Introduction to 2 Corinthians (chapters 1-3)

Timothy has rejoined Paul and is with him while writing the letter.  Paul had sent Timothy with the first epistle to the Corinthians.

It seems that a lot of the issues and divisions that had plagued the church of Corinth had fallen away.  That said, Paul's authority as an apostle is still questioned, which is dealt with later in the book.

In this letter, Paul spends considerable time discussing why he did not revisit the church in Corinth.  He wanted to visit them twice, but made the decision not to do it because it would be a painful visit.  I think it is a little unclear as to why he thought visiting them would be painful.

In this discussion, he makes cool statement about promises from God, implicitly contrasting the promises from people.  He states that promises from God are always "yes, in Christ".

Further on, he makes the analogy that people who have been transformed by Jesus are letters from God.  It reminds me of some of the parables that Jesus said about that his disciples are lights and salt to the world.  Further, we don't necessarily need to intentionally evangelize on a street to be a light, but just the presence of God and the transformation of the lives is a witness.  Now, this does not mean withdraw from the world, otherwise the light would not shine.

He continues this reasoning by discussing how Moses had to wear a veil.  But us, we don't need a veil to show God's glory to the world.

The conclusion of Romans (Romans 15-16)

In these chapters, we find out a few interesting things.  Paul did not handwrite the letter, but rather Tertius did under Paul's direction.

Likewise, Paul hopes to visit Rome as he goes all the way to Spain.  However, he currently is n his way to Rome to meet with other church leaders.

Paul's Apostleship comes up a lot in his letters.  He has kind of unique story among the other Apostles.  That said, his trips to Jerusalem provide accountability and and confirmation of his status to the other leaders, particularly Simon Peter.

Foods and Sabbath days (Romans 14)

As the Book of Romans winds down, it gets more straightforward and easier to comprehend.

Here in chapter 14, Paul tackles two issues that seem to be a stumbling block.  The main one is that he reiterates that all food are clean and there is nothing that is unclean of itself.  He even state that people are free to eat whatever they like, with the exception of anything that causes conflict with other people.

He also gives similar advice to drinking wine.  He does not forbid alcohol use, but rather states that if its consumption causes conflicts, then it is wrong.

A lesser issue he spends time on is "sacred" days.  This probably refers to Sabbath days and Holy Days.  Here, he seems to give flexibility on the days of worship of God.

Christmas is approaching and its fairly common knowledge that the origin of the day of December 25th to celebrate the Nativity was because it coincided with the winter solstice.  As the Gospel spread to northern Europe, northern tribes venerated the winter solstice.  The Christians decided to have a party for Jesus on the same day as the solstice to help them convert.

Centuries later, the winter solstice has moved off of December 25 to 21, but yet the 25th has remained the traditional date to celebrate the Nativity.

Personally, I think verses like Romans 14:5 provide that flexibility in the sacredness of days.  Likewise, if we think of food offered before idols, December 25th was offered as a day before idols in the past.  But according to Paul, there is nothing wrong with celebrating on that day.

That said, if someone has a problem with celebrating the Incarnation and Nativity on December 25 - and many people do - then they should not be forced to.  Likewise, they should not tell other Christians that they should not.  Grace on the days goes both ways.

Romans 12-13

In chapter 12, Paul starts giving out ministerial advice in an abridged fashion to that of 1 Corinthians.  He urges the church to pursue holiness and to love each other.

He also gives specifics about the role of the Christian vis a vis the state.  The Christian should submit to the government and pay taxes.

This is an investing statement to the make to the church of the capital city.  One would think it would be more necessary to remind the colonized and conquered regions to pay taxes.

I have heard of various Christian groups abstaining from democratic participation for various reasons.  Personally, I think if we are commanded to pay taxes, then other civic duties would follow to the extent they are not incompatible with the Christian beliefs.  This would include jury duty and voting.  However, military service is much more debatable.

Romans 11

This chapter is really complicated and it is hard to follow Paul's logic and reasoning.  He does say that God has a special plan for Israel and almost seems to venture into a universalist salvation tone for the Israelites in verses 25-26.  He cites Isaiah for the proposition that God will take away the sins of Israel through the Messiah.

Calling on God (Romans 10)

In chapter 10, Paul discusses how it is calling on God that matters, not whether one is Jew or Gentile.  He then discusses the necessity of evangelism so that people can know more about Christ.

On one hand, I can see how this might lead one to conclude that missionaries are the only way to spread the Gospel.  That said, in other parts, say Romans 1:20, it talks about a universal testimony about God to people through nature. 

God and Israel (Romans 9)

In chapter 9, Paul addresses the potential pushback he might receive from the Jewish community about the Gospel going to the Gentiles.  He opens up with a discussion that we have no right to substitute our decisions and perspectives for those of God.  

He also discusses the relationship between God and Israel.  He particularly emphasized that the Old Testament prophets declared that some of Israel will be destroyed.

He also speaks of his own personal anguish of being cut off from his own race of people and wish it were not so.  This I think we all can relate to in the sense of spiritual compatibility among friends.  Everyone is in a different point spiritually.  If they are too different, then the relationship and friendships must overcome them for the friendship to continue.  Sometimes, closeness and depth of a relationship cannot be achieved because of the differences, or at least, made difficult.

This phenomenon happens among Christians as well and I think it should remind us about the body of Christ discussion in 1 Corinthians.

Triumph (Romans 8)

The Book of Romans can feel like going through a museum with its density.  Likewise, the weight of chapters discussing sin can feel kind of discouraging, despite the emphasis on grace.

Chapter 8 changes the tone and gives a triumphal feel.  In particular, two verses stand out to me:

1.  If God is with us, who can be against us?  (v. 31)

2.  [nothing] can stand between us and the love of Jesus (v. 38-39)

Despite all our mistakes - past, present, and future - what other people do, what spiritual forces do, Jesus will always be there for us.

Romans 7

Marriage analogy

In the first part of chapter 7, Paul continues with the prior thought about a new life in Christ.  He provides a third analogy, that of marriage.  Our life of sin, pre-Christ, is dead.  Just as a widower can remarry after her husband dies, so we can remarry into Christ and start a new life.

This has more application and familiarity today than the slavery analogy.

Struggling with sin

In the second part of Romans 7, Paul opens up about himself.  This is an interesting and thoughtful look at himself as a man.  

He struggles with sin.  His conclusion in the chapter sums it well - in his mind, he is in God's law. But he knows that he will always be a slave to his sinful nature in this life.

In the midst of this, he has an interesting talk about how the law made more sin exist.  He uses the analogy of coveting.  Since coveting was a sin under the law, it opened the door in his heart for all kind of possible coveting.  Coveting became a huge problem for him and one he could not get rid.

He does not explain what exactly he coveted, so it would be speculation for us to venture in there.  But in his pre-Christ days, he clearly had a very restless heart as he persecuted Christians.  Whether or not this anger was motivated by coveting, we cannot know.

Offer yourselves to God (Romans 6)

The sixth chapter of Romans is thick with the Christian duty of holiness.  It uses two analogies to make to point.  First, the analogy of being dead to sin and joining Christ with his resurrection.  Second, the analogy that we should be slaves to God and he is our master.  

Regarding slavery, it has direct application today than in the time of the Roman empire in which slavery was common.  I think the Paul's Epistle to Philemon was about a former slave.  I also assume that some of the people in the Roman church were in fact slaves.  

Verse 13 stands out to me.  It says in part that we should not offer the parts of our bodies to sin, but rather to God.  It reminds me of Paul's lengthy discussions in 1 Corinthians in the context of considering the body as a temple for God.

Grace in Christ (Romans 5)

In chapter 5, Paul begins to really distinguish the Book of Romans from that of Galatians.  He begins a fresh take on the Christian narrative.

Verses 3-5 stand out to me the most.  There, he says that suffering produces perseverance, perseverance character, and character hope.  Hope does not disappoint because God has poured out love into the human hearts.

On one hand, it sounds like the Christian walk is a refinement.  One can expect suffering - bad things will happen.  But these will refine us.  Likewise, they ultimately do not bring sorrow, but Paul links this with joy and the love of the Holy Spirit.  

It seems like a contradiction, that suffering is associated with hope, love, and joy.  But I think this ties back to the beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount - " blessed are those who are poor in spirit".  Suffering tears at our spirits, but is God that lifts us at.

Another thing in Romans 5 that stood out to me is verse 20 - the law was added so that trespass might increase.  This seems like an odd stance on the Mosaic Law.  It was given to the Israelites to make them sin more?  That said, it also provided a way for them to be reconciled with God.

Abraham - righteousness on faith (Romans 4)

In chapter 4, Paul makes a similar follow-on argument that he outlined in Galatians.  Here, he discussed that Abraham was countered as righteous based on his faith.  His circumcision was a sign of his covenant with God, but it occurred after his righteousness.  Thus, his righteousness and faith were before circumcision was a work.

The law is upheld (Romans 3)

Paul begins chapter 3 that the Mosaic law revealed to us our own inadequacies.  By the end of the chapter, he discusses that Jesus is the atonement within the law.  Thus, the law is not nullified, but rather the law is upheld.

This seems to answer the outstanding questions from the Sermon on the Mount.  In particular, Jesus said he had come not to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it.

What does it mean to "fulfill" the law?  Here, in Romans 3, we find Jesus was the sacrificial atonement, which was within the guidelines of Mosaic code itself.  Thus, the law had to be upheld and made valid for the sacrifice of Jesus to have any meaning.  

So, are starting to see the Bible come full circle.  Plowing through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy outline the full context of the Mosaic Code.  We saw why the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary and here in Romans, Paul links it all together.

More on the law (Romans 2)

In chapter 2, Paul seems to make similar points to those made in the Book of Galatians.  Here, he discusses that if people believe that they should follow the law, then they should follow the entire thing.  Otherwise, it comes off as hypocritical and "God is blasphemed".

A key question is what "law" is Paul talking about?  The Mosaic law, the things that Christ emphasized, or something else?

I think he is talking about the Mosaic law in its entirety.  He distinguishes between Jews and Gentiles, which seem to indicate he expects a Jewish audience.  He also uses analogies with the discussing circumcision, which would have been something the Jewish audience would have cared more about.

The Epistle to the Romans (ch. 1)

I suspect that the pre-conversion Saul visited Rome at some point of his life.  He his well-educated, articulate, and sophisticated.  I am not aware if he says whether he did or not in any New Testament book.

However, post-conversion Paul longs to visit the church in Rome during his missionary voyages.  He believes that God will take him there, so he writes an epistle to the Roman church.  This epistle is famously dense and is almost intimidating to write about.  So, what I write will seem superficial.

In chapter 1, Paul talks about these introductory remarks then launches into a discussion of the Christian faith.  It does not seem that this epistle was prompted by a problem with the Roman church, but Paul just has a lot to say to them.

One thing that stands out to me is that Paul mentions he was prevented from going to Rome.  Looking ahead in the Bible and to non-canonical sources, we know that Paul was later in house arrest in Rome and was likely executed there.

This is totally my own conjecture, but I suspect that God had a plan for both Paul and Peter to finish their time on earth in Rome to oversee the succession of the church from the foundational Apostles to people who never knew Christ on earth.  The "second Pope" is said to be Linus, who might be referred to in 2 Timothy 4.  At this time, the church in Rome was no more important than any other church, other than the fact it was the capital of the Empire.

But God, looking ahead centuries later knew that Emperor Constantine would convert to Christianity, which then put the emphasis on the church in Rome.  So, by moving Paul and Peter to Rome, the Roman church became a quasi-capital of the church while Peter and Paul could monitor the succession of the Roman church.

This is all my conjecture.  Likewise, I am not a Catholic, but I do think this is what happened.

Falling asleep at church (Acts 20:1-12)

Eventually, Paul leaves Ephesus and travels around Greece and Macedonia.  In Greece, he angers the Jews who plot to kill him, so he continues traveling.

The text slows down for an interesting anecdote at Troas.  Paul is preaching to the local church in a private home about three stories high.  He is preaching late into the night when one man, Eutychus, falls asleep and falls out of the window.  The people rush down and find him dead.

Paul jumps on the body of Eutychus and declares that he is alive.  They go back to listening to Paul's preaching until dawn the next day.

Paul does not scold Eutychus for falling asleep during Paul's sermon.  Rather, they just carry on as usual.

The riot in Ephesus (Acts 19:21-41)

After completing the first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul sent Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia.  This was referred to in the letter, so we can infer that Timothy hand-delivered the epistle of 1st Corinthians to the church of Corinth.

Paul's preaching in Ephesus causes problems.  The city thrives on the idol-manufacturing industry and one local silversmith, Demetrius, gets really angry.  He incites a mob to take hold of Gaius and Aristarchus and took them to a theater.  (note, some translations say that "they rushed in one accord", which other people find funnier than I ever did)

Gaius and Aristarchus are a few traveling companions of Paul, but they did not seize Paul himself.  Meanwhile, the local church members at Ephesus urge Paul not to go to the theater.

Things look bleak that Gaius and Aristarchus might be lynched.  However, the local city clerk emerges to quiet down the crowd.

His speech to appease the crowd is interesting.  He basically argues that it is an undeniable fact that Artemis descended from heaven and now Ephesus guards her.  Likewise, if Demetrius had a problem with Paul or his friends, they could take it up in the civil courts.

I think this is the first time that Paul has directly stirred up trouble with Gentiles.  Before this, it seemed to be the leaders of the Jewish community who either directed their followers to harass Paul or incited the Gentiles to harass Paul.  

Also, the fact that the clerk suggested taking this up in the civil courts might give some indicate that people used the civil courts to adjudicate religious matters.  This is clearly in speculation, but perhaps this is what happened with the church in Corinth as referred to in in first Corinthians.

Final instructions (1 Cor 16)

In the last chapter, we find out that Paul is still at Ephesus when he wrote this epistle.

He also instructs the church to collect a tithe of their income for a church planting mission.  The details of this we do not know.

Paul also hopes to go back to Corinth after spending Pentecost at Ephesus.

Resurrection (1 Cor 15)

First Corinthians winds down with a similar issue to that of encountered by the Thessalonians.  Here, Paul discusses the various contexts of the Resurrection.  There are three parts to this overall discussion.

First, it was the Resurrection of Jesus that gives the Christian faith any value at all.

Second, there will be a Resurrection of the saints.  In similar fashion to what is discussed in Thessalonians, this will happen when Jesus returns.

Third, Paul gives specifics on the corporal Resurrection of the saints.  They will be raised incorruptible, as spiritual beings.

Discussions like these are why people believe in "soul sleep".  The assumption being that there is no conscience awareness until there is a Resurrection.  Relatedly, people discount the existence of "ghosts" based on this understanding of the afterlife.

I think part of the confusion is the collapse of several concepts into one.  First, a conscience awareness of the soul.  This spirit lacks a corporal body.  For those rejecting soul sleep, this spirit meets with Christ after death.  This would fall in line with several key verses:

1.  What Jesus said to the criminal on the cross ("this day you will be with me in paradise")

2.  What Jesus said to the disciples about his body and distinguishing it from ghosts (Luke 24:39)

3.  The appearance of Samuel to the necromancer (witch) of Endor and the appearance of Moses and Elijah with Jesus.

4.  The parable of Lazarus the Rich Man.  Although a parable, it distinguished a soul hanging out with Abraham in the afterlife with that of the resurrection of a body.

One last note on this chapter, Paul gives some clarity about when he saw Jesus.  Specifically, he saw Jesus after Jesus' Resurrection.  Likewise, it was after the final appearance to the rest of the Apostles and 500 disciples.  This alone does not make it sufficient for his commission as an Apostle (since 500 others saw the resurrected Jesus), but it is an important part in the story of Paul.

More on spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14)

Paul begins chapter 14 by saying that we should follow love and spiritual gifts.  

Here, he provides more detail about spiritual gifts with a particular emphasis on tongues and prophesy.  

For tongues, he talks about unintelligible sounds that "speak to God", but not man.  In fact, another spiritual gift is needed to interpret the sounds.  This contrasts the appearance of tongues in Acts 2, in which the speakers miraculously knew other human languages.

Paul's advise is that the people speaking in tongues should do so quietly at church, unless there is an interpreter.  This is to maintain order.

Likewise, prophesy and gifts that build up the church should be encouraged.  Paul believes that prophecy has a particularly strong effect on unbelievers whereas unintelligible tongues makes them think that the church is crazy.

At the end of the chapter, Paul has some advice that we might think is really strange.  He says that women should be silent at church.  He takes a very strong stance in that women should only ask questions about church to her husband at home.  (v. 35)

I think there is a wide variance of opinions on interpreting this from that (1) it was culturally specific advice, (2) other passages by Paul presume or assume active participation by women, and on other hand, (3) women really should be silent at church.

Love (1 Cor 13)

Buried within chapters about the Holy Spirit and church unity is the "love" chapter.  This is probably the most famous portion of 1st Corinthians and perhaps even all of Paul's epistles as verses 4-8 are frequently read at weddings today.

Throughout the chapter, Paul emphasizes that the greatest gift and treasure is in fact love.  One can serve each other to great extremes, but if the heart is devoid of love, it is a meaningless sacrifice.

Just as we read this chapter aloud at weddings today, I imagine this chapter would have had the same impact to the originally intended audience.  When this letter was read aloud to the church of Corinth, the power of the language would have given the letter and all its substance an authenticity and authority that the divided church needed.

For us, it is a reminder that we might feel superior to others (from the food we eat, the sacrifices we make, or even our own holiness and purity), but it is love that outweighs all.

Spiritual Gifts and the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12)

In this chapter, Paul intermingles a discussion of the role of spiritual gifts with that the various roles within the church body.

On gifts, Paul starts by discussing the importance of the Holy Spirit.  In fact, everyone's faith starts with the Holy Spirit for no one can that "Jesus is Lord" without that faith coming from the Holy Spirit.

Having established the necessity of it, Paul then launches the famous list of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit (wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, power, prophecy, discernment of spirits, speaking in tongues, and the interpretation of tongues).  All of these are given by the Holy Spirit as he determines.

Immediately after this, Paul uses the analogy of the human body to describe how each role within the church is indispensable to the church body itself.  Likewise, not everyone can play the same role and there must be diversity within the church body for it to function with health.

When I read this, I think of the various churches around the world that have a different cultural take on Christianity.  They do a lot of things differently - they play different music with different music, conduct services in different languages, do the Lord's Supper at different intervals, etc...but all of that is part of the church body and we cannot claim to be superior.

Likewise, the textual proximity to the Holy Spirit gifting suggests that the Paul anticipated that the churches would apply the Holy Spirit differently.  Some pursue the Holy Spirit more actively than others, while others stop at the initial faith declaration of Christ.

Paul concludes the chapter by discussing the various administrative roles of the people of church.  Interestingly, "apostles" are listed first, then prophets.  This could either mean that apostles are more important than prophets.  Alternatively, it could be a chronological list, but that would leave open the question of the Old Testament prophets that appeared before Jesus.

Looking ahead, it kind of raises an interesting question about church succession.  In particular, the Apostle John outlived the other Apostles, but he did so in exile on Patmos.  Did the church leadership pass to him, but yet he was in exile?

Conducting church activities (1 Cor 11)

In chapter 11, Paul outlines some principals for conducting church activities.

Head coverings for women

First, women are to have their heads covered in prayer.  On one hand, this seems a little strange in our culture in which this practice has largely gone away.  Paul also makes the point that long hair has been given to women as a covering.  For the most part, long hair remains associated with the women today.  However, Paul does distinguish between women's hair and the coverings.

We have not completely gotten rid of the practice of head coverings.  It certainly is common among the Eastern Orthodox churches, but even today, women frequently wear hats to church.

Administering the Lord's Supper

In the second of the chapter, Paul discusses that the Lord's Supper is not something to be taken casually.  Rather, people should examine their own hearts to see if they understand the significance.  At the very least, someone who recently did idol rituals should not partake of it (10:14-22).

Intermixed with this advice is the general idea that people should eat their meals at home, particularly if hungry people are coming to church.  

More on idols and food (1 Cor 10)

In chapter 10, Paul returns to discussing food and idols.  He clarifies that although eating food before idols is OK, participating in the ritual practice of offering the food to the idol is not.  In fact, if someone does this, they cannot partake of communion.

Apostleship (1 Cor 9)

In chapter nine, Paul talks about being an Apostle.  In in the introductory verses to this, he says that he has seen Jesus.  This statement is left un-clarified as to "when" he saw he Jesus.  Lots of people saw Jesus, but that did not make them Apostles.  We can probably infer that Paul (as Saul) probably saw Jesus during Jesus' lifetime.

One possible alternative is that Jesus appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus.  I am cautious about that interpretation because the account in Acts said that Paul saw a bright light and then was blinded, but he heard the voice of Jesus.  So, perhaps we can infer that this bright and blinding light was in fact Jesus and this is what Paul meant.

Back to the chapter, Paul seems to take on the issue of defending his Apostleship.  He does it in a roundabout way by discussing that he never takes money from the churches he has founded, even though he could.  Rather, he continued working to pay own way.

In a way, he says "I am your leader because I am doing this for free".  

This would probably distinguish him from the other leaders of the church of Corinth, including perhaps Apollos.  

Food sacrificed before idols (1 Cor 8)

Paul continues in the substantive points he has to say.  With each of these, we can infer that the issue somehow caused division within the church of Corinth.  Going further, we can also perhaps speculate that these substantive issues were some of the things that the people were trying to resolve in the civil courts.

Here, Paul clarifies the freedom of eating meat.  We saw a very high level of freedom after Christ's ministry and the Vision of Peter.  Paul scales it back.

People were afraid of eating meat that had been offered to idols.  Perhaps they believed that by doing so, they were:

1.  Ritually participating in idolatry

2.  Economically supporting idolatry

3.  Eating and infusing themselves with something demonic

4.  Condoning idolatry

Regardless of their rationale, Paul says that it is OK to food offered to idols because idols are nothing.  However, he clarifies that other believers might not realize this, thus to avoid division and causing brothers to sin, one should avoid eating meat offered to idols if it would be a problem for one's spiritual brother.

On one hand, the issue of food offered to idols has little relevance today.  However, I think there some timeless principals at play here.  First, we should embrace unity in Christ at the cost of some freedom.  Second, we should also not intentionally anger people with the foods we eat or do not.  A modern corollary to food before idols is perhaps eating food organic, free-range, vegetarian, or even nut-allergies.  So, the question remains is do we embrace community with what we eat or do we cause division?  

A side note, Paul makes an interesting comment in that he says that there are many "gods" and many "lords", but there is only one God and one Lord.  (v. 5-6)

Sexual morality and marriage (1 Cor. 6:12-7:40)

Here are some of the parts that everyone remembers about 1st Corinthians.  Chapter 13 is probably the most famous.

It seems that members within the church were frequenters of prostitutes.  I heard explained that these were likely temple prostitutes.  So, it was a quasi-idolatrous practice as well.

Here, Paul says to avoid it.  His rationale is that the body is the temple of God and that sexual sins are sins against the body.  He also analogizes the principle from Genesis that people in marriage are one flesh, so by having sex with a prostitute, one becomes one flesh with her.  

All this taken together, it might seem to suggest that by having sex with someone, their sins become yours, or at least part of them becomes intertwined.

Paul then explains the application of marriage.

In short, Paul advises against getting married.  But he knows that some people cannot control their sexual urges, so they should get married.

He also states that the body for married people belongs to each other.  This is interesting coming soon after the discussion that the body is the temple of God, but yet here they belong to each other.

This might explain another thing that Paul states - that the unbeliever is sanctified through marriage with a believer.  So, it seems that sex with a prostitute defiles someone and is a sin against the body, the holiness of a believer married to an unbeliever has a sanctifying effect.  

Beginning in 7:25, Paul has a specific advice for the "present crisis".  Here, he strongly advises people against marrying.  The context of the statements suggest there was an external persecution against the church which made the conditions for married life difficult.

On lawsuits within the church (1 Cor. 6:1-11)

Paul's next advice is for them not to settle their differences in the civil courts before the Romans.  Rather, they should appoint people of lower status within the church to arbitrate and be the judge.

I can't think of any direct modern parallel or application to this situation.  On one hand, it actually is reminiscent of the jury system in which common people are selected to be on the judge.  However, I can't think of a specific Ecclesiastical court for civil matters.

Expelling immoral people from church (1 Cor 5)

In this chapter, Paul starts with the substantive advice for the church at Corinth.  He gets harsh and says that people who call themselves brothers, but are greedy, sexually immoral (example here is taking in your father's wife), slanderers, drunkards, or swindlers should be cut off from the people at church.

This is very harsh, I don't think this means that people should kick out of the church anyone who slanders, gets drunk, or does something stupid.  

For here, it is also important to remember the context that the church in Corinth was in the midst of an identity crisis and deeply divided.  Plus, the example about the person who took in his father's wife shows the scale of the problem that Paul is addressing.  Not only was the person doing something egregious and below the standard of those outside of the church, but was boasting about it as well.

In the midst of all this, Paul distinguishes his advice for the church to those outside of the church.

Paul reasserts control on the Corinth church (1 Cor 4)

In chapter 4, Paul reasserts control over the church.  The chapter concludes with Paul saying that he is sending Timothy to mentor the church.  Paul also plans to return to Corinth if God wills this.

The sending of Timothy to Corinth might indicate that Apollos is being replaced.  Alternatively, Timothy might arrive and find Apollos doing well as a teacher.  Either way, Paul's second hand man going to Corinth is a reassertion of Paul's authority over the church.  But it is not the same thing as the church planter himself coming, so the Corinthians will have to get used to Paul not being there, but this is the next best option.

In this chapter, Paul also talks about the cost of Apostleship.  Apostles are made fools, slandered, and live on the margins of society in contrast to the more comfortable lives of the lay members.  As he begins this, it almost seems like Paul is calling Apollos an Apostle, which would mean the word "Apostle" is analogous to "church leader".

Alternatively, Paul might actually be distinguishing himself as Apostle from Apollos, church leader.  If Apollos had a comfortable life, in contrast to the difficulties that Paul had, this would distinguish Paul as Apostle over Apollos.   lThus, Paul is reasserting the hierarchy of the church, which was at stake with this church division.

On divisions (1 Cor. 3)

In chapter 3, Paul continues discussing divisions within the church.  He introduces the idea that people might have different roles in the church, but the roles serve one purpose in Christ.  He uses the analogy that he planted the seed (started the church) while Apollos watered it (led them  after Paul moved on).  But it is God that makes it grow.

He also introduces the idea that the temple of God has taken a new, quasi-metaphorical meaning.  He says that "you" are the temple.  In context of chapter 3. it sounds like "you" could refer to the church itself, but he also links the temple to where the spirit lives.  Later on, he refers to the temple as being the human body itself.

Again, there is nothing to indicate that Apollos was doing anything wrong or needed to be replaced.

United in Christ we stand (1 Corinthians)

The chronological reading list has Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians happening while Paul is still at Ephesus during his second missionary trip.  I am not sure why this is the case.  From the statements within the letter, we can infer that Paul has left Corinth and Apolos has taught there.

Introduction (chapters 1-2)

Chloe brings a report to Paul a lot of troubling news.  The church in Corinth has become radically divided.  They have fallen into various factions.  Some claim loyalty to Paul, others to Apollos, others to Peter, and some to Christ.  

Note, we do not know why the people felt that the teachings of Apollos, Peter, and Paul were different.  So as readers, we cannot take sides.  Nor can we blame Apollos for preaching something different than what Paul preached.  We can infer that the members of the church perceived that there were differences.

Addressing the divisions of the church pervade the book. There are a host of other things that divide the church as well.  These appear to be what are outlined later in the book.  However, Paul's statements in the substantive portion of the book sometimes blur and straddle the line between advice and theology.  Paul is aware of this and identifies in what role he is speaking at several specific places.

Although this book is primarily known today for its teaching on sex, marriage, love, and spiritual gifts, the primary purpose that prompted the writing were the divisions.  So, readers today can and should replace our own divisions with those that Paul addresses.  Thus, "I follow Apollos, I follow Paul, I follow Peter" can be modernized to "I follow Martin Luther, I follow John Calvin, I follow the Pope, or I follow Greek Orthodox.". 

Paul does not say it is wrong to have differences within the church.  In fact, it actually is encouraged, or at least assumed that there will be some differences.  Paul also never says that is wrong for different churches to have loyalties to leaders within the church.  However, Paul's message throughout 1st Corinthians is that these perspectives are all secondary to:

"I follow Christ."

Part 1 - Wisdom of God is foolish to man 

After laying out this purpose of writing, Paul discusses that the wisdom of God seems foolish to man.  This provides a necessary overlay to all the substantive points he makes later on.  In the text, he contrasts the larger elements, but he subtlety makes the point that - members might have their own wisdom about [insert issue, marriage, sex, Holy Spirit gifts], but this is what God says on the matter.  If anyone disagrees, it is because the wisdom of God is foolish to men".

In this mini-essay, he appeals to their own social status to help them understand and for humility.  He states that God predominantly called the "foolish" together to be in the church of Corinth.  If God paid attention to the wisdom of men, then God would have assembled together a church of leaders of men.  Here, God ignored the wisdom of men and used disadvantaged people.  This might seem foolish to us - just like everything that Paul says might be foolish to us.

This also calls for camaraderie at a time of division by reminding them that the majority had similar disadvantaged background.  It was to their own benefit that God ignored the wisdom of men.

The Ephesians (Acts 18:18 et seq.)

To Ephesus, twice

Paul leaves Corinth with Priscilla and Aquilla.

Meanwhile, Paul has his hair cut and makes a vow.  This seems to be a Nazarite vow in accordance with Numbers 11.

Paul makes his way to Ephesus where the Jews in the synagogue like him and want him to stay. So, although he told the Jews in Corinth that he was going to the Gentiles, it was not an exclusive rule as he still taught in other synagogues outside of Corinth.

Paul promises to come back if it is the will of God.  He then travels around to a few other areas, but does go back to Ephesus where the text focuses on.

In the meantime, Priscilla and Aquilla stay behind in Ephesus and meet a man named Apollos.  Apollos is a bold preacher for Jesus.  Priscilla and Aquilla mentor him before letting him go to Corinth.

We are seeing an exchange of people and leaders between the early churches.  They did not have email or even the New Testament back then, so this exchange of people was an important part of keeping the church unified.

Ephesians and spiritual power

Paul arrives in Ephesus a second time and finds a group of disciples who had received a water baptism (John's baptism), but had never heard of a Holy Spirit baptism.  Paul explains that the water baptism is about repentance.  Paul lays his hands on them and they begin to prophesy and speak and tongues.

This anecdote shows that there really are two baptisms, one of water and one of the Holy Spirit.  One is an introduction to a life of faith and the other is a step further into faith with the potential for the miraculous.  One can have a life of faith without ever having received a Holy Spirit baptism.  

If we contrast this anecdote with that of Cornelius in Acts 10 (esp., 10:44) then perhaps the order can be reversed.

In Ephesus, Paul speaks at the synagogue at first, but then must change to the lecture hall of Tyrannus, where he has daily discussions.

God also seems to have honored the (Nazarite?) vow Paul made and gives Paul more miraculous power.  Paul heals people second-hand in which handkerchiefs that had touched Paul are then used to heal the sick.

This second-hand miraculous power leads to something unusual.  Meanwhile, seven brothers, sons of a Jewish priest named Sceva, are going around casting out demons.  Their ritual is "in the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to get out."

This apparently works for a while, but they come upon a demon-possessed person who resists

  The demon says, "Jesus I know and I know about Paul, but who are you?". The demon-possessed person then beats them all up and leaves them bloody and naked.

The effect of this was that the believers began to publicly speak about their faith.  Likewise, they then burned their sorcery scrolls.  According the marginalia in the NIV, the value of the scrolls was worst about 50,000 daily wages.  (50,000 drachma silver coins).

This is an odd anecdote.  What is going on here?

Ultimately, I think it is about the role of miracles leading to a relationship with God.  Miracles themselves are not the end of faith, rather, they should confirm that it is Jesus that is Lord.  

Here, the seven sons seem to not have a relationship with Jesus.  They are going around and saying his name as if it were an incantation in a spell.  This works at first, but it cannot continue.  They are aware of the spiritual power of the name of Jesus and are aware that Paul is a source of knowledge about Jesus.  

The text is silent about them going up to Paul and then asking him "how can we learn more about Jesus?". 

This story parallels one of the parables that Jesus spoke of.  Jesus had said in a parable that just because people might perform miracles in his name, the Lord might reply "I never knew you".  Here, we have an example of just that.  Performing miracles is not a relationship with Christ.

Looking ahead to Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, perhaps some of this is indirectly discussed in that book.  There, Paul discusses the spiritual armor of God.  Without a relationship with Jesus, these seven sons lack that spiritual armor of God, which leaves them vulnerable to a beating by a demon-possessed man.

The story and its aftermath also gives us a framework to consider Paul's letter to the Ephesians.  Clearly, the volume of the scrolls of sorcery shows the stranglehold that sorcery had on the city and its influence on the believers.

This story also shows that demon possessed people can be supernaturally strong.  This gives caution that it can be a very dangerous field.  On one hand, it should only be pursued within the context of the church with the spiritual guidance to navigate it.  That said, it is an important field as Jesus commissioned and directed his disciples to do it and in fact, told them not to intervene when someone who was not in their group was doing it.

A final note, it faintly echoes the question the Sadducees asked Jesus about the Resurrection.  In the hypothetical, there were seven brothers who each died and the widow married each in turn.  Here, we have seven brothers all doing the same thing with catastrophic consequences.  However, the parallels probably end there.

The Corinthians (Acts 18:5-17)

Paul stayed in the city of Corinth for at least a year and a half, probably a bit longer.

At one point, the Jews opposed him too much and Paul in frustration declares that he will only go to the Gentiles.  The text then says that he went next door from the synagogue to the house of Titius Justus.  This sounds like he moved his place of preaching to directly next door to the synagogue.  If so, it kind of is a bit funny as it is passive-aggressive antagonizing of the Jews.  

He gets a principle convert in the ruler of the synagogue,  Crispus, and his family.  An event later on suggests that this led to the replacement of the synagogue ruler.  Alternatively, perhaps Crispus tells the Jews that they cannot use his building anymore.  Either way, this would have highly embarrassed the Jews.  Meanwhile, Paul is preaching next door to the old synagogue.  

The combinations of these would have kept tension high.  So, God speaks to Paul one night.  God tells him to not be afraid of people in the city because no one will harm him because God has a lot of people in the city.

This echoes of something that Elijah received from God.  God told Elijah that there were 10,000 believers in the northern kingdom despite King Ahab and Jezebel.  At that time, Elijah was desperate and lonely.  Here, Paul is not stated as feeling that kind of persecution.  That said, Paul is aware that things can change quickly and deadly like the incident in which he was stoned.

The story immediately flows into a plot by the Jews against Paul.  The Jews take Paul before the Roman court and accuse him of religious crimes against the Roman proconsul Gallio.  This seems to fit the situation that God warned Paul about.

Paul is about to speak, but Gallio speaks first.  He basically says that his court has no jurisdiction over these religious matters.

What is missing from the Jews' charges is what they said about Jesus before Pilate.  If they had said something about proclaiming another king, then this might have forced Gallio to do something about Paul.  However, given God's warning about more believers in the city, Gallio may have been a silent believer or at least sympathetic to the Christians.

The Jews are thrown out of the court before Gallio.  They then turn on their synagogue ruler, Sosthenes, and beat him up.  Gallio does not care.  His indifference to this mob justice might show his annoyance with the Jews or perhaps a sympathy to the Christians.

Probably, Sosthenes was the mastermind of this plot against Paul and the Jews blame their embarrassment on him.  Likewise, since the name of the synagogue is different, it shows that either the synagogue ruler has been replaced or that the synagogue itself was replaced.

Persevere in persecution; Paul addresses his impostors (2nd Thessalonians)

Paul writes a second letter to the Thessalonians.  This letter is shorter, but more complicated than the first.

Persecution, Impostors, and the Day of the Lord

The letter begins by acknowledging that the Thessalonian church is being persecuted.  We do not know the details, but it could be either an (1) external threat such as the Jews that kicked Paul out of Thessalonica, or (2) an internal threat which is a theme of the letter.

In the first letter, he cautioned them to test everything.  This would include prophecies and letters from himself.  In the second letter, Paul refers to someone giving them false instruction, letters, or prophecies in Paul's name.  One of these ideas is that the Day of the Lord has already happened.  

Such an idea could easily rattle the church if they believed that they were supposed to be taken up in the sky when it happened, but yet they are still living their normal lives.  The church would probably either (1) panic and think they are not believing in the right things about Jesus, or (2) discount Paul's first letter as not coming from him.  

Either way, this idea that Jesus has already returned would unravel these fledgling churches in Macedonia.

Since a main issue was whether Paul even wrote these letters, Paul concludes the second letter by saying it was a hand written in is distinctive style, or at least includes a handwritten stylistic mark by Paul.  Presumably, the audience in Thessalonica would have seen Paul make a similar mark when he was there in person.

Day of the Lord

Paul gives a few details on the timing about the Day of the Lord.  However, these details are nebulous and the least straightforward part of the letter.  In fact, I think anything the Bible says about this topic is charged in nebulous language.

Jesus' return will happen after some agent of Satan is uncovered.  The NIV refers to this person as the "Man of Lawlessness".  This man will create problems, even do false miracles, and people will worship him as God.

The language is not straightforward, nor details explained.

It also touches on false miracles, which we saw before while Jesus talked about the apocalypse.  False miracles presumes the existence of true miracles.  I think further discussion on this should wait until discussing what the Holy Spirit does in 1 Corinthians, I.e., true miracles.

Philosophy majors (idleness)

Paul also discusses idleness among the believers.  He refers to the time that he was there in person and worked for his own food.  This statement would offer further credibility that this letter came from Paul.

As for the substance of the statement, it contrasts the situation early in the Book of Acts where the believers in the new church sold their belongings and gave to everyone else.  Paul must have noticed a trend of idleness arising in the established churches and wanted to nip them in the bud in the churches he was planting.  So, in addition to preaching, him and his group did manual labor to earn their food.

Paul bluntly states that he who does not work, should not eat.  If this were a parable from Jesus, then we could probably think it was a metaphor about the Gospel and the relationship of God.  If that were the case, i think it would easily fall in line with the parables about the fruit and the talents.

But it is coming from Paul who tends to be a lot more straightforward and here he is playing the role of the manager of a church.

The statement has a lot of social implications and raises interesting questions.  How does this fit with Jesus dealing with the poor and beggars?  Even, how does it square with the early church practice of sharing their resources?  We all have different talents and abilities, so what kind of work - manual labor?  I.e., do "philosophy majors" count as being idle?  These questions remain outstanding.

Paul even takes a harder stance against idleness, he says that people should be disassociated from the group.  The stated purpose is to cause shame, but it also has a functional, pragmatic purpose directed to the problem - if they are disassociated from the group then they will stop receiving handouts and start working.

On another level, I think these ideas idleness is not so much a way for people to justify shame on deadbeats, but to enable people.  People need to work and be productive.  People need to stay busy otherwise they get depressed or crazy.  I think this is something hardwired into the human brain and people need to feel that they are contributing for their own survival and those of others.

Encouragement to the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians)

Paul receives Timothy and Silas in Corinth.  From the context of 1 Thessalonians, we can infer that Timothy went to Thessalonica to check on the church while it seems that Silas may have stayed behind in Berea.

Paul writes a letter of encouragement to the church of Thessalonica.  

A quick note on style, Paul is generally a literalist.  He writes plainly because he is giving advice and explanation to various churches.  In contrast, Jesus spoke in parables so what people would ask him what on earth he was talking about.  We pray to Jesus to explain the parables, we do not pray to Paul to explain the letters.  

Although Paul's letters are generally straightforward, they still can be confusing.  It probably does not hurt to pray to Jesus to explain Paul's letters, both for understanding and application.

The first three chapters (of five, total) are filled with gratitude and praise for the church in Thessalonica.  After Paul and his companions were driven out, the Thessalonians continued growing in their faith.  

Overall, Paul mentions a few things that he wants them to do be more righteous, but the context in which these statements appear are to "continue" doing these things, as opposed to calls for repentance.  

The most theologically unique portion of this book is undoubtedly chapter 4:13-18.  In context, Paul is encouraging the church and does not want them to grieve for the dead like those who do not believe in a resurrection.

Rather, Paul states that Jesus will return.  When Jesus returns, Jesus will shout as will the archangel, and a trumpet will blast.  Then, the dead in Christ will rise to meet Jesus.  Afterwards, the faithful church will also then rise to meet him in a big cloud (of people?).  They will all then be with Jesus forever.  Throughout this description, the dead are described as being "asleep".

What does this mean?  Short answer - I have no idea.  

This portion has led to various interpretations, which are not necessarily inconsistent.  These include the Rapture and "soul sleep".  

On the cross, Jesus had mentioned to the repentant criminal that he will be in paradise that day.  If we interpret that to mean that his soul went to heaven with Jesus, then this makes an interesting combination with the dead rising first.  The way that makes some sense to me is that this rising of the dead means a resurrection of their physical bodies.  Whereas currently in heaven, only their souls are with Jesus.

When will this happen?  Paul does not provide specifics, but that it will come like a "thief in the night".  

Obviously, Paul and everyone he wrote to died a long time ago.  Further, countless generations have lived and died since then, but Christ has not returned yet.  But Paul warns each generation, including our own, that Christ might return like a thief in the night.

Paul concludes the letter with advice on general living.  He provides a laundry list of things to do, but does not specify any as a particular problem for the church.  Just like how every generation read and applied the "thief of the night" comment, his concluding advice has application today:

Encourage one another

Pray continually

Be joyful always

give thanks in all circumstances

Do not put out the fire of the Spirit

Do not treat prophecies with contempt (this goes hand in hand with encouragement, as we find out in 1 Cor. the purpose of prophecy is encouragement)

Test everything (this goes hand in hand with prophecy)

Avoid evil