1 Corinthians 16

Apparently, Paul is writing from Ephesus (v8) around 57 AD. His ministry in Ephesus seems to be starting well, for preacing and persecution. He tells the Corinthians church that he wants them to take an offering for the Jerusalem church. Apparently their communist-like experiment (Acts 22:38-44) was not working well now that a famine had hit the area hard. So, Paul was calling for an intentional act of giving to support that congregation (which had initially opposed Gentile Christianity and Paul's work (Acts 15, Galatians 1-2). In Paul's mind the body of Christ was universal, and each congregation needed to do its part. We would be well to remember the far-reaching nature of God's kingdom in our world.

We also see his love for the Macedonian churches (Philippi, Berea, Thessalonica--see Acts 16). They were always his most ardent supporters.

There is also a marvelous list of fellow-workers with Paul. How would you like to have your name commended by Paul in a letter like this? It says something about those men serving beside him. We need to serve as a team, and work together to see God's work done. Are you ready to be fellow-worker? Would your name be included if Paul were working in our church today?

Notice also, he says he writes a greeting with his own hand, meaning someone else probably helped him write the rest of the letter.

"If anyone does not love the Lord—a curse be on him." Paul is serious about the Gospel and knows that some in Corinth do not believe as they should. So, instead finshing on a light note, Paul reminds them that it is Jesus or nothing.

First Corinthians 15:29: Options for Baptism of the Dead

After further research, I have arrived at a few options for interpreting Paul's comments on baptism of the dead. These are not fully representative of all options, nor do they close an argument that has been debated for years.

1. Paul acknowledges that the Corinthian church practices baptism for the dead, and accepts it as Christian practice. This may be accurate, although it is nowhere mentioned in the Bible as an accepted practice. In fact, all things physically dead are usually shunned in the Old Testament, and the New Testament exhorts people to leave the dead in the hands of God and function among the living. Also, why baptize for the dead? Can it save them? Do they need to be a member of a certain church in order to get into heaven? If so, does this not go against what Paul preaches about salvation by faith? I don't see any value in baptism for the dead, regardless of who practices it. If they are dead, then they are in God's hands. If they need saving, it is too late--and my baptism for them couldn't make that happen anyway.

2. Paul acknowledges that the Corinthians practice baptism for the dead, and he simply uses it as an illustration, to their shame. The reasoning here is that Paul did not rebuke them, but he did not accept their practice either. There are no words of praise for this practice. His point is this: if you practice baptism for the dead (which I do not agree with--implied), then you should not question the resurrection of the dead (which I believe in).

3. Paul acknowledges an accepted practice by local pagan religions as an example of their belief in the resurrection, and rebuke the Corinthians for their lack of faith in the resurrection. This would mean that Paul sees baptism for the dead as a pagan activity that is not acceptable. Yet, even the pagan's believe in resurrection while believing Christians do not. The irony is thick, and his criticism would not be missed.

4. Paul is speaking metaphorically about baptism itself: what will we do about those baptized into death. Paul uses death as a metaphor in the next verse: I die everyday. A metaphor relieves the interpreter of any conflicts concerning the practice of a strange type of baptism. However, it does not do justice to the grammar and the context of Corinth pagan cults.

Of these four options, #1 seems to be the most direct reading of the passage and context. Yet, it has no other biblical support, and has little support in Christian practice (outside of Mormonism and some medieval Catholic teachings) and Christian doctrine (salvation by grace).

I prefer #3 because 1) of the lack of biblical support for the practice, 2) biblical support for personal baptism, and 3)Greek rhetorical grammar, which is explained in great detail at his website: http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/baptdead.html.

To put it simply, Paul does not use baptism of the dead to affirm the resurrection of Christ in v. 12-19. He does not mention it at all. Then in v. 29, when Paul mentions baptism for the dead, he does so to their shame, not as a compliment. Do you believe in the resurrection? Why not! Even pagans baptize for the dead because they believe. Why don't you?!! OR Do you believe in the resurrection? Why not! You baptize for the dead?!! What's the point if you don't believe?!!

Either way, he does not agree with the baptism for the dead, he simply uses the practice to assert that some believe in a resurrection, to the shame of the Corinthians who do not.

First Corinthians 15:1-34 The Heart of the Gospel

Paul moves on to a new set of questions from the Corinthians concerning the reality of the resurrection. He transitions from the discussion of prophecy (read "proclamation of the Gospel of Christ") to the Gospel message itself.

The heart of the Gospel is the death and resurrection of Christ, confirmed by the eyewitness testimony. Notice he does not go into detail concerning the teachings or miracles, only the death and resurrection of Christ.

It is always a good reminder to me that everything else in life is secondary to the heart of the Gospel, the power of God over death and the sacrifice of his Son for my sin.

I find it interesting that he basis his tireless work on the grace of Christ. In essence, Paul is saying his religious zeal and fire are based on the motivating grace of Christ (10).

Paul proceeds to chastise the Corinthians for compromising their belief in the Resurrection. It sounds as if the Greek philosophical crowd has influenced the Corinthian Christian's perspective on the Resurrection. It was in Acts 17:32 that Paul was laughed out of Athens because he preached the resurrection of the dead. Undoubtedly, some similar thinkers had invaded the Corinthian church. Paul's point it that we are lost, without hope, if there is no resurrection. (18-19)

The truth is, though, that Jesus is alive. Paul calls him "firstfruits," or the initial reward for a harvest well-planted and promising further crops.

He says that death is not completely overcome until Jesus returns again. Until then, sin and death are still allowed to exist, until the harvest is completed and the end of time begins. Why does death still exist? So that those who live may respond in faith under the same conditions that Jesus arrived in and worked under.

A couple of other phrases of interest. Paul mentions baptism for the dead, but he gives not further explanation, apparently because he readers knew exactly what he was talking about. Now, the Mormon church practices baptism for the dead, but no other church that I know of makes a big deal of this. Why did the Corinthian church do it? We do not know, other than it was a part of some pagan cults, and some suggest even Jewish baptism (not sure about that one). I guess the point would be to substitute your baptism for a loved one who previously did not believe in Christ. Since there is silence on this in the rest of Scripture, it is difficult to say. The best advice I can give: don't build a major doctrine for your church one controversial verse.

He also talks about fighting lion in Ephesus. He is either in jail and awaiting his turn in the arena with the gladiators (which did not come to fulfillment), or he is refering metaphorically to his battles in Ephesus with certain non-believers and troulbe makers (Acts 18-19). His conviction was that he would lay down his life for Jesus just as Jesus laid his life down for Paul. Shouldn't that be the way it is for every believer. I wish I understood grace like Paul does.

First Corinthians 14: On women in worship

Paul, have you lost your mind?

After declaring that male and female are partners in Christ (11:11) and elsewhere that there is neither male nor female in Christ, Paul falls off the deep end in a comment that seems off the cuff and out of place.

Again within the context of worship, Paul addresses the women in the church, this time in the middle of his discussion on tongues and prophecy in worship. Apparently, the Corinthians are already struggling with order in worship (drunkness at the Lord's Supper, confusion of tongues and prophecy, and bitter divisions). Now, Paul takes on the women specifically. But why? His words have been used to alienate women from service and spiritual value in many cultures. Is this what Paul had in mind for the female who is a partner to the male? It could be that Paul is saying that women have a role to play as a partner, but it is as a silent partner. However, this is a hard teaching for me to understand or accept, especially in light of biblical examples where women play a large role in leadership of God's people--as prophets, leaders, communicators of the Gospel, and Christian examples.

Do we have any other choice here, though, than to accept the literal statement: women must remain silent?

How about these options: First of all, Paul may well be speaking specifically to the anarchy in the Corinthian church. He mentions women because of their spiritual significance in this pagan culture, and their tendency to speak in tongues in that culture for the purposes of the pagan gods and goddesses. So, Paul is calling on the Corinthian women to cease their old ways of living and listen to the Spirit of God. The one problem with this theory is that Paul says "as is the practice in all of our churches." While the issue maybe local, Paul states that silence in encouraged in all congregations. However, I imagine if things are done in order, Paul would be tolerant.

Secondly, Paul may be speaking of a formal meeting, like a business meeting, where the women must remain silent. Again, the context of the whole chapter is worship, and it is hard to see this verse outside of the worshp context.

Thirdly, maybe the silence pertains only to tongues, and not to worship or prophecy. This would make sense in light of Christian prophetesses and other Christian female leaders in the New Testament. However, one must still deal with the issue of "speaking" in general, and learning also.

Fourthly, what we have here is a Jewish model for synagogue and Christian worship, where women and men would sit separately in the worship environment. This model, while appropriate for the First Century, may not apply to today's Gentile cultures. Thus, the command is mute and of no real value, other than to emphasize the need for male and female to worship in order. Note: Within the context of Paul's comments in chs 11-12, this model is valuable for order, sexual purity, learning/teaching, and focus on God.

While this logic may be satisfying, it also is a slippery slope that has been applied from everything to slavery, adultery, and homosexuality. There must be more justification than just "it is not our culture today, and thus is of no value."

Personally, I think options 1, 3, and 4 all have merit in this discussion. Yes, the culture has changed, but I also think that Paul went to extremes in his discussion because of the extremes in Corinth. Ultimately, as long as order is preserved, and the Gospel communicated, then I think male or female is justified in worship through prophecy, preaching, and teaching--since there is neither male nor female in Christ. It may not be the Jewish ideal, but we are no longer under the law (as long as we are orderly), but under the law of grace.

Let each one interpret this as God's gives them faith.

First Corinthians 14: On prophecy and tongues

I asked earlier what Paul meant by "the greater gifts." He gives us his answer in 1 Cor. 14:1-5. The greater gifts are those that directly edify the church. So, prophecy is of more value than tongues because anyone who hears prophecy can hear the direct word of God spoken. Now, does this diminish tongues? No, and I do not believe that tongues has been erased as a gift for today's church. I do confess I have never spoken in tongues, although I have prayed for the gift when I was a teenager. However, there is a place in today's church for every spiritual gift. Paul's point is that communication of the good news of Jesus Christ is the purpose of the gifts, and the greater gifts are those that communicate the Gospel most clearly (12).

Paul's solution for the understanding of tongues is the interpreter--a direct biblical command that I personally have never seen practiced, even though I have attended many Christian services where tongues have played a roll in worship. I find it interesting that some of the most conservative biblical interpreters our there in the charismatic movements do not seem to take this admonishment by Paul very seriously.

First Corinthians 13

The Love Chapter. This passage is so familiar, I almost hesitate to state the obvious. But it cannot be said too many times. LOVE IS THE MORE EXCELLENT WAY!!!! Legalism, judgment, religious zeal, planning, vision, mission, evangelism, preaching, teaching--all of it is reduced in effectiveness if love is not present. Imagine if Jesus's life had been recorded in terms of bitterness and anger at having to do what God wanted. Instead, the record shows his patience and willingness to sacrifice. All religious effort is reduced to mechanical monotony without love.

How is love defined? By selflessness--concern for others. Religion becomes mean and hateful when it is about my acconmplishment or my eternal reward. Religion becomes useful when it is defined in terms of another's health and eternal reward. Paul reminds them that their petty squabbles over spiritual supremacy in worship (prophecy vs. tongues) reveals their lack of understanding of the true spiritual nature of their calling. Knowledge, whether worldly or heavenly, is of little value if it cannot be known in love.

When someone cares about me, I care about what they have to say.

And how many times do we struggle to emphasize the eternal over the temporal. Paul states that the knowledge of prophecy and spiritual gifts will fade, but the love we show and the selfless acts we live will last forever. That is a sobering thought when I consider all of the books on my bookshelves in my office. Knowledge is good for a time--then other books will be written. Love is good for eternity.

First Corinthians 12:12-31

A couple of things strike me here.

The unity of the body cannot be overestimated. And we all play a part in it. If one part refuses to participate, everyone suffers. If one part is sick or broken, we all suffer. If one part is successful, we all succeed. We see how this plays out on a local basis. How do you think this works for the universal body of Christ?

And what about the parts of the body that do not get the glory, or need more protection? How does that apply to the church?

And what does Paul mean "by the greater gifts?" It sure seems to tough to keep everyone unified and happy if we are calling some gifts greater and some lesser. I'm sure he has a good reason, and we will get into it further in 1 Cor 14. For now, what do you think are the "greater gifts?"

First Corinthians 12:1-11

Paul now turns his thoughts to the Holy Spirit--an issue that the Corinthians are concerned about, and a topic that will again direct the conversation back to worship.

For now, though, Paul's emphasis is on the gifts of the Spirit. The gifts themselves are unique aspects of our Christian character that did not appear before our conversion. The gifts cover various aspects of the work of the church, and every believer is equipped to serve in the body by the Spirit.

Thus, the Spirit controls the gifts. The gifts also are intended to unify the body, not divide it, because it is the One Spirit that gives the gift. Also, no one has every gift. Therefore we must depend on each other--the design of the Spirit for unity through humility. The Spirit exalts the name of Christ through the giving of the gifts, and the Church should exalt God through the exercising of the gifts God has given.

So, what gift(s) do you have, and are you able to fulfill your giftedness through your local church?

First Corinthians 11:17-34

Whew. The first part of 1 Cor. 11 about wore me out--so many hot button issues in that text.

The rest of 1 Cor. 11 deals with worship, specifically the Lord's Supper. For me, the Lord's Supper is the most beautiful and worshipful expression of Christ's sacrifice on the cross for me. I love the services when we celebrate his gift, and I take seriously the command to remember him when we do it.

I remember watching my dad take the Lord's Supper while I was still too young to understand all of it. Our church was very quite and dimly lit--a very focused environment. The deacons would serve the elements so quietly--and my dad would take the bread, cradle it in his huge hands, and pray. He prayed prayers of thanksgiving and praise, cherishing the bread the whole time. It is as close as anyone can be to actually feeling the body of Christ--at least in this life. He did the same with the cup. When I began to worship like my own father, I felt a great appreciation for Christ's sacrifice and a deeper understanding of the love he expressed on the cross.

So, when Paul accuses the Corinthians of getting drunk at the Lord's Supper, I can only imagine the misunderstanding--mostly linked to pagan worship and celebrations, something like Mardi Gras. Could you imagine combining the images and actions of Mardi Gras with the Lord's Supper? Paul couldn't, and told them that many had paid the price for their disrespect of the Lord's Supper (30).

Now, none of us are perfect, and our hearts need to be prepared when we enter into worship through the Lord's Supper. It is as close as we can come to touching the body of Christ--wouldn't you at least wash your hands, or spiritually speaking--your heart, first?

First Corinthians 11:2-16: On Women and Angels

Why does Paul include angels in his reasons for women's covering their heads in worship? (11:10)

Could it be because of Genesis 6:1-4? What do you think?

First Corinthians 11:2-16: On Order in the New Creation

As mentioned in an earlier blog, God's order through creation takes a new shape in Christ (the New Creation).


In 1 Cor 11:11, Paul says, "In the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman." So, Paul indicates an equality in Christ that the physical creation does not reveal. Sure, Genesis notes that the woman is a helper, supplementing the man, and this may be a basis for further discussion on the egalitarian nature of the male-female relationship. However, Paul sees something new here in Christ. So, he says in Gal 3:28 "There is neither male nor female." Paul argues, then, in Christ that we are all unified as a body and gender means nothing. However, we still need each other, whether male or female. It is only in extreme circumstances, such as Corinth, he argues for order in family and worship when the ideal of "in Christ" is not met.

Ultimately we all come from God, and thus we should relate to one another in peace. If peace is not achieved, then follow the law of creation--Men lead and women support. This is God's natural law that can only be trumped by the spiritual leadership of Christ.

First Corinthians 11:2-16: On Women in Worship

On women, long hair, and shaved heads: Paul calls on Christian women to keep long hair so that they might distinguish themselves from pagan female priests who would shave their heads as a sign of submission to the gods. For Paul, their idolatry and shaven heads went together and were unnatural. He called on Christian females to dress and behave in ways that separated them from their former ways of worship. Certainly Paul is arguing from a cultural perspective that is somewhat foreign to us, but I do not think Gentiles or Jews would necessarily debate his logic concerning the natural order of things. The hair in our cultrue does not play as crucial a role in determining spiritual connections or convictions. So, while some would say that Paul's words are a command to all woman, most in the Baptist tradition would argue that as long as the actions and dress of the woman (or any of us, for that matter) do not detract from the worship of the Lord, then we are following the directives of Paul and of Scripture.

First Corinthians 11:2-16: On orderly worship and heirarchy

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God:

Paul is simply interpreting and applying Genesis 2 to the current issues that the Corinthian church faces. The specific issue here is one of appropriate worship and prayer. Paul believes there is a created order in Genesis 2 that we should follow when approaching God. God is over all, and Christ is directly over God's creation (not in Genesis 2, but accepted by Paul as understood by Genesis 2), and that man was intended to be over woman in the created order of things. His point is that God is to be exalted in an appropriate manner, and that all of us must go through Jesus to worship.

Where applicable, in Paul's mind, the woman also must go through the husband or authority figure because this is the created order of things. He reasons that the man was made directly by God’s breath, and thus man directly relates to God. He then reasons that the woman was made from and for man, as a helper and complementary portion. In Paul's mind, the first to be created is the one who exercises authority (This is rabbinic logic). Yes, Paul is from a male-dominated society, and his perspective reflects that. However, we cannot simply dismiss it because it does not fit our egalitarian perspective. Does it mean that a woman is less than a man? No. It means, though, that there are different ways to relate to God, and that the woman and man are created uniquely. Is it necessary for a woman to have a husband so that she may communicate with God? No. However, God’s original intent was to communicate in an orderly fashion with his creation, and Genesis 2, according to Paul, reveals that order to be God, Christ, man, woman.

It would be easier to explain this line of reasoning away if Paul had not appealed to Genesis. Instead, he focuses on scripture, and thus we must deal with the fact there is a created order, an ideal, that many of us find difficult to live up to. When we do not follow the ideal, we open ourselves up to chaos in worship and family. Apparently Paul feels the need to go back to the very order of creation because the Corinthians had no order in their worship, and the women in the congregation were a big part of the problem. Can I reason, then, that Paul would not expect such restrictions if a church was living in an orderly way that reflected God’s creative purposes? We cannot have utopia, but we also should not endure chaos when it is on our power to control it. So, Paul’s strict words to men and women are an attempt to bring order to a chaotic worship experience.

I think that his words also apply to the specific circumstances at Corinth and apply to churches today that struggle with chaotic worship circumstances. If a church can have real, authentic worship within an egalitarian framework, I don’t think that Paul would mind. His issue is reverence before God Almighty. It was so bad in Corinth he appealed to the ultimate Old Testament authority: creation. You can’t trump creation when you are arguing from the Old Testament—unless you bring up New Creation.

First Corinthians 10:14-33

Everything is permissible, but not everything has value.

That is so true. What I am able to do, versus what God wants me to do, can be very different things. What do I value? What is important? I should do things, not because I can, but because is gives glory to God. God's glory will last forever, and only those things done for his glory will have eternal significance. Just do it, not because you can, but because God is glorified by it.

According to Paul, one of the things that has value for us is the body of Christ. Therefore, we must exercise our freedom to glorify God by building each other up. Be constructive (23).

Also, for those of us who are people pleaser, note that Paul also sought to please people, but for only one reason: so that they might be saved. Once again, every action, every choice is valueable only if it glorifies God. And his greatest glory comes through the proclamation of the Gospel.

First Corinthians 10:1-13

I have adjusted the cut off point to v. 13, and will address 14 on next time.

Paul's handling of the Old Testament is interesting here--the wilderness wandering of Israel in Exodus and Numbers is presented as an example of what not to do as Christian believers.

He notes that all of the Israelites were close to God through Moses and their wilderness expereinces (which include spiritual baptism, spiritual food, and an experience with the pre-New Testament Christ); yet, when they turned away to their own desires (immorality, pride, and complaining) they were severely punished. Paul hopes the believers in Corinth see how serious God is when it comes his people's obedience. When he runs out of patience, the consequences will be gravely serious.

So, Paul is encouraging the Corinthians not to press God's patience any further with their so-called "spiritual freedom." They think they are "standing firm," but Paul thinks they are close to being cast out into darkness and out of fellowship with God.

And thus, another well known verse comes into focus: v. 13 "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." God does not choose your response to temptation. You do. However, he has provided a way out of the temptation that will lead to salvation and spiritual strength. He will provide a way to stand in the face of evil. However, we must resolve in faith to follow God's way and not our own. Those who God will stand. Those who choose the world and its desires will be scattered.

So, one final question that will be addressed again in the future: does Paul leave open the door here that we might be able to lose our salvation?

First Corinthians 9

Paul launches from his discussion of freedom into a tremendous argument on his value to the Corinthian community. He could demand payment for his services and preaching, but instead has sacrificed everything so that they might know the Gospel.

His reasoning: I preach the Gospel free of charge so that others will God's glory only. Again, Paul defines Christian freedom, and lives it, solely in terms of the preaching of the Gospel. He does not view it as a duty, because fulfilling a duty has its own reward. No, he views it as a trust and calling, and fulfilling those has an eternal reward. Beware: attitude and perespective mean a great deal in the Christian walk. How many Christians have used the Gospel for their own benefit, and have already received their reward on earth with no thought about eternal consequences? Have I done this? What would it take to change my heart and persepctive from temporal to eternal?

This chapter also contains some of the more memorable verses from Paul:

v. 22 I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.

v. 24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.

To me, v. 23 and 27 sum up Paul's thought on sacrificing for the Gospel, both of which highlight the proclamation of Jesus and the eternal prize that comes with it:

v. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

v. 27 No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

Do you think that the "blessings" and "prize" are earthly or heavenly blessings?

First Corinthians 8

A couple of things catch my attention here. Acquiring knowledge is not as important as loving. Head knowledge is not as valuable or powerful as heart action. Another humbling moment for a guy with a PhD.

So, what do you think of the question, "Is loving God more important than knowing God?" How would you distinguish the two?

Secondly, I am always intrigued by the stronger v. weaker brother thoughts of Paul. It seems like he is arguing that freedom (a theme we see over and over again in 1 Corinthians) is a primary characteristic of the stronger Christian. Thus, those Christians who are afraid or opposed to new things and freedom in Christ, and who are dependent on tradition and religious dogma, are the weaker brother. \

If this is so, then the following logic could apply. Even though I may say that is takes strength to be a tee-totaler and not drink alcohol at all, I am the weaker brother if I am offended because those who are free to drink (without getting drunk) have a beer or margarita with dinner.

Or is it more accurate to say this: If I am a recovering alcoholic, and a well-meaning Christian has a beer in front of me, causing me to stumble (drink again) because I am the weaker brother, then he has misused his freedom.

Of course, I think Paul's other important point is this: Freedom is of value only if it points others to Christ. We are free to follow him. If we exercise any other type of freedom, then we fail in our Christian calling. Paul is right on target when he says, "If I cause my brother to sin," then I will not exercise my freedom.

First Corinthians 7:15-40

So, does this passage justify divorce? If so, for what reasons?

Also, does this passage justify slavery? (v.20-22) What is the key truth Paul is presenting here?

I find Paul's comments on marriage humorous. He certainly has no desire to be married, and wants all other believers to avoid the responsibilities of marriage, if one can do so without sin. Two observations. 1) Again, Paul is concerned about the end of time, so he views marriages and families as a luxury (i.e., for sexual purity) and not a necessity for the preparation of the church for the coming of Christ's kingdom. 2) In discussing marital issues, Paul gives his own advice, and does not present his message as a prophetic word from God (v.25). So, he gives his best opinion, but does not judge anyone concerning marriage or singleness.

So, note Paul's passion for the Gospel, for sexual purity, and for a right relationship with God. I think these are the driving forces behind his comments here. It also forces the questions: what would I give up to serve God? What am I already committed to in this life that I can use for God's glory? Am I serving God to the best of my ability in the life that he has given me? Remember, Paul is not calling for these people to make drastic changes in their walk of life. He is calling on them to live the Gospel right where they currently are. In Paul's mind, this is where God has placed them, and they need to shine!

First Corinthians 7:1-14

Paul continues to address issues of sexual immorality in the Corinthian church. Apparently he has received some questions from Corinth (7:1) and now is answering them.

The first issue surrounds marriage, and whether a Christian man should marry. Personally, I am glad I am married and really enjoy my wife and family. I think Paul's perspective is different. First of all, he is completely married to the Gospel. So, he has no use for sexual activity at all. A very noble gesture. Yet, I readily admit that I fall among the "weak" who need to be married in order to fulfill the proper mode of sexual purity. Paul, though, feels no such passion. He is thinking only about the cross. Now, if I could channel some of my random energies and bodily passions into spiritual pursuits, what could God do through me then? Paul covered two continents on foot and by boat, started a multitude on churches, and preached the Gospel in Asia Minor, Rome, and possibly Spain. WOW!

Secondly, he is speaking to a group of people who have a very different perspective on physical pleasure, and he is attempting to re-channel their thinking away from selfish pleasure to selfless pleasure. Thus, sex is about pleasing your partner, not pleasing yourself. It is also about fulfilling you God given duties, not pleasing yourself. However, being ever so practical, if you are going to burn with lust, God has provided a way to handle it--take advantage of it!

Part of marital problems occur when couple intimacy breaks down and the sexual bond is not available when needed. Communication and intimacy are essential to a good sex life. They also require a more selfless approach to the relationship. Are you ready to sacrifice your personal pride and desires for a better sex life? That's the Christian way: self-sacrifice leads to greater reward and personal fulfillment.

Tell me: what do you think of Paul's divorce comments? And what about a believing spouse staying with an unbeliever to sanctify the marriage and the children? What does he mean?

First Corinthians 6:12-20

Honor God with your body, especially in regards to sexual temptation and activity.

This truth relates directly to Paul's comment that we are justified in the Lord (6:11) and cleansed by him. Since he has cleansed us and freed us, we must show thanksgiving and repsect by not further polluting the body and soul that he has purchased. Furthermore, since the Spirit indwells us, we must strive for personal purity. As Paul notes, "Do we unite our God with a prostitue?" The answer is "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" Yet, how many times do allow ourselves the freedom to do whatever we want, and thus bringing shame on the name of the one who died for our sins? Our society is much like that of Corinth in terms of sexual freedom and expression, and Paul is calling those who claim the Lordship of Christ to stand frim in their commitment to him and to their families. We are not free to do whatever we want, we are free to serve Christ!