1 Corinthians: Exegetical Notes
Chapters 6-10

Return to Index

Contents:
Chapters:    6   7   8   9   10   

Abbreviations used in the notes:

N1, N2, N3, Ti, T2, T3: Refer to 1st, 2nd and 3rd years of the Nisan and Tishri Cycles, respectively, of the Jewish Synagogue Triennial Lectionary, q.v.
Nisan 1: Read on 1st Sabbath of Nisan in the TC
TC: Triennial Cycle of the Synagogue Lectionary
H: Haphtarah (Prophetic reading from OT)
TS: Torah Seder (Reading from the Pentateuch)
om.: omit(ting)
// Parallel passage
X: Chiasm (details of these are given separately)
OX: Overall chiasm (1 Cor. 1.1-8.6a x 8.6b-16.24)
acc.: according to
ergo: Latin for 'therefore'
2o Paul: Letters by Paul's disciples (Paul as author of Rom, 1 & 2 Cor, Gal & Philemon only)
Chapter 6
OX: 6.1-20 x 10.14-11.22  (Decalogue: 6.1-8.6b x 8.6c-10.33)
X: 1.1-11 x 6.1-11; X: 4.19-6.3 x 6.4-14.
1-6 Cf. Luke 12.57
1 τολμᾷ, 'does he dare, have the authority'
- very strong expression, indicating how much of a breach of Christian dignity these lawsuits in Roman law-courts were.  The impartiality of Roman courts is not questioned by Paul (Rom. 13.1-8 views the Roman state as given by God the task of maintaining order and justice in the Mediterranean basin).  As Jews had their affairs judged by their own wise men, i.e. by rabbis, so Christians should do the same and not display their disharmonies before the public.
ἐπί + gen.: 'before' with persons, esp. in the language of lawsuits.
οἱ ἄδικοι, RSV/NRSV: 'the unrighteous';
here it simply means unbelievers or pagans; ἄδικος is often used as a synonym for ἀσεβής. 'impious' or 'godless'.
Héring: Paul's amazement implies that in other churches
disputes were handled internally.
οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι, 'Do you not know that ...'
- probably sarcastically addressed to the 'know-it-alls' who are causing trouble, especially in light of of the introductory , 'or': 'Or do you not know that ...'  I.e., their behaviour belies their claim to 'knowledge'. cf. 3.16 ff.
'the saints will judge the world':
(1) probably a slogan at Corinth;
(2) pre-Christian base: Dan. 7.22; Wisd. 3.5; Ethiopic Enoch 1.38 - saints associated with God at Last Judgement.
ὁ κόσμος, 'the world': since those unattached to Christ are
ἀπολλύμενοι, i.e., destined to perish (1.18; 2Cor. 2.15; 4.3; Rom. 2.12 [2 Thess. 2.10], and in Paul's thought only those in Christ shall be raised (cf. 15.22), ὁ κόσμος would appear to refer to the ruling powers of this age, the ἄγγελοι, 'angels', of 6.3, the ἄρχοντες, 'rulers', of 2.6, the ἀρχαί, 'principalities', of 15.24 and Rom. 8.38, and the στοιχεῖα, 'elemental spirits', of Gal. 4.3, 9 [Col. 2.8, 20].
ἀνάξιοι, 'unworthy', moving to 'not good enough' or 'incompetent' as in RSV/NRSV.
κριτήριον, 'lawcourt', tribunal'.  Ergo, κριτήριον ἀνάξιοι εστε κριτήριον ἐλαχιστων; perhaps means: 'Are you unfit [to form] even the most insignificant courts?'; but since κριτήριον can also be shown to mean 'lawsuit', the RSV/NRSV rendering, 'trivial cases', is preferred by J. Weiss, H. Lietzmann, Sichenberger and H.-D. Wendland.
3 οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι, 'Do you not know that ...' - cf. 6.2 above.
ἀγγέλους κρινοῦμεν. 'we shall judge angels?' - cf. 6.2 on ὁ κόσμος.
Cf. the angels ('sons of God') of Gen. 6.2 Nisan 4 [N1].  Probably also includes the angels who represent the natins, as in Ps. 149 (espec. v. 6), Dan. 10.13-21; Eth. Enoch 89.59; Test. of Naphthali (Hebrew) 8; Bab. Talmud, Sukka, fol. 29a; Midrash Rabba Shir (Canticles) 8.14.  (In the Ascension of Isaiah 10.28 ff. (a Jewish-Christian book), the angels of the nations are rebuked for their quarrelsome spirit; in Similitudes of Enoch 61.8 (most likely also Jewish-Christian) Son of Man will judge angels and men, living and dead.
3-4 X: 6.1-3 x 6.4-6 - Centring on , 'things concerning daily life?  Things concerning daily life ...'
Argument of vv. 3-4: If you are to judge angels, then why not daily matters of life?  If you are concerned about these trivial things, why take them before mere worldly judges?
4 τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους (perf. pass. part.) 'those who have been despised'
cf. 1.28; 16.11; 2 Cor. 10.10; Gal. 4.14; Rom. 14.3, 10 (cp. the differnt use of the verb in 1 Thess. 5.20, its only deutero-Pauline occurrence.)
ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, '(those despised) in the church'
Here is a universal use of ἐκκλησία, as opposed to referring merely to a local congregation.
ἐκκλησία 1C
22
2C
9
Rom
5
Gal
3
Pn
1
(Phil)
(2)
(Eph)
(9)
( Col)
(4)
(1Th)
(2)
(2Th)
(2)
NT
114
LXX
ca.50
angels: cf. 2 Cor. 12.7: 'angel of Satan'
i.e., there are 'bad' angels for Paul.
ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ:
 Héring: "[This] is a quite incorrect abbreviation for ἀνὰ μέσον τίνος καὶ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ = 'between a man and his brother man'.  As we have no divergent reading to support this, we have to suppose an oversight by the author or Sosthenes."
5-9 Triad: v.5: wise, v. 7: defect; v. 9: inherit kingdom of God
(= wise, powerful, well-born - cf. 1.26 ff.)
5 σοφός, a wise one // hakham, a wise man who judges (OT & Judaism)
6 Brother against brother:
 Gen. 4.33 (Cain & Abel) Nisan 3 [N1];
Gen. 27.41 (Esau hates brother Jacob) Nisan 2 [T2]; Jer. 9.4 (see materials on 1 Cor. & Jer. 8.13-9.24)
7 ἥττημα, [moral] defeat' -The very existence of disputes between Christians is already a moral defeat; ἥττημα: 'defect' or 'loss' in you.
7b μέν has no δέ to follow  (i.e: the usual sequence)
Héring: "Did the author mean to continue , 'and so much the more because you bring your cases before pagans'? But this thought, already developed, is broken off."
7-8 Cf. Matt. 5.39 f.
8a 'You wrong [your own brothers]'
// Commandment IX (bear no false witness)
8b 'You defraud your own brothers'
// Commandment VIII (do not steal)
9-11 Some of you formerly were immoral (sexually and otherwise) & thieves
// Commandments VIII (do not steal) & VII (commit not adultery)
9 sins against body: immoral or idolaters
- connected with temple of Aphrodite at Corinth with its temple prostitutes? - cf. 10.7-8.
10 sins against people
ἅρπαγες, RSV/NRSV: 'robbers'' 'brigands'. i.e. robbery with violence.
11 ἀπελούσασθε 'you washed yourselves' (2nd pers. pl. 1 aor. ind. mid.)
(ἀπολύειν: Acts 22.16; LXX: Job 9.30)
'washed' - in baptism; cf. 10.1-8 (baptism) & 1 Pet. 1.2.
The three verbs are not 3 stages, but 3 aspects of Holy Spirit's action:
'washed' - a break from sin
'sanctified' - attachment to the Body of Christ
'justified/made righteous' - justification, i.e. set in the arena of God's righteousness (so that you may become righteous).
11 'Washed, sanctified, justified' - same as in 1.30, but reversed.
12-20  'lawful ... enslaved ... God will raise to life ... harlot':
cf. Prov. 7 (follow sister Wisdom, not harlot who seduces to Sheol) & also Prov. 9.
12-14 Versus libertine gnostic-type persons
who thought what was done with body could not affect 'spirit', which alone would be saved, because body, like all material things, was created by an inferior deity. Paul combats this libertinism in chaps. 6 & 8, & he combats their denial of resurrection of Body in chap. 15. (Other gnostic-types were ascetics who mortified the flesh to liberate the spirit, & sometimes forbad marriage - cf. chap. 7 (& 1 Tim. 4.3]).
12-18  Do not join the Body to a harlot
// Commandment VII (do not commit adultery)
12a  Cf. 10.23; Gal. 5.13.
12b Cf. 9.26-27.
12-20  Same order as 2.15-3.23
J. C. Hurd, Jr, The Origin of I Corinthians (SPCK, London, 1965): transition to new subjects:
6.13a Food - 8.1-11.1
6.13b Body - 11.2-13.end
614 Resurrection - 15 (ἐγείρω , 'to raise')
6.15a Bodies members of Christ - 12 (μέλος , 'member')
6.15b-16a Sexual morality with Body
6.16b Two become one (marriage) - 7.1-16, 25-40
6.17 Celibacy?
6.18-20 Body - belong to God, glorify God in Body - 7.17-24
12-20 Diatribe style (C. T. Craig, Inter.. Bible),
i.e., imaginary dialogue with opponents, using real or imagined quotations from them, plus rhetorical questions addressed to them, but which the writer himself answers.
12 συμφέρειν , 'to be helpful' - 1 Cor 6.12; 10.23; 12.7; 2 Cor 8.10; 12.1; NT: 15x; LXX: 12x - cf. σύμφορος , 'helpful' 7.35; 10.33 (only times in NT)
ἐξουσιάζειν, ‘to have authority over’ - same verb in 7.4
13a Food ... God will destroy ...' - Food & judgement: cf. 10.1-10; 11.27-32.
13b 'The Body is not meant for immorality ...' 
C. T. Craig, Interp. Bible, suggests this is where Paul's rejoinder begins.
15 μὴ γένοιτο , 'may it not be allowed to come to pass' (optative) (2x in 1 Cor)
15b Notes on Greek Text:
Although such Greek commentaries as those of Alford, Ellicott, Edwards, B. Weiss, Robertson & Plummer (ICC), & the UBSGNT 3rd ed. indicate no awareness of difficulties here, Héring (rightly in Gibbs' view) sees real problems.
ἄρας: grammatically should be aorist part. active of αἴρω , 'to lift something up in order to remove it', or even 'to abolish'.  But if we read ἄρας here, the context requires the meaning 'detach' ('detach the members of Christ') and this would require ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ , 'from Christ', but there is no ἀπό in the text. (αἴρω in Mk 2.21//Mt might give the sense 'tear out', but many scholars take it as intransitive there)
ἄρας, ποιήσω It is most surprising to find these singular forms in the midst of a passage using the plural
ergo, Héring concludes (following J. Weiss, and Gibbs concurs):
1) Read ποιήσομεν , 'we shall make' (fut. indic. act.) with P and Didymus of Alexandria (MPG XXXIX, col. 828A).
2) ἄρας then is unacceptable, so read ἄρα οὖν , 'therefore', with P and some miniscules (ἄρα οὖν 8x in Rom, Gal 1x [Eph 1x, 1 Th 1x, 2 Th 1x]) (ἄρα οὖν , using the interrogative form ἆρα , would have been elided to ἆρ' οὖν, which would not likely give rise to ἄρας) [J. Weiss: (1) ἄρα was scribally corrupted to ἄρας; (2) this made it necessary to change ποιήσομεν or ποιήσωμεν into ποιήσω.]
3) μὴ γένοιτο in Paul invariably follows a question, ergo Héring translates  v. 15 as:
15 'Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? 
Therefore shall we make the members of Christ members of a prostitute?  Never!'
πόρνη , 'harlot', 'prostitute' - quite likely behind this in the Corinthian context is an allusion to Aphrodite, the love-goddess, and her temple prostitutes, who were supposed to put one in communion with the goddess.  [This was one reason OT prophets called pagan cults a form of πορνεία , 'adultery', with respect to Yahweh - cf. 1 Cor 10.1 ff.]
v. 15 raises a question:
If intercourse with a πόρνη breaks union with Christ, what about intercourse in marriage?  This is answered by implication in chap. 7.
16-20 Cf. 15.35-50: σῶμα (body), σάρξ (flesh), πνεῦμα (spirit), εἰκών (image) and δόξα (glory) -same combination. (νάος, temple’, of 6.19 = εἰκών of chap. 15)
16a ἓν σῶμά ἐστιν, 'he is one body [with her]':  i.e. one whole person, totality, unity.
16b ἔσονται ... οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν , 'the two shall be one flesh';
 TS Gen 2.4 Nisan 2 [N1] - cf. 1 Cor 7.10
17 ἓν πνεῦμά ἐστιν, 'he is one spirit':
NOTE: sequence of 16-17: σῶμα, σάρξ, πνεῦμα, ‘body’, ‘flesh’, ‘spirit’ - with the emphasis on the being () one - cp. Gen 2.7.
ὁ δὲ κολλώμενος τῷ κυρίῳ, 'he who is joined to the Lord' -
same verb in Deut 6.13 LXX Sivan 1 [T3] (elsewhere in Pentateuch only in Deut 10.20; 28.60; 29.20 [19])
18a 'Flee immorality' - Gen 39.12 (Joseph flees Potiphar's wife)
cf. 1 Cor 10.14
18b '"Every sin which a man commits is outside the body"'
Hurd suggests this is probably a quotation from opponents.
NOTE on σῶμα ,'Body': In 1 Cor we will understand Paul best if we mentally capitalize 'Body' in every occurrence, and always think of the Body of Christ, the Church, for the individual's 'body' is a member of 'The Body', and Paul does not want his audience to forget this even for a moment.
19-20 Cf. 3.16 // Commandment VI (do no murder).
19 Figure of the temple of the Holy Spirit applied to Church in 3.16;
here in 6.19 it is the individual's body which is to become the Holy Spirit's dwelling place.  But NOTE: Spirit does not yet dwell in Christian in fullness, but only in the measure that is this far possible:
ναὸς τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν ἁγίου πνεύματός ἐστιν,
'the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you', and not simply ναὸς τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, 'temple of Holy Spirit': (1) the 'essence' of that which is to be raised perfect at the End is already within the Christian, (2) but the Christian is not yet perfect and therefore is not simply to be equated with the ναὸς.
[This is why we get (a) the 'building-up' imagery of 1 Cor 14, i.e. the building up of the Body/Temple toward the End, and (b) the emphasis in, e.g. 15.37, on the present 'seed' of the resurrection Body.]
19 Philo and the Stoics Philo often uses 'house of God' for man's soul, but never for his body.  Also, for Philo the divine indwelling is the result of ascetic mysticism, while for Paul it is the effect of grace  (e.g. de Somnio, I §149).  Stoicism thought of God dwelling in the interior of the soul, but for the Stoics this was based on a natural kinship between human reason and God (Epictetus, Discourses, I.xiv.14).
19c-20a X: 6.15-19 x 6.20--7.7: Centre:
6.19c: You are not your own
6.20a: You were bought with a price
Chapter 7
OX: 7.1-40 x 9.1-10.13
 X:
7.1-4a x 7.4b-8
NOTE: Three levels of 'authority' in 1 Cor:
(1)  charge from 'the Lord' (= the Jesus-tradition) as in 7.10; this may concern general principles or specific things;
(2)  Paul  speaking as an Apostle, setting the exemplary pattern (4.16; 11.1), although it may de directed to specific issues, as in the question of eating idol-meats (11.1);
(3)  Paul speaking 'godly advice' as an individual Christian, advice which should be considered but not necessarily followed to the letter (7.12, 25).
Although in this chapter Paul repeats himself when returning to questions already discussed, overall we may divide the chapter as follows (acc. to Héring):
7.1-9 Marriage in general
7.10-16 Divorce and mixed marriages
7.17-24 Importance of the idea of vocation
7.25-38 Spiritual marriage and celibacy
7.39-40 Second marriages
1 περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐγράψατε, 'Now concerning the matters [about which] you wrote'
On Hurd's analysis, 7.1-11.16 is taking up questions raised in a letter by the Corinthians.
1-14 // Commandment V (honour father and mother) - concerned with family.
1b καλόν Cannot be 'good', 'admirable', 'well' in a moral sense, since the sequel makes celibacy a gift of grace (v 7), and not a matter of effort or merit.  ergo, 'valuable', 'profitable' as in LXX, but not secular Greek.
Cf. Gen 20.6 (which includes ἅψασθαι 'to touch')
Possibly this is a quotation from Paul's teaching.
2 ἐχέτω = 'Let him have' - not in the strict sense as imperative (or it would be contrary to 7.1), but rather a recommendation.
διὰ τὰς πορνείας, 'because of the [temptation to] immorality
- cf. vv.  5, 9 (all temptations) - Gen 2.18 Nisan 2 [n1]: It is not καλόν that man be alone.  Goudge and Evans see this verse as directed against polygamy.
Note: Paul says nothing about the Christian home or the beauty of raising children as Christians.  Most exegetes would say that this is because the Christian community at this   stage had lively eschatological hopes of an imminent End - cf. 7.24.  [Traces of this concern for family life can be seen developing in the Deutero-Paulines. e.g. Col 3.18-4.1; Eph 5.22-6.9]
Note Paul's concern for conjugal love
(vs. rabbis, who only permitted marriage with procreation as its aim - see Tobit 8.7.)
3 This is the consequence of the principle enunciated in v. 4.
4 Centre of X: 1-4a x 4b-7: This is the abiding principle of Christian marriage.
ἐξουσιάζειν, ‘to have authority over’ - cf. 6.12b (same verb)
5 A further consequence of v. 4.
Cf. Exod 19.15 Iyyar 4 [N2] & Lev 15.18 - coitus viewed as causing ritual impurity; cf. Eccles 3.5.  Note that Paul does not allow continence or asceticism within marriage except for a mutually-agreed short period of spiritual retreat.  The Jews held a similar view, as in Testament of Naphthali 8; rabbis' opinion on length of this period varied from a week to a month (Mishnah, tractate Ketuboth, V.6.)  Jews: newly married man excused from saying Shema.
5c cf. 1.b and Gen 20.6.
6 What Paul allows as a συγγνώμη, 'concession', is period of continence.
While Paul's ideal is abstention ('be as I am', 7.7) in conformity with 7.1, he will not admit that it should be imposed, even temporarily, on those who have not the gift.  (For Ignatius of Antioch chastity is similarly a 'charisma' [Ep. to Polycarp 5.2].)
7a Note that Paul is careful about when he sets himself up as τύπος, the type to be imitated.  Here he does not; it is only for those with the special gift.
7b ἴδιον ἔχει χάρισμα ἐκ θεοῦ, ‘has his own gift from God’
cf. 7.17, 20, 24: i.e., 'to each his own'.
8-17 X: 7.8-14a x 7.14b-17
8 χήραις, 'widows' - (1) since ἀγάμοις, 'unmarried', is masculine, and (2) since widows are expressly referred to in 7.39 ff., and (3) αὐτοῖς, 'them' is also masculine, Bois has conjectured that χήροις , 'widowers', should be read here.  Héring, on the contrary, says that (1) since ἀγάμοις would refer to both unmarried men and women, and (2) αὐτοῖς has to be masculine to refer to ἀγάμοις, (3) although the active γαμησάτωσαν , 'let them marry' (v. 9), is used for men usually, not for women, he thinks χήραις (supported by all witnesses) is acceptable as touching on a subject to be treated more extensively later.
9 ἐγκαρτεύονται , 'they exercise the power of self-control' - 9.25 (only 2x verb occurs in NT)
πυροῦσθαι, 'to burn with sexual desire' is the meaning here (as in RSV/NRSV); there is no thought of 'burning in hell' (πυρόω only in passive in NT)
10 Shift from advice to command: παραγγέλλω. οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ό κύριος,
'I charge, not I but the Lord', a command from the Lord - cf. 6.16b; Mark 10.5-9; Luke 16.18; Matt. 19.6.
11 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χορισθῇ , 'but if indeed she is [already] separated'
(aor. 1 subj. pass. w. mid. significance) - more likely translation than RSV/NRSV: 'but if she does separate'.   Possibly this pertains to a specific actual case.
Héring argues plausibly that this applies to Christian marriages
as shown by the opposition between  τοῖς  γαμηκόσιν, 'to the married', in 7.10 and τοῖς λοιποῖς, 'to the others', i.e. marriages w. non-Christians of 7.12.  Héring calls attention to the fact that the word  'marriage' is kept here for Christian marriage, although the validity of pagan marriages is niot denied.
12-16 Deals with marriages contracted before one became a Christian;
new marriages are  only to be between Christians (7.19: 'in the Lord').
14 Centre of X: 7.8-14a x 7.14b-17: 'consecrated ... consecrated' x 'unclean ... holy'; as v. 16 shows, this is not concerned with 'salvation', but Gibbs sees it as almost certainly concerned with ritual purity - i.e., the Christian partner is not defiled (and hence not able to keep the Christian Passover) by contact with non-Christian spouse or children. - cp. John 19.28.
Unclean re feast: Num 19.11 Sivan 1 or 2 [N2]: unclean for seven days if touch a corpse; Hillel: Gentiles as // corpse.  Ergo, reflected here & in 15.29?
14-24 // Commandment IV: Keep Sabbath holy:
v. 14: Now they are holy; v. 19: Circumcision, etc., do not count for anything; only keeping the commandments of God.
13, 15 13: Christian (woman) partner not to divorce  (Note: Roman law involved here, not Jewish, for among Jews only husband could divorce), but -
15: Christian partner, male or female, is to allow pagan partner a separation.
15b ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ὑμᾶς ὁ θεός, 'But God has called you
in/to peace', using ἐν instead of εἰς (a common practice in Koine & NT Greek)
ὑμᾶς. 'you', or ἡμᾶς , 'us': latter (in RSV) is strongly attested
and preferred by Héring (ὑμᾶς: Nestle-Aland, BFBS, UBSGNT, NRSV).  As UBSGNT3 notes, (1) scribes tended to generalize aphorisms (substituting 'we' for 'you', as has been done here by a second scribe in Codex Sinaiticus, and (2) in later Greek the two words were pronounced alike and thus easily confused when a scribe was taking dictation.  In view of the whole context, 'you' seems preferable.
Cf. 14.33: 'God is a God of peace'
16 Cf. 9.22; cf. 2 Sam 12.22 - no guarantee of 'saving' non-Christian partner,
therefore, do not force the marriage to continue.
17-32      X: 17-25c x 25d-32
17 Note binary form: 'Lord' and 'God': Lord has given part; God has called.
X: a. only as the Lord hath distributed to each man
       b.  as God has called each,
       c.  so let him walk;

d.  and so ordain I in all the churches.
Gibbs suspects that this is probably the centre of a much larger chiasm which is yet to be detected, since it appears to be the general principle of the chapter.
μερίζειν , 'to divide, distribute, give part in' - idea of participation in the Body of Christ.  μερίζειν 5x in Paul: 1 Cor 1.13; 7.17, 34; 2 Cor 10.13; Rom 12.3.
17a εὶ μὴ , 'only' suggests adversative sense on analogy with Gal 1.7.  How do we explain this 'negative' sense since v. 17 suggests 'make no change', an idea already closely parallel to what has preceded?  ANSWER: v. 16 has the two rhetorical questions: τί οἶδας ...', 'How do you know...?, which logically demand a negative  answerThis implied 'No' is then followed by, 'Very well, on the contrary...'.
17b Cf. 11.16b Paul's general rule - not a special one for Corinthians.
18-19 Cf. Mark 7.1-23 espec. 76-8, and note Jewish and Gentile Christians in 1 Cor here - i.e. perhaps re table fellowship?
Note 7.23b: ἄνθρωποι , 'men'
18c Uncircumcised whern called - cf.Gen 17 (Abraham) Sivan 1 [N1].
19 Circumcision is nothing - a negative judgement on circumcision
as in Gal Gal 2.3; 5.2, 3, 6; 6.12-13, 15; neutral use in 1 Cor 7.18; Rom 2.25-4.12; 15.8.  (It is only in the Deutero-Paulines that we find a positive use, claiming that the Christians are the true circumcision as in Phil 3.3-8 (vs physical circumcision), or circumcised without hands in baptism as in Col 2.11-12; Eph 2.11 contrasts those of the 'uncircumcision' to those of the 'circumcision made with hands', but does not actually speak of Christians as 'circumcised' in any way.
Gibbs thinks it likely that the appropriation of 'circumcision' in Phil and Col is because the concept carried the idea of obedience to God's covenant, as in the references to circumcision of the heart or ears (Deut 10.16; 30.6; Jer 4.4; 9.25, 26.)
Uncircumcision is nothing - i.e., don't try to remove the marks
of circumcision either, as some may have been tempted to do, since Greek culture looked down on circumcision.
19b 'Keeping the commandments of God'
Wisd. 6.18; Ecclus 32.23 - cf. Mark 7.8: Commandments of God versus traditions of men.
19b, 23b Contrast between 19b: τήρησις ἐντολῶν θεοῦ and 23b: μὴ γίνεσθε δοῦλοι ἀνθρώπων .
20 κλῆσις, 'calling' means not the 'calling' which makes us Christians, but rather that which we have to actualize by accepting our situation in life.  This is a somewhat unexpected use of κλῆσις, but it may have been influenced by its use in popular philosophy (as by such Stoics as Epictetus, Discourses I.xxix.33-49, where it is used in the sense of a God-given vocation).
21 Slave: Some slaves were highly educated (such as the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, who was a slave, who nevertheless claims, 'No one has power over me.  I have been freed by God', Discourses IV.vii.16-17.  But the Stoics generally regarded this freedom as a 'natural' one given because God had created them as [rational] men who did not need to be concerned for anything external to themselves but only for that which was innate to their true being as humans.).
21b μᾶλλον χρῆσαι What is its force?
Luther, Calvin, Godet, RSV, etc. translate it as 'then rather make use of it' (i.e. the opportunity to free oneself from slavery).  Héring, following John Chrsysostom, Peter Lombard, and Bengel, takes it as: 'Even if you are able to become free, rather remain in the state of slavery.'  (1) This makes the adverb μᾶλλον, 'more, rather', more intelligible, and (2) it fits the general context of 'remain as you are' better.  (3) Although this use of χράομαι , 'make use of, employ', is rather surprising, it is analogous to such an expression as τοίς νόμοις χρῆσθαι , 'live under the Law's commands', Hermas, Sim I.§§3, 4.  NRSV follows this route: 'make use of your present condition'.
22 This spells out the above: all are free in the Lord and yet
all are slaves of Christ.  Mere 'human' condition is incidental, since all Christians have been bought with a price and all belong to God (v. 23)
23 Cf. Lev 25.50 f. (freeing a slave); Gen 17.13 Sivan 1 [N1] re Abraham buying a slave with a price; Job 28.18: 'the price of wisdom is above pearls'.  cf. 6.20a; 1.30.
23b μὴ γίνεσθε δοῦλοι ἀνθρώπων , 'do not become the slaves of men'
i.e. δοῦλος, 'slave', here has religious force, both in the sense that, since God now 'owns' you, do not let mere men lord it over you by trying to bind you to something other than 'the commandments of God' (v. 19b), and also do not become victims of human preoccupations.
24 Concludes section by almost a verbal repeat of 7.20.
I.e. Paul is calling for a revolution from within, not from without - cf. C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, pp. 135-137, on the scope of social ethics in the NT.
25-35 X: 7.25-30 x 7.30-35
25-40 X: 7.25-34a x 7.34b-40
25-39 // Commandment III: Do not take the name of the Lord  ... in vain.
7.25-39: κύριος, 'Lord' 7x (θεός, 'God', in 7.24, 40, but not in between).
25 ff. This a frankly interim ethic.
Remove the Parousia-expectations and the conditions to which it has given rise, and then neither the conditions nor Paul's provisions for them will exist or have any relevance.
25 περὶ δὲ , 'Now concerning ...' - intro. to subject raised by Corinthians  (Hurd)
25 πιστός , probably both as 'believer' and 'trustworthy.  Here he is giving his own opinion : γνώμην δίδωμι , 'I give an opinion', rather than speaking in his authority as an apostle.  On the basis of πιστός , in 4.20, even if it means 'believer', it certainly also seems to include the idea of 'trustworthy', as reinforced by 7.40.  I.e. Paul claims he ought to be listened to with respect even when he is only speaking as an individual Christian.
25a παρθένοι , 'virgins', could be used of men as in Rev14.4, but v. 28b seems to exclude any idea that other than women are meant, but cf. 27b.
25cd Centre of X: 17-15c- x 17d-32:
c: I give my judgement   d: as one who has obtained mercy.
26 τοῦτο καλὸν ... ὅτι   Does τοῦτο, 'this', introduce phrase beginning with ὅτι
Héring says it is unlikely, since the repetition of καλὸν, 'well, advisable', within the ὅτι , 'because', clause is then difficult to explain.  Therefore τοῦτο refers back to the advice of 7.20, and the second half of 7.26 then simply repeats that advice so it will not be forgotten.
ἀνάγγκην , 'distress' - cf. 7.37; 9.16 (along with θλῖψις , ';tribulation', ἀνάγκη often refers to trials of the End-time; θλῖψις , in 7.28).
δὶα τὴν ἀνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην , 'becase of the imminent future distress'
which is already operative (generally ἐνεστῶς = 'present', in opposition to μέλλον = 'future')
26-31 cp. 2 Cor 6.3-10, and then cf. 1 Cor 4.11-13 - i.e., inaugurated eschatology.
27a Re marital separartion: Héring says this concerns  only mixed marriages
in view of word of Lord forbidding divorce of Christians (7.10, 11) or separation by mutual consent, against which he has also advised as can be seen from 7.2, 5.
27b λέλυσαι , 'unengaged' men, i.e. bachelors and widowers, would do well not to tie themselves down.
28 The above is immediately qualified: marriage is no sin
(vs rigourist elements of a proto-Marcionite type) - repeated in 7.36.
θλῖψιν τῇ σαρκὶ, 'tribulation in the flesh' - tribulation caused by worldly cares,
which will be especially severe just before Parousia.
29-31 (cf. 2 Esdras 16.41-44, which is apparently a Christian addition ca. AD 265)
cp. 4.8-10 vs 4.11-13.   7.30-31a sound Stoic in tone, but see Héring below.
Héring, p. 59: '... it is strange that the recommendations of 7.30 and 7.31 have a much wider bearing and are independent of the date of the Parousia.  They refer to an aspect of the moral position of the Christian : he has a right to use worldly possessions, without fixing his heart on them.  In this the Christian spirit breaks new ground in relation to the world and its goods, equally remote from pagan hedonism and Ebionite shrinking from the world.  At first glance it seems to resemble that of the Stoa.  But there is a perceptible difference.  The Stoic forbade emotion. The Apostle stresses neither joy nor sorrow, but he knows that the Christian must not become once again a slave to the world, its possessions and its passions, which absorb the pagan.  This Christian liberty is expressed in a magnificent paradox.  Nothing is changed outwardly: the married Christian will continue to have his wife (and 7.2 and 7.5 show what this means), he will continue with his occupations, such as his business; but his inward situation will be changed by the fact that his wellbeing no longer depends upon his success in this world.'
29a τοῦτο φημι , 'this I say' - Héring: in sense of 'notice what I say'. implying that its is a new revelation that follows.
ὁ καιρὸς συνεσταλμένος, 'the time has been shortened'
cf. Mark 13.20 (but there it is related to the shortening of the day of the crucifixion by darkness for the sake of the Elect One) - cf. 1 Cor 7.26.
29b τὸ λοιπὸν , 'for the remainder [of the time]'
31a This is a summary of the attitude noted above.  The significance of
καταχρώμενοι cannot be the same as χρώμενοι , 'using', or χρώμενοι would simply have been repeated as a participle (χρώμενοι ὡς μὴ χρώμενοι , 'using as though not using') on the analogy of vv. 29 and 30.  Héring, following Bengel (and Gibbs thinks it makes sense), takes the phrase as 'using, but not delighting in'.  I.e., it is the hedonistic attitude which is condemned: the  things of this world are not ends inn themselves.
31b

παράγει γὰρ τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ κόσμου τούτου,

 'For the order of this world is passing [away]' - cf. 1 John 2.17; Cf. 1 Cor 1.18: 'those who are perishing'; σχῆμα, 'form' or 'order' - cf. ἀσχημονεῖν , 7.36.
'this world' as νs ὁ κόσμος ὁ μέλλων , 'the world to come', or ό αἰών ὁ μέλλων , 'the age to come'.  Hence τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, following Héring, is to be taken as an objective  genitive (i.e., as the content of the σχῆμα); σχῆμα can bear the sense of a 'part played in a theatre' (Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum, II, Amsterdam, 1752), and πατράγειν means 'to pass across the stage [to disappear again]', as it is used for an army passing by (Polybius, V.xviii.4).  Héring: 'Thus the meaning would be: the world will soon have played its part - a statement which might particularly scandalize any Greek intellectuals imbued with Stoicism.'
32a Cf. 35b (32b-35Ia: particular cases of 'divided attention' among those who are married; this is made clear by X: 7.25-34a x 34b-40, with its centre on the [married] man of divided interests vs the unmarried woman concerned solely for 'the things of the Lord'.
θέλω , 'I would/wish/desire', expresses a desire which is regarded as somewhat unrealizable.
ἀρέσκω in LXX usually means 'to gain the approval of someone by giving satisfaction', as in the frequent expression: ἀρέσκον ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ, 'that which receives the approbation of God'.
33, 34 Thus ἀρέσῃ τῷ κυρίῳ here means 'to fulfil the demands of the Lord',
and ἀρέσῃ τῇ γυναικί or τῷ ἀνδρί = 'to submit to the demands of family life'.
33-34 Note the play on the words μεριμνᾷ - μεμέρισται ('he cares' - 'he is divided')
34 μεμέρισται - cf. 1.13; 7.17.
34 The woman who is unmarried and the virgin is concerned 
about the things of the Lord: ἵνα ᾗ ἁγία [καὶ] τῷ σώματι καὶ τῷ πνεῦματι , 'in order that she may be devoted both in body and in spirit'.  ἁγία means 'consecrated'.  Godet (I.384) explains that the unmarried woman is 'entirely devoted in body and spirit to the service of the Lord'; and he adds: 'As to the words 'in her body', one must compare verse 4, where it is said of the married woman that she has not power over her own body.  As to the spirit, compares what follows.'
τὰ τοῦ κόσμου , 'the things of the world' - cf. 7.33.
34 Centre of the X: 7.25-34a x 7.34b-40
i.e., the mani idea is not to become so entangled in worldly concerns that one has no time and energy to be concerned for the τὰ τοῦ κυρίου , 'the things of the Lord'.  Some will achieve this more easily married and others more easily celibate.
35b οὐκ ἵνα βρόχον ὑμῖν ἐπιβάλω,
'not in order that I may set a trap for you' (this is a hunting phrase).  It can be taken with what goes before or what follows after.  Héring thinks that the
35c ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ ... stands in natural opposition to οὐκ ἵνα, 'not in order that...' of 35b.
Therefore he translates v. 35 as:
35 'I say this for your benefit, not in order to set a trap for you.  On the contrary, my desire is that you may live becomingly and with unwavering attachment to the Lord'
I.e., Paul is not trying to ensnare them with an impossible ideal, but rather he has two concerns: (1) each individual should be consecrated to the Lord, and (2) each should remain within the limits of his own charismatic endowment.  The two are seen in the phrase: 
35c ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ εὔσχημον καὶ εὐπάρεδρον τῷ κυρίῳ ἀπερισπάστως,
'but with regard to good order and good attachment to the Lord undistractedly.'
εὔσχημον, 'good order', 'decency' here is item (2) above.
εὐπάρεδρον, 'one eagerly attached to something', plus
ἀπερισπάστως, 'without allowing oneself to be diverted.  εὐπάρεδρον and  ἀπερισπάστως, pick up and emphasize (1) above.
35 Since this verse both sums up what has gone before
and also points to the concern of vv. 36-38, the NEB (unlike the RSV/NRSV) gives the right emphasis in printing this verse as a separate paragraph.
36-38 The RSV.NRSV and NEB are correct here (against the AV/KJV & RV).
Paul here presupposes the existence of an institution we might call a spiritual marriage: a young man and woman would pledge their permanent mutual affection and would agree to cohabit occasionally, but without breaking the vows of virginity which they have made known one to the other.  This dangerous way of living seems to have been known to Hermas (Sim. IX.11), who gave it positive approval.  Eventually the Church forbade it because of the increasing abuses to which it gave rise.  This understanding of the passage, first seen by Grafe (1899) and followed by Achelis (1902) and Lietzmann (3rd ed., 1931), as well as Héring and all recent commentators, explains the Greek admirably as follows:
36 ἀσχημονεῖν , 'to behave in a disorderly fashion' fits a fiancé. - cf. 31b, 35c.
τὴν παρθένον αὐτοῦ, 'his own virgin' - fits his fiancée.
ὑπέρακμος , 'with strong passions' - fits the fiancé, overflowing with vitality and zest for life.
γαμείτωσαν , 'let them marry, which is plural or dual, 
refers to the affianced couple (although γαμίζω in classical Greek means 'to givbe in marriage', not 'to marry', this causes no trouble for us, since in Koiné Greek verbs ending in -εω and -ιζω were often confused; also this confusion between the two verbs could have been made easier by the same pronounciatiion of the two aorists (like ἐγαμήσα and ἐγαμίσα ) and by the common use of the passive γαμίζομαι in the sense of 'to be married', as in Mark 12.25 & //s, and Luke 17.27.
37 Paul permits the spiritual marriage for those who are
fully stable and have no ἀνάγκη, 'distress' (i.e. distress and desires, emotions and passions) - cf. ἀνάγκη 7.26; 9.16.
38 Both marriage and refraining from marriage are good -
but the latter is better, which fits where Paul began in 7.1, 7-8.
39-40 Concerning marriage and re-marrtiage.
39 Cf. Rom 7.2; marriage is life-long.
39b Re-marriage allowed only to a Christian for a widow ('only in the Lord')
40a 'In my judgement' (κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν γνώμην )
i.e., Paul's personal opinion as in 7.25a.
40b // 7.25b
40 What appears to be reflected here is the order of χῆραι , 'widows',
which in the Pauline churches by the end of the first century (when the Pastoral Epistles were written) constituted a kind of oerder endowed with special duties and privileges (even then the Pastor advised the younger widows to remarry - 1 Tim 5.14). 
39 As Héring says, concerning 7.39, 'The Apostle Paul, more categorically than his successors, expressly allowed the remarriage of widows and thereby set himself against a prejudice which was tending to plant itself in the Churches.'
Chapter 8
OX: 8.1-6b x 8.6c-13
1-5 Things offered to idols; many 'gods', many 'lords'
// Commandment II: Make no idols.
1 περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, 'concerning meat offered to idols',
is to be attached to οἴδαμεν , 'we know' (not to πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν, 'we all have knowledge') as implied by the parallelism with 8.4 (Héring).
εἰδωλοθύτωα   'meat sacrificed to idols', is a substantive of Jewish origin (see 4 Maccabees 5.2, Rev 2.14, 20).  Occurs 5x in Paul, all in 1 cor 8.1, 4, 7, 10; 10,19.  (The pagan term was ἱεροθύτα , 'meat devoted [to a divinity]')
The problem involved was the question of continuing contacts
(meals, etc.) with pagan friends, relatives and neighbours.  As Godet says, 'The c entre of ancient worship was the sacrifice; it was in this religious act that all the important events of domestic and social life culminated.  As in Judaism (cf. Deut 27.7, the peace offering), these sacrifices were followed by a feast.  All that remained of the victim's flash came back to the family which offered the sacrifice, and these consecrated meats were eaten either in the apartments or sacred wood belonging to the temple, or in the worshipper's house; sometimes, also, they were sold in the market....'
περὶ δὲ, 'Now concerning' - introduces issue raised by Corinthians (Hurd).
'We know that "we all have knowledge".'
- a Corinthian slogan, probably, as in RSV/NRSV.
γνῶσις , 'knowledge' - its first occurrence since 1.5.
1b-3 This apparent digression about 'knowledge' is probably due
to those who claimed to be 'strong' in 'knowledge' having no scruples at allabout what they did re idol meats.
1b '"Knowledge" puffs up [one], but love builds up [others]'
- as we shall see when the 'building up' theme is taken up in 1 Cor 14.
The construction of 8.1b without even an introductory δέ or ἀλλά, 'but',
makes Héring think that this is a parenthesis added by Sosthenes or a reader, picking up the phrase about 'puffed up' gnosis-types from 5.2.  But since Héring finds no difficulties with 8.8-13, which matches 8.1b-3 closely in the OX, phrase for phrase, Gibbs thinks Héring is wrong here, and that 8.1b is integral to the letter.
1-6 Cp. 3.16-23; 6.12-20; 10.23-31.
2-3 Cf. 13.12; cp. 14.38 (cf. Gal 4.9; Rom 8.28-30; ll.2).
Amos 3.2; Jer 1.5, H to Exod 33.12, 17 (which see also) likely Nisan 1 [T2]; Gen 5.24 (Enoch) Nisan 4 [N1]; Gen 6.9 (Noah) Iyyar 1 [N1]
2 εἴ τις δοκεῖ , RSV: 'If anyone imagines; NRSV: 'If anyone claims';
δοκεῖν = 'to vaunt oneself', cf. 3.18; this is Paul's shrewd reminder that their pride itself proclaims that they are devoid of true knowledge.
Deliberate opposition between the perfect ἐγνωκέναι
  and the inceptive aorist ἔγνω : 'You who claim to be already in possession of complete gnosis ...' [this is the force of the perfect ἐγνωκέναι] '... you are not even at the beginning of true knowledge.' (Héring)
3 The true gnostic is recognized by his love for God. 
Paul then twists ity: he says not that he who loves God 'knows him', but rather is 'known by him' - as 13.12 and Gal 4.9 point out, only one already known by God can know him, and that knowledge will be complete only at the End. 
'To have been known by God' (perfect: ἔγνωσται ) = to be chosen by him; cf. Rom 8.28-30, where the two ideas are linked.
4-5 How does one reconcile the unreality of the idol (v. 4) to the admission that there atre many gods and many lords in v. 5b?  There ar at least two possible lines of explanation:
1) Do as the RSV (but not the NRSV) does by putting "gods"
and "lords" in quotation marks, indicating that many cultsacknowledge and give allegiance to various "gods" and "lords" (such as Vishnu, Shiva and Krishna in Hinduism).
2) Or, as Héring does (apparently followed by NRSV),
note that although the idols are nothing, yet for Jewish thought the angels are real;, and they are called elôhîm, 'gods', in such texts as Pss. 82.1; 97.7, 9; 138.1.  Thus, although the pagan gods do not exist, Jewish angelology, which Paul follows, thinks of a number of angelic beings of great power which men might be tempted to worhip.  Clement of Alexandria, Strtomateis V.xi.§77 cites the '[apocryphal] prophecy of Zephaniah' where the prophet in spirit attains the 5th heaven and says: 'and I beheld the angels called Lords', and this is in accord with the terminology of Ps 136.3 and Deut 10.17 (and lordship is ascribed to groups of angels in Slav. Enoch 20.1 and Eth. Enoch 61.10).
In view of Paul's disparaging remarks about angels in 1 Cor 4.9; 6.3; 11.10 and 13.1, Gibbs agrees with Héring.
4 Note the quoting of two slogans: 'an idol has no real existence'
and 'there is no god but one' - cf. Shema Israel (which begins with Deut 6.4, as cited in Jesus' summary of the Law, Mark 10.29 ff. & pars.
4 cf. 10.19 f.  Deut 6.4 Sivan 1 [T3]; Deut 4.35, 39 Iyyar 4 [T3].
5 Deut 10.17: 'God of gods and Lord of lords'; Ps 136.3.
Angels of the nations: Dan 10.13; 12.1.  (Col 1.16; Eph 1.21: angel overlordship.)
Stars, etc., as 'gods' made by God - Wisd. 13.4.
5a εἴπερ , 'if indeed' - i.e. introducing a merely hypothetical or
imaginary situation or even impossible case ('evwen if there were...').
λεγόμενοι θεοὶ, 'so-called gods' - i.e. man-created, not real.
5b εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ γῆς ,'whether in heaven or on earth'
- the normal biblical phrase for the creation 'heaven and earth' - cf. Matt 6.10b in the Lord's prayer: in heaven and on earth', ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς .
(Gibbs: Paul's use of the phrase here suggests that when he uses κόσμος , 'cosmos' or 'world', he means a world-order [as in 7.31] rather than God's creation as such.)
6-7a CENTRE OF OX, I.E. THE CENTRE OF THE WHOLE LETTER
// Commandment I
But for us:
     One God, the Father, from (ἐκ) whom are all things and we for (εἰς) him, and
     One Lord, Jesus Christ, through (διά) whom are all things and we through (διά) him.
But not in all [is] the knowledge (
γνῶσις ) [ of this].
1) Note that God the Father is the source (ἐκ) and goal (εἰς), while the Lord, Jesus Christ, is his agent (διά).  Thus Paul carefully subordinates Jesus to the Father.  [Contrast this with the Deutero-Pauline hymn in Col 1.15-20, where Jesus becomes the ground-plan (ἐν - 'in'), the agent (διά - 'through') and the goal (εἰς - 'for, unto'), thus ascribing to Jesus more of the creational functions than does Paul.]
2)  When the Jews read the scriptures, they substituted Adonai, 'Lord', for 'Yahweh' out of reverence for the sacred Name.  Thus in the LXX κύριος , 'Lord', is consistently used to translate 'Yahweh', so that Jesus is being given the title which has hitherto been reserved exclusively in Jewish usage for God.
6a For those who are secure in this knowledge, there is full freedom, but
7a for those who are not fully secure in this knowledge (and think of idols as 'something'), there is not yet full freedom: these are the 'weaker brothers' for whom the ones with 'knowledge' must be concerned
Mal 2.10: 'Have we not all one Father?  Has not one God created us?  Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?'
6 Wisdom as agent of creation: Prov 8.27, 30; Wisd. 7.22; 8.5 f.
(Implied in Pss 104.24; 136.5; Prov 3.19.)
6a Note that the ἐκ, 'from', does not mean emanation, and the εἰς, 'unto, for',
does not mean re-absorption of the world into God, as in the Upanishads or with Plotinus, the neo-Platonist.
6b This does not necessarily refer to Jesus as the agent of the primal creation,
but more likely as the agent of the (re-)newed creation, as in 2 Cor 5.17 and Gal 6.15: the Christian as a καινὴ κτίσις, 'new creature/creation' in Christ.
7-10 Idols & idol meat: //Commandment II: make no idols.
7 συνηθείᾳ , 'by custom', is to be preferred to the alternative reading, συνειδήσει , 'by conscience', as (1) fitting well with ἕως ἄρτι, 'even now' (RSV: 'hitherto'; NRSV: 'until now'), and (2) changed to συνειδήσει later by assimilation to the following συνείδησις , 'conscience'.
συνείδησις , 'conscience': 8.7, 10, 12; 10.25, 27, 28, 29 (bis).
μολύνειν , 'to defile'; 3x in NT: here & Rev 3.4; 14.7
In LXX only 1x in Pentateuch: Gen 37.31 (garment defiled by blood) Sivan 1 or 2 [T1]; in Theodotion's Greek OT: Mal 1.7 (about polluted food, polluted because of despising the Lord's table).
Cf. Rom 14.10-12: judgement connected with food.
8 Foods as indifferent - cf. Mark 7.14 f.:
nothing going into a man can defile a man; Mark 7.19: 'making all meats clean'.
9 ἐξουσία , 'authority' (RSV/NRSV: 'freedom') - cf. Mark 9.42.
10-11 Morris thinks that some were flouting their freedom
by making a farce of actually "worshipping" in pagan tremples.
10 οἰκοδομηθήσεται , 'be edified, built up' (RSV/NRSV: 'be encouraged')
- used ironically.  The strong think to edify the weak by their example.  Héring: '"Fine edification," retorts the Apostle, "which leads them to their ruin!"'
Cf. 9.13; 10.18; 11.27; 15.32-33a: Note grouping of
Temple, eating, judgement, idols.
11-13 Sin against "Christ" (& brothers) // Commandment III: The Name of the Lord.
12 οὕτως , 'thus', must be attached to the participle ἁμαρτάνοντες ,
'sinning', as in RSV/NRSV, not to the indicative ἁμαρτάνετε , 'you sin'; thus the sense is (as given by Héring): 'The sin for which I reproach you and which is a sin against your brother, under the conditions which I have indicated, is a sin against Christ.'
Cp. 'discerning the Body', 11.29; cp. Matt 18.6; 25.40, 45.
13 Cf. Rom 9.3; 14.21 and Rev 2.14.
When we grasp Paul's argument here, the question arises
why in Gal 2.11 ff. Paul opposed Peter so forcefully for breaking off table fellowship with Gentile Christians out of regard for Jewish Christians whop had come from Jerusalem, for were not the Jewish Christians 'weak'?  The answer is that the Jerusalemites were 'judging' those who ate with Gentiles, which is the worst sin, condemned in Rom 2.1; 14,3 and cf. Matt 5.21 ff.
Chapter 9
OX: 9.1-27 x 7.7-40
X: 8.10-9.11a x 9.11b-23
1-27 // Commandment IV: Keep Sabbath holy; do no work.
Because chapter 9 opens a new subject without any transition,
Héring takes it to be part of a separate letter (against most exegetes, including Gibbs).
Gibbs' arguments: (1) the overall chiasm indicates the letter is a unity; (2) the chiasm of 8.10-9.11a x 9.11b-23 indicates continuity in the letter as it stands; (3) the play on the 4th Commandment is in sequence with all the others for chapters 6-10; (4) the theme of freedom  (
ἐξουσία, 'authority' or RSV/NRSV: 'liberty') has already been alluded to in 8.9 (but on this 4th argument, see below on v. 1).
1-23 Deals with problem of rights of evangelists/apostles
(1) Jewish teachers of Torah always 'worked their way', plyingt some craft to maintain themselves, but
(2) teachers of Greek philosophy always were paid with at least room and board.
If one was to be 'heard' by both Jews and Greeks as a 'true' teacher/preacher, which pattern was one to follow?  Paul argues for both as allowable, although he will follow the Jewish one.  Mark 6.8-11; Matt 10.9-15; Luke 9.3-5 argue for the Greek pattern.  The Didache (a Jewish-Christian work with strong affinities to the Matthaean tradition) 11.3-6 declares that an apostle should only be welcomed for one day, two at the most, and he is a false prophet if he stays three days.  An apostle should only accept food to see him to his next lodging; if he asks for money, he is a false prophet.
1 'Am I not free?'  -  J. Weiss thinks this is the gloss of an editor
who wanted to contrive a transition between chapters 8 and 9; Héring thinks this is likely.  Gibbs disagrees, because in the OX this matches the 'free' widow of 7.40.
ἐλεύθερος , 'free' - 7.21, 22, 29; 9.1, 19; 12.13.
Note two marks of an apostle:
(1) 'Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?' - cf. 15.8;
(2) 'Are you not my work in the Lord?' i.e., an apostle for Paul is a church-founder.
2 σφραγίς , 'seal', 'signet'
(1) Used of Bezalel's work in Exod 39.6, 14, 30 (39.30: 'the engraving of a signet, "Holy to the Lord"' - cp. 'seal of my apostleship in the Lord') Iyyar 1 &2 [t2];
(2) Cf. Rom 4.11 (only other occurrence of σφραγίς in Paul) referring to Abraham receiving 'the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith he had while he was in uncircumcision' - Gen 17.10 f. Sivan 1 [N1]. 
3 'This is my defence' - refers most probably to 9.1-2,
not to what follows as in RSV/NRSV.
4, 5a ἐξουσία, 'authority', RSV/NRSV: 'right' - a more explicit link back to 8.9.
5a ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα = 'a Christian wife'
ἀδελφή = 'Christian woman' (as in 7.12, 14, 15, ἀδελφός and ἀδελφή were used as meaning male and female Christians).
Not only does Paul argue for the authoritative right (ἐξουσία,)
for evangelists to have food and lodging provided, but also for the same right for an accompanying wife.  He then argues that this is done by others  (5b) which is a provision going beyond Mark 6. 8-11 & pars.  Since neither the gospels nor Didache 1.3-6 mention this, they may all represent later conditions in the Church when evangelists were expected to travel alone.  As Héring notes, 9.5 is a serious argument against the strict  authenticity of the instructions attributed to Jesus in the gospels.
5b 'apostles and brothers of the Lord and Cephas'
As in the resurrection appearances in 15.5-8, these appear to represent what for Paul are three separate categories. In the (later) gospels, we see a tendency to coalesce them.  Here 'apostles' includes Paul and Barnabas.  Only in Acts 14.14 does Luke-Acts (reluctantly?) admit that they are apostles, for Luke-Acts 'The Twelve' = 'The Apostles'.
'brothers of the Lord'
In Matt 28.10 and John 20.17 these appear to be equated with the original disciples (these passages appear to be echoing Ps 22.22: 'I will tell of thy name to my brethren').
'and Cephas' (cf. Mark 16.7: 'disciples and Peter'
Note the separation of 'Cepohas' even from 'the Twelve@ in 1 Cor 15.5.  The leading position of Peter in the early Church is affirmed by Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple-Apostle-Martyr (SCM, 1953); cf. R. E. Brown, K. P. Donfried & J. Reumann, edd., Peter in the New Testament (Augsburg PubliShing House, Minneapolis, 1973).
Note that all three: apostles, brothers, Cephas, 
are indicated as traveling apparently in missionary work.  As Héring notes, we would have been unaware of the work of 'the brothers of the Lord' outside Jerusalem if we had to rely solely on Acts.
6 Introduces (negatively) the theme of 'working'
(// Commandment IV), and claims the right (ἐξουσία) for Paul and Barnabas (who actually do work their way) not to have to work their way.
7 Three examples of those who expect to be maintained for their labours:
τίς στρατεύεται , 'who serves as a soldier?'
τίς φυτεύει ἀμπελῶνα, 'who plants a vineyard?'
Gen 4.2 Nisan 3 [N1]: 'Cain wasa tiller of the ground'; Gen 9.20 Iyyar 3 [N1]: 'Noah ... planted a vineyard' - cf. 1 Cor 3.6.
τίς ποιμαίνει ποίμνην, 'who shepherds sheep?'
Gen 4.2: 'Abel was a shepherd of sheep' (LXX: καὶ ἐγένετο Αβελ ποιμὴν προβάτων )
(One Geniza MS gives Isa 54.9-55.5 as H to Gen 6.9 Iyyar 1 [N1]:
Isa 54.16: soldier; 55.1: wine and milk - possibly this lies behind Paul's three examples given in this order) (Cf. 2 Tim 2.3-6)
8-23 X: 9.8-23 x 11.2-15
Three levels of νόμος , 'law' (and cf. 1.18-25):
1) human, v. 8a; 2) Mosaic, v. 9; (3) Law of Christ, vv. 14, 21 f. 
9b Deut 25.4 cited 
within a Deut passage that is otherwise concerned throughout with humans, which adds force to Paul's argument in 9c-10a; cf. Hos 10.11.  (Deut 25.4 cited to same effect in 1 Tim 5.18.)
10a Cf. above on 9b.
10bc Cf. Hos 10.12.
11 Centre of X: 8.10-9.11a x 9.11b-23
9c    Concern to God 12c   Gospel of Christ
10a  for our sake (we apostles) 12b   we (apostles) not use this right
10bc share crop 12a   share claim on you
11a   sow spiritual things, πνευματικὰ 11b   reap your physical things, σαρκικὰ
11 ἡμεῖς , 'we' - perhaps Paul, plus Apollos, Titus & Timothy, but may well be no more than a plural of modesty, with a singular meaning (= Paul alone).
12 2 Cor 11.20; basis of greater claim: we are apostles,
church founders, your begetters (9.2; Gal 4.19) in Christ
ἄλλοι , 'others' - perhaps Apollos but may be apostles or evangelists from Judaea are meant, on the basis of 2 Cor 11.20.
τῆς ὑμῶν ἐξουσίας μετέχουσιν: usually translated
as if ὑμῶν were an objective genitive, and ἐξουσία  ὑμῶν meant 'right over you' (as in RSV/NRSV).  But ὑμῶν, occurring between the article τῆς , 'the', and the noun ἐξουσία, is in a position which better befits a subjective genitive.  μετέχειν , meaning 'to take part', fits better if  ἐξουσία is taken as a synonym for οὐσία , 'substance, goods', and ὑμῶν is taken as a subjective genitive.  The translation then is (as in Héring):  'If others have a share in your goods, is there not yet more reason that we should?'
(Héring suggests that
οὐσία was the original reading, with ἐξουσία being caused by the ἐξουσία in 9.12b.)
Note that Paul's argument in these verses is the Rabbinic one 
of arguing a minore ad maius, 'from the lesser thing to the greater': from oxen to humans; from others to himself, as in accord with his greater labours of 2 Cor 11.23 ff.
στέγειν , 'to endure' as in 13.7 (love endures in all circumstances).
πάντα , 'all things' - alluding to material privations and manual labour.
ἐγκοπή , 'obstacle' - only time in NT: a cutting made in a road to impede a pursuing enemy.  In Isa 43.23 LXX H to Gen 1 Nisan 1 [N1].
13 Cf. 8.10; 10.18 - 2nd scriptural proof, based on 
Num 18.8-32 Iyyar 4 [T3] on Sabbath nearest Pentecost (re Aaronic priests); cf. also Deut 18.1-8 {re Levites) - cf. Paul as 'the liturgist of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles', Rom 15.16 (same analogy).
It may be that Paul intends to distinguish between the following two phrases:
οἱ τὰ ἱερὰ ἐργαζόμενοι , 'those engaged in Temple service' // Levites.
οἱ τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ παρεδρεύοντες , 'those who serve the altar' // priests.
14 Matt 10.10 // Luke 10.7; cf. Gal 6.6.
15-27 X: 9.15-21b x 9.21c-27
15b Has an anacoluthon (i.e., a sudden shift from one 
grammatical construction to another without having completed the first).  Baljon (1884) proposed to remove it by reading: νὴ τὸ καύχημά μου, ὁ οὐδεὶς κενώσει ('it is as true as the fact that I have something to boast of, which no one shall take away from me').  That this would be Pauline is shown by 15.31: νὴ τὴν ὑμετέραν καύχησιν , 'as surely as I may boast about you'.  Two emendations needed: νή for ἤ , and add ὁ before οὐδεὶς.  In favour of this: the  the ν of νή could have disappeared by haplography (writing a letter once that should have been written twice) after ἀποθανεῖν , and the ὁ could have disappeared by haplography because of the initial ο of οὐδεὶς that follows.
16b ἀνάγκη, 'necessity, distress' - Jer 20.9; cf. ἀνάγκη of 7.26, 37.
ἑκὼν - ἄκων: anithesis: 'of my own will' - 'not of my own will'
(i.e., Paul's case is // to Jeremiah's).
17b-18 Since he has been entrusted with a commission,  οἰκονομία ,
he preachers of necessity & therefore cannot boast of preaching; he can only boast that he does so without cost to anyone, and this is his reward.
19-23 OX: 9.19-23 x 7.23-17; cp. 4.8 f., 10; cf. 10.30-32; 12.13.
24-27 cp. 4.11-13
19 7.20-24
τοὺς πλείονας.'the larger part', basically = ὡς πλεῖστους . 'the largest number possible'.
20-22 κερδαίνειν , to win, gain' - as tech. term of missionary preaching.
20-21a 7.18-19
19 I free - slave      (WELL-BORN - cp. 1. Cor 2.6, 8), see Mark 10.42-3//Matt 20.25-6
20 as Jew                (POWERFUL - sign seekers? - cf. 1 Cor 1.2)
20b as under Law    (WISE
21a as outside Law (Wise - equally)
21bc CENTRE OF X: 9.15-21b X 21c-27
21b μὴ ὢν ἄνομος θεοῦ , 'not being lawless of God'
21c ἀλλ’ ἔννομος Χριστοῦ , 'but en-lawed of Christ'
(as in Jer 31.33 - i.e. placed within the heart, a radically new orientation)
21d gain them that are without Law    (WISE)
νόμος , 'law' passages (all are Mosaic):9.8, 9. 20 (bis); 14.21, 34; 15.56.
22 weak - cf. 8.13 - 7.16 - cf. 1.27; 'weak' - 8.7, 9;
cf. Rom 5.6: 'While we were yet weak, Christ died for us'; cf. Mark 2.17  (POWERFUL)
23 7.12-14 by all means save some, share in gospel  (WELL-BORN)
23b // construction to 9.22b; Mark 8.35: 'He who seeks to save his own life
shall lose it, but he who loses his life for my sake and the gospel's shall save it.'
εὐαγγέλιον , 'gospel' - cf. 1.17; 4.15.
24-27 Famous Isthmian games at Corinth (Greek athletes: 10 months in strict training).
24 πάντες , 'all' - now, unlike v. 22, subject of sentence (for the first time in the chapter) - i.e. pointing forward to chapter 10.
25 ἄφθαρτος , 'imperishable': 15.32: dead raised ἄφθαρτοι ; Rom 1.23.
26 ἐγὼ τοίνυν , RSV: 'Well, I'; NRSV: 'So I' - a little stronger than ἐγώγε , 'I indeed'
27 σῶμα , 'body' - cf.12.12; Rom 6.12 f.: 'mortal body'; Rom 8.11.
κηρύξας , 'having proclaimed': κήρυξ : herald at the games who called competitors together, told them the rules, and was also a competitor.
ἀδόκιμος, 'unrecognized'? - if so, cp. 8.23; 11.19 (δόκιμοι ); 13.12; 14.38
(ἀδόκιμοι : 2 Cor 13.5, 6, 7; δόκιμοι: 2 Cor 10.18; 13.7).
9.27-11.1 - See notes at end of  Chapter 10.
Chapter 10
OX: 10.1-11.1 x 6.12-7.6
XX: 9.8-10.7 x 10.21-11.15 (incomplete);  X: 10.6-9a x 10.9a-11; X: 10.15-22a x 10.22b-11.2;
X: 10.23-26 x 10.26-30.
1-14 Based on the four types of sons - see 1 Corinthians and the Observance of Passover
1-11 1) Paul assumes that the Israelites were the spiritual ancestors of the Christians.
2)He uses here typological interpretation (the past historical events
and persons are taken as real, but also as foreshadowing present events and persons).  Another type of interpretation is allegorical interpretation, in which the historical sense of the original text is ignored or even set aside, and a hidden meaning is ascribed to it.  Paul uses this in 9.9, taking the oxen of Deut 25.4 to actually mean the preachers of the Gospel.  The rabbis and Philo of Alexandria used both methods.
3) Paul is here using the OT types of baptism and eucharist
to combat those who would understand the Christian sacraments as being like the Mystery Religion rites of initiation and sacred meals, which were believed to give immortality automatically to the devotees.
1-5 Addressed to son too simple to ask for himself.
1 οὐ θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί
'For I do not want you to be un-knowing, brothers' - a solemn introduction to an important communication, as in 12.1, Rom 1.13; 11.25; 2 Cor 1.8 (1 Thess 4.13).
1 ff. Here it introduces the substance of the first beginning of
the Passover Haggadah, the recital given by the father in answer to the question of the youngest son at the Passover Supper about the feast (1 Cor 12.2 is based on the alternative beginning -  see 1 Corinthians and the Observance of Passover.
1 'all' - note preponderance of 'all', πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν in 1 Cor (111x)
[Rom 71x; 2 Cor 51x; Gal 15x; Phlmn 2x]
'under the cloud', ὑπὸ τὴν νεφέλην - not in Exod 13 Nisan 3 [N2],
but apparently based on Jewish interpretation of Exod 14.19 Nisan 4 [N2], as found in Ps 105.29 and Wisdom 19.7 which speak of the cloud covering the Israelites (& Wisdom 10.17, which says: 'He [God] became a covering for them by day').
'through the sea', διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης - acc. to Exod 14.22
Israelites crossed the sea dryshod; Paul may be drawing on an apocryphal tradition differing from Exod 14.22.  Perhaps Wisdom 10.18 alludes to this tradition, which speaks of Wisdom as accomplishing the Exodus, and says: 'She brought them over the Red Sea, and led them through much water (δι’ ὕδατος πολλοῦ ).
Note that 1 Pet 3.20 says that Noah and his family had to pass through the waters to reach the Ark (& note that the Flood narrative lies behind Mark's baptismal; narrative - 'water', 'heavens', 'spirit', 'dove' - Mark 1.10 f.).
2 'they baptized themselves', ἐβαπτίσαντο (middle)
 - Héring, Bruce Metxger, Allen Wikgren, BFBS, Nestle-Aland, NEB, UBS3, vs UBSGNT1, RSV/NRSV: ἐβαπτίσθησαν , 'they were baptized' (passive).  Because (1) Jewish proselyte baptism was self-administered (in presence of witnesses), and (2) then changed to passive to match normal Christian usage as in 1.13, 15, 12.13, etc.
'into Moses', εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν - no Jewish basis for this formula;
Paul apparently coined it by analogy with εἰς Χριστὸν , 'into Christ' (cf. Rom 6.3 for 'baptism into Christ').
2-3 Ps 105: cloud (v. 39), bread, ἄρτος (v. 40), water-giving rock (v. 41).
2 'in the cloud' - cf. notes on v. 1: 'under the cloud'.
3 'spiritual food', πνευματικὸν βρῶμα : the manna of the wilderness, Exod 16.15 Iyyar 1 [N2]; Ps 78 [77 LXX].24-25: ἄρτος οὐρανοῦ , 'bread of heaven', & ἄρτος ἀγγέλων , 'bread of angels'; Wisdom 16.20: ἀγγέλων τροφ , 'food of angels', & ἄρτος ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ , 'bread from heaven'  (cf. also Exod 16.4, 35).
3-4 'the same', τὸ αὐτὸ , before both 'food', βρῶμα, and 'drink', πόμα
to emphasize that 'all', including both the saved and the destroyed, had the same spiritual; nourishment (and hence opportunity to respond).
4 'they drank from the spiritual Rock'
- Exod 17.6: water from rock (read on Sabbath nearest Pentecost)
'which followed them', ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας - not in OT,
but in rabbinic tradition.  Tosephta Sukka 3: 'Thus the spring which was with Israel in the desert, was like a rock ... which traveled up mountains with them and accompanied them into the valleys; wherever Israel was, it was opposite them.'  Same tradition in Midrash Numbers rabba.
'and the Rock was Christ' - Philo identifies the rock with
the Wisdom of God (Legum Allegoriae, II sect. 86; Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat, sect. 115); si9nce for Paul Christ = Wisdom of God, this equating of the Rock with Christ follows naturally.  See A. T. Hanson, Jesus Christ in the OT (1965), who demonstrates that in a number of NT passages the writers take it for granted that Christ was present in the OT events.
4-5 Cf. 5.3 for for references linking real presence, eating and judgement.
1-4 // Commandment V: Honour father and mother.
5 // Commandment VI: Do no murder
5 'most', πλείοσιν - 9.19; 10.5; 15.6.
'God was not pleased', οὐκ ... εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεός :
Hab 2.4 LXX (H to Exod. 34.1 Nisan 1 [T2]): 'If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him', οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ (says the Lord).
'overthrown in the wilderness', κατεστρώθησαν ... ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ : Num 14.16 Iyyar 2 [N2], LXX.  Cp. Ps 106.26 (used on Iyyar 3, 3rd year of TC).
6-22 // Commandment VII: No adultery
6-11 Addressed to the tam or derek 'erets, the simple upright man
6 τύποι , 'types', 'examples' - cf. above on 10.1-11 - cf. Num 11.4-34
Héring & RSV (not NRSV) take τύποι as 'warnings': the word 'warnings', νουθεσία is used in 10.11; Gibbs thinks that in view of 11.30 re those who are 'weak' or who 'have'died' in spite of the eucharist, that 10.6 points not only to warnings but also to examples of what is actually happening in the church.  Thus 'examples' or 'types' is, on balance, slightly preferable to 'warnings' as a translation (as in NRSV: 'examples').
'to be lustful as they lusted', ἐπιθυμητὰς  ... ἐπεθύμησαν : Num 11.34, 4 Nisan 4 [N3]
6-10 List of five partially-overlapping sins of the people  in the wilderness:
6 1) Covetousness (ἐπιθυμία always has a bad sense).
Reference is to Num 11 Nisan 3 [N3] (Num 11.34: ἐπιθυμητήν ; 11.4: ἐπεθύμησαν ἐπιθυμίαν ), i.e., discontent of the people who sighed for the fleshpots of Egypt.  This desire for pleasure in eating probably points (a) to a desire to enjoy the food at pagan feasts (8.8 ff.), but (b) likely even more to those who eat and drink far more than their share at the church supper (11.21 f.).
7 2) Idolatry (εἰδωλολάτραι , 'idolaters').  Refers to cult of Golden Calf, Exod 32, as shown by the question in 7b - cp. 1 Cor 8.10; Wisd 14.12.
7b Quotes Exod 32.6.  παίζειν   (RSV: 'to dance'; NRSV: 'to play') can mean 'to play', but Exod 32.19 speaks of χοροί , 'dances'.  Perhaps dances in honour of idol were licentious as in many Semitic cults; for OT prophets idolatry and fornication were linked, which leads to:
8 3) Sin of misconduct (πορνεία ), punished in Num 25.9.
Paul's number: 23,000.  LXX, Massoretic text & Philo, Vita Mosis, I, sect. 304, speak of 24,000.  3 possibilities: (a) Paul's memory lapsed; (b) he read a different text, or (c) copyists took τρς (abbrev. for τέσσαρες , 'four') and read it as τρεῖς , 'three'.  (Strangely, Ethiopian text of 1 Cor reads 22,000.)  Gibbs: Num 25.9: 24,000; Exod 32.28: 3,000 slain after Golden Calf.  Possibly Paul combined the numbers accidentally (= (a) above).
9 4) Tempting 'the Christ' (or: 'the Lord'): good MSS evidence for both.
UBSGNT suggests τὸν Χριστόν (p46, etc.) as original, replaced by some copyists with more ambiguous κύριον (א , B, etc.) & in a few cases by θεόν , 'God' (A).
'by the serpents', ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων - cf. 3.18 f.;
Gen 3 ref.?; Ps 106.14: put God to test; Pss 106.25; 78.18; Num 21.6: they despaired of God in the desert and began to 'impeach God' (Num 21.5), as Paul says:
10 5) 'do not grumble', μηδὲ γογγύζετε : Refers to revolt of Korah clan
& that of Dathan & Abiram, Num 16 Iyyar 4 [N3], and perhaps Num 14, Iyyar 1 [N3].  Murmuring vs Moses: Exod 15.24; 16.2; 17.3: Nisan 4 - Iyyar 2 [N1].
'destroyer', ὀλοθρευτής (cf. 5.5: ὄλεθρον , 'destruction'):
probably a destroying angel as in 2 Sam 24.16 & 1 Chron 21.15, but not men tioned in Num 14 or 16; cf. Num 11.1 Nisan 3 [N3]  Exod 12.23: τὸν ὀλεθρεύοντα , 'the destroying one'; ὀλεθρεύειν 19x LXX, but ὀλοθρευτής only in Christian literature and only here in NT.
11 'the ends of the ages', τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων .
Héring:  αἰῶνες , 'ages' in sense of the dual number & means the well-known two ages (the old & the new).  ἀντάω , 'to come opposite, to meet with', with εἰς means place of meeting; ἀντάω and compounds in active may have middle sense of 'meet one another'.  If so, Paul means: 'We Christians stand at the point whether the two ages meet, both in the last days of the former age and in the Kingdom of Christ [cf. 15.24-28], the anticipation of the age to come'.
Gibbs: possibly τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων also refers to the 'ends' (deaths) of the "gonstic" aeons; perhaps also τέλη as 'completion' or  'outcome' (cf. 1524-28); τέλη can also mean 'tribute', 'taxes', 'revenues', which too fits 15.24-28.
Perhaps  Paul intends multiple meanings.
12-14 The scoffing son: 10.12: addressed to one who
thinks he stands by his own strength.
12 Cf. 9.7
13 'But God is faithful', πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός // 1.9.
τὴν ἔκβασιν τοῦ δύνασθαι : the genitive τοῦ δύνασθαι is probably
Semitic influence, like Hebrew infinitive preceded by לְ (le), which often is equivalent of a gerundive, thus (Héring): 'He will provide you a happy outcome by the fact that it will not go beyond the limits of your strength.'
Héring: If 10.13 reeferas to gnosticas, they despised martyrdom and thought it to be the sad privilege of (simple) believers.  Idea of higher 'karma' of gnostics in Basilides - cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, IV.xii.sect.81.
14 Gibbs: Take v. 14 with preceding vv.; start new paragraph with v. 15.  (I.e., διόπερ, 'therefore', 'because' of that', refers to idolatrous πειρασμός , 'temptation' (v. 13), from which one is able to flee, as this is (often) the ἔκβασις , 'way out', that one is able (δύνασθαι ) to take.
'flee from',

φεύγετε ἀπὸ is more expressive that φεύγετε with accusativer; ἀπὸ has almost a locative sense: 'flee pagan temples where you might fall into idolatry' (Héring) - cf. 6.18 & Gen 39.12 (Joseph fleeing).

εἰδωλολατρ(ε)ία, 'idolatry' - not in LXX nor pre-Christian Greek; Test Jud. 19.1, but not assuredly pre-Christian; NT: 1 Cor 10.14; Gal 5.20; (Col 3.5); 1 Pet 4.3.
14-22 Cf. 8.7-13; 11.23 ff.
15-22 Wise son(s), φρόνιμοι
15 φρόνιμοι - those capable of making upo their minds and setting their minds to a task (as in the phrase 'I have a mind to ...', or even 'Mind your own business!').  (Similar meanings with φρήν, φρονέω, κτλ. )
15b 'you judge what I declare' - cf. 9.3 & 11.31.
κρίνατε ὑμεῖς ὅ φημι ὑμεῖς, 'you' - emphatic; φημι, 'I declare' - slightly emphatic, but (says Héring) not as solemn her as in 7.29.
16 'The cup of blessing which we bless', τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν ;
'the cup of blessing' is the name for the third of the four cups of wine drunk at the Passover meal.  After the supper (cf. 1 Cor 11.25) the head of the assembly took the third cup in hand and blessed God for the meal, etc. (Jewish blessings are always of God for his gifts, never of things.  Hence 'which we bless' means 'over which we say the blessing of God'.)  (For the form of this grace in Jesus' day see J. Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, p. 110; see also 1 Corinthians and the Observance of Passover.)
  κοινωνία , 'fellowship', 'participation', 'sharing':
There may be three ideas here: (a) communion of Christians in Christ (sharing together in Christ); (b) reminder of the death of Christ and participation in it; & (c) the messianic hope.  (cf. Jourdan, 'Κοινωνία in 1 Cor 10.16', JBL (1948), pp. 111 ff.)
'of the blood of Christ', τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ :
The Passover lambs were slain in three 'courses' (or sessions) on the afternoon of 14th Nisan.  Laymen sometimes slew the lambs, but only priests could catch the blood in basins and throw it against the base of the altar.  I.e., the death was not the sacrifice, but rather the pouring out of the life released (= the blood, Gen 9.4; Lev 17.10-11, 14; Deut 12.16, 23).
Thus 'fellowship of the blood of Christ' means a-being-joined-to and taking-part-in Christ's self-offering of his life unto death.
τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν , 'the bread which we break': τὸν ἄρτον (accusative)
instead of ὁ ἄρτος (nom.) by 'inverse attraction' to the relative pronoun, ὃν, which is accusative.  (Occurs in Matt 21.42, but rare in NT)
ἄρτον κλᾶν , 'to break bread', without εὐλογεῖν , 'to bless' (as in 11.24: εὐχαρστεῖν , 'to give thanks'), is because the breaking of bread was viewed as significant in itself (& implied the blessing) for Jews and Christians (cf. Mark 6.41 & par., Luke 24.30; Acts 2.46).
'fellowship of the Body of Christ', κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ :
primarily means (Héring): 'appropriation of the powers of the resurrection'.
Gibbs: i.e., we die with Christ, we now live in the power of his resurrection, and we shall be raised at the End.
'blood ... Body': blood = Isaac typology; Body = Adam typology; see this sequence in 15.1-11 (Isaac) followed by 15.12-58  (Adam); same in 12.26; Rom 8.17; 2 Cor 7.3; Rom 5.6-11 (Christ as Isaac bound), 5.12-19 (Christ as true Adam); Rom 6.5.
'the Body of Christ': Greek usage: 'body of soldiers', meaning
a unity made up of units; Stoic thought: the Cosmos as an organized entity of which man is the microcosmos as an organized being.  OT: idea of all Israel being incorporated in the Patriarch; see Heb 7.4-10, which argues that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek in the loins of Abraham.  Thus 'Body' for Paul carries ideas of unity of the many in the one person.
17a ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος, ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν ,
'For, after communion, we many are one loaf, one Body'.  This takes (1) ὅτι as referring to the consequence of communion, and (2) εἷς ἄρτος & ἓν σῶμα  as attributes (in parallel) of οἱ πολλοί.  In 5.6-8 Corinthians are compared to unleavened bread, for 'bread' = Body of Christ' = Church.
17b The preposition ἐκ, 'of, out of, from' is an Hebraism (= min.
18-22 Re Temple as such? - If so, the 'building up' of 10.23b is too,
probably, and links to the 'building up' motif of chapter 14.
18 τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα : 'after the flesh' is not pejorative,
but merely makes it clear that the historical Israel is meant, for the spiritual Israel is the Church (cf. Gal 6.16: 'Peace be upon the Israel of God' = Church).
18b 'participants of the altar', κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου
Why 'of the altar' and not 'of God' (θεοῦ)?  (Philo also uses similar expression: κοινωνοὶ τοῦ βωμού , 'participants of the altar', in De spec. leg., I sect. 221)  Probably (1) to point to the parallel of the Communion Table as such, and (2) as a Jewish circumlocution for God.  For some of these circumlocutions see Matt. 5.33-35; 23.16-22.  Others are 'the Name' (τὸ ὄνομα ) and 'the Majesty' (ἡ μεγαλωσύνη).  Paul thinks probably first of the priests and Levites (Lev 6.18, 29; 7.6; Num 18.10 - Sabbath nearest Pentecost [N3]), but also of the people as qwell (Lev 7.15 f.; 19.6-8; 22.30).
19-21 Paul's rebuttal to those who claim that he is admitting
that the meat is really sacrificed to idols, and therefore the idols really exist, contrary to what Paul has said in chapter 8.
19 ἢ ὅτι εἴδωλόν τί ἐστιν; , 'or that an idol is anything?
This phrase accidentally omitted by p46, etc., because of homoioteleuton (ἐστιν ... ἐστιν ).  Note accent on τί ἐστιν, not τι ἔστιν : if it were the latter, then we should have to translate: that meat sacrificed to idols really does exist' or 'that idols really exist'.  But in this case the τι would really be superfluous.
cf. 8.4
20 ἀλλά has the force of: 'No, but ...'
Paul's arguments: demons, δαίμονες, substitute themselves for the non-existent Greek gods of the pagans.  This goes beyond Jewish opinion of the time, which, more naïvely, takes the pagan gods to be demons.  This is seen in the LXX (as vs the Hebrew text) in Deut 32.17: 'they sacrificed to demons and not to God, to gods whom they did not know', & Pss 106.37 & 96.5; 'all the gods of the pagans are demons'.  (cf. Isa 65.11).
'they sacrifice to demons and not to God' // Deut 32.17a LXX (cf. v. 220.
21 Cf. 5.9-13; 8.10; 6.15. (i.e. attaching self to demons // 
being bound to harlot & cut off from Body of Christ.
21b 'the cup of demons' - Deut 32.21 (cf. v. 22).
22 παραζηλοῦμεν , 'Shall we provoke':
 Héring: indicative form -οῦμεν, where subjunctive -ωμεν would be preferable.  Héring takes this to be 'a badly formed subjunctive' as in 4.6 (ἵνα ... φυσιοῦσθε ), Gal 4.17 (ἵνα ... ζηλοῦτε ), & John 11.47 (τί ποιοῦμεν ).
= 'Shall we provoke the Lord by disobedience and notably by idolatry?'
// Deut 32.21 The echoes of Deut 32 in vv. 20, 21 & 22 may well reflect the use of Deut 32 in synagogue just before Passover when prayers were said for the early spring rains (cf. 'rain', 'dew' and 'showers' of Deut 32.2).
Note v. 22 returns to the Ps 95 (or Ps 78) type of Wilderness typology reflected in 10.5.
23-24 // Commandment VIII: Do not steal.
(Let no man seek his own good, but good of his neighbour.)
23a 'All ... helpful', Πάντα ... συμφέρει : exact repetition of phrase in 6.12.
But οὐ ... συμφέρει, 'are not helpful' in 6.12 refers to danger that threatens the 'gnostic' himself, whereas her in 10.23 the effect of his conduct on others is referreed to.  We are back to the atmosphere of Chapter 8, including συνείδησις, 'conscience', in vv. 25-29.
23-30 Regarding eating in homes (after the preceding temple-section).
23-31 Cf. 6.12-20; 8.1-6.
24 The basic altruistic principle: seek the good of the neighbour.
For Paul this is the whole 'law of Christ' as in Gal 5.14; 6.2.
25 Deals with buying meat in the market
(μάκελλον is Hellenized version of the Latin noun macellum acc. to Héring, but Arndt & Gingrich deny this, since it occurs in a Greek inscription ca. 400 BCE with the meaning 'enclosure', 'grating'.  Howqever, the sense of 'meat market' may have been picked up from the Latin macellum.)
Since the secular slaughtering of animals was not widespread in Greece, and most animals killed for eating were killed in temples, which had abattoirs as out-buildings, scrupulous Christians might feel impelled to forego meat or to chweck into the source of the meat every time, which would be a hard job.  (Jews had no trouble, since they organized their own slaughtering.)
'on the ground of conscience', διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν :
As M. E. Thrall has shown (NTS 14/1, Oct. 1967, 118-125) 'Conscience' in Paul functioned for the Gentile as the 'Law' did for the Jew, judging not only past actions but also prospective behaviour.  For Paul the Jewish Christian has died to the Law with Christ in baptism.  Thrall has further argued (Studia Evangelica IV, Berlin, 1968, 468-472) that 8.10 concerns not building up your brother's conscience anew, which implies that he has 'died' to his old conscience just as the Jew died to the Law.  Or at least he has ideally died to it, or is in the process of dying to it.  Can we fit this understanding to 10.25 ff.?  Yes, if we take these verses as referring to a residual 'conscience' in a person who is not yet fully ἔννομος Χριστοῦ , 'en-lawed of Christ' (9.21), filled only with 'the mind of Christ' (2.16), and not yet fully assured of the 'knowledge' of 'one God, the Father ... and one Lord Jesus Christ ...' (8.6-7).  This understanding seems to fit the quoteing by Paul of:
26 Ps 24.1: 'For "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof".'
This appears to be the equivalent of 8.6 again.
25 Cf. Mark 7.15, 19; Matt 15.11; cf. Rom 14.2, 14, 20;
1 Tim 4.4; Tit 1.15, which all maintain this position.  Contrast Acts 15.29 which effectively forbids eating meat from strangled animals (but no epistles ascribed to Paul ever refer to this decree).
25-32 // Commandment IX: Bear no false witness
(Witness to neighbours re idol-meat. V. 30: 'Why am I evil spoken of?')
27-30 Re eating in pagan's house (as vv. 25-26 were concerned
with buying meat for one's own household).
27 'If someone of the unbelievers calls/invites you', εἴ τις καλεῖ ὑμᾶς τῶν ἀπίστων
There was a current phrase, εἰς δεῖπνον καλεῖν, 'to invite to a meal'.  The 'weak' are free to refuse ('if you wish to go') and probably should, but the 'strong' who go should raise no question verbally of  'conscience' (διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν ) about food set before them.
Cf. Luke 10.7: 'eating and drinking such things as they give'.  (This Lukan passage, plus Peter's sail-cloth vision, Acts 10.9--16, would appear to contradict perhaps the decree of Acts 15.29.)
28 The point about the meat having been offered in sacrifice
is raised by a 'weak' Christian sitting at the same table.  Note that he is polite enough to speak of ἱερόθυτόν (the pagan term) not εἰδωλόθυτόν (the Jewish & Christian derogatory term).
'Do not eat for the sake of the one who revealed it
and for the sake of his conscience.'  Note the douible reference: (1) for the sake of the person, and (2) for the sake of his conscience.  In line with what we said on v.25, we may take this as primarily a concern for the man himself, a man who still has remnants of his old 'conscience'.
29a This clarifies that it is the weaker brother's 'conscience' that is meant,
and it can fit the understanding that the stronger one no longer has a 'conscience'. - cf. 8.9-12.
29b ὑπὸ ἄλλης συνειδήσεως : either 'by another's conscience' (RSV/NRSV)
or 'by another conscience'.  If the first way, then Paul is setting limits for the respect due to the weak, and it is the weak who are wrongfully 'blaspheming' (βλασφημεῖν ) him, 10.30 (as in Rom 3.8).  If the second way ('another conscience'), Paul may be contrasting 'my freedom', ἡ ἐλευθερία μου (v. 29), to the possibility of building up conscience anew in himself, 'another conscience'.  In the light of Rom 14.3 ff. about the strong and the weak not judging each other, the 'conscience' of another (person) seem more likely.
29-30, 33 & 11.1 Note Paul's use of himself as a 'typical' (strong) Christian, 'free' and yet concerned for others.
30 See above on 25-32 (Commandment IX)
& on 29b re 'blaspheming' Paukl - cf. 4.3.
31-33 // Commandment X: Do not covet.
Jews viewed stealing, adultery and coveting (Commandments VII, VII & X) as all involving a violation of 'property rights', and this also included 'no idols' (Commandment II), since this was to rob God of his due, since man belonged to God (the basic meaning of man as God's image),  This helps to explain the overlapping treatment of Commandments VII & VII in 6.9-11.
32 ἀπρόσκοποι , those who give no cause for offence
(προσκόπτω , 'strike against', 'stumble')
30-11.1 cf. 9.19-27
31 cf. Rom 14.17 (Col 3.17).
33 Paul's general principle of seeking not his own advantage
but that of others (which is the inverse of coveting, which  in this section might involve robbing anither of his 'life-style')
τὸ [σύμφορον] τῶν πολλῶν , 'the advantage of many':
'many' is a Semitic idiom meaning 'all', as in Mark 10.45: 'a ransom for many'.
9.27-11.1: Héring (p. 100), taking 3 groups of texts - 
(a) 8.1-13; (b) 10.1-22; (c) 10.23-32, says the following: (a0 & (c) both concern Christian liberty tempered by charity; (b) is a strict type.  In Héring's estimation, (a) & (b) flow easily onto t the other.  He concludes: 'We cannot get rid of the impression that the passage 10.1-22 (and undoubtedly Chapter 9 too) was not dictated for inclusion in its present setting.  It seems then that (a) and (c) originally belonged to a different letter from (b), as we have explained in our introduction.'
Despite Gibbs' tentative linking of 10.1-22 to Commandments V-VII, 
and in spite of its solid links in the overall chiasmus of the letter, nevertheless Héring appears to be correct that 10.1-22 does not fit well.  Gibbs' grounds for thinking so are chiastic data:  If 10.1-22 is omitted, then there is a continuous chiasm: 9.1-27 & 10.23-26 x 10.26-11.1.
Gibbs' tentative conclusions are that 10.1-22 is a pre-1 Corinthians unit 
shoved into a pre-existing unit of the above chiasm, and only imperfectly adapted to all the chiastic structures.
(J. Weiss & M. Goguel find elements of 3 letters in 1 Cor.  Héring finds 2
 Gibbs readily admits pre-1 Cor units in the letter, but (1) he thinks they are all from Paul's hand (with the exception of  11.3-16 & 14.33b-36; see 1 Corinthians and Women in Paul), and (2) Paul himself utilized them to make our present 1 Corinthians.  X: 9.8-10.7 x 10.21-11.15 (incomplete at centre) would appear to indicate at least partial integration of 10.1-22 with the rest.

Go to: 1 Corinthians Exegesis, Chapters 11-13