Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In Paul's chapter concerning spiritual gifts (1 Co 12), with the "bookends" being the subject of the Corinthians' appalling behavior at their love feasts (chapter 11) and the nature and importance of love (chapter 13), Paul seemingly out of the blue says:

Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

This verse comes immediately after Paul's stated desire that the Corinthians not be ignorant of "spirituals," and that they recall their pre-conversion background in idol worship.

How do we contextualize Paul's inclusion of the phrase "Jesus is accursed"? As it stands, it seems to me to be a bit out of place, a bit of a non sequiter. Were the Corinthians so backslidden that some of them were guilty of saying "Jesus is accursed"?

I know some of them were abusing their love feasts by chowing down while others went hungry and by getting drunk, but saying "Jesus is accursed" seems to me to be over the top. What is on Paul's mind here? Yes, the context is all about unity and diversity through the Spirit, but to me this "Jesus is accursed" sticks out like a pregnant pole-vaulter!

It seems almost that we could elide verses 2 and 3 without doing violence to the text, but of course that would be a last-resort move and would be warranted only if there were doubts among a majority of Bible translators as to whether the verses were in fact in the original manuscripts. That scenario does not seem to pertain here.

share|improve this question
(1) Perhaps, it is the version that I am using, but the verse 3 has actually never struck me as out of context here. In verse 2 Paul reminds them of their spiritually chaotic past, of how they were "led" and "carried away" as "they were led", having no guidance in the spiritual realm due to the objects of their worship (idols) being numb (v.2). Now the situation has changed - now they are being led by the Spirit that speaks. Now it is very easy to be oriented in the spiritual realm - just look at what things are being said. If (the spirit of) a man says "Jesus is the Lord", then – brilliant Jun 28 '13 at 4:26
(2) rest assured that that spirit is being led by the Holy Spirit. So, Paul is kind of giving them a spiritual guidance and at the same time narrows down the scope of spiritual diversity to the scope of the things pertaining only to the Holy Spirit. Having done that, he continues in verse 4 by looking now only at this new scope (the scope of the Holy Spirit) and telling them that this scope is also quite diversified (in terms of having different gifts and works), yet, unlike in verse 2, it all belongs to and is the realm of the Holy Spirit. – brilliant Jun 28 '13 at 4:33
@brilliant: Thank you for your comments/answer. I feel right now that "we're almost there" (in pinpointing the answer), but not quite. Rest assured I've read your response carefully and I'll let it percolate in my mind for awhile. Thanks again. Don – rhetorician Jun 28 '13 at 15:00
@Ali: If it directly answered the question, please use that information to answer the question below. Remember, our goal is to understand Paul's letter to the Corinthians. – Jon Ericson Jul 3 '13 at 2:58

Except for the comment of Novatian (d. 258), comments I've seen on 1 Cor. 12:3 by the Ante-Nicean Fathers appear off-topic. Novatian might have been the only such proto-Orthodox writer to have addressed this seeming curse, alluding that:

Established in this Spirit [of God], "none ever calleth Jesus anathema" (A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 262).

P46 (ca. 175-225 CE) is, from what I've found, the only extant pre-Nicene manuscript containing the words ANAΘAMAIHN (αναθεμα ιηv / anathema Jesus), although the later codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus read similarly as ANAΘAMAIC (αναθεμα ιc / anathema Jesus).

You asked: "Were the Corinthians so backslidden that some of them were guilty of saying "Jesus is accursed"? According to Dr. Constable:

Probably no one in the Corinthian church had (Expository Notes 2012).

Robertson (Word Pictures in the NT) explained:

This blasphemous language against Jesus was mainly by the Jews (Acts 13:45; 18:6). It is even possible that Paul had once tried to make Christians say Anathema Iesous (Acts 26:11).

Were the words Anathema Iesous in the original manuscripts? We'll never know. But the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 12:1-3 that remind the Corinthian assembly of how they lived and worshiped before converting to Paul's version of Christianity--and how Paul thought and acted before his Damascus Road experience--seem apropos here.

share|improve this answer
Thanks for your answer. Your last paragraph is helpful in that it has given me something to think about. Perhaps you are on the right track about the possibility that Saul, before his conversion, tried to get the Christians whom he hated so much to renounce Christ. Still, in the context of spirituals, his harking back to his pre-conversion days seems out of place--a non sequiter. – rhetorician Jun 28 '13 at 0:10

There is a parallel to between the passage in question and Galatians 4:8, which talks about the unbeliever who is impelled to idolatry.

Galatians 4:8 (NASB)
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.

The parallel is that the unbeliever is "led astray" toward idolatry (1 Cor 12:2), and the power behind this idolatry is spiritual. That is, there is spiritual power behind idolatry, which is demonic, and which Paul incidentally had already just mentioned (1 Cor 10:20).

In other words, in the immediate context, an idol is nothing; and therefore an idol is a "non god" (1 Cor 8:4), which hearkens to the passage in Galatians (just cited above)... BUT, there is spiritual power behind the idol which is demonic (1 Cor 10:20; Lev 17:7; Deut 32:7; Ps 106:37), to which and by which the Corinthians were "led astray" (as were the Galatians). It is this very demonic influence that would aver that Jesus is accursed.

Thus anyone convinced and who suggests that Jesus is accursed is someone under the influence of the spiritual power associated with idolatry. That is Paul's point. The Apostle John picks up on the same line of thinking about demonic power.

1 John 4:1-3 (NASB)
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

So the conclusion is that any dogmatic assertion concerning the Son of God, which is unbiblical, is therefore "inspired" by demonic power. (Thus the allusion to "spirits" by the Apostle John, since any such teaching is "inspired.") For example, the denial of the humanity of the Son of God is unbiblical (1 Jn 4:1-3) as is the conviction or assertion that Jesus is accursed (1 Cor 12:2). On the other hand, the conviction that the Son of God is in fact divine (as attested by the words that "Jesus is Lord") is in fact biblical, and therefore that conviction comes by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3).

One might counter and say that the Christian New Testament actually asserts that Jesus was accursed (Gal 3:13), but to ignore his resurrection, which had reversed the curse, is also to ignore biblical truth. So one who says that Jesus is accursed (at this current time in the present) would have to include those who would deny his resurrection (which was what conquered the curse of sin and death).

share|improve this answer
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful answer, particularly for the cross references (although I'd re-check the De 32:7 reference). To be honest, I'm still kind of stuck as to the relevance of the phrase "Jesus anathema." I can see how Paul is drawing a contrast between the Corinthians' roots in paganism and their new lives in Christ. Moreover, since the speaking gifts were of particular importance to the Corinthians (at times to their detriment), Paul contrasts the muteness of idols and demonically inspired utterances on the one hand, and Spirit inspired utterances on the other. – rhetorician Jul 1 '13 at 17:10
Demonic spirits and idols have nothing to offer except curses, while God's Holy Spirit offers spirituals in a multi-skein fabric of diversity and unity. Things are beginning to make sense, so perhaps after percolating for awhile in my little brain, they'll all come together eventually. – rhetorician Jul 1 '13 at 17:32

Paul is making a subtle reference to the Ten Commandments. He refers to the command to make no idols, and then the command against taking the Lord's name in vain. Thus, it is "word-and-response." The spoken Word comes from God (idols are dumb) and His people "take His name" upon them through the Covenant oath, a legal, public profession.

"Amen" seals the vow. It is a self-malediction that makes the agreement binding. Those swearing the oath agree to be cursed if they break it. This is why Jesus in Revelation is the "Amen." He has kept the Law for us. And He has sent His Spirit that we may keep the Law through that Spirit.

Paul is saying that no man who has received the Spirit can curse Jesus. And no man who has not received the Spirit can truly bless Jesus. Blessing and cursing was God's job (beginning in Genesis 1-3). Every Covenant has Sanctions, but in the New Covenant, God's people have become prophetic, speaking as His legal Covenant representatives. We can bless and curse, which is no more than calling evil evil and calling good good. This is because those who believe and have received the Spirit have not taken Jesus' name in vain. The true saints always persevere, and this perseverance is one of the gifts of the Spirit.

share|improve this answer
Thank you for your answer and for taking the time to write. Though your points are good, I am still left a little puzzled. Perhaps since the Corinthians were particularly proud, if not inordinately proud, of their verbal gifts, Paul is attempting to warn them of the perils of putting too much stress on those gifts to the derogation and neglect of other gifts which though less "flashy" (and behind the camera, as it were, and not in front of it), were still important. To me the "Jesus is accursed" seems somehow out of place. – rhetorician Jun 28 '13 at 17:47
@rhetorician This is going to sound weird but one of Paul's literary conventions (found throughout the Bible) is to use the Tabernacle as deep structure. Based on what I've seen elsewhere, I'd say he's just finished with the Bronze Altar and the Golden Table and moved on to the Lampstand (the Spirit). So sudden changes in subject are quite common. – Mike Bull Jun 29 '13 at 2:33

I see what you are getting at and think Paul is using extremes to show that falling under the leading and influence of the Holy Spirit is not a morally neutral experience separate from true doctrine. In other words if a person is claiming to encounter the Spirit, yet they deny Christ, such a person is not experiencing the Spirit. On the other hand if a person genuinely confesses the divinity and humanity of Christ, they can only do this by the influence of the Spirit.

Two verses that seem to illuminate this one are:

And Jesus answered him, “ Blessed are you, Simon Bar- Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (ESV, Matthew 16:17)

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. (ESV, 1 John 4:2-3)

I do not think this is to be understood as literally about people muttering curses under their breath. We are not to imagine someone foaming at the mouth using some formal 'curse'. Its about the extreme opposite of faith where people mention any kind of words sincerely expressing the thought that Jesus was just a mortal who deserved to die as he did. It is about contrasting under a formula, those who do not really believe him among those that do, as evident in the words that they say. The polar opposites of the 'formula' is just used as an extreme contrast needed to clearly link truth with Spirit. Where the truth is in plenty so is the Spirit. Where the Spirit is in plenty, so is the truth. Where both exists Christ alone is magnified, higher and higher. When either is missing, yet religion remains, this is the spirit of antichrist. Antichrist simply pretends to please God without Christ as the means to do so, which does not come from the Spirit but from the Devil. The Devil governs the world giving it a strong delusion to arrange their souls for hell. The only way to be free of this bondage is to be filled with a different impulse by the Spirit that arises and manifests itself from a right confession.

share|improve this answer
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful answer. I've been going back over some "old" questions of mine and read your answer just now (8/10/13). The pieces of the puzzle seem to be coming together for me--almost. What if some unbelievers had insinuated themselves into the Corinthians' fellowship and started speaking in tongues? Instead of praising the Lord and speaking truth by the Holy Spirit, they were actually cursing Jesus. The church at Corinth was messed-up, by any standard, and the believers really loved their speaking in tongues--maybe too much! They needed discernment. – rhetorician Aug 10 '13 at 18:32
@rhetorician - yes, I agree that something along that line could/would have been going on in the background which necessitated the division of true utterances and teaching from false ones, in the context of a christian gathering with various elements of sharing, singing and the freedom of various religious expressions and gifts. They needed discernment in their charismatic experience. – Mike Aug 11 '13 at 13:44

By making these seemingly simple statements a matter of speaking by the holy spirit or not, the Apostle is telling the Corinthian ekklesia that their emphasis on intellectuality misses the more important thing: to be filled by the Spirit of God.

The joy of the Spirit is not the tickling of ears. It is the respect for what is holy and true that leads to a unifying love among the disciples.

The thing about cursing Jesus he probably added to make them aware and even warn them how easily one can lose what he has (i.e. the Spirit) and be overcome by evil (i.e. to be cursing the Son of God). Paul was probably one of the most intelligent teachers that ever trod on this earth, and his words went deeper than we can know and imagine.

share|improve this answer
What you say is true. Thank you for your comments. Don – rhetorician Jul 1 '13 at 17:35
Thank you. And for the good question. (Paul is amazing and never fully to be comprehended by us, born late and far away.) – hannes Jul 1 '13 at 18:00

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.