Commentary
Everything You Know about 1 Corinthians 13 Is Wrong
You can’t find a more popular portion of the Bible than 1 Corinthians 13.
It’s the bubbly “love” chapter, clamping down on the biblical meaning of love.
Or so you think.
First Corinthians 13 at first blush is perfect for weddings. Hallmark cards. Little plaques above your kitchen sink [where ours hangs].
Who wouldn’t love the simplicity of “Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude”?
It carries a certain charm–an almost mystical hold on us when it comes to love.
I once found this chapter in an anthology of love poems, alongside the likes of Lord Byron and Kahlil Gibran. Unusual bedfellows if I ever saw any.
Never the Purpose of 1 Corinthians 13
I know during one of my crankier moments in life [that extended from birth to MAYBE just a couple of weeks ago] I memorized this chapter in hopes that it would manage to make me a more kinder, gentler man.
It didn’t work.
Why? Well, it was never intended to be a charter on sweetness. Or seventeen habits of highly-sentimental people.
Paul intended it to be a lot dirtier than that.
Just think were the chapter is embedded…in between two very tough chapters on spiritual gifts.
But you’re still being very narrowed minded if you leave it at that. You must step back even further.
Think about Who Paul Was Writing To
First Corinthians 12-14 are couched in a letter to who? The Corinthians. A self-absorbed, smug, stingy set of church members.
That means while writing his letter hunched over, pen in hand and brow furled bent on setting the Corinthians straight, Paul didn’t sit back and say, “I feel like writing a splendid little reverie on love. Barnabas, did you hear that? I’m going to write a love poem!”
No.
He intended chapter 13 to serve much like God intended the ten commandments to serve: a schoolmaster who drives the disobedient to Christ.
Think about this: Paul is saying, “You think you know what love is? You don’t have a clue what love is. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful….”
In other words, 1 Corinthians 13 is a reprimand. Not an elegant poem that gives us the warm and fuzzies.
A Good Sermon on 1 Corinthians 13
Alistair Begg makes this point in a wonderful series on 1 Corinthians 13. He explains that taken in isolation, 1 Corinthians 13 is often abused, as I noted above.
But once you understand Paul’s original meaning and purpose behind the chapter, you’ll appreciate the chapter so much more.
In the end, 1 Corinthians 13 is a statement against the popular notion [that still holds today] that love is out of our control.
Paul declares that godly love is manly and willful:
It does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
It takes guts to endure all things.
What to Do Next
But Paul’s point in the end is that we will never measure up to the standard laid out in 1 Corinthians 13. There is only one person who did such a thing. Jesus Christ.
And what that means is that we will always struggle with this love–a love that never ends–until we humbly submit to the only living person who ever fully and completely fulfilled the law of love–Jesus Christ.
Does this mean you throw out that plaque hanging over your kitchen sink? No. It means you look at it and remember that you will never measure up to that standard until you bow down to the very lord of love–Jesus Christ.
What the Song of Solomon Really Means
The sexually-charged language of Song of Songs [or Song of Solomon] makes it a provocative read…
But one wonders if it actually makes a major theological contribution to Judaism or Christianity.
In fact, one wonders why it’s even in the Old Testament…why it’s even in the canon at all.
I mean, what was the original author or editor hoping to communicate to his reader?
And what about the fact that there’s no mention of God. Isn’t that problematic?
Well, no. Not really. Not after you see that this short, but potent celebration of intimacy between husband and wife sheds light on our own relationship with God. It’s a good lesson to learn.
Common Approaches to Song of Songs
Some pastors would have you think Songs is a manual to a smokin’ hot marriage…
While others would want you to see it as a allegorical narrative of God’s relationship with the Israelites.
Still others suggest it’s a typological story–one in which the groom plays Christ and the bride plays the church.
These three interpretative strategies are the literal, allegorical and typological approaches.
The allegorical grew out of the embarrassment over the erotic details found in the text [the very same details the sex-crazed literalists exemplified]. Take the explicit mention of two breasts in Songs 4:5 for example:
Your two breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle,
that graze among the lilies.
Some Christian interpreters argued the two breasts were the two testaments–spiritually nourishing the church…
Another view suggested the breasts reflected the dual command to love God and neighbor…
And a third view believed the breasts represented Mount Ebal and Mount Gerazim. [Keep your comments to yourself.]
Another good example of allegorical interpretation born out of timid temperaments is the the sachet of myrrh lodged between the two breasts. Some early scholars said it was Christ who spans the two testaments.
Then there’s the graphic, boyish-giggle-inducing walnut grove: ”I came down to the walnut grove / to see the blossoms of the valley,” said the woman.
If you blushed, then you know why some early church fathers went to interpretive extremes to suggest alternative meanings, like the hard outer layer of the walnut is the Mosaic Law–and the nutritious center is Jesus Christ.
But this is fellatio, folks. Plain and simple.
To be honest, you wonder what’s more embarrassing: the topic of oral sex or a scholar’s theological interpretation of that act. Let’s keep digging.
The Problem with Allegorical Interpretations
The problem with interpreting Songs allegorically is that the text simply doesn’t hint at a deeper meaning.
I mean why take the breasts to be the OT and NT? Two mountains? Two commands of God?
The text simply doesn’t support any of those arguments.
But if Songs is NOT an allegorical love story between God and his people or Christians and Jesus–then what is it?
We found part of our answer in the discovery of unique ancient Near-Eastern documents found in the 19th century.
What these specific documents taught us is that Songs is from the exact same genre–love poems. More precisely, matrimonial love poems.
That makes Songs a collection of matrimonial love poems. Songs sung at weddings.
Scholars are divided on how many actual love poems make up Songs. But that’s not really important. What’s important is uncovering the theological contribution Songs makes to the canon…
And this is where it gets good.
The Essential Meaning Behind Songs
The text itself gives us many clues. And whether there are three or thirty poems, the Song’s primary importance relates to love and, no surprise here, sexuality–something near-and-dear to our humanity.
See, what Songs defines is a love that is mutual, exclusive, total and beautiful. And in many ways Songs is an expansion of Genesis 2:24:
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
In frank but beautiful language, this tiny little book praises mutual, intense love, culminating in this robust, evocative statement:
What we see here is an expression of love that transcends this earth and is deeply emotional–as God intended between husband and wife.
What God-Ordained Marriage Looks Like
Contrast this with the ephemeral, capricious and shallow character of contemporary love and you see God’s vision for marriage involves a volitional, muscular emotion that has a singular and solitary intent to honor the object of it’s affections.
And this is exactly the way God wanted it when he created man and woman in Eden. When you comprehend that the allusions to the garden in Songs are allusions to Eden, then the meaning behind Songs becomes immediately apparent…
The implication is that before sin, man and woman stood bare, unashamed, in front of each other. Now, we sense an intimacy since lost.
Song of Songs then is about the redemption of sexuality. A return to the God-ordained concept of marriage, a concept illustrated throughout Scripture to help us understand the relationship between God and his people.
In the OT, marriage is used negatively to shed light on Israel’s betrayal and unfaithfulness. In the NT, marriage is compared to our union with Christ–a union climaxing [no pun intended] at the end of time with a wedding feast.
Here on earth we get to enjoy the splendid privilege of experiencing the union of man and woman as one flesh, a profound mystery Paul said refers to the union between Christ and his church.
In other words, the better our marriages–the more they reflect the glory of God. And I think that’s pretty sexy. You?
The Nasty Little Doctrine We Can’t Live Without
“He chose us.”
Three little words tucked into Ephesians 1:4 that define a nasty little doctrine…
Nasty in that it draws a battle line straight through the middle of our theological camp.
But without this doctrine we have no blessing. No adoption. No inheritance. No security. No assurance. No celebration. No joy. No comfort.
Without this doctrine we have salvation dependent on human influence. Salvation merited by human effort.
Without this doctrine we have no sovereign–no supreme–being worthy of worship.
Fortunately, this doctrine doesn’t rest on Ephesians 1:4 alone. This doctrine is all over Scripture:
For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. Deuteronomy 7:6
For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I name you, though you do not know me. Isaiah 45:4
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. John 6:44
And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. Romans 8:29
Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls. Romans 9:11
For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you. 1 Thessalonians 1:3-4
But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 2 Thessalonians 2:13
Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 2 Timothy 2:10
The doctrine I have in mind here is election, the concept that we are a mass of mankind distinguished and separated, united to spend eternity with Christ.
A concept that declares we are unworthy people declared worthy people. Unrighteous sinners declared righteous.
All because we are chosen in Christ.
I think most people would agree with this. It’s WHEN this election occurs that party lines form.
Where the Line of Division Is Drawn
The biblical concept of election states that God chose BEFORE the creation of the world those whom would be Christians.
Before man. Before creation. Before time. In the isolated, all-wise counsel of God–we we’re adopted into his family.
He chose us.
Now, Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world to be a sacrifice for sins. We have no problem with this.
Yet, suggest that Christians are foreknown for salvation in the same way and people cry foul.
What Election Does and Doesn’t Do
Understand, election doesn’t nullify man’s responsibility to believe in Jesus as Lord. It doesn’t eliminate accountability.
What it does do is reconstruct our nature from bent on corruption to pre-occupied with sanctification.
That’s the whole point behind election: that we should be holy. Not because he saw that we should be holy. But because he made us holy.
God takes delight in us. But not because of who we are. But because of who we are through Christ. We are changed through Christ into holy, blameless people so a holy, just God can delight in us.
Furthermore, our election causes us to find unquenchable delight in God. He becomes our perfect and supreme object which occupies our affections.
We are elected so we can adore God.
He may have angels. But his will is to have children. Children with whom he can be intimate.
Why We Celebrate
Christ is the peculiar object of God’s affections. Christ is his chief pleasure. And when we become Christians we inherit those affections. That is why we celebrate.
We participate in God’s presence only because Christ, in God’s sovereign will, redeemed us.
And that redemption is secured. Affirming our adoption into God’s family. Anxiety over our fate is soothed. And we receive comfort knowing that on our worst days we will still inherit eternal life.
What remains is bewilderment: Why did he choose me?
We will never know until the day we meet God when we will more than likely throw ourselves at the feet of our Savior in a reckless–but appropriate–act of worship.
Resist Christ as Lord [Our Condition Apart from New Birth]
**Part of the 10 Hard Truths about Being Born Again series**
Judas the apostate–the betrayer–was an apostle of Jesus Christ…
A man hand picked by Jesus to be one of the twelve…
Part of the close circle of disciples.
A man trusted to be the treasurer. A man who saw Jesus cure the lame. Conquer storms.
A man who heard all the doctrines of Christ. Doctrines taught with authority. Taught irrespective of tradition.
Judas even heard Peter tell Jesus, “You are the Christ.”
Yet, Judas was impotent to all things spiritual. Unregenerate. Blind.
Dead in sins, he didn’t think it worthwhile to glorify Jesus as God or give thanks to him.
And in the end–in spite of the abundant proofs of Jesus’ lordship–he rejected Jesus as his Lord.
Why? Judas simply chose the only thing that would please his corrupt nature and its appetite for sin. He couldn’t choose what his nature didn’t desire.
And this is why the new birth is needed.
First Corinthians 12:3 says that “No man can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit.” In other words, you CANNOT say “Jesus is Lord” and mean that he is master of your life…
And in John 6:44, Jesus says “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”
In the absence of God’s gracious gift of faith in Jesus Christ, you can not embrace Jesus as Lord. In God’s grace, however, you are drawn FROM your beloved lusts and darling self-righteousness…
And drawn TO Christ. To rely upon Christ–and Christ alone–for salvation.
You are drawn from that which was appalling and ludicrous to that which is comforting and reasonable.
Mind you, the drawing here is not moral persuasion. It’s not doctrine. It’s not miracles. It’s distinct from that.
And superior.
It’s the internal and powerful influence of the Holy Spirit of God. An act of power, but not force. God makes the unwilling willing. He makes him who resists the lordship of Christ actually embrace the lordship of Christ.
Such statements may seem quaint, maybe even self-defeating, but to anyone who’s been truly born again, the work of the Holy Spirit in their regeneration is a stable, eyes-wide-open reality. One that faith can sink its anchor into.
Death: The Messiah Commits His Soul to God
Not long after a challenge to crawl down from the cross–an accusations that Christ was not who he said he was–a Roman centurion makes an unusual statement.
It was noon when darkness covered the whole land.
A sign that satisfied Amos 8:9. A sign that satisfied Jeremiah 15:9.
A sign the Jews didn’t expect. Nor even noticed as such.
But a sign that signaled their blindness. Their subjection to spiritual darkness.
The darkness remained for three hours. And in that darkness Jesus cried, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?”
Jesus didn’t complain of Peter’s betrayal. He didn’t complain that his followers fled from him.
He complained that God had forsaken him.
And made a sacrifice of sin for us, Jesus now suffered God’s fury and wrath. The wrath Jesus feared in the garden. This was the agony he suspected he’d endure.
Wrath seen in the Old Testament consuming fire. Fire that consumed the sacrifice. Fire that should’ve consumed the sinner. It fell on Christ. A sacrifice that pacified God. A sacrifice that cried long and bitterly.
Startled by this sudden appearance of life in Jesus, someone soaked a sponge in sour wine, put it on the end of a long stick and raised it to Jesus’ lips.
They intended to cool his mouth. Not to nurse him. But to mock him. As if to say, “He’s crying for the prophet Elijah to rescue him. What other crazy thing can we get him to say?”
Then, Jesus died.
And at that instant, the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom, a signal that the nation of Jews would eventually be destroyed…
…Ichabod, the glory is departed from Israel…
And it signaled comfort to Christians: Here is a new and living way into the holiest by the way of Jesus’ blood.
And now we come to the centurion’s statement. Convicted and convinced, the centurion who oversaw the execution confessed: “Truly this man was the Son of God!”
The unjust punishment of a sinless man. The honor that heaven declared to the suffering servant.
Even in the depths of humiliation and persecution, Jesus was declared the Messiah. The Son of God. And he was declared to be so with power.
From conquering storms and subduing demons to human worship and heavens that declare his death, Jesus is named the Messiah. The reigning King. Whom we adore and serve. Forevermore.
**Part of The Messiah: Eleven Meditations from the Book of Mark series.**
Search
Recent Posts
Get Updates | Subscribe
Somewhat Essential
Categories
Archives
