Sermon preached on October 28, 2018
Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.
1 Corinthians 7:17-24
[Note: When I initially preached this sermon, it was at the height of the “social justice” triumph over the institutions of the New Calvinism. My big idea, or doctrine, was that the cross of Christ calls us beyond our material identities. I do not regret preaching it in the least. As a criticism of the “Woke” ideology that had taken all of our ecclesiastical institutions captive, it was accurate and timely as far as it went. However, it would have been better to say that the cross calls us beyond our present status, anxieties, and animosities. To speak of material identities is too broad. While grace perfects nature, grace does not level the orders of creation. It makes neither social equality nor temporal liberation ultimate, or really even a constant norm.]1
Modern politics is defined by class warfare. Power-hungry collectivists divide and conquer populations on the basis of differences of racial identity and economic status. If the church is not discerning, we can absorb these ideas as if they are “doctrinally neutral.” Paul did not have the modern ideologue in mind, but his gospel preached to the Corinthians did provide for us a balance for the ages. It makes us both content with our conditions and free from any stigma associated with them. He addresses two areas in particular and then gives something of a universal principle.
The Call of Christ Transcends Racial Identity
The Call of Christ Transcends Economic Status
The Cross Frees Us from Bondage to Classes
Doctrine. The cross of Christ calls us beyond our present status, anxieties, and animosities.
Paul does not allow us to forget the context: ‘Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches’ (v. 17). The previous section dealt with our identity in relation to the opposite sex. Marriage is certainly an important identity. The argument would be easy to make that marriage is a more spiritual identity than race or economic status; and yet even here Paul subordinates that relationship (whether married or single) to one’s place in the kingdom of Christ. That being the case, moving from the greater to lesser, what do you think he will do with these other identities?
The Call of Christ Transcends Racial Identity.
Let us grant that as the dividing of nations in Genesis 10 belonged to common grace, and thus there are basic differences between the races that are positive. Where is the balance? Would we expect Paul to strike that balance—or, in other words, to cast a whole doctrinal vision of race and the gospel—in a letter that is really more designed to answer questions in a contentious local church setting? Verse 18 answers part of our question right away: ‘Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision’ (v. 18). The part he will answer is really the most important part in terms of our eternal outlook. Do you now belong to Christ? Then do not seek your ultimate identity in either group: Jew or Gentile. This is what circumcised and uncircumcised stands for here. And then he echoes the same imperative two verses down: ‘Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called’ (v. 20).
This “remaining” might seem like insensitivity on Paul’s part. Some would even label this ethic of social contentment “the opiate to the masses,” as Karl Marx would. It says, in effect, “Stay passive and resigned to racial injustice in this world!” Paul’s whole theology would teach us that there is such a thing as “solving” racial division in the flesh. That was actually one of the errors in the Galatian church. The Judaizers were perfectly willing to bring Gentiles in, but only if they became more Jewish first: only if they washed away their Gentile uncleanness, that is, the sinful ways of their ancestors.
Now Paul gives us the reason why this is wrong, by way of contrast: ‘For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God’ (v. 19). This is the larger argument of Paul to the Galatians: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). Now the upshot in that letter is that, “There is neither Jew nor Greek … for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28). Jesus’s statement in Matthew 8:11-12 implies a welcome of all of the world’s other races to participate in the event that was used in the ancient world to signify intimate fellowship: a meal. People from all races will “recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Those formerly on the outside will have the best seats, the places of honor, where “the last will be first, and the first last” (Mat. 20:16). This is eschatological racial harmony. It alone is perfect. It alone is possible. This grace has implications for how we live now. So too does nature. Actual racism—in the older, popular sense of that word—is animosity on the basis of race, or a haughty spite toward those of another race. It can be in the heart, or it can manifest itself in actions.
There was always a gospel logic that makes this actual racism an enemy of God. This had always been the case from the beginning. It was good news that the promise to Abraham would bless the nations (Gen. 12:3); and when Jonah acted contrary, everything in the message of that prophetic book condemned him. The gospel demands restoration of the whole image of God. Consequently, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 Jn. 4:20). This speaks specifically of the “brother,” though other passages extend to “your neighbor” (Mk. 12:31) and even “your enemies” (Lk. 6:27). The gospel makes a heresy of racism and a hypocrite of any churchgoing bigot. But the gospel does that—not government, not another cause in the church that obscures the gospel—and grace does that not against the nature of nations. In God’s wisdom, sovereign nations exist. There are ancient landmarks and cultures moving at very different rates. Smashing down those landmarks to level out the rates is a human experiment that always leads to mass violence. Its mantra is love, but its record is bloodshed. The gospel never advertised forced and sudden ethnic diversity.
Organic ethnic diversity, on the other hand, could occur in places already diverse such as the port cities of the Mediterranean like Corinth was. Under such voluntary conditions, this diversity was prized in the church, for one, because of the division of labor issuing forth from the body of Christ (Rom. 12:4-6, 1 Cor. 12:4-7). So “in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). Philip did not hesitate to baptize the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-38); and the maxim that “there is no distinction” (Acts 15:9, Rom. 10:12) was not isolated to the Judaizer controversy. The principle applied to all ethnicities. Think also of Paul’s letter to Philemon and slavery. The master is urged to be reconciled to Onesimus, and “no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved brother” (v. 16).2 In the big picture, the work of Christ in the gospel phases out racial animosity. It does not nurse its wounds. It breaks its chains. Because the gospel restores God’s image, we don’t think of the world anymore in terms of the broken image. We are aware of it. We take it into account in politics; but those who seek to join the church have done so in a most voluntary process and so should be most welcome. Because of the one bloodline of Christ, we do not define the church by the divergent bloodlines of Adam.
The Call of Christ Transcends Economic Status.
‘Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it’ (v. 21a). Here is the side of contentment. This “concern” is more like anxiety. Obviously many slaves remained slaves throughout the rest of their lives as Christians. It is quite true that Christianity ended slavery wherever it came. It did so eventually, but never immediately. To anyone who would complain that Jesus or the Apostles should rather have liberated every slave than counsel them, much less be pastors to their masters, I would only call out the hypocrisy of the one who complains. The same person will resist any conception of Christianity as bringing political implications! As it was, two thirds of the Roman Empire were slaves. Such a rebellion would have necessitated the largest military upset the world had ever seen, and that by an unarmed movement of thousands scattered abroad. Would such a one rather the Apostles have nothing of pastoral care to say to these slaves? It is the all-or-nothing materialist who would have denied these millions their humanity.
‘(But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity’ (v. 22b). Interestingly the only nuance Paul adds has to do with a liberation more spiritual than the all-or-nothing demands of the ideologue. It was not skin color or even the material of property, but a more intangible quality that each one seeks: total freedom. Let us start simple. All things being equal: freedom is good and slavery is bad. “So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (Jn. 8:34); and it is “For freedom Christ has set us free” (Gal. 5:1). You will say, “But these passages are talking about spiritual freedom from sin, not material freedom from literal chains.” True. But let me ask you if there is a connection between your physical surroundings and your sin.
Paul puts a finer point on this with a principle of ownership. ‘For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ’ (v. 22). In these words we can begin to see that freedom is not neutral to true and false worship. As Paul makes clear in Romans 6, we are either slaves to sin or slaves to Christ; and while it is true that we can worship God in spirit and truth in any circumstance, do we worship him if we worship those circumstances? Why should the circumstances of being bound to chains be any different. Someone may reply, “Because the slave has no choice!” But this was not the scenario. Paul said—‘if you can gain your freedom.’ Those are the operative words: If you can, and you choose not to, have you not chosen your chains? Who is worshiping what now? Here is the point that those pietists who lecture us ad nauseam about “political idolatry” either do not grasp, or else grasp too well and only seek to pull the wool over our eyes. It seems that the only “spiritual” or “gospel-centered” condition they can fathom is one in which the Christian is maximally oppressed.
Freedom is opposed to idolatry. It is true that you can worship God in physical chains, but it is false that you are worshiping God to the degree that you want your chains. Do you remember the reason that God told Moses to give to Pharaoh to let his people go? It was this: “Go in to Pharaoh and say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Let my people go, that they may serve me.” (Ex. 8:1). All of this is why Paul adds this parenthetical statement: if you can. Do not assume too much when the Holy Spirit uses parentheses.
The Cross Frees Us from Bondage to Classes.
‘You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men’ (v. 23). This is where the cross comes in specifically. This is a statement of the redemption that occurred there. By the cross, Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14). That is what redemption literally means: to purchase. So we are now the property of Christ and belong to his kingdom. We are not owned by the world’s designations anymore. So, while freedom and slavery refer primarily to the spiritual realm, we see that this has implications for the world of material and observable classes. You can be the rightful property of Christ and yet still act as a slave to the world. So Paul attaches a command to that statement in Galatians, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1).
‘So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God’ (v. 24). This is a call for contentment in society, but really it is a call to real belief and true religion for the individual. Do you really believe that the gospel solves these problems for your own status and that you are now, and will always be, “with God” in whatever circumstance you remain? As surely as God was with Joseph in his years in prison and with Daniel in that den of lions, so God is with any of His children in any of our social statuses. That does not make light of circumstances, but it does welcome God back into all circumstances, where He has been all along. This is taking the gospel seriously down to the “bottom line” of how we relate to everyone we could ever relate to. Edmund Clowney wrote that, “The catholic character of the church flows from the fact that the church is a colony of heaven; it cannot conform to the social castes and sectarian goals that divide a fallen world, for it is the beginning of a new humanity in Christ.”3
This is exactly the way Paul talked:
For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility (Eph. 2:14-16).
There is a greater to lesser argument to be made here, as John Frame commented, “the apostles certainly would have said that if Christ can tear down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles, he can also break down any lesser barrier.”4 Some may be inclined to argue that the barrier between black and white is greater than the one between Jew and Gentile. However such assumes that material hostilities are greater than spiritual hostilities. That is really coming from a different worldview. Colossians 1:20 expands the same point as Ephesians 2:14 from Jew-Gentile reconciliation to the reconciliation of all things. “All things” would certainly include putting away racial animosity of the sorts that were cultivated in the modern American setting.
Practical Use of the Doctrine
Use 1. Instruction. This is a classic case of a biblical passage which we have to take as one half of a balance within a larger doctrine. Obviously one cannot do that if they know little to nothing about the idea. Here the question is how to apply the grace perfects nature principle to ethnicity and social class. How much does grace perfect nature? How soon does it do so? Are we sure we have correctly distinguished between perfection and defection when it comes to the good nature of these things? In other words, there is the good seed or shoot that God is bringing to full blossom, but there are also the weeds sown by the enemy. Both appear to be the nature of things on the surface.
Has God designed His world for utter uniformity in these things? What would that even mean? If it meant that all colors ought to blend into one, then that would seem to imply that color differences are bad. If it meant that all inequalities in outcomes are bad, then that would seem to imply that either more diligence in the art or more natural skill are evils. Whether one thinks it through or not, these inferences impugn the Creator Himself with a design that is less wise or just than we ourselves would have made of things. Does the gospel really commit us to such a revolt against nature?
Many have no patience for such a balance, for one of several reasons. Those with biblicist tendencies just want to know what the passage says on its own. Those with pietist tendencies just want to know how the gospel in it insulates their soul from other implications. Those with ideological tendencies just want to put the breaks on the ultimacy of our life in the body of Christ. Wisdom takes the eternal as ultimate without dumping the temporal altogether off of the balance. A “crucified classism” does not mean that those classes matter for nothing—that they have “no more function” in God’s design—but that, when it comes to the peace and purity of the church, these things are subordinated to Christian love.
Use 2. Consolation. I want to conclude by hearing the words of Paul in Ephesians again, because it’s really a remarkable, complementary verse with our passage in Corinthians today:
For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility (Eph. 2:14-16).
Look at what Jesus has done and all that is being claimed about his cross, when it comes to relationships down here. By the cross, God has taken the warring individuals and people groups and killed their hostility, declared peace (The War is over), and created in his Son, and united to his very Person, one new human race. Do you understand how true that is? Do we understand how beautiful and powerful of a solution that is? The emphasis in our speech is the gospel we preach. Civil measures that have to reckon with groups as groups are legitimate. However, to conflate the institutional church with any radical solution to hostilities or social status is unnatural to God’s design: whether the design of the old or of the new creation. That the church should (from the right) restrict persons willing to join by Christ’s terms is as anti-gospel as the notion (from the left) that “the church” should join with globalists to eradicate nations so as to mirror the eschatological throng of amalgamated peoples—these are both unnatural uses of the church to solve a political problem in the flesh. Christ has already made peace for the church in his flesh.
______________________________________________________
1. Note added, November 6, 2026.
2. Benjamin Gladd draws this out in his chapter on ‘Philemon’ in Michael Kruger, ed. A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 401-409. Citing the exposition of Colossians 3 by Douglas Moo, Gladd suggests that even in the passages where Paul instructs masters and slaves on reciprocal duties (thus, for many, enabling the furtherance of slavery), he is actually tacitly undermining the institution by “relativizing the status of the slave’s master” (403).
3. Edmund Clowney, The Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 73.
4. John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2008), 653.
