1 Corinthians 2:8

2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it. If they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Corinthians 4:4

4:4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not acquitted because of this. The one who judges me is the Lord.

1 Corinthians 5:5

5:5 turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved ¹  in the day of the Lord. ² 

1 Corinthians 5:12

5:12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Are you not to judge those inside?

1 Corinthians 7:13

7:13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is happy to live with her, she should not divorce him.

1 Corinthians 9:24

9:24 Do you not know that all the runners in a stadium compete, but only one receives the prize? So run to win.

1 Corinthians 10:1

Learning from Israel’s Failures

10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, ³  brothers and sisters, ⁴  that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea,

1 Corinthians 10:29

10:29 I do not mean yours but the other person’s. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience?

1 Corinthians 13:1

The Way of Love

13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

1 Corinthians 14:12

14:12 It is the same with you. Since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, ⁵  seek to abound in order to strengthen the church.

1 Corinthians 14:35

14:35 If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. ⁶ 

1 Corinthians 15:9

15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

1 Corinthians 15:34

15:34 Sober up as you should, and stop sinning! For some have no knowledge of God – I say this to your shame!

1 Corinthians 15:40

15:40 And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. The glory of the heavenly body is one sort and the earthly another.

1 Corinthians 16:10

16:10 Now if Timothy comes, see that he has nothing to fear among you, for he is doing the Lord’s work, as I am too.

[5:5]  ¹ tn Or perhaps “turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of your fleshly works, so that your spirit may be saved…”; Grk “for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved.” This is one of the most difficult passages in the NT, and there are many different interpretations regarding what is in view here. (1) Many interpreters see this as some sort of excommunication (“turn this man over to Satan”) which in turn leads to the man’s physical death (“the destruction of the flesh”), resulting in the man’s ultimate salvation (“that [his] spirit may be saved…”). (2) Others see the phrase “destruction of the flesh” as referring to extreme physical suffering or illness that stops short of physical death, thus leading the offender to repentance and salvation. (3) A number of scholars (e.g. G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 212-13) take the reference to the “flesh” to refer to the offender’s “sinful nature” or “carnal nature,” which is “destroyed” by placing him outside the church, back in Satan’s domain (exactly how this “destruction” is accomplished is not clear, and is one of the problems with this view). (4) More recently some have argued that neither the “flesh” nor the “spirit” belong to the offender, but to the church collectively; thus it is the “fleshly works” of the congregation which are being destroyed by the removal of the offender (cf. 5:13) so that the “spirit,” the corporate life of the church lived in union with God through the Holy Spirit, may be preserved (cf. 5:7-8). See, e.g., B. Campbell, “Flesh and Spirit in 1 Cor 5:5: An Exercise in Rhetorical Criticism of the NT,” JETS 36 (1993): 331-42. The alternate translation “for the destruction of your fleshly works, so that your spirit may be saved” reflects this latter view.

[5:5]  ² tc The shorter reading, κυρίου (kuriou, “Lord”), is found in Ì⁴⁶ B 630 1739 pc; κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ (kuriou Ihsou, “Lord Jesus”) is read by Ì^61vid א Ψ Ï; κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (kuriou Ihsou Cristou, “Lord Jesus Christ”) by D pc; and κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (kuriou Jhmwn Ihsou Cristou, “our Lord Jesus Christ”) by A F G P 33 al. The shorter reading is preferred as the reading that best explains the other readings, especially in view of the mention of “Jesus” twice in the previous verse.

[10:1]  ¹ tn Grk “ignorant.”

[10:1]  ² tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:10.

[14:12]  ¹ tn Grk “eager for spirits.” The plural is probably a shorthand for the Spirit’s gifts, especially in this context, tongues.

[14:35]  ¹ tc Some scholars have argued that vv. 34-35 should be excised from the text (principally G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 697-710; P. B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5,” NTS 41 [1995]: 240-262). This is because the Western witnesses (D F G ar b vg^ms Ambst) have these verses after v. 40, while the rest of the tradition retains them here. There are no mss that omit the verses. Why, then, would some scholars wish to excise the verses? Because they believe that this best explains how they could end up in two different locations, that is to say, that the verses got into the text by way of a very early gloss added in the margin. Most scribes put the gloss after v. 33; others, not knowing where they should go, put them at the end of the chapter. Fee points out that “Those who wish to maintain the authenticity of these verses must at least offer an adequate answer as to how this arrangement came into existence if Paul wrote them originally as our vv. 34-35” (First Corinthians [NICNT], 700). In a footnote he adds, “The point is that if it were already in the text after v. 33, there is no reason for a copyist to make such a radical transposition.” Although it is not our intention to interact with proponents of the shorter text in any detail here, a couple of points ought to be made. (1) Since these verses occur in all witnesses to 1 Corinthians, to argue that they are not original means that they must have crept into the text at the earliest stage of transmission. How early? Earlier than when the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) made its way into the text (late 2nd, early 3rd century?), earlier than the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) was produced (early 2nd century?), and earlier than even “in Ephesus” was added to Eph 1:1 (upon reception of the letter by the first church to which it came, the church at Ephesus) – because in these other, similar places, the earliest witnesses do not add the words. This text thus stands as remarkable, unique. Indeed, since all the witnesses have the words, the evidence points to them as having been inserted into the original document. Who would have done such a thing? And, further, why would scribes have regarded it as original since it was obviously added in the margin? This leads to our second point. (2) Following a suggestion made by E. E. Ellis (“The Silenced Wives of Corinth (I Cor. 14:34-5),” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 213-20 [the suggestion comes at the end of the article, almost as an afterthought]), it is likely that Paul himself added the words in the margin. Since it was so much material to add, Paul could have squelched any suspicions by indicating that the words were his (e.g., by adding his name or some other means [cf. 2 Thess 3:17]). This way no scribe would think that the material was inauthentic. (Incidentally, this is unlike the textual problem at Rom 5:1, for there only one letter was at stake; hence, scribes would easily have thought that the “text” reading was original. And Paul would hardly be expected to add his signature for one letter.) (3) What then is to account for the uniform Western tradition of having the verses at the end of the chapter? Our conjecture (and that is all it is) is that the scribe of the Western Vorlage could no longer read where the verses were to be added (any marginal arrows or other directional device could have been smudged), but, recognizing that this was part of the original text, felt compelled to put it somewhere. The least offensive place would have been at the end of the material on church conduct (end of chapter 14), before the instructions about the resurrection began. Although there were no chapter divisions in the earliest period of copying, scribes could still detect thought breaks (note the usage in the earliest papyri). (4) The very location of the verses in the Western tradition argues strongly that Paul both authored vv. 34-35 and that they were originally part of the margin of the text. Otherwise, one has a difficulty explaining why no scribe seemed to have hinted that these verses might be inauthentic (the scribal sigla of codex B, as noticed by Payne, can be interpreted otherwise than as an indication of inauthenticity [cf. J. E. Miller, “Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35,” JSNT 26 [2003]: 217-36.). There are apparently no mss that have an asterisk or obelisk in the margin. Yet in other places in the NT where scribes doubted the authenticity of the clauses before them, they often noted their protest with an asterisk or obelisk. We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above.