So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Give no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved. (1Corinthians 10: 32-33)

Paul has not pleased everyone. He is writing to Corinthians who are not pleased with him and prefer other teachers. I began to study Paul's letters because he had for so long displeased me.

I have persisted in the study because Paul is clearly trying to please. He is trying to accommodate the diverse perspectives of those at Corinth regarding many less important things, so that all believers might focus on and finally recognize the glory of God.

Each of us brings our own understanding and misunderstanding of God. How could it be otherwise for what is so beyond any of us? Regardless of what we understand, we can experience God's intentions by caring for one another and giving thanks to God.

If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. But if someone says to you, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice’, then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— I mean the other’s conscience, not your own. For why should my liberty be subject to the judgement of someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why should I be denounced because of that for which I give thanks? (1Corinthians 10: 27-30)

We have been set free from the discipline of the ancient laws. But the purpose of our liberty is to follow the example of Christ in giving all we are to others.

We may partake of all that God has created. Through the crucifixion and resurrection we have become heirs rather than subjects.

We are now, in Christ, co-creators with God. All is lawful, but not all is beneficial either for ourselves or for others.

In our liberty we should be careful that we not mislead or confuse those who have not yet fully engaged the example of Christ and the grace of God.

In exercising this self-restraint we are not deferring to the other's sense of right and wrong, but following Christ in choosing other-love rather than self-assertion.

‘All things are lawful’, but not all things are beneficial. ‘All things are lawful’, but not all things build up. Do not seek your own advantage, but that of others. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience, for ‘the earth and its fullness are the Lord’s.’ (1Corinthians 10: 23-26)

In regard to the specific source of concern and controversy, here is Paul's answer. What God has created is good. The believer can partake of anything God has created. The ancient dietary laws have been superceded by the liberty of Christ.

But if others take God's creation and try to give it a meaning and purpose contrary to God's intention, then the believer should avoid seeming to endorse that meaning and purpose.

Paul teaches that the fundamental goodness of God's creation cannot be altered through human design. If meat in the market unknowingly includes some that has been sacrificed to demons, there is no harm in consuming it.

But the believer should be careful not to mislead others. We are bound to others - both believers and unbelievers - in our relationship with Christ. For the sake of others we should avoid behavior that might cause confusion.

The human condition is afflicted by confusion, distractions, and lies. We are called to be agents of clarity, attention, and truth. In this way we can - working with Christ and others - serve to heal the world.

Above is Christ cleansing the Temple by Rembrandt.

What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? (1Corinthians 10: 19-22)

Some of the religious sacrifices in Corinth would strike many of us as demonic. The worship of Dionysus featured sexual orgies in a space beneath an altar that allowed the warm blood of the sacrificial bull to drip onto the participants.

Paul may have meant precisely what is translated above. He may very well have seen the Olympian and other pagan gods as demons and dark angels in the service of Satan.

But for anyone who has read Aristotle, a sacrifice to daimonion has a potentially different meaning. This is the Greek philosophical term for a person's soul, particular genius, or fundamental identity. Is the sacrifice to external demons or interior selves?

In the classical Greek tradition the human soul is fulfilled by striving after its individual potential. We are inspired by eros or love for something we want to possess such as beauty, courage, truth, or some other ideal form.

In the Christian tradition the human soul is fulfilled by returning to its shared origin in God. We are encouraged by agape: unconditional and self-giving love for others.

The religious and philosophical system of the Greeks and Romans tended to encourage self-fulfillment through self-assertion. Paul certainly sees this understanding of the human soul as profoundly mistaken.

Therefore, my dear friends, flee from the worship of idols. I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? (1Corinthians 10: 14-18)

Mystical union is a recurring theme in Paul. In Christ we are one. Through Christ believers are joined together and with Christ. In this union we are allowed to participate in the full reality of Christ.

This is not only a spiritual concept. Paul understands the spiritual and physical are joined. Earlier in Corinthians prostitution is condemned because when we join with a prostitute we join Christ with a prostitute. We partake of Christ's body.

Almost certainly, Paul perceives that through this mystical union our individual natures are fulfilled. In this union each of us may be distinguished but not separated. As each instrument plays its role in an orchestra, we can each find our place in a cosmic symphony.

So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall. No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it. (1Corinthians 10: 12-13)

When I think of those hungry and homeless in Darfur, or caught in the cross-fire of Iraq, or struggling with a fatal disease I wonder about Paul's assurances. My own tests have mostly involved overcoming a personal weakness. In these Paul has certainly been correct.

But when a strong external adversary is involved is it still a test? Is there always a way out? Or should we differentiate between the tests of a loving God and the trials of an evil world?

Viktor Frankl was a Jewish pscyhologist imprisoned by the Nazis. He saw many of his concentration camp colleagues gased and even more die of hunger, fatigue, disease, and hopelessnesss.

Frankl perceived that among survivors there was a keen and abiding search for meaning. As long as the search continued they were able to endure. If they gave up the search, death soon followed.

Frankl wrote, ""It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life - daily and hourly. Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual."

Above is Satan tempting Jesus by Duccio di Buoninsega.

Do not become idolaters as some of them did; as it is written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and they rose up to play.’ We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents. And do not complain as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer. These things happened to them to serve as an example, and they were written down to instruct us, on whom the ends of the ages have come. (1Corinthians 10: 7-11)

Paul preaches that the discipline of the law has been replaced by faith through Christ Jesus. He perceives that in the self-giving of Jesus we have been offered a new understanding of our relationship with God and with one another. In this relationship the law is no longer necessary.

But neither does our liberty contradict the law. The law remains a reflection God's intentions. In exercising our liberty we should be cautious if our choices are contrary to the principles articulated in the laws, literature, and prophecies of Jewish scripture.

The law has become an example - tupos - a model or form to which we can look for guidance. We are no longer bound to the details of the law. But the principles of the law should continue to inform our understanding and our choosing.

I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness. Now these things occurred as examples for us, so that we might not desire evil as they did. (1Corinthians 10: 1-6)

Paul is writing to a mixed gathering of Jews, Romans, Greeks, and others. He emphasizes that all share in the spiritual legacy of the Jews.

He also emphasizes that Christ was present in the Exodus. The reality of Christ preceded the earthly life of Jesus.

During the Exodus, in Paul's time, and today a stream flows from this spiritual rock. It is a source of cleansing, refreshment, and nourishment.

We are invited to drink deeply. We can, if we choose, entirely satisfy our thirst.

Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive a perishable garland, but we an imperishable one. So I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; but I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified. (1Corinthians 9: 24-27)

Prepare, be purposeful, and practice self-control.

Self-control might seem to be a major theme for Paul. But this particular term - egkrateuomai - is only used twice in the new testament. The other usage is 1Corinthians 7:9.

Much more important to Paul than self-control is the self-giving of Jesus and our ability to choose likewise.

Self-control can lead to pride. Self-giving is more likely to result in humility.

Pride is not receptive to God. Humble self-giving is the rich clay with which God can perform miracles.

Above is an icon of Jesus healing the demoniac of the Gadarenes.

For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that I might by any means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings. (1Corinthians 9: 19-23)

Adapting to our surroundings and audience can be helpful. To be sociable is to be open to others, to share, and to cultivate reciprocity. By smoothing our rough edges - by restraining our more assertive tendencies - we create a space for mutual interest and interaction.

In this comfortable space we are more likely to discover the true self of another. In the true self of another we can encounter God. We are all created in the image of God. This transcendent identity can be well-hidden, but it remains the foundation of each personality.

Sociability is a tool, not an outcome. The purpose is to come to know one another and to find the unique expression of God that each of us embody. God is not found in bland banalities. Mutuality also requires authenticity. Paul adapted, but he remained - clearly and dramatically - Paul.

If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe betide me if I do not proclaim the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission. What then is my reward? Just this: that in my proclamation I may make the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my rights in the gospel. (1Corinthians 9: 16-18)

What is Paul trying to say? I have read these sentences five times. I have read them in the context of the full chapter twice more.

The English suggests some issue with whether Paul is under an obligation or acting in accord with his free will.

The English suggests that if Paul acts freely he will be rewarded (why is not clear). And then he speaks of being rewarded.

If this was a transcript of Paul speaking, I would not be so concerned. In speaking we all prattle on incoherently from time to time.

But this is a purposeful letter that Paul has carefully crafted to positively intervene in the troublesome situation at Corinth.

I see a possible meaning in the Greek. But my meaning is so different from that of other translations, I have very little confidence in its value.

If I do (prasso) this of my own will, I have a reward (misthos), but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission (oikonomia).

Prasso can be a complicated doing as in managing an enterprise or to enter into contracts.

Misthos can be reward or punishment. This is the practical, public, and explicit outcome of labor, good or bad.

Oikonomia is the management of a private household. Here it is a singular feminine noun.

Is Paul saying, if he proclaims the gospel with his whole self there will be practical outcomes? Otherwise - separate from his free will - proclaiming the gospel is only a private affair?

If each of us bring to our relationship with God the enthusiasm and commitment of a free choice the outcomes will extend far beyond our private sphere.

Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is sacrificed on the altar? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this so that they may be applied in my case. Indeed, I would rather die than that—no one will deprive me of my ground for boasting! (1Corinthians 9: 12-15)

Our claim of financial and other "rights" is often an obstacle to the way of the gospel.

Believers and non-believers alike have been scandalized by those who have used the gospel as a way to secure personal advantage.

What is being translated as right is the Greek exousia. The translation is correct. But our 21st Century American notion of rights and that of 1st Century Corinthians are not the same.

According to Marcelo Boeri in classical Greek literature and philosophy exousia means "the act of wanting to do something and of being able to do something." The ability to act in this way - the ability to practically choose - is the fundamental right.

Paul, like Jesus, has made the choice to be self-giving. He does not claim what is due him. The choice to give ones self - and to forsake our claims - is a courageous expression of freedom, even freedom from our own desires.

Above is the Crucifixion by Emil Nolde.

Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law also say the same? For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.’ Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever ploughs should plough in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop. If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we still more? (1Corinthians 9: 8-12)

Insisting on what I am due - requiring that I be treated fairly - can be treacherous.

There is a standard of fairness that when broken is offensive. The ox should be able to eat of the grain which it is threshing.

But if the ox stops threshing to chew in peace it will be beaten.

What is a fair exchange of value? Is it fair that the ox - on which both plowing and threshing largely depend - receives such a small share of the crop?

Paul insists that he is due much but has chosen not to claim what he is due.

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. This is my defence to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who at any time pays the expenses for doing military service? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not get any of its milk? (1Corinthians 9:1-7)

In The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis there is a character very attentive to "my rights," what he has earned and what he perceives is due him. After death the character visits heaven and is invited to stay.

But the man is offended by another, already in heaven, who he perceives has no right to be there... at least not on terms equal to his. Finally, out of concern for protecting his rights, the man chooses to return to hell, rather than forsake his rights. "I'm a plain man that's what I am and I got to have my rights same as anyone else, see?"

We are called - by both Jesus and Paul - not to defend our rights but to love one another. We are free. All things are lawful. But we are to choose, not so much what is our right, but what is helpful to others.

But when you thus sin against members of your family, and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall. (1Corinthians 8: 12-13)

Each one's liberty is to be balanced by a responsibility to all. "All things are lawful for me, but not all are beneficial." How does any free choice benefit my relationship with God? How does my free choice contribute to the relationships others have with God?

Within the community of faith a common humility and a shared restraint could contribute much to the mutual love of believers. Recognizing the radicial freedom of choice ordained by God might encourage "conservatives" to listen more carefully to their more experimental neighbors. Adopting a gentle concern for the conscience of others might restrain so-called "liberals" from unnecessarily provocative behavior.

Choosing restraint does not compromise our freedom. Choosing quiet, restraint, listening, and embracing the diversity of God's creation is often a wise exercise of freedom.

Above represents the baptism of Jesus by John.

It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. ‘Food will not bring us close to God.’ We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling-block to the weak. For if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols? So by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ died are destroyed. (1Corinthians 8: 7-11)

There are choices that, in themselves, do not matter one way or another to God. Paul tells us that what food we eat is such a choice.

But if this freedom of choice is misperceived by others and undermines the abilty of others to choose rightly, then God cares deeply and so should we.

When the conscience - suneidesis - of another is weak we are called to restraint. When the awareness, perception, and understanding of another is limited we should avoid what could confuse or potentially harm another.

There are movies or television shows that are entirely fine for the mature person that can confuse, haunt, and even harm young people. We avoid them when we are in the company of the young.

Paul calls us to similar care in spiritual matters. What is right for one may not be right for another. We should defer to the care of the weak.

Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that ‘no idol in the world really exists’, and that ‘there is no God but one.’ Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1Corinthians 8:4-6)

I perceive no irony in this paragraph of Paul's. He does not disagree with the justifications. He does not question the intellectual integrity of those who continue to participate in feasting on temple sacrifices.

In my approach to faith I sometimes reach unorthodox conclusions. I often perceive that what is important to others is almost certainly not important to God. It seems to me the Church is often distracted. How should I - should I - act on this knowledge?

Paul may be suggesting a diffference between gnosis - knowing - and ginosko - closer to apprehension ala Bergson. Knowing something is simple and can be dangerous. God apprehends how such knowledge is related to its full context.

Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: we know that ‘all of us possess knowledge.’ Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the necessary knowledge; but anyone who loves God is known by him. (1Corinthians 8: 1-2)

A principal feature of Roman and Hellenistic civic life were festivals that attended a temple sacrifice. These were elaborate affairs involving dancing, singing, and great feasts.

The meat of animals sacrificed to one of the gods would be distributed among the throngs attending the festival. It was a huge fourth of July celebration where the barbeque was free.

It was not just the free food and entertainment that attracted crowds. Who you sat with to eat was a key element in establishing status and reinforcing political, commercial, and social relationships.

Paul's letter makes clear that some of the faithful at Corinth continued to participate in these civic festivals associated with the Olympian gods. The question has been raised as to whether this is appropriate.

Paul repeats and seems to largely accept the intellectual arguments used to justify such a choice. But he warns such knowledge can lead to arrogance. It is better to be known by God than to know how to justify one's behavior.

Above is the Rich Young Ruler by Frank Wesley.

A wife is bound as long as her husband lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord. But in my judgement she is more blessed if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 7: 39-40)

Paul has been careful to specify that he is going beyond what Jesus taught. He has gone well beyond the usual understanding of Torah.

He is offering a judgment - gnome - that Paul believes is informed by the Spirit of God. In the case of marriage or re-marriage it is a very conditional judgment.

Which choice is made is of lesser importance than it being a free choice. If the free choice gives priority to one's relationship with God, Paul is confident it is good choice.

This strikes me as fundamentally coherent with the teachings of Jesus. Throughout his ministry Jesus chose to enter into loving relationships with a wide range of sinners.

Because the relationship of Jesus with God suffered no distractions, an abstract notion of sin was much less important than an urgent love for the specific sinner.

If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly towards his fiancée, if his passions are strong, and so it has to be, let him marry as he wishes; it is no sin. Let them marry. But if someone stands firm in his resolve, being under no necessity but having his own desire under control, and has determined in his own mind to keep her as his fiancée, he will do well. So then, he who marries his fiancée does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better. (1Corinthians 7: 36-38)

Discerning the grammar and meaning of the first sentence is especially difficult. Over the years at least three distinct meanings have contended. The precise relationship of the subject - fiance, father, or religious director - to the object - fiancee, daughter, or state of virginity - is the principle source of contention.

Above the translator has made a clear choice. For our purposes, it is probably more helpful to focus on Paul's second sentence. Here is my attempt at a very literal translation:

"When one's spiritual and physical core stands firm - bends to no external claims, exercizing the power of choice over one's own desires - making a conscious choice from one's own spiritual and physical core to preserve virginity, it is nobly and truly decided."

It seems to me that the virginal outcome is but a particular example of the way in which a person of faith is to approach any decision: We are to recognize it is a free choice, we are to be cautious of our motivations and desires, we are to look to our essential character (where we are most likely to find God), and we are to make a self-aware choice that does not indulge our superficial desires but honors and fulfills our relationship with God.

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord. (1Corinthians 7: 32-35)

Perhaps what Paul describes was true in first century. Today the unmarried often seem less concerned with God than the married.

It is still true, however, that pleasing one's spouse can be a source of anxiety. And married or unmarried most of us are anxious about the affairs of the world.

What the translator has rendered as unhindered devotion is much closer in the Greek to "easy undistraction." Peripastos or distraction is a consistent concern of Paul's.

Above is Agony in the Garden by Andrea Mantegna.

Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that. I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away. (1Corinthians 7: 28-31)

Paul perceived the transformation of the world as very near. In anticipation of the new reality, we should put away our conventional understandings. We should begin to live as if God's reign had already begun.

Paul lived in this way. He continued to work as a tent-maker. He experienced joy and pain. But his life had been transformed. Paul was already a citizen of the Kingdom of God.

Paul expected a further even more dramatic transformation. But I wonder if Paul was not already experiencing what Jesus had promised. I wonder if God's reign is so near at hand that all any of us need to do is reach out to it.

Now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. (1Corinthians 7: 25-28)

Marriage, at least, is not a sin. This is the strongest endorsement Paul can muster.

Questions concerning marriage, circumcision, food laws, sexuality, matters of dress and decorum seem to dominate Paul's letters. He provides answers - even where Jesus did not - and even where his answers are contrary to Jewish convention.

There is a sense, though, that Paul perceives the questions often miss the point. A better question would be how do we cultivate our relationship with God, how do we accept the self-giving of Christ, how do we prepare for our lives - and the world - to be transformed.

His world had already been totally transformed. All about him Paul perceived the birth pangs of a new reality. The real problem at Corinth was being so distracted by issues of pride, position, and preference that God's transformation of the world was lost in the noise.

Eliminating unimportant distractions and focusing attention on God may be the principle behind most of Paul's advice and direction.

Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called. Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human masters. In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God. (1Corinthians 7:20-24)

The Greek translated as condition - klesis - is a shorter form of kaleo - which above is translated as called.

We can often confuse our condition with our calling. These are not, according to Paul, necessarily related.

We can often confuse what we do with who we are. Paul assures us God does not make this error.

Kaleo is to call by name. It suggests an intimate relationship. God knows our name. God knows our individual nature.

We are to abide - remain within - the nature and character that God recognizes as our true selves.

Above is an icon depicting the transfiguration of Christ from the cathedral in Pereslavi, Russia.

However that may be, let each of you lead the life that the Lord has assigned, to which God called you. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything. Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called. (1 Corinthians 7: 17-20)

The translation above is the New Revised Standard Bible. Here is the first verse from the New American Standard Bible: "Only as the Lord has assigned each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And so I direct all the churches."

My own study of the Greek offers, "Only as our master has differentiated each - as God has called each - in this manner let each make his way. So I ordain in all the gatherings."

The challenge is to know the differentiation God intended, rather than that imposed by the arrogance or ignorance of others... or ourselves. If circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing, how do we know God's intention? Paul is not explicit.

What the translators have rendered as "assigned" is the Greek merizo, meaning to separate, cut into pieces, or divide into parts. Aristotle used separation and division to identify shared characteristics that could be classified together.

In choosing characteristics to be classified together Aristotle focused on aims or purposes. The distinctions that matter to Paul also seem to relate to aim and purpose. What is God's aim? God's purpose? What is our relationship with that purpose?

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you. Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife. (1Corinthians 7:15-16)

The translator has sometimes distinquished between believers and non-believers. Here (s)he is much closer to the literal Greek. The original distinction is adelphos and apistos.

Adelphos is to share the same womb, to be brothers and sisters. Believers share a common origin and identity in Christ. When we accept Christ we are brought into relationship with all who have accepted Christ.

Apistos is unfaithful, unconvinced, unbelieving. Paul perceives that the exercise of choice is essential to authentic relationship. None are bound. All are free. The relationship with Christ is available to all, but the choice is left to each.

Individual choice is so crucial to Paul's understanding of God's intention that the right of separation is affirmed. For Paul such separation is an illusion - a shadow reality - but individual choice must be honored even in error.

We are called to peace - eirene - to be joined in harmony. The call of peace includes respect for bad, foolish, and even delusional choices.

I do not know how to resolve this conclusion with the condemnation and exclusion of the man living with his father's widow. Paul moves from principled acceptance to particular condemnation for reasons that are not - yet - clear to me.

To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. (1Corinthians 7: 10-14)

Divorce was acceptable under Jewish law. It was common in Roman society. The teaching of Jesus against divorce (Matthew 5: 31-32) was a radical departure from accepted norms.

Paul extends this teaching even to marriages of believers and non-believers.

Human relationships are understood as sacred. The relationship that we each share with God has the potential to transform our relationships with one another.

Above is a Byzantine icon of Christ at a Wedding Feast.

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practising self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. (1Corinthians 7:8-9)

Self-control - egkrateia - is one of the fruits of the spirit. For Paul the self - our true self - is an expression of God.

As authentic expressions of God we must be free. To be otherwise is entirely un-Godlike.

How are we to honor and preserve the freedom that is innate to fulfilling God's intention?

In verse 6:12 Paul sets out the paradox of freedom: that in everything being possible we risk domination by our desires or the desires of others.

The self-assertion of others seeks to limit or remove our freedom. Our own assertion of self confuses control of others for self-control.

Self-indulgence is an even greater threat. Here we can make idols of our desire, giving over to base objects the loyalty and love we should give only to God.

It is, according to Paul, better to accept some self-limitations than to lose the true self to over-indulgence in delusional passions.

This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. (1Corinthians 7:6-7)

I wish all were as I am. Why can't a woman be more like a man? I wish he was more considerate, but cum se cum sa. Boys will be boys.

We may tolerate differences. But we generally prefer like-minded company.

Paul - who seems to have been widowed - would prefer that others remain outside marriage. Shortly he will give some reasons.

But each of us have a particular charis, a unique God-given purpose and identity, to be honored as an expression of God.

How do we reach beyond reluctant toleration to lovingly embrace our God of creative diversity?

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is well for a man not to touch a woman.’ But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1Corinthians 7:1-5)

Paul is apparently responding to a specific question regarding sexual abstinence within marriage. As we will see, his general attitude toward marriage is ambivalent.

But within marriage Paul advocates an active and equal sexual life. The tone of the English is a bit grudging, even disdainful. The Greek may not be as chaste.

A 19th Century commentator dealing with the first verse wrote, "The learned reader need not be informed in what sense απτομαι (touch, bind, kindle, inflame) is used among the Greeks." It was a euphemism for a range of sexual acts.

The sexual and the sacred are related. The ecstatic experience of a saint has often been described using sexual terms.

Most important to Paul's teaching is the emphasis on sexual equality and mutuality. When sex is a euphemism for the sacred, Paul tells us the experience always affirms the other.

Above is Glad Day by William Blake, an artistic euphemism for his vision of Christ?

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body. (1Corinthians 6:19-20)

Paul is a mystic. Can a mystic be explicit? Doesn't any discussion of the mystical depend significantly on the implicit?

Paul has been trying to explain the relationship of our bodies - our senses, hungers, thirsts, sexuality, and whole physical identity - with the divine.

Here he compares our body to a place of worship. This is an implicit comparison. The comparison is complicated by how we hear and understand the specific words differently than Paul's original audience.

I would translate the first verse as, "Or do you not know that your body is the inner santuary of the Holy Spirit itself whom you have from God himself."

When we hear the word temple, we tend to think of something huge. When the Greeks heard the word naos they would think of the much smaller space at the very heart of their temples which held the divine image.

My body is not the principal architectual feature of a great city. Instead it is the enclosed, shadowy, cool and quiet, holy-of-holies in which dwells the divine.

It also seems to me that the translation of verse 20, "purchased for a price" brings to our reading of Paul a concept of antonement that had not yet been worked out.

The original Greek might be rendered as, "From being about you can determine the value, so praise God with your body." Where the translator has used "bought," the Greek is agorazo or to be in the agora. The agora was the political, economic, and social center of a Greek city. Buying was done there, but so was deciding and socializing and people watching.

What the translator has rendered as "price" is the Greek teemay which is much more the process of valuing that leads to a price than a price itself.

The relationship of our bodies to the divine is difficult to explain. But whatever is done with the language Paul uses, it is clear he is teaching that the body is where we encounter God. The body should not be ignored, misused, or disparaged. Rather it should be honored and given in praise and thanksgiving to the purposes of its creator.