Pathways For Sojourners

[Beetow]

.
058) 1Cor 3:18 . . If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age,
he should become a fool so that he may become wise.

In our age, "wise" would pertain to people competent in finance, education,
science, art, computing, crafts, music, philosophy, politics, etc. The brilliance of
many of those kinds of people has made them self-reliant and difficult to advise.

Well; I can say from personal experience that above-average folks tend to make
very poor Sunday school students because their intelligence gets in the way. If only
they would leave their IQ at the door, they would be the better for it because when
it comes to spiritual competence; many of those brainy types are about as
proficient as a little kid just starting out in kindergarten learning shapes and colors
and writing their name.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
059) 1Cor 3:19-21a . . For the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. As the
scriptures say; "God catches those who think they are wise in their own
cleverness." And again; "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are
worthless." So don't take pride in following a particular leader.

Among budding musicians "particular leaders" are called influences; which is a
pretty good choice of words because the movers and shakers in this world have a
lot to do with shaping people's opinions. But unfortunately many of those opinions
are thoroughly inappropriate for Christ's followers; especially the ones that
motivate us to be grasping; roughly defined as desiring material possessions
urgently and excessively and often to the point of ruthlessness.

Well; there's no need to be grasping-- instead be patient --because one day we'll
be wealthy and privileged beyond imagination.

"Everything belongs to you: Paul and Apollos and Peter; the whole world and life
and death; the present and the future. Everything belongs to you, and you belong
to Christ, and Christ belongs to God." (1 Cor 3:21b-23)

"The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are
children, then we are heirs-- heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ." (Rom 8:16-17)
_

 

[Beetow]

.
060) 1Cor 4:1 . . So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ, and as
those entrusted with the mysteries of God.

Big names like Mother Teresa, Charles Spurgeon, and Billy Graham are practically
sacred cows-- but Christian celebrities like those are only human rather than
divine; and be grateful you're not one of them because their responsibility is
proportional.

● Jas 3:1 . . Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because
you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. (cf. 1Cor 3:9-15)
_

 

[Beetow]

.
061) 1Cor 4:5 . . Judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till The Lord
comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and expose the motives of
men's hearts.

Human nature has a propensity to shower accolades on religious celebrities without
having all the facts.

For example: we now know from Mother Teresa's private letters-- made public by
Father Brian Kolodiejchuk's book "Mother Teresa / Come Be My Light" --that Ms.
Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu was a nun with so little personal belief in God as to be an
agnostic; and yet for decades everyone the world over thought she was the cat's
meow and the bee's knees: a veritable poster child of piety in thought, word, and
deed. It turns out Teresa was a remarkable actor. Her public image bore no
resemblance whatsoever to the secret life of her inner being.

The Spirit's corroboration that comes to Christ's followers via Rom 8:16 never
happened for Teresa. She complained in private letters to superiors that she felt not
the slightest glimmer of the Lord's presence during virtually her entire five decades
in India. As a result, the remarkable nun came to the end of her life wondering if
there really is a God out there; and worried that if perchance there is a God, He
didn't want her in India to begin with; maybe even didn't particularly like her, and
might actually be quite intent upon condemning her.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
062) 1Cor 5:1-5 . . It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and
immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone
has his father's wife. And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned
instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your
midst.

. . For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already
judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of
our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of
our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of
his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of The Lord Jesus.

Gentiles of course do sleep with their stepmothers on occasion; but the world's
practice of that kind of behavior is more an aberration than a custom.

Well, the Corinthians were treating that man's behavior as if it were a norm, i.e.
they apparently felt that the man's conduct was trivial, undeserving of either
attention or criticism. They must have wondered why Paul was reacting so badly
rather than just "get over it". After all; it's none of his business what goes on
behind closed doors. Had he not heard of the right to privacy? And besides, didn't
the Lord say: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Delivering someone to Satan for the destruction of the flesh just simply means to
cull them from the herd, so to speak. In other words: exclude them from
congregational activities; e.g. worship, Sunday school, and prayer meetings. This is
not as radical as totally breaking off contact with someone; it's purpose is church
discipline rather than the cruel social disconnection practiced by Scientology and
the Jehovah's Witnesses.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
063) 1Cor 5:6b . . Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of
dough?

The first few chapters of the book of Revelation list several of Jesus' complaints
about the spiritual condition of specific churches. It's unlikely that every member of
those churches deserved criticism, but Jesus slammed the churches as corporate
unities rather than individuals. So then if, and/or when, those churches failed to
correct their shortcomings; then the whole church-- the good and the bad --was
taken to task.

Therefore:

● 1Cor 5:7-13 . . Clean out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, just as
you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed. Let us
therefore celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and
wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

. . I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all
mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or
with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world.

. . But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he
should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a
drunkard, or a swindler-- not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do
with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But
those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among
yourselves.

That's a good argument against church expansion. Back when Christians met in
private homes it was much easier for congregations to police themselves, but when
the move was made to auditoriums, church management became a bit of a
challenge.

NOTE: The Greek word translated "brothers" and "brother" that Paul commonly
used when addressing Christians, technically refers to one's male kinfolk. However,
in the beginning both genders were spoken of as "man" (Gen 5:1-2) So I think we
can safely assume that when Paul addressed Christians as brothers, he was
sometimes communicating with both men and women unless explicitly indicated
otherwise. The same rule can be applied to Paul's use of male pronouns in his
compositions.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
064) 1Cor 5:6a . .Your boasting is not good.

The Corinthian church was liberal in its attitudes about intimacy. That's no surprise
considering that particular city's culture in their day and age.

Then, as now, liberals tend to think of themselves as sophisticated and progressive;
and vastly superior to stodgy, inflexible conservatives who, in the liberal opinion,
are backwards folks whose wheels are stuck in the muds of an era gone by.

NOTE: An article not too long ago in the Epoch Times shares some of the secrets of a
former KGB agent whose standard plan for moving countries towards communism
includes demoralization. He said that Americans make the task easy because they
were, and are, corrupting themselves on their own; and actually accomplishing the
task much quicker than the KGB could.

America's moral decadence began gaining momentum with the counter culture back
in the 1960s -- it continues to this day and, sort of like the expansion of the
universe, is picking up speed instead of slowing down as might be expected.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
065) 1Cor 6:1-6 . . If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before
the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the
saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not
competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How
much more the things of this life?

. .Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men
of little account in the church. I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is
nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead,
one brother goes to law against another-- and this in front of unbelievers!

Apparently some of the Christians in the church at Corinth let the Sermon On The
Mount go in one ear and out the other.

● Matt 5:39-40 . . But I say unto you: That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue
thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

● Luke 12:57-59 . .Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right? As you are
going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the
way, or he may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the
officer, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell you, you will not get out until
you have paid the last penny.

The Lord began his teaching in Luke with the words "Why don't you judge for
yourselves what is right?" In other words; if someone threatens to take you to
court over a tort matter, and you know good and well he's in the right; don't force
him to go to law. Instead, admit to your wrong and settle out of court. According to
The Lord, it’s unrighteous to tie up the courts when you know your own self that
you are the one who's in the wrong. There's just simply no righteous reason why
Christian defendants and plaintiffs can't be their own judge and jury in tort matters.

● 1Cor 6:7-8 . . Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to
law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather
suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your
brethren.

The Greek word translated "defraud" is an ambiguous word with more than one
meaning, and more than one application. The meaning that seems appropriate in
this instance is "deprive".

It works like this: Were I to trip and fall because of a crack in the walk leading up
to the front door of the home of one of my kin; I wouldn't haul them into court over
it because we're related; viz: any injury I might incur by tripping and falling
because of a crack in their walk would be a family matter rather than a legal
matter; and they have a right to be treated by me as family rather than foes. Were
I to sue them for tripping and falling due to a crack in their walk; I would be
depriving them of the lenience that kin have a right to expect from one another.

● 1John 3:14-16 . .We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we
love the brethren. . . We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and
we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

I think it's safe to say that if somebody is comfortable taking a fellow Christian to
court; then they certainly are not prepared to lay down their life for the brethren.

It's sad to see relatives suing each other in court; but it happens all the time. When
the world does it; well, that's to be expected; but when Christians sue each other;
that's dysfunctional.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
066) 1Cor 6:18 . . Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body;
but he that commits fornication sins against his own body.

The Greek word translated "fornication" basically means harlotry; a term that
Webster's defines as sexual profligacy which would include things like prostitution
(a.k.a. trafficking) adultery, promiscuity, date sex, free love, shacking up, one
night stands, swingers, wife swapping, and all that sort of thing.

The command is not to walk away from fornication; but to run away from it as if
your very life depends upon putting distance between you and it. The same Greek
word is used at Matt 2:13 where an angel instructed Joseph to flee into Egypt in
order to save his little boy's life.

Fleeing is different than shunning. I think what we're talking about here are the
times when a golden opportunity comes along to have an affair with somebody who
is absolutely irresistible. Some people would call that getting lucky; but in God's
estimation, it's getting stupid if you play along and see what happens.

The phrase "sins against his own body" is sort of the same wording as at 1Cor
11:27 where it's said "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of The Lord in an
unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of The Lord."

Some Christians construe 1Cor 11:27 as murder. Well if so, then sinning against
one's own body would be suicide. But actually, what we're talking about here is
gross contempt and disrespect, i.e. sacrilege. In other words; Christian fornicators
are treating their body like a chamber pot instead of a holy vessel; and all the while
dragging God's Spirit into situations that He finds extremely unsavory.

● 1Cor 6:19 . . Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who
is in you, whom you have received from God?

They're also dragging Christ into shame and disgrace too.

● 1Cor 6:14-16 . . Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ
himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with an harlot?
Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with an harlot is one with her in
body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." (cf. Gen 2:18-24)

* While we're on it, here's a popular question I get from time to time.

FAQ: If true that Jesus was one of Adam's paternal descendants, then wouldn't that
mean he was dragged down into sin the same as all the rest of us when Adam
tasted the forbidden fruit? (Rom 5:12-21)

REPLY: Yes; and that was only the first of the many indignities that Jesus would be
made to endure alongside his fellow men. I have to wonder sometimes how this
world ever managed to produce a man like Jesus when he got off to a bad start
right from the beginning. In point of fact, Isaiah 53:1-2 describes Jesus as an
agricultural oddity.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
067) 1Cor 6:20 . . For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your
body.

Modern investors buy up houses with the intent to "flip" the units when property
values go up. But Christ didn't ransom sinners from the wrath of God with the
intent to resell them later at a profit. The transaction was for keeps rather than
commerce.

That being the case, then it makes sense we would want to conduct ourselves in
the style of a gentleman's valet who behaves himself in a manner consistent with
his position.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
068) 1Cor 7:2 . . To avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let
every woman have her own husband.

The above is especially pertinent in 2025 USA; fornication is everywhere: on a
pandemic scale. It's in our music, in our schools, in our government, in our offices,
on our televisions, in our movies, in our novels, and in our conversations. People
are even sleeping together on their very first dates.

* A previous Governor in my state of Oregon was openly shacking up with a
girlfriend.

According to the 2020 World Almanac and Book of Facts, there was a total of
3,855,500 live births in 2017. Of those, 1,534,000 were illegitimate (a.k.a. out of
wedlock) which means that nearly 40% of 2017's live births were the result of
immoral activity. Back in 1970, the ratio was only 10%.

This country is in a state of moral decline, and steadily becoming more and more
like the ancient city of Pompeii just prior to its destruction by the volcanism of Mt.
Vesuvius.

It's important to note that 1Cor 7:2 makes it okay to marry for pleasure. My
childhood religion taught me that it's a sin to marry for any other reason except
procreation and that couples who decide to remain childless are living in sin. They
get that from Genesis 1:28 where it's says: "God blessed them; and God said to
them: Be fruitful and multiply". But that is clearly a blessing rather than a rule of
engagement; and it's always best to regard blessings as benefits and/or
empowerment unless clearly indicated otherwise.

* The original purpose of marriage was neither pleasure nor procreation; it was
companionship. (Gen 2:18)
_

 

[Beetow]

.
069) 1Cor 7:3-4 . . Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and
likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not authority of her own
body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not authority of his
own body, but the wife.

What we're talking about in that verse is the principle of private property in
marriage that was established right from the get-go.

● Gen 2:23-24 . . And Adam said: This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my
flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore
shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and
they shall be one flesh.

There are no specific Hebrew words for "wife". The word for wife in that passage
comes from the very same word as woman-- 'ishshah. The possessive pronoun
"his" identifies an 'ishshah as somebody's wife. The same grammar works for
husbands too, for example:

● Gen 30:20 . . And Leah said: God hath endued me with a good dowry; now will
my husband dwell with me, because I have born him six sons.

The Hebrew word for "husband" in that verse is 'iysh which is a nondescript word
for males. The possessive pronoun "my" identifies a male as somebody's husband.

So Eve became Adam's woman; and Adam of course became Eve's man. They quite
literally owned each other: consequently they had a right to all that a proper
conjugal relationship with each other implies, including fidelity.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
070) 1Cor 7:5 . . Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a
time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again,
that Satan not tempt you by means of your lack of self control.

I think it goes without saying that spouses have an inalienable right to expect their
need for companionship to be satisfied in marriage; and if one, or both, is feeling
lonely and/or marginalized at home, then they're being deprived their privileges
and will be vulnerable to unfaithfulness when someone comes along with whom
they click.

I heard a story some time ago about a rather conniving Christian woman who
wanted a divorce from her Christian husband; but seeing as how God only allows
death or adultery to dissolve the marital bond; she began deliberately avoiding her
husband in order to force him to think about finding an alternative; and when he
did; she proceeded to divorce him on the grounds of infidelity. That way, in her
mind's eye, she was the victim and he the villain. (chuckle) What people won't do
to circumvent the laws of God.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
071) 1Cor 7:8-9 . . Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them
to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should
marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.

Paul said it's good to remain single; but he didn't say it's best.

The Greek word translated "burn" basically means to kindle, to ignite, to glow,
and/or to be inflamed. I seriously doubt Paul meant to convey the thought that the
believers who lacked self control at Corinth were in grave danger of the flames of
Hell since he had already assured them in 1Cor 6:9-11 that they were washed,
sanctified, and justified in the name of The Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul was one of those kinds of men with a very low-powered libido. But not
everyone is like him; nor is everyone cut out to live alone.

Webster's defines "celibacy" as (1) the state of not being married, (2) abstention
from sexual intercourse, and (3) abstention by vow from marriage. Celibacy then,
isn't limited to zero carnal activity; it includes zero marriage; even platonic unions.

Not long ago, a Catholic priest here in Oregon quit the priesthood after serving
more than 30 years in order to get married because he couldn't stand being alone
anymore. He wasn't especially looking to get naked with somebody, he just wanted
a companion; which is exactly how normal guys are designed.

"The Lord God said: It's not good for Adam to be solitary" (Gen 2:18)

The problem with a vow of celibacy is that although it may hinder a priest from
getting married, it does nothing to prevent him from pining for a female
companion. 1Cor 7:9 should suffice to silence the mouths of ascetics who preach
it's holy to abstain from every form of earthly pleasure; and also the mouths of
those who preach it's a sin to marry solely to obtain someone to sleep with.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
072) 1Cor 7:10-11a . . Unto the married I command-- yet not I, but The Lord --let
not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband.

Divorcing a spouse for any cause other than infidelity is unacceptable. (Mat 5:32)
However, separation is a different issue and is sometimes essential for the safety
and welfare of abused women.

● 1Cor 7:11b . . And let not the husband put away his wife.

You know, we really can't expect a man to continue living with a woman who
routinely slams the poor guy with demeaning ridicule and denigrating remarks
and/or constantly rakes him over the coals with relentless fault-finding and cruel
sarcasm, and maybe even pours scalding water on her husband while he's sleeping
or burns his face with a steam iron.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
073) 1Cor 7:12-13 . . If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be
pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an
husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave
him.

It's not all that unusual for marriages to start off on common ground, and then
later on to become religiously divided; like for instance when one of the spouses
gets converted while listening to an evangelical radio program, or both start out
as Christians and one switches over to Buddhism. As long as the situation doesn't
cause intolerable friction in the home, the couple should stay together.

● 1Cor 7:14-15 . . For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be
unclean, but now they are holy.

According to Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9, divorce and remarriage are holy only if one
of the spouses has been unfaithful. So; if a believing spouse divorces their
unbelieving spouse solely on the grounds of religious differences, and remarries;
then as far as the new testament is concerned, any children produced in the second
marriage will be illegitimate.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
074) 1Cor 7:15 . . But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a
sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

In that situation, Christians are neither required, nor encouraged, nor under even
the slightest obligation to attempt reconciliation; rather, "let him depart" strictly
forbids getting back together with the unbeliever.

The unbeliever's departure is a golden opportunity to permanently escape a difficult
situation that Christ's followers would be foolish to let slip through their fingers.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
075) 1Cor 7:17 . . But as God hath distributed to every man, as The Lord hath
called every one, so let him walk.

"distribution" is likely talking about spiritual gifts. All of Christ's believing followers
are supposed to have at least one.

● 1Cor 12:5-8 . . Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there
are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of
operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of
the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit,
etc.

The "call" likely includes the venue where each individual's gift is put to good use
for The Lord and I don't think we need to worry about how to find that venue; it'll
find us. Thing is, stay in your own zone; don't crash somebody else's party and/or
stick your nose into something that's none of your spiritual business, and quite
possibly out of your spiritual depth too.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
076) 1Cor 7:18a . . Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become
uncircumcised.

It was of course impossible to physically reverse circumcision in Paul's day.
However, there did exist a procedure to ceremoniously reverse it. (cf. 1Macc 1:15)

"Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised." (1Cor 7:18b)

The circumcision in question is ritual circumcision; specifically the initiation rite into
Judaism.

Paul's advice is very practical because when men undergo Judaism's circumcision
rite, they obligate themselves to comply with the covenant that Moses' people
agreed upon with God on oath per Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

As a result; they put themselves in danger of God slamming them with the curses
for noncompliance listed at Lev 26:3-38, Deut 27:15-26, and Deut 28:1-69. (cf. Gal
3:10)

All one has to do is research the last 3,500 years of the Jews' history, up to and
including the Holocaust, to see for themselves that God is serious about those
curses.

FAQ: If 1Cor 7:18b is a hard and fast rule, then why did Paul circumcise Timothy at
Acts 16:1-3?

REPLY: The procedure wasn't done to initiate Timothy into Judaism, but rather, so
that the Jews wouldn't make an issue of Paul associating with an uncircumcised
Gentile which, in their minds, would effectively invalidate his message.

A similar problem exists today among Christians fixated on a particular translation
of the Bible. They will not listen to a teacher, not even a Spirit empowered teacher,
unless he quotes from their favorite version. In their minds; all who use any other
version are heretics right from the get-go.
_

 

[Beetow]

.
077) 1Cor 7:20 . . Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when
God called him.

I once knew a really good Christian man who felt guilty never going out as a
missionary to a foreign land to help people less fortunate than himself. Well, I
assured him that somebody has to stay back here in the States and hold down a
job in order to earn the money needed to finance missions already in place.

The ratio of soldiers in the rear compared to the ones at the front is something like
6÷1. It takes a massive support base to keep our guys on the line out there facing
off with the other guys; all the way from workers in state-side factories
manufacturing war materiel, to the sailors, soldiers, and airmen moving men and
materiel over land and seas, to the doctors and nurses staffing MASH facilities, to
the guys and girls driving supply trucks to the front. We can't all be in the bush.
Somebody has to be in the rear with the gear, so to speak.

So take comfort in knowing that if you're involved in the effort, then you're a part
of the effort; and will be rewarded accordingly. (cf. 1Sam 30:1-25 & Matt 20:1-16)
_