1 Corinthians | Knowable Word

Whose Body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit?

February 21, 2024 By Peter Krol

I’ve argued before, from the context, that 1 Cor 6:19 is not a catch-all prohibition against anything and everything a person can do to their body (tattoos, alcohol, smoking, etc.). Nicholas Piotrowski and Ryan Johnson take it another step further to clarify what exactly Paul means by “your body.”

They carefully observe the grammar, context, and flow of thought through the entire letter of 1 Corinthians to conclude that “your body” is not, after all, your own body but the larger community (the body of Christ).

The trouble is that the Bible consistently speaks of one temple for the one God. So if each Christian’s individual body were a temple in and of itself, then that would mean God has millions of isolated temples all over the world. There is a bit of a theological problem with this.

I need to consider this further myself, especially since the “body” appears to refer to an individual’s physical in 1 Cor 6:18, the immediately preceding sentence. But perhaps my familiarity is clouding my observation of that verse as well!

Piotrowski and Johnson give four very good reasons for reading the verse in a corporate way, and I encourage you to give their reasons your own consideration.

Check it out!

3 Implications of the Fact that Bible Application is for Everybody

February 9, 2024 By Peter Krol

In the “longer ending” of Mark’s gospel, Jesus says, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15). Though some dispute the authenticity of Mark’s longer ending, I’m not aware of anyone disputing this fundamental instruction for the Christian Church (Matt 28:18-20, Col 1:23, Rev 14:6).

From this command, we can deduce that the Bible (which preserves and explains the gospel) has relevance to all people in all the world. That, in turn, means that anybody, anywhere, at any time in history can apply the Bible.

Perhaps that fact seems obvious. But what are some of its implications?

flowers and fruits on a table — Photo by Jill Wellington on Pexels.com

1. The same application will land differently in different cultures

Jesus warns that “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Practical applications of this warning are generally not terribly controversial in western dignity cultures, but they are far more difficult and excruciating for those in eastern honor cultures.

By contrast, Jesus said that “everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matt 5:32). Eastern honor cultures may tend to follow this command more closely, while those in western dignity cultures sometimes tend to focus more on the exceptions than the rule itself.

2. Different people may legitimately adopt opposite applications

Jesus told one person that following him meant leaving his family behind (Luke 9:59-60). He told another person that following him meant returning to his family (Mark 5:19-20).

He told one guy to sell everything and give it to the poor (Mark 10:21-22). He told others to make different use of their money (Luke 16:9).

The point is that many applications that fit your situation will not fit other people’s situations. The same principle (e.g. investing in eternity) may take different expression for different people. Let each be fully convinced in their own mind (Rom 14:5).

3. Particular applications may mature along with the person

A child-like faith is to be commended (Mark 10:15). A childish approach to human relationship is not (1 Cor 13:11, 16:13).

For one person, simply saying “hello” to a stranger might be an act of selfless obedience to Christ. But as that person matures, that “hello” ought to grow into more mature expressions of evangelism and love for neighbor.

Bible application is for everybody. What other implications of that fact can you think of?

Units of Thought in Discourse

January 27, 2023 By Peter Krol

One of the most important observations to make in a passage is the structure. And the way to observe structure is to first identify the parts of the passage (the units of thought) so that you can figure out how those parts relate to one another. In this post I’ll show you some of the ways to recognize the units of thought in a discourse.

What is a Discourse?

Discourse is one of the three text types in Scripture. A discourse is simply a passage where someone is speaking. It could be a speech or sermon. It could be a law code. It could be a letter. It could be a prose prophetic text. But when someone is speaking or teaching, a few particular tools will help us to discern the units of thought in that speech.

Photo by Volodymyr Hryshchenko on Unsplash

Logical Connectors

The first thing to look for is logical connectors. These are words or phrases that signal the movement from one idea to another. Such words include because, since, however, therefore, consequently, for this reason, finally, and many more.

It’s important to observe the use of such logical connectors, but it’s even more important to figure out how they are being used. For example, the word “but” could signal a very narrow and particular contrast between two words (e.g. the contrast between “bronze bases” and “silver hooks” in Ex 38:17). It could signal a larger contrast between clauses (e.g. the contrast between “the patriarchs sold him into Egypt” and “God was with him” in Acts 7:9). Or it could signal a larger contrast between sections or units of thought (e.g. the contrast between “you were” in Eph 2:1-3 and “but God” in Eph 2:4-6).

Noticing these larger, discourse-level transitions (not just word-level or clause-level transitions) helps us to follow the author’s larger argument by identifying his units of thought. For example, in Ephesians, after the blessing of God in Eph 1:3-14, the connector words “for this reason” (Eph 1:15) signal the next section. And there is no discourse-level connector word again until the “therefore” of Eph 2:11. This suggests that Eph 1:15-2:10 are a single unit of thought, explaining Paul’s prayer for the Ephesians to perceive their union with Christ. And the “therefore” section of Eph 2:11-22 explains the practical implications of such union of the entire community with Christ (and therefore with one another).

Transitional and Thesis Statements

In a modern-day sermon, you might hear the preacher say “My first point is…” or “Having seen [the first point], that leads us to consider the matter of [the second point].” These are the sorts of transitional words and phrases speakers use to let their audience know they are moving from one idea to the next. Some biblical discourses do the same thing.

For example, Hebrews 1:4 states a thesis that the Son of God is superior to angels because he has inherited a superior name. Heb 1:5-14 then explains the superiority of the Son, and Heb 2:5-18 demonstrates his superior name. Though there is some application in the middle (Heb 2:1-4), Heb 1:4-2:18 makes one complete unit of thought.

Another example: Eccl 11:7-8 states a thesis that because light is pleasant for the eyes, we ought to rejoice in what God gives and remember that dark days are coming. Eccl 11:9-10 then expands on the command to rejoice in God’s gift of life, and Eccl 12:1-7 expands on the command to remember the Creator before the dark days of old age threaten your joy.

One more example: In the second half of 1 Corinthians, Paul introduces each section with a transitional “concerning [the matters about which you wrote.” These transitional statements clearly inform us how to understand each section, so that we don’t get lost in the details. 1 Cor 7 deals with sexual relationships. 1 Cor 8-11 addresses the matter of food offered to idols. 1 Cor 12-14 covers the topic of spiritual things or spiritual people (the word “gifts” does not appear in the Greek of 1 Cor 12:1 but is added by translators).

Shifts in Content

When distinguishing units of thought in discourse, one final tool to keep in mind is straightforward shifts in content. We see such shifts clearly in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount where he uses very few direct transitions or connectors. After the blessings (Matt 5:3-12) he discusses salt and light (Matt 5:13-16) and the proper understanding of the Law and the Prophets, against Pharisaic oral tradition (Matt 5:17-48).

Then he does offer a thesis statement in Matt 6:1 to warn us of practicing righteousness before other people, and his shifts in content from giving (Matt 6:2-4) to prayer (Matt 6:5-15) to fasting (Matt 6:16-18) mark the subdivisions under that larger thesis.

Finally, he concludes the sermon with discussion of treasure (Matt 6:19-34), true and false judgments (Matt 7:1-20), and hearing and doing (Matt 7:21-27).

Embedded Discourse

One special type of discourse to watch for is embedded discourse, which is when a speech is placed within another kind of text, such as a narrative. When we’re dealing with embedded discourse, we must not only look for structural markers within the discourse itself. We must also pay close attention to the narrative markers that show the author’s larger purpose.

The Sermon on the Mount is embedded within Matthew’s larger narrative. So while the shifts in content help us to observe structural units of thought within the speech, we must also take note of the narrative frame in Matt 4:23-5:2 and Matt 7:28-29 to grasp not only Jesus’ point but also Matthew’s larger point in recounting the sermon.

Another example: In the Flood narrative, notice the narrative markers “And God said to Noah” (Gen 6:13) and “Then the LORD aid to Noah” (Gen 7:1). Prior to the Flood, God makes two speeches to Noah. We ought not squish them together, as though they were a single set of instructions. The narrator signals that God had two points to make or two sets of instructions for Noah.

Similarly, in Genesis 17, the narrative markers of Gen 17:1, 9, 15, and 22 mark three distinct speeches of God. God had something to say about himself (Gen 17:1-8). Something about Abram (Gen 17:9-14). Something about Sarai (Gen 17:15-21). And then he was done (Gen 27:22). Simply observe how the discourse has been embedded within the narrative, and you have immediately found the main units of thought and thereby the structure.

Conclusion

Discourse texts are some of the most beloved passages in all the Scripture. But we must be careful, for it is remarkably easy to get lost in the details. Employ these four tools—logical connectors, transitional and thesis statements, content shifts, and narrative markers for embedded discourse—to help you find the units of thought, and you’ll be well on your way to grasping the passage’s structure. This matters, because only once you’ve grasped the structure will you be able to draw credible and defensible conclusions about the passage’s main idea.

Grammar Crash Course: Parts of Speech

November 11, 2022 By Peter Krol

When we observe the Bible, one fundamental thing to take notice of is the grammar. Grammar always matters, as language cannot function without it. But in instructional literature such as epistles, grammar’s importance is elevated to the point where grammar always wins.

But what is it, precisely, students of the Bible ought to know about grammar? The first thing to learn is the parts of speech, which function in a sentence like tiles in a mosaic.

Definitions

A noun is a person, place, or thing. Examples: God, Jesus, disciple, house, Israel, field, covenant, bread, water, faith.

A pronoun replaces a noun so the writer doesn’t have to keep repeating the noun. Examples: I, me, you, he, him, she, her, it, we, they, them, yourself, myself, themselves. Pronouns can also be possessive: my, your, his, her, their, our. An antecedent is the noun that came earlier, which the pronoun now replaces. For example, in the sentence “Peter wrote his blog post,” the pronoun “his” refers to the antecedent “Peter.”

A verb shows what something is or does. Examples of being verbs: am, is, was, were, are, be, being, been, become. Examples of action verbs: sit, eat, run, said, believe, fight, went, worshiped.

An adjective modifies (describes) a noun in some way. Examples: green, beautiful, holy, wise, tall, foolish, slow, high, great, all.

An adverb modifies something other than a noun (usually a verb or adjective) in some way. Examples: very, nearly, slowly, inside, soon, completely, never.

A conjunction connects words, phrases, or clauses in some way. Examples: and, but, or, therefore, because, since, when, if, however.

A preposition describes the location of something in time or space. Examples: to, in, with, behind, before, around, under, above, by, near, after, along.

Some words can occur as more than one part of speech. The context and syntax must determine the word’s use in the sentence. For example, consider the word “for.” In Eph 1:20 it serves as both a conjunction (“For by grace”) and a preposition (“for good works”).

Why it Matters

Why should students of the Bible be able to observe and recognize the parts of speech? Because these parts of speech are the building blocks of communication. If the goal of interpretation is to determine the author’s main point in a passage, we need to have some objective way for figuring that out. The parts of speech are not sufficient in themselves to signal the author’s main point, but it is not possible recognize that main point without first recognizing the functions of the most pertinent parts of speech in the discourse.

For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:4-7, Paul describes love in lavish terms. “Love” is a noun (the thing under scrutiny). He stacks up a pile of adjectives (describing the noun): patient, kind, arrogant, rude, irritable, resentful—describing what love is or is not. He also stacks a pile of verbs, describing what love does or doesn’t do: envy, boast, insist, rejoice, bears, believes, hopes, endures. The idea of this brief paragraph is to paint a word picture of what love is and does.* That is a good start toward following the train of thought in the entire letter, which is all about how the Corinthian church is currently not any of the things that love is, and they need to grow up.

For another example, Ephesians 1:7-10 uses the pronouns he, him, and his many times. In each case, we need to figure out who is the proper antecedent: God the Father, or the Lord Jesus Christ? In Eph 1:7, “in him” and “his blood” certainly refer to Christ. But what about “his grace” in Eph 1:7 or “he lavished” in Eph 1:8? They could still be referring to Christ, but are you sure? And then what about “his will” and “his purpose” in Eph 1:9? Is that still Christ, or is it back to the Father? Because the “he” of “he set forth in Christ” must have the Father as the antecedent. So the details of the parts of speech make a real difference on what exactly you conclude is happening in this extended blessing of the Triune God!

More crash courses in grammar and syntax are on their way.

*With this example, I am helping English-speaking students of the English Bible learn to observe their English grammar. Greek scholars will point out that, in the original text, the words I’ve listed are all verbs; none of them are adjectives. That doesn’t change the point, however, that some of the verbs describe what love is, and other verbs describe what love does.

Context Matters: O, Death, Where is Your Sting?

February 25, 2022 By Peter Krol

This is a guest post by Clint Watkins. Clint is a missionary with DiscipleMakers in Lancaster, PA. His passion is to help sufferers find hope through honest wrestling. He blogs at frailfather.com, and you can find him on Instagram @clintdwatkins.

Perhaps you’re familiar with these hopeful and defiant questions: “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” You may have sung them on Easter Sunday to revel in Jesus’ triumph and deliver death a lyrical one-two punch. Or maybe you have stood silent as others around you sang victoriously—you believe that Jesus overcame death’s power, but you have felt defeated by death’s pain.

Whatever your experience is with these questions, they reverberate with hope. Jesus conquered the grave. The tomb is empty. We’ve been set free.

But could our taunting of death be premature?

Context matters. When we learn to read the Bible as it is—not merely as an archive of lyrics for happy songs—we may find our most cherished verses to provide even deeper hope than we imagined.

Resurrection Matters

These rhetorical questions come from 1 Corinthians 15, one of the most important chapters in your Bible. Some believers were saying Christ did not rise. So Paul realigns their history and theology.

If there is no resurrection then we have some serious issues: preaching is pointless (1 Cor 15:14), faith is worthless (1 Cor 15:14), we’re still in our sin (1 Cor 15:17), and the dead have perished forever (1 Cor 15:18). If Jesus did not rise then we have no hope beyond the grave and Christians are “of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:19). So we should just party hard until we die (1 Cor 15:32).

Christian faith rests entirely on Jesus’ resurrection. If it did not happen, we are magnificent fools. But Paul establishes the historical fact of the resurrection, verified by hundreds of eyewitness accounts (1 Cor 15:1-11). The empty tomb changes everything.

Jesus’ resurrection reverses the curse of sin. Death is mere sleep for those who are in Christ—just as he rose, so will we (1 Cor 15:20-22). We will exchange our broken frames for glorious bodies (1 Cor 15:35-49). Jesus’ resurrection means life has purpose—what we do matters. Instead of indulging every craving, we ought to live holy lives (1 Cor 15:34) driven by the grace of Jesus’ victory (1 Cor 15:57). Preaching the gospel is not pointless, but is “of first importance” (1 Cor 15:3). So we should “always [be] abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain” (1 Cor 15:58).

Tense Matters

This brings us to our refrain of questions, which occur in Paul’s crescendo at the chapter’s end. Take note of the verb tenses in this passage:

Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
“O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”
1 Cor 15:51-55

Do you notice how much of this is future tense? We shall not all sleep. We shall be changed. The trumpet will sound. The dead will be raised.

Paul gazes down time’s corridor and describes an unimaginable scene: We are alive, and death is dead.

The resurrection accomplishes the unbelievable. But not all of these promises have been fulfilled yet. This includes the defiant questions we sing so often. Quoting Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13, Paul says, “then shall come to pass the saying that is written.” You might expect him to say these promises have been fulfilled because of Jesus’ resurrection. And that’s how we often use these verses—as a present reality. But Paul’s eyes remain on the future.

We will, one day, mock death at its defeat. We will taunt, “Where is your sting? Where is your victory?” But that day has not yet come.

Death Matters

Why is this distinction important?

In a passage like this, we should hesitate to claim future promises as present reality. We don’t, afterall, profess that our bodies have already been transformed or that Jesus has already returned. These things, including death’s final defeat, are our inheritance in Christ—guaranteed, but not yet dispensed.

Specifically, to declare that death’s sting has already vanished can lead to a casual posture toward death. Excessive triumph can promote Christian dismissiveness. This leads some believers to avoid sorrow while others feel guilty for their grief.

But this passage is not about how to grieve. Elsewhere, we see that Paul does not treat death casually. Losing people hurts. He himself spoke of “sorrow upon sorrow” when he considered his friend’s potential death (Phil 2:27). And he encouraged the Thessalonians to grieve—with hope—for those who died (1 Thess 5:13).

This lines up with how Christ encounters the grave in John 11. How does Jesus respond to death, even when he knows resurrection is imminent? He weeps (Jn 11:35).

As Tim Keller says,

Death is not the way it ought to be. It is abnormal, it is not a friend, it isn’t right. This isn’t truly part of the circle of life. Death is the end of it. So grieve. Cry. The Bible tells us not only to weep, but to weep with those who are weeping. We have a lot of crying to do.

You do not have to dismiss the pain of losing someone you love. Wisdom weeps. Godliness grieves.

We need not ponder where death’s sting has gone. It’s still here. For a little while longer.

Hope Matters

Recognizing this does not dampen resurrection hope—it deepens it. Because the gospel holds our pain in tension with God’s promises. It permits honesty in the face of grief yet assurance that God will resolve our sorrow one day. We still wait for death’s final defeat. Until then, its sting runs deep. Yet the empty tomb of our risen king declares that the sting won’t last forever.

Context matters.

Amazon link is an affiliate link. Clicking it and buying stuff will help us continue laboring but not in vain.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

The Complexity of Applying the Speeches of Job’s Friends

May 28, 2021 By Peter Krol

The closing stanza of Eliphaz’s third speech (Job 22:21-30) is one of the loveliest poems in the book. If you didn’t know who said it, or under which circumstances, you might stencil it on your wall or post it on your bathroom mirror. And this raises an important question when studying the book of Job: What are we supposed to do with the speeches of Job’s “miserable comforters” (Job 16:2)?

Job suggests that silence will be their best wisdom (Job 13:5), and he sarcastically proclaims they have a corner on the market of godly wisdom (Job 12:2). Elihu burns with anger at their failure to answer to Job’s defense (Job 32:3). Yahweh declares they have not spoken of him what is right (Job 42:7). Does this mean we ought to simply discard their speeches, or that we ought to treat them as examples of folly or wickedness to be avoided?

Paul Didn’t Get the Memo

Apparently the Apostle Paul didn’t get the memo.

Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” So let no one boast in men.” (1 Cor 3:18-21a)

That first citation Paul uses? Right from Eliphaz’s first speech:

As for me, I would seek God,
and to God would I commit my cause,
who does great things and unsearchable,
marvelous things without number:
he gives rain on the earth…
he sets on high those who are lowly…
He catches the wise in their own craftiness,
and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end…
But he saves the needy from the sword of their mouth…
So the poor have hope,
and injustice shuts her mouth. (Job 5:8-16)

As R.B. Hays asserts, “Paul cites Job 5:13 here [in 1 Cor 3:19] as an authoritative disclosure of the truth about God’s debunking of human wisdom” (quoted by Ciampa & Rosner in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 704).

So Paul doesn’t ignore or contradict Eliphaz. He doesn’t qualify the citation in any way. He appears to use it straightforwardly in support of his point that God views the world’s wisdom as folly.

More to It

And yet, Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 1-3 is remarkably layered and clever. He keeps equivocating on his terms, defining them in different ways so he can play off the differences for didactic effect. For example, he uses the words “wisdom” and “folly” in at least two ways each: As defined by the world, and as defined by God.

So his point in 1 Cor 3:18 seems to be that if you think you are wise (by the world’s definition), you ought to become a fool (by the world’s definition) in order to become wise (by God’s definition). Paul keeps turning things upside-down and inside-out in order to play the terms “wisdom” and “folly,” or “wise” and “foolish,” off each other.

In light of this equivocation, it is altogether possible that Paul quotes Eliphaz as a matter of irony. In other words, Eliphaz presents himself as “wise,” but he’s really a “fool” (in the context of the book of Job). But God then does a “foolish” thing and takes the fool’s “wisdom” and makes it his own, but with an unexpected twist—in order to catch the wise in his own craftiness. In so doing, Paul declares that Eliphaz spoke even better than he knew, perhaps akin to John’s ironic use of Caiaphas’s prophecy that Jesus must die to rescue the nation and gather together God’s scattered children (John 11:49-53). Like Caiaphas, perhaps Eliphaz spoke that which was true from God’s perspective, but not in the way Eliphaz himself intended it.

Eliphaz thereby plays right into the part of the crafty who would be caught by his own craftiness.

Principles for Applying the Speeches of Job’s Friends

So how does this affect the way we read—and especially seek to apply—the speeches of Job’s three assailants? I propose the following principles:

Because the same Holy Spirit who inspired Job also said somewhere that “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable,” we must read the speeches of Job’s antagonists with the assumption that they are profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and/or training in righteousness.
The point of those speeches must be something more than “suffering is a result of prior sin.” If that were all the Lord wanted us to see in those speeches, he could have done it with one speech instead of eight. We wouldn’t need pages of dialogue that only repeat precisely the same thing over and over again. Therefore, we must read those eight speeches of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar with the assumption that each speech riffs on the theme in a nuanced way. Those three men clearly thought they were advancing the argument each time, so we ought to identify which particular angle each speech takes on the larger topic. Don’t skip over the speeches or lump them all together under the same vague interpretive heading.
Once we do that, we can compare any speech’s particular angle on suffering with the rest of Scripture. Following Paul’s example, we must read the speeches with the assumption that they might simply be speaking truth in the wrong setting. They might be saying something that was false in Job’s circumstance but would be true in a different circumstance. In other words, Eliphaz, Bildad, or Zophar might be saying something better and truer than even he realizes.

Back to Chapter 22

And so, circling back to Eliphaz’s third speech in Job 22, there is nothing wrong with seeing some truth mixed in with the error and the daft inconsiderateness. In many situations, it is true that someone will only find peace if they begin agreeing with God (Job 22:21, Prov 3:2). Many who reconsider their money and possessions in light of eternity will find the Almighty to be far more valuable (Job 22:24-25, 1 Tim 6:17). God does actually hear the prayers of the penitent (Job 22:27, Prov 15:29), and he delights to exalt the humble (Job 22:28-30, 1 Pet 5:6).

Conclusion

So if you’d like to stencil portions of Job 22 on your wall, I say have at it. Just be prepared for the unconsidered criticism of a few curmudgeons to come your way from time to time. But you’ll have your retort loaded for bear: “I offer my humblest apologies on behalf of both myself and the Apostle Paul, neither of whom got your memo.”

What Paul Means By “Act Like Men”

February 5, 2020 By Peter Krol

Wyatt Graham has a thoughful piece at his blog, asking the interpretive question: “What Does Paul Mean When He Says, ‘Act Like Men’?”

“Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”
1 Cor 16:13

After examining the underlying Greek word according to a lexicon, and then its use in other ancient literature, Graham walks through the literary context of the last few chapter chapter of 1 Corinthians. Then he explores the biblical context that Paul taps into through allusion to the psalms.

This is vibrant, rich, contextual observation and interpretation, which I eagerly commend to you.

Check it out!

Context Matters: God Won’t Give You More Than You Can Handle

March 22, 2019 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard that God will never give you more than you can handle. That, when life turns against you and sin bares its fangs, you can get through it with enough courage and persevering faith.

Context matters. When we learn to read the Bible properly—and not merely as a collection of quotable quotes or inspirational sayings—we’ll find that some of our most familiar sayings aren’t actually in the Bible.

Biblical Context

First, we should deal with the fact that the larger biblical witness clearly contradicts the statement that “God won’t give you more than you can handle.”

Just ask Job, whose vexation at his condition was heavier than the sand of the sea (Job 6:2-3). He would prefer to be crushed than to have to handle his situation any longer (Job 6:8-9). He loathed his own life (Job 7:16) and wished God would lay off him long enough that he could swallow his spit (Job 7:19). And these things all come from only one of his speeches!

Just ask the psalmist (perhaps David), who also asks God to look away from him so he can smile again (Ps 39:13).

Just ask Jonah, who was so completely unable to handle what God gave him that he figuratively died from it (Jon 2:1-3), and later wished he could literally die (Jon 4:8-9).

The consistent biblical witness is that: God gives people more than they can handle so they will learn to trust that only he can handle it. The common aphorism that “God won’t give you more than you can handle” is triumphalistic nonsense that fails to account for the common human need for lament through deep suffering.

Lauren Macdonald (2014), Creative Commons

Literary Context

The phrase “God won’t give you more than you can handle” won’t show up in a Bible keyword search. Just try it. This mistaken sentiment typically arises from a superficial reading of 1 Cor 10:13, which warrants a closer look.

“No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Cor 10:13)

This glorious verse sets up Paul’s chief command in this passage: “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry” (1 Cor 10:14). How did he get here?

In this section of the letter (beginning with 1 Cor 7:1), Paul answers a number of questions the Corinthians had asked him in a letter. In 1 Cor 8:1, he takes up the question of what to do with food sacrificed to idols—a major source of meat in the Corinthian market.

In chapter 8, he gives a preliminary answer that knowledge is important and helpful: There is only one God; therefore eating meat that was sacrificed to a non-existing entity doesn’t really matter. However, what’s even more important than true knowledge about the spiritual realm is love for other believers. If eating this meat might tempt someone back into worship of those idols, don’t do it. Therefore, we can restrict our liberty (due to mature knowledge) at times to serve others.

In chapter 9, Paul uses himself as a positive example. He restricts his liberty, his right, to get paid as a minister. He does this out of love, so he can preach the gospel to more people.

Then in chapter 10, Paul uses Israel’s wilderness generation as a negative example. They took their privileges and liberties for granted. As a result, they fell into idolatry and immorality, and God removed their right to life.

Paul’s point is simply: Liberty + selfishness = idolatry and death. But liberty + love = greater gospel impact on people’s lives.

In this context, he states that “no temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man.” In other words, don’t look down on the characters of Scripture as boneheads. You’re no different than they! You think you can eat meat sacrificed to an idol and not get sucked back into idolatry? You think you’re beyond this? You should remember you have the same inclination toward pride and self-trust as the ancient Israelites. And that temptation will lead nowhere good.

“God…will not let you be tempted beyond your ability.” He doesn’t say he won’t give you more than you can handle. He says that whatever temptation you face will always have an escape. The rock that is Christ still follows you through your wilderness, pronouncing blessing and spewing life. When you can’t handle your circumstances, don’t forget that he can.

Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

Context matters.

Thanks to Andrew J for the idea for this post.

For more examples of why context matters, click here.

Context Matters: The Love Chapter

October 5, 2018 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve heard that love is patient and kind (1 Cor 13:4). That it does not envy or boast. I’m willing to wager you’ve either seen these words on a plaque or heard them at a wedding, or both. And what mood do these words create when you hear them read? Comfort? Security? Compassion? Warmth? Mood really matters as something we ought to observe in a text. And if we take a passage like 1 Cor 13 out of context, we’re in danger of missing the mood. Which may cause us to miss the point.

Context matters. If we learn to read the Bible for what it is—and not as a collection of independently assembled proverbial sayings—we’ll discover that some of our most familiar passages don’t actually mean what we’ve always assumed.

Scripture as Art (2014), Creative Commons

Paul’s Mood

While 1 Corinthians is not Paul’s harshest letter—that honor would fall to Galatians—it comes pretty close. He has nice things to say about the Corinthians at the start (1 Cor 1:4-9), but he quickly moves into one criticism after another.

They have a reputation for quarreling and divisions (1 Cor 1:10-11).
They boast about themselves and their teachers (1 Cor 1:12).
They forget where they came from, that they were nothing special (1 Cor 1:26-29).
They have acted like unspiritual, fleshly people (1 Cor 3:1).
They are but infants in Christ (1 Cor 3:1).
They have deceived themselves (1 Cor 3:18).
They boast about their gifts (1 Cor 4:7).
They need to be admonished like children (1 Cor 4:14).
They don’t have much spiritual guidance (1 Cor 4:15).
They tolerate extreme immorality that even pagans wouldn’t tolerate (1 Cor 5:1).
They boast about their perceived maturity (1 Cor 5:6).
They are suing one another over trivial matters (1 Cor 6:7).
Their knowledge puffs them up, causing them to sin against others’ consciences (1 Cor 8:11-12).
They engage in idolatry (1 Cor 10:7).
They engage in sexual immorality (1 Cor 10:8).
They put Christ to the test (1 Cor 10:9).
They grumble (1 Cor 10:10).
They think they stand secure, but they really don’t (1 Cor 10:12).
They are contentious (1 Cor 11:16).
Their worship gatherings are not for the better but for the worse (1 Cor 11:17).
Selfish, factious people are being struck dead under the judgment of God (1 Cor 11:30).
They are impatient and don’t wait for one another (1 Cor 11:33).
They claim to be self-sufficient, not needing one another (1 Cor 12:21).

When we read the letter as a letter, and not as one independent chapter after another, we see that Paul is building a case, scaling a mountain. And chapter 13 is the peak. We rightly laud this chapter, but often in the wrong way.

Paul’s Climax

In the immediate context, Paul is addressing their questions “concerning spiritual gifts” (1 Cor 12:1). He just told them to “earnestly desire the higher gifts” (1 Cor 12:31). But there is a still more excellent way.

They can have the flashiest, most popular, and most coveted spiritual gifts. But if they don’t have love, they’re only making a cacophony (1 Cor 13:1-3).

Then Paul describes this more excellent way, the way of love. And what he says about love directly and explicitly corresponds to what these people are not.

Love is patient and kind. They are not (1 Cor 11:33).
Love doesn’t envy or boast. They do (1 Cor 1:12, 4:7, 5:6).
Love is not arrogant or rude. They are (1 Cor 10:10, 12).
Love does not insist on its own way. They do (1 Cor 6:7-8).
Love isn’t irritable or resentful. They are (1 Cor 1:10-11; 10:9, 10).
Love doesn’t rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. They tolerate much wrongdoing, ignoring the truth (1 Cor 5:1).
Love bears all things. They don’t (1 Cor 11:16).
Love believes all things. They don’t (1 Cor 12:21).
Love hopes all things. They don’t (1 Cor 11:17).
Love endures all things. They don’t (1 Cor 10:12, 11:30, 12:21).

In other words, it’s as though Paul is saying, “Love is everything you are not.”

Paul’s Assessment

Love will get them farther than the “best” spiritual gifts ever will (1 Cor 13:8-10). Then comes the kicker: Paul, too, was once a child. But he eventually had to grow up (1 Cor 13:11). That’s what it means to love; it requires us to grow up and become mature, which is something these infants (1 Cor 3:1), these children (1 Cor 4:14), have yet to do.

The next chapter tells them that spiritual gifts are not bad (especially prophecy). But they must desire them only in proportion to how much they are willing to “pursue love” (1 Cor 14:1). Chapter 14 is filled with instructions about how to exercise gifts in a way that is kind and loving to others.

Then Paul caps off the letter with a call to endure in faith (cf. “love believes all things…endures all things”) in light of the greatest expression of God’s love in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, a foretaste of our own resurrection (1 Cor 15). The thinly veiled insults of chapter 13 are not meant to crush them but drive them to draw grace from the deep well of salvation, revealed in the resurrection of Christ. Then they can become like their Lord, expressing their love and unity with the suffering brethren in Judea by contributing to their needs (1 Cor 16:1-4). Love never ends; it never fails—when it is derived from the right place.

Conclusion

1 Corinthians 13 may be one of Paul’s most eloquent chapters. Perhaps only Romans 8 or Philippians 2 can rival it. But the mood is absolutely not a warm and fuzzy one. Its character is one of sustained rebuke, not one of pleasant encouragement. To miss this mood may be to miss the point.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t put it on plaques or read it at weddings (in fact, I’m preaching it at a wedding in a few months). But to get the message right, we must be sure to capture the tone of warning, rebuke, and satire. May it resound, as Paul intended, as our mandate to grow up and act no more like selfish little children.

I drew inspiration for this post from a talk on “Context” given by David Helm. Click to see more examples of why context matters.

Context Matters: Your Body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit

September 28, 2018 By Peter Krol

Perhaps you’ve been told that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19). And perhaps this declaration came in the wake of an argument against drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, piercing a part of your body, or getting a tattoo. This go-to verse has kept countless multitudes in reverent submission to a variety of cultural expectations. At least until many of those submissive masses come of age. When many inevitably rebel against the behavioral expectations set for them, are they rebelling against the word of God?

Heart2 (2011), Creative Commons

The Verse

It appears rather straightforward. I’ll even go as far as to quote two verses:

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Cor 6:19-20)

Easy, right? If you profess to follow the Lord Jesus Christ, your body has become a temple for his Spirit. Therefore, it is not appropriate for you to put harmful substances (alcohol, tobacco) into it, or to mutilate your body with excessive piercings. Glorifying God in your body requires you to abstain from such harmful behaviors.

Consistency

Let’s just make sure to follow that line of thinking all the way into the station. If this verse prohibits alcohol, tobacco, or piercings, then how much more does it also prohibit caffeine, chocolate cake, bacon grease, late nights, failure to bathe, steel factory employment, vasectomies, and drivers’ licenses? Each of these things either 1) introduces harmful substances to the body, 2) puts the body at significant risk of harm, or 3) makes permanent bodily changes for reasons other than preserving health.

Charles Spurgeon understood the absurdity of this logic. The story is told¹ of the time he met Dwight L. Moody. Upon being greeted by the Prince of Preachers chomping on a flaming stogie, Moody exclaims, “How could you, a man of God, smoke that cigar?” Spurgeon advances on Moody with pointing finger aimed at the latter’s seriously overweight gut: “The same way that you, a man of God, can be that fat.”

The Context

But we need not rely on witticisms or sophistry to make the point. The context is more than adequate to the task.

The main idea of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is that the church of God, set apart in Christ Jesus, must live in harmony and not with factional infighting (1 Cor 1:2, 10-11). He first addresses how factional thinking betrays the world’s wisdom and is contrary to Christ’s wisdom (1 Cor 1-4). Then he turns to matters of sexual conduct.

In 1 Cor 5, Paul addresses a serious matter with serious words. The Corinthians must not tolerate sexual sin, especially not sin that even pagans would refuse to tolerate (1 Cor 5:1). This leads Paul to clarify what sort of people they ought to dissociate from: not all sinners, but those who walk proudly in sin while bearing the name of Christ (1 Cor 5:9-11). The church has a responsibility to judge those inside her community (1 Cor 5:12-13).

This topic of sitting in judgment on offenders leads Paul into a tangential discussion of lawsuits (1 Cor 6:1). His point is that we should be able to trust the church to be competent in rendering justice, as we will one day judge the world (1 Cor 6:2). The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom (the authority to judge the world), but the righteous will (1 Cor 6:9-10). Some of you were in the former group, but now you are in the latter (1 Cor 6:11).

In 1 Cor 6:12, Paul is back on his main topic of sexual misconduct. He deals with what must have been a common saying among Corinthian Christians: “All things are lawful for me” (1 Cor 6:12). But he clarifies that things are lawful only insofar as they are helpful and not enslaving. He questions another saying they have about food (1 Cor 6:13) before homing in on his main point in this part of the argument: “The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body” (1 Cor 6:13).

At this point, he moves into his metaphor of the body as a “member” of Christ (a part of Christ’s own body). He applies this to the sin of prostitution (1 Cor 6:15). One who joins with a prostitute becomes one flesh with the prostitute (1 Cor 6:16), when that person ought to be one spirit with the Lord (1 Cor 6:17).

His application? “Flee from sexual immorality” (1 Cor 6:18). To support this application, he uses the metaphor of temple to describe the body. Your body is the Holy Spirit’s temple; therefore, do not offer that temple in union with an illicit sexual partner (something well-accepted in Corinthian culture at the local pagan temple, considered an act of worship).

After prohibiting ungodly sexual ethics in 1 Cor 5-6, Paul moves on in chapter 7 to promote a godly sexual ethic. This rounds out the discussion of sexual ethics, and connects it back to the main theme of living in harmony for the good of the community.

The Linchpin

Tucked right between the application (1 Cor 6:18a) and the temple metaphor (1 Cor 6:19) is a crucial clarifying statement: “Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body” (1 Cor 6:18b). Paul explicitly excludes every other sin from his temple metaphor. Therefore, we are not authorized by the Lord—in fact, we abuse his word—if we use it to address any other sin besides sexual immorality.

Conclusion

Please note: In this post, I am not arguing for drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, getting a tattoo, or piercing your body. Those topics are complex and require more discussion than I’ve offered here. I am simply throwing 1 Cor 6:19 out of the discussion. When discussing anything besides sexual immorality, “your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit” is out of bounds. Part of your training for making wise ethical judgments is coming to understand this fact (1 Cor 6:2).

Context matters.

¹I say “the story is told” because I have not been able to track down an original source for this story, so it may be spurious.

Thanks for visiting Knowable Word! If you like this article, you might be interested in receiving regular updates from us. You can sign up for our email list (enter your address in the box on the upper right of this page), follow us on Facebook or Twitter, or subscribe to our RSS feed.

Thanks to Matthew Bair for the idea for this post. Click to see more examples of why context matters.