CHAPTER ELEVEN

 

 

11:3: “the head of Christ is God” = Paul is not here speaking of the “Nature” of Christ, but of His “position” in relationship to His Father.  If one insists that Christ’s “Nature” is inferior to His Father, then to be consistent with the rest of Paul’s discourse here, one would have to say the same regarding the “nature” of the woman to the man! However, the fact remains that though a wife is subject to her husband in the Lord, she is NOT inferior to him by “nature.”  The same is true with the relationship between the Lord Jesus and His Father.  See my Note in First Corinthians 15:28.

 

11:3-16: “head uncovered dishonoureth her head” = See my Bible Study, “VEIL, TO VEIL OR NOT TO.” See also my Bible Study: “WOMEN’S ORDINATION; SUBMISSION.”

 

11:4: “having his head covered” = In other words, if a man, who’s head covering is Christ, according to verse 3, puts himself under any other covering other than Christ, he “dishonoureth his head [Christ].” And the same with a woman.  If she covers her head with any other authority other than her husband, praying or prophesying without being under the subjection of her husband, she “dishonoureth her head [husband],” who’s ultimate authority is Christ.  Therefore, she also “dishonoureth” Christ.  And according to verse 5, it’s as if her head “were shaven.” This is what was done to temple prostitutes; their heads were shaven.  However, according to verse 15, “for her hair is given her for a covering.”  Her “hair” is her “covering.”  In other words. Don’t shave it off ladies.  See my Bible Study: “VEIL, TO VEIL OR NOT TO.”

 

This entire discourse in verses two through sixteen can be cleared up extensively, to mean only as suggestive Church “custom” of the time.  Why?  Because verse 16 is so clear: “But if any man seem to be contentious (argumentative), we have no such custom [THERE YOU HAVE IT; in other words, “we” have no grounds to stand on in the next part, “neither” in our Church”], neither the Churches of God.”  Or better, if you want to do these things to fall in line with what society is dictating at the time, and it does not go against the Commandments of God, FINE.  Just don’t make it a requirement in “the Churches of God,” verse 16, today.

 

Also, the “covering” of which Paul is referring to is found in verses 14-15, that being one’s own “hair” length.  And Paul makes it abundantly clear, that the custom of his day was for a man to have short “hair,” while the woman should have long “hair.” Again, I state, “custom of his day.” Therefore, don’t make it a requirement in “Churches of God,” verse 16, today; except that women should not ever shave their heads.

 

11:6: “be not covered” = The Greek here is “G2619; katakalupto,” and means, “to cover wholly,” that is, with a “veil.” In a literal sense, it means to “hide.” It is completely translated as, “to cover with something which hangs down,” hence, to “veil.” I grant that the context of that word alone is discussing the “head,” and our Middle-Eastern brethren have understood it so, in what we can still observe today.  And that is, that a woman should be “veiled,” such that it covers not just her head, but her face also, as “katakalupto” implies.  However again, First Corinthians 11:15, CLEARLY teaches that the length of a woman’s hair is meant, and not a “veil.” See my Bible Study: “VEIL, TO VEIL OR NOT TO.”

 

11:10: “because of the angels” = I admit, and am in line with most all Bible commentators on this particular passage, we do not know what Paul really means here.  However, it “may be” found in a “possible” expression of the Corinthians of the time.

 

However again, here is my best guess.  Just as the angels “covered their faces,” Isaiah 6:2, in the presence of our Lord, so they “vail” their faces in order not to observe sinful acts (unless they need to act).  My real interpretation would be that it could read as such, “because of the recording angels,” who “record” what we do.

 

11:23-26: “when He had supped” = Here is my Matthew 26:26-29 Note: “At this last Passover the Lord’s Supper was instituted.” 3SP:84.

 

“The salvation of men depends upon a continual application to their hearts of the cleansing blood of Christ.  Therefore, the Lord’s Supper was not to be observed only occasionally or yearly, but more frequently than the annual Passover.  This solemn ordinance commemorates a far greater event than the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egypt.” 3SG:228.

 

“. . . though Jesus knew Judas from the beginning, He washed his feet. . . He who was to betray his Lord was privileged to unite with Him in partaking of the sacrament.  And today none who claim to be Christians should be excluded from this service, for who can read hearts?” 20MR:149.

 

“Eternal life is the receiving of the living elements in the Scriptures and doing the will of God.  This is eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of God.” 21MR:131.

 

“[644] Judas pressed next to Christ on the left side; John was on the right.  If there was a highest place, Judas was determined to have it, and that place was thought to be next to Christ. . . 

 

“[645] When the Saviour’s hands were bathing those soiled feet, and wiping them with the towel, the heart of Judas thrilled through and through with the impulse then and there to confess his sin.  But he would not humble himself.  He hardened his heart against repentance; and the old impulses, for the moment put aside, again controlled him.  Judas was now offended at Christ’s act in washing the feet of His disciples.  If Jesus could so humble Himself, he thought, He could not be Israel’s King.  All hope of worldly honor in a temporal kingdom was destroyed.  Judas was satisfied that there was nothing to be gained by following Christ.  After seeing Him degrade Himself, as he thought, he was confirmed in his purpose to disown Him, and confess himself deceived.  He was possessed by a demon, and he resolved to complete the word he had agreed to do in betraying his Lord.  Judas, in choosing his position at table, had tried to place himself first, and Christ as a servant served him first.” DA:644-645.

 

“In His life and lessons, Christ has given a perfect exemplification of the unselfish ministry which has its origin in God.  God does not live for Himself.  By creating the world, and by upholding all things, He is constantly ministering for others.” DA:649.

 

“I was pointed back to the time that Jesus took His disciples away alone, into an upper room, and first washed their feet, and then gave them to eat of the broken bread, to represent His broken body, and juice of the vine to represent His spilled blood.  I saw that all should move understandingly, and follow the example of Jesus in these things, and when attending to these ordinances, should be as separate from unbelievers as possible.” PT, November 1850; EY:189.

 

“In the place of the national festival which the Jewish people had observed, He instituted a memorial service, the ordinance of feet washing and the sacramental supper, to be observed through all time by His followers in every country.” ST, May 16, 1900; 5BC:1139.

 

“In the last Passover our Lord observed with His disciples, He instituted the Lord’s Supper in place of the Passover, to be observed in memory of His death.” YI, May 1, 1873; FLB:300; LHU:31.

 

11:24: “which is broken for you” = According to John 19:31-36 and others, no bones were to be broken of the perfect sacrificial Lamb (Jesus).  Therefore, what is meant here?  The Greek word used here is “klao,” which is only used when speaking of the “breaking” of (or better, serving of) bread; NEVER the breaking of bones or anything else other than bread.  Here is the proof of that statement:

 

Total “KJV” occurrences is 15.

“Brake” 9 times:  Matthew 14:19; 15:36; 26:26; Mark 8:6 & 19; 14:22; Luke 22:19; 24:30; First Corinthians 11:24.

“Broken” 3 times:  Acts 20:11; 27:35; First Corinthians 11:24.

“Break” 2 times:  Acts 20:7; First Corinthians 10:16.

“Breaking” 1 time:  Acts 2:46.

 

By contrast, the Greek words used for the actual breaking of bones, robbers into houses, or God’s Commandments, is “luo,” in Matthew 5:19, and “diorusso,” in Matthew 6:19 & 20, and “rhegnumi,” in Matthew 9:17, and “katagnumi,” in Matthew 12:20 & Acts 20:7, and “sunthrupto,” in Acts 21:13.

 

Therefore, we can safely conclude that this “broken” used here is not referring to any bones of our Lord being broken.

 

11:25: “testament” = The Hebrew word being used here is, “diatheke,” meaning, a “contract.” Therefore, a better translation would be, “covenant.”

 

11:25-29: “My blood” = If this is indeed the service that changes “bread” into Christ’s “body,” then the same Biblical principle must also hold true to His other statements about Himself (we are also but bread), i.e., He is now a “door,” John 10:9, a “horn,” Luke 1:69, a “lamb,” John 1:29, a “light,” John 9:5, a “Rock,’ (taking into account that Jesus of course  is The Rock), a “seed,” John 7:42, and a “vine,” John 15:1.  Let the Roman Catholics “be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,” verse 27.  As for the Christians, verses 28-29 is a “warning” not to partake of this sacrament unless you have “examine[d]” yourself and found yourself worthy to partake.

 

 

CHAPTER TWELVE

 

 

12:1: “spiritual gifts” = Notice that “gifts” is a supplied word.  A better translation would be, “spiritual matters,” or “things pertaining to spiritual things.”

 

12:3: “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord” = Anyone can say, “Jesus is Lord.” In fact, if you think about it, you have probably heard people say, “Jesus is Lord.” But how many times have you heard people say, “Jesus is THE Lord?”

 

12:8-10: “to one is given” = “Different gifts are imparted to different ones, that the workers may feel their need of one another.” ST, March 15, 1910; YRP:191; 6MR:386.

 

12:27: “members in particular” = That is, we are not to lose our individual identity.

 

12:28: “first” = Based upon the fact that Paul begins numbering the priority of certain peoples abilities (or gifts if you will), and then what would be the fourth ability, he continues with the word, “then,” meaning, “next in line,” we can safely put them in order of priority.  Then Paul continues, in verse 31, to state that there is something even greater than them all.  This he tells us, in Chapter 13, verse 1 (and verse 3, etcetera), is “love.”  In other words, without this quality, these abilities or gifts are of no or little value.

 

“miracles” = “We are sometimes asked, Why does not God work miracles through the Church today, as He did in the days of the apostles? -- Because the church refuses to be guided and controlled by Him, Christ’s love in the heart, revealing through the life its wondrous power, -- this is the greatest miracle that can be performed before a fallen, quarreling world.” ST, November 26, 1902.

 

“tongues” = See my Bible Study: “TONGUES, THE GIFT OF.”

 

 

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

 

 

13:3: “my body to be burned” = This is Sanctuary language.  As the sacrifice was burned completely upon the Brazen Alter, so Christ suffered the Second Death so we would not have to.

 

13:4: “charity vaunteth not itself” = “The one who stands nearest to Christ will be he who has drunk most deeply of His spirit of self-sacrificing love, -- love that ‘vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up. . . seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil,’ -- love that moves the disciple, as it moved our Lord, to give all, to live and labor and sacrifice even unto death, for the saving of humanity.” AA:543; ST, January 22, 1902; DA:549; CC:314.

 

13:5: “not easily provoked” = The word “easily” is a supplied word.  The only other place “easily” is used in the New Testament is found in Hebrews 12:1, but it is part of the Greek word, “to beset,” and not purely meaning, “easily.” Thus, the word has no place here, but does apply there.

 

 

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

 

 

14:ALL:  Regarding the “unknown tongue” = See my Bible Study: “TONGUES, THE GIFT OF.”

 

14:3: “he that prophesieth” = Notice the three main things a true, Godly, “prophet” should do. “Edification,” meaning “enlightenment, elevation, instruction;” “Exhortation,” meaning “advice, counsel, urging, encouragement;” and “Comfort,” meaning “soothe, console, reassure, calm, relieve.”  Therefore, future revelations was not a main duty of a true “prophet.”

 

14:34: “women keep silence” = Here is my First Timothy 2:11-12 Note: “(11) woman learn in silence (12) be in silence” = Included in this discussion should also be First Corinthians 14:34.  It is interesting to note that the Greek word for “silent” here in these two verses (11 & 12) is “G2271; hesuchia,” which is the feminine form of “hesuchius,” in Second Timothy 3:12, i.e., “quietness,” which is basically the same exact Greek word that is translated “peaceable” in Second Timothy 3:2.  Therefore, what I’m going to say next is in context with what is being instructed here.  There (in verse 2), women where not so mush as to be “silent,” but rather “respectful, honoring, reverent, polite, courteous, well-mannered, considerate, and most of all, selfless.”

 

Can you show me one of those words above, except for “silent,” that does not, or should not also apply to a man?  So, whenever you read the Greek word “hesuchios,” I would like you to think of it as, “be reverent” with your remarks, or be “silent” and go home and discuss it with your husband later there (1Co. 14:35).  This principle that I have put forth carries through if you notice the “with all subjection” in First Timothy 2:11. It means not “usurping authority,” but being “in subjection” to it.  And that principle is brought forth in our Corinthian text by the statement, “be under obedience” to “the law” of respectfulness.  The reason is that the same Greek word “hesuchios,” is used for the translation of “silence” in it also and should be understood as, “be reverent.”

 

In addition, staying in the context of instructions to the Corinthian Churches, according to Paul’s instruction in First Corinthians 11:5, it was admissible for women to pray and prophecy in Church.  Therefore, I believe that Paul was dealing with etiquette issues of his time in First Corinthians 14:34.  The fact that the Spirit of God was poured out on women as well as men that they might prophesy, i.e., “teach,” proves that Paul was dealing with an etiquette issue.

 

Looking back at Second Thessalonians 3:12, where our Greek word “G2271; hesuchios” is translated as “quietness,” the instruction applied to men as well as women (for they were being disrupt-full, i.e., “busybodies,” 2Th. 3:11 compared to verse 14, “any man”).  Thus, disruption and confusion is what was and is the underlying issue for all of these instructions to the various Churches.

 

Throughout history, God has used women in different roles.  Particularly important is the fact that prophetesses proclaimed their messages to God’s people in public (Exo. 15:20; Jud. 4:4-16; 2Ki. 22:14-20; Acts 2:17; 21:9).  Paul himself acknowledged that a woman can pray and prophesy in Church; that women are not strictly forbidden to speak in Church (see 1Co. 11:5).

 

The question then remains again, what did Paul mean when he stated that women should be “silent” in the Church?  We should keep several things in mind.  Note these few points.  Tensions during worship (somehow the speech of women that Paul prohibited was in some way contributing to a state of confusion) and “preaching” was not the subject (the discussion was not whether women should preach or occupy important leadership positions in Church, but about the proper attitude in Church when instruction was being given).  The discussion was that women should be instructed, not instructing.

 

In the ancient world it was impolite for students to interrupt teachers with questions that in some cases showed their ignorance of the subject and disrupted the learning experience.  Therefore, the Greek word “G4601; sigao,” used for “keep silence” in First Corinthians 14:34 was appropriate as used in the ancient world for politeness.  But that Greek word “sigao” is not the Greek word here used in order to “silence” women.

 

“as also saith the Law” = As found in Numbers 30:3-13.  The basic principle is that the man is the priest, or as we might say nowadays, the head of the household.  See my Bible Study: “WOMEN’S ORDINATION.”

 

 

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

 

 

15:1: “the Gospel which I preached unto you” = It is acknowledged by almost all denominations (me included) that the Biblical agreed upon definition of “The Gospel” is contained in verses 3-8.

 

And after quoting verses 3-8, we have this statement: “Christ’s resurrection is placed in the very foreground of the foundation of the Christian Church.  This is a matter of the deepest importance.  The future of the Church militant depended on the fact that the same One that was crucified should come forth from the grave, proclaiming, ‘I Am the resurrection and the life.’ [John 11:25].  The resurrection of Christ is to Christianity as the soul is to the body.  It is the sum and substance of the truth of the inspired Word.  Christ’s life is the verification of the written Word.” 12LtMs, Ms 94, 1897, paragraph 32.

 

15:3-8: “all that which I also received” = This appears to be the first Christian “creed” ever.  This is proved by the fact that Paul introduces it with the words “delivered” and “received,” which are technical Rabbinic terms, indicating he was passing along a holy tradition.  Also, in verse 11 Paul emphasizes that the other apostles were in agreement in preaching this very same message (creed).  This means that Paul is quoting the exact report (creed) as were the other eyewitnesses -- Peter and James.  It also means that Paul had not only met some of these eyewitnesses personally (Gal. 1:18-19; 2:9), but he explains that his message concerning these facts is identical with their eyewitness testimony (1Co. 15:11; 15:14-15).

 

15:12: “how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead” = Paul’s repetition (verses 12-17) implies that his readers and critics are faced with his unanswerable force of argument.  These seemed to admit that Christ was raised, but denied the resurrection of others.  This verse shows that the Sadducaical influences, and even that Sadducees, were converted members of the Pauline Christian band.  Paul therefore now stresses to the believers to put on their common sense, which they seemed to have abandoned, and he now shows that if Christ be raised, the general resurrection must follow as a sure result.

 

Greek philosophical dualism viewed material existence as evil, and as such, the doctrine was to be done away with.  Salvation was seen as the liberation of the soul from the prison-house of the body.  Apparently, this dualistic view of human nature influenced some Corinthian Christians to reject the belief in the resurrection of the body.  This is indicated by Paul’s question here.

 

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (who died after the death of Alexander the Great), all promoted what most likely caused this explanation of Paul to the false concepts of death promoted by these Greek philosophers.  The philosophy was that the body is corrupt and bad.  Thus, to the Corinthian mind set, they did not want to be resurrected into their old corrupt bodies.  And Paul, in his usual long-winded explanation, finally explains in verses 52-53 that we would receive “incorruptible” bodies.  This than becomes the entire purpose for this section of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.

 

15:14 & 17: “if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain” = This is why this argument and proof of it is used in every major discourse:  Acts 3:15; 4:10; 17:31 Romans 4:25; 5:10; 8:34; Philippians 3:10; Hebrews 7:25; 9:24; 10:12; First Peter 1:3 & 21.

 

However, miny mistakenly associate “justification” and forgiveness of their sins at Christ’s death upon the cross.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  For these verses and Romans 4:25 teach us that it was not until Christ was raised from the dead and accepted of the Father that our “justification” took place.

 

“Christ’s resurrection is placed in the very foreground of the foundation of the Christian Church.  This is a matter of the deepest importance.  The future of the Church militant depended on the fact that the same One that was crucified should come forth from the grave, proclaiming, “I Am the resurrection and the life.” [John 11:25].  The resurrection of Christ is to Christianity as the soul is to the body.  It is the sum and substance of the truth of the inspired Word. Christ’s life is the verification of the written Word.” 12LtMs, Ms 94, 1897, paragraph 32.

 

“The angels ascribe honor and glory to Christ, for even they are not secure except by looking to the sufferings of the Son of God.  It is through the efficacy of the cross that the angels of Heaven are guarded from apostasy.  Without the cross they would be no more secure against evil than were the angels before the fall of Satan.  Angelic perfection failed in Heaven. Human perfection failed in Eden, the paradise of bliss.  All who wish for security in earth or Heaven must look to the Lamb of God.  The plan of salvation, making manifest the justice and love of God, provides an eternal safeguard against defection in unfallen worlds, as well as among those who shall be redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.” ST, December 30, 1889, paragraph 4; 5BC:1132; TA:205.

 

15:23: “every man in his own order” = That is, that the redeemed would not proceed Christ, for He is the “firstfruits,” i.e., “First In Rank.” And the “order” is, according to First Thessalonians 4:16-17, First, “the dead in Christ shall rise;” Second, “Then we,” that is, the alive in Christ at His Second Coming; Third, at the Third Coming the wicked will be raised (Deu. 33:2; Jud. 1:14; Zec. 14:5; 1Th. 3:13; Jude 1:14-15; Rev. 14:14-20; 20:7-15).  Therefore, this does not mean in “order” of your rewards to be given, or any such doctrine.

 

15:28: “And when all things shall be subdued unto Him {Jesus}, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him {The Father} that put all things under Him {Jesus}, that God {The Godhead} may be all in all.”

 

“then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him” = See my explanation also in First Corinthians 11:3.  For again, this verse doesn’t refer to the “Nature” of Christ either.  Rather, once again it is only referring to His office or “position.”  We can know this for sure by looking at Luke 2:51, where we find the same Greek word, “hupotasso,” translated as “subject,” also.  The point is that no one would say that Jesus was inferior in “Nature” to Joseph and Mary from looking at Luke 2:51.  However, this would be the natural conclusion if the word “subject” refers to “nature.”  Likewise, Jesus is NOT inferior by “Nature” to the Father, since He is God.

 

15:29: “baptized for the dead” = With this statement, Paul is setting up the fact, as he believes it to be, that Christ Jesus rose from the dead.  He makes that point by asking his question here, “Why are you getting baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?”

 

Prior to his question here, in verses 21 and 22, Paul tells the Corinthian brethren that “[21] by Man come also the resurrection of the dead,” and that “Man” is “[22] Christ [Who by Him] shall all be made alive.” And in verse 23, Paul clearly states, “Christ the firstfruits,” or better, the preeminent One of the dead, “afterward that that are Christ’s at His Coming” shall be raised also.  Paul is helping the Corinthian brethren to believe that Christ rose from the dead.

 

That it is not possible, (although some teach) to be baptized for the dead is apparent from the many Scriptures which declare that each individual man must personally believe in Christ and confess his own sins, (repent and obey) in order to profit by baptism and be saved (Eze. 18:20-24; John 3:16; Acts 2:38; 8:36-37; 1Jo. 1:9).  Even the most righteous of men can “deliver but their own souls” (Eze. 14:14 & 16; especially see Job 13:14; Psa. 49:7; 119:109).  This must take place only while they are alive; because, the event of death marks the close of human probation (Ecc. 9:4-6 & 10; Isa. 38:18 & 19). “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” Hebrews 9:27.

 

Consequently, the exact meaning of Paul here is not a new teaching, but what he is attempting to do is reason with the Corinthian believers who were teaching that there is no resurrection at all: “what shall they do which are baptized for the dead [HERE COMES HIS POINT], if the dead rise not at all?” He could also be making a “pun” at the silly people who would do such a thing.

 

Paul had already made his main point (verses 12-16), that if these is no resurrection, why would you be getting baptized in the first place?  Plus, Who are you getting baptized for?  The context would be “Christ!” Which again, makes no sense (non-sense), if Christ did not rise at all.  They/we, are supposed to believe that Christ did rise from the dead; else your faith is in vain (1Co. 15:17).

 

Another conclusion would be, Why would these false teachers, who did not even believe that there is to be a resurrection of the dead, Why would they want you to be baptized for the dead if the dead will never rise anyway?

 

By contrast, to believe that Paul would give countenance to a custom so senseless and so contrary to Scripture, or that he would make it the foundation of a new doctrine, does not accord with the strain and purpose of his argument for a resurrection from the state of being dead; which is really the subject and context previous to this verse.  If this custom, here referred to, was his design to incorporate it into the Church as a new doctrine, he would have most likely had more to say about it here and in other places.

 

Bottom line, Paul asks, Why are you getting baptized for a Person Who did not rise from the dead.  That is silly.  In verses 13-14, Paul brings out his main point in bring up “bapism for the dead in the first place, “[13] But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen? [14] And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching [in] vain, and your faith is also [in] vain.” Even worse, verse 17 states, “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is [in] vain [here it is]; ye are yet in your sins.”

 

15:38: “seed” = By means of analogy of the “seed” sown, Paul explains the continuity and discontinuity that exist between our present physical body and the future resurrected/translated body.  The continuity is established by the connection between the seed and the new plant that sprouts out of it.  The discontinuity is seen in the difference between the seed that is sown and the new plant that comes from it.  What Paul is saying here is that as God gives a body to each kind of seed that is sown, so He will give a new body to each person who is buried.  The fact that deceased bodies are buried like a seed in the ground, may have suggested to Paul the analogy of the seed.  But if the seed is an apple seed, it will produce an apple tree.  So, as a man’s seed is a man, so a man will be produced.

 

15:42 & 50: “corruption” = Here is my Romans 8:21 Note:  The Greek is “phthora” and literally means “decay,” that is, “ruin, (spontaneous or inflicted, literally or figuratively), destroy, perish.” This word meant a lot more to Paul’s audience of the time.  The Romans were a very brutal bunch, as the crucifixion method demonstrates.  And what Paul is expressing here, and especially in First Corinthians, is what the Romans inflicted upon a murderer.  They would strap the dead body of the murdered person upon the back or the murderer and he/she would have to carry it around for the rest of their lives, which was not too long, in that the corpse would begin to “decay” and worms and all sorts of other things would begin their process; which in turn would begin to eat at the live murderer’s skin until he/she died from the exposure.  Now we can picture and feel the power behind Paul’s message as well as his original audience did.

 

15:44: “a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body” = It is obvious that the spiritual man in this passage is not a nonphysical person.  Rather, it is someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit, in contradistinction from someone who is guided by natural impulses.  If, in this present physical body, which is subject to the Law of sin and death, it can be found to be following the direction and instructions of the Holy Spirit now, then in the future resurrection of the righteous, this body is one in which it will take part.

 

The resurrected body is called “spiritual,” because it is ruled not by carnal impulses but by the Holy Spirit.  We can know this because Christ’s resurrected body was certainly physical, since He was touched by Thomas (John 20:17 & 27), and He ate food (Luke 24:38-43).  Evan more telling is Paul’s use of the same two words (“natural,” i.e., “psuchikos” & “spiritual,” i.e., “pneumatikos”) in the same epistle: “[14] But the natural [natural, i.e., “psuchikos”] man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:  for they are foolishness unto him:  neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. [15] But he that is spiritual [“pneumatikos”] judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” First Corinthians 2:14-15.

 

It is obvious that the spiritual man in this passage is not a nonphysical person.  Rather, it is someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit, in contradistinction from someone who is guided by natural impulses.  This insight helps us also to understand Paul’s statement a few verses later: “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” First Corinthians 15:50.

 

It is evident here that Paul is not saying that the resurrected body will be nonphysical, because writing to the Romans he states: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” Romans 8:9.  By the phrase “not in the flesh,” Paul obviously did not mean that Christians who were led by the Holy Spirit already had discarded their physical bodies.  Rather, he means that already in the present life, they were guided by spiritual, as opposed to the worldly values of others (Rom. 8:4-8).

 

If Paul could speak of Christians as not being “in the flesh,” already in the present life, his reference to the absence of “flesh and blood” in the Kingdom of God cannot mean the absence of physical bodies.  It simply means the absence of the natural, carnal limitations and sinful inclinations of the present life; because the redeemed will be led fully by the Spirit of God (see Rom. 7:14).

 

Note also that if the resurrected/translated body were to be radically different from the original creation body, then God would be admitting that His original design of the human body had some flaws; that it was not really perfect after all.

 

You may retort, Did not Jesus say that “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven?” Matthew 22:30.  Does this passage not indicate that at the resurrection all gender distinctions will be abolished and our bodies will no longer be physical?  This conclusion cannot be drawn legitimately from Jesus’ statement.

 

He here is referring to the angels, not in order to teach the nonphysical nature of the resurrected body, or the absence of gender differences in the new world, but simply to explain that the pro-creational function of marriage will no longer exist, since, like the angels, the bringing of new children into the World would mean another process of probation.  The reason why the six brothers of the hypothetical situation created by the Sadducees, married in succession their brother’s widow, was to “raise up children for [their] brother,” Matthew 22:24.  It seems legitimate to assume that in His reply, Jesus refers to the angels to explain that in the new world marriage for the purpose of procreation will no longer exist, since their probation period is already over.

 

15:45: “a quickening spirit” = In the sense that Jesus will “quicken,” or raise our immortal bodies to mortal bodies at the last day.

 

15:50: “Flesh and blood” = Paul is not saying that the resurrected body is nonphysical, because Christ taught Thomas differently (John 20:27).  Christ in His resurrected body declared that He was “flesh and bones,” Luke 24:39, and we will have a body like His (see Php. 3:21).  Paul teaches the real meaning of “Flesh and blood” in Romans 8:9, when he says, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” Obviously, Paul was not saying they had discarded their physical bodies, rather, he meant they were guided by spiritual values over “flesh,” or carnal worldly inclinations.  Jesus expresses the same assertion when He says, “for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father [The true Spirit].”  Matthew 16:17.  The Bible also uses the term “flesh” to describe the unconverted person such as in Romans 8:8-9 and John 3:6.

 

15:51-52: “I shew you a mystery” = Second Coming Texts.  See First Thessalonians 4:16-17.  Staying in context, the “mystery” is not the Second Coming of our Lord, but the changing of our physical bodies at that prescribed point.

 

“mystery” = The Greek word for “mystery” used here is “musterion.” In Greek thought, a “mystery” is something that was once clouded with uncertainties, but is now known and revealed.  For applications where the use of this Greek word and its concept is better seen, see Mark 4:11; Romans 11:25; 16:25; First Corinthians 2:7; Ephesians 1:9.

 

 

CHAPTER SIXTEEN

 

 

16:2: “Upon the first day of the week” = Here is an excerpt from my Bible Study: “SABBATH STILL VALID TODAY.”

 

The Greek for “Upon the first day of the week” is, “G2596; kata; G3391; mia; G4521; sabbaton,” which should be literally translated as, as the “ISV” version has it, “After the Sabbath ends.”  This should dispel any Sunday concepts being applied to this text.  But I digress to what follows.

 

It was a common expression in Christ’s day, which is where the translators come up with this form of the expression, to say, “upon the first day after the weekly Sabbath; upon the second day after the weekly Sabbath; etcetera.”

 

If you are going to discuss which day to keep holy for the Corinthian Church, would it not make sense to see which day they worshipped upon?  According to Acts 18:1, Paul goes “to Corinth.” And according to Acts 18:4, Paul goes to Church, i.e., “the Synagogue every Sabbath.” Thus, during Church services on Sabbath the Corinthian Church would have read this letter from Paul and performed its instructions on “the first day of the week.”

 

What is important to consider, is why this collection that Paul is asking the Corinthians to take part in, is what he also instructed the Galatians (1Co, 16:1) to do.  According to Acts 11:28, Agabus prophesied “a great famine,” and Paul, along with “the disciples. . . determined to send relief to the brethren dwelling in Judea.”  Acts 11:29.  This could also include the Romans (see Rom. 15:25-26) who received the same instruction, for the “poor in Jerusalem.” In Romans it mentions “Macedonia,” just as it does in First Corinthians 16:5.  Thus, we could be speaking of the same coming (future) event.  See also Second Corinthians 8:1-3, that even though the Macedonian Church was having the same issues of “deep poverty,” they gave freely.

 

Thus, Paul is not specifically setting up a new exclusive policy that is to replace the Biblical Sabbath.  The Greek word for “in store” is “G2343; thesaurizo,” and is a direct translation of the Hebrew word “owtsar,” which is translated in the “LXX,” as “storehouse,” as it is in Malachi 3:10.  Therefore, Paul was most definitely admonishing the Corinthian believers to adhere to the tithing system:  “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse,” Malachi 3:10.  Plus, “lay by him in store,” if you check, most, if not all Bible commentators, agree that Paul is teaching the believers that they were to be “storing” their tithes in their own houses; not in the Synagogue or Church, or any other type of assembly.

 

Therefore, a better translation would be, “every first day from [or after] the Sabbath.”  Thus, this lets us conclude that Paul is referring to the week by the Jewish designation, or “first day from the Sabbath,” and is not referring to the prevailing pagan name “dies solis” -- “Day of the Sun.”  Rather, he reveals that he taught his Gentile converts to regulate their lives by the Jewish calendar.  Please note also that there is nothing in the text to suggest any public assemblies, inasmuch as the setting aside of funds was to be done “by him[self],” “G1438; par’heauto,” verse 2.

 

After learning the context, or possible context of First Corinthians 16:2, to then jump to the conclusion that Paul is saying to the Corinthian brethren that he is now changing the Biblical Sabbath to the first day of the week is totally ridiculous.  Please evaluate where the Sabbath is mentioned in this verse and also show where the first day of the week is now “blessed; sanctified; commanded; or made holly,” which was the requirement for the Fourth Commandment or changing thereof.  Also, then Jesus Christ would have to Come down AGAIN and die for this new Commandment as a form of ratification.

 

Back to Malachi 3:10, which states, “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse.”  The “when” is what we would like to know.  Therefore, notice in First Corinthians 16:2, that the word “day” is a supplied word and does not belong in the text.  A literal understanding would be any first days of the week.

 

Thus, Paul’s mention of the “first day” as a day to set aside one’s funds is motivated more by practical grounds than theological reasons.  To wait until the end of the week, or of the month, to set aside one’s contributions or savings is contrary to sound budgetary practices, since by then one finds empty pockets and empty bank accounts.  In other words, pay your Tithe first and your bills later, or else you might end up not paying your Tithe at all.

 

On the other hand, if, on “the first day of the week,” before planning any expenditures, believers set aside what they plan to give, i.e., Tithe and Offerings, the remaining funds will be so distributed as to meet all the basic necessities (since, as I have personally experienced, if I don’t pay my Tithe first, I will be in danger of not paying it at all).  The text, therefore, proposes a valuable weekly plan to ensure a substantial and orderly contribution to our Lord and on behalf of the poor brethren of Jerusalem.  To extract more meaning from the text would be to distort it and to take away from its valuable Biblical principles that one can put into one’s own life values for Tithing.

 

16:11: “Let no man therefore despise him” = This, as you know, is improper English.  The “therefore” should always come first, such that you should not read any further until you have understood the previous.  Thus, it should read: “Therefore, let no man despise him.”

 

16:22: “anathema” = This word means, “A thing devoted to destruction; accursed.”

 

“maranatha” = This word means, “Our Lord Come.”