Automated transcript of the sermon audio, generated with OpenAI Whisper (small.en). It has not been checked against the recording and may contain errors, especially in names and Scripture references.

Tonight we come to the final chapter of the epistle of James, and I must admit a little bit, I kind of wish James ended at chapter four, because chapter five is actually a pretty difficult chapter to figure out. If you've ever read it, lots of debate has gone on about what James five is all about. But we're going to do our best to try to come up with some conclusions. At least I'm going to give you some options of things to think about as you consider this chapter, and then I'll let you go home and you can decide for yourself what you think. When people turn to the Bible as a source of comfort and encouragement, chances are they are not going to the book of James.

When is the last time you heard someone say, I was really feeling down so I grabbed a cup of coffee in my Bible and I read through the book of James? Like never have I ever heard anybody say they went to James for comfort. Reading James is like going to the doctor for your annual exam and having him point out all of your unhealthy habits. Reading James is like going to boot camp where you are reminded in not so gentle ways that you fall short. James is not for the faint of heart. It calls out the double-minded, the greedy, the excuse maker, the one who plays favorites, those who neglect the widow and orphan, the presumptuous, the quarrerer, and the worldly wise.

It tells the unjust rich to weep and howl, and calls those who would be friends of the world adulterers. And that's just some of the things that it has to say. You won't find Be Wretched and Morn and Weep printed on any coffee mugs or T-shirts at your local Christian bookstore. James is an in your face, so you think you're a Christian, huh? Kind of examination. We've seen that its purpose is not to teach core doctrines of the faith, but rather show by way of example how a true Christian should live. It's not an apologetic for work salvation as some have tried to argue. I've mentioned before that Luther struggled with this epistle because it seemed to him that it gave fuel to the Catholic position of works salvation.

In one of his writings he wrote this of James, that epistle of James gives us much trouble for the papist embrace it alone and leave out all the rest, scripture. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with it and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of scriptures, For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they, the papis, will not admit my interpretation, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove as the priest of Callan, Callanburg did. So Luther had some opinions about this book here.

Now in case you're not sure, most of us would not know what he meant by the priest of Callanburg. Just real briefly, the priest of Kalenberg was a fictional character that was invented or created back in the 15th century in Germany, and he was a very popular character. And they would pass on various stories about the priest of Kalenberg. And presumably, they were actually stories based on a real person that they're not quite sure who that person was. And so, but this person, this character apparently really was a character and liked to play a lot of practical jokes and pranks, especially on members of the royalty and clerics. So he was just kind of always in there trying to egg and stir things up. So these stories got spun up about this priest of Kalimburg.

In one of these stories, the priest is being visited by a member of royalty, a duchess, and where they were meeting was cold, so he was going to heat the room up with some wood fire. And so as she shows up to the meeting, he's starting to stoke the fireplace and what he's doing is he's throwing wooden statues of the apostles into the firebox, which was a real affront and real sacrilegious to this duchess. So he was trying to get a rise out of her, which I guess he succeeded in doing. And the last statue to go into the fire was the statue of James. And as he was shoving it into the stove, he said, now bend over, you must go into the stove no matter if you were the Pope or all the bishops, the room must be warm.

And with that he threw Jimmy into the fire. So that's the reference from Luther. Even though Luther referred to James as the straw epistle, he did actually accept it. It just bugged him that the papist used it to argue for the necessity of works in the process of salvation. Well so far in our study, we've seen nine examples of what practical Christian living looks like. If you remember from chapter one, we could say that a true believer in Christ has joy and trials. He's a doer of the word from chapter two. He's impartial towards others, and he lives a faith that has feet from chapter three. He has a tame tongue, and he practices on worldly wisdom.

That is wisdom from above. Chapter four, he's not controlled by worldly passions. He does not judge by worldly standards, and he does not operate outside the will of God. And then this evening in chapter five, believe it or not, he crammed five more tests or questions for us in the last chapter. And those five that we're gonna look at in kids on your kids' corner if you're trying to fill in the blanks. The first one is don't misuse wealth and power. Number two is patiently wait on the Lord. Number three is let your yes be yes. Four is pray effectually, and I'm sorry I'm going really fast here, and five, pursue the lost.

So don't misuse wealth and power, patiently wait on the Lord, let your yes be yes, pray effectually, pursue the lost. So let's go ahead and jump into the very first one then. Don't misuse wealth and power. The text is James chapter five, starting in verse one. "'Come now, you rich, weep and howl "'for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and our corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you have kept back by fraud, are crying out against you.

And the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you.

Would you say James is a little bit lit up there? This is the third time in his epistle that James has addressed the rich person. In chapter one, you recall, he called for the rich to humble themselves and remember that in the midst of their pursuits, they will suddenly fade away like the grass of the field. It reminds us of the parable that Jesus told about the rich man who decided that he needed the bigger barns. If you recall that story, the rich man was full of pride and he just thought that his empire was gonna go on forever. And in his foolishness, his foolishness lay in his belief that life was primarily about acquiring more and more stuff.

I was talking to Dave one time in the past and he reminded me again of it the other day that you were about age 36, I think. You weren't saved yet. You were talking to your dad, who was a fairly wealthy man at the time. And so you asked him. And you said, so is life basically, just get more stuff, bigger and better stuff, and then you die. And he said his dad just kind of didn't answer right away. And they walked on further. And then eventually his dad stopped and said, yep, that about sums up life. That was this man in the parable who wanted to build bigger barns, exactly that kind of sentiment. There is no indication that the man in the parable considered once where his wealth came from, or for what reason God had allowed him to acquire it.

But little did he know that his death was going to be that very night. And he would have to give an account for how he spent his life. How might he have ordered his life differently if he had realized how fragile and temporary life really is? And then in chapter 2, James again addresses the rich person. He actually refers to the rich people by telling the rest of us to not show partiality to the rich person simply because they're rich. He points out the absurdity of showing partiality to the rich since it was often them who were their oppressors and the ones who dragged them into court. Now being rich in of itself is not what James is confronting.

It's the pride and the self-reliance and the abusive behavior of others that often accompanies riches that James is speaking against. Being wealthy is a double-edged sword. The positives of being rich are pretty self-evident. But the big negative is the tendency to allow mammon to become an idol then that feeds our pride. John D. Rockefeller, famous quote for him. He was the founder of Standard Oil, one of the richest men who ever lived in modern times. Back in 1900s, like 1903, he was worth around $25 billion in today's dollars. And a reporter once asked him how much money was enough. and his answer was just a little bit more.

The temptations that come with wealth are strong. Jesus made the observation that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. And that really should cause a rich person then to stop and take pause and consider.

The rich that James calls out here apparently gained their wealth, at least partially by unrighteous means. Specifically he says these rich individuals had robbed their workers of their wages, and in some cases they had even resorted to falsely accusing these innocent people leading to their condemnation and even death. Withholding wages that are due was a direct violation of the law of God handed down through Moses. Leviticus 19.13 said, "'You shall not oppress your neighbors or rob him. "'The wages of a hired worker "'shall not remain with you all night until the morning.'" So these rich people were directly in violation of the law that Moses had headed down.

In Malachi 3.5, we kind of get right to the heart of God's feelings. He said, then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages. And do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts. Now, I want you to remember that phrase, Lord of hosts. We're going to come back to that in just a minute. Not paying your workers what it's owed is one thing, but then falsely accusing them of working the legal system unjustly to your advantage is even worse. An extreme example of that happening in the scriptures is in 1 Kings 21. You guys remember the story about Ahab and Naboth?

Naboth. Ahab was king at the time and he had a neighbor, Naboth. If you remember, Naboth had a vineyard right next door and the king wanted that vineyard for himself and he offered some money for him to buy it off of him outright. But to do so would have caused Naboth to have to relinquish his inheritance that had been given to him by God. And that was expressly forbidden. They were not allowed to just give up their land, their property. So he refused because he wanted to honor God. Well, Ahab, being the kind of character he was, he basically put on his pouty face and started moping all around the palace. And so when his wife Jezebel saw that, she said, I'll fix the problem for you.

And she went out and hired some worthless people who then falsely accused Naboth of cursing God and the king. Result was they had a trial and they found him guilty and he was stoned to death. And then Ahab was able to go and just take the property. This level of wickedness may be rarer today, but there are many times those who have more wealth take advantage of others. A modern day example would be those who might use a legal system, threatening legal action against those who can't afford to defend themselves in court. A very common strategy used by those who are richer than others today would be an example of the kind of abuse that the rich can foist upon the less rich.

James doesn't mince words in his rebuke to these evil rich persons. He tells them to the weep and howl. Why? Because the cry of those they defrauded has reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. The term Lord of hosts has a very special meaning. Other translations for this name are, for God, are Lord of Sabbath, Lord of armies, Lord Almighty. It's a name for God meant to signify his role as the Almighty One, the one who is supreme over all armies, The one whom you do not want to tick off is basically what he's saying. James is trying to invoke a sense of just how indignant God is over the injustice these rich people were committing. Throughout scripture we see how tender-hearted God is towards the poor and the oppressed. Nothing stirs his wrath quite the same as when these groups are being troubled unjustly. And then James reminds the rich that their wealth will be utterly useless in in defending themselves in the day of judgment.

In fact, their rotted, moth-eaten, and corroded possessions will be used as evidence against them. I mean, can you picture the scene? They're coming on trial before God, and the bailiff or whoever just brings in a pile of rotted stuff. Says, there's their evidence, their testimony for their life.

In the season when they should have been laying up treasures in heaven, they instead stored up treasures here on earth, and now that is all they have to bring to their defense. It'll be a sad day at the judgment when all the rich person has to show for their time on earth is a pile of spoiled junk.

That brings us then to the second example that James, he moves right on in and transitions into patiently wait on the Lord. The text, verse seven, be patient therefore brothers until the coming of the Lord, see how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth being patient about it until it receives the early and late rains. You also be patient, establish yourselves, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Establish your hearts for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged. Behold, the judge is standing at the door. As an example of suffering impatience, brothers, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.

Behold, we consider those blessed who remain steadfast. You have heard of the steadfastness of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful. So starting in verse seven, James transitions into his next point by saying, be patient therefore, brother. His use of therefore indicates that what he's about to say is related to what has just preceded. It seems that he might have in mind those believers who were actually experiencing the kinds of mistreatment he just finished rebuking the rich for. And so having just addressed them in their plight, He says, therefore, brothers, be patient.

Patience was considered one of the seven cardinal virtues by the early church fathers. They had actually identified a total of seven, what they called primary or cardinal virtues. So they, besides patience, they also identified purity, temperance, charity, diligence, kindness, and humility. They said those were kind of like the core virtues that a Christian should have. And then of course we know that patience is also one of the marks of the fruit of the spirit. And then along with those seven core virtues, the church fathers also identified opposing vices to each of those virtues. And in terms of patience, they then identified wrath or anger was the vice that was opposed to the virtue of patience.

Around 410 AD, there was a Christian governor named Aurelius Clemens Prudentius, I'm hoping I say his name right, and he wrote a popular poetical allegory titled Psychomachia, which roughly translated means battle of the soul. And it tells about the battle between the seven vices and the seven virtues going on in the soul of a person. It was a very popular allegory that he wrote back then. Here's just a couple of excerpts from the battle scene going on between patience and anger. Motionless, modest patience stands in the midst of the armies. Her grave eyes view the several violent encounters. The wounded men with entrails pierced by harsh javelins.

She lowers her eyes and stands quietly. Then from across the field, anger, swollen with rage and furiously frothing from her gaping mouth, rolls her bold eyes surcharged with bitterness, brandishes her spear and taunts patience for not casting in her lot with war." And then as you continue on in the poem, anger starts her assault against Patience. There's several skirmishes that go on. And then picking it up a little further, we read about Patience's response. It says, into the masses of the legions and the engaged armies, Patience breaks her way, advancing unscathed through the showers of weapons. Brave Patience is a friend of every virtue.

To each, she lends her strength. No other virtue leaps into the hazards of battle save that virtue be with her, for she is ineffectual whom patience does not strengthen. I really like that last line, for she, that is any other of those virtues, is ineffectual whom patience does not strengthen. When you think about it, you really can't have the other virtues that are listed without patience. James uses then other words in this section related to patience, such as steadfastness, waiting and suffering. Now, we all joke about praying for patients, right? The reason that's funny to us is because we don't really want reasons to be patient.

Patience is almost always hard to do. James addresses two typical wrong responses we have when things aren't happening as quick as we want. He talks about not becoming antsy or anxious and then not grumbling in those situations. Rather than being anxious, we're told to establish our heart because the coming of the Lord is at hand. I love that phrase, establish your heart, encourage yourself with the knowledge, the truth that the Lord is ready to come. Now James probably had the return of Christ in view, but we can extend that truth to include God's perfect timing regarding whatever we are waiting for. He is never oblivious to what's going on in our situation.

He is ready at the door to deal with the situation. The timing may not be ours, but he is aware he's there. I've mentioned to you before, one of my favorite verses, the eyes of the Lord are looking to and fro across the earth that he may strongly support those whose hearts are stayed on him. So establish your heart so that God can say, ah, there's a situation, I can strongly support that person. Being anxious, of course, isn't going to change a thing, but it will likely end up causing us to grumble against others or our situation. In either case, it is sin because we aren't trusting in God's purpose and timing. You know, Sean commented this morning how he sometimes hates the fact that he's a Calvinist because you have to accept the fact that everything that happens, including this stuff, we don't wanna be patient about, is in God's hands.

And so when we're anxious or when we're grumbling, we are making a statement against God's sovereignty and we have to acknowledge that and repent of it. James gives a couple of examples to consider regarding patients. First, he gives the illustration of the farmer. Now, we can all follow that example pretty easy. It would be pretty silly for a farmer to sow his seed and then come out the next morning and stomp his feet and be upset because there wasn't a bunch of corn stalks or whatever he planted. We would just say, well, you're crazy. But James gives us an example that the farmer has to be willing to wait until he sees the early and the late rains and induce season at the right time when God says now's the time God will interact and do what he's gonna do in the situation.

Now there's a difference I wanna point out between expectant waiting and impatient waiting. You know, the tap in the foot and come on, let's get with the program. That is not the kind of patience or waiting that we're supposed to be doing. We're supposed to have but that eager expectant waiting, knowing that God will do something at the right time. We should be expectant of God's provision and blessing, provided we have been laboring faithfully. Being impatient with God's timing is wrong because it elevates our wills above his. The second example James gives is the prophets of old who spoke God's word to an unbelieving generation.

In this example, the waiting even involved suffering. Now the Prophet Jeremiah is a really good example of this, of what he's talking about. The Prophet Jeremiah, from what I could figure out, had his ministry ran for about 31 years from about 626 BC to 595 BC. And in all of that time, how many people actually listened to Jeremiah and said, thank you for warning us. Big goose egg, nobody in 31 years. And in fact, all he got for 31 years was being ridiculed, rejected, and even at times thrown into prison. If Jeremiah had been impatient, he might have given up after just a few years of being ignored. But instead, he is remembered for his faithfulness to God's calling and then is considered today among the blessed.

James gives Job his third example of steadfast patience. Now Job certainly did not understand why God allowed him to suffer like he did. But even in his darkest hour, I love this, he still declared, though he slay me, yet I will trust in him. I mean, how is that a statement of patience and faith, trusting God? Now some might be tempted to think that God likes tormenting people by making them wait. James debunks that notion by pointing out that those who wait patiently on God's timing will be the recipients of his compassion and mercy. And over in 1 Peter 3.9, it makes the same point where it says, the Lord is not slow to fulfill his promises as some count slowness, but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Any way you slice it, impatience is ultimately an attempt to indict God for not yielding to our will. That's not a very smart thing to do, let alone godly thing to do. That brings us up then to James' third example, which I've titled Let Your Yes Be Yes, picking up in verse 12. But above all my brothers do not swear either by heaven or earth or any other oath. But let your yes be yes and your no be no so that you may not fall under condemnation.

This next example that James gives by way of what not to do, that is swearing an oath. So he gives us the negative, do not swear an oath. You can tell how serious this matter is to him when he says, but above all, if you forget everything else I say, above all, do not swear by an oath. Why? Why is he so solemn in warning against swearing an oath? What's so bad about it?

We have trouble understanding that prohibition today because the meaning of an oath in our culture is largely lost. Typically, normally when you swear an oath, You swear by something that you hold sacred or dear. Today, we just do it very cavalier and without really meaning it. I was trying to dig into more of the origin of the oath, at least in our culture. And I came across this explanation of what the meaning of an oath was. I got this on a website that's for public notaries. The people that sign your documents, or witness you signing documents. And what they say is that the oath is, invoking something sacred has two purposes.

It shows us that your statement is of the highest possible seriousness to you, and it carries the implication that if what you are about to say isn't completely true and said without most seriousness, then that sacred thing you have invoked will be disrespected, profaned, or even lost to you.

If that is what swearing on oath means, then it implies that you must have some degree of authority, control, or ownership over the thing that you're soaring by, otherwise it would be meaningless. It's meaningless and likely arrogant to swear by something you have no sway over. If I was to say, for example, I swear such and such by all the gold in Fort Knox, well, how much value are you going to place on my oath? What control do I have over the gold in Fort Knox? And if you're a conspiracy nut, you think there's no gold in Fort Knox. But really, you would say, come on, really, Jim? That's not much of an oath. You can't forfeit the golden fort Knox, you can't even access it, you've never seen it.

Since I don't control Fort Knox, my oath wouldn't carry any weight. James echoes the same prohibition against swearing found in Matthew 5, 33-37. Jesus himself kind of even makes it a little more clear what's going on. He says again, you have heard that it was said to those of old, you shall not swear falsely but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn. I say to you, do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it's the throne of God, not yours, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, not yours, or by Jerusalem, for it's the city of the great king, not yours. And do not take an oath by your head, because it's really not yours. You can't even make one hair white or black, or decide if it stays on your head or not. Let what you say simply be yes or no, anything more than this comes from evil.

It's wrong for a created being to swear by any of the creator's sacred possessions. Nor is it possible for those sacred possessions to be disrespected, profaned, or lost because of the failure to keep a vow. It's beyond our authority to swear by them. We are being presumptuous in that situation if we try and declare those things as the backup for our oath. The only thing we have control over in life is our yes or our no and even we don't have full control over those. That's still subject to the will of God. And so again, do not swear an oath by anything because it's all God's and we have no power over it. That brings us up to the fourth.

They're praying effectually, picking up in verse 13. Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praises. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. Elijah was a man of the nature like ours and he prayed fervently that it might not And for three years and six months, it did not rain on earth.

Then he prayed again and heaven gave rain and the earth bore its fruit." And we're out of time, so I'm not going to be able to continue on tonight. No, actually, we'll have to dive into this passage. And there's lots of opinions out there. It's not easy to try to interpret this particular passage. There's lots of opinions out there on what James is exactly saying. I've been a part of a church where in the past we would actually go out. People would call and say, would you come pray for us? we would take oil out, we would anoint them and pray for them. So trying our best to apply this, based on our understanding at that time.

Obviously in this passage the main problem arises in verse 14 and 15, the calling for elders praying over the sick person. Now I'll be honest, I haven't decided exactly where I land in the debate yet. I'm still kind of back and forth. So I'm going to present two possible interpretations and then I'm going to leave it to you as as a homework assignment for you to go study it and decide what you think it means. But I'm just gonna give you hopefully lots of food for thought. So before we get into exactly what I think it may mean, I want to start by making then some general observations in this passage, asking some questions, as Sean likes to say, beat it with the observation stick.

Then I wanna give some commentary on those observations and then offer, I think, two possible interpretations of verses 14 and 15. Regardless of what I'm about to say, I don't want us to lose sight of the main point, though, in this section. And that is that we as Christians should be effectual prayers. Can we at least agree with that? We should be striving to be effectual prayers. Now prayer is clearly the theme of the section. It's mentioned seven times and we see it practiced in four different ways. We see the suffering person praying for himself, the elders praying for a sick person, Believers praying for each other and an individual believer Elijah in this case praying for God's supernatural intervention in the weather Ask just about any Christian. How is your prayer life? And what's the typical response you're gonna get?

Could be better right? Yep Spurgeon color colorfully put it this way I know of no better thermometer to your spiritual temperature than this the measure of the intensity of your prayer Our prayers, if you think about it, typically increase when we encounter a need that we care about and is beyond our ability. You get the cancer diagnosis, the large bill you were not anticipating that's going to really hurt you financially. That's when we get on our knees and that's when we get really, that's when we understand what fervent prayer is all about, right? I think the reason we don't pray more is because there is too little that we care about, or there's too much we think we master.

There's too little that we care about, meaning we should care for more, or there's too much that we think we're in control of, too much that we think we're the master of and we don't need to pray about. And for those reasons, I think that's why we don't pray as much as we should. Some have taken this passage to indicate there are individuals who are gifted with greater power in their prayer. They see the instruction to call for the elders to pray as an indication that the elders have some unusual power in their prayer beyond that of the ordinary Christian. The book of Acts does tell us that the elders are specifically to devote themselves to teaching the word and to prayer, so there's some support for that notion that the elders, it's like, well, even if you don't have special power, it is at least your job, it's one of your top job descriptions.

But however, in the very next verse, James says to all believers, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed. So 14 and 15, call for the elders, they'll pray over you and you'll be healed. Next verse, you all pray for one another and you'll be healed.

In the example of Elijah, again, talking about this notion that some have special power in their prayer, in the example of Elijah, James described him as a man with a nature like us. I would have translated if they wore pants back in that day, I would have said Elijah was a man who put his pants on one leg at a time. It's the point that James is making. He wasn't an extraordinary person in the sense of special powers, just an ordinary man. James, I don't believe, is setting apart any group or individuals as super saints with extraordinary power in their prayer in this particular arguments here.

The only indications we have as to what makes prayer effectual is one's holiness or righteousness, verse 16, and their fervency or commitment to pray found in verse 17. But it does raise a question that personally I struggle with quite a bit when I think about my prayer life. And that is, why aren't more of our prayers answered in the affirmative? James seems to imply that the fervent prayer of a righteous man will be answered positively. And you can pile onto that, Jesus' own words, he said, if you have faith and do not doubt, you'll say to this mountain, be lifted up and thrown into the sea and it will happen. And he also said, whatever you ask in my name, this I will do. Those all sound like, kind of like, I mean, dare I say name it and claim it?

I mean, they sound like you just pray it and it's going to happen. Taken all together though, there seems to be three elements to effectual prayer. Personal holiness, fervency, and then praying in the Lord's name, which I take to be synonymous with praying according to his will. Now, obviously, we need to pray according to God's will. That sort of sounds biblical, right? And yet sometimes we can sort of use that as a cop-out. We can say, well, God didn't answer the prayers because it wasn't his will. Well, maybe it was because I was not pursuing holiness, or maybe because I wasn't fervent in my prayers. And so we shift responsibility for unanswered prayer back to God, well it's not his will, when perhaps we should be examining those other two ingredients in effectual prayer.

Personal holiness and fervency are things we can increase in through the working of the Holy Spirit in our lives. The Lord's will outside of the Bible is not something that we can always know. I mean, I'm personally praying for God to do something really supernatural in terms of our school. I mean, I'll be crazy and say it out loud. I've told some of you, I'm praying that God will actually drop $250 million in our laps so we can really do some awesome things with ECS. Now that sounds like an absolutely crazy, stupid prayer request, but you have not because you asked not. $250 million is not a problem for God, and so I said, okay God, I mean, first you can do is say no, so why not pray?

But so you pray that I'll be more holy and more effectual and that'll be God's will, right? Instead of that coming true.

I would hazard a guess, based on the testimony many Christians that our prayers are not as effectual as they could be either because we aren't pursuing holiness like we should or because we aren't praying with the kind of fervency James is talking about. So what about verses 14 and 15 telling a sick person to call for the elders to pray for him? How should we interpret them? At first glance it seems straightforward. If you are sick you call for the elders and they come and pray for you and they anoint you with Crisco or no olive oil probably and you are healed and if you've committed any sins they will be forgiven I mean a straight reading of that two verses seems pretty plain at the core of the discussion though on the interpretation here is the meaning of the word sick as it's translated in the ESV and several other Bible versions is James referring to a physically sick person or is he referring to somebody who is has a spiritual, who is spiritually sick, spiritually weak, or both. The word that

James uses for sick here is most often translated as weak in the New Testament. An example of the usage in that way we see in Romans 14.1 where Paul says, as for the one who is weak, sick, and faith, welcome him but not to quarrel over opinions. So later when you guys are disagreeing with what I'm saying here around these verses, remember not to quarrel over opinions. This interpretation could make sense in the broader context of James five. Maybe the person calling for the elders is one of those who's being abused by the rich and who failing to find peace through the patience that James calls for finds themselves spiritually beaten down, distraught, weak.

Perhaps this person having weakened faith because of the trials has actually entered into sin. Are these the sins that James is talking about when he says they will be forgiven? If you try to put those two verses in the context of the whole passage, it seems like it fits well. Now, if this is the proper interpretation, then what is the purpose of the anointing oil? What about verse 16, which right at following says, where we're told to pray for one another so that we will be healed? What kind of healing does James have in mind there in verse 16. It seems likely that if he has physical healing in mind in 14 and 15, he probably has physical healing in mind in 16, why would he jump ship or vice versa?

As an example of that word healing being referring to spiritual healing, we could look to Peter, 1 Peter 2.24, where Peter said, he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree that we might die to sin and live to righteousness by his wounds you have been healed. So far then, we don't have any inconsistencies with this one possible interpretation based on what we're saying. We don't have any problems with it referring to the spiritually sick or weak. That can fit the text here. But what about the oil? What is the purpose in these instructions? We know from scripture and other sources that oil had many uses within the Middle Eastern culture.

It was used in ceremonial anointings. It was used for cooking, for lighting. It was a symbol of blessing. And of course, it was used medicinally. It was a precious commodity in their culture. If the purpose of the elders visit was to pray over someone who was feeling defeated, then the anointing with oil could have simply been a kind gesture to practically show compassion for the weak person. It would have been viewed as what a kind, tender, compassionate thing to do is to bring your precious oil and to anoint me with it. And by we read the word anointing and we're thinking something spiritual, but it literally just means to rub on, to apply.

So it could have been just simply just a practical physical expression of care and concern. This would have been something akin to how a friend might massage our neck to help relieve stress. They see we're having a bad day and they come up and rub your neck. I was talking to my son about this just before we got here and he said, well, another possible view would be that maybe the oil was being used as a meaningful spiritual symbol in the eyes of the one who was sick. And they were saying, look, I am beaten, downtrodden, my faith has been weak, please come pray for me, and I want to renew my commitment to follow Christ.

And as a sign of that renewal, will you go through this little ceremony with me and anoint me with oil, just so I can have a physical expression of my desire to recommit myself to be strong in the faith. So another possible way of looking at it. Another argument in favor of these verses referring to the spiritually weak is that this fits well then with the specific job description of an elder. Hebrews 13, 17, you all know, obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will have to give an account. If the person calling for the elders is feeling defeated in their soul, then it makes sense for them to come and ask the elders, would you guys please come and pray for my soul since you're the ones that are responsible for watching over it.

But if on the other hand, the proper interpretation is that James does have physical healing in mind, then here's some other things to consider. Verses 14 and 15 would seem then to be disconnected from the rest of the thought that he's been developing in this chapter. It would seem like a standalone thought. So James becomes then, the chapter five of James is, is it better to look at it as sort of like, five random thoughts James stuck in there at the end of the book? Or was there some cohesive idea that he was developing in the whole chapter? If you take verses 14 and 15 to be referring to physically sick people calling for the elders, then it seems to suggest that he's got this list of random, semi-random thoughts that he's just kind of sticking together next to each other.

Other questions you have to ask if you take the, this is physical sickness. And by the way, good people disagree on this. Sean and I were talking about, and Sean still tends to lean towards physical sick. And I respect Sean a lot, so I, caveat is I could be dead wrong.

But if you do take physically sick, how sick do you need to be before you call for the elders? Are sniffles enough to warrant a call? What's the purpose of the oil in that case? We've already seen oil was used medicinally in their culture to treat a number of ailments and conditions, so it would be consistent to bring the oil again as a medicinal thing to try to again just soothe the sick person. It seems unlikely that the oil was meant to represent the presence of the Holy Spirit. Many often take that view, although there are some passages that's symbolically referred to the oil that way, so again, it's not crazy to think that, but I tend to shy away from that understanding of the use of oil.

What about the sins, James says, will be forgiven the sick person? Is this a visit by the elders of Tufur? Get physically healed and while you're at it, we'll go ahead and forgive all your sins. Are these sins in any way related to the person's physical illness? That's a question that we're often asked. Is this the person calling if they believe that there was some sin that brought on the physical illness? So is there a connection there? I mean, all he says is, call for the elders. They'll pray for you. And by the way, if he's committed any sins, they'll be forgiven. But if you're viewing it again as a spiritual weakness, and that person has in their weakness sinned, it does seem to make sense there that, OK, if in your spiritual state of being distraught, you blew it, you sinned, that sin will also be confessed.

Which seems more likely, James is saying, You will be healed of your physical illness, and if you have committed any kind of sin whatsoever, it will be healed, that's one possible view. Or is he saying you will be healed of your spiritual affliction, and if that affliction has led you to sin, any of those sins will be forgiven. Now you'll notice that I'm not giving any absolute answers to the questions. I'm raising, that I'm raising them with these interpretations. The first interpretation that I spent more time on to me seems to fit the context better, But that doesn't mean the second interpretation is wrong. And again, don't go to your commentaries and you'll find the biblical scholars disagree.

Well, time's running out, so I'm going to leave this discussion on these two verses hanging right there and leave it then to you to go ahead and investigate it further and see what you think about it, which way that's better interpreted. Remember what I said earlier, though, that the main point of this section is that Christians should be effectual prayers. Let's not lose sight of that point in the discussion about what does verse 14 and 15 mean. And so all of us, by working on personal holiness, by becoming more fervent in our prayers, and by seeking to pray in the will of the Lord, we can become more effectual prayers.

Then that brings us up to the fifth example that James gives, and that's pursue the lost. Verse 19, my brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings him back, that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. This section of James introduces its own set of interpretive challenges. Armenians love, not Armenians, but Armenians love this passage because it appears to challenge the doctrine of eternal security, which says that a person who has been saved can never lose their salvation.

To figure out what James is saying then, we're going to have to understand what he means by phrases like anyone among you and wanders from the truth, what does that mean? And brings back a sinner from his wandering, what does that mean? Does anyone among you, does that refer to saved people, unsaved people, both? It seems clear from the text that James considers the wanderer as an unbeliever. And I say that because he says the one who brings a wanderer back will save his soul from death. Well who of saved and unsaved, who's at risk of soul death? Unsaved, right? Saved people don't have to worry about soul death.

So I believe he's talking about the wanderer is a non-believer. The only people who experience soul death are unbelievers. But this doesn't answer the question if the wanderer was once saved. You could still say, they were saved and they left the faith and they wandered away. And then they brought them back, they got saved again.

Some would argue that the phrase anyone among you refers to those who are believing members of a body. The phrase does seem to suggest a level of intimacy between the wanderer and the rest of the believers. When you read that, anyone among you, it just sounds like, hey, they're one of us, they're a true believer. But there's other passages of scripture that we have to consider that make it, I believe, impossible for the wanderer in James' example to have once been saved and then left the faith. First John 2, 18 through 19, tells us, it says that if a person claims to be a believer and then later rejects the faith, they never were a believer.

John wrote, children, it is the last hour and you have heard that antichrist is coming. So now many antichrists have come. Therefore, we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us. If they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they are all not of us. And then a second reason to claim the wanderer was never saved, in James' example, I believe we can find in Hebrew six.

And follow this logic. So James is, if you're taking the Arminian view, James is saying the person got lost their salvation and they got resaved. Well Hebrews 6 tells us that if a person was saved and then rejects the faith, it's impossible for them to be resaved. Hebrews 6, 4-6, which has its own interpretive challenges but it says for it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift and have shared in the Holy Spirit and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come and then have fallen away to restore them again to repentance since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up in contempt.

It is impossible to renew them again back to the faith. So I tell my Armenian friends, if you believe that a person can lose their salvation, be consistent and at least agree they cannot be resaved based on what I'm reading in Hebrews 6 here. For those not familiar with this passage, the author in full context is not saying that a person can lose their salvation. He's not actually given a real example, but he's saying that if it was possible for somebody to lose their salvation, it would be impossible to be resaved since Christ would need to be re-crucified. One of the vital doctrines we teach here at TEC is the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. It's the P in tulip. By the way, nice shirts. Ginger, did you design You can get your two-lipped shirts out and back afterwards.

This doctrine teaches that once a person is chosen by God and is converted, it is impossible to become unconverted since it is God who calls us into saving faith and keeps us in the faith. Now, it could be asked why James singles out unbelievers who were hanging out with other believers. You know, he's saying specifically, go after those wanders, those who were among you and went out, pursue them, try to win them back. What about all the unbelievers? There's a whole bunch of other people outside of the ones among us. Doesn't the Great Commission call us to make disciples of all men? And clearly the answer is yes.

One possible reason why James might be focusing on that particular set of unbelievers was he, again, he was writing to Jewish people. He started off the letter to the 12 tribes dispersed abroad. Remember James was one of the, I think it was, wasn't it the first of the New Testament books? Written like 20, 30 years after Christ's time on earth. So we're talking real fresh time here. And still largely the gospel was still focused on the Jewish people. And what was going on is you had these Jewish groups were being dispersed around, and then they would have also assimilated in other Jewish people as well, who perhaps had not yet come to faith in Christ, would have been one big happy family.

So perhaps James is thinking of those situations where there's these Jewish populations made up of true believers in Christ and non-believers in Christ. And then as time went on, as they preached Christ more and more, and their understanding developed, then those unbelieving Jewish people perhaps then said, enough of this Jesus stuff, I'm outta here. And they wandered away. And perhaps that's who James has in mind when he says go pursue them, and then try to again persuade them to accept the Christ. Well, the only thing left to answer then is who James is referring to when he says, and the person that it says, and if you bring the wanderer back, it will cover a multitude of sins.

Whose sins are being covered? The only two choices are, is the one who brings the wanderer back, the one who leads him to Christ, or the one who wandered. Which of those two people groups is being described here. If we say James is referring to the one who goes out and does the evangelism and brings the wanderer back in, that would create a problem. In what way does our bringing someone to Christ cover a multitude of sins? Assuming covering, quote covering, sins equals forgiveness of sins, this would indicate that we in some way can earn forgiveness of sins. I go out and win some souls for Jesus and as a result as I get my sins forgiven.

That kind of puts me in a bit of a control of the forgiveness of my sins. But since we know that we can't earn forgiveness for our sins, the only reasonable choice as to whose sins are being covered is that wanderer. And then that's perfectly consistent with the rest of scriptures. First John 1.9, you know well, if we confess our sins, he's faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. So that ties beautifully into James.

So this brings us then to the end of our study of the epistle of James. We've actually covered now 14 examples of what Christian living looks like. I believe James is useful to us because it helps us examine our life in Christ. It's not an exhaustive list of what true Christian living looks like, but I think if we're doing well on these 14 points, we're probably doing pretty well in general. Undoubtedly, all of us could check the needs improvement box in several areas of these examples. None of these examples we should remind ourselves, can be done under our own power. This is James again, is not saying grab your bootstraps and pull real hard.

These are all manifestations of what a spirit-filled person looks like. If your life is not manifesting these examples, it's time to examine the quality of your faith, not the degree of your effort in the flesh to pull these things off. I personally like this epistle very much. It's the first book of the Bible that I've committed to memory. And I think, Luther aside, rather than throwing Jimmy into the fire, I think it's a useful field guide to pull out every now and then and to do a bit of self-examination and make sure that we truly are of the faith. Let's pray. Well, Father, as we come to the end of this shorty pistol, we give you thanks for it.

And while it was light on doctrine, it certainly was heavy on pointing the finger and saying, hey, you, are you truly a believer? gives us lots of things to consider in our lives. And may we take in that spirit, may we again use it not to, as the Roman Catholics have, to say we need to work our salvation not but rather we would use it to say, am I truly saved? Is the Holy Spirit alive within me at work, bringing about these effects in my life? And if not, that we would then not ignore it, but to truly examine if we are in fact are saved or not. Or if we need to repent, we would do that. Thank you for your word and for its efficiency and for how it shapes us.

Thank you for all your good gifts for this day we've had. As we go out this week, may you be pleased and honored and glorified in all we say and do. We ask in your Son in Jesus' name, amen.

There is a common human craving not only to satisfy ourselves, but to self-satisfy using religious reasons. Men are not only idolators, they are often idolators using God's name. We want our worldly cake and communion with the Lord, or, we want the cake for communion.

The Corinthians Christian had a lot of problems. Based on Paul’s first letter to them, they had more self-esteem than humility, more self-interest than discipline, more self-serving than sacrifice. What's more, they justified their petty divisions according to their favorite preachers, they justified their sexual immorality according to their "spirituality," and in some cases they justified their association with idols based on their belief in the one, true, sovereign God (see 1 Corinthians 8:1-6).

Since the beginning of chapter 8 Paul has been challenging them to apply not just their knowledge of God but also the love of God in their actions and interactions with fellow believers, especially the weak ones. Paul himself lived as an illustration on how to treat others as more important than one's own self-gratification (1 Corinthians 9:1-23). This is the way of the cross, and this is the Christian race. Run to win. Be self-controlled and disciplined lest you lose the prize and get kicked out of the race (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).

Many of the Corinthians apparently acted as if their shoes could never come untied. They thought they were above stumbling, let alone losing. They knew they had God's blessings, which is true, but they didn't realize that having God's blessings is a goad to run, not a guarantee of having won.

Paul continues his point from chapter 8 into chapter 10, and will return explicitly to the subject of food offered to idols throughout the chapter. He demonstrates from history that we must keep running. As God's people, we cannot allow ourselves to quit self-control, and we cannot allow ourselves to crave self-indulgence, especially in God's name.

Verses 1-13 belong together, but there is a lot to work through, so we'll take it in two sermons. For today we'll consider the Divine Blessings (verses 1-5) and the Dangerous Cravings (verses 6-10).

It is a new chapter, but the argument for running continues: For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers. Paul urged them to run with self-control and said that he himself was concerned about the possibility of being "disqualified" (9:27). Disqualification from, and so losing, the race is a real risk. The Corinthians seemed to think themselves above such a temptation, so Paul reminds them about the stories of some previous runners who didn't finish well.

In order to make the comparisons most relevant, Paul chooses from runners who were clearly blessed. He doesn't select losers, he selects God's select. He remembers five blessings of God's sovereign grace and shows how all of the Israelites knew them.

First, all the Israelites were protected: our fathers were all under the cloud. All of these blessings came to them during the Exodus from Egypt and during their time wandering in the wilderness. Paul calls these fathers because Gentiles are saved into the same root as the Jews (see Romans 11). Not everything is the same between Israel and the church, and yet both “belong to a single history of God’s activity and self-disclosure” (Thiselton). God’s people were all under the cloud meaning that all of them were lead by and covered by God's care.

Second, all the Israelites were delivered: and all passed through the sea. Not one of them was left behind in Egypt, not one of them was drowned in the Red Sea. Each and every one of them not only got to the other side. They all went through the miracle.

Third, all of the Israelites were unified: and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. This doesn't mean that they got wet, in Moses's name or with any kind of water. Both Moses and the sea indicate that they were separated from the peoples, figuratively by the law and physically by land. They were identified and unified as one people.

Fourth and fifth, all of the Israelites were provided for: and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. The food was mostly manna (see Exodus 16), though it could include the quail (Numbers 11), and the food is called spiritual not because it was immaterial but because it was supernatural. God provided it directly rather than through normal, mediated means.

As for the drink, that was also spiritual, specially given, and the rest of verse 4 explains, For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. The Old Testament describes a rock that Moses struck, once at the beginning of their wandering (Exodus 17:6) and again at the end (Numbers 20:8-11). Traditional Jewish interpretation took the rock as rolling around and following the people. But that isn't a necessary conclusion. The point is that God provided for His people for 40 years, food and drink, and it was from Christ.

All of the Israelites started out from Egypt, but the majority of the Israelites didn't finish. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.

This is quite an understatement, since only two men in an entire generation were not destroyed, the two spies who believed that Israel could take the Promised Land: Caleb and Joshua (Numbers 14:29-30). The rest were overthrown or "laid low," a reference to Moses’ prayer in Numbers 14:16, meaning that their bodies were strewn around the land. They died, and it was God who caused it.

The Corinthians may have thought that they had received great blessings, and they had, just as the Israelites had. The Corinthians may have though that they couldn't lose all those blessings, but most of the Israelites did.

In the next section Paul gives a general category and then four specific exhortations based on four comparisons with the Israelites.

Why bring in the Old Testament people of God? Because their history is a model for how people behave in a race. Now these things took place as examples for us. It's not actually that the events themselves didn't matter, but that as they happened in the past they "became types of us" or “types for our advantage.” The word translated examples is a plural form of the Greek word tupos, from which our English word "type" comes. It means “a kind, class, or thing that suggests a model or pattern,” even an “archetype” (BDAG). There is a category of interpretation that sees a lot of these "types" in the Old Testament that find fulfillment in the New Testament, i.e., David is a type of Christ; in David we see certain characteristics that prefigure Christ and that Christ Himself demonstrated in all dimensions.

In this case it doesn't work to say that Israel is a type of the church because the church does not fulfill the shadow. Paul intends the very opposite here: Israel did this, so don't do that, certainly not "Do this to the full." It’s not that Israel hopped around the track on one foot and we are exhorted to run with two feet. They were running in the wrong direction.

The purpose of remembering the examples is that we might not desire evil as they did. As if Paul said, "I'm going to tell you these stories so that you will not be lusters of evil just as those also lusted." The word desire is epithumia, a word describing a strong want, usually of something wrong, as here, but sometimes a good craving. When the Israelites craved meat (Numbers 11:4), it wasn’t merely “the monotony of the diet” but “yearning for the pleasures of Egypt” (ESVSB). God gave it to them and then a lot of them died, and the place as called “Graves of Craving” (Numbers 11:33-34) (Garland) or “graves of lust” (Calvin). We learn the dangers of craving from these temptation types.

There are four different lusts that Paul highlights, all of which typify the temptation types.

First: idolatry. Do not be idolators as some of them were; as it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play." This describes the golden calf debacle. This is also the only one of the four cravings that quotes an Old Testament verse, Exodus 32:6.

Do you remember the scene? Moses had been gone for a while on the mountain receiving the 10 Commandments from God. The people persuaded Aaron to make them a cow out of gold. They wanted this idol, not in order to name another god, but to have a physical manifestation of Yahweh. To them, their idolatry wasn't pagan, it was pious. They preferred their own ideas and comforts to what was true.

Note that eating and drinking and "playing" was part of this idolatry, and this is where Paul started back in chapter 8 regarding food offered to idols. Feasting was and is regularly connected to worship. Paul emphasizes the food part and the "playing" part, perhaps a euphemism for sexual immorality, rather than bowing the knee to the idol, because the Corinthians weren't having direct problems with idolatry but rather indirect problems. Exodus 32:19 adds that they were “dancing,” a word that means to dance in a ring, an emotional and sensual and cultic ritual, perhaps like the orgy of the Solidarity Circle in Brave New World.

This is one of the most notorious examples of apostasy and idolatry in the OT. Even after their deliverance from Egypt, and in the name of the LORD who delivered them, they turned away from the LORD.

Second, impurity. We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. This appears to reference the Israelites pursuit of Moabite women in Numbers 25, and this also was connected with idolatry. After they chose the forbidden women, they offered sacrifices to the false gods of the women and ate food related to the sacrifices. Idolatry can lead to immorality, and immorality can lead to idolatry. Lack of self-control can’t be controlled.

This was not just self-gratification, this was entitlement. The men believed that God owed them women, so they took them. The result was that over twenty-thousand were killed in judgment. Moses lists 24k and Paul 23K, perhaps both rounding just in opposite directions.

Sexual immorality was a problem among the Corinthians and Paul wrote about a variety of ways they got it wrong in 5:1-13 and 6:12-20. In their context of Aphrodite and Bacchus, they needed the warnings. Such idol cults

invited a “freedom” to dispense with moral restraint and to tolerate everything except any transcontextual truth claim which might interfere with an individual’s “right” to instant self-gratification. (Thiselton)

The culture promoted any indulgence as long as it wasn’t a restriction on indulgence.

Third: testing. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents. This craving relates to the grumbling, but is the particular temptation of impatience. In Numbers 21 the "people spoke out against God and against Moses" because they had to go around the land of Edom rather than through it. They were tired of walking. They thought, presumably, that it shouldn’t be so hard. God had delivered them out of Egypt, so why wasn't God delivering them out of further difficulties?

They said, "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food." (Numbers 21:5). Of course God had provided food and water, they just didn't like how hard it was. It was a religious complaint, so the "LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died" (verse 6). When the people realized what they had done, they confessed, and God told Moses to make a bronze serpent that allowed those who looked on it to live.

The fourth craving: grumbling. Nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by they Destroyer. This is one of my favorite Greek words: gogguzo, an onomatopoetic word, one that sounds like what it means, meaning "grumble." They made complaining, mumbling, and murmuring sounds when things happened that they didn't like. This is the opposite of thankfulness, and it only comes about by false expectations and self-pity.

“Presumption is the premature self-willed anticipation of what we hope from God; despair is the premature arbitrary anticipation of non-fulfillment.” J. Moltmann

God sent the angel of death, the Destroyer, not just over the Egyptians but among the Israelites who grumbled.

This is what happens when religious people get self-aware and then justify their disobedience as somehow for God or in light of what they think they know about God. These are the types of temptations that were common among the Corinthians. The sins of Israel were the sins of the church in Corinth. Staying qualified in the race takes discipline. Running to win is not so easy.

Verses 11-13 finish the section, which we'll look at next Lord's Day, and urge the believers to humility and caution rather than complacency.

Marathons can be brutal. Even for those in peak physical condition, if they run to win, they will finish exhausted. I've run three marathons in my life, though I only really trained for two, and I was spent by the end though I was running more than twice as slow as the winners. The race is grueling, grinding, as much a test for the mind as for the body.

Most people I talk to don't like to run at all, let alone long distances. Running certainly isn't the only exercise, but it’s one that doesn't require too much equipment or expertise. What it does require is discipline to get out of bed or off the couch, discipline to complete the mileage, and discipline before and after in rest and diet or else the run itself will feel miserable.

Paul knew about running, as in, actual, foot-racing contests. Whether he himself laced up his track sandals, athletic competition was popular in his day throughout the Roman Empire, and he used sports illustrations regularly in his writing, and presumably his preaching. He talked often of wrestling, boxing, and running. He commanded the Corinthian Christians: Run to win. It wasn't just a motivational poster, it was a call to focused and fervent effort for every believer, not just the Christian Professionals or All-Star Team.

Run, run until the finish, run to finish in first place. This running is imperative, not optional, and there are at least a few ways to lose. It is a lot easier to quit, it's even easier to sit in the stands and watch.

The final four verses in chapter 9 transition from Paul's exhortation to give up their rightful rights for the sake of others, to a reminder about Israel's failure of worship in the next chapter.

There are two parts in this first verse of the paragraph, the starting point and the command itself.

With his most used phrase in 1 Corinthians Paul begins with a shared assumption. Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? Of course they know this, or if they didn't, they should have.

To call this a race is fine, but the Greek word is stadio (σταδίῳ, referring to an arena or stadium. It's a race track with seating for spectators. There were four, well-known Games, with the Olympic Games being most popular and the Isthmian Games (on the Isthmus of Corinth in Greece) the second most popular (there were also the Pythian and Nemean games). Documents show that the Isthmian Games took place in AD 49 and 51 which would be around the time of Paul's writing. Documents also show that the city of Corinth sponsored and organized those games, including “the renovation of buildings and the provision of banquets” (Thiselton). Perhaps Paul even made tents for some of the athletes or attendees. The Corinthians knew about the games, even if they didn't attend them, like a modern day citizen of Seattle knows about the Seahawks even if he doesn’t know the difference between a tight end and loose end.

The starting point is not that there are races. The fact of runners running around a track is not what's important. The shared assumption is that in a race, only one receives the prize. Who knows how much longer it will continue, but even today, unless there is a tie, only one gold medal is given and one national anthem is played. Sno-cones and participation trophies are a modern invention for envious kids raised by parents suckled at the self-esteem bottle. There are lots of runners, only one winner. The winner goes and gets it.

We could be tempted to edit Paul, or at least be surprised by his exhortation. So run that you may obtain it. Or, "Run in such a way that you may win" (NASB). Go get first place. Run in order to take home the trophy.

Now that we're here, what does it mean to run? Paul hasn't used that language previous to verse 24, and in light of the comparison in verse 25 he does not mean that everyone should gird up their loins and join a track team. In context of his comments in verses 26 and 27 he also does not mean that running is the same as preaching, but something done alongside of preaching, at least in his application.

So, the command to run means to live as Christians in an active rather than passive way. It means to work rather than watch, it means to move rather than take it easy. It does include what we do in our bodies; this is no dualistic, all-in-your-heart command. But the spiritual pilgrimage can be likened to a race, and we are on the track not in the stands.

This running is not a spiritual gift for some; everyone runs. This running is not an occasion for socializing; it’s for winning.

There are two parts in this verse, as Paul points out the obvious in two ways.

Of course there are exceptions in real life, but when it comes to serious runners, they are all-in. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. Or, "all of the ones engaged in a contest control themselves in all things." Or, No pain, no gain. Or, pick your pain; discipline or losing.

Athlete is from the word agonizomai, one who struggles, one who fights. He "competes" (NASB), he's a competitor, not merely a participant; he's striving to win, to defeat someone else who's trying to defeat him. If you’re not into sports metaphors, fine, but “the popularity of the athletic metaphor as a tool in moral discourse flourishes in Epictetus, Seneca, Plutarch, and Marcus Aurelius” (Thiselton). It is also typical in the New Testament.

When you're in that sort of struggle you're looking for an advantage, and that always starts with oneself. The word translated self-control means "to keep one's emotions, impulses, or desires under control" (BAGD). And Paul emphasizes what kinds of things he has in mind: all things. Olympic athletes have always been known for ruthless discipline regarding nutrition, exercise, sleep, and even sex. Two of those, what you eat and who you sleep with, relate to the past few chapters of Paul's letter.

To win you must be chief of you, to be boss of you, to have and exert power over you. Socrates and Aristotle talked about the virtue of self-control. Restraints that stick for more than a moment, or a month, but that dictate choices. Food, feelings, conditioning and rest, and all things pointed toward readiness to run to win.

Paul doesn't back off of the analogy at all. Even though we are justified by faith alone, real faith runs. Self-control in all things in the Christian race is even more important, not less. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. On the one hand, world-class athletes devote their lives, or at least significant seasons of their lives, to get a wreath. This is a wreath for your head, not your door. It meant high status, either royalty or victory, and at the end of a race, it crowned the winner. Such crowns were typically made of pine, leaves, or celery, even “withered celery” (Garland). Such consuming personal sacrifices for sake of withering, perishable, vegan foliage on your brow is something.

What is more is an imperishable wreath, an indestructible crown, impervious to corruption. Christians have an even greater motivation to run to win. Paul doesn't go into all of the reward, but in some ways the fact that he doesn't go into detail means it is that much more obviously good. He already referred to heavenly rewards earlier in the letter. It takes faith to expect this reward. We see it in God's various promises in His Word, we do not see it displayed. But the crown comes to those who run to take it.

Paul moves from exhortation to an explanation of his own application. He uses the running analogy and then adds another analogy from a different sport. He ran for the finish line. He fought to hit the target.

So I do not run aimlessly. He has a goal. He was not uncertain about where he was running. This was not a meandering pleasure jog, it was focused pursuit.

[Christians] cannot amble nonchalantly around the track and expect some kind of trophy simply for participation. They are to run as if their life depended on it. It does. (Garland)

The second illustration is from boxing. I do not box as one beating the air. This could mean that he doesn't just shadow box, to spar with an imaginary opponent, or it could mean that he doesn't take a swing and miss.

He is intentional. Run for the finish line. Punch to knock the opponent out.

Not only was he intentional, he was intense. He wasn't playing, But I discipline by body and keep it under control. The original word for discipline is more colorful. It (ὑπωπιάζω) is defined as "to blacken an eye, to strike in the face." Paul is not beating up the air, he's beating up himself. I've heard preachers with a flair for KJV language say, "I buffet my body." (American Standard Version, late 1800s) His “opponent is his own body!” (Ciampa & Rosner). He “punishes” it (NRSV). Some are their own worst enemies; they beat themselves, they’re not beat by someone else.

The phrase keep it under control could be translated "I enslave," still referring to his body. This, therefore, is more than his theology, though he always paid attention to his teaching, too. But this refers to his appetites. It isn't separate from the food/meat he ate. It certainly connects to his life in the flesh. So, glorify God in your body (1 Corinthians 6:20).

In his case as one who proclaimed the gospel, he would be judged with greater strictness (see James 3:1). His fierce self-control wanted the prize, and there would be no prize if he was disqualified: lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified. He didn't want to fail the test, be removed from the competition.

There are three ways to run poorly in this paragraph.

This is not just for Christian preaching but for Christian practice. This is not only for Paul, apostles, and those who proclaim the gospel, though it certainly applies to them. This is for every believer, and it is far more than a motivational poster.

Thinking about quitting, or being tempted to quit, is natural according how difficult the race itself is and how weak we ourselves are. But this is not a sign that you are on the wrong track.

Sometimes it hurts, even just to take another step. Paul knew. He underplayed his running pains. And if you compare yourself with others, you’ll probably be able to find someone who has it worse. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t deplete you. But that doesn’t mean you can quit. It’s a gut check. Maybe you haven’t been running. Start running. Maybe you’re running and it feels like the people around you are just sitting and watching you ugly-run. Don’t collapse into a pity-puddle in the middle of the track. Cry out for grace, the finish line is close.

If we won’t run, we are in danger, both of discouraging our brothers, and potentially of losing our own reward. God’s people run. Israel started well, and then they started to “desire evil” (1 Corinthians 10:1-13).

It is a marathon, not a sprint. It is a fight that is a fight of faith. Stay the course. Exercise self-control in all things. Run to win.

I am not sure which is easier: to misuse our personal rights or to misuse the passage we're going to study this morning. Ironically, the way this passage (especially verse 22) is often used makes the opposite point of what the passage (in the context of chapter 9) means.

The theme of the these two paragraphs in 1 Corinthians 9, verses 15-18 and 19-23, are Paul's intent to do all that he did "for the sake of the gospel" (verse 23). He was concerned about doing anything that would "put an obstacle in the way of the gospel" (verse 12), and he was especially concerned with how taking money as a preacher could cause a hindrance to the hearers.

In the first part of the chapter (verses 1-14) he built a solid case that paying those who proclaim the gospel is right. Everyday occupations, temple occupations, and God's Word itself all point to this right. And it was a right that Paul refrained from using.

In the next section he clarifies that he's still not interested in getting material support from them. He explains why, in terms of his calling (verses 15-18) and his strategy to see others saved (verses 19-23). He is free, a point he made at the beginning of chapter 9, and because he is free he has even more opportunities to be a slave. This is a paradox, as is the glory of the cross.

Paul finishes his argument about renouncing payment and renouncing his preferences for the benefit of others, and all of it embodies his challenge to the Corinthians to give up their own position of strength for the benefit of others. This is his winning formula, a formula to win by all means, and it is not as cheesy or as easy as it sounds.

He already couldn't help himself from making the point (verse 12), but here he really transitions to his personal refrain. But I (for my part) have made no use of any of these rights. Even the "Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel" (verse 14), not in such a way that Paul was disobeying, but proving that it was the proper expectation. He had the right, and he renounced the right.

He hadn't changed his mind either. Nor am I writing these things to secure such provision. They could have taken his arguments in the first half of the chapter to be a set up, as if he said, "Paying preachers is right, as you know and as you have done, though not to me. Now it's well past time to pay up." Instead he explains his motivation for continuing to refuse their patronage. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting. Or the less smooth, more exact translation:

In fact, it would be better for me to die than—-no one will deprive me of my reason for boasting! (NET)

He doesn’t finish his thought. It's emotional, it's extreme. But what "ground of boasting" does he have in mind?

Verse 16 continues the chain of explanations (see the “for" v.15 "for" v.16 "for" v.16 again "for" v.17 and another in v.19). For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. We need more to fill out his meaning.

For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. (verses 16-17)

What is he talking about? He's talking about his calling to preach. He could preach or not preach (verse 16); he preached. He could either preach freely or under compulsion (verse 17); he preached without a choice. It wasn't his idea, he was following orders. Woe and trouble if he didn’t. The Lord interrupted Paul's personal mission to murder Christians and assigned him the mission to preach the cross of Christ by which God would make more Christians. Paul understood his call in a similar way to the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah didn't want to preach (Jeremiah 1:6-8), but the Lord promised to destroy Jeremiah if he didn't (Jeremiah 1:17). The Lord set apart Jeremiah before he was born (Jeremiah 1:5), and so had the Lord done with Paul (Galatians 1:15).

Paul, like Jeremiah, had no choice. His will, like that of any slave, was directed by the will of his Master. That's why Paul speaks of necessity...laid upon me, it's why he says woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! His decision to preach wasn't a special or heroic. He couldn't get out of it without danger to himself. God entrusted (him) with a stewardship. So he didn't see his preaching, and the possible provision that could come from preaching, as his reward.

What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel. This was the unique part. Here is what stands out. It was right for him to get his living by the gospel, but he present(ed) the gospel free of charge. This is what he saw as his reward, this was his ground for boasting (verses 15 and 16).

Paul cannot “freely” give his apostolic work (since to this he is pressed by God without choice), what is left to give “freely” is his toil and labor as a leather worker and salesman in the commercial agora. (Thiselton)

And this is the reason why he's using this example to begin with. Paying those in full-time gospel proclamation work isn't one of the Corinthians’s questions, nor was it a particular problem that had been reported to Paul. The right--which is a true, legit, biblical, lawful right--refrained from embodies the gospel itself and illustrates how Christians should behave. Chapter 9 appears to digress from the question of weak Christians in chapter 8 only to demonstrate even more how to treat weak Christians.

Not taking advantage of others, but putting himself into various positions to serve others, oriented all that Paul did. Renouncing material support from the Corinthians aligned with that strategy, but it was only one obvious example. Paul was free to do a lot of things, and how he used his freedom in the gospel was for the sake of the gospel.

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all. Both halves of this statement are startling, the second more surprising in light of the first. One of the most basic divisions in first-century society was that between free and slave. In Christ, Paul was free. This freedom is not only from God's wrath but also freedom from man's opinion. Paul was no man's property, no patron's tool. He answered to no one. And with this freedom he made (himself) a servant to all. Because he didn't have one earthly lord, he could give himself to all men.

He had a reason: that I might win more of them. To "gain" or win means to influence, to encourage, and even to save (see verse 22). He talks about winning five times in four verses. He knew that his service for "all" didn't guarantee that "all" would be won, but it was his goal.

Then he gives examples of three different categories of men. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. The category of "Jews" and "those under the law" is probably one, viewing the same group in terms of the nation and their religion. Of course, Paul really was a Jew, but what he means is that he paid attention to their particular cultural preferences. He did not do it in such a way that undermined the freedom of the gospel; the letter to the Galatians makes that clear. But even though he wasn't under the law in terms of how to please God, he lived (mostly) without offending the Jewish scruples.

He doesn't refer to the second group as Gentiles, but to those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. These are those who aren't Jews, so those who did not live under the Mosaic law. Though a Jew by heritage, Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles by calling (Romans 11:13). He did not bring his own kosher food to Greek dinner parties. But he also didn't live as a heathen, that is, apart from obedience. He didn't choose immorality to reach the immoral (i.e., a drunk to win drunks). He was under the law of Christ, a label only used only one other place (though a different Greek phrase here, ἔννομος Χριστοῦ, compared to that in Galatians 6:2, τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ) in reference to the regulating principle. As with the Jews, he wanted to win them.

There are a couple possible referents for the third group, and arguments for both sides, but really only one interpretive landing zone. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. Who are the weak? They could be those who are poor, lowly esteemed, not in positions of power, as the weak mentioned in chapter 1. But why mention the weak only? Why not also the foolish, the low and despised (1 Corinthians 1:27-28)? And why not also mention those of noble birth (1:26)?

Most important, why mention the weak here, in a context of giving up one's personal preferences, in the context of charging the Corinthians not to do anything/eat anything that would defile the consciences of the weak in chapter 8? The only reason against understanding the "weak" as the "weak in conscience" is that Paul also desires to win them, and the "them" in chapter 8 are already believers.

But this is why it's so important. The defiling of a weaker brother's conscience is a destruction. Sacrificing a right for sake of a brother does what? It is the opposite of destruction. It is edification, building. Isn't this a type of winning, or at least a comparable application of winning?

Paul's summary is in verse 22, and also one of the most abused verses in the history of church outreach. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. The emphasis is on all...all...all, and another all in verse 23. In context it declares Paul's willingness more than his creativity. In other words, he will give up his personal preferences for sake of a platform. He chose things contrary to his likes.

He did not tone down his assault on idolatry to avoid offending idolaters or to curry favor with them. His accommodation has nothing to do with watering down the gospel message, soft-pedaling its ethical demands, or compromising its absolute monotheism. Paul never modified the message of Christ crucified to make it less of a scandal to Jews or less foolish to Greeks. (Garland)

He does not say that he became strong to the strong. He’s not just trying to win “winners.”

This is not how the verse is typically used today. Many in the church today take it in an evangelism entrepreneurial spirit. Do you like to play video games? Go play video games to save the gamers. Do you like to ride skateboards? Go down to the skate park to save the boarders. Let's start a church basketball/soccer/softball league to win the athletes. It is almost always a defense of a Christian's interest being used to reach non-Christians who have a similar interest. It is also almost always a defense of reaching the Cool. There are not nursing home ministries coming from being “all things to all people.”

But that doesn't mean that there is no application for us than criticism of many outreach plans. At least some are doing something for Jesus, even if the something might be shallow. Paul's point is that what we give up for sake of others can be quite strategic, and we should use our freedom like this.

Being free to win by all means is not a motivational speech for life, though it is motivational strategy for Christlike service. Being free the way Paul understands it usually means more suffering. This is not being two-faced, duplicitous, but living in light of the word of the cross.

I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. Sadly, the word blessings isn't in the Greek text. The ESV tries to make sense of the comment. Paul wants a share, but a share of what? Is he sharing in the work of the gospel or the fruit of the gospel? "Blessings" points toward the fruit.

“A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to everyone.” (Martin Luther, Concerning Christian Liberty)

Christian, you are free. How will you use your freedom? What are the ways you could serve by giving up a preference, rather than maximizing your preference? Will you lose (esteem, position) to win, or are you wanting to win (esteem, position) to win?

If a man wanted to prove his strength, he might set up an opportunity for everyone to watch. Let’s say that he decides to knock over a wall in front of others. He could construct a wall made out of Lego bricks, but of course this wouldn't really prove his strength at all, though it would perhaps say something about his sense of theatrics (or lack thereof). A serious man would build a tall, thick wall of concrete blocks. To knock that wall down, everyone agrees, would be a strong man's work.

1 Corinthians 9 is sort of like the wall. Paul builds up a case only to knock it down. The analogy breaks down somewhat, since there is a sense in which the wall in chapter 9 stands on its own. The principles that Paul uses to prove the rightness of providing for those who proclaim the gospel do not actually get torn down. But he gets them to agree that providing is right, clearly right, lawfully right, and only then does he show that he refrains from using this right.

It's an illustration of refraining, really renouncing the use of a right for sake of something else. This is exactly the call for all Christians in chapter 8, and Paul finished that chapter by claiming that he would never eat meat again if it caused a weaker brother's conscience to be destroyed. The key verse in this section is verse 14: "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." Paul argues with his own life that he is living by the gospel by not taking their money though he had every right to do so.

He uses over seventeen rhetorical questions in the first fourteen verses of chapter 9 (as translated in the ESV). The questions have obvious answers, some Yes and others No, and they pull the Corinthians in to realize something they may not have connected before. Paul wasn't taking their money. He shows them that of course it was right for him to do so, but that he wasn't asking them to give up something (meat in chapter 8) that he wasn't willing to do himself (money in chapter 9).

The chapter break is fine, but remember that this immediately follows his vow not to offend a brother (8:13). But surely, as an apostle, he had the freedom to eat, right?

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? These all expect positive answers. Yes he is free, yes he is an apostle, yes he saw Jesus. The freedom that he's speaking of goes beyond Christian freedom, it includes his authority as one called directly by the Lord Himself. In Paul's case he was called by the risen Lord on the road to Damascus.

His apostolic credentials are in order, and their existence as a church proved God's use of Paul. Are you not my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. They were his workmanship, the result of his labor. So also they were a seal, official documentation. This isn’t an Arminian proof text about man’s abilities, it's proof that God's sovereign ministry has personal means. So they knew that he was an apostle, even if other churches didn't because he was the human reason they existed as a church at all.

How would he use his freedom? And why?

Having made a general case for his freedom to eat whatever he wanted, now he makes a more particular case for his right to be supported financially by them. The key word is "right," used in verse 4, verse 5, verse 6, and again in verse 12. There are even more rhetorical questions, and more arguments that build his case.

Some translations take verse 3 as referring to his apostolic freedom, but he needs no defense of it. The questions in verses 1 and 2 depend on their agreement. His defense is what follows. This is my defense to those who would examine me, an examination of his income, his W-2, so to speak.

More questions. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Again, this isn’t just as Christians, but as apostles while doing their work. Speaking of apostles, Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? The expected answer is, Yes. The phrase believing wife is actually "sister wife," highlighting the double relationship in a marriage between Christians (husband/wife are also still brother/sister). Some of the apostles traveled with their Christian spouse and their wife also lived off the support of the believers (Cephas, that is, Peter, is mentioned because the Corinthians were familiar with him and he clearly had a mother-in-law, Matthew 8:14). The only other one who Paul knew paid his own way was Barnabas. Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? This is the contrast with verse 14 and "living by the gospel," being supported by those who hear the gospel.

Verse 7 has three illustrative inquiries, one from the army and two from agriculture. Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? The military provides food and clothes, the soldier doesn't have to pay his own way or bring his own supplies and sword. Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Of course the vinedresser would enjoy some of his own labor. Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? Got milk? Only Socialists could come up with a way to keep a shepherd from drinking his own dairy. All of these everyday situations make the same, obvious point that only junior high boys would argue with for fun.

The right to remuneration isn't a natural law only, it is God's written law. Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? Is this merely a manmade, social construct? No. The Old Testament also teaches it. But where?

For it is written in the Law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain." A couple things about this quote of Deuteronomy 25:4: it is in the Bible, and it could be related, but it seems to be for animals, not apostles.

Is it for oxen that God is concerned? The law itself is and isn't for oxen; as Luther observed, “Oxen cannot read.” So it is for humans at least in how to think about their tools.

But it's more than that. Does he not certainly speak for our sake? Okay, Paul, so in what way? This isn't merely an illustration, it's not an allegory, it is the God-given principle behind the law. The law about how to treat oxen while they’re working covers one instance, like there are many colors of baby blankets to use but the point is: keep the baby warm. And the point of the law is: let the worker enjoy some of the outcome of his work.

It was written for our sake, because, the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. Disinterested work, without regard for pay, without hope, is dumb work (including ministry work). Everyone in the production chain gets benefit.

If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? Paul argues from the greater to the lesser. The spiritual seeds of the gospel produce eternal life, peace with God, clean consciences, and joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory. Is it too much for the recipients of spiritual things to share some of their material things? Of course not. This isn't an argument for dualism, just for distinction. Spiritual, invisible, intangible things are of one kind, and the physical, visible things are of another.

Besides, the Corinthians already paid some of their preachers. If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Maybe Apollos (1 Corinthians 3:5)? It's right by nature, right by law, and a right known already in the church. And as Paul pointed out at the beginning of the chapter, they knew his apostolic work as much as anyone. In an earlier chapter he stated that he planted the church. If anyone deserved financial support it was himself.

Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right. He didn't take any of their stuff. The ESV starts a new paragraph in the middle of verse 12, and nevertheless is a transition word. But verse 15 is when he really starts to talk about renouncing his rights; this is a temporary quick point, so not worthy of it's own paragraph.

It wasn't because it wasn't right, it was because he had another right in mind: we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Any number of things could put an obstacle in the way, like a stumbling block to the weaker brother in chapter 8. Here the hindrance would be to the gospel. In the set up in Corinth, giving money to a man might make it hard to hear his message as anything other than manipulation to get more money. This doesn't have to be the case, but Paul's take was that it would cause them to pay more attention to him than to the gospel.

Was it more tricky for a traveling minister/apostle or a stay-put preacher? Which was more likely to have credibility issues? Those who could con and get out, or those who could be bought?

He would gladly give up his right for sake of someone else, and this is exactly what he called them to do in chapter 8. This is exactly what Christ Himself did at he cross. Paul was living the gospel.

There is one more proof that Paul uses to build his wall before knocking it down in verses 15-23. Not only is it natural and lawful in ordinary (agricultural) occupations, it is lawful in ministerial occupations as well. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? This illustration probably comes from the Jewish temple rather than pagan temples (see for example Leviticus 6:9-11). There were pagan temples in context, and obviously in Corinth, but Paul wouldn't use those as argument for apostolic support. He also wouldn't be able to connect that observation with the Lord's teaching.

In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. There are no more sacrificial offerings since Christ finished His “once for all” (Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27). But dedicated work still continues, in the same way, though now it looks like those who proclaim the gospel. That is also full-time work for some. It is right, then, for apostles, evangelists, pastors, to get their living by the gospel. We use the same vocabulary; it means to earn support for the bills of life. There are those who are "working for a living" (verse 6), and some who do a different kind of work "for sake of the gospel" (verse 23).

The Lord commanded, found for us in Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7.

It is normal and good to reap material benefits from those who receive spiritual benefits.

These are good things to consider for a few reasons. As those who receive spiritual benefits, you should know about the relationship between preachers and money. 1 Corinthians 9 obviously doesn't say anything about the structure of support, salary and 401ks and such, but it does say that getting a living by the gospel is right.

Maybe the only thing more awkward to talk about (at least in the church) than sex is money, especially what pastors get paid. Some preachers seem as if all they can talk about is money, other preachers would rather have all their teeth hammered out with a crowbar than talk about money. But soldiers, farmers, shepherds, plowers, threshers, and priests, reading the Old Testament, obeying Jesus, all know.

The pastors who are supported among us are well supported. We have no need or wish that our church would "get" the point. You already do.

The biggest reason why this passage is important is because it is part of Paul's bigger argument about giving up our rights for serving others. (Possibly more preachers today should give up money on purpose.) The right of preachers to be paid is unquestionable, and so when Paul goes out of his way not use that right he is making another statement to the believers about their own choices in light of the cross. There is powerful rhetoric in living out the gospel of “self-denying love” (Lenski), and more on that in the rest of chapter 9.

Automated transcript of the sermon audio, generated with OpenAI Whisper (small.en). It has not been checked against the recording and may contain errors, especially in names and Scripture references.

All right, we might be able to fit you all in my bedroom, but maybe not quite. For those of you in the audience, and there's quite a few of you who have been there, this is the book that started it. First John was the book that the guy that I hired told me to read in the Bible, because I told him I was a Christian with several not Christian words. And I thought I was saved. I was the young Baptist kid who got baptized at nine and then lived like hell till I was 37. And I hired this guy and he told me, are you interested in studying the Bible? And I said, oh yeah. And I went around, I told stories in the previous sermons.

But he said to read First John. And I thought it was interesting how I did get saved reading this book in chapter two when it said, If you are doing these things, you're not one of his. And I realized no way was I doing those things. So that convicted me. I got on my knees. I repented. And things haven't been the same since. That was when I was 37. I'm now 72. And it's been quite a wild ride. I got saved in February and started taking seminary classes in August, I mean February, and then got taking seminary classes in August. And first year Greek was my first challenge. I didn't know English grammar. I got the little pamphlet they give out in seminary to learn all the parts of speech.

But first John is where they pound at home in first year Greek, because it's very elemental Greek and it's written in the present tense, most of the words. So it's present active indicative. those Latin students probably know that. It means it's ongoing action that has consequences for you. And that's where people get screwed up, you know. He who does not sin, and the expression is ongoing sin. We're all sinners. And he clarifies that in the book, you know. You who say you have no sin, you're a liar, right? So we're finally to the final chapter of it. And I want to read it, and it's going to be short and simple.

It's so direct. And I have one little rabbit trail about textual criticism that some of you that are students will, you can go down those rabbit trails and see how we got our translation. And I think it's very beneficial to do that, because it gives you great confidence in your English translation to study that. Now most of you young people out here are going to ECS and you're reading all kinds of ancient literature and when you start realizing how many textual references you have to Herodotus or the Caesars or any of that stuff, it's like minuscule compared to the Bible. And so we have great confidence this is very, very close to what was written by the apostles, probably 99%.

and you can study all these things and we'll get into a sideline discussion. First though, I'd like to pray that we that are here would understand it in that simple way and I would pray that people would read it. I think it was really interesting when this guy recommended that I read this after I understood where it was, I had to get him to tell me where it was in the Bible. You know, it's page 778, reading the index there And I had people telling me, oh, you shouldn't start there. You should start in the Gospel of John and everything. This book is so straightforward, you can't read it and hide from what he's trying to tell you, even though the same author did the epistles, or the epistle of John, or not the epistle.

So it's just straight up Christian living by an older man. He's probably in his 90s when he wrote this to people of how to live and how to deal with all the stuff that comes at you. So let's pray and we'll get started. Father, we thank you for your word. I thank you especially for this chapter. It did convict me. I ask that through the simplicity of your writer of this epistle, John, that that would come through to everybody. the, I think the wisdom of an old man who had been through all kinds of stuff, realized it had to be straight told so that nobody would misunderstand or get sidelined into all kinds of different tracks that is just straight up who you are and that you want us to worship you.

So we thank you for that. We thank you for this simple letter to us and help me now explain it in the right way. Amen. Okay, so first thing I want to do is read the text of the fifth chapter. It's a big, what is it, 20, 21 verses long. Everybody can read that, right? Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of Him. By this we know that we love the children of God. When we love God and obey His commandments, for this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments, and His commandments are not burdensome. For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world, and this is the victory that has overcome the world, our faith.

Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by the water only, but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood. And these three agree. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater. For this is the testimony of God, that he is born concerning his son. Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe in God has made him a liar, because he is not believed in the testimony that God has born concerning his son. And this is the testimony that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his son. Whoever Whoever has the Son has life.

Whoever does not have the Son of God does not have the life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. And this is the confidence that we have toward Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the request that we have asked of him. If anyone sees his brother committing a sin, not leading to death, he shall ask and God will give him life to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I do not say that one should pray for that.

wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death. We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him. We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God in eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols." All right, pretty simple, pretty basic out there. Maybe the only confusing part is the sin not leading to death.

We'll get into that when we get there. Everything else is pretty straight up, okay? So in the first verse, he said, everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. Interesting father, and as we're here on Father's Day, he is our father. He comes down to us in that way and models what we who want to be fathers, we men and young men that want to grow up to be fathers, he models how we should behave towards our children. So, we are born of him, and we're adopted sons of God. So in every way, we are part of him. And so everyone who believes Jesus is the Christ has been born of God and adopted into his family, and whoever loves the Father, whoever has been born of him.

So it like circles back around to tell you if you believe you're one of his, just straight up. By this we know that we love the children of God. When we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments and his commandments are not burdensome.

So if we're the children of God, We love God and obey what he wants us to do. Do we obey perfectly? No, but we strive to do that. And if we strive to do that, we love one another. We treat each other as they would, or as we would have them treat us, we live out the golden rule, and things are great. And it really is amazing to me how simply, day by day, you can see that lived out when you live in a Christian community. because somebody screws up, I'm sorry, will you forgive me for that? Then we move on to the next thing. And we get through another couple hours and then maybe you gotta ask somebody else to forgive you.

But then you get better at it. And pretty soon you're starting to live in a harmonious stream that goes along. And I think it's really interesting that in the school, I know you guys can feel this, when you're all in the spirit and tracking along, It's a, there's a great momentum that happens. And to be part of that is exciting. And that's all part of living out the Christian faith. I think we demonstrate it in our services, I've talked about this a lot, that in our morning worship, our liturgy conforms us to that image. And if you were a true believer and you're here, you confess your sin and then you hear the message and then you get the charge and we have communion.

There's something that's happening there that's supernatural and causing us to become stronger and stronger every week, every year. So that's the commandments are not burdensome. So you obey the commandments, they're not burdensome versus the Old Testament law. Those of you that have read your Old Testament readings as you read through the Bible, there's a lot of them in there. And can you imagine trying to live as a pious Jew in the Old Testament era and keeping track of all that stuff. And all that was a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ to realize there's no way they could keep the law. They needed the ultimate sacrifice to bring them out of that.

And then when Christ comes, He tells us His yoke is light in Matthew 11.30. So His commandments are a light And why are they light? Because if you're walking in the Spirit, God is doing them through you. You're really not doing them. The Christian life is a supernatural life. If you're doing it right, it's God working through you, not you grinding it out, not you trying super hard. God uses you in all kinds of bizarre ways to make it happen.

So we don't have to worry about the commandments being heavy on us. For everyone who has been born of God and overcomes the world, and this is the victory that he has overcome the world, our faith, whoa, our faith in what Christ has done has overcome the world. There are days and times in your life when you don't think so because the world is beating you down, but the story is not over, just keeping the game because the end result is we overcome, okay? Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

Okay, this is one of those points where you get to do the Nike shoe thing. Overcome is Nikka Ka'o, and the conqueror overcoming, win the verdict, is the definitions and Greek dictionaries of it. So, you are the overcomer. You are the conqueror of these things. But the only reason you overcome the world is why? Your faith. The overcome the world through our faith and the one that overcomes the world Except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. So only through your faith do you overcome that? So in your faith you walk by the Spirit and you get stronger every time you get up to that Then verse seven comes along, for these are three that testify, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree.

So there is a testimony from God himself of what Christ has done to witness to us what he did. The spirit testifies with our spirit, the water it is baptism, and the blood it is crucifixion. And all of these things agree. And the spirit was instrumental in all those parts. Remember, it is baptism and is crucifixion, all these things, and we, by having the spirit, are able to recognize that witness.

Now we come to the interesting part. I don't know how many of you have King James Bibles or have gotten into the King James only debates and all of that kind of stuff, but there's a famous textual problem that happens here in 1 John 5, 7, and 8. So in the King James Version, instead of saying, for there are three that testify, it says this, for there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.

Well, there's a slam dunk for the Trinity, isn't it? That verse alone, if that were in the Bible, For there are three, the bare record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. Now, can you extrapolate that from verse seven and eight that I read before, the spirit and the water and blood, and these three all agree? So if you're looking at your ESV, I believe you can make a case that those things are in there also. But if you have a King James version, there you have it spelled out so nobody could argue with it. Then in 1 John 5, 8 in the King James Version it said, and there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit and the water and the blood and these three agree in one.

So it's kind of a muddled, shuffled together version of the seven and eight that are in your ESV. Now the problem with this is, and this is known as the comma, Johenium, it's probably pronouncing that wrong, Johenium, made its way into the third edition of Erasmus Greek, Greek New Testament in 1522. So Erasmus came out with a previous edition that didn't have that. Then he got criticized by the Catholic Church and in 1522 he came out with an edition that had that verse in it because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared in 1516, There arose such a furor over the absence of the comma, those two verses that I just read out of King James, over the absence, that Erasmus needed to defend himself.

He argued that he did not put it in the comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. So he was trying to be faithful to the information that he had in the 1500s of the few Greek manuscripts he could get his hands on. Now he did other damage to the manuscripts in Revelation and things where he added things, but he was trying to be as faithful as he could to older documents to bring forth a true translation of the word of God. Remember in the 1500s, the only thing that most people knew was the Vulgate, which was a Latin translation of Greek manuscripts from the 400s. So he's really a thousand years after that and he's trying to bring it back to the original autograph.

Now, he argued that he did not put it in because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Then there was one manuscript that was produced, Kodak 61. Now when I say Kodak 61, if you can get a Greek New Testament, a USB, or one of those little red ones, and the Nestle's has the most textual criticism, you open it up and there'll be little verses at the top that are what they consider should be in the And then there's the rest of the page is all these references, you know, Codex this, Codex that, this, and all these letters and all this stuff. And what it's saying is this manuscript has that, that manuscript has this, all these kind of things.

The problem with Codex 61 was that it was written by one Roy or F-O-R-Y. Okay, they're not sure how to interpret the writing of this guy. He produced this manuscript, this Greek manuscript in 1520. So they're looking at a manuscript that was produced two years before Erasmus put it in. And Erasmus is being pressured by the Catholic Church to put it in, to get that Trinitarian reference put in there because it was in the Latin Volga. So he put it in because he realized that if he didn't put it in, you know, things weren't good for people that challenge people in the 1500s of Catholic Church. So he put it in. So what I'm trying to say is that verse should not be in your Bible, but the thing is when you study why it's in the Bible, it's kind of a jump into the whole realm of textual criticism. Now think about this, if we have 5,000 manuscripts, more than that actually of the New Testament, and you You start putting them all together and putting them in columns and matching them up and everything.

You find out that like 98% of the Bible is in these manuscripts. It just lines up perfectly. And then there's like the rest of it are these crazy little, maybe a guy got a letter wrong when he was spelling it. And remember, there was no printing press, no copy machines. Everybody was handwriting this stuff out. So if I misspell a word, if I get two letters wrong, that's a copyist error. So that goes in the error column. And out of all these 5,200-some manuscripts, it's like 98% spot on, and the rest of them are like spelling errors or words get combined or there's a famous one called Homo Itelieton, which means the copyist was looking at the end of the line.

He goes back here to copy the thing and he gets messed up because he's looking at the end of the line and he recopies it. Well, now it's obvious he made a copy error, but it's still an error. So that goes in that 2% error rate. So you can have great confidence that when you look at these things, the majority of it absolutely agrees. And when it comes to doctrine, anything that's a doctrinal distinction, it goes out to like .1 or something. I mean, it's ridiculous. And like I said, if you just read verse 7 even in your ESV, you can see that the Spirit, the Father, the Son, all these things are mentioned over and over again in these chapters and you come up with the Trinity.

But it is an interesting sideline because you'll hear people, if you have some Baptist friends that are in fundamental churches that are King James only if you haven't heard that debate, they say that the King James only is the Bible we should read because It's the only one that God superintended throughout history to make it absolutely correct. Now keep in mind, the King James Bible was a translation of Greek manuscripts that were available to people in the 15 and 1400s, and then it was brought forward to us. Then we start discovering other things and other manuscripts and start putting them together when we realize, oh, there's a little problem here that looks this way and that way.

And there's all these rules that conform to the more difficult translation is probably the one to choose because that would be harder to copy, so that's where most errors go. There's all kinds of little crazy rules. And I recommend that if you want to get into this, get online, type in textual criticism, and you'll start down the rabbit trail. But it's really fascinating because when you study it yourself, it will confirm what you have in your hands. It will make you very confident of what we have, not the vice versa. I've heard people say, never bring this up with people because it confuses them. No, bring it up with them and make them understand what we've got. I hope that everybody understands this English big book you got with this black cover is really not the Bible, okay?

Okay, it is a Bible, it's a translation of the Bible. We don't have the original autographs. So we're attempting to put together as close as we can to what we believe the original autographs can have. And when you start studying this, you find things like the Old Testament. We have a Masoretic text from the 1200s. Was copied by Jewish scribes that if they made one mistake on one page, they tore the whole thing up and recopied it. So then they discovered these caves in Qumran, and they start unrolling these scrolls, and they find out that in Isaiah, it's letter perfect, coming from like 90 AD, all the way to the 1200s, in the Hebrew text, which has just more words than you can imagine.

I mean, the size of the Old Testament versus the New Testament, that's a lot of words. And in these particular passages that they discovered, It was almost totally correct. So the copyist errors are hardly anything in the Old Testament when you have the scribes and people that were copying it exactly. The Greek New Testament is harder because you pass it on to all these people and Bob and Ephesus gets one and he goes, oh man, Paul just gave us this letter and he's scribbling it all down. Pass this off, take it off to the next village. So now he's made a manuscript copying it. So there could be more errors because he's not under the discipline that the Masereites were under.

So as you go along in this, you find out that there's slight errors, but it could be this copy, that copy, that kind of thing. But it's fascinating study. Now, back to our text. It doesn't really matter that that's not in there. It doesn't cause us great harm or anything like that. Because the ones that we can agree are in there, And godless people would agree with this textual apparatus kind of. Textual criticism is called lower criticism. And that's what they do with any manuscript you have, like Beowulf. I don't know how many copies of Beowulf are out there to study. But they want to arrive at how many words in Beowulf.

They use the same rules that you use with the Bible. Which one is older? Which one do I think was copied from that one? That kind of thing. Another little rabbit trail that I like to get down here is, I'll try to describe this. So I'm living in Jerusalem, and Paul sends me a letter from Ephesus, and it's the Ephesians. And I copy it down, and I'm a Jewish scribe, and I'm really, I know, this is, you know, he's witnessed by God, and he's got the spirit in him, so I wanna be super careful. So I copy this thing down, and I'm really good at it. I maybe miss one letter out of the whole letter of the Ephesians. Now, he also sends a letter over to Jim, who's down in Alexandria.

So Jim gets his letter, he goes, oh yeah, man. Now Jim is really super fast, but Jim might make 10 mistakes. So he's copying all this stuff, and he's just sending, you know, take this over down south of Egypt and go over here in Arabia and distribute this one and here, take that one, take that one. So he generates maybe 30 copies. I maybe generated one that's super accurate and I just put it in a cupboard and it's only hanging around Jerusalem. This other guy makes 30 copies and distributes it all over, but he might have 30 errors in it because he's super fast. Now what do I do with that when I come with the thing and I'm a textual critic and I've got 30 copies that have this reading and only have one copy that has this reading, but this one is actually the most accurate.

So they look at it and they realize, oh, all these copies have this spelling error. And that kind of cast dispersion on, it seems like there's a lot here, but there's a lot of mistakes that get made. This one doesn't have many mistakes, but it doesn't have many other copies. So which one is the most accurate? And it gets really kind of tricky to know which one is the most accurate. One of the most fun ones to do is, oh man, I forget the reference now, but it's in the Gospel of John. Shoot, I'm not going to remember it now. But anyway, it's a fun rabbit trail to go down. All right, now back to first John. But it will give you great confidence the more you study it.

How about that? So now we move on to verse nine. So the thing to remember here is, for there are three that testify, the spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree, okay? So now we have a testimony from God, the spirit, the water and the blood, and they all agree. And what they agree on, who Jesus is. And remember that John is battling the Gnostic heresy that Jesus really wasn't totally man, totally God, he was kind of man and kind of this and kind of that. spirit being, you know, he's saying he's the real dude. So in verse 9 we have, if we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater. For this is the testimony of God, that he has borne concerning his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has has made him a liar because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his son.

All right, there's one, two, two verses, pretty much a paragraph. Basically what it says, if you don't believe who Christ is, you make God a liar, all right? You see, if we receive the testimony of men, he's already attacking false teachers, And remember that he's going after them in this book and in second and third John also. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater. For this is the testimony of God, that he is born concerning his son. Whoever believes in the son of God has the testimony in himself. And why do you have that testimony in yourself? Because the spirit of God, other part of the Trinity, right?

And whoever does not believe God has made him a liar because he has not believed the testimony that God has borne by the Spirit concerning his Son. So the whole thing circles back around and everything all keeps coming together. And how could somebody want to believe in a God that is not testifying to himself? That's the great mystery of the Christian faith, that God is Spirit, God is the Son, and God is the Father, and all three work in perfect harmony in gospel living, showing us how we should live, right? And that's where the Trinitarian whole element of our life, actually in most churches gets pushed away. That that whole element of spirit, God, Jesus, all of it together shows you how to operate as a family, how to operate as a body, how you operate just dealing with each other is the right way to come along.

If we all have the Spirit of God in us and we're walking in the Spirit, we're not gonna fight. We're gonna see, oh, that's okay, you do that, I can do this. That doesn't mean we're all a bunch of little robots doing the same exact thing, all dressing alike and all of that, we're all unique. But the thing is, we're all in concert together doing what God would have us do, moving his plan ahead. So verses nine and 10 are a severe indictment for people that don't believe who Jesus is. And if you don't believe that, you make God a liar. One of my favorite things with people when they say they don't believe in God, I always go back to the general revelation, something bigger than you made all this.

And if you believe that, and they'll usually go, oh yeah, I believe that. But now you're using that trick thing about designers and all that kind of stuff. And then I said, yeah, so you believe there's something bigger than you that made that? Oh yeah. I said, okay, the problem now is you're not an atheist, so now you're a liar about that. You just don't know what his name is. What happens if he writes you a book and tells you who he is? Oh, now you're bringing that Bible stuff in. Yeah, that's right. We have this general revelation and now we have this special revelation. And if you reject that, you're making God a liar.

Now they don't like that approach, but the thing is, it is the true approach because they know in their heart, Romans says, they know there is a God that did this. And they choose to keep suppressing that truth, pushing it down. Okay, then in verse 11, John says, and this is the testimony that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his son. Whoever has the son has life. Whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. This is the testimony God gave us eternal life. And this is the life in his Son. Whoever has the Son has the life. Whoever does not have the Son of God does not have the life. Pretty clear, right?

He has a testimony, he has witnesses, he has the whole ball of wax of how you bring a case and he puts it right there. And if you don't have that, you don't have the life. Then he backs away a little bit, he's pounded pretty hard, and he comes back to that kind of fatherly aspect. And he says, I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. He's writing so that we may know, and this word know means in your heart, in the depths of your being, you know. Now, people come to me all the time. I read 1 John and there are times when I'm sitting and I don't know and I have this doubt and I have this and I have that.

And that used to be kind of a hard question to answer for me. I mean, I told him, hey, it's a habit of life. I know you sin, you fall down, you get up again. I think one of the best explanations I owe to John MacArthur, he always, when people People come to him with that kind of question. He asks, what are you doing today? You know, because a lot of these people have doubts. I came to the Lord in 1957 and I remember I made the decision on 4th and Main, you know, and Bodunk, Iowa or whatever. And he goes, well, that's really good you made that decision. But what are you doing today? Are you one of his? Are you trying to correct that bad habit you had or whatever was uncovered to you?

And how are you marching today in his ongoing testimony? And I think that really cures the problem because people have, oh, you don't understand. I keep falling down. Okay, get up, rip pant, and don't do that. And as you do that over and over, that one fades to the background. and you hear me over and over tell you, now you've peeled that layer of the onion, the next time you get up, it'll be a whole different layer that you realize, oh, now I gotta work on that, but that's just part of the Christian life. And the thing is, if daily you are trying to conquer that, you are in that march in the right way. So he's writing these things because he tells you, if you say you have no sin, you're a liar.

But if you're struggling with that sin, you are one of his, and he is faithful and just forgive your sins and all the rest of it. So he's writing these things to you who believe in the name by faith of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. So you know and you know it through relationship. You know if you have those feelings and you have those guilt feelings, who is that wrenching in your soul? It's God himself through his spirit because each one of us possess that spirit. And when you try to quench the spirit, it gets worse. You can do that, you can't hold that down. So don't do that, let the spirit convict you and move ahead and change that attitude.

So knowing through relationship, all right. Then in 14 he says, and this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him. Okay, this verse gets beaten over the head by all the Damon and Clamont people. Anything we ask in the Lord's name we're gonna get. I need a Rolls Royce, I need that jet airplane for my ministry. No.

The deal is it conforms us to God's will. Anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the request we have asked of him. And that request may come to you in a whole different fashion than you thought it was gonna be. Now does that mean it's wrong to pray for it this way or that way? No, I think he's given us vision and dreams to pray for that dream. I wanna see us get a building, I wanna see us have some properties so we can have the school and the building and maybe even a retirement home on it, all this kind of stuff. Now, whenever we get that, is it gonna look like that?

I don't know. But I know that if we're doing the right thing, he wants us to continue to march in that thing. And whatever he has will even be better than what I can conceive because I don't know how it all fits into the warp and weave of the whole fabric he's making us in. So have confidence when you pray that if you're in his will, it will be answered. Now will it be answered like you think it should? Probably not. Usually it gets answered in all kinds of crazy different ways. I pray for our business all the time. I pray for our household. I pray for our church. I pray for guys that I meet with. Rarely does it come out like I think it's going to come out.

I do know with confidence the big end of it, but I have no idea how it's going to work out in the middle part, how it all grinds together. And that's kind of the exciting part to life. If we knew all that, it'd be pretty boring, wouldn't it? And I think it's great to be on the train ride that God has us on. So take comfort in that and don't be upset. Just get in there and keep trucking, all right?

So we know through relationship, we have confidence that his will will be done. That's the other thing too, you know? We pray that his will will be done, Lord's Prayer, okay? If anyone sees, here's another little tricky one. I don't think it's as tricky as people make it out to be, but lots of doctoral theses have been written on it, or THM papers, was a favorite one to choose. If anyone sees his brother committing a sin, not leading to death, he shall ask and God will give him life. To those who commit sins that do not lead to death, He will give him life to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. Then, there is a sin that leads to death.

I do not say that one should pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is a sin that does not lead to death. What? So if you see your brother sinning, what would you do? You confront him. Hey, Bob, I think you're sinning. What do you mean? You go through all that. You have that talk with him. He then says, you're right, I shouldn't do that. So he repents and off he goes. I don't think he's committed the sin that leads to death because he can repent from that. If you have a guy that has this ongoing problem and he keeps doing it and he keeps doing it and you think he's even a believer, there's a possibility he's a believer and God is gonna take him out of the action because he is such a bullheaded person, and yet he believes he could commit a sin where God says, I need to bring you home because you're not obeying correctly.

That's one interpretation of that verse, all right? The other interpretation is the sin that leads to death is unbelief. Now, does unbelief lead to death? Absolutely. That's a cold, hard fact. If you do not believe in what Christ did for you on the cross, and you die, you're going to be in hell forever, period, in the sentence. And for us not to tell that straight up to people, I think is a bad thing not to tell them that. Now people that do believe and keep on sinning, they could be in that sin that leads to to death where God takes them out. I tend to believe that this, the interpretation is correct, that people can be believers and do a sin that leads to death and God takes them out of the picture because they can't get away from that and they're damaging his testimony by that.

And they get hard and God just takes them out, but they're still of him. Now, a more sure take on it is obviously if it's the sin of unbelief, those people obviously, when they die, will not be with the Lord. So it's interesting, all right?

So if the sin leading to death is deliberate, high-handed sin, that's what MacArthur says in his little notes, deliberate, high-handed sin, it's kind of, you know, I'm just doing it anyway. That's one interpretation or unbelief. There's two balanced things there. I'm not sure it's really important what you understand there, but you do need to understand all sins are judged by God, and we as believers, we know when we sin, and what do we have to do? We have to confess and repent. And that gets tiring, but you know what? You get to do that until you die, because we still have that seed in us, Adam's screw-up has given us that, and we have generations of decay going on where we are, so we're not as smart as we think we are. I believe that the people in the ancient ages were a lot smarter than we were, because they didn't have all the genetic degeneration through the They saw God face to face in those generations.

We don't do that. So anyway, we have those problems, confess your sin and get on with it. I think it's an interesting discussion and a debate to have within the household of God. But if you're talking with an unbeliever and he's reading this, and I did ask the guy that told me to read 1 John, he just flat looked at me and said, what do you think it is? And I said, at that time, being an unbeliever, Well, by this time I'd become a believer, I said, it's somebody who doesn't believe, that's really stupidly simple. And he went, yep, that's what I believe too. So I thought that was interesting that he believed that.

So anyway, that's that verse. Now, whatever interpretation should not cause you to walk differently. Your walk is still, confess your sin, move ahead, don't do that anymore. Confess your sin, don't do that anymore. As you do that, it will fade to the background you'll have a new one to confess later on. So that's just the Christian life. Then we move on to 18. We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning. Keep on sinning. Here's that present act, even indicative. Everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, and that particular thing he's involved in. But he who is born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

Who does this bring into mind? I think it's a perfect case to think back to Job. Job is going, what is going on here? He has no idea that Satan is meeting with God, saying I wanna mess with Job, he's gonna deny you and all that kind of stuff. And Job is faithful to know that and still gets spun up in all kinds of stuff from bad advice from people. So the idea though, the evil one does not touch him. Remember, God protected Joe. You can do anything you want, but you can't harm him. And that's the same way I think it is with us. You cannot be harmed by the evil one. He can't touch you, even though this is his world, which we're gonna see in the next verse.

The next verse says, we know that we are from God and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. The world system is controlled by unbelievers, Satan. But we keep holding out the light to these people. And occasionally there are those people that go, oh yeah, what you're doing is good, I wanna join that club. Off they jump. But on the whole, the world is controlled by Satan and the world's system. But we can have influence and we do get to give the gospel to those people that jump off the train and come on our train, which is exciting, right? So the whole world's system is controlled by Satan, But the children of God, we are either children of God or children of Satan.

And same book back in the 1 John 3.10, he says, you are either children of God or you're children of the devil or Satan. Black and white. You're not in between, oh, he's a good person and God's going to judge it because he did more good works than he did bad stuff. No, no, no. It's only by faith in the Son. Remember, he keeps hammering on that. So it's only by that, not by works. So you're either a child of God or you're a child of Satan. And then he goes on to say, and we know that the Son of God has come and given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true in His Son, Jesus Christ.

He is the true God and eternal life. Just a blanket rehearsal phrase by phrase, Jesus is God. When you have people tell you that the Bible never says Jesus is God and all of that nonsense, you can bring them to this verse and tell them to read it. In his son Jesus Christ, he, Jesus Christ, is the true God and eternal life. Oh wow, I never saw that. It's right there, okay? That's one of the great verses that says Jesus is God, period. And the other one I always like to do, and I'll hammer this home, and I've done it with you guys at the school and everything, we're Christians. We worship Christ. Now, why would we call ourselves Christians and worship somebody who was not God?

I did this in a church that we went to when I first got saved, and there were people there that were sketchy. And whenever I would bring that up, They were the type of people that would say, well, he's the son of God. And I said, no, no, no, he's God. If he isn't God, what are we doing here? We're worshiping the wrong thing. If he's not God, what are you saying? And I said, we're Christians. That means we're worshiping Christ as God. Oh, well, he's the son of God. No, no, no, no, no, no. He is God. And then you'd take him through these verses, and they'd, you know, well, yeah, but different commentators agree, you know.

And then I would use, I didn't know it then, but S. Lewis Johnson was a famous hardcore Calvinist commentator from the 60s, and he had a church in Dallas, Texas. And his famous thing was, and this guy was a commentator also, he wrote lots of papers on the Bible and everything. But he says, commentators are nothing but common potatoes. But anyway, those people, you know, the issue is we're Christians. We are here to worship Christ. That's like, whoa, you know, really cool. All right, last verse. And he ends in such a way, I can just see this guy writing his thing down and then he's looking back and he's 90, he knows he's old, he knows he's probably going to go home and all that kind of stuff.

And then he just writes this little short verse, little children keep yourselves from idols. End of sentence, end of chapter, end of book. Keep yourselves from idols. Now, commentators go wild on this. The idols are all the false Gnostic teachers. Don't follow those guys, don't follow this. No, no, no, no. It's way bigger than that. Little children keep yourselves from idols. Maybe the idol is Legos when you're five years old. Maybe the idol is baseball when you're 13. Maybe the idol is money when you're 45 and trying to make a business. I don't know what it is, but keep yourself from that. Maybe your idol is a guy or a state of life or whatever it is.

Don't do that. God is the one to be worshiped. So keep yourself from all those false things to worship and stay on track and worship God. So I think that ends it in a very simple and direct way. I recommend to read this book. This is one you can read in about 30 minutes and one of the best things I've ever seen for Bible study. And you can do this with bigger books too, like if you're reading through a big gospel, read five chapters, but read it 30 times in a row every day. And it's amazing how you read something in about the 10th day, I know this stuff, this is boring. Then about the 13th day you go, whoa, I never saw that before.

You've been reading it for all this, whoa, what does that mean? And it draws you in and allows you to see more and more. This book has all kinds of those things, and yet it's very simple and very direct. So keep that in mind, be warm and be filled from this book.

When people see that, I was looking around to see other tables watch that, and you saw people looking and smiling. That love demonstrated to us, just as it is written in this book, is an overflowing blessing to the community. Even though they don't say it, they see it and they're wondering what's going on and help us to have the right words when those questions are asked of us, as in 1 Peter 3 15 happens for us. So we thank you for your word, we thank you for the blessings that you give us, and help us now in this next week to live these things out and to be those people you would have us be. So we thank you again for your son, Jesus Christ, and it is his name we pray. Amen.

When people see that, I was looking around to see other tables watch that, and you saw people looking and smiling. That love demonstrated to us, just as it is written in this book, is an overflowing blessing to the community. Even though they don't say it, they see it and they're wondering what's going on and help us to have the right words when those questions are asked of us, as in 1 Peter 3 15 happens for us. So we thank you for your word, we thank you for the blessings that you give us, and help us now in this next week to live these things out and to be those people you would have us be. So we thank you again for your son, Jesus Christ, and it is his name we pray.

We eat food every day, multiple times a day. Food is one of the most mundane, as in earthly rather than heavenly, things we concern ourselves with, and yet God says that even our eating and drinking is supposed to be for His glory (1 Corinthians 10:31).

What are our responsibilities when it comes to food? How important are the ingredients? The source of those ingredients? The chemical make-up of those ingredients? The preparation/packaging of the food? Should you research and investigate the motives of anyone who had any part in getting the food to your table? What if the people who grow/make/sell you your food are idolators?

We come to the hinge point in 1 Corinthians 8. Last Lord's Day we began to talk about food, especially food associated someway or another with idols. The Christians in Corinth were Kuyperian Calvinists, before that was even possible of course. They had the knowledge of God's sovereignty over every thumb's width of grain and vegetable and animal. They knew that idols couldn't compare, let alone compete, with the one, true God of gods and Lord of lords.

Food eaten at a pagan temple couldn't actually give power to a "so-called god," even if people actually believed that they were praising that god. Meat bought from the butcher shop connected to the pagan temple couldn’t have effective idol cooties. Only one God gives food, and while some "gods" might have been real demons disguising themselves (see 1 Corinthians 10:20), even if those demons claimed to be givers of corn and wheat and cows and sheep, the Corinthian Christians knew the actual and ultimate source behind every bite: God Himself. "All things" are "from" the Father and "all things" were made "through" Jesus Christ.

The problem, as we began to see, is that some of the Christians held this knowledge in a way that magnified themselves rather than their brothers, which means they were not actually honoring God either, no matter how accurate their slogans about God's sovereignty were crafted. What they knew was (mostly) true about God, except they showed that they didn't truly know God because He is the God of love. We're supposed to love like Him, not just know about Him.

Those who were conscious of God's sovereignty were not conscious of (some of) their brothers' consciences. Some brothers were loving their eating (and perhaps socializing) more than loving their brothers' souls. What should have been building up the body was destroying it.

Paul calls the Corinthians to be conscientious consumers. But this is not being conscientious about the food as much as it is being conscientious about the God of food and their brothers in the Lord. There is a way to eat clean, to eat right, and it has more to do with how we consider the consciences of our fellow consumers and less to do with what we put in our mouths.

The Corinthians knew that all the Corinthians had the knowledge (8:1), but they didn’t know that they were also wrong. However, not all possess this knowledge. Paul isn’t referring to the nonbelievers in Corinth, but to some of the believers in the church. It's not that some of them had received different teaching, it's not as if some of them were Arminians, or evolutionists. The rest of verse 7 explains the problem: their head knowledge hadn't fully informed their conscience.

But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Paul introduces us to a category of believer: the weak in conscience. Conscience is an important, but not infallible (meaning that it could be wrong) system. It observes and evaluates and urges reception or rejection. The mind and heart and will all interact with this internal judge. The judge could be loose or legalistic. The judge could be sure or uncertain. The man with a weak conscience isn't quite sure what is right. The compass is broken, or he keeps it in his pocket.

Many of the Corinthians had a testimony that included previous idol worship, but some had a harder time leaving their practiced habits behind. Others, those who had strong consciences by contrast (though that word isn’t explicitly used to describe them), apparently could eat more food, and they could connect that food directly to the true God with thanks and freedom. Still some consumers didn't experience that internal freedom, but ate anyway, and based on the force of habit couldn’t keep from connecting it to idols, and then felt guilty. “Certain actions trigger old memories and associations” (Garland). The food itself wasn’t unclean, but by going against their conscience, they defiled or made their conscience stained.

The problem was with the subject, the eater, not the object, the food. Food will not commend us to God. This could be translated as, "Food will not bring us closer to God or make Him be pleased with us." That goes for both fasting and feasting. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. A man is not defiled by what goes into him but what comes out of him (Matthew 15:11, 17-20). This is one of the most important, and most brutal, truths. No food, of any kind, whether free-range or full of antibiotics or having a history with idols or a history with cruel (or idolatrous) farmers, in and of itself, can make God be happier or unhappier with us.

That doesn’t stop others from saying we “need” to eat for sake of building relationships in the community, nor does it stop others from saying we need to not eat for sake of a holy testimony in the community. Both sides can argue about what makes for a better witness, but you cannot be more “right” or right with God based on where you shop for food or whether the ingredients are “clean.”

We are to be conscientious consumers, but we are to be conscientious about how we're eating more than about what we're eating. We end up attributing godlike power to food when we treat it so fearfully.

There is more to say about being conscientious consumers, and that relates to being conscientious of our brothers, especially the weak ones. Paul does not address the weak directly, though he implies that the weak could become strong in the knowledge of God's sovereignty and food's impotency. But those who recognize their freedom to eat must be conscientious about how they consume in front of others.

Knowledge isn't enough if it doesn't result in love, and Paul urges the consumers to watch the exercise of their diet on others. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. "See to it, watch out, look out" so that your right doesn't cause someone else's ruin. Because God is over all things, you have authority; what will you do with it? A stumbling block sits in the middle of a path and causes a fall, and in the rest of the paragraph the brother is "destroyed" and wounded.

Verses 10 and 11 describe (at least) one way to be a stumbling block. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? Imagine that one of the strong is at a social event in the fellowship hall of the pagan temple. Maybe a fellow Christian was walking by, on their way home, had received an invitation himself, but had resolved not to go. He sees you. You are someone he's looked up to, and your example causes him to go against his conscience and he, temporarily, decides it's good to eat. He sits down at the table, or he takes a to-go plate, or he RSVPs to the next event. He is encouraged…to eat, the same word as “built up.” But he is not edified.

What's the big deal? And so by your knowledge this person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Destruction is a big deal. If Christ died for this man, and he is a genuine brother, then he cannot be finally destroyed in hell away from the presence of God. But it is a severe word, and going against one's conscience is a much bigger deal then we tend to act like today.

The progression is as follows: 1) one Christian believes that all food comes from the one God. 2) He consumes in light of knowledge about the ultimate source of the food but without consideration of those with weaker consciences. 3) Another Christian is encouraged to eat food that their conscience, though not as informed as it could be, says belongs with idolatry. 4) Following the example of the first brother, the weaker brother commits an act of idolatry and hardens his heart against his conscience.

This is not a person who is destroyed by being offended or getting his/her feelings hurt. This is not a Christian with a more legalistic bent being bent out of shape by a brother who isn't following the same standards. She isn’t posting her shock on FB that anyone could ever eat at that restaurant or feed that to her kids. That is another actual problem, two Christians with different judgments on acceptable discipleship practices, but it is not the problem in this passage.

“Those are foolish, who allow Christians scarcely any use of things indifferent, lest they should offend superstitious persons.” (Calvin)

A conscientious consumer considers not just his own conscience, and not just the conscience of his brother, but the crucifixion of Christ. Is there any other, more weighty reminder that could be given? Christ died for sake of this brother, to save this brother from destruction, and you will destroy him by your eating?

Paul summarizes his argument with a sharp point at the end. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. It's not just a preference failure, it is sin. And it is not just sin against a part of the body, it is sin against the Head of the body, against Christ.

Of course this is true any and every time we sin in our church relationships. We are the body of Christ, and cannot be disconnected from Christ.

The conclusion to the paragraph is Paul's own, exaggerated but serious commitment not to wound one of the weaker brothers. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

That's how important our relationships are. It is worth giving up meat altogether forever if it keeps a brother from stumbling.

There are two ends to hold in tension. We must give up our personal tastes if those will cause a brother to sin. We may have knowledge, and our consciences may be strong, and we may really enjoy the meal. But the meat and the meal cannot be more important than those we love. And also, we must not give in to brothers or sisters who want to lay on us a law. “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink…” (Colossians 2:16).

Again, this is not about those with a weaker conscience who also act offended at decisions around them.

In chapter 9 Paul provides an example of giving up a personal right for sake of the benefit of others. It’s a different issue, but he’s still concerned about how we love our brothers. In chapter 10 Paul will return to the subject of food and worship and communion.

Are there principles in chapter 8 that apply directly to our context? Who are the strong and weak today? What are their convictions? How ought we to love one another with food?

We talk about food sensitivities, food allergies, real and “boutique” (the kind that are fashionable to the world). We are concerned with righteousness, real and mock. We deal with Monsanto, big companies, and lots of local idols. We hear the pulpits of (mostly fear-mongering, Mother Nature loving) documentaries. What are we being sold? What idols of the Earth are being worshipped?

We cannot live in the grid without complicity in someone's idolatry.

What does God say is GOOD?

While we keep working through these questions, here is some additional recommended reading: Confessions of a Food Catholic, The Supper of the Lamb, The Things of Earth, Food for Thought, The Food Police.

Paul refers to brothers (and sisters) four times in verses 11-13. It is much easier to be conscientious of our food than our brothers. How to eat right is not about the history or natural-ness of your food per se, but about the way you treat others.

Cheap hot dogs (made from various meats, and sawdust, and possibly pink goo) cut up in Kraft Mac and Cheese and eaten with laughter and love is better than vegetables grown in your family garden with fear and self-righteousness. Of course those aren’t the only two options, but as consumers we must be more conscientious about our own hearts (driven by fear or gratefulness, resentment or love) and our brothers than we are about so-called unclean food.

Food is a strange and fascinating subject. The growing, hunting, purchasing, preparing, cooking, eating, cleaning up from, and thinking/talking about food occupies perhaps the majority of waking hours for the majority of the people in the history of the world. Food belongs with big business, big parties, and is one of God's big gifts.

Food is also a god for many people, used to medicate or distract, or because they believe humans have an obligation to honor the vegetables and animals that become our food. Food is associated with the gods, given from them or demanded by them. Food has been associated with sacrifices of worship since at least the sons of Adam and Eve.

The Bible says a lot about food, and food is the presenting problem in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, it is an issue again in chapters 10 and 11, and though chapter 9 isn't about food, it provides an complementary example that teaches us something about food.

I don't have the ambition to say everything that can be said about food in the upcoming sermons. I don't claim to know all there is to know about food anyway. And I am particularly interested in the context in Corinth and Paul's instructions to them first, though there are principles with plenty of application for us in a different setting with our own set of problems.

This is another branch growing from the same root problem among the Corinthians. They knew enough to be mean to each other, they heard enough of Paul's teaching to spread their pride on almost everything. They had so-called knowledge, which actually led to so-called snobbery. They believed in the sovereignty of God, and applied that doctrine to the subject of food. But based on how they treated one another it was clear that they did not actually know the God of food.

The issue in this section of 1 Corinthians relates to conscience (verses 7, 12) over consuming certain food (verses 1, 4, 7-13) among the community of believers in a culture full of idolatry (verses 5, 9-13).

It is not a new issue; certainly Paul had worked through some of theses problems during his stay and teaching in Corinth. But some of them had taken his teaching in unhelpful ways and had written to him for confirmation. Paul does some confirming and a good amount of correcting.

Now concerning food offered to idols. This is the same formula that he used in 7:1 and 7:25 to bring up topics from their letter to which he's replying. First was married celibacy, then singleness and betrothal, now food. The subject of food and worship takes up all of chapter 8 and much of chapters 10-11, with chapter 9 related in a different way.

Food offered to idols is one word in Greek (a form of εἰδωλόθυτος) and means “something offered to a cultic image/idol“ (BDAG). It could have been eaten in a few different contexts. It could have been food provided at social events held in a pagan temple (compare it to maybe the fellowship hall of a Baptist church), it could have been food sold by the pagan temple butcher shop, or it could have been food bought and served by a pagan friend who invited you for dinner. There is a social level, an economic level, and a personal level.

It appears that Paul quotes (as the ESV represents) from their letter: we know that "all of us possess knowledge." He will provide the content of this knowledge in verses 4 and 6, but before he talks about the knowledge, he talks about the relative importance of knowledge and how knowledge that leads to snobbery over fellow believers is not as impressive as we think.

This "knowledge" puffs up, but love builds up. This is the same root of puffing-pride as mentioned previously in the letter (1 Corinthians 4:6), and there is an entire chapter coming up (1 Corinthians 13) that stresses love as not boasting or arrogant. There is a knowledge of truth that, ironically, is not consistent with the truth. It is accepting the truth in part, and usually the part that makes us look better. Thispuffs up the individual rather than builds up the body. The knowledge is a facade not firm, it’s posture and pretense not solid and strong.

Love means “treating someone lawfully from the heart” (see here). It means “the quality of warm regard for and interest in another” (BDAG). Love is affectionate thoughts and service for other than oneself. Self-importance, even propped up by accurately confessed theology, does not edify.

Knowledge/truth and love are easy to pit against each other. There are some who love the truth more than love in the name of Truth, and there are others who think truth/knowledge is the enemy of love because, after all, look at how much division arguing over truth has caused. What is the answer?

The answer does not require avoiding theology, it requires knowledge of theology that promotes humility and relationship. If our knowledge of God does not produce both those things, then something is wrong with our knowledge.

First: humility. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.. The truths of God's sovereignty that Paul affirms in verses 4-6 are true, truly knowable, and also fully incomprehensible to finite minds. If we ever think that we've wrapped our minds around theology, we demonstrate that we have merely stuffed the theology we could into our small-minds and called it good.

Second: relationship. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. It's not what we expect, either based on verse 2 or comparing the two halves of verse 3. What does God want with us? He hates rivals. He is jealous for His name and glory. So He desires our knowledge of the truth for sake of us not being idolators. But knowing how to identify poison does not mean that we’ve eaten any bread, and God wants us to eat! He made us to know facts about Him for sake of fellowship with Him. The glory of our salvation is not that we escape from hell, as great as that is. The glory is in being made His children.

He took the initiative. To be known by God is to be chosen by God, to be brought not only out of idolatry but also into intimacy with Him by the Son and through the Spirit. We love Him because He first knew us. This increases our humility, and it is the humble whom He exalts in His presence.

Whatever the problems related to food offered to idols, it started with a problem in the Corinthians' worship. In one way, it didn't matter how they claimed to be honoring God in how they handled food offered to idols because they were failing to honor the true God by their unloving (snobby) treatment of one another in the name of so-called knowledge.

It took him no time get distracted from his own reply, though it wasn't really a distraction. Paul repeats: Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know... and now he tells us what was known. We know that "an idol has no real existence" and that "there is no God but one." That he says we may mean that they had learned this from Paul's own teaching. They were repeating it, but also not quite getting it, as we’ll see especially in the next paragraph (verses 7-13).

Of course idols are real things, and idolatry is a real sin that real men commit. But the idol, in name or statue, isn't actually a god, and even when the idol represents a god "out there," there really is no God but one. This is basic theology, Old Testament monotheism that dominated Jewish thought from Deuteronomy 6:4. "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one." (It is also believed by demons, James 2:19, and cognitively known by them more accurately than by men.)

That doesn't keep people from using the word "god" to refer to many gods. For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"--. The multiplication of men on the planet brought the multiplication of rebels who then imagined and fashioned their own gods (e.g., Isaiah 44:9, 12). Polytheism is a child of sinners, contrary to the presupposition of liberal theologians that monotheism came later.

But there are many gods, so-called. They're given the title, whether in heaven or on earth. Paul doesn't name which ones he had in mind, but he was familiar with the Greek pantheon and the worship of planets in heaven (Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Mercury), and he also knew the deification of men and women on earth, not least claimed by Hercules, Romulus, and the Caesars (see Calvin). Various other deities were revered in Corinth (per Garland): Chronos, Poseidon, the Sun, Aphrodite, Artemis, Isis, Dionysus, Apollo, Hermes, Zeus, and Monsanto. (Oops, I'm not sure how that last one got in there).

What else would we expect from the enemies of God than that they would set up alternatives to God? What else would we expect from those who's minds are darkened but that they would be blind to the light of truth about the true God? And since we are shaped by our worship, what else would we expect but that false worship had genuine affects?

habituated patterns of loyalty and devotion long practiced by new converts before their conversion cannot simply be brushed aside as no longer affecting their lives and attitudes in the present….“Paul believes in both the vanity and the power of the idol….But the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ hold merely to the vanity or the power of the idol respectively.” (Thiselton, italics his)

We, by God's electing grace, know better: yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. That is some theology.

But note that while celebrating exclusive, sovereign, monotheism, all of which affect how to handle food offered to idols, this also celebrates God who is personal, both in His fatherhood and in His Triune nature (though the Spirit isn't mentioned) in the incarnation of the Second Person.

Paul agrees with what he taught them. He doesn't need to change the doctrine, but he is changing their angle on it.

We don't worship idols because they are false. But the true God is not true "out there," in heaven, transcendent and impersonal. We exist for God, but we exist for God as our Father. We are not known by God (verse 3) because He is the great Omniscient Databank in the Sky. We are known by God as His adopted children.

And we confess that Jesus is Lord. This is confession of our faith (see Romans 10:9), and it is an amazing declaration of the divinity of Christ along with the unity of the Godhead. There is one God, but the Father and Jesus are not the same Person.

It is through Jesus that we exist. It is by His first appearing and dwelling among men and revealing the Father to men that we know what our lives should reflect.

There are many so-called “gods” and “lords,” but we worship the God of gods and Lord of lords (Deuteronomy 10:17 and Psalm 136:2-3).

The from and for, with the through are majestic prepositions. All things, which in this (Kuyperian) context include food and persons, originate in God (their start) and are sustained by God and have their end (their telos, goal) in Him. Paul uses similar phrasing in his doxology of the God of history at the end of Romans 11, but here it is about the God of food. He made every animal and vegetable and mineral, and He made all the food for all the men whom He also made and whom He loves and wants to love one another.

Food prepositions are more important than food preparations. And food preparations, considered in any way that puffs up a person or causes him to despise another person, can be found to dishonor the God of food.

What does this make you want to do? Eat something with thanks with your people! This is feast inspiring, not tiresome or isolating. It ought not make anyone fussy, about their food or about the other person.

Food ought to make us thankful to God, and food ought to be received by us in such a way that helps us to receive and love one another. It is not only that beef and bread and bananas are a gift, but so are our brothers.

There is knowledge that feeds love, and knowledge that feeds snobbery. So-called snobbery, especially from Kuyperian Calvinists, is actually the worst. According to this paragraph, it is possible to be snobs by our theology of God's sovereignty. Truth, partially understood and applied, does divide sinfully, and can be loved in such a way that keeps us from loving one another.

There is more about food and fellowship, personal rights and community righteousness, meat and monotheism (and Monsanto) to come.

It is always a good challenge to figure out how to redeem the time because the days are evil. Presumably, those who are not saved don't really care about the redeeming part. They serve the competing gods of Happy Moment Providers, Inc. But for those who have God's Spirit, those who hear God's Word, those who love God's Son, we want to know how to honor Him in the world.

There are inevitably, though, some Christians who prefer to do this with the least amount of tension as possible. Another word for tension could be "anxiety," and while there is a wrong way to be anxious, there is an appropriate way if by it we mean that we are concerned to do the right thing. As disciples, we are concerned to please our Master. How can we do that the best?

The most crucial human relationship that requires consideration is marriage. From the beginning, men and women have been getting married, or wanting to get married, or not getting married, and it takes up a lot of effort. Think about how dominant this theme is through all the love stories, the love songs, and the credit card bills in history. From dating to wedding to signing mortgage papers, then to being fruitful and multiplying, all this, as it turns out, consumes a lot of resources both individually and as a society. For those who love Christ more than anyone else, should they keep their love and service "pure" from any other commitments, including a spouse (and kids)?

These are some of the questions Paul deals with in 1 Corinthians 7. The church in Corinth had written Paul a letter, which he referred to in verse 1, and to which he's replying. Based on the tone he takes, their letter to him sought his confirmation on their choice standards for holiness. Some of them had a dualistic, an ascetic, an almost anti-body approach. They argued that married couples should remain celibate, and that if married couples could become single, even better.

Starting in verse 25 the subject switches to the betrothed, to those who were promised to others for marriage but who were not yet married. Paul's counsel is consistent with the previous 24 verses: be content and be holy, and if that is in marriage, so be it.

He refers to "the present distress" in verse 26, and I believe that this was a unique, local, more temporary problem facing the believers in Corinth. Paul's "judgement" is not relative, but it is related to the particular life setting. He says, especially in light of the present distress, it avoids some stresses if you ca go through the distress without a wife (and family). That said, it is better to be in the distress with a wife than to be in the distress with the guilt of sexual immorality.

Verses 32-40 continue the counsel with another reason to consider not getting married, along with a final word of counsel for the betrothed and then extended to widows.

Paul’s recommendation of celibacy is for those for whom God gives this gift, which is not everyone. Consider your calling.

I want you to be free from anxieties. These stresses come along with the present distress, as well as distractions. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.

This is a simplistic description, and yet a fair distinction. Thinking about one is less than thinking about two.

Paul refers to two sources of anxieties. The word anxieties means "cares" or “concerns,” and cares are inevitable. But can you have less cares, or more focused cares? Apparently yes. The single man, who is content and who is in control of his desires, cares mainly about one relationship. He lives on one level, he is only pulled on one direction. He is interested in pleasing one other person, the Lord.

The married man (who is content and who is faithful) cares about two relationships, the horizontal--with his wife, and the vertical--with his Lord. But it is not that simple; he serves his wife for the Lord's sake (per Ephesians 5:25-30), not just for her sake. Yet this still is two-levels to think about, and guys are not always so multi-tasking able.

This does mean that, if you are married, you cannot please the Lord by attempting to only please the Lord. That is, you can’t neglect your wife (sexually—verses 1-5, materially, or any other kind of way) and claim that it is for Christ.

Paul repeats his observation about the females, too. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. This is another way to say the same thing. To be holy in body and spirit is to be fully holy, but it is in her devotion that she is holy, not necessarily her celibacy. Married couples can also be holy in body and spirit even though it is a different application.

I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. Paul is not laying down law. He is not throwing a “noose around their neck” (BDAG). He is acknowledging that with the present distress there are benefits to serving the Lord as a single person.

As I said regarding verses 25-31, I am not convinced that this is his counsel for all times and all places. The reason he gives for undivided devotion applies to directly to the present distress facing the Christians in Corinth. Yes, we can see how there are always a multitude and variety of challenges that married couples face that do not come to those who are single (in-laws, bills, kids, etc). And yet, he never says anything like this in his other letters. His concern is about contentment, purity, and ability to focus on serving the Lord.

These three verses have a high number of translation questions. The ESV represents one approach, and I think it is the best approach.

The NASB “transterprets” this paragraph as addressing fathers with virgin daughters. “If any man things that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry.“ The NASB makes this an issue of a dad failing to find a match or allow an engagement to be consummated with his daughter (italicized because the word isn’t in the Greek text) that is coming of age or about ready to pass her prime. This is a better possibility than that the father is concerned about committing incest with his daughter.

The ESV acknowledges that the word "father" is not in the Greek text, nor is the word "daughter." The ESV also acknowledges that referring to the parental level would be introducing a third group into the passage oddly and unnecessarily. All along Paul has addressed people directly, not those who have authority over someone else.

I believe that verses 36-38 are addressed to those who are in some sort of betrothal or engagement relationship. So, if you are engaged, and you've been holding off for some reason, perhaps even in light of the present distress, consider what you should do.

If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry--it is no sin. Paul starts with this both because of the pressure from some who must have been saying that it was much more spiritual not to get married and also because of the present distress. It isn't sin to get married. Not at all.

That said, whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. A number of factors make this a good choice. It has to be something that the young man has decided for himself, not something that someone else decided for him, whether a parent or someone in the church; he is under no necessity. Is he content?

It must also be something that belongs with holiness. He cannot be lusting and longing for sex, dissatisfied with his current condition; he has his desire under control. Is he self-controlled?

The additional phrases emphasize the free choice that he's happy to make. If all these factors line up and he chooses not to get married, he does well.

Verse 38 summarizes the previous two verses. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better. Neither is wrong, neither is sin. One is not better morally or spiritually. It is not that the one who remains single does better in pleasing God necessarily, but that he avoids some of the anxieties in the present world. It is not better to be anxious about staying single because someone is making you think that is the more spiritual way.

The final verses finish Paul's alternating pattern of addressing males and then females. His counsel to the engaged applied to both, and he finishes the section of response to them about widows. If it is not sin for the betrothed to marry, it is not sin for the widowed to remarry.

A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. This is the law, and he said more about this to compare the Christian's relationship with the Mosaic Law in Romans 7:1-4. A marriage is, "till death do us part." This is not a comment about divorce and remarriage, he already addressed that earlier in the chapter. The point is, God made marriage for life.

But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. Those who say that any remarriage of any kind, even after the death of a spouse, have to answer this verse (along with Paul's command to younger widows to remarry in 1 Timothy 5:11-15). Yes, a husband and wife have a connection that will not be forgotten. And also, when one spouse dies, the living spouse is free, the same status Paul assigned in verse 15 (“not enslaved”). She is free from her vows to her husband, and she is not bound to the Jewish (levirate) law of marrying one’s brother-in-law.

The only requirement is that she marry in the Lord. There is no good reason to understand this stipulation as anything other than saying that she must marry another Christian. In the first generation of believers, a wife may have come to faith apart from her husband, or visa versa. Those who were already in marriage should stay married as long as the unbelieving partner is willing. But now she knows better. Don't take on a mixed marriage on purpose; that is not only being pulled in two directions, but more like two opposite directions. There's enough mess in marriage as it is.

That said, she does not have to remarry. Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. This bookends the "judgment" section (see the same word used in verse 25). Paul has been urging contentment all along. He is confronting those who seem incapable of being happy unless they change something. Spirituality doesn't depend on the checkboxes. So if the woman doesn't want to get married again, she has different opportunities, and like Paul she could be happy in the station of widowhood.

And I think that I too have the Spirit of God. He ends this way because some in Corinth were trying to convince the believers that they knew better, that they had more of the Spirit, than the apostle. He doesn't argue that he has more, but he does argue that he doesn't have less.

Men define their spiritual superiority by which teacher they associate with (so the first few chapters of 1 Corinthians). Men define their spiritual superiority by how much or how little they have sex (as seen in the last part of chapter 6 and the first part of chapter 7). Men define their spiritual superiority by marital status. This isn't where Christlikeness is defined, but it is where Christlikeness should be at.

The Cynics spurned marriage because they desired freedom from obligation. By contrast, Paul rejects marriage for himself because it gives him freedom for service. (Garland)

What station has God assigned you to? There is where He wants you to honor Him and be holy as He is holy.

When Jesus commissioned His disciples He told them to make disciples who identified with Jesus in baptism and then committed to lifelong learning about Jesus and obeying His commands. Jesus did not commission His disciples to get others to pray a prayer and then be transferred immediately to heaven. Being a disciple, and making disciples, involves living in the present world for Jesus rather than getting out of it.

When Jesus prayed for His people in John 17 (especially verses 14-19) He knew that the world would hate His people because they are “not of the world.” Yet He did not ask the Father to take us “out of the world” either. We’re not of, and not out. Jesus even prayed that the Father would send us “into the world,” sanctified in the truth. How much depends on these little prepositions. And how little do Christian disciples seem to understand how to do it.

It is a constant effort to keep our thoughts and our choices for the Lord. The Lord made us to do so, and He also taught that many are distracted by the world and the seed of the gospel is choked out by riches and cares of this life (Matthew 13:22). Because we don't welcome living in tension about crucial things, we tend to choose one foot to hop on, then we know we’re right. Some choose to stay in the theological bed all day and try to ignore the larger implications, while others choose to hyperventilate over the smaller implications of everything. Either we give up trying to figure out what is good, or we decide that only certain things are good, especially the things that make us look good.

The Christians in Corinth struggled with this, especially when it came to relations between the sexes. Some thought that using a prostitute was as as good for the body as food (1 Corinthians 6:13), and others thought that abstinence with one's wife was obviously the greater good (7:1). Both are wrong.

1 Corinthians 6 dealt with those who weren't thinking enough about boundaries and restrictions on earthly appetites, 1 Corinthians 7 deals with those who desired castle moats and 50 foot tall electric fences. The apostle Paul teaches them how to think about relationships, and in the process teaches them how to relate to a lot of things in this world.

In verses 1-16 he addressed married couples. In verses 25-40 he addresses those who are engaged/betrothed or widowed. In between, in verses 17-24, he went over the basic principle of God's earthly callings for each person and how committed service at our station is key.

We're going to consider the last half of the chapter in two parts, starting with Paul’s counsel to the engaged in the context of "the present distress" (verse 26) in a world that is "passing away" (verse 31). Paul will give his judgement in the matter (verses 25-28), and then give five exhortations for Christian judgement (verses 29-31). Is marriage a mess worth making, or a mess worth avoiding?

When I mention the ESV translation I usually am critical. I should express more thanks more often, since I do think it's a great translation overall, it is what I read for myself and memorize and preach from, and it’s what I encourage others to use. In these troubled translation waters, the ESV does very well.

Now concerning or “about” (NIV) likely refers again to the letter that the Corinthians wrote him. He started the chapter that way (verse 1) as some in the church were arguing for the good of abstinence in marriage. They thought it was more holy, even for spouses, to avoid sex. They also apparently thought it was more holy to avoid certain foods, as the "now concerning" introduces chapter 8 as well. Here is the middle issue, it is more holy to not consummate an engagement.

The ESV translates, now concerning the betrothed, which again, I think is appropriate. The Greek word for betrothed is the word "virgins” (KJV) (found six times between verses 25-38), those who had never been married, what we might call bachelors and bachelorettes. But throughout the passage, and especially nearer to the front of church history, some Bible readers/teachers have taken this as instruction not for betrothed men or women but for fathers with their daughters, especially in verses 36-38. There are better arguments against that view (including the fact that “fathers” are never mentioned, nor are “daughters”), and those arguments support this being instruction for couples who are engaged to be married. Should they go through with it, or should they end it?

Jesus never gave a sermon on that subject, so Paul said, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy. It is similar to verse 10 where he makes a distinction between himself and the Lord, but here he gives his judgement rather than a "charge" (he uses the same word again in verse 40, the other bookend to this section). He is giving his counsel but not a command. It is an “opinion” in the same way a judge writes an opinion. He expects them not to listen and obey his way of thinking, but to listen and think for themselves in light of what he said and choose wisely. Part of the shepherd's job is help his sheep distinguish for themselves what is good.

Here is his judgement. I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. He’s using language from verse 1 and the Corinthian position about what is “good.” What’s good is not being unmarried, but being content. This is not surprising after the previous paragraph with the “remain” refrain (verses 17, 20, 24). Rather than worry about religious symbols or social status, here he says again not to worry about your marital status. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. Probably this would make more sense to say, "Are you bound by promise to a fiancée? Are you free from engagement obligations?” He already gave counsel about not getting divorced (verses 10-11), and that was from the Lord; that's not just Paul's judgment. But whether or not to have a wedding, that is.

He follows it up with, If you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Guys and gals, marriage is good. Note which side the pressure is coming from. It's coming from the ascetic side, the side that also said it's good for a man not to have sex with his wife, the side perhaps going so far as to say that divorce is better. Of course that side says don't get married.

Imagine this message preached at a Christian conference on celibacy for those considering it, run by those who think it is spiritually superior, not a conference for singles wanting to meet other singles run by those who think marriage is spiritually inferior. Paul is defending marriage, not demeaning it.

Paul agrees that not everyone needs to get married, but for a different reason than spiritual superiority. It is no sin to marry. There is no lesser holiness in marriage. To read any of his other writings on marriage corroborates the glory of a godly marriage. God instituted marriage for sake of illustrating the intimate joy between Christ and His Bride, the Church. Husbands sacrifice in love for their wives as an embodied illustration of Jesus, and wives submit in respect to their husbands as an embodied illustration of the church. Marriage is God's idea for the world, for experiencing and illustrating divine, Trinitarian fellowship and also for dominion taking fruitfulness. It is no sin.

Due to sin, though, it does have difficulty. And back to verse 26, there is a present distress, and that relates to his final comment in verse 29. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. Is the distress and the troubles something present to the Corinthians that is not present for us (or other generations in other places)? Or is it distress and troubles that face every potential married couple, or even distress that comes from the marriage relationship itself? Does Paul's judgment have more to do with the historical context or with eschatological implications?

Both?! (Ha!) There are principles in verses 29-31 that apply in all times and places, as well as observations about split anxieties and interests in verses 32-35 which we'll see next Lord's day. But there does seem to be something unique in the Corinthian context, possibly the regional famine reported by men such as Eusebius and Suetonius (c. AD 51), that does provide a specific example of the kids of general issues that may confront spouses. Marriage is difficult, and certain factors outside the home may make it even more so. It could be economic depression, it could be targeted persecution of Christians, it could be other afflictions.

The situation calls for “emergency measures,” so Paul says, think about it. Is now a good time or a difficult time to add marriage and family responsibilities? It’s one thing to feed yourself, it’s another to feed five.

Paul also says, This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. Appointed time for what? For the end of the famine or it's lingering effects? For the destruction of Jerusalem and the effects of persecution on believers throughout the world in AD 70? For the return of Christ and the end of the world? It matters. Will things change in a couple months, and then we can get married? Or is this the new normal?

It relates to his last comment in verse 31. For the present form of this world is passing away. The form of the world is not the world itself, but an illustration from the theater, either of an actor crossing the stage or the backdrop quickly replaced by another between scenes.

In the meantime, there are five "as though" (or “as if”) exhortations. Paul starts, From now on and then shows different spheres for Christian disciples.

Already we know that this cannot mean sexual or physical separation because of the earlier part of the same chapter (verses 1-5). It cannot even mean mental or relational separation, let alone physical and material separation. There are too many other letters from Paul about it. "Husbands, love your wives." Give up your life for her, rather than give up your wife for your (spiritual) life.

So what is Paul saying? He's saying that your calling to salvation is a higher priority than your calling to marriage, so don't sacrifice your Christian obedience for sake of your spouse. The callings are relative, but that doesn’t make them mutually exclusive, one or the other.

Do you have reasons to be sad? Do your family members or friends or fellow church members have a reason to be sad? "Mourn with those who mourn" (Romans 12:15), but do not go about over-mourning. Do not mourn in such a way that death looks like it has sting. And death is worse than disappointments, so do not let your grief be your god.

Did your wife give birth? Did your "baby" just graduate, or get married? Did your neighbor get a promotion? "Rejoice with those who rejoice" (Romans 12:15). And also remember that your hope is in God, not in earthly successes. These things are good, and they are only part of what God has prepared for His people.

As in, “one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions“ said Jesus (Luke 12:15). Don't be a fool. But don't be a fooling around the other way either. Don't be a fool by burying your business, burying your talents, starving yourself to death by not eating the loaf of WonderBread. Sliced bread! Gap Kids! Or Goodwill!

Are you a mover and shaker? Move and shake and don't be defined by it. Don’t let it “occupy your entire attention” (Thiselton). Be defined by your worship of God, and then enjoy the process until you die or Christ comes back. Paul isn't calling all men to be monks on Monday morning. He's saying that we ought to have a different attitude and answer for others to see when we show up on Monday morning.

Hold on, loosely. God has planned great things for His people, and don't get attached to your idea of what those things will be, especially if those things look a lot like what you love apart from Him rather than love from and for Him.

Where does marriage fit in the world? As a glorious, God-given, image-bearing opportunity that won't always be the way it is now, just as every other disciple's opportunity such as friendship and funerals, babies and businesses, and all other activities in the world.

Let goods and kindred go if God calls you to. Give thanks for goods and kindred as God calls you to. This life is mortal, not meaningless, and so is marriage. It is a mess worth making, not avoiding, at lease for many.