• About
  • Books

memoirandremains

memoirandremains

Category Archives: 1 Corinthians

Love and Nothing

17 Thursday Mar 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Corinthians, Love

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

1 Corinthians 13, J.D. Jones, love

In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul begins his discourse on love with a reference to a series of wonderous actions. But each of these marvels, Paul says the action counts for nothing if it is not done in love:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:1–3. It is easy to take Paul’s language of “nothing” as a mere rhetorical flourish.

But this illustration by a once well-known preacher J.D. Jones provides a well-constructed illustration which makes plain the substance of the Apostle’s argument. This illustration works first by referencing a commonplace which is instantly comprehensible by audience (a “naught” is a zero). Second, the illustration maps back onto Paul’s argument of “nothing”. These things without love are actually nothing.

Jones uses the symbol of “nothing” to illustrate his point:

“Love” is no “adjunct” to the Apostle. It is no “minor interest.” It is not something that competes for place with work and politics and play. It is the thing that gives everything else value. It is the thing that confers upon everything else its worth. The gifts Paul mentions in these verses were not insignificant and commonplace gifts. They were the greatest and most coveted of gifts. And what he says of them all is that they are valueless without love. They are like a row of ciphers without a digit in front to give them value. Write down a row of noughts. Write down a dozen of them, and what do they amount to? Exactly nothing! And if you were to write a thousand of them they would be nothing still. But put a figure in front of those noughts and they at once become significant. They stand for something, they mean much. Put three noughts down and they amount to just nothing. Just a “I” in front of them and they mean a thousand. And it is like that with gifts and powers, says the Apostles. They count for nothing without love. Life itself is nothing without love. It is no mere “adjunct,” no mere “minor interest.” It is that which makes life significant and worth while; it is that which lends to every gift its worth.

J. D. Jones, The Greatest of These: Addresses on the Thirteenth Chapter of First Corinthians (London: Hodder and Stoughton Limited, 1925), 39–40.

A Short Bible Study, 1 Cor. 6:9-20

04 Saturday Jan 2020

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Corinthians, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

1 Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 6, Bible Study

1 Corinthians 6:9–20 (ESV)

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived:

neither the sexually immoral,

nor idolaters,

nor adulterers,

nor men who practice homosexuality,

10 nor thieves,

nor the greedy,

nor drunkards,

nor revilers,

nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you.

But you were washed,

you were sanctified,

you were justified

in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ

and by the Spirit of our God.

Flee Sexual Immorality

12 “All things are lawful for me,”

but not all things are helpful.

“All things are lawful for me,”

but I will not be dominated by anything.

13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”

—and God will destroy both one and the other.

The body is not meant for sexual immorality,

but for the Lord,

and the Lord for the body.

14 And God raised the Lord

and will also raise us up by his power.

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?

Shall I then take the members of Christ

and make them members of a prostitute?

Never!

16 Or do you not know

that he who is joined to a prostitute

becomes one body with her?

For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”

17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.

18 Flee from sexual immorality.

Every other sin a person commits is outside the body,

but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

19 Or 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,

20 for you were bought with a price.

So glorify God in your body.

Questions Verses 9-11

What is the general rule stated in the beginning of verse 9?

What is the danger which Paul addresses in the second clause of verse 9?

The explanation of the deceit (do not be deceived) is apparently discussed verses 12 – 13a. These verses will be discussed, below.

Who will be denied entrance into the Kingdom of God?

Why should the Corinthians not be discouraged by the warning of verses 9-10?

What makes a person worthy to enter the Kingdom of God (v. 11)?

 

 

Verses 12-20

1 Corinthians 6:12–20 is widely acknowledged to be one of the most difficult passages in Paul’s letters. Commentators have described the unit as “disjointed,” “obscure,” “unfinished,”1 “imprecise,” “extravagant,” and even “incoherent.”

Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 245. In addition to what is immediately apparent in this passage, there are also questions about idolatry: food sacrificed to idols and sexual immorality as part of pagan idol worship.

Since the phrase “food for the body” is hard to understand:

As Loader notes, the ancient world regularly linked sexual appetite and appetite for food.38 Further, if we ‘read between the lines’ it is not difficult to infer the logic of the Corinthian position. The stomach39 or belly, as “the organ of nourishment” (BDAG, 1), was associated, along with food, with that which is physical and therefore transient. The Corinthians probably also believed that just as food is meant for the stomach and vice versa, so also sexual activity is meant for the body and the body for sexual activity. The stomach and the body are useless unless we eat and have sex. Such natural bodily processes have no abiding significance and are thus of no moral consequence.

In a style typical of Greek dualistic thought, the Corinthians apparently reasoned that God is concerned only with those aspects of a person that survive death, that is, their soul or spirit.40 When Paul reports that some of the Corinthians believed that God will destroy both the stomach and food, the verb “to destroy”41 has eschatological connotations,42 as elsewhere in the letter (1:28; 2:6; 13:8, 10–11; 15:24, 26). However, he interrupts their reasoning and objects that the body is not like the belly and food in this regard: The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality (as you surmise) but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

[1] Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 254–255.

It was a saying of the Corinthians and it made sense in their world.

v 12

Paul gives two responses to the sayings that concerning the body and food? What are the two responses?

 

v 13:

What will God do to the body and food?

What is the body not meant for?

What is the body meant for?

 

v 14

What has God done already?

What is God going to do for the body?

Can you think of any connection between the resurrection of the Lord and our resurrection?

 

v 15

What connection does Paul draw between the body of a believer and the body of Christ?

 

v 16

What happens when a member of the body of Christ defiles himself in sexual immorality?

 

v 17

What happens to one who is joined to Christ? In what way is he joined?

 

v 18

What is the command?

What is reason for this command?

 

v 19

Why is the body of a believer so very important?

Reflect on the fact that the temple of God is the body of a believer and the body of all believers. Why then is sexual immorality such a grave sin?

 

v 19-20

Why does God have the right to make such commands about the use of our body?

Can a believer ever say, “it’s my life and I’ll do what I want?”

 

v

What is the final command issued by Paul?

Glorify God. From this conclusion, it appears that the Corinthians took a liberty to themselves in outward things, that it was necessary to restrain and bridle. The reproof therefore is this he allows that the body is subject to God no less than the soul, and that accordingly it is reasonable that both be devoted to his glory. “As it is befitting that the mind of a believer should be pure, so there must be a corresponding outward profession also before men, inasmuch as the power of both is in the hands of God, who has redeemed both.” With the same view he declared a little ago, that not only our souls but our bodies also are temples of the Holy Spirit, that we may not think that we discharge our duty to him aright, if we do not devote ourselves wholly and entirely to his service, that he may by his word regulate even the outward actions of our life.

John Calvin, 1 Corinthians, electronic ed., Calvin’s Commentaries (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998), 1 Co 6:20.

 

Application:

Rather than just say, here’s the application, it is more useful to make concrete applications. This passage means that we should avoid sexual immorality and should glorify God. The problem with just saying that is that it is easy for these things to just be a ‘fact’ like Washington crossed the Delaware or Argon is a noble gas. It might be true but also meaningless to most of life. Good application turns the passage into practice.

What verse from this passage would be useful to memorize?

Write a prayer which

1) Praises God: What reason does a believer have to praise God? Vv. 11 & 19

2) Repentance: What sins are here to repent of?

3) Prayer for deliverance: What sins here should one pray to be protected from?

4) Prayer for future life: What should we seek to do?

 

What is the chief end of man?

To glorify God and enjoy him forever.

A Short Bible Study: 1 Cor. 1:1-9

31 Tuesday Dec 2019

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Corinthians, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

1 Corinthians 1:1-9, Bible Study, Lesson

1 Corinthians 1:1–9 (ESV)

Greeting

1 Paul,

            called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus,

and our brother Sosthenes,

2 To

the church of God that is in Corinth,

to those sanctified in Christ Jesus,

called to be saints

together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,

both their Lord and ours:

3 Grace to you

and peace

from

God our Father

and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The editors of the ESV added the section breaks. Use them to understand the passage. The first two verses are a greeting. This is sort of like the address on an envelope. From what I understand, this part would be written on the outside of a scroll. The other side would have the letter itself.

Who wrote the letter?

How does Paul describe his status as one writing to them?

Why is he an apostle?

To whom does he write the letter (two, not one)? Why does that matter? Think carefully about the second recipient of the letter, what does that have to do with you?

Verse three is a prayer. What does Paul pray God will give them? Compare that with 1 Cor. 16:23 (the closing).

How is God described? Jesus?

 

 

 

Thanksgiving

4 I give thanks to my God always

for you

        because

                    of the grace of God that was given you

                                in Christ Jesus,

5 that in every way you were enriched

        in him

                    in all speech and all knowledge—

6 even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you—

7 so that you are not lacking in any gift,

as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ,

        8 who will sustain you to the end,

                     guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9 God is faithful,

by whom you were called

         into the fellowship of his Son,

                    Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

Paying attention to the structure of the sentence will help you see the points Paul is making.

What does Paul do (4)?

For whom?

Why?

Everything which follows “grace” given to them?

that in every way you were enriched

        in him

                    in all speech and all knowledge—

6 even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you—

7 so that you are not lacking in any gift,

as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ,

        8 who will sustain you to the end,

                     guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Notice that the grace of God was given to them “in him”. This is a critical point of Paul’s argument to the Corinthians: God’s relationship to the Corinthians is in Christ (alone). Pay attention to this theme throughout the letter. In the next section, Paul will begin to discuss the divisions among the Corinthians. If each of the Corinthians are in Christ; and if all of the grace they receive from God is in Christ and through Christ, how does that help you understand the wrongness of division?

Paul says they were “enriched”? With what were they enriched?

In v. 6 he writes that the testimony of Christ was confirmed among them. Look at v. 5 & 7, how was it “confirmed”? What did God do to confirm it.

Why do they need this grace? Verse 7, second clause: what are they doing?

What will happen before the  revealing? Verse 8a.

What will happen at the revealing? Verse 8b.

How is God described? V. 9a

What has God done? V 9b

Think again: People at Corinth have many divisions. Paul wants to develop their unity in Christ alone. In verse 4 they learn that all of God’s grace is given to them in Christ. In verse 9 they learn their fellowship is with the Son. That means that no one comes to the Father except through the Son and that all good from the Father comes through the Son. What is the relationship between the sinful divisions between the people and Paul’s instruction on how God relates to his people through Jesus? How does that knowledge act to combat their divisions?

How many times is Jesus called “Lord”? In these first nine verses?

Paul is going to give some serious and often sharp correction in this letter. He is going to detail some serious and open sin in the Church. But before he begins his correction, he gives them a great deal of encouragement: What exactly is the encouragement here in the introduction?

Think about how this particular encouragement will help them listen to his correction and be willing to change (repentance)? Think particularly about his prayer for them: that they would receive “grace” and “peace”.

Application: This letter is written in part to you (second part of verse 2).  How do these words encourage us to repent?

We always move in the direction of our hope: Our hope is our goal. The strength of that hope will depend upon (1) the value of the thing hoped for, and (2) a conviction that the hope is realistic.  We would not have much hope in something we did not particularly like, because it would stir no desire in us. No one hopes that they will have financial or physical problems. Second, there are things we could desire because they are desirable, but they do not inspire hope because they are completely unrealistic and not to be attained by us: I wanted to be a baseball player when I was a boy, but that hope did not persist because I was never that good. The hope was unrealistic.  How does Paul give them good ground for hope in this introduction? What is the hope which Paul is seeking to develop?

A consideration of Wayne Grudem’s Argument for Divorce on Grounds of Abuse

03 Tuesday Dec 2019

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Corinthians, Biblical Counseling, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Corinthians 7:15, Abuse, divorce, Grudem

Wayne Grudem has recently made an argument that abuse is permissible basis for divorce in accordance with 1 Corinthians 7:15. The issues of divorce is fraught with peril; and so, my arguments here are quite tentative and based upon a brief consideration. I am merely thinking out loud. But I do believe that Grudem’s argument is plausible and could be strengthened significantly.

Here experience as an attorney helps to understand what is happening with Paul’s legislation.

The argument made by Dr. Grudem is quite similar to the sort of interpretation which is faced routinely in litigation: A particular statute will include both a definite statement of some category and a list of examples. The particular section of his presentation at issue concerns the phrase “in such cases” found in 1 Corinthians 7:15:

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

(ESV). Grudem’s argument hinges upon the plural use in the original:

1 Corinthians 7:15 (SBLGNT)

15 εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται, χωριζέσθω· οὐ δεδούλωται ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἡ ἀδελφὴ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις, ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεός.

The structure is similar to that faced by the courts. The difficulty here lies with the nature of translation, particular when dealing with a grammatical connective (as opposed to the translation of a noun or verb which have a clearer reference in the physical world). The translation runs to either “in such cases” or “in such circumstances”.

Grudem gives a number of examples from other extra-biblical Greek texts where the phrase is used to introduce an open-ended list (as opposed to giving a restricted list: these items and no more). However, Grudem’s examples from other texts is insufficient to make a solid conclusion.

The interpretative question is whether Paul intends for his example to be read as an exhaustive list: “in this circumstance only”; or is it to be read as an example, “in circumstances like this”.  The plural could mean either any time an unbeliever separates (and thus multiple unbelievers) or it could mean circumstances similar to an unbeliever separating.

The phrase “in such circumstances/cases” is not a common phrase in statutory construction. But there are other quite similar phrases which could inform our analysis.

Perhaps the most common introductory comment is “includes”. For example, a case in Nebraska of an employee seeking benefits sustained by an injury turned upon whether the phrases following “high risk duty includes:” were an exhaustive list or an exemplary list. The court found that use of the word “include” introduces an expansive list:

We recognize that some courts have concluded that the word “include,” standing alone, is ambiguous whether the contracting parties meant for the word to be expansive or restrictive. But we are not persuaded by these cases. Concluding that the parties’ intent regarding a list is ambiguous if a list is preceded only by the verb “include” is contrary to its plain and ordinary meaning. The word “include” means “1. to contain, embrace, or comprise, as a whole does parts or any part or element … 2. to place in an aggregate, class, category, or the like. 3. to contain as a subordinate element; involve as a factor.” Contrary to the county’s argument, these definitions support the conclusion that enumerated items in a list preceded by the word “include” are normally a part of the whole—not that the parts restrict the whole. Particularly in legal contexts, the “participle including typically indicates a partial list,” and this meaning holds true whether or not the drafter(s) added emphatic language such as “ including but not limited to.” Obviously, interpretative aids cannot override the parties’ clear intent when a contract is considered as a whole. But the word “include” preceding a list does not indicate an exclusive list absent other language showing a contrary intent.

Timberlake v. Douglas Cnty., 865 N.W.2d 788, 797 (Neb. 2015). Prodigy Svcs. v. Johnson, 125 S.W.3d 413, 417 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (A related phrase which is much easier to apply is “includes, but is not limited to:” “Following that line of argument the Commissioner finds expansive language in the statute, such as “transmission by or through any media” and “includes but is not limited to, all types of telecommunication transmissions.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-6-102(31)(BC)(Supp. 2002).”)  Thus, if we read Paul’s “in such cases” as “includes”, we have a basis for reading abandonment as one example, not a complete list.

A related phrase connecting a general to a specific reference is “such as” – which is perhaps more similar to Paul’s construction. A Michigan case involving the scope of the phrase “earth movement” provides some useful analysis:

Relying on the doctrine of ejusdem generis, Andriacchi argues that the term “earth movement” is constricted by the words of limitation “such as.” Because the exclusion only identifies natural events—”earthquake, landslide or earth sinking, rising or shifting”—Andriacchi argues that the term “earth movement” is limited to naturally occurring events. Reliance on this doctrine is misplaced. Under the ejusdem generis doctrine, “when a general word or phrase follows a list of specifics, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only items of the same class as those listed.” Black’s Law Dictionary(10th ed.). But as the trial court recognized, that doctrine (or, for that matter, any other canon of statutory interpretation) does not apply where the language of the contract is clear, see, e.g., Utica State Savings Bank v. Village of Oak Park, 279 Mich. 568, 573, 273 N.W. 271 (1937), as is the case here. Further, the phrase “such as” conveys that the cited examples are not all-inclusive or restrictive in nature, and thus does not serve to narrow the types of earth movement excluded under the policy. Moreover, the cited examples of earth movement are not only caused by natural phenomena. For example, landslides can occur naturally or be caused by man, as can the “sinking, rising or shifting” of the earth.

Home-Owners Ins. Co. v. Andriacchi, 903 N.W.2d 197, 203-4 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). Here we had a party arguing that “such as” acted as a limitation, and the court responding with the observation that here are examples where “such as” did not limit the general proposition. But something is important here: the canons of construction are not iron clad rules, they are helps to understanding: “But as the trial court recognized, that doctrine (or, for that matter, any other canon of statutory interpretation) does not apply where the language of the contract is clear”.

In a criminal case which hinged upon scope of the word “matter” in a jury instruction concerned the computer hardware or computer disk which held an image or the image itself.

The statute indicates that at a minimum, a “matter” must be capable of containing a visual depiction. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). Although both the disks and the GIF files could be viewed as “containing” the visual depiction, we conclude the “matter” is the physical medium that contains the visual depiction — in this case, the hard drive of Lacy’s computer and the disks found in his apartment. This interpretation is supported by two principles of statutory interpretation, noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis. “The first means that a word is understood by the associated words, the second, that a general term following more specific terms means that the things embraced in the general term are of the same kind as those denoted by the specific terms.” United States v. Baird, 85 F.3d 450, 453 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing 2A Norman J. Singer, Sutherland-Statutory Construction §§ 47.16, 47.17 (5th ed. 1992)). Although canons of construction do not mandate how a phrase is to be read, they “describe what we usually mean by a particular manner of expression.” Longview Fibre Co. v. Rasmussen, 980 F.2d 1307, 1313 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, the word “matter” appears at the end of the list “books, magazines, periodicals, films, [and] video tapes,” all of which are physical media capable of containing images. See Baird, 85 F.3d at 453 (looking to list’s “theme” to determine the meaning of a general term).

United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742, 748 (9th Cir. 1997). There are two elements of this argument which are useful here: the purpose of a list of examples is to help understand a particular term. There is always a bit of ambiguity in language; at times a list of examples can help to diminish the ambiguity. The second observation is that no “rule” can absolutely answer the question; it only helps when it comes to interpretation.

So here with we have additional help. What do not have is a conclusive answer.

As noted above, Grudem makes much of the use of the phrase in other extra-biblical Greek texts. His examples demonstrate that it is possible to read the phrase as introducing one example, rather than a restrictive list. But that is all his argument proves.

I do not believe his argument as it stands is sufficient to make the case. He merely notes that the grammatical structure could permit a broad reading; not that it must permit a broad reading. The answer to that question does not hinge upon the use of the particular, but upon the structure of the argument.

To understand Paul’s argument correctly, we must do more than atomistically look at phrase and then compare that phrase to other not necessarily parallel uses. That is not how language works. It is true that the phrase at least sometimes has the force of  “includes but not limited to”. But does it here?

If one looks at verse 15 alone, it is difficult to see how one could construct such an argument for the use of phrase. The plural could just mean “every time an unbeliever leaves a marriage”: or every unbeliever who leaves: “15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.”

To construct an “includes but is not limited to” argument, would have to first define a general category in which abandonment (“separates”) is a common not though exhaustive example.  The trouble is the verse does not provide us with any general category. In fact, looked at alone, the preceding reference for “in such cases” is the sole instance of an unbelieving spouse abandoning the marriage.

However, if we back up to verse 13 (verse 14 is merely explains the principle underlying the rule) we can see the following argument running from verse 13 through 15:

13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.  …. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

General rule: if an unbeliever “consents to live with”. The clause “consents to live with” is uncertain. What does it mean to “consent to live with”?

Verse 15 introduces an example: “If the unbelieving partner separates”.  Thus, abandoning the marriage would not be the sole instance of not consenting to live with but merely an example of one who does not consent to live with.

The counter argument would be that “pleased to dwell with” has only one opposite term, abandonment. But again, looked at from this angle, Grudem’s argument based upon the Greek seems more plausible: Is the only opposite of “pleased to dwell with” abandonment? Certainly, abandonment is one opposite term, but it does not seem to be the only opposite term.

Conclusion: I think Grudem has presented the beginning of a good argument. His argument would actually be much stronger if it were anchored in the structure of Paul’s argument and not in a narrow reading of the phrase.

Moreover, anchoring the argument in the overall structure of the Paul’s argument has the additional advantage of not trying to contend that abuse is a form of abandonment, but rather that abuse is inconsistent with “pleased to dwell” (1 Cor. 7:13, KJV).

In addition, (I don’t have the cite available), I recall reading (in Baxter’s Christian Directory?) that to stay in a marriage where one’s life was in danger is a violation of the 6th Commandment, because we don’t have a right to let others kill us. I’m surprised that Baxter’s argument has not received more traction: I think it a good argument and far simpler to apply than looking for grounds for divorce. Now, Baxter’s argument may not sufficient to anchor a remarriage (I just don’t know), but it certainly provides for separation for safety.

Physical abuse is a sin and a crime. Congregations have serious obligations to protect the safety of their members, and to utilize both the process of church discipline and the legal protections available. Failure to do these things has resulted in many congregations sinning against those who were most in need of protection.

A final important caution: the introduction of an example, even if only one in a series of other possible example, does form a kind of restriction. Only things which are the opposite of “pleased to dwell with” and similar to “separates” are included within Paul’s list. If we read the scope of permissible divorce as broader than abandonment, we must have some limiting mechanism to distinguish those instances which are plainly outside of Paul’s injunction.

 

Members of the Body of Christ, 1 Corinthians 1

02 Thursday May 2019

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Corinthians, Sermons, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Corinthians 1, Body of Christ, Sermons

A sermon from February 15, 2015

https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.calvarybiblechurch.org/audio/sermon/2015/20150215.mp3

James Denney, The Superlative Way

26 Tuesday Jun 2018

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Corinthians, James Denney, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Corinthians 13, James Denney, love, The Way Everlasting

From his collected sermons, The Way Everlasting. The sermon concerns 1 Corinthians 13, on the call for Christians to love:

For what the theologian defines and the Apostle depicts is illustrated and embodied in our Lord Himself, and what we have to do is to look at Him. “Herein is love.” We do not know what love is till we see it in Jesus, and when we see it there we see Him identifying Himself with God’s interest in us. The revelation is not only made before our eyes, it is made with special reference to ourselves. In Christ’s presence we are not the spectators of love only, we are its objects. Christ exhibits towards men, He exhibits towards us, that wonderful goodness which Paul describes. When we think what our life has been, and what has been His attitude to us from first to last, do we not say, “Our Lord suffers long, and is kind; He is not easily provoked; He does not impute to us our evil. Where we are concerned, where God’s interest in us is concerned, He bears all things, He believes all things, He hopes all things, He endures all things.” These are the thoughts, or rather these are the experiences, out of which love is born in our hearts. We love, because He first loved us All the time it is His love which must inspire ours. “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God, and every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love.”

James Denney, The Way Everlasting: Sermons (London; New York; Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911), 163.

Love in The Seducer’s Diary (Kierkegaard, Either/Or)

14 Tuesday Feb 2017

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Corinthians, Kierkegaard, Philosophy, Psychology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Corinthians 13, Behavioralism, Either, Kierkegaard, love, The Seducer's Diary

The nature of the “aesthetic” man, and the nature of the “seduction” in this diary are well explained by a couple of quotations. The seducer is predatory,:her weakness is the opening for his action, “When a young girl is emotionally disturb, one an successfully venture much which would otherwise be ill-advised.”  The erotic here has no true love for her — only for the sensation which the other person produces.

The bare desire for sensation is further underscored in this section,

Social intercourse, it is true, brings one into contact with the fair sex, but there is no artistry in beginning an affair in such surroundings. In society every girl is armed, the occasion is poor and encountered repeatedly, she gets no sensuous thrill. On the street she is on the open sea, everything acts more strongly around her, everything seems more mysterious. I would give a hundred dollars for a small from a girl I met on the street, not ten dollars for a pressure of a hand at a party; that is an entirely different kind of currency.

As one considers this diary, we see that this seduction amounts to almost all of what we call “love”. Love consists in what another person makes me feel. We remain in love as long as that palpable emotion persists. What we love then is our sensation — not the other human being. When I spoke with a behaviorist psychologist, she explained that what we love about another human being are the pleasurable sensations produced in our nervous system — and that loss was the sensation of the loss of those sensations.

1 Corinthians 13:4–7 (ESV)

4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Why didn’t Paul take a salary at Corinth?

06 Wednesday Jul 2016

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Corinthians, Elders, Ministry, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Corinthians 9, money, Pastoral Ministry, Pastoral Pay, Paul, Salary

One aspect of the ancient world that we need to keep in mind as we read these verses is the fact that it frequently operated on the basis of informal “patron-client” relationships. In such relationships, a “have” (patron) supported a “have-not” (client) materially. The have-not did not earn or merit such “grace.” The patron or “have” did it for other reasons, such as the prestige of being noble or various other favors a have-not might render. In return, the have-not, the “client,” returned whatever honor or service was appropriate.

In some parts of the Roman Empire, the newly rich would compete for status by accruing as many clients as they could.3 Such clients might be expected to come to the patron’s house once a day and do whatever menial tasks the patron required. In return they would get at least one meal that day along with the possibility of future help. The entanglements of patron-client relationships provide us with a good explanation for why Paul on principle did not receive material support from the churches where he was ministering. He would take support from churches elsewhere, such as the support he received from the Philippian church while he was at Thessalonica (Phil. 4:15–16). But he refused support from the cities where he currently served.

Kenneth Schenck, 1 & 2 Corinthians: A Commentary for Bible Students (Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 2006), 136.  Commenting on 1 Corinthians 9

From Dust to Glory: the remembrance of God

18 Thursday Feb 2016

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Corinthians

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1 Corinthians 15, adoption, Dust, Psalm 103, Resurrection, Romans 8

We were created by God from dust

then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 

Gen2.7

Our descent goes back to this son of God made from dust

the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. 

Luke3.38

And yet in our trials we can wonder whether God remembers that he created us from dust:

8 Your hands fashioned and made me, and now you have destroyed me altogether. 

9 Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust? 

Job10.8-9

God does not forget

13 As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him. 14 For he knows our frame; he remembers that we are dust. 

Ps103.13-14

God’s care does not end with the mere remembrance that we are dust. His live will extend to the transformation of our bodies:

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

1Cor15.42-49

This end our adoption – the resurrection of our bodies no longer as dust is the hope of the entire creation 

22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 

Rom8.22-23

Here are a pair of articles that should be given to every seminary student

08 Wednesday Jul 2015

Posted by memoirandremains in 1 Corinthians, Ministry

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Church Disciple, Jack Hughes, Jeremiah, Ministry

These articles were written by Dr. Jack Hughes, pastor at Crossing Church in Louisville. He has taught sermon delivery at The Masters Seminary.

The first article concerns proper ministry goals & objectives. Using the example of Jeremiah, he explains that ministry must be judged by faithfulness to God, not normal markers of prestige (numbers, budget, et cetera):

Jeremiah teaches us that God glorifying ministry is about being faithful to obey God’s Word and His calling for our life by proclaiming the truth of God’s Word without compromise. It has nothing to do with us saving anyone, growing our church, or being popular. Yes, we will desire spiritual and numeric growth, but if we focus on that, rather than faithfulness, we will often attract people by worldly means, and the result will be a worldly congregation. If you are thinking to yourself right now, “Well that doesn’t sound very fun,” then you are catching on. Ministry isn’t about you having fun; it isn’t about you; it’s about glorifying God by humbly submitting to His Word. Fun times may be included if God so wills, but they are not the goal or criteria for biblically successful ministry.

Read the rest here: Beware of Worldly Ideas of Ministry Success

The second article concerns church leaders who try to gain control over a a congregation by using unbiblical, ungodly methods. Not trusting in the power of the Word of God, nor the Spirit of God, they rely upon their own power — to the destruction of the congregation, the disgrace of the Gospel, and the sorrow of all:

Men of truth will be known by their deeds. They will be men who have labored to faithfully teach, preach, counsel, and shepherd the flock. They will be men who care for the sheep, who invite people into their homes and show hospitality, who have a history of laboring for the spiritual health of the sheep. Though there is always opposition to men who preach the truth, true believers thrive under the ministries of faithful shepherds; they don’t cringe from them in fear. Faithful shepherds are men of prayer, wise counsel, love, and gentleness. Jesus said you will know true, God-glorifying leaders by their fruit (Mt. 7:15-20). Those leaders that scatter the sheep, rather than shepherd them, are a grief to God and God’s people (Jer. 23:1-2).

Read the rest here: When Church Leaders Abuse Church Discipline

 

 

← Older posts

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 1.4
  • Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 1.3
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior. 1.1.6
  • Thinking About Meaning While Weeding the Garden
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior 1.1.6

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 1.4
  • Christ’s Eternal Existence (Manton) Sermon 1.3
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior. 1.1.6
  • Thinking About Meaning While Weeding the Garden
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior 1.1.6

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • memoirandremains
    • Join 630 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • memoirandremains
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar