Rough Draft (not for citation) Sunday School Lessons written for Illustrated Bible Life (forthcoming). 

1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5

In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he addresses a number of issues that the letter’s recipients (a community in the port city of Corinth at the southern tip of the Greek peninsula) had previously inquired into.  Apparently, the Corinthian church was deeply divided over a number of practical issues.  Paul was quite disappointed by such divisions within the community and sought to reunify this church throughout 1 Corinthians.  Even Paul’s address at the beginning of this letter (1:2) demonstrated his concern for the unity of the church.  Unlike some of Paul’s other letters (which are often addressed to believers in the plural [e.g., Rom. 1:7; Phil. 1:1] or even churches in the plural [e.g., Gal. 1:2]), 1 Corinthians is addressed to “the church of God in Corinth” (1:2).

This letter eventually addresses a wide array of very practical issues (e.g., sexual ethics, eating meat that had been offered to idols, taking one’s fellow believers to court and the use of spiritual gifts).  All of these issues apparently divided the Corinthian church, but Paul began this first main section of his letter by addressing the one issue that laid at the heart of all their problems—the Corinthians’ arrogance and misunderstanding of the nature of the Christian gospel. 

The Foolishness of the Gospel (vv. 18-25)

1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.

18. This verse introduces two contrasting ways of understanding the message of the cross.  The first way views the message of the cross as foolishness and the second way views the message of the cross as the power of God.  For the Apostle Paul, the message of the cross was the proclamation that God had broken the power of sin and death over this world through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  For people raised in the Greek tradition of self-aggrandizing gods and goddesses, it was absurd to suggest that God could be revealed in an act as humiliating and debasing as crucifixion.  From the Greek perspective, with their conception of how a god should behave, any hint of a crucified god was foolishness. 

From Paul’s Christian perspective, however, the message of the cross and of the crucified Lord was the power of God.  For Paul, human salvation was part of a cosmic struggle between the power of sin and death and the power of God.  For Paul, the proclamation of Christ’s death on the cross unleashed the very power of God which could produce salvation.  For Paul, the gospel and the message of the cross, therefore, were not a series of propositions or disembodied ideas.  Rather the gospel was “the power of God for salvation to all who believe” (Rom. 1:16).  The cross and the resurrection provide the power that frees humanity from the sin to which all humans are enslaved.  In their own strength, humans are unable to free themselves from sin.  The message of the cross proclaims that humans do not have to free themselves from sin.  In fact, humanity is freed from the tyranny and power of sin by the power of Christ’s death and resurrection—and by that alone!

To unbelievers, to those who are perishing, such proclamation was foolish.  “Surely,” the unbelieving world of Paul’s day thought, “one must do something in order to secure one’s salvation.”  The idea that salvation could be acquired solely on the merits of a crucified messiah was ridiculous to the unbelieving Greeks of Paul’s day.  Of course, to believers, to us who are being saved, this message provides life through the power of Christ’s resurrection.

It is significant to note that Paul seldom speaks of Christians having “been saved.”  He characteristically speaks of Christians being saved.  Paul’s avoidance of the past tense when speaking of salvation is significant.  For Paul, Christian believers “are being saved” throughout this life time and they will have “been saved” at the final resurrection (the second coming).  Paul’s language in this regard is significant for discussion of the doctrine of “eternal security” or “once saved/always saved.”  Paul did not think of salvation as being completed in this life; salvation was always in process on this side of the second coming.  Therefore, for Paul, our continuing salvation was always contingent upon our continued faith in Jesus Christ.  Faith in Jesus Christ is always necessary for us to continue “being saved” just as faith in Jesus Christ was necessary for us to begin “being saved.”  Apart from such continued faith in Jesus Christ, the process of our salvation can be stalled and ultimately thwarted.  In spite of God’s great love, salvation is never possible outside of faith in Jesus Christ.  Salvation begins only by faith in Jesus Christ; salvation progresses only through faith in Jesus Christ.

19. I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.  In this case, those who think themselves wise and intelligent are those who regard the message of the cross as foolishness.  This verse is not an appeal for ignorance or a lack of reflection on the Christian faith.  Paul demonstrates far too much wisdom and intelligence of his own to ever diminish the value of learning and personal reflection.  God has destroyed and frustrated the normal worldly way of thinking by providing a powerful counterexample in the cross of Jesus Christ.

20. When Paul speaks of the wise man, the scholar, and the philosopher of this age, he is referring to anyone who accepts the wisdom of the world.  To those who are tempted to adopt this world’s standards of wisdom and intelligence, Paul would ask: “who among this world’s leading thinkers would have ever imagined that God would save the world through a cross?”  Paul is rejecting the world’s value judgments as ultimately foolish.  True wisdom is found in the knowledge of the crucified and resurrected one.

21. When Paul refers to the foolishness of what was preached, he is referring not to the manner of his preaching, but to the very message itself.  When viewed through the eyes of this world, it is foolish to suggest that God would save the world through a cross.  Yet, that is exactly the “foolishness” which Paul preached.

22. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom.  Paul insists that God gave no one what was expected, neither Jews nor Greeks expected a savior revealed by a cross.

23. The message of Christ crucified was an oxymoron (like a “short giant”) to both Jews and Gentiles.  Jews stumbled over the idea of a crucified messiah and Gentiles could not get past the foolishness of suggesting that the self-giving of God was the sole source of salvation.

24. For those who were willing to overcome the cultural obstacles to faith, both Jews and Greeks, the cross redefined what was to be expected from God.  Christ demonstrated both how God thinks (the wisdom of God) and works (the power of God) in our world.

25. Having finished his ode to foolishness, Paul simply says that God’s ways are wiser and stronger than human ways.  In this verse, Paul is subtly calling the Corinthians to adjust their understandings of wisdom, foolishness, strength and weakness to parallel the understandings of those terms as presented in the cross.  If a Christian believer is tempted to think about weakness and foolishness in terms that would leave the self-sacrifice of the cross looking like weakness or foolishness, then that believer needs to recalibrate his or her understanding of strength and wisdom.  The common sense of this world is truly foolish; the world mistakes the self-restrained strength of God (and God’s people) as weakness.

Looking Back on the Corinthians’ Experience (vv. 26-31)

26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”

26. Paul reminds the Corinthians of their lowly stations when they came to Christ.  Although Christianity quickly spread among most social and economic classes in the Roman empire, the elite of Roman society were seldom attracted to Christianity in the first century (particularly during the first 30 years of the faith, the period of Paul’s ministry). 

27-28. Shame was an important category in Paul’s world.  The highest goal of every man in the Roman empire was to acquire honor.  Paul insists that the cross, with its reversal of normal priorities and assumptions, has brought shame—the opposite of honor—on those who were most active in their pursuit of honor.  Ironically, God has honored the lowly things of this world and the despised things.  Up to this point, Paul has insisted that the God revealed in the cross of Christ has behaved in a most bizarre fashion.  Although Paul has called believers to adapt their values to parallel this strange divine behavior, he has provided no explanation of why God would behave in such an unexpected (and offensive) fashion.

29. Now Paul explains why God has behaved so unexpectedly so that no one may boast before God.  One of the central ideas of Paul’s theology is that salvation comes from God and God alone.  Human beings can contribute nothing to their salvation.  The logic of the cross fits this way of thinking for Paul.  Human beings can only understand the cross through the experience of faith.  If humans could have anticipated the cross and could have foreseen its power, then they would have a reason for pride.  But no human, neither Jew nor Gentile, could foresee the cross and, therefore, no human can boast of their achievements before God.

30. In spite of the cross as an offence to all human expectations, for believers, the cross provides our righteousness, holiness and redemption.  These three terms are closely related and all point toward humans being placed in right relationship with God and being freed from the guilt and power of sin.

31. Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”  Paul sees his teaching as an extension of the OT teaching in Jeremiah 9:24.  In the end, since our salvation comes from God alone, God alone is worthy of all praise.  As believers, we have nothing to boast about except the cross of Jesus Christ.

Looking Back on Paul’s Own Experience (vv. 1-5)

2:1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.

1. Paul now changes the subject from abstract theology to his earlier ministry among the Corinthians, reminding them that he has practiced in the past what he is now preaching.  He insists that I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom.  Ironically, some of Paul’s converts are claiming to possess eloquence and wisdom which makes them superior to other believers, but Paul, their mentor, makes no such claims for himself.

2. Paul’s message was exactly the opposite of wisdom as the world understands wisdom.  His message was Jesus Christ and him crucified.  Paul’s statement is slightly overstated here.  Clearly, Paul preached about issues besides the crucifixion (this letter is filled with other issues!)—and Paul insisted that the crucifixion took on its ultimate significance only in light of the resurrection (see 1 Cor. 15).  Still, all that Paul proclaimed was consistent with the self-sacrificing love of God displayed in the cross.

3-4. Paul emphasized his lowly appearance upon the Corinthians, characterizing his presence as weak, fearful, unwise and unpersuasive.  For Paul, the Spirit’s power is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9-10).  Paul, who was undoubtedly a man of great personal gifts, regarded all of his achievements as a product of the Spirit’s empowering work and not as a product of his own power or skill.

5.  The only adequate foundation for your faith is God’s power.  Paul returns to the theme of divine power which opened this discussion.  Paul looked suspiciously upon any human claims that could detract from the reality that it was really God who was at work in people’s lives.  Paul regarded himself—and all other preachers—as mere workers through whom God worked (1 Cor. 3:1-5).  Even when God worked through human agents, Paul understood that it was God—and God alone—who could effect salvation in believers’ lives.

1 Corinthians 6:1-11

The city of Corinth was a prosperous commercial center that was located on a narrow strip of land that joined the Greek mainland to the north with the large landmass of Achaia to the south.  The strip of land on which Corinth sits is less than 5 miles wide at many points.  To the east of this narrow strip of land laid the Corinthian Gulf and to the west laid the Saronic Gulf.  (Both gulfs eventually rejoined the Mediterranean Sea.)  This location was very important to the city’s life and culture, because it made Corinth an essential stop for both north/south bound land travel and east/west bound sea travel.  (Ships would often unload and do a portage across the Corinthian land bridge rather than taking the treacherous sea journey around the south end of Achaia; this portage saved ships several hundred miles of sailing.)

The city’s strategic location made it a major port, a major cultural center, and a major center of entertainments of all kinds.  All of this activity brought great wealth and notoriety to Corinth.  Then as now, wealth was a mixed blessing.  Wealth attracted the greedy and indulgent; the city became known for its vice.

In this chapter, Paul addresses one of the specific ways in which a culture of greed had infected the church.  The church in Corinth was plagued by lawsuits as some people were using the courts to gain an advantage over others.

6:1 If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!

Who Are the Real Judges? (vv. 1-6)

1. Paul begins his discussion of lawsuits with a rhetorical question.  He knows both that some of them do have a dispute with another and that they do dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment.  By offering a settlement created by an inquiry before the saints, as an alternative to the secular courts of the day, Paul is foreshadowing his objection to Christians taking one another to court.  (In Paul’s understanding, all Christians, not just exemplary ones, were saints.)

2-3. Paul continues with his rhetorical questions by asking, Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?  Paul is probably assuming that the Corinthians already presume the right of Christians to eventually judge the world.  If the followers of Christ will participate in the final judgment of the world, Paul wonders why the Corinthians don’t feel competent to judge trivial cases regarding immediate financial and commercial concerns. The Corinthians apparently accept that they will judge angels on the day of final judgment, but they are not willing to practice judgment among themselves regarding the things of this life.  Generally speaking, the bible (Acts 10:42; Heb. 12:23; 13:4; Rev. 8:20)—and Paul in particular (Rom. 2:16; 3:6; 14:10; 1 Cor. 5:13; 2 Tim 4:1)—leaves final judgment in God’s capable hands.  In this context, however, Paul accepts that the righteous will practice judgment on God’s behalf (similarly Rev. 20:4).

4. Paul’s interest in this context has little to do with final judgment.  Rather Paul is distressed by the Corinthians’ legal affairs in the present.  Therefore, he commands them to appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!  It would be better for the least in the kingdom of God to practice judgment within the Church than the greatest of this world to do so.  The emphasis upon people of little account stands in stark contrast to the typical practices in the Roman Empire, which had no separation between the aristocracy and judges.  The local governor, who typically acquired his position either through bribery or political patronage, was also the judge.  The political elite became judges not as a consequence of character, but as a coincidence of influence networking.

5. For Paul, it was obvious that Christians should not to settle their disputes by appealing to the elite of this world, people who held very different values.  In fact, Paul insisted that lawsuits between Christians were a shame.  Paul hoped to embarrass the Corinthians into changing their conduct.  In the Greco-Roman world, the highest goal of every man was to attain honor; the worst possible circumstance was to be publicly shamed.  Paul is playing on this fear of shame and is even intensifying his rhetoric by questioning if anyone among them was wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? Remember: the Corinthians were fond of making claims to wisdom (1 Cor. 1:18-2:16)

6. Paul was shocked and dismayed that one brother goes to law against another—and this in front of unbelievers!  For Paul, the potential damage to the witness of the church brought on by Christians suing one another was enough to discourage lawsuits between believers.

Who are the Real Victims? (vv. 7-8)

7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.

7. The Greek culture to which the Corinthians were heirs was extremely competitive.  In fact, their lawsuits were probably a symptom of that competitiveness—they weren’t about to let anyone get the best of them!   Within this cultural context, it must have stung when Paul claimed that the Corinthians who were pursuing their lawsuits before secular courts were completely defeated already.  They have been defeated in the struggle to live Christian lives and to reorient their lives in light of the cross.  Paul makes this point by inviting them to think about Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? The implied answer is obvious: “Because I want to win; because I don’t want anyone to get the best of me; and because I, I, I.”    Paul is teaching the counterintuitive truth demonstrated by Christ’s victory on the cross—sometimes those who look like victims and losers are the true winners in the contest that really matters, the contest for genuine character.  Paul is asking: What’s wrong with appearing to lose if that gives you the chance to demonstrate love and forgiveness?

8.  Paul is trying to help the Corinthians to understand that by using the court system to gain advantages over other people, they are actually engaging in a thinly-veiled attempt to cheat and do wrong.  They may feel like victims, but they are really becoming victimizers.  The ultimate irony is that all of this is taking place between fellow Christians, brothers and sisters.

Remembering Who You Used to Be (vv. 9-11)

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

9. Paul asks do you not know three times in this chapter (vv. 2, 3, 9).  In each case, he is assuming that his readers already know and agree with what he is about to say.  Paul is not trying to teach the Corinthians something new.  He is trying to remind them of the significance of what they already know.  In the New Testament the kingdom of God is both a present and future reality (e.g., Mt. 12:28; Mk. 1:15; 9:1; Lk. 6:20; 10:9-11; 17:21; 18:16).  Here Paul is clearly emphasizing the future aspect of that kingdom by discussing who will not inherit it.  The use of inheritance language with the kingdom of God is common in the New Testament (1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5) and reflects a shared conviction of the New Testament writers (James 2:5; Mt. 25:34).  God, the ancestor who has provided for this inheritance, intends all people to share in the privileges of the inheritance.  The provision has been made for all people, but some people will be deceived into rejecting what God has made available to them.

Corinth was renown for its sexual permissiveness.  With many sailors, merchants, soldiers and fortune hunters passing through the city for brief stays, the city had a large illicit sex industry.  Not surprisingly, therefore, the first group that Paul mentions as forfeiting their inheritance in the kingdom is the sexually immoral.  Paul continues with a vice list like those common within his Jewish background.  He condemns idolaters (every Roman city had several pagan temples and a striving business in idol making [see Acts 19:21-41]), adulterers (adultery was both a violation of the seventh commandment [Ex 20:14; Deut 5:18] and of Roman law—although Roman enforcement of this law was lax), male prostitutes (Paul is probably referring to sexual slaves; it was common in Corinth for wealthy men to enslave a young man and use him as a male prostitute) and homosexual offenders (this term refers to the active as opposed to the passive partner in a homoerotic affair).

10.  The vice list continues with a condemnation of thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers.  Paul’s goal in this vice list is to equate the Corinthians’ vice of greed with the more obvious vices of adultery and sexual sin.  Paul’s rationale throughout these verses is clear.  The Corinthians have lawsuits to their shame; these lawsuits offer clear evidence of their greed; and this greed is as bad as any other sin.  In fact, given the sometimes abusive processes of the ancient (and modern) legal system, their greedy use of lawsuits is morally equivalent to slander and swindle.  The logical conclusion to this discussion is to remind the Corinthians that such sinful behavior will cause them to forfeit their right to inherit the kingdom of God.

11. In spite of the Corinthians’ moral failures as Paul saw them, he never doubted the Corinthians’ genuine experience with Christ and the moral transformation that had occurred in their lives.  He closes not by emphasizing their present moral failings, but rather by reminding them of their previous moral transformation—what some of you were.  Paul is warning the Corinthians not to return to a slightly modified form of the sin from which they have already been delivered.  In spite of this warning, the Corinthians are regarded as more than their worst moral failings.  They have been washed (made morally clean), sanctified (made holy), and justified (made righteous).  All of this moral transformation occurred in the past.  They now bear the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, because of what the Spirit of our God has done in them.  Paul doesn’t deny their experience with God, but he wants to build upon that experience and to continue their transformation in Christ. 

Two additional general notes are probably in order.  First, not all lawsuits are selfish and sinful.  Even within this letter, Paul himself urges the Corinthians to respect his rights because justice demands it (1 Cor. 9).  Lawsuits can serve either the purposes of greed or justice.  Discernment is needed to determine which is true in any particular case.

Second, the modern notion of homosexuality as an orientation has no precedent in the ancient world.  In Paul’s world, everyone was assumed to be heterosexual by nature (Rom. 1:24-27).  In fact, the Greek language in which Paul wrote did not even have a word for “homosexuality.”  The Greek of Paul’s day had several words for various homosexual practices, but no word for “homosexuality” as an orientation.  The two acts in this vice list specifically refer to homosexual prostitutes and probably to those who patronized homosexual prostitutes.
 

1 Corinthians 8:1-13

Many of the issues addressed elsewhere in this letter were problems unique to the Corinthian church (e.g., divisions within the church in chapter 1-3 and speaking in tongues in chapters 12-14), but the issue addressed in this chapter created problems throughout the early church.  In this chapter, Paul speaks to the issue of eating meat offered to idols, the same issue addressed in Romans 14-15 and in Acts 15. 

Because not many people today live in areas where animal sacrifice is routinely practiced, it may be helpful to provide some initial orientation to the importance of this issue in the early church.  Every city in the ancient Mediterranean basin had several pagan temples where animals were routinely sacrificed.  In fact, sacrificial offerings were so common that they were completely integrated into the system of food production and distribution.

The system of food distribution in Paul’s world worked like this.  Farmers and shepherds in the countryside raised the livestock (mainly sheep, goats and various poultry) which supported the large urban centers.  These rural people would bring their livestock to the city for sale to the highest bidder.  The highest bidder was almost always a person who intended to offer that animal as a sacrifice at the local pagan temple.  Would-be worshippers were forced to outbid local butchers and merchants because the worshippers had to purchase live animals, while butchers and merchants could buy freshly slaughtered animals.

Worshippers would then take the animal to the temple for sacrifice and would leave the animal’s carcass at the temple as payment to the priests or priestesses for their religious services.  Throughout the day, a priest or priestess would come into possession of much more meat than he or she needed.  Therefore, the pagan priest or priestess could sell their dead animals to butchers and merchants very cheaply, because they had surplus that could quickly spoil.  Thus, much of the meat at the local market had a religious history like this: farmer, pagan worshipper, pagan priest, merchant.

All early Christians were aware that any meat which was purchased in the open market probably had gotten to that market by way of a pagan temple.  Many early Christians then reasoned that they should not eat meat which had been sacrificed to a pagan god.  Since they had no way to determine the religious history of any particular piece of meat (and certainly they couldn’t trust the word of the butcher who was trying to sell the meat), many early Christians concluded that they had to abstain from all consumption of meat in order to avoid the taint of idol worship.

Framing the Issue in Terms of Love and Knowledge (vv. 1-6)

 1Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. 3But the man who loves God is known by God.   4So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

1.  Probably the Corinthians had written Paul and asked his opinion about food sacrificed to idols.  Interestingly, however, as soon as he mentioned the issue of sacrificed meat, he changed the topic to knowledge.  The reason for this seeming change of topic will become obvious later in the letter, but Paul first warned that knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.  Paul was well aware that knowledge, even correct knowledge, could lead to arrogance.  As Paul later reiterated, knowledge isn’t bad, but it is less important than love (1 Cor. 13: 2, 8-9).

2-3. Again, Paul isn’t debating about whether or not the man who thinks he knows something is correct or not in his knowledge, he is only reminding his readers of the centrality of love.  These verses merely prepare for the primary point to come later.

4-6. After a brief digression, Paul returns to central issue about eating food sacrificed to idols.  Using the key verb, know, Paul acknowledges that an idol is nothing at all for Christians who understand that there is no God but one.  Paul is aware that most people in the ancient world—and perhaps even some of Paul’s readers who were newly converted from paganism—believed in multiple gods, so he explained that even if some people accept the existence of many so-called gods … yet for us [Christians]  there is but one God.  Christians in first century were often accused of atheism (denying the existence of God), because they insisted that the Roman gods did not exist.  In keeping with their heritage in the Old Testament, they believed there was only one God, through whom all things came and through whom we live.  This monotheism (belief in only one God) was a distinguishing mark of early Christians in the eyes of the pagan world.

Drawing Together the Themes of Love and Knowledge (vv. 7-8)

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

7. After his basic theology lessons on the centrality of monotheism and the existence of only one god, Paul reminds his readers that not everyone knows this.  Apparently some of the Christian believers in Corinth still looked upon the idols in the pagan temples as possessing some attributes of divinity.  As a Christian of Jewish background, Paul certainly would never attribute divinity to mere idols of wood and stone (Isa 44:9-20).  However, some of the Corinthians had recently been converted from idolatry and Paul recognized that some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol.  It is remarkable that Paul, who was never accustomed to idols and who undoubtedly disagreed with these recent converts about the true nature of an idol, did not seek to immediately correct these new converts’ theology.  Rather he accepted that since their conscience is weak (that is, uneducated and not correctly formed in these matters), these new believers feel defiled when they eat meat.

8. Paul quickly reminded all of his readers that this issue which left new believers feeling defiled was really a non-issue because food does not bring us near to God.  Paul’s opinion was clear.  He was aware that we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Thus, those who had knowledge—like Paul—recognized that eating the meat was religiously insignificant.

How to Live in Love (vv. 9-13)

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

9. Having made the case that eating the meat is not religiously significant, Paul might be expected to conclude that everyone should begin eating meat again.  But Paul did just the opposite.  He recognized that those with mature knowledge (those whom he called “strong” in Rom. 15:1) had the freedom to eat meat with a clear conscience.  However, he warned that they should be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For Paul, the issue was not primarily a matter of who was right and who was wrong, it was a matter of how we should live together.  Paul undoubtedly believed that the weak were wrong in their ethical sensitivities, but he still insisted that those with more mature ethical sensitivities should practice self-restrain.  For Paul eating meat without a religious background check was not a problem, but eating that meat when it could offend a fellow believer was a problem. 

10-11. For Paul, one should never ignore the guidance of conscience—even when that conscience is weak and immature.  For this reason, the strong should avoid coaxing the weak into eating meat.  When mature Christians flaunt their freedom before weak believers, they run the risk of destroying their faith.  For Paul, we must always treat our fellow Christians as those for whom Christ died.

12-13. Just before announcing his conclusion to the entire issue, Paul provides a grave warning that to sin against your brothers even in this way is to sin against Christ.  Paul’s discussion is remarkable in many ways.  He has argued that there’s really nothing wrong with eating meat—and that those with knowledge already understand this, but even a weak or uninformed conscience should be respected.  It is hardly surprising that he concludes if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

Three closing comments are noteworthy.  First, Paul concluded by speaking in the first person singular (“I”).  Paul did not issue a command about what others should do.  Paul was willing to relinquish his personal freedom for the sake of others, but he made no absolute commands for all “strong” and “knowledgable” Christians to do the same.  Although Paul had called the Corinthians to imitate him (1 Cor. 4:16), he never demanded that people quit eating meat.  Paul was willing to set aside his freedoms for the sake of the weak, but never commanded others to do so.  He only commanded that they act in love.

Second, assuming that this letter was read by everyone in the Corinthian church, Paul may have been employing a rhetoric of subtle change in this chapter.  Paul laid out two positions, one “weak” position and one “strong” position.  Paul clearly identified with the strong position and insisted that there was nothing wrong with eating meat, but he also insisted that the strong should respect the incorrect position of the weak and that the strong should not violate the immature conscience of the weak.  After such a discussion, would anyone continue to identify with the weak position?  Perhaps Paul’s whole discussion was an indirect way to make the weak position so untenable that no one would continue to hold it.  In essence, this discussion may be a subtle attempt to help everyone to mature into the strong position (this approach is even more evident in the parallel discussion in Romans 14-15).

Third, even though Paul saw no value in avoiding all meat on the off chance that one might get some meat that had made its way to the market via a pagan temple, Paul made a clear distinction between this issue and the related issue of going to a pagan temple on a feast day.  Pagan temples in Paul’s day often had feast days when they supplied free food to all worshippers.  Some of the “strong” Corinthians apparently saw no difference between this practice and eating meat from the public market.  Paul saw a marked difference and a few chapters later forbid eating any meat that involved direct participation in pagan worship (1 Cor. 10).  Peter and James forbid the same practice elsewhere in the church (Acts 15:19-20, 29).
 

1 Corinthians 11:17-34

After talking about a host of practical and ethical issues in the earlier chapters of this letter, Paul now turns his attention to worship.  Apparently, Paul was deeply concerned about the character of the Corinthians’ worship services and particularly how they practiced the Lord’s Supper.  This account provides the only description of Christians’ participating in the Lord’s Supper outside of the gospels.  Needless to say, therefore, these verses are particularly important for those seeking to understand and emulate early Christian worship.

When Worship Becomes a Problem (vv. 17-22)

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

17. Paul could speak very sternly to his congregations when he believed that the matter under discussion was particularly important.  For example, he called the Galatians “foolish” (Gal. 3:1).  Still one would be hard pressed to find harsher words anywhere in Paul’s letters than right here: I have no praise for you.  As far as Paul is concerned, their worship services do more harm than good.  It is difficult to imagine a more stinging rebuke of a community’s worship than that!

18.  Although Paul undoubtedly got the Corinthians’ attention with his opening words about their worship services, he clarified the source of his disappointment and disapproval in this verse by echoing a concern from the opening chapters of this letter, that there are divisions among you.  Elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, Paul has mentioned what the Corinthians have written to him about (7:1), but here Paul is apparently relying upon a rumor that he happened to hear through unofficial sources.  In spite of the origin of these reports, Paul regards them as accurate at least to some extent.

19-20. Paul assumes that not everyone within the church has God’s approval.  This is shown to be particularly true by the manner in which they practiced the Lord’s Supper.  Paul explained, probably contrary to their generally held assumption, that when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat.  This would have come as a surprise to many Corinthians, because they, like most early Christians, probably went through the ritual of distributing bread and wine every time that they met together for worship.  When the Corinthians first read these words, they must have wondered what in the world Paul was talking about.  They were undoubtedly reciting the words of institution and distributing the bread and wine each time they met.  How could Paul claim that they were not really eating the Lord’s Supper?

 21. The earliest Christian communities had no “church” buildings.  For the first several decades of the Christian movement, Christians probably met in the homes of various church members for worship.  Naturally, these meetings tended to be concentrated in the homes of the wealthiest people within the Christian community simply because these people had the largest homes with the most space for meetings.  The earliest Christians seem to have worship services which were composed of two distinct meals: a love-feast and the Lord’s Supper.  The love-feast was essentially a meal in which various members of the communities ate together as an act of mutuality and bonding (much like a modern “potluck”).  The Lord’s Supper was a small symbolic serving of bread and wine, which was accompanied by singing, prayer and Christian instruction (preaching).

Understanding these practices of eating the love-feast and the Lord’s Supper while meeting for church in the homes of wealthy Christians provides the necessary background for understanding complaint that as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.  In the Roman world, all social interactions were ruled by the idea of reciprocity.  People were conditioned to expect that every favor or benefit given would be met with an equivalent favor or benefit.  For example, when you were in a guest in someone’s home for a meal, your host had every right to expect you to reciprocate by having your former host as a guest in your home for an equally lavish meal.

According to the customs of reciprocity, one only extended hospitality to people who were likely to respond by providing the same level of hospitality in return.  For the Corinthians, this system had devastating consequences for the love-feast.  During the love feast, the wealthy home owners, who hosted the church’s worship meetings, were apparently providing hospitality to the congregation based upon the various members’ socio-economic status.  The affluent hosts were apparently providing lavish accommodations for the other affluent members of the congregation (who were apparently even getting drunk during the love-feast), but were making the less affluent members of the congregation wait for leftovers or even go hungry.

22. When Paul learned of this abuse within the love-feast portion of Christian worship, he was outraged that such socio-economic divisions existed within the church.  He was worried about the humiliation that this produced in the poor.  When this socially stratified community gathered to eat the Lord’s Supper—after being segregated along socio-economic lines for the love-feast, the poor were hungry because of the meager fare which they had received during the love-feast.  But the wealthy, who had eaten and drunk to excess during the love-feast, were sometimes literally drunk.

The Tradition of the Church (vv. 23-26)

 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

23. In addressing this problem of socio-economic divisions within the church, Paul first turned to the traditions which originated with Jesus.  Paul is clearly drawing upon the traditions like those in the gospels (Luke 22), but he makes no effort to link the Lord’s Supper with the Old Testament tradition of the Passover as do the gospels.  Both because Paul never met the historical Jesus and because he wrote this letter before any of the gospels were written, it is not clear what he means when he says I received from the Lord.  Perhaps Paul equated hearing something from the other apostles with hearing something from Jesus himself.

24-25. For Paul, the eucharist (from the Greek words translated as given thanks) consisted in six acts: giving thanks (prayer), breaking bread, speaking the words of institution (“This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me”), eating, speaking words of institution (“This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me”), and drinking.

26. Theologically, Paul understood the Lord’s Supper as both backward looking as we proclaim the Lord’s death and forward looking as we do so until he comes.  

The Seriousness of the Sacrament (vv. 27-32)

 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

27. Over the centuries, especially since the Protestant Reformation, many sincere believers have found themselves frightened by the warning that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning.  If this verse is interpreted to mean that only the worthy should partake of the Lord’s Supper, then clearly no one is worthy to partake.  Fortunately, the worthiness of the individual recipient of the elements is not the issue here.  The issue is the unworthy manner in which the entire community was observing the Lord’s Supper; this community was observing the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, a manner that humiliated the poor.

28. Because the Lord’s Supper celebrates the forgiveness of sins, Paul insisted that people ought to examine themselves before partaking of the symbolic bread and wine. Paul apparently believed that honest introspection should have alerted the Corinthians to the divisions in their midst and should have altered their behavior.  Because the Lord’s Supper proclaimed Jesus’ death, it pointed to the cross and Paul was confident that reflection upon the cross could transform human lives.

29-31. Paul was concerned that some Christians were failing to participate in the Lord’s Supper in a worthy manner, by partaking in the meal without recognizing the body of the Lord.  Here Paul is probably using the term body with a double meaning: failing to recognize seriousness of the death of Jesus’ physical body on the cross and failing to recognize the importance of the church as the body of Christ.  To partake of the Lord’s Supper without recognizing its call to both moral renewal and unified community life amounts to a failure to recognize the Lord’s body.  Such failure brings on judgment.  Paul saw evidence of this divine judgment in the sicknesses present in the community.  To be weak and sick or to have fallen asleep could be either metaphors for spiritual sickness and sleep or literal language for physical illness and death (see 1 Thess. 4:13-5:11).  Regardless of the exact nature of the judgment imagined here, Paul was convinced that if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. The moral of the story is clear: a failure to practice self-discipline and introspection does not stave off judgment, it only removes judgment from our hands in the present and places that judgment in God’s hands. 

32. Paul assumed that judgment was real and unavoidable.  Judgment in the present age could help us to be disciplined in the present time so that we could avoid being condemned in the future age.

Final Remarks (vv. 33-34)

 33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.  And when I come I will give further directions.

33-34.  Paul’s concluding advice is startlingly simple.  When involved in worship, be respectful of all people.  Don’t give anyone, including one’s affluent and influential friends, privileged treatment, instead when you come together to eat, wait for each other.  In specific terms, this means the friends of the wealthy host should not expect their wealthy friend to entertain them lavishly while the poor go hungry on the periphery of the love-feast.  Those who wish to be self-indulgent should eat at home.  Paul had other things to add to these simple instructions, and so he promised to give them further directions when he visited them again.

7/31/07