Summarized MSB Introduction to the book:  Titled for the City where the church  to which it was written was located.   Common practice for Paul to title his letters so.  Very early church father's accepted that this letter was written by Paul, including Clement of Rome in AD 90.  Paul was probably not long gone at that time.  These two could even have overlapped in time.  There are other big names, very near in time to Paul himself, who agree that he wrote this letter.  It was written in the first half of AD 55 from Ephesus (16:8, 9, 19).  (2021 - This is on his third journey, when he cut across to Ephesus.)  MSB seems pretty sure of this date, but I'm not exactly sure why.
orinth was 45 miles west of Athens (Paul went to Corinth from Athens).  It sits on an isthmus, four miles wide, that joins northern Greece to southern.  To go around in those days was a 250 mile journey by ship.  Instead, captains "carried" their ships across that four miles to the other side.  And N/S foot traffic all went through or near Corinth.  Naturally, it prospered as a trade route.  Nero began a canal across the isthmus, but it wasn't completed until the 19th century.  
Corinth was a morally corrupt place.  Deteriorating cities were said to "corinthianized".  It was notorious for idol worship and sexual immorality and drunken debauchery.  Incest was also common in Corinth, and even the pagans of the time generally condemned incest.  Per MSB, the church at Corinth was unable to break with the culture it came from, and was exceptionally factional.  Cliques developed within the church, and they didn't associate with each other.  One claimed loyalty to Apollos, one to Paul, one to Peter and one to Christ alone.  Paul has to write to them several times, two that we know of besides 1st and 2nd Corinthians.  The church just cannot seem to break away from the culture, and the culture keeps getting inside.  Paul tells them not to associate with those still immersed in the culture, and to go so far as to put those who will not break with it out of the church.  
MSB says the books address behavior more than they do doctrine, but that in most cases it is unsound doctrine that leads to bad behavior.  

Chapter 1
In 1:1 Paul mentions Sosthenes, earlier mentioned as the one who was beaten before Gallio's tribunal after Gallio said "religious crimes" were none of his affair.
2022 - If the letter is written from Ephesus, as the introduction says, then surely this implies that Sosthenes had traveled there also, either with Paul, or to meet Paul there.  Ephesus is quite a ways from Corinth - over 200 miles if you went straight across by ship.  Much much further if you walk.
First greeting, then Paul tells them he is thankful for them.  Pretty typical of Paul's letters to start off with these two parts.  This verse though:
2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: [1Co 1:2 ESV]  The body is one, not confined to the local church, but we are united with all believers in all places.  Maybe Paul is going to point out that doing things that are out of sync with other churches should be an indication of possible error, and a grave concern.  If all are one, there should not be huge differences in theory or practice.  There is also this verse, at the very beginning of a book that is going to talk at length about Spiritual gifts:
7 so that you are not lacking in any gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, [1Co 1:7 ESV]
This church had so many things going wrong, was so "invaded" and hindered by the inclusion of cultural "norms" in their worship, yet all the gifts were present, many were being exercised openly...it was obvious that they were saved, and yet they were so full of error.  But Paul never says "You "real" Christians with your hymns and your nice Sunday clothes and your male Sunday School teachers should all go across the road and start a new church, because this one is just too messed up, and it is the majority that is messed up so you're not going to be able to outvote them and make them do it right.  So just leave and start over."  Paul never suggests splitting off from a terribly imperfect church.  Surely there is a lesson in this.

I am sick to death of the ESV footnote, every time Paul says "brothers", that lets me know it could also be translated "brothers and sisters".  Surely there is a word in Greek for "and" (kappa alpha iota, kai) plus a word in Greek for "sisters" (adelphen, the feminine form of adelphos).  If Paul had wanted to say that, he certainly had vocabulary available to him to do so.  That is not what he said.  It was the way they did things, nothing exclusionary was meant by it.  But it is what he said and it is the way he said it.  If you can't deal with this, then there are a ton of things in the Bible that you are going to have even more trouble with.  Start with understanding that it is written in the context of that time - 55 AD - and DO NOT try to change what it says!  Brothers is what it says!  I checked the interlinear.  The word is "adelphos" - just the one word.  In Greek it is a masculine noun.  It is used 346 times  in the KJV.  Brethren, brother, brother's, brother's way are the only four ways it is translated.  Brethren is dominant, and used 226x.  While I am fine that the word, depending on context, includes women, it should not and was never meant to be translated "brothers and sisters".  It just was not.

And then he really starts:
Paul first addresses division in the church.  They are divided, based on who baptized them.  Each considers this a badge of some sort, something to wear with pride.  The division is over who they "follow".  It may be based on who baptized who, but that isn't all of it, because as far as I know neither Peter nor Jesus baptized anyone at Corinth, and Paul says he baptized only a very few people.  He is happy that is the case.  If baptism completes salvation, there is just no possible way that Paul would ever say something like this.  His message is not that he's glad not many were saved by his (baptismal) efforts, but that he is glad he hasn't contributed any more than he has to their divisions.  He tells them it doesn't matter to whom they are loyal, that all are in Christ, and that is what Paul preached to them.

2022 - This verse:
10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. [1Co 1:10 ESV].  Is this even possible?  How can you take a book like the Bible - or in their case, they are trying to make their way without a New Testament at all - and agree on everything that it says?  Is this hyperbole on Paul's part?  Or is there some other meaning that English misses?  
Yes.  Looking at BLB, and looking at the individual words and their meanings, the translation seems inadequate.  First, how do other Bibles translate it:
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. [1Co 1:10 KJV]
10 I appeal to you, dear brothers and sisters, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to live in harmony with each other. Let there be no divisions in the church. Rather, be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. [1Co 1:10 NLT]
These two are representative of the other "choices" made in translation.  I personally think the KJV has the best sense of the words.  The words are αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες.  The first word is a pronoun, which is translated "him" 1952 times of the 5785 times it is used in the KJV.  It is an indispensible word in Greek conversation.  In this verse, ESV translates this "agree".  Agree is not even close to being a pronoun!  However, 80x in the KJV, the word is translated "same".  There are also 1678 times where it means other things, not listed.  I didn't look those up.  But keep in mind that this is a pronoun in a huge majority of cases where it is used.  Next word is a form of legos.  Means "word".  The legos is the word, used so much in John 1.  So we COULD go with "same word", and then that last word is pantes, and means things like all, every, whosoever, whatsoever things like that.  So, in "raw" translation we have "same word all", and even there, we are not using the most common form of autos, which is him.  That would give us "him word all", which gets us exactly nowhere at all.  So this Greek phrase is some kind of idiom or construction that had a meaning that would be understood by Greek speakers in Corinth in 55 AD...but gives us a little bit of pause.  Remember that the reason I went to so much trouble here is that "all of you agree" seems like far too much to ask.  Looking again, this is a compound sentence.  In ESV, it is "that all of you agree" AND "that there be no divisions".  So...whatever the first part means, the implication is that you can get the first part right and still have divisions over it.  The word for divisions is "schismata".  We get schism from that.  Seems to carry the sense of a deep, nasty rift.  A "split" or "gap".  Hmm...so the sense is, get the first part under control and the second part won't be a problem, won't occur.  I wish I was fluent in 1st century Greek!  Footnote in MSB says that three word phrase is literally "speak the same thing".  Also says division is more literally schisms.  So.  Don't be so far apart in your beliefs that it rips great huge fissures in between those with different ideas.  It all comes from scripture.  It all comes from God, it all comes from Jesus.  There cannot be "schisms" in what God teaches.  So "say the same thing", that is, move toward the middle, build bridges over the schisms, and GET ALONG WITH EACH OTHER.  Views that are the extreme opposite of each other CANNOT BOTH be right.  But...Calvinism and Armenianism?  Exactly.  Do not be so adamant about one that you cannot have a civil conversation with someone who believes the other.  You are both "in Christ", and He is not divided!  Ok.  Enough on that.
Well...say the same things may mean "debate things amicably".  Yeah.  That really might be where Paul was going with that.  And that is why he never says "change churches".  Changing churches, even in the face of the kind of  problems Corinth had, is not the solution because that is not how you promote unity.  If someone is sick at your house, do you move out?  Is that love for someone, to just leave them to wallow in their problems?  NO!  Leaving the church does not promote unity, it is the very definition of "schism".   I do not think Paul means to accept poor doctrine, because he's going to spend a big part 1Cor straightening out errors from a position of authority - the Bible is our authority now as the apostles were back then.  So people do get things wrong.  But love of our fellow Christians, with the overriding goal of full church unity, ought to create in us a desire to work toward agreement.  
There has to be a FB post here...but it would sure be a long one.  I just don't see how to condense this paragraph to FB length.  It would make a nice essay on my web site.  Hmm.  I should start a list of those.  There was another one not long ago, and I never did it, and now I don't remember it.  

This verse:
18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [1Co 1:18 ESV]
This is the supernatural part of salvation.  The indwelling of God makes His word, His ways, His purposes more clear to us.  The Spirit interprets for us so we can have a fuller understanding of what is written in the Bible.  Those who do not believe do not see this, and so think the Bible is "folly".  Perhaps one's view of the Bible is a good yardstick by which we can evaluate the spiritual condition of others?

2021 - But that isn't really Paul's point.  His point is that the Corinthians are bogged down in perpetual argument over the relative wisdom, power, and merit of the leaders of their church, and they take sides and they resent those who "back" other teachers.  The debate is about who is the wisest teacher and they must be reading more and more into this.  This is a Greek thing, to debate endlessly about details and call it wisdom.  Paul says the gospel is not about seeking wisdom.  The gospel is simple, explainable to anyone, graspable by anyone.  He says they should be looking to the gospel and spreading the gospel, not constantly comparing the teachings of their leadership.

I think this next verse confirms the 2021 paragraph:
19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." [1Co 1:19 ESV], quoted from Isa 29:14.  There, it is about the Millennial, when Christ's wisdom is the only wisdom.  God purposely made his word a problem for those who are wise in their own eyes and the ways of the world.  They are supposed to have a problem with it.

Paul says wisdom does not lead to salvation.  Belief in Christ crucified leads to salvation.  This is how God wanted it, so that the wise have no basis for bragging nor can they "lord it over" the simple, dumb and common people around them.  Simple faith is all that is required, and the message is spread by preaching.  You don't even need to know how to read.  Paul points out to them in vs 26 that almost none of them would have qualified for salvation if wisdom was the test, nor if power or noble birth was the standard.  None of these are the way, lest some have reason to boast.  He quotes "let him that glorieth, glory in this:  24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I [am] the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these [things] I delight, saith the LORD. [Jer 9:24 KJV]  Our boast is that we know about Jesus, we are in Christ.  NOT that we are so very smart.

Chapter 2
Paul says that it was for this reason he preached a simple sermon, understandable by all.  (He had the education to preach complexity and so on, but chose not to do that, so that all could hear and understand.)  But then in seeming contradiction to all that, there is this verse:
6 Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. 7 But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. [1Co 2:6-7 ESV]
I expect the gnostics would make much of this verse.  MSB says this "secret" refers to things God knew from before time began, and revealed over time as we were ready to receive it or as He was ready for us to know it.  It is not a secret that only the "initiated" can know.  2021 - So it is ok to search out what God has done and how He has done it.  It is ok to search for wisdom at the source of all wisdom.  But this wisdom comes from God, not from man, and is not to be the basis of our "status" in the church, our "worth" in the church or anything along those lines.  It is to bring us closer to God, individually.

He continues and says that the things of God are revealed by the Holy Spirit within us.  Only through the Spirit can we know the thoughts of God.  NOT through Paul, or Apollos, or Peter, and so on.  Man is not the source of wisdom. I like the phrase in verse 13 that says  "....interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual."  This is what teachers do.  They confirm what the Spirit is already teaching those who are saved.  They do not impart their own knowledge but confirm what is revealed - on a level appropriate to each person - to every saved soul.

 

2024 - This one, that I find very interesting:
11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. [1Co 2:11 ESV].
11 For who among men knows the [thoughts] of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the [thoughts] of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. [1Co 2:11 NASB95].  ESV much better.
Only we know what we really think.  We live in secret in our own heads, no matter what others think they know.  Further, this is characteristic also of God.  In this, we are like him.  In this, we are as we should be.  This is imago dei, but not one we hear about.  This was not in Grudem's shared characteristics of God.  But when the Spirit of God dwells in us - in the saved - THEN we can know much more of the thoughts of God.  We share in his self-knowledge.  What a thought that is!

This verse:
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. [1Co 2:14 ESV]
The test again, or another test?  The unsaved, unregenerate person, without the Spirit of God to communicate Spirit to spirit, sees spiritual revelation as "folly", as silliness, as frivolous fantasy and imaginative fabrication.  
Logic and reasoning do not work for convincing people to be saved.  It is folly to them.  Salvation is in hearing that Jesus was the Son of God, that he died, and rose again, and will come back to get those who believe in him.  Any logical proofs in witnessing should be aimed at showing that Jesus was predicted to arrive and do these things, and that he in fact did arrive and do these things.  Until this is accepted, and a person is saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the deeper things are incomprehensible.  The MSB note on vs 14 says the Spirit gives us the capacity to understand divine truth, but does not imply that it won't take hard work and study to get there.  It also does not imply that no one needs a teacher.

Chapter 3
Starts with this:
2021 - 1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. [1Co 3:1 ESV]  So this is at the root of all the problems in the Corinthian church.  They are infants in Christ.  They are not well grounded, they are still on milk and not meat.  When a church has rampant problems it is because of immaturity as Christians.  Deeper teaching is needed, and as each individual is more informed about doctrine, these problems begin to melt away.  I would say that the first thing that begins to go is "rugged individualism", pride of place, and so on.  MacA's book on Spiritual gifts leans this way also.  The more "standout" people in a church, the less mature it is.  So what's needed is not a different church, but investment in "growing up" the present church.  And our gifts can be exercised to do just that.

2022 - He continues this way:
2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, [1Co 3:2 ESV].  This is pretty direct.  Paul tells them that despite the work he did while there, despite the time they  have had to mature in Christ, in doctrine, and in unity, they are still not there.  They are just splashing around keeping their heads above water, not swimming towards the goal.  It is likely that the immature will go defensive about this, and lash out at Paul, his authority, his "standing" to say such things.  But there is a group of people in Corinth who "follow Paul".  Will they see that even they are doing it wrong, or will they seize upon this as a "promotion" for them in relation to the other groups?

6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. [1Co 3:6-7 ESV]  Paul is addressing a big problem in the Corinthian church.  They have separated themselves into "cliques" based on who baptized them into the church.  The brag about how much "better" the guy who baptized them is than the guy who baptized everyone else.  Their pride, then, is in men.  To try and correct this thinking, Paul gives them an agricultural analogy.  He says that Paul, Apollos, and Peter - all of whom are being held up as the better man - are like laborers on a farm, working for a master.  They are just the hands.  One might sow, another water, another weed, but it is God who owns the land.  The laborers will receive wages, but all are working that God may produce - they work for the benefit of the master, not for their own benefit.  So those who covet recognition and claim honor based on who baptized them, are honoring not the master but the worker.  They have missed the whole point.  If we aren't careful, we too can get attached to a particular Sunday School teacher, a TV preacher, or even a whole denomination.  But these are all laborers, and should be seen as our partners rather than masters.  The objective of each is to proclaim the gospel so that there will be a harvest to benefit Christ.  We can apply this "test" as a measure of our own maturity by noting whether we got to hear a preacher, or to hear the word.  We can also test church leaders by noting whether they are promoting themselves or whether they are also working to produce a good harvest.
Possible FB post here.  

 

2025 - This year, reading vss 1-9, I do get the idea that the leading Corinthians in the church were preaching/promoting what Paul had taught them, or what Apollos had taught them.  And perhaps there were some differences in either content or method or both.  But they seem to have been consumed with these men and now with the teachings of God.  So the idea would be that if you built a whole course of study based on the teachings of Apollos, and advertising your class as a deeper study of Apollos and his writings and teachings, and you invited people to church to hear about Apollos...then  you are building the church on the wrong foundation.  There was already a foundation there - Jesus - so you don't need to build a whole new foundation.  Because it isn't going to last.  It is going to fade away because Apollos is still milk and Jesus is meat.  So  this great class you've built that knows all about Apollos does not mature.  It does not last, because Apollos is just a man.  
2025 - This idea continues on through 15.  You have to build with materials that cannot be burned up.  That leaves out flesh.  Gold, silver, precious stones...these survive fire.  Again, it may be that this is about how we as Christians build up the church.  The church is already there, already has a foundation.  We are to add to the church, promote it, sanctify it with our teaching, serving, contributing, promoting.  What if we only teach about John MacArthur?  We use only his books, and we teach his biography and have a little bust of him in the classroom.  We make JMA the big deal, and not the word, not Jesus.  We follow John MacArthur.  Sooner or later, that class will fall apart.  Maybe this is what was going on.  

Another analogy.  Paul says he is a master builder, and he laid a foundation in Corinth.  Others now build on that foundation.  And they should take care how they build, because all will be tried in fire.  If the fire destroys what was built, it's builder will suffer loss - not of his own soul but of his reward.  Rewards are given only for what survives the fire.  MSB note confirms this.  This is about the judgment seat of Christ, when the saved are rewarded for their works.  We need to be careful how we build, if we want any reward.  Because the way this is worded "...but only as through fire", seems to indicate that we'll have burn scars for the things we messed up and crowns for what we got right.  Now there is a scary way to look at it.  It motivates a deeper look.

2022 - This is in 1Cor 3.10-15.  Is it really about the judgment?  Or is this just part of Paul's analogy?  I just don't see anything here that, in context, is about a judgment.  Paul is introducing another analogy, another metaphor, to make THE SAME POINT about the disunity in the Corinthian church.  The first metaphor was the field.  God-laborers (Paul, Peter, Apollos) - field (the members of the Corinthian church).  This relationship, this hierarchy is also represented by a master builder (God), who has his laborers (Paul, Peter, Apollos) lay a foundation upon which others (the members of the Cori can build.  God has the plan, others execute the plan, and then still others build upon it.  
But he does talk about the Day.  That is when it will be obvious who built well and who didn't.  So yes, looking at it that way, there is a judgment in view here.  The phrase "though he himself will be saved" also is indicative of evaluation, of judgment.  Note also that this is a judgment of works.  There's nothing about this judgment that makes you unsaved.  The clear assumption is that all who are judged like this are saved, and remain so.  But there will be both rewards and losses.  This has to be the bema, because though the pre-millennial judgment is of works, many will be cast into hell if their works are found wanting.  The phrase quoted above is Paul making it clear just which judgment he is talking about.  That difference contrasts bema with Pre-Millennial.

Right after this analogy, Paul says that each person is God's temple, and that God's Spirit is within them.  Then he says if anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person.  I don't understand this, and the MSB note is no help at all.  It says this is about anyone who tries to destroy that the foundation of the church is Christ.  But it is talking about individuals being temples, not churches being temples.  I don't think MSB is correct here...or maybe it is pretty complicated, and there wasn't room for the note.  It might be more about how those who are claiming superiority because of their "worldly wisdom" and  undermining the growth of the "less wise" by pointing them to Paul or Apollos, etc, instead of by pointing them to God.  Maybe they are even out debating in the public square and persuading people to come into the church as disciples of Apollos and his teaching, instead of coming is as followers of Christ.  Now that does make some sense.  And not only in this context.  If much of the church is made up of those who are there to follow men then it is no wonder there are unity problems.  And no matter how wise those who are recruiting in this way think they are, they better be real careful because what they are doing is destroying the foundation.  So this first part of Corinthians is perhaps more about who they are bringing into the church and the basis of their recruitment, and we will get to the problems with how the saved in the church are exercising their gifts a bit later  Two big problems, not just the one.

 

2025 - I think I've interpreted vss 16-17 wrong in the paragraph above.  Here is ESV:
16 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple. [1Co 3:16-17 ESV]...and here is NASB95:
16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and [that] the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are. [1Co 3:16-17 NASB95].
I have interpreted this as being addressed to an individual.  As in John, you are God's Temple with the Spirit inside you.  If you wreck your body, God will destroy you.  That's wrong.  Paul is addressing the CHURCH as a whole. He is calling the church at Corinth a Temple of God, perhaps using the language of the culture, since temples were everywhere in that town.  The Spirit of God is there to build the church.  If you teach wrong doctrine, doctrine based on men instead of on God, then you are building on the temporal.  You are doing it wrong, and if you keep doing it, the Spirit is not going to support that weak teaching, and your church is going to fizzle out and go away.  Or...those who teach wrongly will fade away or be replaced.  Do it right or you will not last - either as a bad teacher  or as a badly built church.

2022 - Could it mean that if we abuse and neglect our physical bodies, if we expose them to idolatry, adultery, gluttony etc, then there will be consequences for that in this life?  Could it mean that indulging the body in activities that are against God's commands will result in a faster "corruption" of the body, and early death, pain, and so on?  I looked again at the MSB note...it just seems clearly off the mark.  Wait...put vs 15 with 16.  Those who build poorly on the foundation are building a poor church, a poor temple.  At the judgment, the poor quality will be noted and destroyed.  That's what MSB is saying this is about.  I don't know though.  How can we "destroy" the church, even if we build poorly on it?  MSB says this is about building on the WRONG foundation, a foundation besides Jesus.  But that's not what it says as I read it.  At a stretch, if we ourselves, by say attaching ourselves to Paul or Apollos, and focus on promoting one of them as opposed to promoting the gospel, then this error incurs God's opposition, and He will destroy us - refuse to "grow" us? - treat us as false teachers?  Yeah...that doesn't seem to quite be it either.  A difficult section here.
Maybe destroying God's Temple is about tearing down each other.  Maybe it means they were so aggressive in defending their chosen champion that they were stomping on their detractors, even to the point of denigrating Christ as the foundation of the church and building on Peter's preaching rather than Christ's words.  Hmm...that is probably the best explanation so far.  And it also explains the two metaphors about what the hierarchy really is, that the Corinthians seem to be missing.

2022 - The last few verses imply to me that the Corinthians are debating at great length who is the "best" man, who they ought to follow, who they ought to honor.  And in the last few verses, Paul says the strength of your arguments is of no consequence to God.  This verse:
21 So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, [1Co 3:21 ESV].  Maybe this means that we will each be judged for OUR OWN doings, not for the accomplishments or failures of our leaders.  To boast in man rather than in Christ is to miss the whole cruise.  They are looking around, rather than looking up, and this means they are still flesh oriented - as Paul said in vs 1.  This thought makes sense to me, but I still can't seem to tie it to the Temple analogy, and destruction of those who destroy this temple.  Does it help to think of what was happening as some kind of hero worship?  Or...maybe, it was akin to what modern day Catholics do with their saints.  We the Corinthians offering up prayers to Paul, Peter, and Apollos?  Surely if it was that, Paul would clearly tell them not to do that.  Were they equating the words of these three with scripture, finding contradictions, and so elevating/arguing who was "best" according to whether they could tear him down or not?  And they were so focused on that that they were not getting around to "working in the field" at all?  Maybe.  Note the opening of the next chapter...This is how one should regard us...  How does this mean anything but "You are not looking at us correctly".

Chapter 4
First 5 verses state how the Corinthians are to think of "us".  By us, I believe Paul means the leadership of the Corinthian church.  The Gifted Men in MacA's terms.  Paul seems to be saying that the Corinthian membership is "judging" their leadership, and deciding who is most correct and then latching onto that clique, because that leader is "wisest".  And Paul says he doesn't put any stock in that kind of judging, and he never does it to others, and doesn't even judge himself.  Christ is the final judge.  This is an interesting concept.  Surely Paul teaches right doctrine, and believes he is right, but he knows that it is Christ at the judgment who will be the final word on his teaching - not the men of the Corinthian church.

2022 - I think the Corinthians are deciding that some men - maybe Paul, maybe Apollos - are teaching for personal gain.  That too seems to be one of their criteria, one of the things they accuse the one who didn't baptize them of doing.  They are tearing down some apostles, some teachers, some fathers, in order to elevate their "chosen" apostle, and elevate themselves because he is the "best" apostle.  And then, they seem to be going further, and claiming that the superior teaching of that apostle has given them insight that those who follow a different apostle do not have.  They are the "keepers of the truth", that these others cannot know...because their apostle didn't teach them correctly.  You can imagine a few charismatic leaders - a youth minister in our terms who is so very beyond popular with the youth that the rest of the church is denigrated by them.  The kind of youth minister that can split a church.  Or a hugely popular assistant pastor that a good portion of the congregation decides ought to be pastor, and they begin to promote him and find fault with the current pastor.  These two ideas ring true about what was going on in Corinth.  And Paul is saying, you can denigrate any one of us if you care to, but your judgment of me is a very small matter, next to the judgment I will receive from Christ, whom I serve.  He does not care about their slanders.

This verse, which seems to address a different matter, but is in context with the divisions set up by "loyalty" to various teachers:
6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. [1Co 4:6 ESV]
Having just recently read "Scripture Alone", this seems to say that written scripture is the last word, and that nothing beyond that should be considered.  MSB has one little note on the phrase "beyond what is written", and it says "God's faithful servants are to be treated with respect only within the bounds of what is scriptural.  It has many xrefs - 1 Ths 5:12, 1 Titus 5:17, Heb 13:7,17.  So...not based on their eloquence or flawless logic, but on what scripture actually says?  This is difficult.  Maybe this is again talking about teachings that are outside the Bible when these guys recruit, or even when the followers of Apollos judge the followers of Peter and so on.  Who knows what all worldly criteria they could be bringing into that judgement.
It seems also to say that they are using specific teachings of these men - Apollos, Peter, Paul and so on - which they are able to comprehend in their own "wisdom" - to separate themselves from others in the church who are "less wise".  This seems to be getting to the sense of it all.  If Apollos was the wisest of the wise, then those who can understand his teaching are also very very wise.  But if all you can understand is what Joe teaches, then you aren't really in the same category with me, and not very wise at all really.  So I'm going to hang with those who are as smart as me, and you just do the best you can.  This is what Paul is fighting against.

2022 - If you don't go beyond the written word, don't claim "further revelation", then you will all be equal, and no one can claim superiority.  This is what further revelation is for - to claim a special place, a special insight, that elevates you above the poor slobs who have only the written word, and that was even revealed to someone else and not to you.  Think Mormonism with its own special book.  Islam with its own special book.  This is the strategy they use.  It worked in Corinth, it works still.

This sarcastic verse:
8 Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you! [1Co 4:8 ESV]
These people Paul is addressing have elevated themselves above their teachers, declared themselves all-knowing, and are now judging the teaching of the apostles.  Paul says that's awesome, can we apostles be part of YOUR group now?  They are elevating themselves as judges, kings even, and are building empires based on this judgement.  This leaves Christ as King out completely.  This is a very prideful and arrogant way to do things, and reeks of Corinthian culture.

Wow...in vss 9-13, Paul contrasts the "standard of living" of the apostles (the lower case version of apostles I think here) with that of the Corinthians.  The Corinthians are healthy, wealthy, and wise.  The apostles are on the road in poor health, mean clothing, working for every meal, and consider themselves ignorant.  He is shaming these men in a very direct and impossible to misunderstand way.

2022 - Look at the contrasts here:
10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong. You are held in honor, but we in disrepute. [1Co 4:10 ESV].
Paul is making it very clear that the charismatic leaders are not in step with the example of the apostles, who surely have authority directly from Christ.  Who truly do have special revelation as part of their appointments.  Just as a primary pastor is a man called of God for that purpose, and ought not to be attacked as inadequate by those not so gifted - but who claim to be wiser and more able than the one that taught them, though they do nothing he taught them.

The"building" on the foundation that all teachers do will be tried with fire.  Their architecture, their design, the height and breadth, may be impressive, but fire will be the test.  And if their teaching burns up, their salvation will not, and perhaps by extension those who truly believe as a result even of this teaching, will also be saved.  Or maybe...the foundation never burns.  But even the saved can be taught wrong doctrine.  The danger is that if wrong doctrine proliferates, it prevents the teaching of Christ crucified.  It makes salvation complex, and only for the strong and the wise, when that is most definitely NOT God's intention.

Paul compares the Corinthian's opinions of themselves with the opinions of the apostles about themselves.  The Corinthians consider themselves wise, noble, as kings even, because of their advanced understanding.  Meanwhile, Paul and Apollos and others "are fools for Christ's sake", poor, wandering, homeless, needy.  Working hard.  They have it so very wrong.

This verse:
15 For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. [1Co 4:15 ESV]
A church is full of guides - other Christians, being sanctified, growing in truth and knowledge, all working together. But there are few "fathers".  Paul says he is their father because he gave them the gospel.  As such, they should imitate his ways, not strike off on ways of their own devising.  They should look to him as an example, and not compete with each other.

2022 - Paul holds himself up as the example of how to live many times in the NT.  He often urges churches to imitate him.  He recounts that he doesn't take pay, doesn't ask for room and board, but supports himself.  He means don't seek worldly success in any of its forms.  Instead, seek to share the gospel, to convert lost to saved, to store up heavenly treasure immune to the fire.  Here, he calls himself their father, and implies that they ought to try and "be like Dad".  This is how he wants them to see him, not as a ruler over them so much as a loving benefactor who only wants what is best for them.  Wonder where he got that idea?!  If our leaders are advancing themselves (our leaders in the church) rather than the gospel or the word, then we ought to be suspicious, we ought to correct, we ought to warn.  And truly, we ought to confront, difficult as that might be.

Here:
17 That is why I sent you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church. [1Co 4:17 ESV]  Here is the tie back to the introduction where Paul says all the churches are the same, together, and one.  He is telling Corinth that they are out of step with the body as a whole in their church.  Timothy has come to tell them how the church is to do things, and indeed how others are doing it right as compared to how Corinth is doing things.  What a job young Timothy has, trying to motivate some really wholesale changes that start with "demoting" the self-proclaimed rich and powerful in that church.

2022 - I still think I got this one right the first time.  Paul is saying that there are certain things about how a church ought to do things that ought to be observed across the board at all churches.  Each church does not really get to choose whether or not to let women preach - things like that.  There are some universals, and Paul is urging Corinth - where they are out of step with other churches - to get back into line and stop claiming to be special.  What does that say about "independent" churches, who are stand alone and not associated at all with other churches?  Isn't Paul speaking specifically against that?  Local autonomy in some matters, but in others, all should be the same.

2022 - This interesting verse:
20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power. [1Co 4:20 ESV].  Is Paul threatening them with apostolic chastisement?  Is he saying "You guys are great debaters and eloquent speakers, but I can literally physically mute you for life if I want, so when I come, we'll just see where everyone really stands".  Because if he's saying that, we can't do that today.  Or, is he saying that the kingdom, the word, is the power and that it is always the bottom line and it will win.

He closes the chapter asking them if they want him to come there to spank them, or to encourage them.  This ties back to him saying he is their father in Christ.  This gives him the authority to spank or to encourage.  This too is pretty direct as to position.

Chapter 5
Paul is appalled that incest is practiced and tolerated in the Corinthian church, where everyone seems to know that at least one man is married to his father's wife.  Perhaps a step-mother?  Not only are they tolerating it, but seem proud that their "freedom" in Christ allows things even pagans don't permit.  Paul says they should mourn this situation, and remove the one who has done this from the church.  
2021-2, Here is the vs:
2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. [1Co 5:2 ESV]
These people were proud to say that this man could do this and still go to heaven.  Paul says indulging sin - though the man might still go to heaven - is never ok.  It is immorality, it is forbidden and even pagans know it.  The recommended course is to REMOVE the sinner.  It doesn't say counsel him and if he won't listen then remove him.  This is so blatantly obvious and habitual that the only recourse is removal.

This is not ok, inside or outside the church.  Paul says he's judged from afar, and that this man needs to be "delivered to Satan" for destruction of his flesh, so that his soul may yet be saved.  Paul wants this man put out, he wants no one to associate with him, he wants the church to visibly publicly condemn this man's actions.  (The wife is not mentioned.  Where is the footnote that says sometimes "he" can mean both parties involved???)  The idea is that the Lord's judgement of this person, once he is put out into the world (Satan's realm) is far more likely to bring about repentance than letting him feel he is judged, yet still welcome, in the church.  Condemnation must go to it's logical end.  So Paul isn't judging whether or not this person is saved.  Paul is saying that if he is, then being excommunicated from the church is a more effective motivator for changing this behavior than is defending him as a Christian before the pagans.  The action is for his benefit in the long term.  This also presupposes that what the man has been doing has been directly confronted and condemned internally to no avail, and with no apparent repentance.  If the man is not saved, then he is bringing immorality and corruption into the church and this would be a strategy of Satan to undermine the integrity and the separateness of the church from the world.  This man needs to be put out, since he has resisted all urging to repentance and insists on continuing in this sin.  Either way, he needs to be put out into the world.  The pagans won't accept this behavior - even they know this goes too far, and when these find themselves among the pagans, they will likely remember the more hospitable church, and be motivated to change.  There is much logic in all this.
2021-2, So perhaps he has been confronted, but has chosen not to change his ways.  And the church is telling the pagans to mind their own business, that in fact Christians have freedom to do such things and not endanger their salvation.  Paul is saying no!  This behavior must be "put out".  Unrepentant sin is never to be allowed to flourish in the church.  It undermines, it brings reproach, it must go.

2024 - I think this "judgment in absentia" is also an interesting concept.  Paul says that they are to judge this one, and put him out, with Paul present only "in spirit".  It could be that up to that point, apostles judged the big things when they came for a visit, and most - all perhaps before this one - sins were allowed to continue until the apostles could make a ruling.  Paul says that this one is so obvious, so certainly wrong, and has such a prescribed remedy, that they don't need to wait for him.  He has already judged this from afar.  They need to get on with it at the physical location and get this man out of the church.  
Is this the precedent for having a "central authority" decide how a church ought to be run, or at least to decide what behavior is deserving of excommunication?  The local church was tolerating this sin, but Paul says kick him out and do it now.  That is surely authority from the home office.  

A little leaven leavens the whole lump.  A little sin, tolerated, makes the whole church sinful.  That seems to be the point.

Paul expands on this by referring to a previous letter - which we do not have - where he told them not to associate with immoral people.  They took this to mean immoral people outside the church, but that those inside were ok being immoral.  This is not what he meant.  He says the only way to avoid association with the immoral outside the church is to be outside the world - not to live on earth, basically.  He didn't mean that.  Those are the very ones the church is supposed to reach.  And not just immoral.  Swindlers, greedy, and idolators are included.  It is the unrepentant of this sort who have come into the church - the idolatrous, revilers, drunks, or swindlers, that are to be avoided.  The church is to judge those in the church, and leave judging outsiders to God.  Those outside are the mission field.  We are commanded to offer them the gospel.  Once in, we are commanded to teach them to live as Christians, NOT to revel in their sin because of their freedom from it in eternity.  Surely this says that the saved person can do nothing to endanger his eternal salvation.  Once saved - truly saved - then always saved is a true saying.  BUT, here, and in many other places, we are taught that behavior still matters, that sanctification is the point for the saved while on earth, and here we see that those who boast in their sin and refuse correction are to be put out.  Because there's a good chance they aren't saved at all, and it won't help them to be treated as if they are.  And if they truly are saved and behave this way, then severe correction - to the point of expulsion and "exile" - are called for.  Those in the church are not to even eat with insiders who commit  such sins.  They are to "purge the evil person".  In vs 11 an inside sinner is referred to as one "who bears the name of brother".

2024 - This says that living with your girlfriend and going to this church is not ok.  You stop, or we put you out of our church.  This says that to be saved, to be "changed" is not a simple matter of saying aloud "I believe in Christ" but is a far more encompassing commitment requiring that we obey the commands of God.  Salvation is NOT stating belief in Christ and continuing to live and do the very exact same things as you were doing before, the same things the world does.  If you claim to be saved and ignore the clear teachings of scripture about behavior, about morality, then you should be put out of the church.  No one can say whether you are saved or not, but if you are behaving so obviously in contradiction to the Word, then you SHOULD BE TREATED as if you are unsaved.  Why?  Because being removed from a supportive environment is going to make life harder for you.  It's going to make you think maybe you really have been doing this wrong.  That's if you are saved.  If you are not, then you'll be thrown back out into the world with all the other dead people, and that is not going to lead you to anything but the same empty, lonely, purposeless life that brought you to the church in the first place.
2024 - I also see some things here that remind me of Bonhoeffer's book.  We ought not "justify" living together out of wedlock by sociologizing that it is part of our culture, and so should not be sanctioned by the church anymore.  We shouldn't say it is not a sin because everyone does it.  Look at where that ends up - incest has to be ultimately accepted.  I love my cat has to be accepted.  Three drinks are necessary for me to sleep has to be accepted.  Don't overthink it!  Sex outside marriage is ALWAYS sin, and the church should not tolerate habitual sin in its members.  Out they go.  To become a church member is to commit to continual change, improvement, and conformance with the commands of God.  We have left this whole concept so incredibly far from our churches today.
2024 - But non-church people who live like this are not to be judged, they are the mission field.  They are to be invited to church.  They are to be told about the gospel.  They are never to be shunned!

2021-2, These verses on church discipline:
11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you." [1Co 5:11-13 ESV]
Yet the SBC has hired a secular firm to come inside and judge the church.  Clearly, the church is to judge itself!  This is a mistake in doctrine notwithstanding the majority vote of the delegates.  This is a huge mistake, and maybe the one that takes down the most vital missionary organization on the planet.  That is what this is about, and it is being orchestrated.  It is a plan.  Maybe it is also moving us toward the end, where there just aren't many saved people left.

2022 - It is interesting that we are to be quick and decisive and possibly even impatient towards those inside the church who are habitual sinners.  The church is to be kept pure, even if that means putting people out for their lifestyle choices, or their sexual practices.  Living together before marriage?  They ought to be put out if they persist.  Homosexuals?  Put them out.  If they are members, this is not to be tolerated.  Letting such people stay in should not be viewed as a loving church full of God's people, but a tolerance for sin that is clearly at odds with the clear teaching of scripture.  There is nothing in the Bible that says to temper the decisions and judgments of the church so as not to offend non-Christians.  That is NEVER there.  We need to remember whom we serve, and we need to remember that it is in heaven, not on earth, that we want to be accepted.

2024 - Here in these last verses is also the reply to "judge not lest ye be judged".  That has nothing to do with what happens inside the church!  We most certainly ARE to judge insiders and such is explicitly stated in vs. 12, and is confirmed by contrast in vs 13.  

2024 - Here is the problem in a big church like Quail...No one knows.  Anonymity of behavior, of relationship are very difficult.  You can come to preaching every Sunday and no one even know your name.  You can join the church, and only come to preaching, and still no one knows your name.  And then on Monday you can hold hands at the restaurant with your same sex partner and the people you work with will know that you went to that fine big church yesterday and were accepted there with no restrictions and yet you are clearly a homosexual.  Is there even an attempt to prevent this sort of thing at our church, or is that how we appear "loving" to the world.  Did "don't ask don't tell" actually originate in the church instead of in the US military?

2024 -  Spending way more time than intended on this today, but just one more thought...Do we have a responsibility to FIND OUT how our current church, big or small, handles matters like this?  To find out if there is a mechanism in place to actively seek out sin within the church members and address it directly, up to and including putting people out?  Reading their name aloud and telling the members not to speak, associate, eat with, or even talk to the unrepentant?  Or do we avoid that because our secular lawyers who work for our liability insurance company tell us we'll get sued if we do that, and if we try it, we'll be dropped by the insurance company?  This is, I think, a huge weakness in the modern church.  Lordship salvation is becoming a "hidden" doctrine.

 

2025 - Can't help but notice that in this verse...
11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one. [1Co 5:11 ESV]...
that the Greek word "adelphos" translated here as "brother" does NOT have a footnote saying "or brothers and sisters".  Why would it not???  Do women in the church never ever practice these things?  ESV goes to great and often repeated lengths to point out that Paul's use of brother in his letters to the church, does not exclude women, even though he never ever says "and women".  But here, where the situation addressed reflects negatively on those who are doing it, makes no effort at all to include women.  This is wrong.  This is poor.  This ought to be noted!

2025 - 12 is a really big verse and it looks like I put a lot of time on that last year.  But verse 13 is there also, and is the other side of this important coin of judging.  For those outside, God judges.  It is not for us.  The male nurse with lipstick and make-up that I judged yesterday?  This verse says I'm wrong about that.  And yet I do think that in every conversation with someone like that Jesus' name should come up.  We don't judge such people, but we put speaking the gospel to them at the top of the list.  There has to be a line there between beating them over the head with the gospel to the point of doing harm.  But worrying about offending them with the gospel is not a consideration at all.  Darkness hates light.  We can expect to strongly negative response to any hint about the gospel...so just go all in.  Don't tell them the lipstick is wrong, tell them Jesus died for them.  If God saves them, they will take the lipstick off by themselves.

Chapter 6
Those in the church encouraged to settle their disputes with each other within the church, rather than go to civil court.  The church is qualified to judge - they will someday judge the world, someday judge angels.  To seek judgement outside the church says you don't think anyone inside the church is capable of judging your trivial matters, though qualified by God to judge angels.  He goes on to say that going at each other in this way at all - even in the church - is already a defeat for them.  God's word says suffer without cause.  Be defrauded, and rise above it, don't go at it with lawsuits.  Let yourself be defrauded by other church members if that is the only way to "keep it in the church".  This does not say to let those outside the church attack the church and it's members with lawsuits and then sit and take that.  Does not say that at all.  

Worth a look at some differences in translation here:
2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? [1Co 6:2 ESV]
2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent [to] [constitute] the smallest law courts? [1Co 6:2 NASB]
2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? [1Co 6:2 NKJV]
ESV says trivial is about the cases, as does the NKJV.  Judge small cases.  But NASB somehow inserts "small claims courts" into the church.  This seems like a pretty big jump, and an important one. I don't have any "translation notes" on the NASB.  My MSB is an NASB version, but it says nothing about how different this version translates the phrase.  It caught my eye because of all the Sharia law stuff.  If you take the NASB version, then you pretty much have to say they are on the right track - but maybe go too far beyond the trivial in what they address.  If you take ESV or NKJV, then are no "formal courts" in the church, but perhaps a mediation.  Could even sign a contract to abide by a church mediated solution.  Or better yet, just yield.

2021-2, So how broadly are we to apply Paul's use of "smallest" here?  Does it mean that a dispute over whether a car with a bad transmission was sold by one church member to another should judged by the church but not a matter like sexual abuse?  Or is he using hyperbole to say that all disputes between church members should be resolved within the church, and according to scripture?  It seems important given the whole sexual abuse thing going on in the SBC.  Perhaps Paul means that civil matters should be arbitrated by the church as contrasted with criminal matters.  Yeah, I think that's what it means.  God has set up kings and rulers to deal with crimes and misdemeanors, and these should be left to secular authorities.  But civil matters are different.  We should be able to take care of those ourselves.  I don't know how far Sharia goes, but I think this chapter is giving us the limits of where it should go.

After saying they are better off being defrauded by their brothers than letting the civil authorities settle things between them, Paul has a word for the defrauders that are within this church too.  He warns them - I think - that if they are doing this to their brothers they better check their hole card about salvation.  The thing is, their actions indicate that they are still counted among the unrighteous, and that to any objective observer, they appear to be lost.  Paul tells them that unbelievers will inherit no part of the kingdom.  He names a number of sins - lifestyle sins, not one off sins - and says people with these lifestyles won't inherit.  That is, they are not saved people.  And then he says "Such were some of you".  But you've been changed by conversion - washed, sanctified, justified.  Pulled out of all that, and now able to judge.  Not really following the whole line of reasoning here.
2021 - He says the saved would not behave this way.  They are behaving this way.  Are they then sure that they are saved.  And remember also that if it is a brother, then we are better to be defrauded.  But if they are not really brothers???  Note also that these verses imply that if you had these "lifestyle" sins before, you are expected to have left them behind at your conversion.  Homosexuality, and indeed all sorts of sexual immorality are mentioned, and then there is a second category - that of those who prey on others for their own gain, who are also expected to have changed.  Thieves are expected to stop stealing when they are saved.  Who would argue that point?  Too obvious.  But homosexuals are also to stop being homosexuals inside the church.  And if they refuse to give up these sins, are they included with the heinous sin of incest and are to be turned over to Satan?  Or is that one incest sin so bad that it gets special treatment?  I think the point would be that no ongoing sinful behavior, addressed by the church, ignored by the perpetrator, and bringing the appearance of "church protection" of that sin, is not to be tolerated.  Such must be put out.  This is my opinion of what this text says.  Paul explained the logic of the actions he prescribes against the incestuous man.  The same logic applies here, with no need for modification. 

Read MSB notes, and I am in line with those, but there wasn't anything "extra" there.  Just seemed to me there was a thought here that gives 9-11 continuity that I'm missing.  Maybe not. (the 2021 note above is what I was looking for.  There was more here.)

2021-2, Exactly right after all that about lifestyle problems, we get this verse:
12 "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be dominated by anything. [1Co 6:12 ESV].  This does not mean that homosexuality is ok for the saved.  It means Christ's death has paid for individual homosexual incidents by saved people.  In the same way that an alcoholic, though saved and successful in putting away alcohol, may occasionally succumb, backslide, falter, or whatever word you want to use for a temporary failure to win in the ongoing war against a lifestyle sin - or better yet in the continuing sanctification of the true believer, so homosexuals, adulterers, thieves, and so on may also falter.  Those setbacks are exactly and precisely paid for by Christ - along with all the sins that occurred before salvation.  It means there is no sin that will result in loss of salvation - perseverance of the saints - so all things are within the law, but there are many things that are contrary to sanctification and so these should be put away. This is not how I previously understood these phrases.  I think this way is far more accurate as to Paul's intent with this verse.  It does not mean that Christians are free to do whatever they want - as he just got done telling us in the case of the incest going on in the church.  Sin is not to be embraced and carried on.  I like my phrase above - the church should never put a blanket of protection over ANY sin, and in the case of Corinth, especially not over immorality.

Paul turns back to the apparently rampant immorality in the Corinthian church.  These people had decided that since grace is sufficient to cover all sin, that they were free to sin as often and in whatever way they felt like.  Including homosexuality, swindling, theft, and adultery.  They used the grace that covered their sins to indulge in sins.  These didn't come from a Jewish background, but an idolatrous, pagan, corrupt background with no real moral code at all.  And they saw grace as the "get out of jail free" card for sin, rather than as a life changing redirection of their lives toward sinlessness, but with forgiveness for failure.  Not forgiveness even if you don't try, but forgiveness for failure.  Paul's repeated return to sexual immorality of all kinds - which characterized this city even more than Las Vegas ever dreamed of - indicates that this part of Corinthian culture was particularly difficult to excise from their thinking.

This goes right into line with the 2021 thoughts that are above.  The Corinthians were indulging themselves in sinful lifestyles, not in an occasional sin.  They were indistinguishable in behavior from the culture of that city - a city known for it's open attitude to immorality.  This is not how church works.  This is not how salvation works.  This is carnality, which I now see is indulgence in sin by those who are saved.  And it does not result in lost salvation, or Paul would be saying "I'm going to have to come back and help you all get saved again because you've lost your salvation by behaving this way."  This would be the place to say that, if ever there was a place to say it, and it is NOT HERE!!!  Salvation changes the inner man, but is not an irresistible internal compulsion to always do the right thing.  We are still trapped in a sinful shell, and still capable of sin, and still subject to the wiles of the devil.  But the purpose of God is for us to be sanctified, over time, becoming more like Jesus - without sin at all - and more in the image of the perfect God.  This is perhaps why the saved get judged for what they do with their salvation, and the lost get judged for their sin.

Paul uses the argument that we are part of Christ, and the Spirit is part of us, and we have no leave to include what is pure in our debauchery...yet we cannot separate from them once we are saved.  We are part and parcel with the Holy Spirit, and members of the body of Christ.  We have a responsibility now to behave as if all we do is what Christ does.

This is an interesting verse, distinguishing - highlighting perhaps - Paul's repeated admonitions against sexual sin:
18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. [1Co 6:18 ESV]
MSB says this could be a reference to the intimacy of sexual sin and so it's emotional rather than just physical effects on the person who indulges in it.  It grabs and keeps hold beyond what a life of crime say might be able to do.  But MSB adds that it is "probably" referring to the venereal disease present then as now, that has such great potential to destroy the body - the body that is the temple of the Holy Spirit.  How dare you subject this temple to physical destruction that could have been prevented.  It is wanton destruction of a holy object - our own bodies.  2021 - I don't see this being about venereal disease.  Overeating is pretty hard on the body too.  Leads to all kinds of complications and degradations of the temple of our bodies.  Do does alcoholism.  Seems more likely that it is about the mystical joining of two people that goes with sexual intimacy.  What is done in sexual intimacy cannot be undone - because it is what God hath joined together.  We can go on a diet.  We can go to rehab.  There is no undoing sexual relations.  I think that's what Paul means.

Chapter 7
This chapter starts with:
(2021 - This marks a contrast with the general nature of the things Paul has said up to this point, that would apply to all churches everywhere in all times, and the specific questions the Corinthians wrote and asked him to address.  Though these first things were happening in their church, the way they were to be addressed is general and applicable to all.  It is possible - and we should keep clearly in mind - that what follows may well be specific to that church in Corinth and not be for general application.  We have to allow a little "room" on these next.  We will have to watch the context of Paul's answers closely for clues as to whether his commands about these things are for all, or just for Corinth.  I suspect with that in mind, the sources of a lot of church conflict will become apparent!)

1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." [1Co 7:1 ESV]
Paul turns to things they had apparently sent questions about.  He now answers their specific questions.
Paul is very firm that not having sex is a very tall order.  So tall that marriage is most often better for all concerned.  That way, sexual urges can be satisfied within the plan of God for men and women - as husband and wife - rather than outside of marriage and destroying our own bodies, or by "attempted abstinence" that will almost certainly fail and result in the sin we were trying most to avoid.

2022 - This verse has no loopholes:
2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. [1Co 7:2 ESV].  It DOES NOT SAY each man should find a man or a woman to marry, nor that a woman should find a woman or a man and get married.  Men are urged ONLY to marry women, and to read generality into that is just ridiculous.
2023 - The word translated "man" is "ekastos".  The real key to making this point though is that each ekastos is to have his own WIFE (gynaika), and each "hekaste", or woman, is to have her own HUSBAND (andra).  It is VERY interesting that ekastos is the masculine form, and hekaste the feminine form of the same root word, G1538, ekastos.  I think the intent is clear - to contrast that men have wives and women have husbands.  The use of that same root word makes the injunction universal - to all humanity - but care is taken to distinguish between how a man and woman execute this same injunction.  Remember that this is in Corinth, and that in 1Co 6:9, Paul reminds them that some of them were homosexuals before.  This is not an accident.  This is carefully purposeful in distinguishing the natural order.  

2024 - Also note that Paul makes the statement twice - once for men and again for women.  If all he meant was that everyone should marry someone, couldn't he have said that in Greek?  You know he could!  But he didn't say that at all.  He told men to marry women, women to marry men, and he said this, knowing that homosexuality in Corinth was perhaps a lot more openly practiced than in other places.  And yet he made NO PROVISION for that at all!

2021 - This answer would not seem to apply ONLY to Corinth, but to all people everywhere all the time.  This question came from Corinth, but the answer I would say, is universal.  People at Ephesus would also be better off getting married.  I think we can say this because sexual urges did not just occur in Corinth.  They are quite general.

2024 - How have I left this verse out all these years:
6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. [1Co 7:6 ESV].  So the question is whether he is referring all the way back to vss 1-2, where all are to marry, or to 3-5, where those who are already married are not to deprive their spouse of sex - except by mutual agreement.  MSB says Paul was not commanding "marriage", because he himself knew the advantages of remaining single.  MSB says it might better read "Now this is to make you aware, not to command you.".  That is, he is not commanding that they get married, but wants them to understand that in most cases, it is the best course.  Living together according to God's plan for men and women is never a "bad" choice...but it is also not commanded that everyone be married.

Look at this verse, thinking ahead to 1Co 12 and the Spiritual gifts:
7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. [1Co 7:7 NKJV]
Surely being able to go without sex is not a Spiritual gift?!?!  But...if not that, then what?  All MSB says it is that both marriage and singleness are God's gracious gifts.  Hmm...

Paul says it is better to remarry than to be overcome by unsatisfied passion.  He says that women shouldn't leave their husbands, and that husbands shouldn't divorce their wives.  He says both.  This is because the children are not unclean as long as one parent is "holy".  And we also can never know what impact we are having on a spouse.  Maybe staying married to an unbeliever will one day lead to their conversion.

2022 - These verses:
10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. [1Co 7:10-11 ESV].
I am afraid this is going to be a lot longer "trip" than I wish it was...but here goes.  The word translated "separate" in vs 10 is "choristhenai", a form of chorizo, Strong's G5563.  In this form, it is an aorist passive infinitive.  So...this verb is "divorced" wrt time.  It is more like "don't change your position from "here" to "gone".  Don't be "a departed wife" in the sense of being still alive but as if you were never there.  Here are some verses that I think convey the meaning:  
1 After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, [Act 18:1-2 ESV].  
In verse 1, Paul "left", he separated, from Athens.  A physical move.  In vs 1, the verb is also aorist.  See  how it does not say "last year in March" or "six months after this event".  It does not attempt to "stick" Paul's leaving into a particular time.  Same sense in 1Co 7:10.  Don't "have left", don't be gone, don't leave next week.  As a contrast, in Acts 18.2, Claudius command was made at a specific time in the past. So the same Greek word in vs 2 is in the present tense.  It was a still active command of Claudius, not revoked or completed.  Why would Paul say it this way?  Because it was not legal in that day for a woman to initiate divorce proceedings.  She just had no standing before the law to bring divorce proceedings against her husband.  So Paul does not tell her not to divorce, but not to "be elsewhere geographically".  
But in vs 11, the husband is told not to DIVORCE his wife.  A completely different Greek word, "aphiemi", is used.  This word means "to send away", to "put away", and like that.  Because a husband could legally separate himself by divorce from his wife.  He could just decide to send her away.  Apparently there were no property rights of any kind for women.  They could just be kicked to the curb with no financial repercussions at all.  So in that culture, Paul had to use different words for the same "end result", depending on gender...although in vs 13, he uses the word for divorce of action initiated by a woman.  So...all that, and it just gets torn right back down.

2023 - 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. [1Co 7:9 ESV].  I put this in because I take issue with the translation - or rather interpretation - that the ESV gives us here.  In the Greek, there is no "with passion" included.  TR and mGNT are identical here.  The Greek "pyroo" is the last word in the sentence.  It usually means to burn with fire.  We can see what Paul means, and I "agree" with the interpretation, but I do NOT think including the words "with passion" is consistent with a word for word translation, which is what the ESV claims to be.  This is not ok.

2021 - Here is a contextual clue that Paul is giving a general command:
10 Now to the married I command, [yet] not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from [her] husband. [1Co 7:7, 10 NKJV]  Paul says this is not opinion, this is God's command about the matter.  He will later let us know when things are his opinion.
Never noticed this before...It is Paul's position - not necessarily the Lord's - that a believer should not divorce an unbeliever.  Oh my...So in 10, husbands and wives should not divorce is God's decree.  In 12, that believers should not divorce unbelievers is Paul's opinion.  So...believers stay married, but mixed might be allowed to divorce?  This is...a very new idea to me.  Wow...
2022 - Confirmed.  Paul makes it very clear that he has no specific "command" from God as to whether believers should divorce unbelievers.  This is strictly Paul's own opinion.

2021-2, So Paul is very specific that this is what he thinks, but that he has no "revelation" from God about the matter.  We can also be sure that Paul doesn't believe the OT scriptures ever addressed this situation.  Why would he not find out?  He gets revelation from God on other matters not directly addressed in the OT, why not on this?  Did he just not think it was all that big a deal, since he wasn't married and wasn't tempted either?  We would also have to say that God didn't choose to make it a bigger deal by revealing a specific answer to him.

Next he turns to circumcision.  If you already are, don't try to reverse it.  If you aren't, then don't have it done.  Because it does not matter anymore!  Beyond circumcision, we should not try to "escape" our lot in life, our calling, etc, when we are saved, but to serve God as best we can where we are.  He extends this to servants and free men also.  However you were - whatever your status or condition in life when you were saved - be content with that.  Servants should not insist that because they are saved they should be free men.  I think we've moved on from married and single here.  He isn't saying stay in that status.  He has turned more to social status I think.  
2024 - If I wanted to make a case for homosexual Christians, this is the passage I would use.  If you were homosexual when called, then stay homosexual.  That's what I'd say it meant, and I'd be wrong.  None of Paul's examples here tie back to married, single, or anything at all of a sexual nature.  These are about externally imposed circumstances.  Circumcision is done to us by someone else.  We are sold into slavery, or born into slavery, under the power of someone else...or we might be consenting to it.  Tattoos come to mind.  Keep them, don't have them removed.  Was your nose pierced when you were saved?  Keep it.  Unless you want to change it.  Paul does give the slave the option of buying his own freedom if he can.  The point though is that this is not about homosexuality.  Paul would never tell them that if they were in sin when they were saved they can stay in sin.  Yes...that is the way to put it.  No example here gives them leave to remain in sin.  In fact, they are to change their marital status if necessary to AVOID sin!

2023 - I wonder if vss 18-20 were written before or after the Jerusalem Council?  And how can Paul say this and then have Timothy (was it Timothy?) circumcised?  

2021-2, 23 You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. [1Co 7:23 ESV].  In context, Paul is telling those saved who were slaves when they were saved, to not worry too much about that, but to serve God.  BUT, he is also telling everyone who is "free", that like the bondservant slaves around them, they too were up for auction, and purchased by Jesus blood.  We are owned, we also are slaves to Christ, because we are bought and paid for with his life.  The point is, both the bondservants and the free men were slaves of Christ.  In the church, being a slave to another person means nothing.  It is not a big enough deal to get nuts about, BECAUSE no man can own what has been purchased by Christ.  It is Christ who owns us, not our earthly master.  

Paul seeks to instill a sense of urgency in the Corinthians that compels them to set aside worldly matters  - up to and including spousal obligations and such - in order to teach, preach and save the lost before it is too late.  It is not about whether being a good spouse is important - of course it is!  But if you make less progress on being a good spouse, it costs no one eternity in heaven.  If you focus on being a spouse, and not much on spreading the gospel, then the consequences for  someone could be eternity in hell.  It is just about priority.

2021 - In vs 25, Paul prefaces what he is about to say as being his opinion.  He thinks it is a good and trustworthy opinion, but it is opinion.  And then, still before he launches into his points, he uses the phrase "in view of the present distress".  It is pretty important to determine what distress he is talking about.  He puts it in the present.  Does the Greek make it ongoing without end?  
(((2023 - Here is the verse:  26 I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. [1Co 7:26 ESV].  "present" is a perfect active participle.  Perfect tense means the distress is assured - either past, present or in this case pretty obviously current and future - but without specifying the time.  As for participle, remember that the BLB definition of participle says that it generally corresponds to -ing endings....but my experience is that they almost NEVER do in the translations.  In this case, there is a footnote in ESV that says instead of present, the word can be translated "impending", as in the impending distress.  I think this is the best way to look at it.  It makes it pretty clear that Paul is NOT talking about the second coming here, which would not have been "distress" at all.  He is referring to developments where they were and in the time they were.  Persecution was coming, attacks on the church from within and without were in progress and also "imminent".  Using "impending" to translate here seems to make things a lot more clear.  When Paul says a few verses later that "I would spare you that", he means that "Those who love give hostages to fate".  That is, when persecution comes, and they drag off your spouse or your child, it will be crushing to your spirit and more trying to your faith.  Paul says it might be better to stand alone through such circumstances.  I'm going with that.)))

Is he talking about the distress that immorality and arguments within that church are putting on the Corinthian church at that time as they struggle in an immoral culture?  Or is he talking about the distress of the world - then and now - as it moves along toward Christ's return and the end of any chance for salvation?  It seems to me, since he goes right back to talking about marriage, singleness, betrothal, widows and so on, that the present distress is the state of the Corinthian church at that time.  We might gain some guidance here, but I don't see any of this as imperative to us.  In fact, Paul says these things are not even imperative to Corinth.
2021-2, The present distress is the imminent return of Christ.  Why get married when Christ's return is just around the corner?  Even if  you're betrothed, maybe it is better to wait and not get married, and focus on Christ's imminent return.  Paul says he'd rather people were not anxious about anything (vs 32) but then goes on to relate - I think - that human nature is always to be anxious about something.  And as it turns out, unmarried people, unmarried Christians really, worry most about how to live a good life and prepare for Christ's return.  Married people on the other hand, worry about worldly matters more.  House cleaning, rent, a second car, and so on.  Paul's evaluation - his personal opinion about it, though he considers his opinion pretty weighty - is that it is better to be worried about Godly things than worldly things, so put off marriage and focus on God.  BUT, do not forget that if the hormones are raging and we lack the self-control to deal with them, it is better to marry than to burn.  If you're burning, you ain't gettin' nothin' done!

2022 - This phrase:
31 ... For the present form of this world is passing away. [1Co 7:31 ESV].  Paul's basis for saying just forget about what you have going on wrt marriage, betrothal, and so on, along with whatever you have going on in your livelihood, because...the world as you know it now is passing away.  Are we really to believe that this was Paul thinking the rapture was entirely and completely imminent?  That it was to come any day at all?  Somewhere around just 5 years earlier, Paul had written the Thessolonicans that the falling away still has to happen and the MoL must appear - AND BE RECOGNIZED before that will happen?   We certainly don't have any references of which I am aware where Paul says "Hey look, just like I said, the falling away is happening, so don't waste your time getting married".  I think it is a huge stretch to believe that is what he meant.  I think it more likely, in light of the increasing hostility of Rome toward all things Christian, Paul was anticipating severe and world-wide persecution, violence, loss of property and possessions by anyone Christian, and so on.   This hostility wasn't just coming from Rome either, though it was entirely supported by them in word and decree, but also from the Jews.  Paul was anticipating trouble when he told them these things, because he was seeing how the attitude of the world was changing toward this new religion.  It is hard to flee persecution and start over elsewhere when you have a wife and two toddlers.  I think this is what he meant.
2022 - Paul is saying, in vss 32-40, that he believes the best way for a saved person - man or woman - to live, is in complete and  undistracted service to God.  He says that because for him, this is the way that works best, given his complete control over his own passions.  But I think Paul makes it clear that if you are not "put together as he is", then this is probably not going to work for you, and you are just fine, and it is not a sin, to get married and live your life as most people do.  I mean, how could he ever say that marriage is a bad thing, when it was so obviously set up and ordered by God as the fundamental building block of his kingdom?

Chapter 8
2021 - Just reading through this.  Rummage did a great sermon on this not very long ago.  Relying on that.
Concerning food offered to idols.
It is just food.  It won't help, it won't hurt.  We know that.  However, for those who have been raised up that consuming this food is a communion with idols, with gods (lower case), and have not yet come to a fuller understanding of this, it is best that they don't eat it.  And if you eating it makes them eat what they think they should avoid eating, then our "knowledge" has caused them to sin.  Better not to eat at all if that will be the result.  
vs 5, per MSB, says that some idols are just fakes - wood, stone, metal - but others are manifestations of demons.  More than inanimate, but even so, they are NOT GOD.  These people had seen or been taught about these demons and the deceptions they practiced.  Point is, there was more to the kind of idols that might have been around in those days than there is today.

Chapter 9
2021 - In the outline, chapters 8-11 are together, and called "Freedom in the church"
Chapter 8 ended talking about food offered to idols.

Paul switches subjects.  He is no longer talking about what is going on in the Corinthian church, but talks about his own life.  MSB says he is moving from Chapter 8, which was about the limits on Christian liberty, to how he has applied these principles in his own life.  This verse:
2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. [1Co 9:2 ESV]
MSB note says "The existence of the church in Corinth was evidence of Paul's apostolic authenticity."  It does not explain why this is so.  It can't mean that only apostles could start churches.  Surely doesn't mean that a "real" church required at least a letter from an apostle saying they were officially a church.  Why then?  2021- Still don't see the connection here...Paul established the church at Corinth.  Also at other places.  In a general sense, perhaps he is saying that is the assignment given the apostles.  That is what the "office" of apostle is to do.  Plant churches, build foundations for the gospel to expand to all the world and continue for all generations.  Maybe that's why we don't have them anymore, because they've done all that.  But we don't know of any churches that the others established...so this too seems to miss the mark.  Maybe the fact that he established it with many signs and wonders is the seal.  The Holy Spirit sealed it by authenticating Paul as sent by God.  This makes more sense to me than any of the other ideas.
2021-2,  Verse 1 is starting off with rhetorical questions.  Obviously, the answer to each question is rhetorical.  What Paul is doing in these first two verses is establishing his authority to write this letter and tell them how God wants things done.  THAT is why it needs to be from an apostle.  THAT is why he says that the Corinthian church itself is not "the" sign of an apostle, but "another, one of many" signs that he is an apostle.  Being an apostle gives him authority to say to them the things that he says, and his apostleship is the reason they should consider his words as scripture, not just as one man's opinion.  Finally!  And he goes on through the rest of the chapter proving for those who might doubt that he is an apostle.  Naturally, some would say he was not, since he was not one of the 12.  This was a difficult accusation to answer.  So Paul establishes the requirements for apostleship, and then sets out to show that he meets the requirements.

Intro verse to what is coming in the rest of the chapter:
3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. [1Co 9:3 ESV]
Per MSB, a series of rhetorical questions, all obviously to be answered yes.  Apparently some accused Paul of "making money" off the church.  I like the question about whether a soldier serves at his own expense, or whether one who tends a flock should get any of the milk.
The law teaches that those who help with the crop can partake of the benefit of the crop.  If farmers can do this, how much more apostles.  They sow spiritual things, shouldn't they reap material things?
Then Paul says that even though he has a right to support, he has never taken support, lest it become an issue.  2021 - He says this a lot.  He seems to have been particularly sensitive to this issue.  He wears the fact that he looks after his own support and never asks them for anything as a badge that shows his interest in them is in no way about material interests.

2024 - Paul has told them how churches operate, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.  He has given them his personal opinion on other matters, which is more weighty because he is an apostle.  He has answer some specific questions that they sent him.  One has to wonder if the last question they asked was why they should do as he says...or at least the letter to him may have closed with a report that some, perhaps a lot, in the Corinthian church discounted his authority because they did not think he was a "real" apostle.  So these next chapters are Paul establishing both his title as apostle, and through that, his authority.

2022 - This verse:
14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. [1Co 9:14 KJV].  The TCR shows this to be a parallel passage to Lk 10.7, which says:
7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house. [Luk 10:7 ESV].
The passage in Luke is when the 72 disciples by twos were sent out.  So it was not just about the 12, but about whomever God sends out.  But it does not tell them to request living expense from the local synagogue.  It seem that they are to accept hospitality from only one house.  That would never work for a preacher at a church, but it might work that way for an evangelist.  
The word for preach is "katangelio".  Is that a local preacher or an evangelist when the spiritual gifts are listed later?  Jesus used "laborer", which we will surely take as a more general term than evangelist might be.  

Here is the verse, and all that goes with it, that I've heard so often quoted to justify "any means to the right end":
20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. 23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. [1Co 9:20-23 ESV]
He does not say "to sinners I became a sinner so I could win sinners".  We are all sinners already.  So what does he mean?  How far do we go?  Church-sponsored sports, VBS, religious-themed cartoons, Bible apps...
MSB has some good notes here...
Within the limits of God's Word...is a good phrase in this context.  Paul would be as culturally and socially Jewish as necessary when witnessing to Jews, though he was not bound by Jewish tradition to do so.  As in, if he was having lunch with Jews he wanted to reach with the gospel, he probably didn't order a pulled pork sandwich.  If he was having lunch with Gentiles, and they all did order pork sandwiches, Paul would have done the same so as not to "separate" himself from them.  He did what he could to keep the separating "walls" as low as possible.  The wall between believer and unbeliever is already high enough.  And then he adds that he became weak to the weak.  So he includes modifying his delivery - his vocabulary, the depth of his outline, the "presumption of what his audience already understood" - when preaching to those who'd never heard any gospel.  We see this in Athens when he starts with who God is, and why he should be worshiped, instead of with the abrogation of Mosaic law.  So what does this mean...Paul is talking about himself as an individual.  He is NOT saying that a church should do these things, but that it's members should consider it.  If the whole church does it...you get contemporary services, a flight from orthodoxy, an effort "not to offend" by having your church do "churchy" things.  So....you take church out of church so that those who don't like church will come to church, and it won't seem like church at all.  Because if they for one minute think it's church, they won't come any more.  This cannot be what Paul is saying.  And I think that's why he makes the distinction - the break - at the beginning of the chapter that says he is talking about himself as an evangelist and apostle and church planter, not as an advisor on how to "grow" an existing church.  I think this is a key to understanding what the whole "I have become all things..." phrase is really about.  

2021 - At the start of the chapter, Paul asks "Am I not free..."  Surely this is transitional and shows he is talking about himself, not about the body of the church.  Same in the previous chapter.  Not what the church allows to be brought in to eat, but what individuals out in the "every day" should eat (not what they CAN eat, but what most keeps the goal in mind  while staying true to the word of God).  So the clear distinction.  We are talking about individuals, not churches.  That's where this gets messed up.  He maintains this when talking about the race.  An individual wins the race.  This is about the behavior of people, not the "programs" of churches.  And who knows.  Maybe I'm the only one that ever thought it had anything at all to do with church programs.  

In vs 21, Paul did not say he violated God's moral law in order to reach the Gentiles.  As in I am sure he did not participate in temple orgies in order to make friends with Diana-worshipers so he could win them.  MSB says the "weak" part was making the gospel clear even at the lowest levels of comprehension.  It sums with this phrase in the comment on vs 22:
Within the bounds of God's Word, he would not offend the Jew, Gentile, or those weak in understanding.  Not changing Scripture or compromising the truth, he would condescend in ways that could lead to salvation.

Paul then changes metaphors to athletes who are in the race not to run only, but to win.  They discipline themselves, they sacrifice, they focus on what makes them better runners. Paul is trying to save souls, and all that he does is done to enhance his chances of doing so.  (2021 - This is why he won't take pay for his preaching!  He knows that some would use that as a mark against him.  Like saying Billy Graham was not sincere because he wore $500 suits when everyone else was wearing $100 suits.  Paul did not want this accusation to detract from his authenticity.  Yet despite his best efforts, the charge seems to have been raised against him repeatedly.  He points out that he took no pay in several of his letters.  But now I see why it mattered.)  To reach more people, to have greater influence on them, and so on.  Christian discipline, so as not to disqualify ourselves from the contest.  Here is another criteria for how far you can go.  At some point, you become so much one of the group you want to reach that you have no influence over them at all.  
That was me as a PK, trying to cuss worse than the rest and be worse than the rest so that I could be accepted as one of the rest.  My goal wasn't to reach them but to be part and parcel with them.  My goal was completely wrong, and this line needs to be kept in mind also.  This strategy is not being addressed to the church as a whole, but to individuals.  Paul is saying "Here is what I do", not "Here is what your church as a whole should do."

Chapter 10
This seems to be another sharp break in the narrative. A new "Roman Numeral" in the outline of the book.  (2021 - But in the MSB, it is not so.)
The MSB introductory note to these first verses says that Paul is using the 40 years in the wilderness as an example of the gross misuse of freedom and confidence.  "Free" of slavery, the Israelites could do whatever they wanted - they had had no previous experience freedom, which needed guidance, focus, and above all discipline to the law God gave them.  Freedom is not license, but the Israelites, as the Corinthians in this church, are using it as such.  The freedom the Israelites exercised ended up keeping them out of Canaan - it precluded the blessings God wanted to give them.  So freedom is to be exercised to push back boundaries, but exercised within the boundaries of God's word.  At least, this is the case if it is to bring blessing, and that is stated here in plain terms.  Further, Paul tells us that he is using Israel as a type - an example.  There aren't all that many places where this is stated...and so many apply types where none exists - in my opinion.

2023 - Here is the verse:  6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. [1Co 10:6 ESV].  The Greek word translated as "examples" is "typos", pronounced "too-pose".  It is used 16 times in the NT.  In BLB outline of Biblical usage, the very last usage is what we think of as a "type".  It's most basic meaning is a die used to stamp and imprint into something.  Obviously, that is not what it means in this verse.  It can also mean 'form" as in "form letter", as here:  25 And he wrote a letter having this form: [Act 23:25 NASB95].  It is a standard way of writing something.  A business letter, a personal letter, and so on.  That kind of thing.  The fourth thing it can be is an example.  Here is how that usage is spelled out in BLB:
1.              an example         
2.                      in the technical sense, the pattern in conformity to which a thing must be made                 
3.                      in an ethical sense, a dissuasive example, a pattern of warning                 
    1.                              of ruinous events which serve as admonitions or warnings to others                         
4.                      an example to be imitated                 
    1.                              of men worthy of imitation                         
5.                      in a doctrinal sense                 
    1.                              of a type i.e. a person or thing prefiguring a future (Messianic) person or thing                         
So as we look at this, we could easily, and I think accurately, settle on that first numeral 3,  A dissuasive example.  That is surely why Paul is talking about Israel in the desert after Egypt.  Not as a TYPE, but as a dissuasive example.  So we see that there is a lot of room for translation of this word.  I am not sure that confining it's use as "type" to Messianic prefiguring only is correct, but perhaps it is so.  All 16 uses of typos are listed of course.  Here is a verse where typos is translated according to that very last definition:  14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [Rom 5:14 ESV].  "Type" is used here, and we have corroboration of this as Paul gets very explicit in his comparison of Adam and Christ.  We wouldn't translate typos in this verse as type:  14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. [Rom 5:14 ESV].  So it does look more and more like it means "type, in a doctrinal sense, only when a Messianic prefiguring is in view.  This verse:  5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." [Heb 8:5 ESV].  Here, instead of translating typos as pattern, I can see interpreting it as type.  And this gets us to "things" in person or thing in that last example above. J. Sidlow Baxter has an awesome discussion about how each item in the tent of meeting prefigured Christ and his work in some way.  But that means that in only two places out of 16, the correct translation might be type.  Joshua is NOT a type of Christ, though some of the characteristics Joshua showed can be compared to Christ.  Is Abraham ever called a type of Christ?  Not that I know about.  Moses?  David?  No, I don't think so.  We all ought to have a character that more and more approaches the character of Jesus Christ.  But we are NOT ALL TYPES of Christ when observed by the next generation.  Overusing the concept of "type", and applying it when the Bible does not apply it, can result in some very false teachings.  

Paul reminds them about Moses.  These are Corinthians.  Perhaps some were Jews, but I'm betting a huge majority were Gentiles.  So what is this point about Moses?  Here is the whole passage:
1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. [1Co 10:1-6 ESV]. (2023 - Again, Moses is not the example.  The failures of the Israelites are the examples.  Bad examples.  "Typos" here should NOT be translated type, nor should it be applied to Moses at all.
2021 - I suspect that the general history of Israel was pretty well known in the world.  They were an old nation, and had much influence in the world.  Many would be aware of it.  Further, Paul is speaking of his own heritage, and inside the church in Corinth, in studying the scriptures, the church there would have learned a lot about Israel's history. Ahh...so now, Paul is speaking to the church as a whole, not limiting himself to individuals.

Our fathers in the Spiritual sense.  God's people, chosen out for his protection and favor.  As are the saved today.  Vs 2 says all were baptized into Moses, vs 5 says even so, God was displeased with most of them, and did away with them.  Will we try and make the argument that these baptized into Moses were all saved by that fact?  Or should we argue instead that though baptized into Moses, they lost their standing by their later actions?  Or that their later actions proved that the physical baptism in the cloud and the sea did not correct the problems they still had on the inside?  2023 - I think we have a really good argument from this verse that it takes MORE THAN baptism to save you.  I do not think we have an argument that baptism is unnecessary in any sense.  That is just not what Paul is trying to address.  

2023 - This verse:  4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. [1Co 10:4 ESV].  The Rock followed them.  The Rock came later.  There is nothing here that makes the rock that Moses struck a type for Christ, or anything even remotely like that.  This is error.  What is meant is that Christ is the only way, and was so even in the wilderness, after the Law, after the Ark, under the priestly system, Christ was the ONLY way, though he was in the future.
2023 - Another thought on this verse...Perhaps this is the difference in eating part of animals sacrificed to God but never ever drinking the blood.  The spiritual drink FOLLOWED them, it was not yet there, and so the animal blood was unqualified as spiritual drink.  But once Jesus rose, the drink, the wine of the Lord's supper, the drink offering that went with the perfect sacrifice, could be consumed.  The wine that Jesus drank at the last supper was the Passover wine and yet he did not drink the last cup.  Is the wine of the Lord's Supper that last cup, in remembrance of that night, and of why the blood of the New Covenant ought to be consumed instead of sprinkled?  Because THE life is in THE blood.  The life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it to  you upon the altar as an atonement for your sins.  Under the Law, blood could only atone if it was offered on the altar.  It was ONLY for God  But now, in Christ's blood, atonement is incorporated because it is what Christ did that is atonement, and no longer blood.  And look at this!!!  16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? [1Co 10:16 ESV].  There it is!  The drink is participatory in both blood and body!  That is why we drink it now.  It is the life of Christ - not just symbolized but in fact IN the blood - that makes us "in him", part of him, visible to God as him!  And then 17 says the bread makes us all one body, each a piece of the whole church.  As the flesh of the animals sacrificed and then eaten made all Israel one body...but they COULD NOT YET be IN CHRIST because Christ was NOT YET sacrificed.

He says then that Christ is still their Rock, as much as he is now ours.  Christ was available to them as savior.  But most of them failed to recognize and have faith in the Rock.  They are an example for us.  Is the Greek work in fact "type"?  (2023 - It IS the word "typos" in Greek, but is used as definition 3 above - a DISSUASIVE example, NOT as a type!  

MSB says this passage goes with the athletic discipline point..  Israel leaving Egypt is an example of freedom without discipline or self-control.  
MSB says of vs 2 that they were immersed not in water but into Moses, indicating their oneness and solidarity with him as leader - 2023 and as representative of the Law.  Yet all but two died in the wilderness.  Even Moses and Aaron were disqualified from entering.  
2021 - And I'm pretty sure Moses went to heaven, though he was disqualified from receiving the blessings intended.  So perhaps we should see even those who fell in the desert as saved, but chastened because of their lack of discipline, obedience, and service.  And Paul is saying that the way the Corinthian church is headed is very comparable to what Israel did so long ago.  They are using freedom as license in four areas - four areas very specifically and unarguably prohibited by God's word:  Idolatry, sexual immorality, testing Christ, and grumbling.  These four problems were also rampant in THE CHURCH at Corinth, and were going to keep that church from the blessings intended for it.

Paul goes on to say that we are not to "desire evil" as they did.  So not saved people.  Saved may sin, but not desire evil.  They indulged in all sorts of license - sexual sin, idolatry, testing God, and whining.  These things are not disciplined, these do not make one better able to win the race.  Then Paul tells the Corinthians to likewise not practice these undisciplined actions, which hinder them in the race.

This verse:
12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. [1Co 10:12 ESV]
MSB says almost nothing here, but gives many scripture references described as examples of overconfidence.  This is such an important verse in connection with perseverance of the saints.  It surely deserves more amplification than MSB gives it here.

Too much...My mind is swamped.

Then this verse:
13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. [1Co 10:13 ESV]  Addressed to individuals, it would seem, but for the church as a whole.  Everyone needed to know this.  Could we reasonably read this as being addressed to the body, rather than to individuals?  No...This is about a person, not about a church. It is about the church only in that the church is made up of a body of believers.   Yes, 14 makes it clear that Paul is speaking to individual believers now.  The actions and discipline of individuals make up the behavior of the church.  Just as bad kings and majority corruption led to Israel's condemnation - though some stayed faithful - individual behavior is the basis for judgement of a local church also.  I think that is reasonable to say here...
Vss 14-22 seem to me, after what came before, as a complete departure from the narrative.  I don't see how you get from Israelite sins to the Lord's supper?
2023 - But see next.  Perhaps these verses go with what comes after, not with what went before.

Paul now, vs 19, turns to food offered to idols.  Before, he seemed to say just be careful about weaker brothers, but now he says eating food offered to idols is to become a participant with demons, just as eating and drinking the Lord's supper is to participate with Christ.  He uses the phrase "you cannot".  
2021-2, These verses:
21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? [1Co 10:21-22 ESV]. I do not think this verse is about Halloween.  I think the Corinthians were living in a place that had their church, but temples to Diana, and who knows what all all ancient idols and gods.  They could probably go from temple to temple all day eating and drinking sacrificed animals and "blessed" wine, and then end up at the end of the day in the church at Corinth.  Paul went to the trouble beforehand to tell them that the pagan temple offerings were just food and drink.  There was nothing inherently wrong with them.  What I think he is talking about now is polytheism.  Perhaps a lot of the Corinthians were covering all their bases by worshiping not only God but other gods in other temples.  Perhaps they themselves were sacrificing to those gods.  In this case, they would be eating and drinking to the Lord AND to demons.  Paul is proscribing this kind of attitude.
So.  If I know the skeletons and monsters and masks and jack-o-lanterns don't actually mean anything, are not gods in any sense, I don't pray to them or expect help from them, and I don't offer expectant sacrifices to them, then neither they, nor any Halloween celebration I take part in "means anything".  It is just for fun.  It is no more "evil" to celebrate Halloween than it is to celebrate Washington's birthday.
Possible FB post - an extra - on Halloween.

2022 - Well...While I agree with the above, I don't think that's the point Paul was trying to make.  This chapter (1 Co 10) is about the undisciplined exercise of freedom to our own detriment.  Athletes can smoke all day and drink all night...but they won't end up being very good athletes.  The Israelites left Egypt - where every activity was regulated - and went out into the desert, leaving their taskmasters behind and their oppressive life-draining work behind.  God gave them the Law so that they could live well and receive no end of blessings.  But the freedom got to their heads, and they used it instead to do all the crazy things the Egyptians had done.  They "incorporated" their old flesh with their new - in fact chose it in preference to the new.  They became undisciplined and worshiped idols, indulged themselves sexually, and so on.  That's what churches, and church people, have an opportunity to do also.  A church can embrace homosexuality.  Those in the church truly saved stay saved, and perhaps a ton of them are.  But they have embraced what the Law disallows, they have pushed away discipline in favor of unbridled freedom.  It can happen in the church.  Blessings go away.  Protection goes away.  Works of straw will be burned up and those who do them will suffer loss. 

2023 - Are those who reach out to LGBTQ by making them PART of the church without requiring them to repent of what is clearly sin building straw houses on the chief cornerstone?  Wow.  I do like that as an example of intense work in the name of the Lord for which no credit will be given.  Is that what is meant by works that are burned up?  Keep going...This means saved people can get this wrong, spend a lifetime with it as their "cause", their "mission", their "calling", and end up saved, but scarred by the fire because they so missed the point?  My goodness what a thought this morning!  The paragraph below also goes with it.

We don't have a Law, but we have a ton of information about what is considered disciplined, race-winning behavior and what is dissipation and dilution.  Even Moses was denied the promised land for his lapse of discipline.  God still sent the water, but look what it cost Moses and so many others that day.  We must be disciplined ourselves, we must take the message to anyone and everyone who will listen to it, but the church must be about embracing discipline, not about tolerating sin, excess, or license in the name of freedom.
Possible FB post...either vs 6 or 22.   There are a couple other paragraphs under 1Co 10 in the notes that ought to be included in this post.  It it needs to be shortened...or made into separate posts. One about how we ought to act.  Another about how churches are to grow.

2022 - This is the first time I have really understood the athlete reference, and now that I see it, I see how instructive it really is.  And it ends with this verse:
23 "All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. [1Co 10:23 ESV].  I can smoke all the cigarettes I want, but that's not how I run faster and further.
I think...I don't know but I think...there is still a line though.  I don't think we can cross the line from unsaved to saved with the intention of retaining our side chick, or homosexuality, or racism.  It may take time to overcome our sins, but there must be repentance, and seeking for the more disciplined, more acceptable way.

Then in 23 he says we can do anything we want, but that doesn't mean we should.  We most certainly shouldn't exercise freedom in Christ in this way.  Yes...he's going down a completely different track as I read it.  What to buy in the meat market?  Taking care of your brother in what you do...He's still talking about freedom, and exercising freedom but within limits - with discipline.  That ties it together.  So...he has shown what can go wrong, he's shown the cost of undisciplined freedom using old Israel as his example.  The behavior of the majority kept the promises from them all - more or less.  So individual behavior is important.  Then in about 13, he moves to application of the example.  Here is how the Corinthians can apply discipline to the many temptations that are in front of them.  By keeping the good of their brothers firmly in mind.  By doing all to glorify God and not to celebrate our own freedom.

Look at the last three verses - which tie it ALL right back to the "all things to all people" introduction:
31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. [1Co 10:31-33 ESV]
Don't expect to win the lost by offending them in your personal behavior.  We are talking about individuals, as we did to start with.  Don't "pridefully" eat a ham sandwich with your Jewish friends to show off your freedom!  Have some discipline.  Respect their tradition, since it neither  helps nor hinders you in your freedom, but respect may allow you to win some.  This is not and was never about modifying church services to get people in the doors!  It is NOT.

2021-2, It should be emphasized that here again we are talking about how we, as individuals, Christians, and church members ought to behave.  This is not instructional as to the behavior, policy, or practice of the church as a whole.  The church doesn't eat or drink, the members of the church do those things.  If we have lunch with a non-Christian, and there is a chance we might win them, then "when in Rome" applies, up to the point where we cross the line from freedom to license.  Can you have a glass of wine if this person you're with also has one?  If you are a mature enough Christian - and only you can answer that question - then yes - UNLESS it hurts your witness with them because they are convinced that real Christians do not drink!  If the purpose is to "be like him" so that you "might win him", you can have wine.  But if you're attitude is "he's doing it so it's ok for me", well then you missed the boat.

Chapter 11
Looks like 11:1 should be 10:34.

(The 2024 version just below I think says things better than the two other attempts from earlier years down below.  They all say about the same thing, but each version gets a little bit easier to understand.  That's how Bible study ought to be.)

2024 - What to say about this verse?:
3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [1Co 11:3 ESV].
This translation is quite different than NASB95:
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. [1Co 11:3 NASB95]. 
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. [1Co 11:3 KJV].
So we get some variation.  The first thing that jumps out at me is that the relationship of Christ and the Church and of man and woman are in the same breath, so to speak, as Christ and God.  We know that God does not order Christ around.  We also know that Christ IS God in all respects.  We know that Christ submits God as a son to his father.  It is the natural way.  It is the God-ordained way.  We should note that Christ's submission to the Father DOES NOT make Christ less, inferior, dumber, less authoritative...none of these things.  They are equal, but Christ submits because this is necessary for things to operate as the should.  Roles.  I would also point out here that one of things God asked of the Son is that the Son die for enemies and strangers, not just for those who loved them.  Note also that Jesus prayed to NOT have to do this.  Note that the Father did not demand it, He determined it was the best course, and recognizing the authority of the Father, and despite the cost to himself, the Son submitted to the Father's will.  Let that be one point.
We can surely apply ALL THESE STATEMENTS to the relationship of individual men to Christ.  We do not tell Christ what he ought to do.  When we do according to our own will, according to our own desires, according to our own "wisdom", it is called rebellion, falling away, sin.  So in these two mentioned relationships, we see that one is authority, the other is VOLUNTARY submission.  
Now look at the one that modern feminism picks out to take issue with.  This man/woman relationship also ought to have the same characteristics as we named in the other two.  Man and woman are THE  SAME in God's eyes.  God did not make man smarter or dumber than woman.  Man does not FORCE his will on the woman.  Man decides on the course, woman submits to that will, and does so voluntarily.  There's no arguing with this up to this point.
The part that we might actually quibble with has to do with how the verse is translated.  In Greek, the words EVERY (pantos) and MAN (andros) are present.  Every single man is Christ.  It is not that Jesus picks out one man and in that particular specific relationship, Christ is head of A man.  Then it says the head of woman is THE man.  So that word pantos, meaning all, isn't there in the Greek for this second phrase.  Furthermore, it isn't there for man in this phrase. There is a definite article for MAN though, so it means THE MAN. From this we can be sure then that what it does NOT say is ALL, or ANY MAN is head of ALL women.  Closer would be THE MAN is head of woman.  To make it clear that this is not all inclusive as to women, the translators SUPPLY the indefinite article, the word "a".  Now, it is pretty easy to get from "the man is the head of a woman" to an understanding that this is about marriage, where there is ONE, that is there is THE man, and woman, his wife.  By this time in the NT monogamy was the rule in the culture.  So A woman means the woman associated with THAT particular "THE MAN".  Some translations, even in this day and age, bravely translate it in that way.  The ESV does this, and I think correctly so, but we should understand that the ESV is going beyond simple translation and into interpretation.   NASB95 stops before that leap of translation.  KJV does a good job of making the meaning clear without going all the way to interpretation.

2024 - Later the same morning, I found this in Grudem's Systematic Theology in reference to the relationship between Father and Son: Grudem, p. 304: "I would caution those who object to the terms authority and submission to realize that we live in an age where unbelievers deeply despise any kind of authority, even the legitimated authority of parents or governments - and most of all the authority of God.  I wonder how much of the resistance people have to the idea of authority is due to accepting some of the assumptions of modern culture." and I would add INSTEAD OF the clear teaching of Scripture.


And it looks like more very specific questions about how a church service should be run are addressed here.  Head coverings come first.  Specific things that were controversial in this church, but not necessarily universal concerns.  I would apply the principles universally, if we can discern them and pull them out, but I would be careful of saying these are specific.  If they cannot be shown to be in contradiction to specific prohibitions - as against sexual immorality - then we open the door to legalism without basis.  We get Pharisaical.

2024 - The principle, perhaps, is that a woman should not be "in your face" about  how unsubmissive she is in a church service.  A woman should not defy the authority of her husband in a church service. A woman should dress in a way that gives the impression that she is immoral in a church service.  These are the principles.  The specifics, which I think are specific to Corinth, have to do with shaved heads and hats.  I think those were cultural things that have little or no bearing today.  But the principles still apply! 

2021 - Time grows short...going to have to read through this pretty quickly.  I have 6 minutes.

Lord's supper.  Get it right, because it can be fatal to get it wrong.

There's much more in this chapter, and it looks like I've run out of time the last two years.  So next time, move on through 9 and 10, and focus more on 11.  There sure seems to be a lot of difficulty here if you don't slow down and think...and I haven't time today for it.

2021-2, I have the time today, finally, with this different reading plan, and I got here on a Monday morning with nothing pressing.  So slowing down here.
This gets controversial - at least to the USA in 2021 - real quick, with this verse:
3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [1Co 11:3 ESV]
So.  What do the words mean in Greek?  There is a note in the TCR that says the word translated "wife" here, phonetically "goo-nay'" can mean either woman or wife, and it depends on context.  Also, the word translated "man" at the beginning of the verse and husband at the end of the verse, transliterated on-a'-uh, is exactly the same Greek word, and it can also be translated either man or husband, depending on the context.  I can see how in the first part of the verse there is little doubt that "man" instead of "husband" is the correct translation, though you could say the head of every husband is Christ.  We are, after all, talking about hierarchies here.  Christ over man, man over woman in the hierarchy.  I think the Bible is clear in many places already that the husband is above the wife in the hierarchy.  This verse, also written by Paul, makes this pretty certain:  23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. [Eph 5:23 ESV]...it does, except that the same two Greek words used in 1 Cor 11:3 are used in Eph 5:23.  So 5:23 could be read "the man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the Church.  So that little side trip made things more complicated, at least in my mind, instead of less!  So if we limit the context to just this verse, the translation is saying that the first part of 1Co 11:3 is the Christ over mankind hierarchy, and then making the second part, the husband over wife hierarchy, an analogous hierarchy.  (2023 - Because it is EITHER husband over wife or it is MEN over WOMEN.  Now which of those do you like the best???  I see no third choice.)  Christ is to mankind what husband is to wife.  If we go with the more general translation in the second part of the verse, it would be Christ is to man as man is to woman.  This would make each man universally the head of every woman.  So.  That I think gives us our context.  I am not aware of anywhere else in the Bible where each individual man should be considered head of every woman on the planet.  This would truly place women in a subservient role on the planet.  The Bible DOES NOT teach that.  So what is being said here is that as a man who is dedicated to Christ has chosen to make Christ the whole point of his life, so a wife has, of her own free will, chosen to make her husband the point of her life.  In our day and age, this would still be a controversial position, but having worked through this whole thing, this is what I think Paul is saying.  It's a hierarchy, but it is a voluntary hierarchy.

2023 - Looking at verse 3 in the BLB, I see that the word "every" in front of man is "pantos", as in panorama.  There is also a definite article before Christ.  So it might read the Christ is over EVERY man.  The relationship is one over many.  In the next phrase, it is more like and over a woman, the man.  I think the implication is that a woman is either a daughter, and subject to her father, or a wife and subject to her husband.  If we want this verse to be universal - and not about man and wife - that's as close as it gets.  So in the second phrase, depending on the woman, she is either a woman OR a wife, and the word does not specifically mean either.  One over many, one under one, and then the last phrase.  The head of Christ is God.  The God is the head of The Christ.  One to one.  Look how much more involved this is than at first glance!  It is not written about women's rights or husband's authority.  Neither of those is in view here.  The nature of the relationships is in view.  Christ over all mankind.  Women subject always to a man.  God and Christ one to one, yet Christ doing God's will.  Now if Christ doesn't have a problem being subject to God, and men don't have a problem with being subject to Christ, then why in the world - indeed in what universe - does that third phrase NOT mean that each woman is subject always to A man?  There is simply no ground on which to stand. 

Then vs 4:  4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [1Co 11:4 ESV]
First thing to notice:  The Greek word translated "head" two times in vs 4 is exactly the same word translated "head" two times in vs 3.  In KJV, the word appears 76 times, and is translated "head" every...single...time.  In the ESV, in English, in these two verses, though, it has been translated to have two very different meanings - one has to do with hierarchy and relationship, the other has to do with what sits on our shoulders.  If you read on through vs 5, at least in ESV as translated, vss 4 and 5 are referring to the physical head, not the hierarchical head.  You just cannot read it the other way.

So.  Paul has established a hierarchy of relationship with Christ, and of spousal relationships, and then he uses the same word for head to talk about how to dress in church - actually no, it's more specific than that.  He turns to how to dress if you are praying or prophesying.  Hmm.  And the clear implication is that either a man OR a woman could be doing either of those things in church in Corinth! Note also that in vss 4, 5 the translators have maintained the mankind/Christ translation and the husband/wife translation from vs 3 on into these verses.  So I think that's consistent and holds up.  To do it otherwise would be to inject interpretation into the translation.  So how are we to connect head in vs 3 with head in vss 4. 5.  Interesting that we have the same problem in English as Paul had in 1Co.  We also use the same word, head, with both those meanings.  And we automatically know which is meant, from context.  Surely we can apply that to the Greek word.  Vss 4, 5 have to mean physical head.  So what is the connection.  Best to keep reading I think and see if it becomes clear.

After reading to the end of this section in vs. 16, no, it is not any more clear.  If anything it is still less clear.  Further, in his conclusion of the section, Paul does not say he has these orders from God - about who should cover their head and who shouldn't.  He also states plainly that there is no hard and fast rule about it in the churches extant at the time.  So if you disagree with him, he says, more power to you.  I think, therefore, that Paul received some questions about this and he gave his own personal opinion, but it was just not enough of an issue for anyone to get bent out of shape about.  That implies that I have spent far too much time on it this morning, also!  So I'm going to make that worse by checking the MSB on this.

Glad I looked at MSB.  Here is what John MacArthur says:
MacArthur sets up by saying that Corinthian were at that time wearing head coverings.  It was local to Corinth.  Men in other places and other churches, at that time, were not doing that - so there did not need to be any "rule" about in ALL the churches.  It was exclusively a Corinthian thing.  Jews started wearing their yamakas in the 4th century AD.  So.  What the Corinthian men are doing, in covering their heads, is completely out of step and antagonistic to what men in churches everywhere else are doing.  It is a cultural matter, not a spiritual matter, and Paul does not like what the men of Corinth are doing.  From MSB:  "Paul is not stating a universal law from God, but acknowledging a local custom, which did reflect divine principle.  In that society, a man's uncovered head was a sign of his authority over women, who were to have their heads covered.  For a man to cover his head was to suggest a reversal of proper roles."  Ok.  So think about the hijab in Muslim countries today.  Women are required to wear them as a sign of their subservience to men.  (This is an example of a non-Biblical interpretation going too far, but it is a good example for understanding this passage!).  IF a man in the mosque were to come in wearing a hijab, they  would throw him out for it.  In the same manner, a woman entering a mosque without her hijab would face severe consequences.  In Paul's eyes at least, it is this kind of "sneer" at tradition that makes him call a man wearing a hat in church a disgrace.
MSB also corroborates that women can pray and prophesy in church.  It is teaching that has some limitations.  Furthermore, when women do these things, they should not also be making a political statement about their defiance of the created order and hierarchy by the clothes they are wearing when they pray.  Today, at Quail Springs Baptist Church, a woman should not be allowed to pray aloud while wearing a clearly masculine suit, tie, and wingtip shoes.  BUT, and this is also from MSB, whether your head is covered or uncovered is just like food offered to idols.  Doesn't really  mean anything at all.  Doesn't matter.  AND, it depends on why you're doing it, just as what you think about that food offered to idols determines whether you should or should not.  Same thing here.  Would we think a man in drag leading the offertory prayer was ok?  Not in my church it wouldn't be!  Or would it?  We just say it doesn't really matter...  I think that is about as far as we can go with this passage, and I am moving on!

Paul moves on to the Lord's supper and the errors of the way they were observing it at Corinth.  It has been a long morning, so next year, I will focus on the last part of the chapter.  It seems a lot less controversial than the first part anyway!

2023 - As for the Lord's supper, there were "factions".  Somehow, like was associating with like.  Paul says specifically that some had all they wanted and others went hungry.  Some were drinking to excess with the meal, presumably others were not.  I think we see that they were viewing the Lord's supper as a regular evening meal but eaten at church rather than at home.  They were making the QSBC Wednesday meal the Lord's Supper.  At QSBC, we see it just as a meal, with no religious significance.  Corinth was doing the same thing - with some excesses - and labeling it Lord's Supper.  But there was no remembrance of body and blood, no remembrance of suffering and death and then resurrection, no honor paid to Jesus at all.  Just a meal.  And on top of this demeaning of the Lord's Supper, add cliques and groups and rich and poor and tailors and shoemakers....all kinds of man made "exclusivity" as to the Lord's Supper.  And the result is that each group judged the others for their actions.  Oh look how much they're drinking at table 4!  Oh look, they're having King Crab at Table 6 and those three deaf people at the table next to them only have that tiny piece of molded bread.  Paul says each table ought to keep ITSELF in order, so that others do NOT judge them, and he says EAT AT HOME, because the Lord's supper is not about hunger and thirst but about how we "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes".  

Chapter 12
(((2021 - I just recently finished reading John MacArthur's book called "Spiritual Gifts", and my much more extensive notes on that book are included under "Book Notes".  They go into far more detail than there is here.  So before I start reading this year, just a little of what John says about gifts.  
The newest concept to me was that of "Gifted Men".  MacA says God gifted certain men, with certain abilities, as leaders of the early church, and still "gifts" men to churches in our time.  A gifted man would be a pastor teacher, perhaps.  There is a list of them, and the list is numbered 1, 2, 3, as to gifted men.  Then it changes - the list does - from the numbered things to the gifts themselves.  The numbers can be thought of as "offices" in the church.  There are men gifted as teachers, for example, and teaching is also a gift given to non-office holding persons.  The gifts are divided into speaking gifts and serving gifts, and these are listed in detail in those Book Notes.  MacA also says that it is quite probable that there are Spiritual gifts that are not listed.  He says we each receive gifts of the Spirit as appropriate to God's will for our place in the church.  The gifts are for ministering to the church.  So we are not exclusively limited to one each, but we each receive some appropriate combination and measure of one or more gifts.  It makes sense that a gifted man - the pastor of the church - might be gifted in both knowledge and wisdom.  Or wisdom and mercy.  And so on.
One last point - there are a couple of statements in this passage about the role of women in churches.  One that I have had some "experience" with lately is the one about women teaching.  What I think this means is that no woman is to hold the OFFICE of teacher.  This office is for gifted men to fill.  This does not for a moment mean that no woman receives the gift of teaching.  The key to compliance with these verses is in the way the gifts are applied in real life.  Women can teach.  Women cannot hold the office of teacher.  What I think that means is that a woman should not - is in fact prohibited from - being a teacher in a class containing both men and women.  I am not even sure a woman should teach a formal Sunday School class of all women, nor lead a women's seminar with all women.  Surely each of these examples constitutes holding the office of "Teacher".  But a woman with the gift of teaching can surely organize a Bible study with her neighbors - both men and women.  She can teach her own children and/or the neighbors children.  She can teach at work - she can expound spiritual principles at work.  Men with the gift of teaching can all do the same.  But men with the gift of teaching can also teach a Sunday School class when needed - even if they are not a specially gifted man.  Preachers are called to be preachers.  Gifted men as teachers are called in the same way to be teachers.  But some men just have the gift, and not the calling.  Hmm...that's a good way to look at it.  And the other part is, some women also have the gift, but none have the calling.  To think that they do is error.  OK, that's enough of book review.  Now to this year's reading.)))

Spiritual gifts.  Paul starts by saying he doesn't want them to be uninformed.  (Actually, he starts with "Now concerning spiritual gifts..."  This indicates, per the MSB footnote, that Paul is about to address a question or questions sent to him from the church in Corinth.)  He doesn't want them ignorant about these gifts, indicating that he considers this a pretty important question to be addressed.  It is likely, based on that importance, that he will go into some extra detail/depth about the gifts.  So he's about to be informational.  General likely, but at least solid information.
He starts with this verse:
3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. [1Co 12:3 ESV]
So a principle (2021 - I would also call it a test, a verifier, a "prove all things"):  If someone is calling Jesus accursed, that person's "message", in whatever form, whether tongues or healing or otherwise, is from the devil, and not from the Holy Spirit.  That person is NOT to be believed or followed.  On the other hand, neither Satan, nor any demon that can empower a person with the appearance of supernatural gifts, is EVER going to call Jesus Lord.  A person doing signs and wonders but who won't call Jesus Lord is suspect, almost certainly demonic.  A person doing all kinds of signs and wonders, who calls Jesus accursed, is doing those works of Satan.  Look to what they say about Jesus, and go by that.  Faith healers come to mind.  If they say Jesus is Lord, and heal one in ten, then we should be glad I think.  If they say Jesus is accursed, and heal ten of ten, they are deceivers, leading people astray.

2024 - But in light of "Christianity and Liberalism", what if they've redefined what the words mean so that they can say "Jesus is Lord", but what they mean is that "Jesus is the best "man", and only a man, that has ever lived, and we ought to look up to him".  That doesn't fly!  Think of the work, the digging, the focus on every word spoken, that is required to determine what they are really saying!  Surely Paul had to deal with these same problems. The early church had to deal with it before they had the New Testament to test the teachers and pastors against.  But it is necessary!

In vs 4, Paul distinguishes between gifts - different, but of same Spirit - and services - different but of the same Lord - and activities - different but of the same God.  What does this mean?  

(2021 - Three of them.  Gifts, services, activities.  I've never heard of gifts of "activities before, no one has ever said it that way to me.  MacA's book didn't note this third category.  Why would anyone leave it out...unless other translations don't say it this way...Yes.  This verse is translated many different ways, as in they aren't really all that sure what this means...For instance:
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. [1Co 12:6 KJV]
6 God works in different ways, but it is the same God who does the work in all of us. [1Co 12:6 NLT]
6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work. [1Co 12:6 NIV]
6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all [persons.] [1Co 12:6 NASB]
The Greek word is "energema", Strong's G1755.  The word is only used two times in the whole Bible, both here in 1 Cor. 12.  This is the only context for interpreting the word that the Bible gives.  Here is how it is used in the other verse:
10 and to another the effecting[G1755] of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another [various] kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. [1Co 12:10 NASB]  The effecting/accomplishing/making factual miracles.  Which gift is now gone...as it is one of the sign gifts.  Ahh!!!!  And there it is!  Speaking gifts are still here, serving gifts are still here, this third category was temporary - as affirmation that God was at work.  That is why it says God here, instead of Spirit or Lord.  God confirms, the Spirit speaks, the Lord serves maybe???  I don't know why I've not seen it before, but this seems to explain it very well.)

((2021-2,  So three different words are used in vss 4, 5, and 6 to describe three categories of Spiritual...I will call it empowerments.  Here are the verses:
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;   The word translated gifts is the Greek word "charisma".
5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord;  The Greek word for service is "diakonia"
6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. [1Co 12:4-6 ESV]  The Greek word for activities is "energema".  See the note just above for that word energema.  2024 - Our word "energy" comes from this word.  
So are all the missing gifts - all the sign gifts - energema.  A power wielded that defies nature?  A gift that can only be done through God's help?  I am not sure how we'd know....but the sign gifts are listed and underlined below.))
2024 - To do the sign gifts - like speaking in tongues (speaking a language you never learned, not speaking gibberish) and healing - is to do things that are outside what science can measure/define/reproduce.  God does these things, and they appear to all who see them as miraculous.  That Greek word energema tells us that these gifts are produced via an "energizing" from God - I think Paul specifically means from the Father.  Jesus came to carry out the Father's plan, not his own plan.  The signs that Jesus did were the visual endorsement of the Father as to the correctness of the work done by the Son.  This endorsement continued into the first century church, with the apostles, along with some church members - Stephen being one specifically  named - also "energized" to heal and do miracles.  Once the church was firmly established, growing, and unstoppable in the world, the sign gifts were no longer needed.  The endorsement was replaced completely, after a time, by the faith of those in the church, who, filled with the Holy Spirit, no longer needed to display these signs in order to bring converts into the church.  As Jesus said...something along the lines of "You have faith because you see the nailprints, but blessed are those who do not see and yet have faith."  That is about us, about we who believe without the signs, without the miracles, without "sight".  The energema gifts are gone.

Then, through vs 11, Paul brings these three categories back together as one, each and every one empowered by the Holy Spirit.  The gifts are different.  Even of different character and category.  But the source of all gifts is the Spirit (when we are baptized/immersed in that Spirit at the moment of salvation.)

(2021-2, This verse: 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, [1Co 12:8 ESV].  Both wisdom and knowledge are "uttered".  That is, both are to be spoken.  That means that though revealed to one, they are strictly for the benefit of the whole, and it is therefore important that they be passed on.  Maybe that's why I have this compulsion to publish my notes, menial as they are, and from a layman, not a trained scholar.  My gift pushes me to pass on what I understand.  I had never noticed the uttering part before.)

MSB has a very long note here.  Spiritual gifts are not the same as natural talents.  Both believers and unbelievers have talents, the same and different talents.  No distinguishing based on talent.  Gifts are sovereignly and supernaturally bestowed by the Holy Spirit on believers.  These gifts are in two broad categories:  speaking and serving.  (Still paraphrasing the MSB note.)  The speaking gifts are prophecy, knowledge, wisdom, teaching, and exhortation, the serving, or non-verbal gifts are leadership, helps, giving, mercy, faith, and discernment.  These are ALL permanent gifts that will operate throughout the church age.  I skip a little of MSB and then it says this: Miracles, healing, tongues, and the interpretation of tongues were temporary sign gifts limited to the apostolic age and have therefore ceased.  The purpose of these temporary gifts was to authenticate the apostles and their message as the true Word of God UNTIL God's written Word was completed and became self-authenticating.  
Those with supernatural gifts are always believers.  Only believers receive these gifts.  If you have such a gift, it is a testimony to your salvation.  

However!  Paul includes some of the temporary gifts in the list of gifts he presents to the Corinthians.  The MSB note on vss 9 and 10 fills almost two full columns.  There is a LOT here!  In fact, I'm backing up to vs 8:
8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, [1Co 12:8 ESV]
Utterance indicates a verbal gift.  From MSB:
Knowledge centers on grasping the meaning of the truth; wisdom emphasizes the practical conviction and conduct that applies it.  
Wisdom is the ability to understand God's Word, and His will, and to skillfully apply that understanding to life.  Knowledge is the ability to understand and speak God's truth, with insight into the mysteries of His Word, that cannot be known apart from God's revelation (in our time this means through the written word only!)

9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, [1Co 12:9 ESV]
Faith is persistence in prayer and endurance in intercession, along with a strong trust in God in the midst of difficult circumstances.
Healing  - a temporary sign gift used by Christ (Mt. 8:16,17), the apostles (Mt 10:1), the seventy (Lk 10:1), and a few associates of the apostles such as Philip (Ac 8:5-7).  This gift is specifically identified as belonging to the apostles (2Cor 12:12).  MSB says many feel these healings should be common throughout every era, but in fact, they are quite rare in the entire OT.  Before Jesus, there was never a time when they were common.  But during the time of Christ and the apostles, healings practically exploded.  "To normalize healing would be to normalize the coming of the Savior."  MSB makes the case that even the apostles healing was not "universal" in any sense.  Paul didn't heal himself nor ask one of the other apostles to heal him.  When Timothy was sick, Paul didn't heal him he told him to drink some wine.  Paul left Trophimus "sick at Miletus" rather than just heal him right up.  Epaphroditus was near death but Paul didn't heal him, though he was right there.  They waited for what God would do.  The healing miracles therefore had a specific purpose, and that was to confirm and identify those who were bringing the true gospel, as they entered a new region.  Once the veracity of the apostle had been shown with these healings, they didn't persist during the continuance of their ministry.

10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. [1Co 12:10 ESV]
Miracles were also a temporary sign gift.  Miracles are the working of divine acts contrary to nature, so that there was no explanation for them other than the power of God.  These two were for authentication of the one doing the miracles.  There is no record that any of the apostles ever did a miracle in the natural realm.  They never fed 5000, changed one liquid into a different liquid, walked on water, levitated, and so on.  Per MSB, the miracles the apostles did were in casting out demons, and that is precisely the power that Jesus gave them.  (What about raising the dead though...Peter did that.  That is contrary to nature.)  

Prophecy is just to speak forth or proclaim publicly.  The connotation of "prediction" wasn't added until sometime in the Middle Ages.

Distinguishing of spirits - those with this gift are able to discern false teaching, false prophets, false doctrine.  This one is less overt now that scripture has all been written, and this distinguishing and discernment is now based in what the Word has to say, yet some are still "acute" in their ability to recognize the lies of Satan trying to get in than others.  I think of all the broken doctrines embraced by the modern church - homosexuality, women as preachers, name it claim it - and I wish this gift was  a lot more widespread!

Moving on, after an hour above, to One Body Many Members.  MSB note on 13 emphasizes that Paul is not even talking about water baptism here, but about being baptized by Jesus with the Spirit.  Water baptism is a symbol of this, and of the unity with Christ and with the body of the church it accomplishes.
2021 - Immersion into the Spirit - submission to leadership, symbolically acknowledging that we will follow the teachings of this leader.  As Israel was baptized into Moses, as John's disciples accepted as axiomatic his teaching on repentance.  This is the baptism we are talking about, and baptism IN, not OF, the Holy Spirit occurs at our moment of salvation.  Drinking of one Spirit implies the internal portion of this.  It is not about getting your skin wet.  It is about being filled, nourished, maintained, and grown by the Spirit of God in Spiritual matters.

Paul goes into great detail about the necessity of each member of the body to the functioning of the body as a whole.  All parts are necessary.  If one part has problems, the whole body has problems.  Just as with the body, some parts are covered for modesty's sake, other parts not covered as they are more presentable.  So with members of the church.  Some are more "out in front", more "visible" than others, but this does not lessen the importance of those behind the curtains.  The "greater" and "lesser" evaluations of various gifts are man-made, and not from God.  Don't do it!  Per MacA's book on this, the Corinthians were practicing their gifts as if they could choose what they got, and as if the gifts most similar to the ecstatic/frenzied/trance gifts they were used to in their previous pagan worship were the best, because they gave the most "external evidence" of being gifted.  To them, visible gifts meant one was more favored by God.  So those with non-speaking gifts were being made to feel that they were just barely part of the group at all, barely contributing, of little use.  Paul wants this idea expelled completely.  Gifts are not about "position in God's hierarchy" with louder being better.  Gifts are about ministering to maintain the whole body, in all that can happen.  The gifts are the immune system of the church.  If they don't all work right, disease can get in.
Much more on these matters in the book.

Now, after all this explanation of the equality of position of ALL the gifts, we get a second list of them, but in a different way.  Earlier, they were listed this way:
8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues , to another the interpretation of tongues. [1Co 12:8-10 ESV]
Here is the second list:
28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. [1Co 12:28 ESV]
Note that the first three things are numbered.  I didn't underline them because they are positions, not gifts.
And just for completeness, here is the Ephesians list:
11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [Eph 4:11-12 ESV]  This seems to be a listed of offices, not of gifts.
None of the lists are exactly the same, nor ordered the same, leading one to believe that there are more than the ones specifically enumerated.  I note that the list in 8 does not include apostles, evangelists, prophets (though it does include prophecy - a very different thing), and so on.

There is an extensive treatment of vss 30, 31 in the Book Notes on Spiritual Gifts.  Has to do with indicative and imperative.  MacA says that vs 31 should be indicative, and so translated "But you are only craving the showy gifts, so now I will show you a better way!"

Chapter 13
2021-2,  This time through I noticed how the last verse of 12 ties the analogy in that chapter to the more excellent things of Chapter 13:  31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way. [1Co 12:31 ESV].  So the whole of 13 is about a way of doing things that supersedes the exercise of Spiritual gifts and the "different parts of the whole" analogy that he used to promote unity in that church and to dispel the bickering about who's gift was most valuable, and to lift up those whose gifts were less spectacular than other gifts.  He said you can be unified because you understand the inter-connected nature of individual members of the church, or you can do a lot better than that.  What is better than bodily unity?  How did I never see this before?  It makes the meaning of 13 so much more profound.
I also have to say that this seems now to be one of those passages, like 2 Chron 7:14 that is almost always used out of context.  I Cor 13 is NOT about how to get along in a marriage.  Marriage is nowhere in view anywhere in this chapter or the previous chapter that sets it up.  What is in view is brotherly (sisterly?) love of the members of the body for each other.  It is not written as a guide to peace in the home, but to peace in the church.  Are you and your spouse both Christians?  Then it surely applies in that case, and maybe in spades since you are part of the body AND married.  But I don't think we have any business trying to run a marriage based on this chapter.  Ephesians 5 is where you'll find advice for a better marriage, and as it is specifically, contextually written for that purpose, it should certainly be the primary source.

Love.
Vss 1-4 seem to be referencing back to chapter 12, and saying that the Corinthians are so "self-promoting" about having showy gifts that they are running roughshod and unconcerned over their brothers and sisters in Christ.  Paul says this is missing the boat entirely.  Is he indicting the ones who's gifts are counterfeit, brought in by those who are unsaved, and have no real gifts, but are being used by Satan to undermine the truth in this church?  Or is he saying that even the saved, who have the showy gifts, are forgetting the purpose and use of those gifts to minister and love others in the church, and so making those gifts not edifying, but instead divisive?  Hmm.  Could be either.  Could be both.  Having all the gifts in spades, but without love, is useless.

Vss 5-7 list some characteristics of behavior that characterize love - or demonstrate the lack of love.  Seems Paul is talking about how the Corinthians are treating each other - the visible showy gifted lording it over the behind the scenes quietly gifted.  This is not what love looks like.  Whatever they might have in there hearts, what they show is a lack of love - point being they ought to check their hearts, and honestly determine what is there.

vss 8-11, So much here.  I've heard these verses used to "prove" that miracles and tongues - the sign gifts - have passed away with the completion of the Word of God.  But does it not also say that knowledge will pass away?  Maybe that refers to revelation instead of understanding.   Could be that.  There are no "new" scriptures, there is no more revelation.  Hmm...so that makes pretty good sense to me, in each and every specific mentioned.  Miracles, tongues, revelation.  They aren't here anymore.

Then the "when I was a child I thought as a child" verses.  Never realized they were here, so intimately connected with the Spiritual gifts.  And the "as in a mirror dimly" is right here too, right together.  Maybe this means that with the completion of the scriptures, we understand oh so much more about the plan of God in history, about the suffering servant and the conquering king, and things like this.  A more mature, complete, adult understanding of what is going on.  But even so, we don't understand the mind of God, the plan of God in its entirety.  We have grown up, but we are still limited.  We are not children, but we are not yet fully comprehending.  And we will not be, until we are "face to face".



Chapter 14
(2021 - Long morning, and very productive to this point, incorporating the book (John Mac's book on Spiritual Gifts) into the verses myself instead of just reading the book separately.  But I am tired.  So just reading through 14 for the most part, and I will focus on it next year.)

More about prophecy and tongues.  Starts like this:
1 Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. [1Co 14:1 ESV]
Pursue love, as something to be attained.  Practice perfects love.  It is not something that just happens, and if it doesn't then you're not Christian.  Why would we even have chapter 13 explaining what love is unless it was something that we could get better at?  It is something to develop within us, not something we either have or don't have, and not being good at it means you need more practice, not that you aren't saved!

2021-2, Also, this first verse is connecting 13 to 14, just as the first verse of 13 linked it directly back to 12.  13 is all about love, and 14 starts with an injunction to pursue the love described in 13.  This verse is a connector.
This first verse also seems to contrast love with the spiritual gifts.  Love comes first - like in that song, saying if  you have all these gifts and no love, then you've missed it.  Yes, we need to desire the gifts, and perhaps even desire some more than others.  But what the Spirit gives you is what you have to work with.  

We are to especially desire the gift of prophecy.  Given the definition of this back in 12, divorcing it from "fortune telling", this is something we can all do, but those gifted with it will always do it better.  But publicly proclaiming the gospel is for everyone.  Further, Paul is trying to point out that the Corinthian's "favorite gift" - speaking in tongues - is really not that great because few understand a word of it.  Prophesy - the clear, concise,  understandable speaking of God's word - that is what is best for the body, that is a very desirable gift, much moreso than tongues.

This verse:
2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. [1Co 14:2 ESV]
No one understands him?  But...that's not what happened on Pentecost?   
Hmm...MSB note says that though a particular translation may not be consistent about it, the distinction between tongue and tongues is foundational to understanding Paul's teaching in this chapter.  Paul seems to use the singular when he is talking about "pagan gibberish" and the plural when he is talking about the true gift of languages.  So in this verse, it says "in a tongue" because he is talking about gibberish, not "language" as on Pentecost.  I really like the MSB!  Probably because they recognized this, the translators of the KJV inserted "unknown" in front of all the singular forms.  I will also record this from MSB:  Paul emphasizes three things about the true gift: 1)  its position, inferior to prophecy, 2) its purpose as a sign to unbelievers, NOT to believers, and 3) its procedure - systematic, limited, and orderly.

 

2025 - So a tongue, singular, is not an existing understandable language.  This is why speaking in a tongue is speaking in the spirit, but EVEN THE SPEAKER does not understand what is being said.  In vs 13, Paul says that if a person speaks A tongue, he should also pray for the gift of interpreting that tongue, because if he cannot interpret - if he lacks the gift of interpretation - then what he says is of no benefit to anyone at all, not even himself.  

This verse:
5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up. [1Co 14:5 ESV]
How are we to understand this verse?  Paul cannot mean that these are his favorite gifts and he hopes that everyone gets them.  Not in view of what went before about eyes and feet he can't mean this.   So he's saying, sure, tongues are great, wish we all had that gift, but I'd rather see prophecy even more abundant as a gift.  If he means it the second way, then he is not saying that we all need to just keep working and practicing until we can speak in tongues.  If that's what he meant, wouldn't we work even harder to be able to prophesy?  
AND, put this whole verse in the context of "tongues" being a temporary gift, passed away, and so not even a thing to be sought anymore because it does not exist!  Who would build doctrine and set a bar for salvation based on such a thing???  And then add this:
19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue. [1Co 14:19 ESV]
Why in the world would a church want to place a huge emphasis on being able to speak in tongues when Paul says five clear words are better than 10,000 no one can understand?  What is the ratio of time you should spend "striving" for these gifts, even if striving did determine your skill - which we have previously seen it does not!?!?!?!
2023 - But go back to the explanation of singular and plural uses after vs 2 above.  Singular is pagan gibberish, plural is languages - being able to speak a language you never learned.  So here in five, in English anyway, Paul wants everyone to be able to speak foreign languages, but even more than that useful, understandable, evangelizing gift of speaking to others in their own language, he wishes people would prophesy even more.  But...in the second sentence, even if someone is speaking a true, interpretable foreign language, prophecy is better, unless someone there already KNOWS that foreign language and can interpret it, or someone there is gifted for the moment to understand and interpret that language.  
2023 - My "translation" of the verse:  Now to speak in tongues I wish for you all but even more that you might prophesy, and greater are the prophesiers than the tongue speakers UNLESS interpreted for the church's edification.  I do not know how to do that last part.  In BLB is "unless he interprets", implying in the translation that the one speaking does his own translating because it uses the third person singular - as in the one speaking is the same ONE translating.  Also the "translating" is in the subjunctive just as "might prophesy" is subjunctive, meaning "possibility" not "certainty".  So Paul wishes - as something that might happen - that all would be able to prophesy, and also wishes - as something that might, but does not always happen - that those who speak languages could interpret them.
2023 - What is missing here is the "definition" of prophecy.  I referenced above that it was defined in Chapter 12...which I think refers to the MSB definition which says "The meaning is simply that of "speaking forth", or "proclaiming publicly" to which the connotation of prediction was added sometime in the middle ages.  Since the completion of scripture, prophecy has not been a means of new revelation, but is limited to proclaiming what has already been revealed in the written Word."  So first, MSB is distinguishing current prophecy from revelatory inspiration given to prophets in the Old and New Testaments.  He points out that of all the sermons that Isaiah and Jeremiah preached, only a small fraction are preserved as revelation from God - revelation being defined in context as messages that ended up canonized as part of a canonized book.  Now if we take this definition, then Agabus in Acts 11 and Acts 21 has a couple of things canonized - that there would be a famine and that Paul would not enjoy his visit to Jerusalem.  Surely Agabus said many other things that did not become revelatory - but he did ADD these two predictions to the canon.  So the idea is that once the Bible was put into final form, we do not believe that anything "new" can be added.  This gets us crossways with Mormons right away, and also with Islam.  Islam makes Mohammad a prophet in the sense of receiving a NEW revelation from God, of receiving canonized scripture, just as Joseph Smith would be a prophet in this sense according to the Mormons.  So...as Christians, we do not believe that there is now nor will there be any more canonized revelation.  So no matter what any gifted "modern prophet" might say, it is not revelatory, but repetitive.  That is, modern prophets REPEAT what is already in the Word, they do not add to it.  If a prophet today says "You will be killed if you go to Jerusalem", that is NOT a repetition of existing scripture, and so is excluded from prophecy as we define it.  If it is not prophecy, it is something else.  It is fortune telling.  This is how it works, this is a consistent, defensible position on the subject of prophecy.  We must start with a definition of prophecy.  We ought to "use" the fact that if revelatory prophecy is still extant, then Joseph Smith AND Mohammad might be right.  How can we say they are not if we allow for revelatory prophecy in the present age?  We cannot, and we get into serious trouble really quickly.

2021-2, This verse: 7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? [1Co 14:7 ESV].  Why would Paul even bring these up as examples if they were not a part of the regular worship of the church?  Or...if I just wanted to take the other side, I might postulate that he calls them lifeless, just as he called idols of wood or stone or metal lifeless, and therefore neither good or evil.  Do we know that such instruments were used first by pagans?  NO!  We know that David introduced the use of musical instruments in the Old Testament!

2023 - Well I thought I was almost done, and then saw these verses:
9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. [1Co 14:9-11 ESV].  Reading these verses, I can argue, and that effectively I believe, that Paul is not here addressing the speaking of gibberish indecipherable to anyone anywhere ever.  He is not contrasting in any way the speaking of gibberish with the speaking of interpretable languages in the world.  He is saying that the gift of tongues is ALWAYS about speaking a real language, that would be understood somewhere by the people who spoke that language.  BUT, say God gives  you that language for another time - a later time - when you actually run across someone who speaks that language, so that you can proclaim the gospel to them, but TODAY, in this room, no one has the foggiest idea what you're saying.  In such a case, your brilliant and useful gift shows that you are gifted, but it does nothing at all for anyone present...unless someone else there also knows that language, either by heritage or similar gifting.  And the idea is that the person speaking the language may not - probably does not - understand the language either, and cannot even tell you what "sermon" they just preached.  If an unbeliever, who DOES know the language, or does understand that it IS a language unknown to the speaker, hears the language, then that unbeliever might well be convinced that God is working through this person in this church and ought to be heeded.  But if everyone in the place is speaking in languages that no one there understands, that looks like pagan gibberish - even though the languages being spoken are real - because no one has a clue, and it is all done in an disorderly fashion.  So later, Paul tells them to let two or three speak in tongues - not out of sudden uncontrollable compulsion but in their proper turn!  That is also quite significant!!!  AND, if there is no one to interpret that "real language", then even that ought not be spoken aloud!  
2023 - And look at vs 13!!!  Pray that you also get the gift of interpreting the tongue that you are gifted with!!!  

This advice to those who want to see signs and such:
12 So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. [1Co 14:12 ESV]
Stop looking for the experience of spirituality and seek instead to practice it yourself.
This is a good one for FB.  Short and sweet.

2021-2, This verse:  14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. [1Co 14:14 ESV].  Paul is separating what goes on in the spirit of man from what goes on in the mind of man.  This is almost like separating consciousness from unconsciousness, almost like modern Psychology.  So since "tongue" is singular here, he is talking about gibberish, or perhaps a human language that no one present understands at all.  The person speaking it, if it is of God, doesn't even understand the words, the meaning, himself.  It is not like you can speak in a tongue, and then when you're done, tell anyone else what you said.  It as if your unconscious has taken over for a bit from your mind.  Or...maybe not quite that.  Maybe you can hear yourself talking, but don't recognize what  you're saying.  I think that's more correct.  You would be conscious of what was going on, know that you were speaking, but I would suspect you'd be a little shocked that you had no idea what you were saying.  I think you would definitely know that you were speaking.  Still, this concept of a separation between a persons spirit and mind is very interesting.

 

2025 - Vss 18-19 though:
18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue. [1Co 14:18-19 ESV].
Paul has the gift.  He can speak in tongues (known languages, whether understood by anyone present or not) more than any of them.  I think he is saying he is glad that he can do that - that he has this gift in spades!  He contrasts how glad he is that he can speak in known, understandable languages with how almost utterly useless he believes is his ability to speak in language that is incomprehensible to anyone anywhere, even to himself.  
There were some in Corinth with the gift.  They could speak in languages strange to them but languages known to others.  Like me speaking Swahili.  I would not understand what I was saying, though someone who already spoke that language would understand it.  There were also some, I believe including Paul, who could speak a spiritual language incomprehensible to anyone on the planet who was not gifted to interpret that language.  This is the setup.
There were many in Corinth jealous of those gifted with tongues.  So what they were doing was "promoting" the practice of speaking gibberish, since that gave the appearance of HAVING a gift they did NOT have, getting them some attention and perhaps being seen as specially gifted indeed, and because NO ONE could say they did not have the gift!  This is built on the premise that there is such a thing as spiritual, as opposed to earthly, language(s) that is not physically understandable.  The second premise - and I think this one is true - is that some are gifted with the ability to speak this spiritual language.  
BUT NO ONE CAN SAY whether a language being spoken that is incomprehensible to them is real or just made up gibberish to get attention or portray oneself as ultra-gifted.  Therefore, THIS kind of tongue is ripe for abuse.
FURTHER, this type of tongue, the gibberish type, will not be understood by anyone ever.  It is not beneficial to the church.  It is not beneficial to unbelievers.  Unbelievers will just think the person so speaking is a crazy person.  But a Swahili speaking unbeliever who shows up at a church where someone in the congregation gets up and states the gospel in Swahili when they don't know Swahili, will be awestruck by the power of God working through the speaker to bring the unbeliever to Christ.
BOTH VERSIONS ARE OF VERY LIMITED USE, whereas prophecy is of almost universal use, especially to those there in the local church.  Everyone benefits from a clear prophecy in plain English, very few benefit from the exercise of the gift of tongues, whether gibberish or language.

Wow.  This verse:
22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. [1Co 14:22 ESV]
This forces a little bit of a re-evaluation of what prophecy is.  We don't prophesy to unbelievers at all.  Let me go back to what MSB said prophecy was in one of the notes:  Prophecy is now limited to proclaiming what has already been revealed.  Even the biblical prophets were proclaimers of God's truth, both by revelation and re-iteration.  Only a very small amount of what they preached is recorded as scripture.  Most of what they said, what they prophesied during their lives was just re-iteration of what they'd said before.  In the same way, preachers today repeat, explain, and re-emphasize.  
So prophecy is for the church.  Evangelism is something else.  A different gift?

2021-2, Yeah, I think I went too far on this.  As I understand it this time through, I would say this is about the sign gifts.  Tongues, which we no longer have, were a sign to unbelievers, that they might know God was present and moving, and that these new entities called churches were part of God's plan for all mankind.  They were there - the sign gifts that is - as a witness that God was in this place.  And the one's to whom it witnessed were unbelievers.  This is consistent with Paul saying "tongues" don't build up the church, and so prophecy is better.  

2023 - Tongues, plural, are not comprehended by the church, so do not edify the church.  BUT, they impress the lost, they witness to the presence of God in that place, even though unbelievers don't comprehend what is being said any more than believers do.  Isn't this an interesting way of understanding speaking in A tongue as opposed to speaking in tongues!

Prophecy was always to build up the church, in that everyone always understood the words, and whether they were miraculous predictions of the future, or they focused attention on errors or priorities within the church, they were ALWAYS for the benefit of believers.  I think this is what Paul meant here, and I think we can extrapolate it to the other sign gifts.  Like the miracles which are also no longer with us, and the "healings".  They were also to attest to unbelievers that what was going on in the church was unique, was of God, and was legitimate.
But then what does 23 mean????  23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? [1Co 14:23 ESV]  How is it that "tongues are a sign...for unbelievers" if they just make unbelievers think everyone's gone nuts???  Only way I can make sense of this is that speaking in a tongue (singular) that an unbeliever understands would connect back to vs 21, and so not only make sense to that one but preach the gospel to that one.  But if the whole church is speaking in "tongues", plural, then that means they are all speaking gibberish, and NO one gets it, either in or out of the church. Ohhh!!!!  There were some in the church who thought speaking in a tongue was such a cool gift that they were all trying to imitate it.  To do it.  To claim it was from the Spirit.  This very demonstrative gift was the ONLY one of the sign gifts that could be "learned", and then ALL could do it.  Not everyone could heal lepers!  Paul is using hyperbole and saying that if EVERY PERSON in the church was demonstrating their great holiness by making up gibberish that even they can't claim to understand, then not only will the church not be built up, but no one outside will be either - because it is just gibberish!!!  Man-made gobbledy-gook!  The last thing Paul wants is for unbelievers to think everyone in that building is off his nut!  Those with the gift of tongues - speaking in an understandable language - will always have the potential of speaking to a "nearby" unbeliever who understands that language.  THAT is the ONLY legitimate exercise of the gift of tongues.  BUT, if everyone gets together and learns to speak "a tongue", that sounds like gibberish not only to those present AND to those SPEAKING, but unbelievers also, then there is no benefit to the believers IN the church, and the unbelievers OUTSIDE the church won't want to participate in this obvious craziness!!!  It all fits together this way!  Vs 27 locks it down.  Nobody speaks in a tongue unless someone is present who understands and interprets what is said.  No making up gibberish just to prove how spiritual you are (Or to prove your salvation, as some church require!).

 

2025 - Several days after reading this, I was working on a FB post related to it and found this verse:
23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? [1Co 14:23 ESV].  If you look at the BLB interlinear, the word translated outsiders is actually "ungifted men".  Outsiders seems to be completely wrong.  Think of the implications.  Even the saved inside the church who do not have a gift yet - or who have a gift that is not overt, or obvious, or named by Paul specifically as a gift, are going to think the ones speaking in tongues have gone off their crumpets.  The Greek word is idiotes.  Not a very flattering word!  KJV translates it unlearned - but unlearned does not imply, to my mind at least, that they are unsaved.  Remember we just finished talking about the immature Christians and how we ought not offend them.  Doesn't this word tie directly to that???  NASB95 in fact translates this word as "ungifted".

Vs 26-33 seem to be the Pauline model for a church service.  This isn't exactly the one and only true "order of worship", but it is specific about how some things ought to be done, and it is entirely principle about how to organize a church.  
Then it says let two or three prophets speak.  I suppose we do this by having a sermon and class, and it seems to me that Sunday School is a lot more like what Paul recommends than a preaching service is.  In class, there's speaking by the group, not by only one.  And the hearers in class can judge, and can "play off of" what another says.  It clearly says that prophets should judge what is spoken by prophets.  This is how it is supposed to go.  MSB note though says that since the pastoral epistles don't mention prophets at all, that this too was perhaps gone by the end of the apostolic age.  The prophets of the apostolic age apparently did received some revelatory inspiration from God, and so they spoke in the service, but with the completion of the written word, this went away, and was no longer necessary.  Hmm...no more revelatory prophecy - I get that, agree that's true - but what about re-iterative prophecy?  Wouldn't we still have that?

 

2025 - Further comment on 1Co. 14:26-33, above:
In vs 26, we see the very clear demarcation that says "WHEN YOU ASSEMBLE..."  This means when you have a formal church service.  This is about Sunday morning.  Maybe Sunday night.  In certain aspects of a Wednesday night, and almost always during a revival.  I believe this is more about Sunday School classes than preaching service.  I am not sure they did a preaching service in Paul's day, I  think it is something that has come about since.  So let's focus on Sunday School classes as the object of "When you assemble..."  
Why?  Because that is where it might occur that "...each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation...[1Co 14:26b ESV].  In our Sunday School classes, various individuals have opportunity to contribute.  That's as close as we ever get to this.  People pray, people comment, people give testimony of what God has done for them or what the Spirit has revealed to them in their reading or their experience.  Someone leads singing.  Someone teaches this week's lesson.  Now, it is noteworthy that in these classes no one ever speaks in a tongue or tongues, and therefore no one interprets.  I see that I am talking here about Baptist churches and classes in my experience.  But we don't do this.  In Baptist preaching service, we don't give opportunity for any of these things, either.  Only in class would this be possible.  
So I think we are talking only about the formal conduct of church.  This is not about home Bible study.  this is not about Wednesday night - at least for Baptists it is not.  
Taken this way - restricted to this definition of "when you assemble" - we can see also the application of the injunction of silence for women.  It applies only to this context.  That must be so because we have 1Co 11:4-5: 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [1Co 11:5 ESV].  Clearly women are allowed to prophesy and I think exercise other spiritual gifts including tongues but not in the formal assembly of the church!  Not in preaching service, and not in class - as we conduct our assembly at Baptist churches.  
Where then can women prophesy???  What about Christian radio?  What about a women's convention?  What about during a discussion over Wednesday night dinner at church?  Can we go so far as to say ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD except during a formal church service???  I kind of think so, at least for today.

2024, Sept 19.  Tripped over this as I looked up a reference in Grudem about peace in chapter 12 of that book.  He only referenced the first of these verses but I noticed the other one in context:
33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. [1Co 14:33-34 ESV].
How do we not consider that in putting 33 and 34 together, Paul could be saying that where women speak freely in a worship service, confusion reigns, where otherwise there would be peace.  I mean...they are right together.  Each verse is context for the other.  Surely did strike me directly when I saw it today.

2021-2,  The idea here is that everything is orderly and in turn.  Further, the hearers are to be a check and balance on the speaker.  This verifies that evil people, or Satan- or demon-controlled people, are going to get into the church and spout false doctrine.  It is going to happen, expect it, and here is how you spot it and shut it down:  By having other prophets present as a balance on the one speaking.  I have never ever in my life been in a service where anyone at all got up and said "Hey preacher" or "Hey teacher", what you just said is heresy.  Not even anything close to that.  How is it that I have never been in a church that Satan was trying to undermine?  Why wouldn't he?  Maybe because that church isn't doing enough of God's work to worry him even a little bit.  Now there is a frightening thought.

Ahhh...vs 34:
Actually, this statement seems to start at the end of verse 33, with "...As in all the churches of the saints,".  This would seem to make it very difficult to claim that Paul is only addressing a specific situation in the Corinthian church, and offering a solution to that particular peculiar Corinthian situation.  This is a general rule, as practiced in ALL the churches of that time - as instructed by the Apostle Paul, who does NOT say this is just his opinion.  He does not qualify this in any way, he in fact makes it universal.
34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. [1Co 14:34 ESV]
2021 - Wow.  Read the MSB note.  It says the same thing.  This was a universally applicable rule.

35 is even more direct, and not remotely PC:
35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. [1Co 14:35 ESV]  They aren't even supposed to ask a question...
These two verses come at the end of the orderly worship section, but right after that, Paul summarizes the teaching on tongues.  
MSB says they mean what they say exactly.  Points out that modern churches that permit speaking in tongues and healing and such things also allow women preachers, teachers and so on.  They are all wrong, and they all stick together.  
MSB also says that the women in Corinth may have been "provocative" in the way they asked their questions in the church, perhaps challenging the authority of all the men there, or demeaning their own husbands in the way that they did so.  This may be why Paul addressed how women should behave in church, but he says it as a UNIVERSAL rule of churches - women are to be submissive, and ask their questions, pose their challenges, and so on, at home, not at church.

2021 - I never noticed the MSB note on vss 36, 37.  It says that Paul anticipated that those who were reveling in these showy gifts would push back against his teaching on them.  He anticipated that the women in that church who were perhaps provocative and challenging to the authority of men would push back against him.  So in vss 36, 37, Paul gets a bit sarcastic about what they will likely say.  He anticipates that they will say they have "interpreted" the scriptures differently, to which Paul says "I am an Apostle, submit to my teaching."  They will say "Well, we understand what is meant here better than others" to which Paul replies really?  God has only revealed that in Corinth, and not in all these other churches that don't do it the way you're wanting to do it?"  Paul says his teaching, and the scripture - NOT HUMAN INTERPRETATION OR CULTURAL BELIEFS - should determine how the church should conduct its worship.

2021-2, One last little note on this verse:  39 So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. [1Co 14:39 ESV].  Coming as it does at the end of a universal church rule about women speaking, I am a little unsure about whether speaking in a tongue should be considered "disappeared".  Perhaps like healing and miracles it is exceedingly rare in this day and age.  Yet, the rules for how to deal with it are detailed here, and it says DO NOT FORBID.  We need to be very careful about quenching the spirit here by being too overly sure that the sign gifts are no longer present at all.  Rare I will buy, but this statement says maybe not completely gone.

2023 - Here is another possible caveat.  Remember these verses?  4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. [1Co 11:4-5 ESV].  This CLEARLY implies that women at Corinth DID INDEED pray and prophesy.  They were to cover their heads when they did it...and I think there is good evidence that this head covering situation was just a Corinthian thing.  So, in connection with the end of 14 and women being silent, what are we to say?  That in 11, Paul is not addressing whether or not women should speak in church, but about head coverings, and is saving the whole "they shouldn't be doing either one of these things anyway" until Chapter 14?  That seems unnecessarily confusing.   So...how do we resolve 11:4-5 with 14: 33b-38?  I think first, we have to acknowledge that in 14: 36-37, Paul is making it supremely clear that there is to be NO COMPROMISE on what he's said about women speaking in church.  The language is just too strong.  In 38, "If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized."  Verse 38 is addressed to men.  Specifically unarguably to men.  Paul is NOT telling the women that if they balk about this they are wrong.  He is speaking to men who might potentially disagree with him.  So...women don't even get to participate in the debate.  This follows, since he's just said they are to do their debating at home, exclusively.  So...maybe we go here:  There are some places here in Corinth where women are allowed to prophesy and pray, so long as they cover their heads, but NOT in the congregational assembly.  NOT when you "come together" in formal worship.  For us, in modern times, and the way we conduct church services, can it mean that women don't get to stand up and talk while Rummage is preaching, but can speak up in Sunday School class, so long as everything is done in an orderly and respectful way that focuses on edification of those who hear what is said or prayed?  And in a home Bible study, would it be ok for women to teach, but not to do so during the main worship service?  In our modern services, only the preacher talks anyway, no deacons or elders or anyone else, so teaching isn't really even an issue?  I think this is right.  I think even in Corinth there were a lot of opportunities for women to pray and prophesy, but it was not appropriate, in Corinth or anywhere else, for them to speak during the formal worship service.  

Chapter 15
Chapter 14 ended talking about an orderly worship service.  This chapter opens with the fundamentals of the gospel.  Very useful verses to be memorized, and I think these:
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, [1Co 15:3-4 ESV]...
Along with these:
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. [Rom 10:9-10 KJV]
or in the ESV:
9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. [Rom 10:9-10 ESV]
...are the two I think most condensed and direct statements of the gospel in the NT.

I Corinthians goes on to recount the witnesses that saw the resurrected Jesus.  There were many, and a lot of them remained  and could be questioned in Paul's time.  Paul seems to list these witnesses chronologically, just as they happened.  If it is indeed chronological, then it is the framework on which we can see the post-resurrection movement of Jesus - from the garden, to Jerusalem, to Galilee, and back to Jerusalem...Least I think that is sort of the way.  Pasting in the verses and separating the "events" looks like this:
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, 
then to the twelve. 
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 
7 Then he appeared to James, 
then to all the apostles. 
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. [1Co 15:5-8 ESV]
Six are listed.  Maybe there were more than six, but these six should put them all into a time frame we can work with.  This is a good study to go along with the arrival of various women at the tomb, of the movements of various women at the crucifixion, and of the appearances of Christ after his resurrection. NOTE:  MSB has already done this.  There is a chart on p. 1723 that lists the appearances.  All that remains is to fit them into the framework above.

In vs 12, Paul turns to the resurrection of the dead.  This concept would have been a huge point of contention with the Greeks that were in Corinth, and with the widespread influence of Greek philosophy at the time, which said the physical - like one's body - was inherently corrupt and defiled, but one's spirit, or soul, or whatever term the Greeks used for it, was pure.  Dualism is what this idea was called.  The nice thing about death, to the Greeks, is that it allowed the soul freedom to be pure without that nasty body hanging on.  And then Paul shows up saying Jesus came back from the dead in body.  To Greeks, that was crazy, because who would want it back???  Yet we know that the resurrection of Christ is the key to to the conquest of sin.  Further, Paul is a Pharisee, and the Sadducees denied any bodily resurrection.  Jesus had told the Sadducees directly that they were wrong about resurrection, and yet here is that same concept, still around - though from a different perspective.  

Paul says it is either or, not partial.  It is not that Christ was resurrected and no one else will be.  If Christ was, then all will be, and if none will be then neither was Christ - with terrible implications for believers.

Seems the Corinthians pretty much had every early church problem that there was.  There must have been some inside the church saying that even if Christ was raised, no one else would be, because that was just all wrong - it couldn't work that way.  They were limiting the Bible with the philosophy of man.  

Paul tells them if this is true - that no one rises from the dead - then even Christ was not raised, and all this worship stuff they're doing is not only in vain, but a misrepresentation of God's work!  They are offending God, not worshiping Him if this is true.  He refutes this in this verse:
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. [1Co 15:20 ESV]

2021 - This verse:
21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. [1Co 15:21 ESV]  Note that each of these says "a" man, not "the".  No definite article.  Genesis tells us that Adam's sin brought death, but it did not bring physical death immediately.  It brought spiritual death.  So we have body and spirit as separate entities where death is concerned.  Each dies at a different time, and in a different way.  The body decays, the spirit does not.  Can we say the spirit doesn't die at all, but relocates?  Is the death of the spirit more about relationship to God and less about what we understand as death?  Angels are spirits (is there a verse?) and they do not die, but some are separated from God.  So...Paul may be talking in this verse strictly about the physical body.  Adam was immortal - like the angels - until he sinned.  He was of different stuff than the angels, a little lower than the angels, because of the encumbrance of a physical body.  A body limited by natural law.  His sin "infected" that body of flesh, and condemned it to die.  But his spirit did not, any more than the angels die.  This is why it so specifically says "a man" in this verse.  This bodily death is unique to mankind.  So...as man was created as one creature with body and spirit, and the body died - causing a sort of separating of his essence - these two parts must be reunited in the future for man to be the unique creation of God as he was from the beginning.  So the body must be reunited with the Spirit.  This is what resurrection is about - this is what happens at the rapture.  A re-uniting of body and spirit.  
Hmmm....can I get a FB post out of this?  Pretty tough...
Jesus had them touch his resurrected body.  It was solid.  Jesus ate meals with them after his resurrection.  Whether for nourishment or pleasure we do not know.  (Sure we do.  In heaven, the tree of life bears a different fruit each month.  We will eat in heaven.)  Had it been only Jesus' spirit that was resurrected, the implication is that it would be vaporous, untouchable, without substance in the world.  But...wouldn't that be what angels are?  And yet angels eat too don't they?  And they reproduce with the daughters of men - though this could be entirely via possession of men to be used for this purpose.  Do angels eat?  The ones who showed up at Abraham's tent, the ones who went to Sodom - didn't they eat a meal with Lot?  How could pure spirits do this?  Must we allow for these to be a "special incarnation" necessary to accomplish judgement, or is there a "non-exceptional" way to look at it?
I am interested in this - and spending so much time on it - because of questions that keep coming up about the rapture.  The thief on the cross is already in heaven - Jesus told him so.  But that thief's body was buried.  Lazarus is in the bosom of Abraham and the rich man is in hell.  Whatever of the rich man is in hell is tormented by flames.  So spirits - if that is all that has gone on to hell - feel pain intensely.  Or...they are changed when they are separated from the body so that they can then feel pain.  At the rapture, then, it is physical bodies that are resurrected - because the spirits are already in heaven.  The body and spirit must be reunited because....why?  Why does it have to be this way?  Moving on....

2023 - From Grudem Chapter 42, Glorification, it must be this way because Jesus did it this way.  We are to be like him, to suffer as he did, to die as he did, to be resurrected as he was.  This common experience is part of our ultimate unity with Christ.  Souls can go into heaven with God, even the souls of men.  But corrupt physical bodies, to which somehow, sin is attached, cannot go into His presence until they are resurrected and restored to their original created purity and incorruptibility.  Perhaps that is the key.  Our earthly bodies age, they are subject to disease and deterioration...and these things are not allowed in God's presence.  It is NOT that sin is attached to the bodies!  The Greeks had this wrong.  Only incorruptible can be in the presence of God.  A forgiven soul - a saved soul - can never EVER be corrupted again.  Therefore, when we die, our souls can go directly into heaven with God.  But our bodies must first be transformed into something they are not now.  Maybe use 1Co 15.50...
Possible FB post.

And this concept:
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. [1Co 15:22 ESV]
It had to work this way.  God's plan focused down to a single man.  It all went south by one, and it was all made right by one.

(((2021 - Look at that phrase "made alive".  Then the next verse says that there is a definite order to how this "making alive" is to occur.  Does "made alive" mean "made complete"?  Does it mean "made whole and fully functional"?  The word translated "shall be made alive" is the Greek word "zoopoieo", and is Strong's G2227.  In the interlinear the word is identified as a phrase - I assume that means it is impossible to translate with a single English word.  Because tenses are implied perhaps.  The word is used 12x in the KJV.  9 of those it is translated "quicken".  Not to disparage the KJV, but here are alternate translations of the word from other versions:
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. [Jhn 5:21 KJV]
21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. [Jhn 5:21 ESV].  Quicken seems like a special word.  Gives life seems kind of plain.  So I looked up the phrase "gives life" in the KJV.  It isn't in there at all.  So quicken is very likely the word used in the time of the King James Bible to mean "gives life".  So fundamentally, in this verse, zoopoieo means "give life".  The dead had no life.  The Father gives them life.  It is something they once had, lost, and the Father restores.  The Son does the same.  He also gives life.  So...are we talking about Jairus' daughter?  Lazarus?  The widow's son?  Or are we talking about the rapture?
2023 - We aren't talking about any of those.  In the same way that the consequence of eating the apple was "death", even though no one died for hundreds of more years, but was about spiritual death and separation from God, this "making alive" is the undoing of the curse.  It is reunion with God in heaven.  We can only be truly "alive" in the presence of our creator.  
2023 - The wording in 21-26 also seems to imply that some, the Father raises, and others, the Son raises.  Wow.  The rapture of the church.  The resurrection of the OT saints at the GWT?  Note that Christ will resurrect his own at his coming in vs 23.  BUT, AFTER Christ has turned all over to God, THEN the last enemy is defeated.  That enemy is SEPARATION from God - spiritual death.  People will die during the Millennial, and a LOT will die in the final battle at the end of the Millennial.  Then the GWT, and NO ONE EVER DIES AGAIN.  There will be both saved and lost at the end of the Millennial else there could be no battle.  Some will survive the battle.  Some die in battle.  These, both saved and lost will need to be resurrected, with the OT saints, for final judgment.  Those condemned here suffer the second death.  Blessed are those resurrected before this, because they are not in danger at the second death.  But OT saints must still be judged, as are all the dead unsaved of all time. 

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. [Jhn 6:63 KJV]
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. [Jhn 6:63 ESV]  If the flesh is nothing, is no help at all, then why would it be so vital to restore it to life?  Perhaps we are talking here about salvation.  It is the spirit that is saved for eternity.  There is no salvation for our mortal bodies because they are corrupt.   It is for this reason that works mean nothing.  Works won't save the spirit, and we cannot do enough works to save the body.  They are too corrupt.  Bodies must be changed from their incurably corrupt form into something new before they can be combined with a spirit in the presence of God.  Hmm...Nothing corrupt can be in God's presence.  Bodies must be changed.  But this STILL does not tell us why they must be re-combined.  Because the incarnate Christ's body was incorruptible, and was raised incorruptible, and we must be like him?  He is first, but we are to be like him, to follow him.  He is the first "whole man", body and spirit, with a body that never saw corruption.  This is the model, this is what we are to emulate, this is what we must be.  I think this is getting pretty close to why body and spirit must be reunited.  Did Christ go down to hell as spirit before his body was resurrected also?  And the resurrection of his body was a glimpse of the rapture?
2023 - Wow.  I had this pretty close even before reading Grudem 42 this year.  Because Jesus was the first "whole man", spirit and perfect body, we will follow the same route to God's presence.

17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. [Rom 4:17 KJV]
17 as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations"--in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. [Rom 4:17 ESV]  Hmm...don't see much relevance to the present discussion in this verse.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. [Rom 8:11 KJV]
11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you. [Rom 8:11 ESV]  Capitalization of Spirit implies that the translators believe we are talking about saved people here.  Those in whom the Spirit dwells.  This specifically says give life to mortal bodies.  For whatever reason, this is a necessary thing in the plan of God for redemption of mortal man.
2023 - Again, Jesus is the firstfruit, but there is much more to the whole crop.  We just follow the way that Jesus showed us.

There are three more, two of which are in this chapter of 1Co that I am reading.  I think I've worn myself out on this, so I am moving on...
36 [Thou] fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: ... 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit. [1Co 15:36, 45 KJV]
13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and [before] Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; [1Ti 6:13 KJV]
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: [1Pe 3:18 KJV])))

Vss 22-28 (of 1Co 15) are a condensed version of Christ's activities concerning the resurrection from his own resurrection to the end of the Millennial.  He rose from the dead.  Leaning heavily on the MSB note to vs 23 here.  Paul says there will be an "order" to the resurrection.  Christ came first, and there are three subsequent resurrection "events".  
First, those saved from Pentecost to the Rapture will be joined by those still living at the Rapture to meed the Lord in the sky.  2021 - I do not understand this Pentecost to the rapture reference.  This seems to be saying that those saved in the OT will not be resurrected at the rapture.  Only those "in Christ" via the church, and possessing the indwelling Holy Spirit will be raptured, with those still alive.  So...I can see the argument, but I don't see the verse(s) that makes it so...unless it is verse 22.
Second, those who are saved during the tribulation, along with the OT saints, will be raised to reign with Jesus in the Millennial kingdom.  Third, those who die during the Millennial may be instantly transformed and possibly translated to heaven with the ones already there.  This leaves only the ungodly of all times and epochs and ages still in the ground.  These will be raised for the Great White Throne Judgement.
2022 - Here is the entirety of the MSB note to 23:  Christ was first, as the firstfruits of the resurrection harvest (vv 20-23a).  Because of His resurrection, "those who are Christ's" will be raised and enter the eternal heavenly state in 3 stages at Christ's coming (cf Mt 24.36, 42-44, 50; Mt 25.13): 1) those who have come to saving faith from Pentecost to the Rapture will be joined by living saints at the Rapture to meet the Lord in the air and ascend to heaven (1Th 4.16,17); 2)those who come to faith during the Tribulation, with the OT saints as well, will be raised up to reign with Him during the Millennium (Rev 20.4; cf. Dan 12.2; cf Is 26.19,20); and 3) those who die during the millennial kingdom may well be instantly transformed at death into their eternal bodies and spirits.  The only people left to be raised will be the ungodly and that will occur at the end of the Millennium at the GWT judgment of God (see notes on Rev 21.11-15; cf Jn 5.28,29), which will be followed by eternal hell (Rev 21.8).

2021-2, Occurred to me going to church that the verse in this chapter that talks about the last trump is likely the inspiration for "When the Roll is Called Up Yonder" .  Looked it up at church.  It is dedicated to 1Thess 4:16.

2021 version of the previous paragraph - This is another chronology, presumably in order, of things to come.  Let's do the same as we did above with the appearances after the resurrection:
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: This clearly introduces the chronological sequence of all the dead IN CHRIST being made alive:
1. Christ the firstfruits, So...Christ was never spiritually dead - never separated from God - so this must be about physical resurrection.  The first "new body", the first flesh changed to a new form - a mysterious form - and for some reason necessary step.
2. then at his coming those who belong to Christ. This appears to be a reference to the rapture.  Only those who belong to Him are "made alive" here.  I would say it includes both the dead in Christ and those who are alive and remain.
3. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. This would seem to be a reference to the end of the Millennial, after the last battle.

(((Then, these last verses are explanatory and anticipate a counter argument which Paul preempts.  These are not about a separate chronological event...
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (After the Millennial there will be no more physical, mortal death.  That is the end of time, eternity "begins" here.)
27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. [1Co 15:22-28 ESV])))

vs 29, Perhaps this refers to those who were led to Christ and/or baptized by people who have now died.  Those who led them to Christ had instilled in them the hope of eternal salvation.  If those who gave them this hope are just dead now, and the hope is a fake, then why were they baptized at all by these people?  MSB note says this is a possible explanation.  It also talks about what this baptism is NOT about.  It is not about saving a person who died unsaved by having a living person baptized for that person.  It is NOT about substitutionary salvation.
2021-2, Paul does not describe this Baptism on behalf of the dead as a sacrilege, an error, or a heresy.  He seems to be perfectly fine that they are doing this, and in fact incorporates it into his argument.  Which begs the question...what was it for, why did they do it?  Is it that if you were baptized, and the person who baptized you died, you needed to be baptized again?  Surely that's not right.  But what then?

From vvs 29-34, I am just completely lost.  What in the world is he talking about here, and how is it connected to the chronology of resurrections that came just before.  He is still talking about whether or not resurrection is real at all - since some in Corinth did not believe it - but I just don't get the points he is making about it with baptism for the dead and fighting lions in Ephesus?  

2025 - I asked NBLM this question to answer using my notes on Grudem:  Propose at least three possible meanings for 1 Cor. 15:29 - baptism for the dead.
NBLM said there really isn't enough in the notes to do 3 from there, but somehow it came up with three using context etc.  I thought this third possibility had some merit.  It explains why this reference, this practice, is only mentioned this one time in scripture, and why Paul would have included it at this particular point of this particular letter.
3. An Example of an Obscure, Historical Corinthian Practice: The verse may refer to a local, perhaps unorthodox, practice at Corinth that Paul mentioned rhetorically without endorsing it, demonstrating that even those employing this practice believed in the resurrection of the dead. The classification of "baptism for the dead" as an "obscure verse" places it among the "ongoing, difficult, not YET understood parts where disagreement still exists"
I like the idea that Paul is saying that "Even these people, who are way out there doing their own thing on baptism, believe like us that Jesus rose from the dead and that likewise we will be raised from the dead."  Looked at this way,I think of the verse where Jesus says "He who is not against us is for us", an very under-quoted verse in my opinion.  Paul is not getting into any theological discussion about this practice, he is just referring to the group that does it as "not against us", and so worthy of being used in the argument that belief in resurrection of the dead is pretty dang widespread and not just a minor obscure idea.

2021-2, Then, as if not confused enough already, this verse:  34 Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame. [1Co 15:34 ESV]
An excellent verse to refute the whole "I'll do what I want, because once saved always saved" idea.  Paul says if you believe this is ok, you should be ashamed.  
BUT, in the whole context of the chapter, why did he jump from Baptism for the dead to hedonistic license exercised by those who claimed to be saved?  Where is the thread that ties these together????  I still need to spend a lot more time on this.

Paul then addresses the very nature of the resurrected body.  It is not going to be a stinky, decaying, decomposing, worm-ridden pile of rotting meat.  Not that any more than planting a dried out shriveled up seed produces dried up shriveled up corn.  Why would anyone think it would work like that?  Cross reference this to John 12, and Jesus' response to the Greeks.

Here is a curious idea:
38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. [1Co 15:38-39 ESV]
Does this mean pets will also be raised, in a better form but different?  This is out of context of course. But one wonders...

2021-2, This verse:  41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. [1Co 15:41 ESV].  Maybe this says that, depending on how well we did with our salvation, we will shine like stars with a magnitude of 5.0, just dim stars that can only be seen sideways, or will shine like the sun.  I think it certainly implies, though, that heaven is not a place for participation trophies.  Everyone will know how we finished.

This verse:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. [1Co 15:44 ESV]
This is stated as something everyone already knows.  The resurrected body will be categorically different from the natural body.  It will not have any of this corruption that was such a stumbling block to some at that time.

This is the verse that explains why our bodies must be changed:
50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. [1Co 15:50 ESV]  But...didn't Jesus tell Thomas that he was flesh and blood?  Anyway...Our corrupt bodies cannot be in the imperishable environment of heaven.  Since Jesus life, death, and resurrection "paved the road" by which we are redeemed and made perfect, we must follow those same steps.  Jesus physical body was raised as an un-corrupted body.  So must ours be, since this body will be in heaven.

51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. [1Co 15:51-52 ESV]
This is about our resurrected bodies.  That is the context.  The context is not eschatology.  However..."at the last trumpet" is pretty  specific as to when those who are alive at the rapture will be changed.  Not just "a trumpet" but THE LAST trumpet.  xrefs in 1 Thes 4:16 and Rev. 11:15.  
2021 - I had zeroed in on the sixth trumpet as the time of the rapture.  This says the seventh doesn't it?  Seventh is last...If the rapture is at the seventh trumpet, then the church will be here even longer than I had thought.  The two witnesses will be called home before the seventh trumpet.  A LOT of terrible things will happen prior to the two witnesses.  They are going to be killed, and rise from the dead and be called home...They will resurrect before the dead in Christ...or...Ahhh...when they rise, so will the dead in Christ, all together.
A GOOD STUDY would be to see what all happens during the first six trumpets, when exactly the Antichrists true nature is revealed and can be recognized by those still on earth (Because surely in Thessalonians Paul says the saved will recognize him before the rapture), and so on.  This verse should be like a key in a lock at fixing where exactly in the tribulation period the rapture will occur.

2021 - Once again just reading straight through 16.  Next year, I'm not skipping on to 16, but maybe read on through to about 15:20 and then buckle down.


Chapter 16
Paul turns to offerings (money) that he directed them to collect, as he also directed other churches to collect.  

2021-2, This verse:
2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. [1Co 16:2 ESV]
This seems to be a separate thing than the tithe.  This is something extra that is to go to Jerusalem.  It is not required of the church, but it is individuals who are being urged to sacrifice for other Christians as God prospers them.  This is not tithe, but something over and above tithe.  Paul wants this over and done by the time he gets there, so that it only needs to be taken to Jerusalem, presumably by men appointed to do so.  

2025 - This verse:
12 Now concerning our brother Apollos, I strongly urged him to visit you with the other brothers, but it was not at all his will to come now. He will come when he has opportunity. [1Co 16:12 ESV].
So Paul was not in "command" of Apollos.  Paul is an Apostle, yet he does not have power to order Apollos to go to Corinth, and Apollos seems to have said more than no.  It is like Corinth was the last place he might want to go.  Peter was also an apostle, so if Peter was the Pope, and everyone had to do what he said, we would need to prove he was more than an apostle.  I don't think that can really be done convincingly.

Here is an interesting verse:
13 Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. [1Co 16:13 ESV]
So much for "brothers" meaning "brothers and sisters".  He is not telling both the men and women of Corinth to "act like men".  It is the men only.  The whole letter is to the brothers, NOT to the brothers and sisters.  Each brother can and should teach his own wife, but this makes it clear exactly who the letter is meant to reach.  Deal with it.  ESV turns right around in the next verse, where Paul addresses "brothers", and tries to tell us he means brothers and sisters.  HE DOES NOT!  In that culture at that time, Paul meant men, males, guys, dudes, and them only.  There are NO separate instructions here for the women.  He is directly addressing men and only by extension women.  This "brothers and sisters" thing is a very disappointing obsession of the ESV, and it is entirely in error.  I would extrapolate this verse to all of Paul's letters.  He sends the letter to the men, to the heads of the households.  It is a hierarchy that he has gone to great lengths to explain in this letter.  He does not explain how it is supposed to work and then circumvent everything he's said in the same letter.  It is a hierarchy, men, then women. ism for the dead and fighting lions in Ephesus?  

2021-2, Then, as if not confused enough already, this verse:  34 Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame. [1Co 15:34 ESV]
An excellent verse to refute the whole "I'll do what I want, because once saved always saved" idea.  Paul says if you believe this is ok, you should be ashamed.  
BUT, in the whole context of the chapter, why did he jump from Baptism for the dead to hedonistic license exercised by those who claimed to be saved?  Where is the thread that ties these together????  I still need to spend a lot more time on this.

Paul then addresses the very nature of the resurrected body.  It is not going to be a stinky, decaying, decomposing, worm-ridden pile of rotting meat.  Not that any more than planting a dried out shriveled up seed produces dried up shriveled up corn.  Why would anyone think it would work like that?  Cross reference this to John 12, and Jesus' response to the Greeks.

Here is a curious idea:
38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. [1Co 15:38-39 ESV]
Does this mean pets will also be raised, in a better form but different?  This is out of context of course. But one wonders...

2021-2, This verse:  41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. [1Co 15:41 ESV].  Maybe this says that, depending on how well we did with our salvation, we will shine like stars with a magnitude of 5.0, just dim stars that can only be seen sideways, or will shine like the sun.  I think it certainly implies, though, that heaven is not a place for participation trophies.  Everyone will know how we finished.

This verse:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. [1Co 15:44 ESV]
This is stated as something everyone already knows.  The resurrected body will be categorically different from the natural body.  It will not have any of this corruption that was such a stumbling block to some at that time.

This is the verse that explains why our bodies must be changed:
50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. [1Co 15:50 ESV]  But...didn't Jesus tell Thomas that he was flesh and blood?  Anyway...Our corrupt bodies cannot be in the imperishable environment of heaven.  Since Jesus life, death, and resurrection "paved the road" by which we are redeemed and made perfect, we must follow those same steps.  Jesus physical body was raised as an un-corrupted body.  So must ours be, since this body will be in heaven.

51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. [1Co 15:51-52 ESV]
This is about our resurrected bodies.  That is the context.  The context is not eschatology.  However..."at the last trumpet" is pretty  specific as to when those who are alive at the rapture will be changed.  Not just "a trumpet" but THE LAST trumpet.  xrefs in 1 Thes 4:16 and Rev. 11:15.  
2021 - I had zeroed in on the sixth trumpet as the time of the rapture.  This says the seventh doesn't it?  Seventh is last...If the rapture is at the seventh trumpet, then the church will be here even longer than I had thought.  The two witnesses will be called home before the seventh trumpet.  A LOT of terrible things will happen prior to the two witnesses.  They are going to be killed, and rise from the dead and be called home...They will resurrect before the dead in Christ...or...Ahhh...when they rise, so will the dead in Christ, all together.
A GOOD STUDY would be to see what all happens during the first six trumpets, when exactly the Antichrists true nature is revealed and can be recognized by those still on earth (Because surely in Thessalonians Paul says the saved will recognize him before the rapture), and so on.  This verse should be like a key in a lock at fixing where exactly in the tribulation period the rapture will occur.

2021 - Once again just reading straight through 16.  Next year, I'm not skipping on to 16, but maybe read on through to about 15:20 and then buckle down.

Chapter 16
Paul turns to offerings (money) that he directed them to collect, as he also directed other churches to collect.  

2021-2, This verse:
2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. [1Co 16:2 ESV]
This seems to be a separate thing than the tithe.  This is something extra that is to go to Jerusalem.  It is not required of the church, but it is individuals who are being urged to sacrifice for other Christians as God prospers them.  This is not tithe, but something over and above tithe.  Paul wants this over and done by the time he gets there, so that it only needs to be taken to Jerusalem, presumably by men appointed to do so.  

Here is an interesting verse:
13 Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. [1Co 16:13 ESV]
So much for "brothers" meaning "brothers and sisters".  He is not telling both the men and women of Corinth to "act like men".  It is the men only.  The whole letter is to the brothers, NOT to the brothers and sisters.  Each brother can and should teach his own wife, but this make it clear who exactly the letter is meant to reach.  Deal with it.  ESV turn right around in the next verse, where Paul addresses "brothers", and tries to tell us he means brothers and sisters.  HE DOES NOT!  In that culture at that time, Paul meant men, males, guys, dudes, and them only.  This is a very disappointing obsession of the ESV, and it is entirely in error.  I would extrapolate this verse to all of Paul's letters.  He sends the letter to the men, to the heads of the households.  It is a hierarchy that he has gone to great lengths to explain in this letter.  He does not explain how it is supposed to work and then circumvent everything he's said in the same letter.  It is a hierarchy, men are above women.