“Jehovah” in order to be saved?
MISINTERPRETATION: The New World Translation renders Romans 10:13, “Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” Jehovah’s Witnesses cite this verse in arguing for the necessity of using God’s proper name, Jehovah, in attaining salvation (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1989, 149).
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: The New World Translation
mistranslates this verse. It is correctly rendered, “Whoever will call upon the name ‘of the Lord’ (Gk: kuriou) will be saved” (NASB). In context, “Lord” refers to Jesus Christ, as is made clear in verse 9: “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.” So, by their own argument, if Lord means “Jehovah”—and Lord refers to Jesus here—then Jesus must be Jehovah, a doctrine they emphatically reject.
Likewise, if “Lord” (kurios) means Jehovah, then Jehovah’s Witnesses should accept Jesus as Jehovah, since Philippians 2:10–11 (NIV) declares that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . . and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (kurios).” Hence, if kurios is Jehovah, then Jesus is Jehovah.
1 C ORINTHIANS
1 CORINTHIANS 1:3—Does this verse prove that Jesus is God the Father, as Oneness Pentecostals believe?
MISINTERPRETATION: In 1 Corinthians 1:3 we read the salutation, “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (NASB). Oneness Pentecostals argue that the word and (Greek: kai) in the phrase “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” should be translated “even.” It should thus read, “God our Father, even the Lord Jesus Christ.” Translated this way, Jesus and the Father are seen to be one and the same person (Graves, 1977, 50–51; cf. Bernard, 1983, 207–11).
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: See comments on Romans 1:7. Note that the verse immediately after 1 Corinthians 1:3 points to the distinction between the Father and Jesus Christ (see v. 4).
1 CORINTHIANS 1:17—Is water baptism a condition for salvation?
MISINTERPRETATION: Paul declares that Christ did not send him to baptize. Yet Christ commissioned his disciples to “make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19 NIV). Is baptism necessary for salvation? Some groups, such as the Mormons, think so (Pratt, 1854, 255).
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: Paul was not opposed to baptism, but neither did he believe it was a condition of salvation (see comments on Acts 2:38). Paul himself was baptized by water (Acts 9:18; 22:16), and he taught the significance and importance of water baptism in his Epistles (cf. Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12). Indeed, in this very passage (1 Cor. 1), Paul admits that he baptized several people (vv. 14, 16) as he did the Philippian jailor after he was saved (Acts 16:31–33). While Paul believed water baptism was a symbol of salvation, he did not believe it was part of the gospel or
essential to salvation.
1 CORINTHIANS 3:15—Does the reference to being saved by fire refer to purgatory, as Roman Catholic scholars claim?
MISINTERPRETATION: In 1 Corinthians 3:15 Paul declares that “if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.”
Roman Catholic scholars argue that “the Latin Fathers take the passage to mean a transient purification punishment in the other world” (Ott, 1960, 483).
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: Here Paul, speaking of believers who will one day be given a “reward” for their service for Christ (v. 14), says: “But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as
through fire.” The verse says nothing about a believer suffering the temporal consequences for his sins in purgatory.
First of all, the believer is not burned in the fire, only his works are burned. The believer sees his works burn but he himself escapes the fire. Even Roman Catholic authority Ludwig Ott seems to admit that this text “is speaking of a transient
punishment of the Day of General Judgment, probably consisting of severe tribulations after which the final salvation will take place” (Ibid., 483, emphasis added). If so, then it is not speaking of what has traditionally been called purgatory at all. Further, the Book of Corinthians is written to those “who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor.
1:2). Since they were already positionally sanctified in Christ, they needed no further purification to give them a right standing before God. They are already “in Christ.”
After listing a litany of sins, including fornication, idolatry, and coveting, Paul adds,
“that is what some of you were; But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 6:11). From this and other Scriptures (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21), it is evident that their sins were already taken care of by Christ’s suffering (cf. 1 Peter 2:22–24; 3:18) and that they stood, clothed in his
righteousness, perfect before God. They needed no further suffering for sins to attain such a standing, nor to get them into heaven. And the fact that God desired them to improve their practical state on earth does not diminish for one moment their absolutely perfect standing in heaven. No sudden rush of practical sanctification (in purgatory) is needed to get into heaven.
What is more, the context reveals that the passage is not speaking about the
consequence of sin but of reward for service for those who are already saved. Paul states clearly: “If what he has built [on the foundation of Christ] survives, he will receive his reward” (1 Cor. 3:14). The Greek word (misthos) used here refers to a “payment for work done” or a “reward” or “recompense given (mostly by God) for the moral quality of an action” (cf. 1 Cor. 9:17) (Arndt, Greek-English Lexicon, “Mithos”). So, the issue here is not sin and its punishment but service and its reward. Likewise, as even Catholic theologians acknowledge, the loss is clearly not of salvation, since “the person will be saved” (v. 15). Thus, the loss must be a loss of reward for not serving Christ faithfully.
There is absolutely nothing here about suffering for our sins after death. Christ suffered for all our sins by his death (1 Cor. 15:3; Heb. 2:9).
In addition, the “fire” here does not purge our soul from sins; rather, it will
“disclose” and “test” our “work.” Verse 13 says clearly, “the work will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one’s work” (emphasis added). There is virtually nothing here related to purging from sin. Contrary to the Catholic claim, the aim of the cleansing here is not ontological (actual) but functional. The focus is on what “crowns” believers will receive for service (2 Tim. 4:8), not with how their character is cleansed from sin. It is simply a matter of revealing and rewarding our work for Christ (2 Cor. 5:10). This does not mean that this experience will have no impact on the believer’s character. It is only to point out that the purpose is not to cleanse the soul from sins in order to make it fit for heaven. This is what Christ did on the cross for us objectively and was subjectively applied to the believer at the moment of initial justification when he was dressed in the alien righteousness of Christ (John 19:30; Heb. 1:3; 2 Cor. 5:21).
Finally, when Christ died on the cross, he cried, “It is finished” (John 19:30).
Speaking of his work of salvation on earth, Jesus said to the Father, “I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do” (John 17:4 NIV). The writer of Hebrews declared emphatically that salvation by Christ’s suffering on the cross was a once-for-all, accomplished fact. For “by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” (Heb. 10:14 NIV). To affirm that we must suffer
for our own sins, as the doctrine of purgatory does, is the ultimate insult to the all-sufficiency of Christ’s atoning sacrifice! There is a purgatory, but it is not after our death; it was in Christ’s death. For “when he had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb. 1:3 NASB, emphasis added).
Purification or purging from our sins was accomplished (in the past) on the cross.
Thank God that this is the only purgatory we will ever have to suffer for our sins. Of course, there is a destiny of hell for those who reject this marvelous provision of God’s grace (2 Thess. 1:8–9; Rev. 20:11–15). And there are temporal cause-effect relations in this life to the effect that what we sow, we reap (Gal. 6:8–9). But there is no evidence that we will have to pay for the results of our sins in the next life, either eternally or temporally. As Paul put it, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1 NASB).
1 CORINTHIANS 5:9—If Paul wrote an inspired Epistle, how could God allow it to be lost?
MISINTERPRETATION: Paul refers to a previous epistle he wrote to the Corinthians which is not in existence. But since it was written by an apostle to a church and contained spiritual and authoritative instruction, it must be considered inspired. This raises the question as to how an epistle inspired of God could be allowed by him to be lost. Mormons believe that because there are lost books of the Bible, this proves that the Bible has become corrupt and that the Book of Mormon is required.
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: There are three possibilities regarding Paul’s lost letter. First, it may be that not all apostolic letters were intended to be in the canon of Scripture. Luke refers to “many” other Gospels (1:1). John writes that there was much more Jesus did that was not recorded (20:30; 21:25). Perhaps this so-called
“lost” letter to the Corinthians was not intended by God to be collected in the canon and preserved for the faith and practice of future generations, as were the twenty-seven books of the New Testament and thirty-nine of the Old Testament.
Second, others believe that the letter referred to in 1 Corinthians 5:9 may not be lost at all, but is incorporated into an existing book in the Bible. For example, it could be chapters 10 through 13 of what we know as 2 Corinthians, which some believe was later joined to chapters 1–9. Chapters 1–9 have a decidedly different tone from the rest of 2 Corinthians. This may indicate that it was written on a different occasion. The word now in 5:11 may contrast with an implied “then” when the former book was written.
Paul refers to “letters” (plural) he had written in 2 Corinthians 10:10.
Third, Paul could be referring to 1 Corinthians itself in 1 Corinthians 5:9, that is, to the very Epistle which he was writing at the time. Evidence for this possibility is that he uses the Greek aorist tense.
Even though the aorist tense “I wrote” may refer to a past letter, it could also refer to the book at hand. This is called an “epistolary aorist,” because it refers to the very book in which it is being used. The aorist tense is not a past tense as such. It identifies a completed action that may have even taken a long time to be accomplished (as in John 2:20).
The aorist tense often implies a decisive action, in which case Paul would be saying something like this: “I am now decisively writing to you. . . .” This certainly fits the context of this passage in which he is urging the church to take immediate action to excommunicate a wayward member. An “epistolary aorist” is used by Paul in 9:15 in this very letter: “I am not writing these things that it may be done so in my case.”
There is absolutely no record from early church history of a third Corinthian letter of Paul. The reference in 2 Corinthians 10:10 that, “his letters are weighty” may mean no more than that “what he writes is weighty.” And the “now” of 1 Corinthians 5:11 need not indicate a later letter. It can be translated “rather” (RSV) or “actually” (NASB).
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9b—Was Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality merely his own idea?
Was he against all homosexual acts, or only offensive ones?
MISINTERPRETATION: Paul told the Corinthians that homosexuals would not inherit the kingdom of God. But only a chapter later he makes a distinction between what is not his own but the Lord’s command (7:10) and what is his own “opinion” (7:25). He doesn’t give the source of his comments on homosexuality, so they may be his own nonbinding opinion on the issue. Also, the New International Version translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 speaks only against “homosexual offenders,” not against all
homosexuality. Several New Age and other groups have used the reasoning that Paul was not against loving, faithful homosexual relationships.
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: Paul’s words on homosexuality in this text must be clarified by what he says elsewhere. His clearest condemnation of all homosexuality is in Romans 1:26–27. The divine authority of that text is not challenged by anyone who accepts the inspiration of Scripture anywhere.
We cannot make too much of the distinction between declarations that came out of Paul’s divinely established apostolic office and direct revelations he received and passed on. He stated in Galatians 1:12 that none of his words were humanly conceived but received by revelation. He had demonstrated his apostleship among the Corinthians (2 Cor. 12:12) and exercised apostolic authority in his ministry. He meets challenges to his authority forcefully in 1 Corinthians. He claims that his words were “taught by the Spirit” (2:13). At the end of his book he states that “what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command” (14:37). Even in the disputed chapter 7 he declares his authority from the Holy Spirit (v. 40).
So when he speaks of words coming from himself and not the Lord, Paul is talking about Jesus Christ in his earthly ministry. At some points he can directly anchor his arguments in the words said on earth by the Lord. Elsewhere, he draws on divine revelation handed down since the ascension to him through the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not speak of these matters directly while on earth. But Jesus did promise that the Holy Spirit would “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). Paul here fulfils that promise.
Again from Romans 1, it is obvious that Paul does condemn all homosexual behavior, not just an “offensive” class of behaviors. In Greek the word homosexual qualifies offenders. There are other kinds of offenders, which are not in view here. Paul establishes a category of offender—homosexuals. These are not “offending
homosexuals” but “homosexual offenders.” If only offensive acts were evil, what about
adulterers and idolaters, condemned in the same passage. Are only offensive kinds of adultery and idolatry evil? There are simply too many places and ways in which Scripture condemns homosexuality for there to be waffling room on the subject. See comments on Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26–27 (see also 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 7).
1 CORINTHIANS 6:13—If God is going to destroy the body, then how can it be resurrected?
MISINTERPRETATION: Paul said, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food; but God will destroy both it and them” (1 Cor. 6:13). On this basis, some cults—including New Agers and Jehovah’s Witnesses—argue that the resurrection body will not have the anatomy or physiology of the preresurrection body (Things in Which It Is
Impossible for God to Lie, 1965, 354).
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: The body that goes into the grave is the same body, now immortal, that comes out of it. This is proven by the fact that Jesus’
tomb was empty. He had the crucifixion scars on his body (John 20:27). His body was
“flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39). People could and did touch Jesus (Matt. 28:9), and he could and did eat physical food (Luke 24:40–42).
As for 1 Corinthians 6:13, a careful study of the context reveals that, when Paul says God will destroy both food and the stomach, he is referring to the process of death, not to the nature of the body thereafter. Further, while the resurrection body may not have the need to eat, it does, however, have the ability to eat. Eating in heaven will be a joy without being a need. So, the body that death “destroys” (decays), is the same one that resurrection restores. To argue that there will be no resurrection body because the stomach will be “destroyed” is tantamount to claiming that the rest of the body—head, arms, legs, and torso—will not be resurrected because decay will turn them into dust.
1 CORINTHIANS 8:4—If idols are nothing, why does God condemn idolatry?
MISINTERPRETATION: Many cultic and aberrant groups justify the use of images.
Indeed, the Roman Catholic church has done so since medieval times. Some appeal to Paul’s affirmation here that an idol is nothing as in 1 Corinthians 10:19–20. Yet the Bible repeatedly condemns idolatry (Exod. 20:4), and even Paul said there are demons behind idols (1 Cor. 10:20). Is he here claiming that demons are nothing?
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: Paul does not deny the existence of idols, simply their ability to affect mature believers who eat meat butchered in the context of idol worship, as most meat then was (cf. 8:1). It is not the reality of idols, but their divinity which Paul denies. The devil does deceive idolaters, but he cannot contaminate the meat God has created and pronounced good (Gen. 1:31; 1 Tim. 4:4), even if
someone else has offered it to an idol.
Elsewhere, the Bible clearly condemns the use of images in worship, saying, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in
heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth”
(Exod. 20:4 KJV).
1 CORINTHIANS 8:5—Does this verse support the idea that there are many gods in the universe?
MISINTERPRETATION: First Corinthians 8:5 says, “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords). . . .”
Mormons believe this verse supports their view that there are many gods in the universe (McConkie, 1977, 579). They claim this is not polytheism, however, since Mormons do not worship pagan deities.
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: The context of 1 Corinthians 8:5 is monotheistic. The preceding verse (v. 4) says, “We know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.” The verse that follows (v. 6) says, “For us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” Obviously, then, Paul in verse 5 was referring to false pagan entities who are called gods (such as the Baals in the Old Testament). These are “gods” by name but not by nature.
1 CORINTHIANS 8:6—Does this verse prove that Jesus is not God Almighty like the Father is?
MISINTERPRETATION: 1 Corinthians 8:6 says, “For us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” Some cults claim that, since this verse clearly presents God the Father “as being in a class distinct from Jesus Christ” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1989, 411), it follows that Jesus is not God in the same sense that the Father is.
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: If the reference to the Father being the
“one God” proves Jesus is not God, then the reference to Jesus as the “one Lord”
“one God” proves Jesus is not God, then the reference to Jesus as the “one Lord”