Skip to main content

1 Corinthians 7:17-24

You can read the text here.

Paul moves on, becoming more general in his discussion, making relative all human categorizations, and digressing slightly by showing application of his general principles to the issues of circumcision and slavery. Whether married, single, or in any other situation, Paul wants the Corinthians to avoid being enslaved by their circumstances.[1] Paul hammers this home with respect to two of the greatest divisions in his world, Jew/Gentile and slave/free.

Paul argues that circumcision or lack thereof is irrelevant as a distinction. What matters is obedience.[2] Similarly, God does not care whether one is slave or free.[3] If anything, slaves are on better footing in God's eyes. All each is called to, is service to God in the situation they are in. Additionally, at times it may have been tempting to try to gain status by enslaving oneself to an important person. The Corinthians ought not to do that. Status that matters comes from being in Christ, not from any status in the world.[4] In the end, the circumstances don't confer status, they cannot distract from the calling to serve God.

-----------------------------
[1] Thiselton hammers home this point, that undue concern to change one's circumstances is itself a form of slavery.

[2] I would not so much say, like Ciampa and Rosner, that Paul repudiates the law here. Because Jesus has come there is no more need to become Jewish to enter into God's people. I think saying the law doesn't apply to Gentiles (e.g., they don't have to become circumcised) is not the same as saying Paul repudiates the law here.

[3] This is particularly important. As Ciampa and Rosner point out, slaves often were forced to do immoral things (especially sexually which may be the reason for the inclusion of this piece in this particular chapter).

[4] As both Thiselton and Ciampa and Rosner nicely draw out.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…