the ultimate theological validity of such judgments, they're understandable pastoral advice.

Theological stakes raised with the Genesis creation story (1 Cor 11:7-9). A man shouldn't cover his head because man is created as "the image and glory of God" (Gen 1:27), but woman is "the glory of man." Regrettably, Paul gets into a theological quagmire. Gen 1:27 explicitly says that humankind is created "in the image of God … male and female he created them." Paul's interpretation seems to depend on a tradition—perhaps based on Gen 2:7—that thinks of the male only as originally created in God's image. Also, it's difficult to see how Genesis provides any support for the notion that woman is the "glory" of man (1 Esdras 4:17: "Women … bring men glory"). Additionally, Paul fails to explain how any of this is relevant to the issue of head coverings. Perhaps he means that the man with uncovered head will reflect the glory of God by letting the divine image shine forth (2 Cor 3:18). If so, this would then help explain why women should be covered: given Paul's assumption that woman is the glory of the man, her uncovered head would then inappropriately reflect the man's glory in the worship setting, deflecting attention from God's glory. None of this is stated in Paul's argument. He leaves us to infer the relevance of 1 Cor 11:7.

The ontological priority of the male (1 Cor 11:8-9). Man was created 1st and the woman "out of" him (Gen 2:21–23), and the woman was created for the man (Gen 2:18), not the other way around. These exegetical observations provide further support for Paul's insistence that the symbolic distinctions between the genders must acknowledge the right hierarchical ordering between male and female (1 Cor 11:3).

Unpersuasive and objectionable today, but the central imperative of the unit is "let her be covered" (1 Cor 11:6), with 1 Cor 11:7–9 in support. The covering of the woman with bound-up hair appropriately symbolizes her relation to the man within the order of creation; the unbinding of the hair effaces the created distinction between the sexes and somehow impugns the man's role as bearer of the image of God. Though cringe worthy today to some/many, this is what Paul actually wrote.

"For this reason a woman ought to have authority upon her head, because of the angels" (1 Cor 11:10). [If not confused and confounded already, Paul abruptly interjects a sentence that has remained almost completely bewildering.]  2 very difficult problems:

1. what does the idiom "to have authority upon her head" mean, and 
2. what do "angels" have to do with the argument? 

With Q1, some answers traditionally given can be rejected. The word "authority" (exousia) does not mean "veil" (as in the RSV), nor is there any reason to think that Paul means a woman ought to have a symbol of being under authority on her head. "To have authority" in Greek always means, just as it does in English, to exercise authority, not to submit to it. Thus, 2 interpretations are plausible. On the one hand, the sentence might mean that a woman should wear her hair bound up as a symbol of her new authority in Christ to prophesy and pray in the assembly. This interpretation seems incongruous with the context, and it's unclear how bound-up hair, which was the normal cultural custom, would serve to symbolize a new authoritative status for women. More likely, the expression should be translated "to have authority over [epi] her head" ["have authority over" (Rev 11:6b; 14:18; 20:6) means that she should take charge of her hair and keep it under control, i.e., bound up rather than loose. This is consonant with the specific directive that Paul has already given to women (1 Cor 11:5–6). By telling the women to "take charge" of their own heads, Paul seeks to transform the symbolic connotations of the head covering: the bound hair becomes a fitting symbol of the self-control and orderliness that Paul desires for the community as a whole.

With Q2, Paul's fleeting reference to angels here is completely cryptic, for nothing is said about them before or after this. Among the many guesses proposed, 2 are worthy of mention. From antiquity, some interpreters have suggested that Paul regards the uncovered heads of woman as a sexual provocation to the angels, who might be tempted to mate with the women (Gen 6:1–4). But if Paul intended to express this rather bizarre idea, he'd have offered a somewhat fuller explanation. More likely is that Paul thinks of the angels as present with the worshiping community as guardians of order and as participants in the church's praise to God; parallels to this idea can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Presumably, Paul means that the community ought to behave in a decorous manner because of the presence of these heavenly "dignitaries" in their midst. Whether he thinks the angels would be offended by the women's loose hair or whether he thinks the angels might in some way punish disorderly behavior is impossible to say; the text simply offers us too little to go on.

Functionally equal. Paul actually reaffirms the theological convictions that had led the women to discard their head coverings in the first place (1 Cor 11:11-12). Social decorum does require women and men to maintain symbolic distinctions, and such distinctions have a basis in creation itself (11:3–9). Nevertheless "in the Lord" (1 Cor 11:11) things are different. Men and women live in mutual interdependence. This doesn't mean that the differences between the sexes are abolished, but that they are both radically dependent on God (1 Cor 11:12b; 8:6) and that they're called to live as complementary partners in Christ. These statements do not, as is sometimes claimed, contradict or revoke the position that Paul articulated (11:3–10). Rather, they render it more complex. The hierarchical order that Paul sketched (1 Cor 11:3, 7–9) is counterbalanced by other considerations. So, the earlier statement that woman is "from man"—an exegetical remark based on Genesis 2—is now balanced by the argument that "man comes through woman" in childbirth. The result is that Paul supports a functional equality of men and women in the church. Women are free to pray and prophesy and exercise leadership through the guidance of the Spirit, so long as they maintain the external markers of gender difference, particularly with regard to head coverings.

An argument from "nature" (1 Cor 11:13–15) and an argument from "custom" are 2 more considerations. Judge for themselves (1 Cor 11:13) is not really an open invitation to independent judgment, but a rhetorical gesture with a set of questions whose answers are self-evident. "Nature" teaches that long hair is shameful for men and glorious for women. Such appeal as a source of behavioral norms is characteristic of the Stoic and Cynic philosophers—and highly unusual in Paul. This is another case (1 Cor 3:21–22; 6:7) where Paul points out, with much irony, that the philosophical wisdom on which they pride themselves ought to lead them to behave differently. Paul's comments parallel that of Epictetus: "Can anything be more useless than the hairs on a chin? Well, what then? Has not nature used even these in the most suitable way possible? Has she not by these means distinguished between the male and the female? … Wherefore, we ought to preserve the signs [symbola] which God has given; we ought not to throw them away; we ought not, so far as in us lies, to confuse the sexes which have been distinguished in this fashion."

They regard themselves as transcending the patterns of "nature" as understood in their culture. By virtue of possessing the Spirit, they were able to know and do things beyond the capacity of ordinary mortals. Paul's appeal and invocation of a particular cultural code was intended to bring them back down to earth and remind them that they're still living within the constraints of finitude while awaiting the return of the Lord. If that is the major burden of the argument in 11:2–16, the parallel to Paul's arguments about sex and marriage is strong indeed.

Paul reckons with continuing contentiousness from them on this issue (1 Cor 11:16). Perhaps Paul recognizes the weakness of his own rather fragmented argument. His trump card, then, is to appeal to the custom of "the churches of God." Presumably he's referring not only to his own mission churches but to other early Christian communities, including Jewish-Christian communities that look to Jerusalem as their spiritual leader. This final argument assumes that they'll recognize themselves as bound to respect the uniformity of practice in the other churches of the fledgling Christian movement. Whether this argument in fact carried any weight with them or not, Paul seems to regard it as decisive: Even if they do not accept his arguments, they should conform their head-covering practices to those of the other churches, because they are called to be one with "all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 1:2).

REFLECTIONS. More than any other passage in this letter, 11:2–16 presents severe problems for the interpreter. 1st principle to apply is the principle of hermeneutical honesty: don't pretend to understand more than you do. With this passage, acknowledge that we can neither understand it entirely nor accept it entirely. Tell the truth about such matters helps us recognize more clearly the great cultural distance between 1st-century Corinth and our world. But don't say that the text doesn't apply to us because it is "culturally conditioned," for all texts are culturally conditioned. 

The aim of Paul's letters is to reshape his churches into cultural patterns that he takes to be consistent with the gospel. The question to ask is whether Paul's directives are persuasive on their own terms, whether he successfully mounts an argument consonant with his own fundamental theological vision. If not, the argument has no weight at all; if so, then we have to ask how his advice to them might speak analogically to Christians in dramatically different cultural settings.

Are Paul's arguments persuasive on their own terms? The picture is complex. Paul focuses on the created distinction between man and woman and places that distinction within a larger view of the complementarity of the sexes (1 Cor 11:11–12). His arguments make sense and are consistent with the theological vision that he articulates throughout the letter. His advice for men and women to maintain their traditional symbolic gender distinctions even in Christian worship is one more expression of the "eschatological reservation" that he has articulated repeatedly: the community in Christ should remain in the condition in which they were called (7:17–24) while they await the coming of the Lord. To transcend or eradicate gender differences are premature and presumptuous, for "Christians are not angels." [Talbert] They live in the world with a specific gender identity, male or female.

In addition to a hierarchy based on gender, Paul's argument becomes strained and begins to break down, by his problematical exegesis of Genesis. If Gen 1:27 provides the overarching framework within which Genesis 2 must be read, then in fact women as well as men are created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Then, the hierarchical chain (1 Cor 11:3) and the argument for women's head coverings (1 Cor 11:7) lose their validity.

The Revised Common Lectionary doesn't deal with this text, but questions about it will arise from time to time. Perhaps the best way to deal with it is in the context of a study group, where the various proposals for interpreting the text can be fully considered. In the context of such a study, several issues should be highlighted--distinction and equality.

1. The created distinction between man and woman should be honored in the church. Symbolic "gender-bending" actions in which women and men seek to reject their specific sexual identities are a sign not of authentic spirituality but of an adolescent impatience with the world in which God has placed us. We're not disembodied spirits. Thus, spiritual maturity in Christ will lead us to become mature women and men in Christ. Our dress and outward appearance should appropriately reflect our gender identity; to blur these distinctions is to bring shame on the church. With rampant confusion about gender identity in our culture, Paul's teaching is timely for us. A healthy church needs men and women together (1 Cor 11:11), not one with sexless neutrality.
2. The functional equality of men and women in worship and church leadership should be emphasized. Head coverings for women are not to restrict their participation in prayer and prophecy but to enable them to perform these activities with dignity, avoiding distractions for people whose cultural sensibilities were formed by the social conventions of the ancient Mediterranean world. Anyone who appeals to this passage to silence women or to deny them leadership roles in the church is flagrantly misusing the text. The gift of prophecy is "from God" (1 Cor 11:12b), and women and men alike can exercise it freely. Churches today have begun to recover the long-suppression of women's ministry and leadership in the church. This work of the Spirit would be celebrated by Paul.
3. Confronting the patriarchal implications (1 Cor 11:3, 7–9) is required by any honest appraisal. They cannot be explained away [translating kephal as "source," cf. "head"], for the patriarchal assumptions are in Paul's argument. An approaches to this problem is to show how patriarchal presuppositions shape Paul's reading of Gen 1:27 thro' the lens of Gen 2:7, and to consider other readings that challenge it. Reconsider how the doctrine of creation might lead us to conclusions about the relation between male and female that are not precisely the same as Paul's. Another strategy begins with...
• "God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor 11:3) and what such headship means in a trinitarian understanding of God. Paul often operated with a subordinationist christology (1 Cor 15:28). However, through a theological tradition affirming Christ's full participation in the Godhead, how does this affect our understanding of the analogy between "God is the head of Christ" and "man is the head of woman" (1 Cor 11:3)? The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity works against the subordinationist: implications of Paul about men and women. Rethink how "in the Lord" men and women participate together in a new identity that transcends notions of superiority and inferiority. This moves us beyond simplistic arguments about whether Paul was right or wrong and enables us to rethink more deeply the substantive theological issues raised by his treatment of hairstyles in the worship of the Corinthian church.

You love when you are known by God (1 Cor 8:1-13)

Who or what deceives [destroys] "weak" members of the church? It is the "strong." It is those with power and influence over others in the church. Sexual misbehavior and misappropriation of money by leaders is obviously destructive. But what about using church money for personal benefit and/or lavish living in the name of serving the gospel? What about using one's position of leadership to boost our own ego and/or to impose our will and agenda on others in the name of Christ? In the church at Corinth it was eating food sacrificed to idols by the "knowledgeable." But the root problem was that they were puffed up/inflated with pride (1 Cor 8:1). Today, it might be using [abusing] one's power, privilege, pedigree and position of authority in the church to fulfil one's own ego and agenda, and then justifying it by using the Bible and quoting Scripture. This is also being puffed up and inflated with pride, which is always deceptive and destructive to the weak (1 Cor 8:9), because it is idolatry. It has caused many to leave the sanctuary of the church and return to the clutches of the world. Outline:

1. The way of love and the way of knowledge (8:1-3)
2. The content of the way of knowledge (8:4-6)
3. The criterion--care for a brother or sister (8:7-13)

Marketplace food is the problem where Paul first responds by addressing the "strong" by invoking the stumbling block principle (8:1-13; 10:30-11:1) in a vigorous combative manner. Ch. 9 functions as an illustration, by way of digression, of his own giving up his freedom for the rights of others. The main issue is not primarily marketplace food, but the eating of sacrificial food at the pagan temples (10:1-22), which was a regular part of worship in antiquity, where such meals were the regular practice both at state festivals and private celebrations, and was also the basic "restaurant" in antiquity, where every kind of occasion was celebrated in this fashion. As with going to prostitutes (6:12-20), it is forbidden both on theological (10:14-22) and ethical (8:1-13) grounds. Then 10:23-11:1 Paul concludes with the matter of idol food sold in the market and eaten in private homes. Paul's answer here is considerably different: they may do as they wish unless someone else present at the meal calls attention to its idolatrous origins. Since Paul forbids idolatry, they took exception to that prohibition, making these points:

1. They argue that they "all have knowledge" (1 Cor 8:1) about idols--that it's nothing at all (1 Cor 8:4)--which Paul will agree. Thus, attending temples is OK since it's only eating with friends and not worshipping what does not exist.
2. They have knowledge about food--that it is a matter of indifference to God (1 Cor 8:8)--which Paul also agrees. So why should Paul forbid them from going to temples.
3. They seem to have a somewhat "magical" view of the sacraments, that 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. They question whether Paul has the proper apostolic authority to forbid them on this matter, because
1. his failure to accept support while with them, and
2. his own apparently compromising stance on idol food sold in the marketplace (he abstained when eating with Jews, but ate when eating with Gentiles (9:19-23).
5. They may also be arguing that others will be "built up" (1 Cor 8:9-10). But by pressing for this right in the name of gnosis [knowledge], they're abusing some others among them who cold not make these fine distinctions. Being invited to join them at the same banquets, these believers with "weak consciences" are being destroyed because for them it is a return to idolatry and an abandoning of Christ. 

Thus, for Paul these issues need to be squared away.

1. His first concern is with the attitude that lay behind their behavior and argument. They misunderstand the nature of Christian ethics, which springs not from knowledge but from love (8:1-13).
2. Calling into question his authority and freedom as an apostle (1 Cor 1:12; 4:18-21; 5:1-5; 9:1-3). So in 9:1-27 he launches into a vigorous defense of his apostleship [in terms of his "right" to their support, even if he has given it up (9:3-18) and of his freedom to act as he does about idol food (9:19-23)].
3. Misunderstanding the true nature of idolatry and their false security in the Christian sacraments. Hence he warns them in 10:1-13 on the basis of analogies from Israel, that the Christian sacraments are no sure protection against disobedience, and in 10:14-22 he prohibits attendance at cultic meals in temples, expanding on 8:4-6 that idolatry involves the worship of demons.
4. A final word about the eating of marketplace food (10:23-11:1). They may buy and eat at will (1 Cor 10:25), with the one proviso that they should abstain if in a pagan home someone points out its temple origins (1 Cor 10:27-28).

Love Builds Up, Knowledge Puffs up (8:1-13)

Incorrect ethical basis with the problem of "food sacrificed to idols" (eidlothyta). Another issue from their letter is controversy about whether it's permissible to eat meat from animals used in pagan sacrifices. This is one of the few fundamental restrictions imposed on Gentile converts by the apostolic council at Jerusalem (Ac 15:28–29; Didache 6.3). In the letters to the 7 churches, eating idol meat is linked with fornication; Pergamum and Thyatira are castigated for tolerating such practices (Rev 2:14, 20). Such a polemic was necessary, for this was a live issue in the churches of Asia Minor near the end of the first century. In contrast...

Paul doesn't render a simple judgment. He launches into a long, complex, complicated argument (8:1–11:1). In 8:1–13 and 10:23–30, idol meat is actually harmless, nonetheless the enlightened are to abstain for the sake of others. In 10:14–22, Paul seems to prohibit any contact with idol meat: "You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons" (1 Cor 10:21b). How do these different arguments fit together, if at all? And how is Paul defending his refusal of financial support (9:1–27) related to any of this? Some critics have suggested that these chapters do not hang together and must be fragments of different letters. But the argument makes sense when read as a whole. One key to following Paul's argument is to recognize that he's primarily addressing the problem of sacrificial food consumed in the temple of the pagan god (1 Cor 8:10; 10:14, 21). That must have been the primary issue raised by their letter. Only in 10:25–30 does he discuss meat sold in the market and served in private homes. 4 movements in Paul's treatment of the idol meat problem:

1. 1st movement: Knowledge puffs up; love builds up (8:1–13)
2. 2nd movement: The apostolic example of renouncing rights (9:1–27)
3. 3rd movement: Warning against idolatry (10:1–22)
4. Conclusion: Use your freedom for the glory of God (10:23–11:1)

The force of Paul's argument is appreciated only in its entirety. No one piece should be taken in isolation. That Paul crafts such an elaborate argument concerning idol meat shows that it was a major issue in the church. Though this may seem an obscure problem today, take this section seriously to understand what was at stake. Idol meat was a hot-button issue because it dramatized 3 much larger concerns:

1. the problem of boundaries between the church and pagan culture, 
2. the strained relationship between different social classes in the community, and 
3. the relation between knowledge and love as the foundation of the church's life. 

Knowledge Puffs Up, but Love Builds Up (8:1–13). Paul begins with a brief quotation [as in ch. 7] recapping the content of what they had written, followed by his own pithy corrective response.

• Corinthians: "All of us possess knowledge."
• Paul: Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

The conversational diatribe style continues throughout. Paul reflects their views back to them (1 Cor 8:1, 4, 8) and replies in counterpoint, seeking to provoke them to reexamine their understanding of the gospel. The conflict: Are Christians free to eat meat from animals slaughtered in pagan cultic rituals? The issue had arisen particularly because some Corinthian Christians were attending feasts held in the pagan temples, where meat was served to all present (1 Cor 8:10).

Their justification for this practice may be reconstructed from Paul's remarks. As enlightened Christians, they possess "knowledge" (gnosis) that there's only one god and that pagan idols are nothing other than lifeless statues, having no power to help or harm anyone (1 Cor 8:4). Furthermore, they also have the "knowledge"—in accord with Paul's own teaching—that food is spiritually insignificant (1 Cor 8:8). Just as Gentiles need not seek God's approval by keeping Jewish dietary laws, so also they need not worry about the source of the meat they eat. Those Christians who fear defilement from idol meat are simply ignorant and superstitious. The strong Christian, armed with the appropriate gnosis, can go without compunction to the pagan temple and eat whatever is offered there; indeed, doing so may be a way to demonstrate one's spiritual maturity and freedom. Those who advocate this position may actually have argued that their more scrupulous brothers and sisters—the "weak," as their letter called them—should try to build up the strength of their own consciences by attending such ceremonies and eating the idol meat. If they'd only do that, they'd see that no harm comes of it, and their consciousness would be raised. Their letter probably appealed to Paul to set the record straight by encouraging the weak to overcome their qualms and enter the world of spiritual freedom enjoyed by those who possess gnosis.

A socioeconomic aspect to the argument about idol food. Feasts held in temples were common events in the daily life of a Greco-Roman city. Wealthier Corinthians would've been invited to meals in such places as a regular part of their social life, to celebrate birthdays, weddings, healings attributed to the god, etc. For those few Corinthian Christians who were among the wealthier class (1 Cor 1:26–29), their public and professional duties virtually required the networking that occurred through attending and sponsoring such events. To eat the sacrificial meat served on such occasions was simple social courtesy; to refuse would be an affront to the host. The specifically religious connotations of the act might not have seemed particularly important. Within the social circle of the poorer Corinthians, such meat-eating wouldn't be commonplace. Meat wasn't an ordinary part of their diet, being accessible only at certain public religious festivals where there was a general distribution of meat. Consequently, the wealthy and powerful, who also had the most advanced education, would take the eating of meat in stride and readily accept the view that it was a matter of spiritual indifference; at the same time, however, the poor might regard meat as laden with "numinous" religious connotations. The distinction between "the weak" and those with "knowledge" may have fallen, to some extent, along socioeconomic lines.

Paul's response must have shocked the gnosis group. Rather than taking their side, Paul seizes the occasion to challenge those with "knowledge" to reconsider their actions on the basis of very different standards. He provisionally accepts the slogan that all have knowledge (1 Cor 8:1; but see 1 Cor 8:7), but suggests that knowledge is defective if it fails to build up the community in love. Knowledge "puffs up." This vivid metaphorical verb used several times already: urging them not to be "puffed up in favor of one against another" (1 Cor 4:6), warning them not to be puffed up against his own apostolic authority (1 Cor 4:18–19), and castigating them for being puffed up about (or in spite of) the case of incest in their midst (1 Cor 5:2). Here in 8:1 the cause of this prideful puffing up is stated explicitly for the first time: gnosis can lead to arrogance.

Paul doesn't mean that there were Gnostics at Corinth. Gnosticism as a formal religious movement, with its dualistic cosmology and elaborately developed speculative teachings, did not emerge until the 2nd century; Paul isn't confronting the Gnostic heresies that later Christian writers such as Irenaeus battled. Among the Corinthians, there're only incipient tendencies, the seeds that later sprouted into Gnosticism--such as a spiritual elitism that separated the church into different classes based on the possession of "knowledge." Those in the know could feel superior to others who lacked their privileged perspective. They could imagine themselves being saved through their own intellectual and spiritual capacities, rather than by God's grace alone.

Love, which builds up the community (1 Cor 8:1b), is what really matters, in sharp contrast to this "soteriology of knowledge." Paradoxically, those who boast in their own exalted knowledge demonstrate precisely by that boasting that they do not yet "know as [they] ought to know" (1 Cor 8:2), for the one who knows rightly will love the brothers and sisters in the community. 

Are you "known by God"? Paul goes on to make a different point: "anyone who loves God is known by God" (1 Cor 8:3). We'd expect Paul to say, "anyone who loves God knows God truly," but the reversal of subject and object in the last clause of the verse expresses a truth close to the heart of Paul's theology: The initiative in salvation comes from God, not from us. It is God who loves first (1 Jn 4:19), God who elects us and delivers us from the power of sin and death. It is God's prior action on our behalf. That is, our love of God is predicated on God's prior knowledge of us. Thus, what counts is not our knowledge of God but God's knowledge of us. This is the syntax [order of arrangement] of salvation, also in Gal 4:9: "Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God…." Anyone who understands that the logic of the gospel depends on God's initiative will not become puffed up by the possession of knowledge. True gnosis [knowledge] consists not in the accumulation of much data, nor even in the correctness of one's doctrine and theology, but in the fact that one has learned to live in love toward all. To be "known by God" suggests that the person who loves has reached the fullness of gnosis [knowledge]. It also suggests that the person who loves is the one who is truly "known," i.e., "recognized" by God as having true knowledge.

The sad tyranny of "knowledge" [or wisdom, or insight, or superior system, or better method]. 8:1-3 establish Paul's basic critique of the Corinthian gnosis-boasters who think their knowledge permits them to eat idol meat: they have misconstrued the faith by interpreting it as a special sort of knowledge that elevates them above others. Once one's Bible study/theology is properly in hand, it is especially tempting to use it as a club on others. This happens from both the theological right [sexual ethics] and the theological left [social justice]. This doesn't mean that knowledge is either irrelevant or unimportant, but it does mean that it cannot serve as the primary basis of Christian behavior. In Christian ethics "knowledge" must always lead to love, which is not possible without genuine humility. Beware of pastors or systems that capture us by some special superior unique method or revelation or deeper insight. Such appeals are invariably to one's pride, and not to becoming a more truly loving Christian. While it is true that insight often leads to freedom, it is also true that it often results finally in the demand for "freedom" in the form of "rights." In the Christian faith "knowledge" or "insight" or "better system or method" is never an end in itself. It is only a means to a greater end, the building up of others--not the building up of ourselves or our church by imposing our preference and authority over others--which is being puffed up and inflated with pride. Paul insists on the priority of love over knowledge. Christian behavior is never predicated on the way of knowledge, which leads to pride and destroys others, but on the way of love, which is in fact the true way of knowledge. This is spelled out in greater detail in 7:7-13 and 13:1-13.

With this point made, Paul addresses the idol meat problem about which they wrote. Again he quotes slogans from their letter: "no idol in the world really exists," and "there is no God but one" (1 Cor 8:4), which are consistent with the standard preaching of Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity, which proclaimed the one God and decried the worship of idols. Thus, these slogans express a theological perspective with which Paul does not disagree; his quarrel is with their application of the slogans. Because the idol has no real existence, they contend, idol worship is a meaningless gesture. Therefore, if Christians find it socially advantageous to eat idol meat, what difference does it make?

Before challenging this argument, Paul affirms its theological premises and expands upon them in a way that will serve the purposes of his counterargument. There are many "so-called gods" (1 Cor 8:5); anyone who walked through their city and observed the ubiquitous shrines and statues of the gods could hardly avoid recognizing that "in fact there are many gods and many lords" (1 Cor 8:5). Paul's uses the dismissive adjective "so-called" for he doesn't believe these figures to be real gods. He acknowledges the empirical fact that the world is teeming with representations of such entities and with their worshipers. Is there a distinction between "gods" and "lords?" Perhaps the gods are the traditional deities of the Greco-Roman pantheon, whereas the lords (kyrioi) are the figures venerated in mystery cults and religions more recently imported from the eastern empire. (The latter category also implicitly includes the figure of Caesar, who was venerated as kyrios in the imperial cult.) By mentioning both categories, Paul deftly prepares the way for the two-part confessional formula of verse 6, which contrasts the many gods and lords to the one God and one Lord whom Christians worship.

This confessional acclamation (1 Cor 8:6) is in all likelihood another quotation, not from them, but of a hymn or creed that they'd have recognized as an authoritative statement of the content of Christian faith. Printed editions of the Greek NT highlight the structural balance of this confessional fragment in a way that most English translations do not. The following literal translation displays the parallelism:

One God, the Father,

From whom are all things and we for him,

And one Lord, Jesus Christ,

through whom are all things and we through him.

The final phrase may not mean "through whom we exist" (NRSV, JB), but rather something like "we through him [go to God]." This preserves the parallelism with the second line of the formula, which encompasses both origin and destination; thus, the last line of the confession acclaims Jesus Christ as the agent of both creation and eschatological redemption.

We should hear in this confession a significant echo of the Shema (Deut. 6:4), the great proclamation of Israel's faith:

Hear, O Israel;

The Lord our God,

The Lord is one.

Paul's present interest is not to reflect about christological problems or to explain the relation of Jesus Christ to God the Father. Still, we may observe in passing that the early Christian confession cited (1 Cor 8:6) takes the extraordinarily bold step of identifying "the Lord Jesus" with "the Lord" acclaimed in the Shema, while still insisting that "for us there is one God." Paul and other early Christians have reshaped Israel's faith in such a way that Jesus is now acclaimed as Lord within the framework of monotheism.

Why does Paul quote this confessional statement? 1st, he's establishing firm common ground with his readers, who will enthusiastically share in the monotheistic affirmation of 1 Cor 8:5–6. At the same time, however, by bringing this formula into play, he has subtly broadened the theological basis on which the discussion of idol meat must occur. Christian thought about this problem must start neither from an abstract doctrine of monotheism nor from a theoretical statement that "gods" do not really exist; rather, Christian thought begins from a confession that binds us specifically to the one God of Israel and declares our personal union with and allegiance to this one God. We exist "for him," not for our own purposes. To the extent that this confession of the one God echoes the Shema, we should also hear the echo of that text's call to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might" (Dt 6:5). (Indeed, the reference in 1 Cor. 8:3 to loving God—which seems to fit awkwardly into the context—suggests that Paul already had the Shema in mind a few sentences earlier.) All of this has a direct bearing on the question of idol meat: this one God of Israel is "a jealous God" who is well known to have no tolerance for idolatry. At this point in the argument, however, Paul is content to let that suggestion reverberate in the background; he will bring it directly into the foreground in chapter 10.

Paul turns instead to press the question of how the actions of the gnosis-advocates will affect other members of the community. That's the remaining burden (1 Cor 8:7–13). 1st he poses a challenge to their premise that "we all possess knowledge" (1 Cor 8:1), by insisting that not everyone in the community shares this exalted knowledge (1 Cor 8:7a). Some members of the fledgling church are so accustomed to thinking of the idols as real that they cannot eat the idol meat without conjuring up the whole symbolic world of idol worship; they are dragged back into that world and so "defiled" (1 Cor 8:7). ["the weak" about whom Paul writes are not Jewish Christians but Gentile converts from paganism; they are the ones who would be "accustomed to idols."] Those who say "we all possess knowledge" are ignoring or excluding those in the community who do not share their opinion.

In Paul's imagined dialogue, this elicits a protest from their interlocutors, who say, "Food will not bring us close to God" (1 Cor 8:8a). Neither eating nor abstaining has any effect, either positive or negative (1 Cor 8:8b). This simply restates their "knowledge." Paul doesn't disagree, but their response misses the point he's trying to make in some detail (8:9–12). His rejoinder to the slogan (1 Cor 8:8) is articulated concisely: "But take care that this liberty [exousia] of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak" (1 Cor 8:9). The loaded word exousia will become a major theme of ch. 9. The ordinary meaning is "authority"; it is etymologically related to the verb exestin that appeared in their slogan, "I am free to do anything" (1 Cor 6:12). The precise nuance of exousia is: it does not refer to an externally granted permission to eat idol meat; rather, it refers to the internal strength and authority to do whatever one pleases, to transcend mundane limitations. It is closely correlated with "knowledge" and "wisdom." Those who eat the idol meat claim to do so by virtue of their own sovereign exousia, their philosophically formed strength of character. Paul wryly warns that those who seek to flex their spiritual muscles ("this exousia of yours") in this way should watch out to see what effect it will have on others around them. (Mt 18:6–7, in which Jesus warns sternly against placing "a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me.")

8:10–12 offers a specific description of how Paul imagines the possible damage inflicted on the community by those who want to eat the idol meat. The weak will see the gnosis-boasters eating in the temple of an idol and be influenced, contrary to their own consciences, to participate in the same practice (1 Cor 8:10). This is a very important statement, because it shows that Paul's primary concern here is not the consumption of meat sold in the marketplace (1 Cor 10:25–26); rather, he's worried about weak Christians drawn back into the temple, into the powerful world of the pagan cult, which was, we must always remember, the dominant symbolic world in which the Corinthian Christians lived. Paul states the dire consequence of such cultural compromise: The weak will be "destroyed" (1 Cor 8:11). This language should not be watered down. The concern is not that the weak will be offended by the actions of the gnosis-boasters; Paul's concern is, rather, that they will become alienated from Christ and fall away from the sphere of God's saving power, being sucked back into their former way of life.

Paul presents this horrifying possibility with biting irony: "So, the weak one is destroyed by your gnosis, the brother for whom Christ died" (1 Cor 8:11). If they'll only pause to ponder this picture seriously, the contrast is stunning: Christ gave up his life for this "brother" (or sister: again, Paul's point is to emphasize the family tie between the strong and the weak in Christ)—Christ died for this person, and you can't even change your diet? On one side the Son of God died for us "while we were still weak" (Rom 5:6); on the other side the gnosis-flexers are so fixated on exercising their own freedom that they are willing to trample on the weak and jeopardize their very salvation. This not only injures the community but also it's a "sin against Christ" (1 Cor 8:12) by scorning and undoing his saving work. The picture is reminiscent of Matthew's great parable of the last judgment, in which it is revealed that whatever was done to "the least of these my brothers [and sisters]" was in effect done for—or against—Christ himself (Mt 25:31–46).

Paul concludes by declaring his own resolution. "Therefore, if food causes my brother [or sister] to fall, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause my brother [or sister] to fall" (1 Cor 8:13). The word "meat" is the generic word for animal flesh, not the specific term "idol meat" that occurs previously in the passage. Paul is willing to forego not only the specific practice of eating idol food but also the eating of meat altogether if that is necessary to protect the weak from stumbling. The effect of this policy is that Paul places himself de facto among the ranks of the weak (1 Cor 9:22; Rom 15:1). Earlier in the letter, in another powerfully ironic passage, Paul contrasted himself to the Corinthian sophoi: "We are weak, but you are strong" (1 Cor 4:10). Thus, 1 Cor 8 must be read as a compelling invitation to the "strong" Corinthians to come over and join Paul at the table with the weak. This invitation is far more urgent than any invitation to savor meat with their rich friends in the respectable world of Corinthian society.

REFLECTIONS. The specific matter of idol meat is a trigger issue that poses larger problems of perennial concern to the church. Reading their mail as a letter to us helps us consider what contemporary issues our churches have with temptations and conflicts analogous to those presented to ancient first-generation Christians by the pagan temples in their midst.

1. Boundary between church and culture. Can Christians fit in the social world of their culture? Or withdraw from some "normal" social practices? Or draw lines between acceptable cultural accommodation and unacceptable compromise? Such questions arise for the church where the gospel encounters a new cultural context. Converts must work out how to obey Christ, discerning which old customs to continue or leave behind. Asians find that 1 Cor 8 causes disputes in churches about whether Christians must abandon traditional meals venerating ancestors. Some see these traditions as harmless honoring of the memory of family members; others see them as a form of idolatry.  
• Do churches grow comfortably familiar with their culture as the world becomes increasingly secular and pluralistic? Rethink your allegiances. In your social networks are you eating in the temples of the idols that surround us? Will you participate in clubs and fraternal orders outside the church: Masons, Shriners, Eastern Star, etc.? A student was asked by some members of her church to join a women's group called The Daughters of Isis! After some reflection, she decided that as a Christian she could not. That seems fairly clear-cut case, but what about other societies—college fraternities, sororities, ACLU, NRA, BLM? Are they consistent with our allegiance to Christ?
• The exclusive lordship of Jesus challenges arrangements we take for granted. If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is not. Any form of nationalism/idealism/political affiliation can turn into a form of idolatry. If we display national flags in our churches, are we leading the weak to confuse faith with patriotism? A most insidious form of idolatry for churches is the idolatry of materialism. In the name of freedom and individual rights, do we Christians enmesh ourselves in economic practices that divide the community of faith by disregarding the poor.
• The fundamental question: Does monotheistic faith by definition sanctions pluralism (as the gnosis group at Corinth contended) or does monotheistic faith require exclusivity, expressed in clear separation from the pagan culture (as the weak contended)? In ch. 8, Paul hasn't given an answer, but he calls those who possess "knowledge" to attend respectfully to the concerns of the weak.
2. Class divisions in the church. The idol meat problem had a socioeconomic dimension. In our churches is there a similar economic substratum to our quarrels? If so, Paul places the onus for flexibility on those with more education and economic resources. To the dismay of the "strong" at Corinth, he refuses to take their side against the weak; instead, he calls the strong to surrender what they understand as their legitimate prerogatives for the sake of the weak. What would it mean for us to do likewise? Do Christians with money or power rationalize and treat everyday affairs as religiously neutral, permitting them to continue enjoying their privileged lives? The position of the high-status Corinthians: "The world is rejected in a theoretical way in order to profit from it in a practical way—the usual verbal radicalism of the affluent."
3. Love trumps knowledge is the central message. Love is more important than knowledge. Shift from gnosis to agape as the ordering principle for Christian discernment and conduct. Rather than asserting rights and privileges, we are to shape our actions toward edification of our brothers and sisters in the community of faith. In so doing, we follow the example of Christ, who died for the weak (1 Cor 8:11), and also the example of Paul, who is willing to renounce all meat in order to keep his brothers and sisters from stumbling (1 Cor 8:13). The gnosis-boasters frame their decisions and actions in terms of their own exousia [authority, power], looking to the cultivation of their own spiritual freedom and power as their highest end; Paul calls them instead to look to cultivate a loving community as the goal of Christian action. Every congregation profits from looking at themselves in the mirror of 1 Cor 8. Are there ways in which you're using knowledge as a weapon rather than as an instrument of love? Whether Bible-thumping certainty about truth, or confidence in the latest scientific findings, or passionate about "right" social causes, any "knowledge" that divides the community and causes the knowledgeable ones to despise/dismiss those who are ignorant or uncertain is not being used in the service of God.
4. The danger of destruction through idolatry. The "stumbling block principle" is often erroneously invoked to place limits on the behavior of some Christians whose conduct offends other Christians with stricter behavioral standards. It's argued that if drinking alcohol, dancing or dressing in certain ways causes offense to older church members, we're to avoid such behaviors for the sake of the "weaker brother's conscience." Such reasoning holds the entire church hostage to the standards of her most narrow-minded, legalistic and power mongering members. This is not what Paul meant. He's concerned about weaker believers being "destroyed" by being drawn away from the church and/or back into idol worship. In applying this text analogically [similar, parallel] to our time, we should carefully frame analogies only to those situations in which the boundary-defying actions of the "strong" jeopardize the faith and salvation of others by leading the weak to emulate high-risk behaviors and/or to leave the church.

Idolatry can lead to destruction. This was denied by the gnosis group, but Paul solemnly warns of the danger in dabbling with idolatrous practices. The seductive lure of idolatry is real; the destructive power of the pagan world is real. Members of the church who are drawn away from God will suffer irreparable loss. Don't be tempted to be casual about dalliances with the idols that rule our culture's symbolic world (primarily the gods of wealth, military power, and self-gratification). Reread 1 Cor 8 and see the risks for those who are seeking to escape the pull of these forces. Your first concern is for the weaker members of the church to not be deceived by these destructive temptations.

Reference:

1. Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. 1997.
2. Gordon D. Fee. First Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the NT. 1987.
   
3. Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. A Contemporary Introduction to N.T. Ethics. 1996.

Sermon Divisions: 

1. 7/12/20: Always Thank God (1:1-9) [1 Cor 1:4].  Cosmic Epic Calling [1 Cor 1:2].
2. 7/19/20: The Devil Divides, God Unites (1:10-17) [1 Cor 1:10]. All Agree. No Divisions. Perfect Unity.
3. 7/26/20: The Cross--God's Way--is Dumb (1:18-25) [1 Cor 1:18]. The Cross Stumbles. The Cross is like a Cop Out. Foolish Cross.
4. 8/2/20: What You Were, Who Christ Is (1:26-31) [1 Cor 1:26, 30]. The Necessity of Lack. No Boasting  [1 Cor 1:31].
5. 8/9/20: Nothing but Jesus (2:1-5) [1 Cor 2:2]. 
6. 8/16/20: Wise vs. Stupid (2:6-16) [1 Cor 2:6]. True Wisdom is Only for the Mature. The Mind of Christ [1 Cor 2:16].
7. 8/23/20: You're NOT Spiritual (3:1-4) [1 Cor 3:1].  Spiritual, Yet Not Spiritual.
8. 8/30/20: Merely Servants (3:5-9) [1 Cor 3:5]. Field Laborers.
9. 9/6/20: Build with Care or Be Destroyed (3:10-15, 16-17) [1 Cor 3:10-11]. God's Temple.   
10. 9/13/20: Deceived by Wisdom (3:18-23). All Belongs to Christ and God. Wisdom doesn't boast.
11. 9/20/20: When You Are Judged (4:1-5) [1 Cor 4:4]. Go Ahead...Judge Me!  Judged Only by God; Accountable Only to God.  Judging Others Blinds You.
12. 9/27/20: When You Are Scum (4:6-13) [1 Cor 4:13]. Become Scum. Puffed up Corinthians and Suffering Apostle amid Others' Boasting.
13. 10/4/20: Imitate Me (4:14-21) [1 Cor 4:19]. Fatherly Admonition. Final Warning to Boasters. Fatherly Admonition to Paul's Corinthian Children.
14. 10/11/20: Expel the Wicked Man (5:1-13) [1 Cor 5:13]. Drive out the wicked person from among you. [David, Daniel]
16. 10/18/20: You Were Washed in the Name (6:1-11) [1 Cor 6:11]. You will Judge the World [1 Cor 6:2]. I Say this to shame you [1 Cor 6:5]. [Christy Peace]
17. 10/25/20: Your Body is NOT Yours (6:12-20) [1 Cor 6:13]. Glorify God with Your Body. [Adrien]
18. 11/1/20: Sex in Marriage is a Good Thing (7:1-7). [Yohan] [Women, Wives, Wise West Loop Elders and Singles]
19. 11/8/20: No Divorce (7:8-16). [Angie]
20. 11/15/20: Remain with God (7:17-24). [Taniesha]
21. 11/22/20: Happily Eschatologically Single (7:25-31). [David, Daniel]
22. 11/29/20: An Urgent Imperative for Singles (7:32-35). [Sarah, Josh]
23. 12/6/20: Stay Single or Marry (7:36-40). To Marry or Not. [Noah, Jim]
24. 12/13/20: (8:1-13). True Knowledge Loves [Rhoel, Chris].
25. 12/20/20: Defi
26. 12/27/20: Henry
27. 1/3/21: Tim

Stay Single or Marry (1 Cor 7:36-40)

To Marry or Not to Marry (7:36-38)

To marry or not to marry that is the question. 7:36-40 bring the entire argument, including 7:1-24, to a conclusion. It is best to see 7:36-38 flowing directly out of 1 Cor 7:35, which brings to a specific conclusion the argument that began in 1 Cor 7:25. Thus 1 Cor 7:36 repeats what was said in 1 Cor 7:28 to the man who wants to get married, which is no sin. But for the man who settled the matter in his own mind, staying single is the thing to do (1 Cor 7:37). Both do well (1 Cor 7:38), although Paul's final preference is for celibacy--for the reasons given in 7:29-31 and 7:32-35, i.e., "because of the present crisis/distress" (1 Cor 7:26), yet marriage is not inferior or less spiritual.

If engaged and you want to marry, do as you want; it's no sin (1 Cor 7:36). To the Corinthian ascetics, consummating the marriage is inappropriate--unseemly or shameful or "not acting honorably" (1 Cor 7:36a) [or less spiritual or less holy] either for wanting to get married and have sexual relations (1 Cor 7:1), or for keeping the betrothed in limbo, making her situation very difficult. The ascetics may have filled him with anxiety (1 Cor 7:32) by their ascetic "noose" (1 Cor 7:35). They apparently have led him to believe that it may even be sin if he were to go through with it, which in turn has led to his anxiety and unseemly behavior toward his fiancee. Paul says, "Not so... let him marry. He does not sin."

The man who chooses not to marry also does the right thing (1 Cor 7:37) if:

1. he's settled the matter in his own mind
2. he's under no compulsion
3. he has authority/control over/concerning his own will

The ascetics were likely urging him not to marry--touch/have sexual relations with a woman (1 Cor 7:1). Paul agrees for the engaged man to remain as he is--i.e. single and celibate (1 Cor 7:38)--but not for their ascetic reasons but for the conditions he mentions (1 Cor 7:37). Hopefully, this man recognizes that he had the gift of celibacy (1 Cor 7:7) in so making up his own mind, and not because of the pressure from others--particularly the ascetics--in the church. So Paul's word to the man who takes his [Paul's] own position is that he must take control of his own actions and not be "under compulsion" either from the ascetics or from what Paul himself prefers which he has written which is to be celibate (1 Cor 7:7a, 8, 32, 38, 40). Hopefully, such a person recognizes that he has the gift of celibacy (1 Cor 7:7b) in so making up his own mind.

One who marries does well/right (1 Cor 7:38). Paul brings his argument as a whole and the preceding two verses to a conclusion (1 Cor 7:38). 7:38a--he does well/does right-- corresponds to 1 Cor 7:36 and 1 Cor 7:28a. 7:38b corresponds with a Cor 7:37 and summarizes what he has argued right along: Given the present situation/crisis/distress (1 Cor 7:26), "he who does not marry her does [even] better." But not because one situation is inherently "better" than the other. That is precisely what he has argued against throughout ch. 7. What is better [not to marry] is not because it is superior or holier but "because of the present crisis/distress/situation" (1 Cor 7:26). So at the end Paul has agreed, and disagreed, with the Corinthians in their letter. They prefer celibacy for "spiritual" reasons; Paul 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 [one who marries] "does well" (1 Cor 7:38a). 

Counsel for Wives and Widows (7:39–40). Paul's final word is for married women, which is not the perspective of 7:25-38, but of 7:1-24, where they were trying to dissolve their marriages. This appears therefore to function as a concluding word for both section--7:1-24 and 7:25-38. There's nothing substantively new to Paul's counsel. He reiterates what he previously said, with particular application to the wife. She's "bound as long as her husband lives" (1 Cor 7:39), i.e. no divorce (1 Cor 7:10, 13). This is Paul's reiteration of Jesus' own explicit instructions/command (Mk 10:9; Mt 19:6). As such it is a final word against divorce and remarriage. But she may remarry after his death if she wishes, but she's "more blessed" if she follows Paul's maxim of remaining as she is (1 Cor 7:8–9).

Remarry in the Lord (1 Cor 7:39b). Paul's closing summary focuses suggests that their letter may have explicitly targeted the problem of remarriage for widows. The marriage bond is in effect until "her husband dies" (1 Cor 7:39). After that, she has the same option as the man who wants to get married: "she is free to marry anyone she wishes," with full freedom to make her own choice, which is a perfectly valid option--with the only proviso that it should be "only in the Lord." To be "in the Lord" is to have one's life come under the eschatological view of existence outlined in 7:29-31. Such a woman lives from such a radically different perspective and value system from that of a pagan husband that a "mixed" marriage, where the "two become one," is simply unthinkable. If she becomes a believer after marriage, then she should maintain the marriage with the hope of sinning him to the Lord (7:12-16). But it makes no sense from Paul's perspective for one to marry a non-Christian once one is a Christian.

Remaining single is the better option (1 Cor 7:40). This final sentence essentially repeats the stance of the foregoing argument; only in this case the appeal is to her own happiness, without suggesting why that might be so, except that this is "my own opinion" (1 Cor 7:25). Yet Paul points out that his opinion is not without good backing, saying, "I think that I to have the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 7:40b).

You're not the only one who has wisdom and the Spirit. What's the tone of the intriguing final sentence (1 Cor 7:40)? It is one more jab at the Corinthian ascetics and pneumatics. Paul chides them throughout much of the letter for prideful claims about their special knowledge and possession of the Spirit. So, there's a little sting in this pronouncement: "[Oh, you think that your opinions about sex are given to you by the Spirit? Well,] I think that I too have the Spirit of God." Through ch. 7, Paul avoids confrontational rhetoric, but he ends their questions about sex and marriage with a pointed reminder that, if they're really interested in being guided by the Spirit, they'd do well to listen to his advice.

With this Paul brings the matters relating to marriage to a close. The argument as a whole has generally been against the Corinthian ideal of asceticism. Nevertheless, he agrees with the Corinthians that those who are now single, whether betrothed or widowed, are better off as they are. But since he disagrees with the theology that brought the Corinthians to their stance, he also affirms marriage over against their point of view. In ch. 8-10 Paul not only disagrees with their stance but also gives reasons for it, as well as the way they have used his own behavior against him.

Some REFLECTIONS for the church today where issues of sex, marriage, and divorce top the list of controversial problems.

1. Mutual submission in marriage. Paul's paradigm-shattering vision of marriage is a relationship of mutual submission to one another, each committed to meet the other's needs (1 Cor 7:3-4; Eph 5:21). This challenges the prevalent patriachal picture of the husband as master of the wife. It also challenges the prevalent picture of the sexual autonomy of each individual. Reflecting seriously on the implications of Paul's model for marriage requires reevaluation of many of our assumptions and habits. Today, as in 1st-century Corinth, the church unthinkingly absorbs many assumptions about sex and marriage from our culture—disseminated through TV, movies, magazines, self-help books. Grapple seriously with Paul's alternative vision to identify the false images of sex and marriage that surround us.
2. The purpose of sexual intercourse in marriage. A strange development in the history of Christian doctrine is the Roman Catholic Church's espousal of the nonbiblical idea that the purpose of marital intercourse is primarily for procreation. Nothing could be further from Paul's view. He never mentions procreation, but argues strongly that partners in marriage satisfy one another's desires. Take very seriously the reality and power of the sexual drive—and the danger of sin and self-deception. Paul says nothing about love and companionship, bearing and raising children; he was responding to their specific question. A good purpose of marriage is to provide sexual satisfaction for husband and wife together.
3. Divorce and remarriage. Paul affirms Jesus' strong prohibition of divorce—in Mk and Mt—that marriage is an aspect of Christian discipleship. The reconciling power of God's kingdom is where forgiveness and healing dissolves the alienation that leads to divorce. Marriage is serious as a binding covenant commitment. The love of God overcomes all faithlessness. But sadly members of the church may exercise their legal option of divorce. This does not exclude them from the fellowship of God's people; if anything, their need for the community will be even greater. With a believer marries an unbeliever, the church may need to exercise flexible moral discernment in cases not dealt with by Jesus. This has significant implications for the problem of remarriage after divorce. Paul doesn't say whether the believer whose unbelieving spouse chooses to separate is then free to remarry. (This is where Roman Catholic tradition has allowed remarriage.) That question remained on the agenda for their own discernment. If remarriage is allowable in that case, might there be others as well, such as in cases of abuse or abandonment of one spouse by the other? Paul and the gospels clearly excludes divorce and remarriage as a legal strategy for serial polygamy. But this still leaves many questions unresolved, and Paul's careful reflection about the issues addressed in 7:10–16 offers a model of how our thinking about such matters might proceed.
4. The power and lure of holiness. That the believing partner sanctifies the unbeliever (1 Cor 7:14) marks a revolution in religious consciousness, the same revolution that began when Jesus had table fellowship with sinners and tax collectors and prostitutes. The power of holiness is so encompassing that it can draw the unholy into its field of force and transform it. The hope of 1 Cor 7:16 is that the lure of holiness will be manifest through members of the community of faith in such a way that their unbelieving spouses will be drawn to the truth and love of God. The logic of this way of conceptualizing holiness can be extended to many situations other than marriage relationships; it suggests metaphorically a broader truth about the vocation of the church in the world.
5. Reflect on Paul's careful cautious tone. Elsewhere Paul makes unequivocal pronouncements (5:3–5; 6:1–8), but here he moves cautiously. He carefully distinguishes his own teachings and opinions from the command of Jesus and repeatedly invites them to the task of moral discernment. What does it mean for us to acknowledge as Scripture a text that says, "I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy" (1 Cor 7:25)? They're to make their own decision, and discern God's will. There's no packaged pronouncement, but an invitation to reflection. On some issues, he issues clear directives (1 Cor 7:2–4, 10–11, 39a), but on others he asks the church to exercise judgment and for individuals to discern their own calling. He models a welcome alternative to much contemporary debate in the church, which is often either dogmatism on one side or relativism on the other. Paul's ethical reflection is firm but open-textured. 
6. "I think that, in view of the present necessity, it is well for you to remain as you are" (1 Cor 7:26) [Hay's translation]. This refers to the eschatological sufferings that Paul expects to come upon the church. Another meaning fits the context better. The translation "impending crisis" (NRSV) is wrong. It refers to present, not future, events (1 Cor 3:22, the same word refers to "things present" in contrast to "things to come"). The noun is usually interpreted to refer to some sort of suffering or "crisis" (NRSV). The meaning of the word is "necessity" or "urgency." Paul uses the same word just a few paragraphs later: "[N]ecessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me if I do not preach the gospel!" (1 Cor 9:16, KJV). It seems probable that the "present necessity" (1 Cor 7:26) is the urgent imperative of proclaiming the gospel and doing the work of the Lord in the short time that remains (7:32–35). This explains more clearly why Paul regards celibacy as preferable to marriage: It frees the time and attention and energy of believers for the crucial work that is to be done in the precious short time before the parousia.
7. The dignity and value of singleness. One of the most important messages of this text for the church is that the single life has dignity and value before God. Most Protestant churches, historically in reaction against the Catholic imposition of mandatory clerical celibacy, have come to regard the unmarried state as aberrant and unhealthy. This tendency has been reinforced by powerful forces in popular culture that insinuate the idea that human wholeness is possible only through sexual relationships. But 1 Corinthians 7 insists that we take a serious look at it. Paul argues that for many it's better to remain unmarried—not because sex is dirty or wrong, but because the single life allows Christians the freedom and flexibility to serve God without distraction. This merits sustained reflection. Can Christians learn to think about their choices between marriage and singleness within the framework of the church's mission to carry the gospel to the world? Our conversation in the church about these matters would begin to pose a serious challenge to Western culture's frantic idolatry of sexual gratification as a primary end of human existence.

Reference:

1. Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. 1997.
2. Gordon D. Fee. First Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the NT. 1987.
   
3. Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. A Contemporary Introduction to N.T. Ethics. 1996.

Sermon Divisions: 

1. 7/12/20: Always Thank God (1:1-9) [1 Cor 1:4].  Cosmic Epic Calling [1 Cor 1:2].
2. 7/19/20: The Devil Divides, God Unites (1:10-17) [1 Cor 1:10]. All Agree. No Divisions. Perfect Unity.
3. 7/26/20: The Cross--God's Way--is Dumb (1:18-25) [1 Cor 1:18]. The Cross Stumbles. The Cross is like a Cop Out. Foolish Cross.
4. 8/2/20: What You Were, Who Christ Is (1:26-31) [1 Cor 1:26, 30]. The Necessity of Lack. No Boasting  [1 Cor 1:31].
5. 8/9/20: Nothing but Jesus (2:1-5) [1 Cor 2:2]. 
6. 8/16/20: Wise vs. Stupid (2:6-16) [1 Cor 2:6]. True Wisdom is Only for the Mature. The Mind of Christ [1 Cor 2:16].
7. 8/23/20: You're NOT Spiritual (3:1-4) [1 Cor 3:1].  Spiritual, Yet Not Spiritual.
8. 8/30/20: Merely Servants (3:5-9) [1 Cor 3:5]. Field Laborers.
9. 9/6/20: Build with Care or Be Destroyed (3:10-15, 16-17) [1 Cor 3:10-11]. God's Temple.   
10. 9/13/20: Deceived by Wisdom (3:18-23). All Belongs to Christ and God. Wisdom doesn't boast.
11. 9/20/20: When You Are Judged (4:1-5) [1 Cor 4:4]. Go Ahead...Judge Me!  Judged Only by God; Accountable Only to God.  Judging Others Blinds You.
12. 9/27/20: When You Are Scum (4:6-13) [1 Cor 4:13]. Become Scum. Puffed up Corinthians and Suffering Apostle amid Others' Boasting.
13. 10/4/20: Imitate Me (4:14-21) [1 Cor 4:19]. Fatherly Admonition. Final Warning to Boasters. Fatherly Admonition to Paul's Corinthian Children.
14. 10/11/20: Expel the Wicked Man (5:1-13) [1 Cor 5:13]. Drive out the wicked person from among you. [David, Daniel]
15. 10/18/20: You Were Washed in the Name (6:1-11) [1 Cor 6:11]. You will Judge the World [1 Cor 6:2]. I Say this to shame you [1 Cor 6:5]. [Christy Peace]
16. 10/25/20: Your Body is NOT Yours (6:12-20) [1 Cor 6:13]. Glorify God with Your Body. [Adrien]
17. 11/1/20: Sex in Marriage is a Good Thing (7:1-7). [Yohan] [Women, Wives, Wise West Loop Elders and Singles]
18. 11/8/20: No Divorce (7:8-16). [Angie]
19. 11/15/20: Remain as You Are (7:17-24). [Taniesha]
20. 11/22/20: An Eschatological Reason to Stay Single (7:25-31). [David, Daniel]
21. 11/29/20: An Urgent Imperative for Singles (7:32-35). [Sarah, Josh]
22. 12/6/20: Stay Single or Marry (7:36-40). [Noah, Jim]
23. 12/13/20: (8:1-13). [Rhoel]
24. 12/20/20: Defi
25. 12/27/20: Henry
26. 1/3/21: Tim

Undivided Devotion to the Lord (1 Cor 7:32-35)

An Urgent Imperative for Singles (7:32-35)

Be free from concern/without anxiety (1 Cor 7:32a), meaning, "as long as you are in this present world." What particular concerns? It has been often explained as referring primarily to the "extra cares" of married life, which becomes a further exhortation--indeed warning--against marriage. But this is not what this opening sentence is about. Rather, it has to do with a state of being, not with "cares" as such. To whom is Paul addressing? The "you" may refer to the "unmarried" (7:25-28). Thus, the anxiety doesn't have to do with the worldly cares of marriage, but with concern over whether or not to get married, especially since the ascetics say that it is good not to touch [have sexual relations] a woman (1 Cor 7:1), implying that it is more holy and spiritual to be celibate if married, or celibate and single for life if unmarried.

Living in the present age as an eschatological person (7:29-31) is still Paul's most likely concern for those still unmarried. That is, because life is determined by one's new existence in Christ (already but not yet, with the "not yet" clearly in view), the Christian should be free from the anxiety-ridden existence of those who are determined by the world in its present form. The Christian still buys and marries, but he or she does so "as if not" (1 Cor 7:31). The ideologies, philosophies, politics and things of the present world do not determine one's existence, but a clear eschatological view of the future does. Thus, whatever happens or does not happen, a Christian is free from anxiety/concern (1 Cor 7:32a). Paul indeed does speak to the unmarried who are anxious about marriage. But Paul wants both married and unmarried to be this way. Their existence in the present scheme of things differ (7:32b-34), but both are to be without anxiety.

Paul then describes the 2 kinds of existence, married and unmarried (7:32b-33) in terms of their "anxiety" or "concern." He begins with the men, and what he says also applies to and is almost perfectly balanced with women (1 Cor 7:34). There's a play on the adjective: "I want you to be without 'concern' even as you must 'concern yourselves' with life in the present age (1 Cor 7:32-33). The married man "is divided" as he cares for both the Lord and his wife, but he should not be full of anxieties. The "division" may mean that he has less opportunity for service than is available to the unmarried, but it does not mean that the one is a superior existence, or that it is more full of anxiety. Paul could not have intended that, for if he did the married man would become anxious despite exhortations to the contrary. Thus, of the 2 kinds of existence, for Paul this means that celibacy is preferable, buit at the same time he is removing any anxiety that marriage might be wrong in itself. Different, yes; more involved in the present world, yes; but inferior or sinful, no. What is crucial is that either live without anxiety, even though they must continue to use the world while in the world, though not a part of it.

Paul makes some general statements about the nature of married and unmarried existence in the present age by repeating for women what he has just said about men (1 Cor 7:34), as he has done throughout ch. 7. "...to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit" means something like "holy in every way" or "completely," with "body and spirit" not to be thought of separately but together, as designating the whole person (1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 7:1; 1 Th 5:23). Paul is not saying that "body and spirit" means that "chaste" is superior to having sexual relations in marriage (7:2-6). Paul is clearly not moving in the direction of the Corinthain asceticism, which views sexual relations per se as unholy, or not good, or less spiritual. Neither celibacy nor chastity as part of one's "holiness" is the same thing as negating sexual relations as such in the name of holiness. A Christian can be holy whether married and having sexual relations or single and celibate.

"This I say" (1 Cor 7:29, 35) brackets 7:29-35, which refers to their eschatological existence as determining their life in the present world, including being without anxiety over the matter of whether to marry or not. Althought Paul obviously leans toward being celibate, either existence is all right in the present as long as one is nether determined by it nor anxious over it. The purpose of what has been said is stated in 3 parts:

1. Positively, "for your own good" [for your own advantage/benefit].
2. Negatively, "not to restrict you," which is a metaphor that literally means "not to throw a noose around your necks." "Benefits" is not a commandment. They are not to take his preferences, for any reason, as a burden around their necks. The betrothed are not bound by Paul's preference. Paul wants what has been said to be a liberating word, whichever direction they go. There are 2 kinds of existence in this present age, but those who have truly entered the new age live now "as if not" (1 Cor 7:31), and are thereby free from the anxiety that enshrouds all others, including the Corinthian ascetics.
3. Positively, "that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord" ["but what what is seemly and constant to/for/before the Lord in an undistracted way."] Paul does not want to restrict them, as the ascetics would do, but to free them for whatever is appropriate in their case (either marriage or celibacy) so that they may have constant and unhindered devotion to the Lord. For the gifted celibate that would mean celibacy (1 Cor 7:7). But for the betrothed, whose gift is not celibacy but whose devotion to the Lord has been hindered by the ascetics' demanding that he be so, what is appropriate is marriage. Paul has not argued that celibacy is the way of life that is most appropriate or seemly. Rather, he gives eschatological reasons for preferring it. A betrothed person, who is anxious about whether or not to marry, is hardly living appropriately or with unhindered devotion. Though Paul, despite giving new grounds for preferring celibacy, he again sets that preference in a context that equally affirms the "rightness" of marriage, which he will once more spell out in detail in the conclusion that follows (7:36-38).

To Paul, everything must be seen in light of his eschatological perspective.

1. Paul really does prefer celibacy. Both the nature of eschatological existence itself--in light of the present distress--and the divided nature of one's caring when married speak in favor of it.
2. But celibacy is not the only existence itself, nor is it to be preferred on moral grounds, only eschatological. All must live as eschatological people, free from anxiety. This is especially true for the betrothed, whose anxiety would have stemmed not from worldly cares but from the Corinthian ascetics. If the present distress and shortened time (1 Cor 7:26, 29) make celibacy preferable, they do not make marriage wrong (1 Cor 7:28, 36). Rather, the married in particular must learn to live as truly eschatological people in a world whose present expression is passing away (1 Cor 7:31).

Why should single people remain unmarried? "those who marry will experience distress in the flesh, and I would spare you that" (1 Cor 7:28b). What does Paul have in mind here? Pain in childbearing for the woman? The cares and sorrows of raising a family? Was Paul speaking here from some sad personal experience? Paul offers no information about what he means. But he thinks that marriage will bring complications and responsibilities that will prevent believers from serving the Lord without distraction. At best, marriage will produce divided interests, because the married Christian (rightly) must consider how to please the spouse rather than concentrating single mindedly on pleasing God (1 Cor 7:32–35). Thus, Paul tells his readers, his advice is not designed "to keep [them] on a tight rein" (NEB, literally "to throw a noose upon you") but to set them free for unhindered service to God. This argument bears a striking similarity to a passage in which Epictetus argues that the Cynic philosopher should avoid marriage: "But in such an order of things as the present, which is like that of a battle-field, it is a question, perhaps, if the Cynic ought not to be free from distraction, wholly devoted to the service of God, free to go about among men, not tied down by the private duties of men, nor involved in relationships which he cannot violate and still maintain his role as a good and excellent man, whereas, on the other hand, if he observes them, he will destroy the scout and messenger of the gods, that he is." Paul's thinking is similar. The potential danger of marriage is that it will hinder the Christian's single minded devotion to the mission of the church--"the affairs of the Lord." This concern about freedom for mission motivates Paul's hesitation about the advisability of marriage.

"I think that, in view of the present necessity, it is well for you to remain as you are" (1 Cor 7:26) [Hay's translation]. This refers to the eschatological sufferings that Paul expects to come upon the church. Another meaning fits the context better. The translation "impending crisis" (NRSV) is wrong. It refers to present, not future, events (1 Cor 3:22, the same word refers to "things present" in contrast to "things to come"). The noun is usually interpreted to refer to some sort of suffering or "crisis" (NRSV). The meaning of the word is "necessity" or "urgency." Paul uses the same word just a few paragraphs later: "[N]ecessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me if I do not preach the gospel!" (1 Cor 9:16, KJV). It seems probable that the "present necessity" (1 Cor 7:26) is the urgent imperative of proclaiming the gospel and doing the work of the Lord in the short time that remains (7:32–35). This explains more clearly why Paul regards celibacy as preferable to marriage: It frees the time and attention and energy of believers for the crucial work that is to be done in the precious short time before the parousia.

The dignity and value of singleness. One of the most important messages of this text for the church is that the single life has dignity and value before God. Most Protestant churches, historically in reaction against the Catholic imposition of mandatory clerical celibacy, have come to regard the unmarried state as aberrant and unhealthy. This tendency has been reinforced by powerful forces in popular culture that insinuate the idea that human wholeness is possible only through sexual relationships. But 1 Corinthians 7 insists that we take a serious look at it. Paul argues that for many it's better to remain unmarried—not because sex is dirty or wrong, but because the single life allows Christians the freedom and flexibility to serve God without distraction. This merits sustained reflection. Can Christians learn to think about their choices between marriage and singleness within the framework of the church's mission to carry the gospel to the world? Our conversation in the church about these matters would begin to pose a serious challenge to Western culture's frantic idolatry of sexual gratification as a primary end of human existence.

Be eschatological people. This text has been burdensome for the young. It's hard to perceive that Paul's preference for celibacy does not also make it a superior existence. Yet our real failure is to take the main point seriously enough, namely that we are to live out our lives in the present age, whether married or not, as those who have been determined by the "foreshortened time" (1 Cor 7:29). Being eschatological people is to free us from the grip of the world and its values. We are to live "as if not" (1 Cor 7:31), i.e., as fully in the world but not controlled by its systems or values. Such freedom, which comes only from Christ, removes from one the anxiety about which existence is better. Whichever one is called to is better, as long as it is appropriate and allows one unhindered devotion to the Lord. Paul insisting that his own preference, including his reasons for it, should not be taken as a noose around anyone's neck. Roman Catholicism has insisted on celibacy for its clergy even though not all are gifted to be so (1 Cor 7:7). On the other hand, many Protestant groups will not ordain the single because marriage is the norm, and the single are not quite trusted. The answer again lies in our becoming eschatological people who live in the present with such a clear vision of our certain future that we are free from anxiety, and therefore also free from placing such strictures on others as well as on ourselves.

Reference:

1. Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. 1997.
2. Gordon D. Fee. First Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the NT. 1987.
   
3. Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. A Contemporary Introduction to N.T. Ethics. 1996.

Sermon Divisions: 

1. 7/12/20: Always Thank God (1:1-9) [1 Cor 1:4].  Cosmic Epic Calling [1 Cor 1:2].
2. 7/19/20: The Devil Divides, God Unites (1:10-17) [1 Cor 1:10]. All Agree. No Divisions. Perfect Unity.
3. 7/26/20: The Cross--God's Way--is Dumb (1:18-25) [1 Cor 1:18]. The Cross Stumbles. The Cross is like a Cop Out. Foolish Cross.
4. 8/2/20: What You Were, Who Christ Is (1:26-31) [1 Cor 1:26, 30]. The Necessity of Lack. No Boasting  [1 Cor 1:31].
5. 8/9/20: Nothing but Jesus (2:1-5) [1 Cor 2:2]. 
6. 8/16/20: Wise vs. Stupid (2:6-16) [1 Cor 2:6]. True Wisdom is Only for the Mature. The Mind of Christ [1 Cor 2:16].
7. 8/23/20: You're NOT Spiritual (3:1-4) [1 Cor 3:1].  Spiritual, Yet Not Spiritual.
8. 8/30/20: Merely Servants (3:5-9) [1 Cor 3:5]. Field Laborers.
9. 9/6/20: Build with Care or Be Destroyed (3:10-15, 16-17) [1 Cor 3:10-11]. God's Temple.   
10. 9/13/20: Deceived by Wisdom (3:18-23). All Belongs to Christ and God. Wisdom doesn't boast.
11. 9/20/20: When You Are Judged (4:1-5) [1 Cor 4:4]. Go Ahead...Judge Me!  Judged Only by God; Accountable Only to God.  Judging Others Blinds You.
12. 9/27/20: When You Are Scum (4:6-13) [1 Cor 4:13]. Become Scum. Puffed up Corinthians and Suffering Apostle amid Others' Boasting.
13. 10/4/20: Imitate Me (4:14-21) [1 Cor 4:19]. Fatherly Admonition. Final Warning to Boasters. Fatherly Admonition to Paul's Corinthian Children.
14. 10/11/20: Expel the Wicked Man (5:1-13) [1 Cor 5:13]. Drive out the wicked person from among you. [David, Daniel]
15. 10/18/20: You Were Washed in the Name (6:1-11) [1 Cor 6:11]. You will Judge the World [1 Cor 6:2]. I Say this to shame you [1 Cor 6:5]. [Christy Peace]
16. 10/25/20: Your Body is NOT Yours (6:12-20) [1 Cor 6:13]. Glorify God with Your Body. [Adrien]
17. 11/1/20: Sex in Marriage is a Good Thing (7:1-7). [Yohan] [Women, Wives, Wise West Loop Elders and Singles]
18. 11/8/20: No Divorce (7:8-16). [Angie]
19. 11/15/20: Remain as You Are (7:17-24). [Taniesha]
20. 11/22/20: An Eschatological Reason to Stay Single (7:25-31). [David, Daniel]
21. 11/29/20: An Urgent Imperative for Singles (7:32-35). [Sarah, Josh]
22. 12/6/20: Stay Single or Marry (7:36-40). [Noah, Jim]
23. 12/13/20: (8:1-13). [Rhoel, Chris]