I CORINTHIANS: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

I Corinthians 4:15-16 Isn't it rather egotistical of Paul to say that we should imitate him?

This statement is clarified in 1 Corinthians 11:1: “Imitate me as (or, “insomuch as”) I imitate Christ.” Also, in Philippians. 3:17 he calls believers “joint-imitators of Christ.” I discuss this issue in more detail in the post “Be Imitators of Me.”

I Corinthians 6:3 Paul states “Do you not know that we will judge angels?” What is meant by that?

The bottom line is that no one knows exactly what this puzzling statement means. It is in somewhat the same category as Paul's comment elsewhere regarding those baptizing on behalf of the dead. In both cases, Paul is trying to to explain an important doctrine or teaching and throws in an example which would have been familiar to his audience but is obscure to modern readers.

There are no Old Testament references regarding the subject unless one counts the two passages below which have been suggested as a possible background to Paul's statement.

    “Yet you have made them [mankind] a little lower than God, and crowned them with glory and honor. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under their feet.” Psalm 8:5-6.

    “...then judgment was given for the holy ones of the Most High, and the time arrived when the holy ones gained possession of the kingdom.” Daniel 7:22

In the New Testament, judgment reserved for fallen angels is alluded to in Matthew 25:41, II Peter 2:4 and Jude 6. Therefore most commentators feel that these are the angels being referred to. The only problem is that God seems to be their judge, not Christians. Others feel that the reference is to angels in general, good and bad. And then there is the somewhat related passage in Matthew 19:28 to consider when Jesus addressed the Twelve: “...you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

We should not spend too much time speculating on this matter, but the following seems evident:

    “In this case Paul would be reminding the Corinthians that believers, having been exalted with Christ who rules over all powers, will play a role in the final judgment of those powers.” (D. G. Reid, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters)

    “Paul elevates the saints to a position that is of almost the same dignity as that of Christ, undoubtedly because the church is the habitation of the Spirit.” (William Orr and James Walther, I Corinthians)

I Corinthians 7:10-12 Paul says, “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord)” and then notes to the rest, “I say this (I, not the Lord).” All scripture is supposed to be from God, but here Paul seems to be saying this is his personal opinion, not a directive from God. What is meant by this?

First, a few words concerning the fact that all scripture is from God. That statement means different things to different people. Some Christian creeds use the term “verbally inspired” (every word was intended to be there) while others prefer to state that the Bible is inerrant in all that it teaches (leaving it an open question as to what is taught and what is merely reported). We also need to distinguish the different genres in which biblical teachings are expressed. For example, in Proverbs we have a number of teachings which express general truths derived from common observations. These must be considered on a different level from, for example, the pronouncements of the Old Testament prophets or Christ's sermons.

In several passages in Acts, Paul states his opinion (which turns out to be incorrect) that he either will or won't be visiting a certain region in the future. Obviously, from these examples we would have to say that Paul's words are not inerrant regarding his future mission. God chose not to reveal those details to him. However, the I Corinthians 7 passage is a different story since Paul is clearly teaching the church. So why does he make a distinction in his two directives regarding marriage?

In his letter, Paul is responding to a series of questions posed by the Corinthian church. In doing so, he clearly distinguishes between (a) teachings he has received directly from Christ (either through direct visions, oral or written tradition) or from study of the Old Testament scripture as opposed to (b) those truths of which he is personally convinced. He carefully points out the latter instances three times in I Corinthians 7:12, 25, and 40.

In the commands to the married in 7:10, he can appeal directly to Jesus' teachings, which we have today in Matthew 5:32,19:3-9; Mark 10:11-12. However, the situation of mixed marriages was one that had not yet arisen while Jesus was still on earth. Therefore, concerning that situation, Paul cannot point to any specific revelation for his advice. But that does not mean that his words on that subject are any less authoritative. Note the following scholarly opinions regarding I Corinthians 7:12:

    “his own judgment is given authoritatively.” Donald Guthrie, The New Bible Commentary: Revised

    “his words carry the full weight of inspiration and apostolic authority.” Paul W. Marsh, The International Bible Commentary

    “When he has no direct command, he still speaks as one who is trustworthy because he has the Spirit of God.” Gordon B. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians

Fee's words come directly from scripture, as one can see by looking at the two other times in I Corinthians where Paul says he is stating his own opinion. In verse 25, Paul says, “...I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.” In verse 40, Paul makes further clarification of his authority to speak: “And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.”

Thus, when Paul expresses his personal opinion in Scripture, it is no different than when Peter or John give their opinion – their authority comes from Jesus calling them to be apostles, just as the Old Testament prophets received their authority to speak directly from God's call.

I Corinthians 7:36 I have trouble understanding what the first part of this verse refers to. Who is the “virgin?”

Take comfort in the fact that you are not alone in being confused here. Even the translators of the Bible into English don't seem to be in agreement here. So the best I can do is present the major options, as reflected by various translations. Let's begin with some fairly literal renderings:

    “But if any man thinks that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin...” (KJV)

    “If anyone thinks he is behaving dishonorably toward his virgin...” (NASB)

Next are those who feel that it refers to a father's relationship to his daughter in not letting her get married:

    “But if any man things that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter...” (NAS)

    “Still, if there is anyone who feels that it would not be fair to his daughter...” (Jerusalem Bible)

Or it may refer to the woman to whom he is engaged:

    “If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed...” (RSV)

    “If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to...” (NIV)

    “But if any man feels he is not behaving honourably toward the woman he loves...”(J. B. Phillips)

Others feel that a celibacy pact is in mind here:

    “But if a man has a partner in celibacy and feels that he is not behaving properly toward her...” (NEB)

    “In the case of an engaged couple who have decided not to marry, if the man feels that he is not acting properly toward the girl...” (TEV)

And finally there are those who are undecided between the last two options:

    “But if anyone feels he ought to marry because he has trouble controlling his passions...” (Living Bible)

I Corinthians 12:28 “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets...” Does that mean that the church today should appoint apostles?

There are three possible interpretations here:

    The first one uses the word “apostles” to refer to The Twelve and Judas' replacement, Matthias (and possibly Paul). This is the usage of the word throughout the Synoptic Gospels and the first part of Acts. If so, then “first” may be an indication of either importance or chronology such as in the parallel passage Ephesians 2:19-20: “...the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.” According to this understanding, this office does not apply to the church today.

    However, the same Greek word, apostolos, is applied in the Epistles and in the second half of Acts to Paul (Romans 1:1, 11:13; I Corinthians 15:9, etc.), Barnabas (Acts 14:14), Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:25), Andronicus (Romans 16:7) and Junia (Romans 16:7). The last one is especially interesting since it is a woman's name. Thus, “apostle” may have a broader definition referring to some designated church office which could conceivably be valid for today's church.

    Lastly, Paul may have been using the word according to the original meaning of the word – “messenger, or one sent forth.” This last possibility is the understanding of apostolos in John 13:16 and II Corinthians 8:23 and explains how the author of Hebrews could even call Jesus an apostle (Hebrews 3:1). Whether or not God sends only particular people out as a messengers (or apostles) today is not clear.

I Corinthians 13:1 What does the phrase “sounding brass” mean?

This phrase appears in I Corinthians 13:1 to describe one who speaks in tongues but is lacking in love. The original Greek is chalkos echon. Echon is related to our word “echo” and is not used in the Greek or Roman world to refer to musical instruments. So what does it mean?

The key may be found in the book On Architecture by Vitruvius written in 27 BC. He describes a Roman theater which was equipped with large (3-foot) brass vases placed in the front and back of the theater and tuned to different pitches. They would vibrate and amplify the speaker's words and musical tones. But by themselves, they were useless. One of the Pompeian mosaics pictures such vases.

It is interesting that Vitruvius states that the theater at Rome had just acquired a set of these sounding brasses from the sacked theater at Corinth!

I Corinthians 13:8-10 I have heard this passage used to explain why supernatural gifts of the Spirit such as speaking in tongues are no longer present in the church. Is that what these verses mean?

These verses read: “Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.” And the gifts of prophecy and of mountain-moving faith could be included in that list since they are specifically mentioned in I Corinthians 13:2.

The argument here goes as such: “The complete” in the passage refers to the completion of the New Testament. Once that is available to all, the need for these supernatural helps ceases entirely. The argument hangs or falls on the definition of “the complete,” often translated as “the perfect.” The Greek word teleios appears about 15 times in the NT, but none of these uses applies to God's written word. Aside from references to a perfect gift, perfect law, perfect tabernacle above, and perfect law of Christ (i.e., love), teleios usually refers to the perfecting or maturing of believers.

And if we look at the subsequent verses in I Corinthians 13 (vv. 12-13), they are best understood in a more eschatological sense as referring to the End Times. Charles Ryrie, for example, feels that it is the Second Coming in mind here.

Another passage quoted to prove that these gifts are no longer active is Acts 8:14-20 and related instances where the Holy Spirit is given to believers upon the Apostles laying hands on them. The argument goes that since we no longer have the Twelve with us, those gifts can no longer be passed down. It is a highly flawed conclusion since:

    (a) The necessity of the presence of an apostle (with subsequent speaking in tongues of the recipient) only specifically occurs where there is the need to confirm to the Jerusalem Church the entrance of a new group of believers into the fold (the first Gentile converts and some followers of John the Baptist).

    (b) If that were true, then it would mean that none of us today has the Holy Spirit at all since the text says nothing whatsoever about the gifts of the Spirit, only the receiving of the Holy Spirit Himself.

    (c) Even if the reference were referring to the gifts of the Spirit, then that means that we do not possess any of the gifts today, including teaching and preaching.

Others argue against the continuation of the “sign gifts” today by pointing to the historical dying out of the practice within the church. Still others easily counter this by attributing the same phenomenon to the general lessening of zeal within most churches and lack of faith.

Another argument put forth is that since the purpose of these gifts was only to validate the new message of salvation through faith in Jesus, it is no longer needed today. As proof of that contention, they quote Hebrews 2:1-4 concerning this message which “was first spoken through the Lord, (and) was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also bearing witness with them both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.” This is obviously using fallacious reasoning for two reasons:

    1. Just because one of the reasons for the “sign” gifts was as a supernatural witness to those who had not yet heard the word, that does not indicate that it was the only, or even the main, reason for them.

    2. It wrongly assumes that everyone in the world today (and for the last 20 centuries or so) has ready access to the message of grace and doesn't need any sort of added validation.

In conclusion, it is probably best to not be dogmatic on this point either way. One approach to particularly avoid is to label, as some have, phenomena such as speaking in tongues as a sign of demonic possession. Those who do this are really no different from the Pharisees who said that Jesus' miracles were performed using demonic help since His teachings did not fit in with their particular interpretation of Scripture. Remember that it was at this point that Jesus warned them about committing the unforgivable sin.

I Corinthians 14:34-35 This passage seems unduly strict regarding women's role in the church. Why 

do most evangelical churches ignore this teaching?

This passage possesses textual problems in that these verses are found in several variations and in 

several different locations within the early manuscripts. These factors are usually tip-offs that they 

were added by a later author, as Gordon Fee argues extensively (11 pages) in his commentary on I 

Corinthians. He additionally notes that these teachings contradict I Corinthians 11:2-16 which assume 

women are praying and prophesying in church, and they do not fit the general argument of chapters 

12-14 or the immediate context of 14:26-40. The notes in NRSV echo these arguments. Assuming that 

these verses are authentically Pauline, there are other possible objections to considering them as 

blanket statements regarding all speaking by all women in church:

 

    The emphasis on order in church in this letter reflects a local problem only caused at least partly by 

some women in Corinth. Therefore the negative statements should not be automatically generalized to 

other churches.

 

    These teachings are culturally determined just as Paul's teachings on proper clothing for women (v. 

9) and “were closely linked to first-century customs regarding the woman's place in the home and in 

society.” (Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral) Paul was very sensitive to the fact that any 

deviation from the norm regarding women's role in society could reflect badly on the church's 

reputation among outsiders. Taking that general principle as the guiding one, it is interesting that any 

restrictions on women's role in the church today are likely to be perceived by outsiders in a negative 

way and hinder evangelistic efforts.

    Note that only wives are being addressed in this passage, not all women.

    The problem being addressed is strictly the disruption of a church service by women asking 

uninformed questions of a teacher due to their ignorance. This is a time period when women were 

generally considered to be ineducable. By contrast, Paul feels that they are capable of being taught, but 

preferably by their husbands at home until they are up to speed. But until that happens, they should 

maintain a strict listening attitude at church. (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels) Contrast some 

Jewish teachings from that time: “Better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman” (New 

International Commentary on the New Testament, Timothy and Titus) and “The men came to learn, the 

women came to hear.” (Babylonian Talmud)

    The command to be silent “is probably not meant to apply generally, but specifically to speaking 

with tongues...Women are not to push themselves forward in this manner.” (Dictionary of New 

Testament Theology) Jacques Ellul (The Subversion of Christianity) adds that since women tend to be 

more “inspired” than men, it is important that they restrain their impulse to cry out uncontrollably such 

as is practiced in pagan cults.

    Marital subordination is in mind. A woman shames her husband publicly when she questions 

something the teacher has said or speaks excessively during a service. (Anchor Bible, I Corinthians)

    Titus 2:3 indicates that women could authoritatively teach, although probably limited to household 

situations. By contrast, under rabbinical Judiasm a woman was not even allowed to teach children. 

(Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles)

 

    The meaning of “speak” in verses 34-35 should be translated as “chatter.” (New Bible Commentary)

    It is possible, but unlikely, that Paul is first quoting rabbinical rules in 34-35 and then showing that 

they are wrong in verse 36. (D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies)

 

I Corinthians 15:29 Why don't we practice baptism on behalf of the dead in our churches? And what spiritual benefit does it do for those who have died?

This is indeed a very difficult verse. Gordon Fee (The First Epistle to the Corinthians) states that at least 40 explanations have been offered for it, and Deny and Stewart (101 Most Puzzling Bible Verses) say that “up to 200 explanations have been given.”

The consensus opinion, if one can speak of such a thing in this case, is that:

    a. “Paul...is appealing to an aberrant practice (of the first century, but otherwise unknown to us) without giving it his approval.” (Dictionary of New Testament Theology, I, 1208.

    b. The Greek word for “on behalf of” should be translated “over.” Thus, this alludes to the practice of the Corinthian Christians being baptized above the tombs of their relations who had died in Christ to express their unity and eventual reunion with them. (F. W. Grosheide, The First Epistle to the Corinthians).

    c. The same Greek word should be translated “because of.” In this case, “the reference is to the baptism of those influenced by the testimony of a Christian who had recently died, and in the hope of being re-united with him or her at the resurrection.” (The New Bible Commentary: Revised) G. R. Beasley-Murray cites a number of commentators who hold to this last view (Baptism in the New Testament, pp. 185-8)

Other possible interpretations include (d) the dead are ordinary converts who get baptized with death before their eyes, knowing their mortality, (e) being baptized in memory of, or with affection for, the deceased who had desired their conversion, (f) new converts viewed their baptism as filling up the ranks left depleted by Christians who had died, (g) the unbaptized who died during a persecution were reckoned as having been baptized in their death, etc.

The first option is the most likely one, in my mind.

I Corinthians 16:22 My Bible has the word “maranatha” in this verse. What does it mean and why wasn't it translated into English?

It isn't translated in some English versions but is in others. The word is unusual in that it is an Aramaic word, not a Greek one. That fact probably means that it it appeared very early in church usage since that was the generally spoken language of Jesus' time. Another reason for not translating it is that there is some uncertainty as to exactly what it means, depending on whether the original was “marana tha” or “maran atha.” Possible meanings include: our Lord is a sign, thou art Lord, our Lord has come, at the coming of the Lord, or our Lord is coming (which may have been the original of Philippians 4:4).

But it is most usually understood as a prayer “Our Lord, come!” As such, many scholars feel it was the earliest recorded Christian prayer, originating in the Jerusalem Church. And however it is translated, the fact that it was preserved in Aramaic disproves Rudolph Bultmann's contention that Jesus was first called Lord in Greek-speaking churches (Ladd, The Presence of the Future). “Maranatha” also appears prominently in Revelation 22:20 to close the whole Bible. Notice that in both the I Corinthians and Revelation passage, this word is coupled with another untranslated word, Amen.