Preliminary Thoughts on I Corinthians 2006 March 21^st for April 14^th

The Apostle Paul traveled widely through the Roman world in Bible times. He could not be everywhere at all times (nor can we today, though we move about hundreds of times more quickly) so he corresponded with his charges in many churches throughout his world by mail. Inasmuch as this correspondence addresses central issues of Christian theology and behavior along with other matters of church governance and protocol, it forms much of our New Testament today.

This is the first of two letters to the church at Corinth, a Greek city. It is about the same length as the letter to the Romans or perhaps a little shorter. It may be quoted more and its texts used for more sermons. If I were given a pop quiz on I Corinthians, the only thing I could probably remember off the top of my head is chapter 13, the description of what love is.

While that will be of great interest when we get there, IÕm sure we will find much more of great value in this letter from the Apostle Paul to the church in Corinth.

I Corinthians 1 – 2:5 2006 March 22^nd for April 17^th

Paul opens the letter with a greeting to his friends and brothers there in Corinth from himself and someone named Sosthenes. The header notes in my Bible indicate that Corinth was a multi-cultural crossroads, a wild place (even by pagan standards) and thus a place where the church could use encouragement, direction, and focus.

Paul begins with encouragement, giving thanks to God for all the good that has happened in this church, their confirmation of testimony, their knowledge and enrichment, their strong walk towards the day of deliverance.

But, there have been reports (from ChloeÕs household) that divisions have arisen. Some claim to be disciples of Paul, others of Apollos, others of Christ and so forth. Paul puts the quash on this right away, ÒIs Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?Ó He is thankful that they were not and orders them to find agreement with each other, and unity.

(These orders doubtless establish some of the modern over-zealous teachings on in-errancy, a topic we will deal with at another time.)

The thing about the message of Christ on the cross is that Òit is foolishness to those who are perishing.Ó The Jews look for miracles but find the crucified Christ to be a stumbling block. The Greeks look for wisdom but find the crucified Christ to be foolishness. Philosophy and wisdom are nothing up against this message, this Word from the living God.

God is pleased to save those who, no matter their station in this life, choose to believe in him anyway, despite the problems that come up concerning him among these hobbies of religion and philosophical thought. He saves the simple people and salvation itself is not something achieved through intellectual pursuit but through simple faith. This prevents anyone from being able to boast, except in the faith itself. Even Paul himself, when preaching there did not do so from the platform of his learning or intellect but Òin weakness and fear, and with much trembling.Ó

ÒMy message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the SpiritÕs power, so that your faith might not rest on menÕs wisdom, but on GodÕs power.Ó

I must comment here that I have discovered that this is the only safe way to proceed with faith. One can base oneÕs beliefs and understanding on logic and reasoning from certain beginning principles, and certainly there must be that component to it, but the reasonable principles, the consensus of science about any given matter, for example, or the ÔfeelingsÕ of culture about some issue, change from generation to generation, if not from year to year. Even the means of applying reason change, so that a faith based on these tools will be like a ship at sea without navigational aids, sometimes proceeding properly and under control and sometimes in despair, sometimes knowing where it is going and sometimes not knowing.

Faith, on the other hand, once established by decision, gives reference that is much deeper. Put another way, intellectual pursuit, what Paul is here calling ÒwisdomÓ can only go so far. The bottom of understanding has proven illusive to individual or collective intellect, the latter in itself corrupted by political expediencies.

I Corinthians 2:6 – 3:23 2006 March 23^rd for April 18^th

Paul speaks here of GodÕs secret wisdom that has been hidden from the beginning. He quotes often from the Psalms and Prophets.

ÒNo eye has seen, no ear has heard,

no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love himÓ

No one knows a manÕs thoughts except the manÕs spirit inside him. Similarly no one knows GodÕs thoughts except through GodÕs Spirit. No one is in any position to teach God anything, but we do have Òthe mind of Christ.Ó

The very fact that people in the church at Corinth are making divisions and fighting about them saying, ÒI am in ApollosÓ or ÒI am in PaulÓ shows that they are still infants in the faith, not ready for advanced concepts like this yet. Fact is, Paul planted the seeds of faith and Apollos ÒwateredÓ them, but God only brings any growth. All in faith are in God. All creation of life and growth are from God.

The one foundation of all this is Christ; no one can lay another. All else is just building on that foundation. Whether the building is gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, or straw will be revealed by the fire of testing. ÒIf it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.Ó

This is the price of erroneous belief. The person gets credit for trying and is saved, but it is a hair-raising (or hair-singeing) experience.

It does make sense that people divide up into factions of belief. This is what always happens. It gets especially virulent over important matters like Òtrue religion,Ó which is, after all, the domain of the church.

Paul reiterates that the wisdom of this world is foolishness. God Òcatches the wise in their craftiness.Ó Even the wise should become foolish by measure of the standards of this world with respect to accepting Christ.

Paul orders that all the boasting about Paul, Apollos, and Peter end. Rather, all believers have everything in Christ, in God.

I Corinthians 4 2006 March 24^th for April 19^th

Paul is not much concerned about what people think of him, what judgment he receives in court or in public opinion. He is concerned only about the judgment of God. God knows the motives of the heart and judges accordingly, in his time and in his way.

This principle applies to the Paul and Apollos problem too. God is judge of these matters, not the church in Corinth. Those things that they had received from either of these men or others were gifts, not things earned or deserved, to be boasted about.

Speaking of gifts, Paul points out that they already have everything they want; they are rich as kings. He wishes he could be a king with them, but the apostles are treated more like condemned criminals, those at the end of the parade whose destiny it is to die in an execution spectacle, hungry, deprived, in rags, homeless, brutalized, Òthe scum of the earth, the refuse of the world.Ó

The kingdom of God is about power, not about talk. Many there are boasting but Paul wishes they would imitate him in faithfulness. He is sending Timothy to them to work on this and will soon come himself, Lord willing.

Paul says he is doing this as a father, not a harsh master. ÒWhat do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love and with a gentle spirit?Ó

One might ask, what works, a whip or a gentle spirit?

The gentle spirit is part of what he wants imitated also. This is what it is to be Christian in practice over the long haul: being long suffering, returning good for evil, and so forth. These principles, which Paul is establishing now, are not yet well understood at Corinth or anywhere.

I Corinthians 5 – 6 2006 March 27^th for April 20^th

These two chapters deal with sexual immorality, a particular case in the church and in general. They also discuss disputes among those in the church.

The particular case was of a man who Òhas his fatherÕs wifeÓ (his stepmother). Not only that but the church was proud of this. Even the pagans donÕt do such things. Paul commands that this person be handed Òover to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.Ó

IÕm sure that many books are written on this passage. Salvation occurs but only through serious purging.

He then uses the image of the Passover, where Christ is the lamb and the church is the unleavened bread. Such yeast as this is the Òyeast of malice and wickedness.Ó

God will judge those outside the church. Paul and those within the church are only to judge within the church. DonÕt associate with immoral people: greedy, swindlers, idolaters, and slanderers.

Also, concerning internal disputes among Christians, donÕt take these to ungodly judges. ÒThe very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already.Ó The church will eventually judge the earth. They will judge angels, so they ought to be qualified to settle their own disputes and they should do so internally. Again, the list is given of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God: the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexual offenders, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers.

Although everything is permissible, not everything is beneficial. The body is meant for God, not sexual immorality. ÒDo you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute?Ó Sexual union makes people one in body, ÒBut he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.Ó

ÒFlee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.Ó

These passages are among those of which it is said that Christianity brought chastity and a renewed emphasis on sexual morality into religion.

Nothing here imposes this higher standard on all of society, it just says that, being saved from the corruption of nature, the Christians are in a better place and are to act like it.

I Corinthians 7 2006 March 28^th for April 21^st

Paul now deals with all the permutations of marriage. (Paul himself is single.) He is responding to concerns brought to him from this church. Interestingly, he preambles most of what he says with disclaimers that this is not from God, but is his own judgment, his own rendering. Nonetheless, he delivers his own judgment with authority.

Keeping in mind that Paul is single and that his belief is that the current age is coming to an end rapidly, perhaps within his own lifetime (as most Christians since Paul have also believed, that is, that Christ would return at any time and establish an entirely new order), here is what Paul says about marriage.

It is good not to be married, but if you canÕt stand it, it is better to be married than to Òburn.Ó Once married, do your duty. Married people belong to each other and have obligations to each other, bodily and otherwise. The problem is that a married person is concerned with family, particularly spouse, and cannot wholly devote his full attention to God. So, if you are unmarried (that is, never married, or widowed, or divorced), it is better to stay that way. If you are already married, stay that way; do not separate, even if the marriage is to an unbeliever. That unbelieving spouse may be saved through you. The children are sanctified through the one believing parent. Marriage is until death. Stay as you are.

As far as careers go, donÕt change anything due to becoming a Christian. If you are a slave, you are freed in Christ. If you are a free person, you are a slave in Christ. The secular legal status is unimportant up against the new age of Christ. If a slave can gain his freedom, it would be a good thing because then he could devote himself to God more fully.

Indeed, nothing of this world is very important, career, relationships, or possessions. Use whatever you have appropriately, but not as if you owned it. The new age is all about God; join in.

I Corinthians 8 – 9 2006 March 30^th for April 24^th

About food sacrificed to idols: ItÕs OK. Idols are nothing. There are no other gods. Food neither brings us to or keeps us away from God. Having this knowledge, however, can damage others. If someone is so accustomed to idols and food sacrificed to them that they think the food is defiled as a result, it also destroys their faith, the faith that Christ died for them to have, for someone to eat it as if it didnÕt matter.

Knowledge is good for puffing up. Love is good for building up. Paul would rather become a vegetarian in love than to destroy any weak believer as a result of exercising his knowledge.

WouldnÕt it be nice if this were the main emphasis preached from the Bible, rather than condemnation of all who are É different?

About support for the work of preaching, there are many precedents throughout GodÕs word about this. The ox that pulls the millstone is not to be muzzled, but is to eat some of what he is grinding. Farmers who sow and farmers who reap all do so to share in the harvest. People who work in the temple share the offerings, as do those who work at the altar. Those who preach, such as the apostles, Peter and the others, have a right to support for themselves and those who travel with them (such as a Òbelieving wifeÓ).

Paul, nonetheless, in keeping with what he just said about food, does not exercise this right. He does not charge anyone for the preaching that he does because he does not want this or anything to be a stumbling block to the message. He becomes like the people he preaches to, free, slave, under the law, not under the law, weak, or whatever, in order that he might save some, salvation being the most important result for which he works.

WouldnÕt it be nice if this were the emphasis of leading preachers?

As for his support, he earns it himself through his own labor. He is irritated; it is a little humorous, ÒIs it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?Ó

I Corinthians 10 – 11:1 2006 April 1^st for 25^th

Paul recounts some of IsraelÕs history in the desert under Moses. They all went through the sea, they were all under the cloud of GodÕs presence, and they all drank from the rock. This was all Christ but God was not pleased with them, Òtheir bodies were scattered over the desert.Ó

They did bad things. They ate and drank then engaged in sexual immorality, they tested God, they grumbled. In each case many of them (thousands) were destroyed as punishment. All of this is an example to us of how not to behave.

God owns everything so all food is OK, but stay away from idols. They are worse than just nothing, blocks of wood and stone. They are demons. You canÕt share in both God and demons, not the bread or the cup.

And, although it is true that Òeverything is permissibleÓ due to our freedom in Christ, it is also true that not everything is beneficial or constructive. It is commanded to seek the good of others rather than self.

It is OK to eat anything from the market, but donÕt ask questions. If you come to find out that something was sacrificed to an idol then donÕt eat it, due both to conscience and due to the conscience of the person who told you. But, if possible, just donÕt ask. Just give thanks to God. When youÕve given thanks to God, what you eat is fine.

This is all so that many might be saved by your example. Paul says to follow his example in these things as he himself follows the example of Christ.

I Corinthians 11:2 - 34 2006 April 1^st for 26^th

Paul now gives directions for propriety in worship claiming that, Òwe have no other practice – nor do the churches of God.Ó These directions summarize to this hierarchy:

The head of Christ is God.

The head of every man is Christ. A man should always pray with his head uncovered as he is the image and glory of God. It is disgraceful for a man to have long hair.

The head of the woman is man. A woman should always pray with her head covered as a sign of this authority. The woman is the glory of the man. Here is the explanation: ÒFor man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.Ó

I have no idea what Òthe angelsÓ have to do with this.

IÕm not sure what to make of this, but the statement that the churches of God have no other practice is certainly not true now. There are religions, such as the Catholics (and those of virtually all those originating in the mid east) where such head-cover regulations exist today. No measure or regulation is given as to what ÒlongÓ or ÒshortÓ means. (When I read, Òhead uncoveredÓ for men, my mental image is Òbald.Ó)

It seems strange about all this talk of clean and unclean food, meat sacrificed to idols and so forth to be dealing with these stylistic matters of worship attire with any degree of strictness. One guess is that this is a relatively unimportant matter that Paul just wants to dispense with quickly but I canÕt back that guess up.

Bordering perhaps on heresy (as balanced against political correctness) another possibility occurs to me. As a parent (of three) I sometimes come into conversation with other adults who are not parents, about children. Like the monks who are experts on human sexuality because they have Òread all about itÓ, these people, on authority of their degree in psychology or because they have nieces and nephews that they deal with at holidays, have all sorts of theories about what ought to be done and how. Indeed, new parents often suffer from this for a few weeks before in some way acquiescing to non-theoretical realities.

Coming to the point, I wonder once again, what does Paul know about women? Women have no place in his culture. He is not married. If it is just what he learned in the Torah, well, thatÕs fine, but I wouldnÕt consult him for practical advice.

Following this is the problem of the LordÕs Supper. People of all means, from the homeless to the wealthy are becoming Christians and they are not behaving themselves at the LordÕs Table. ÒOne remains hungry, another gets drunk.Ó

(We note that getting drunk at the LordÕs Table can only be possible if real wine is used.)

Paul tells them to dine at home and observe communion with propriety. ÒWhen you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.Ó

This is the location of the passage that is quoted in our own ritual:

ÒThe Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ÔThis is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.Õ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ÔThis cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.Õ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the LordÕs death until he comes.Ó

Paul concludes, ÒAnd when I come I will give further directions.Ó

Indeed.

I Corinthians 12 2006 March 30^th for April 27^th

Paul begins the next lesson with an amusing statement: ÒNow about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to dumb idols. Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, ÔJesus be cursed,Õ and no one can say, ÔJesus is Lord,Õ except by the Holy Spirit.Ó

(ÒSomehow or otherÓ is the humorous part.)

He then goes on to speak about how the body of Christ, that is, the church, is like a natural body, having many parts that each do different functions. No one person is all of the parts or has all of the abilities. No one person is everything, for example, ÒIf the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be?Ó (More humor?)

The list of Òspiritual giftsÓ that he gives is the source of much debate and boasting within the body of Christ and has been since this letter was written:

- message of wisdom,

- message of knowledge,

- faith,

- gifts of healing,

- miraculous powers,

- prophecy,

- distinguishing between spirits,

- speak in different kinds of tongues, and

- interpretation of tongues.

ÒAll these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.Ó

There is a minority within Christendom that takes the Òspeaking in different kinds of tonguesÓ very seriously. They manifest a kind of holy, somewhat trance-like speech that is said to consist of a language or languages that they donÕt understand, even when they are speaking it. The utterances are praises to God or messages from God, interpreted by the next category of the gifted, those who interpret tongues. There are physiological and psychological explanations for this that I donÕt know much about.

The precedent for this is the Apostles at Pentecost giving speeches in languages known not to them but to their foreign hearers, moderated by Peter. People who speak in tongues today are known as ÒPentecostalsÓ or ÒCharismatics.Ó There is a Protestant denomination called Pentecostal. (Indeed, it arose in Azusa, California a hundred years ago this month!) These and others recognize and encourage speaking in tongues, privately and publicly.

On the other hand, Paul will instruct later about the use of too much tongues without interpretation (or other manifestations) among the body.

Growing up, I had close contact with members of a Pentecostal congregation. We visited each otherÕs services. I picked up a strong impression that I was inferior, perhaps not even Christian for not having received the gift of tongues. It seemed to be a rite, as important as baptism, perhaps moreso, among them. After struggling with this on and off for decades, I decided that there were many very godly people with many sorts of spiritual gifts; that speaking in tongues was one of them but not the only one; and that this emphasis on that one gift, inasmuch as it had a supernatural Òcontrolled from aboveÓ experiential intimacy and immediacy to it, had a distorted over-emphasis among these folks, similar to the distorted under-emphasis given it elsewhere (or, for example, the over-emphasis on economic prosperity held by other versions of our faith).

In fact, while we are reading the Bible through here, it occurs to me that there could be other interpretations of this ÒgiftÓ as well. For example, Viann clearly has natural or God-given gifts of healing, yet these are amplified by considerable training and experience. Similarly, there are people who have natural or God-given gifts in learning and using languages, their native one(s) and others that they have learned later. These, too, are greatly enhanced by additional education and experience.

In a Protestant panel discussion of manifestations, it is my guess that ViannÕs healing gifts would be easily recognized as being from this list but that a bi-lingual English or Spanish major would not be, in part due to what may be confusion over glosalalia, the physical manifestation of these ecstatic, religious tongues. There are preachers who perform ecstatic healings as well but these are less confusing to the main line denominations which, themselves, host great hospitals and universities for the learning of healing and other arts.

Indeed, higher education is not much discussed in the Bible, save references to the training of Pharisees such as Paul and followers of other scriptural interpretations. No schools of medicine, music, or miracles are mentioned, much less promoted by Paul and the other authors. For some reason this juxtaposition between basic faith and modern practice brings to mind the churches that prohibit musical instruments on their property on grounds that such are not mentioned in the New Testament. I donÕt recall ever passing such an establishment where there werenÕt several modern automobiles parked outside, however. They sponsor colleges too.

And now we have digressed far enough.

At the end of this teaching, Paul gives a slightly different list of appointments that members of the body have, and he gives an order of precedence. From the first:

- apostles,

- prophets,

- teachers,

- workers of miracles,

- gifts of healing,

- able to help others,

- administration, and

- speaking in different tongues.

Not all do everything; each has his own place, his own gift.

In addition to the other discussion above, I doubt that the word ÒadministrationÓ here has the same meaning that we assume today. I suspect that it means something more like Òfood service handlerÓ would to us.

I Corinthians 13 – 14:25 2006 April 4^th for 28^th

This chapter is the famous chapter on love. Love surpasses everything and makes everything worthwhile. To have tongues or prophecy or knowledge or faith without love is worthless. ÒIf I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.Ó

ÒLove is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.Ó

It can be useful to think, when you feel feelings of ÒloveÓ, if it has these qualities.

Everything else will fail or end, prophecy, tongues, knowledge, everything like this will end, but love will not.

We understand and behave imperfectly now. ÒThenÓ we will know perfectly because we will see God face to face (this is implied, and it doesnÕt expand on what ÒthenÓ means).

ÒAnd now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.Ó

Paul now continues with a lengthy discussion of spiritual gifts in which the reason for having tongues at a lower precedence is discussed. ÒFollow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.Ó

The problem is that speaking in tongues, though good for the spirit, is communication only with God and is only an encouragement to people who already believe. On the other hand, prophecy encourages everyone, the other people in the church, and any unbelievers who may wander in. These strangers, rather than thinking you are crazy babblers (or drunk, as they thought at Pentecost) will be convicted by the prophecy that they understand and repent and worship God. More people are then saved.

So, even though it would be nice for everyone to speak in tongues for their own benefit, it is of greater benefit to all the body for people to prophesy.

(Notice that in our tongue, English, ÒprophecyÓ is the noun while ÒprophesyÓ is the verb.)

When tongues are being spoken, it is good for the body if there is interpretation.

Paul urges both. Pray Òin the spiritÓ and pray Òin the mind.Ó He compares it to music. Music requires some skill and structure to be ÒunderstoodÓ but it is also an emotional experience. Today we might think of this as right versus left brain. Paul is saying, use all brains, use feelings and intellect in prayer, but as for spiritual gifts, aspire to the means to build up the body, the church itself.

I Corinthians 14:26 – 40 2006 April 5^th for May 1^st

Things done in church should be orderly, only two or three people should speak (tongues or otherwise) and then one at a time. (This does not match my experience at a Pentecostal church.) ÒGod is not a God of disorder but of peace.Ó

When the two or three speak, all should weigh carefully what is said. If someone is speaking and a revelation comes to someone else, the first speaker should stop. If there is speaking in tongues, there should be interpretation, otherwise, the tongues-speaker should keep it between himself and God. This does not match my experience in any church.

Everything done in church should be for building up the believers.

ÒAs in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you?Ó Paul says, ÒOr are you the only people it has reached?Ó

I donÕt know what these last phrases mean, or whether it is some conclusive signature statement or a chastisement. I donÕt know why this part of the law applies to the church where many others do not. I do know that this subject matter is quite controversial in the church today. Those who must make harmony and plain correctness out of every word of scripture usually insist on a politically incorrect literal reading of this. I am reminded of Russian cosmonauts who, in the era when many highly qualified American astronauts were women, didnÕt think that women could be qualified for such work, by their very nature as women, un-trainable in the instincts of piloting or the mysteries of mathematics. This is all, of course, demonstrably ridiculous now but in the time of Paul, the expectation of women may have been of uneducated disruption. An uninformed question in the middle of church would waste everyoneÕs time and get everyone off topic. Such things were more appropriate for the privacy of home.

Paul is not saying here that it is just from him, that he doesnÕt have GodÕs word on this, as he has before, a qualification that would allow us to debate him as just a man and not as GodÕs messenger. To the contrary, this is the very next word:

ÒIf anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the LordÕs command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.Ó

This is similar (but less harsh) than the Old Testament test for true prophets. Either they are one hundred percent true, or they were terminated.

So, Paul is expounding the very word of God here, at least as he sees it. My own church, among many others, takes a culturally restrictive view on this. In other words, Paul was speaking to his own culture about its own norms. We have different standards in this and in many other things. Once weÕve made a break like this from literalism, however, we have a much harder job of defining what is and isnÕt orderly and God-ordered for our own times and worship.

How I deal with this is to remember that it is a living God, one who acts in history and in the present and in the future. He is unchanging and his law applies where it applies but, in Christ, we are not enslaved to the cultural norms of PaulÕs times, or even those of our own parents, nor have we ever been. Our responsibility, obligation, and child-ship is to that living God, not so much to the culture we happen to be in or its traditional roles.

Put another way, I wonder what judge Deborah would have done about this? Put yet another way, we have seen that some of the most literalist, the Pentecostals themselves, pick and choose the parts to obey (speaking in tongues from a chapter or two ago) or to ignore (only two or three, and them one at a time, and with interpretation, from todayÕs material). In other churches, and in the name of order, I have never seen one person with a ÒrevelationÓ interrupt another who was speaking. We see hardly anyone sacrificing goats in worship anymore even though it is a major feature of the inerrant Bible.

What I have observed is that the denominations all result from differing emphases on which parts of scripture are taken literally and which parts or explained away or ignored. (IÕm sure my denomination is able to explain away this text, but in practice we just ignore it, neither embracing nor explaining it.) The serious fights that result from these differences neither promote unity nor do they build up the body so, we are in violation of other scriptures by focusing our energies there.

And, did I mention that IÕm not always convinced that Paul knows what he is talking about when it comes to women? He clearly sees them not as individuals in the image of God but as a different class of beings, in the image of man. He has said this. It is part of his cosmology.

Not that IÕm claiming to be a prophet, but ignore me if you like.

As to this being the Word from God, I canÕt answer PaulÕs claim in that respect.

I Corinthians 15:1 – 34 2006 April 6^th for May 2^nd

The good news, the gospel, is this, Òthat Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothersÉÓ

At the end, he even appeared to Paul, who is kind of a special case. Paul doesnÕt feel worthy to be an apostle; after all, he persecuted the church at first.

Some in the church do not believe in the resurrection. Some are ignorant of God and Paul is ashamed for them.

If there is no resurrection, then Christ himself was not raised, and all preaching about it is a lie. All the testimony that has been done about Christ being raised is then false. People are risking their lives for nothing and those who have already died are lost.

It is GodÕs plan, however, that everything be subject to Christ then, Christ being subject to God, God is Òall in all.Ó The last and biggest enemy is death itself and Christ has overcome it and has been resurrected. He is the first, like first fruits. The rest follow later.

ÒDo not be misled: ÔBad company corrupts good character.Õ Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning.Ó

We nitpicked with Paul yesterday about cultural behaviors. This nitpicking does not weaken our faith but it does have an unsettling effect about the basis of faith as found in scripture. If we do not have faith in the resurrection as discussed today, however, there is no point in being Christian at all.

I Corinthians 15:35 – 58 2006 April 8^th for May 3^rd

This discussion of the resurrection raises questions of what the resurrection body will be like. Paul calls these questions, Òfoolish.Ó What I read into this is that he is saying, ÒDonÕt worry about it; donÕt you trust God?Ó I could be wrong.

When you plant a seed it dies and something greater grows from the death, according to GodÕs design. There are earthly ÒnaturalÓ bodies and spiritual ÒheavenlyÓ bodies. The second derives from the death of the first. Even the heavenly bodies are different. The moon and sun are different as is each of the stars. He seems to be implying that everything is unique. He is also quoting from his own cosmology.

Even if we accept PaulÕs cultural rulings into our own cultures long after PaulÕs pronouncements, I cannot accept his cosmology, except allegorically. Our cosmology today has everything in the heavens and the earth being what Paul would call Ònatural, corruptible.Ó But it is true, as he says, that everything in both places is unique. Although there are planets and stars, all are different from each other, to the point where it is hard to make classifications. A reading of the natural and the spiritual from my cosmology demands this notion that spirit is somehow different from, or perhaps a superset of nature, existing perhaps in additional dimensions. It is self evident that the four dimensions we now live in and perceive in are corrupt. It is possible that something ÒbeyondÓ might not be corrupt in the sense that we are accustomed to corruption. What ÒbeyondÓ means is an open question to us and to Paul.

This is the essence of the spiritual dimension of the science versus religion debate. The irreligious scientist claims that there is nothing outside of the four dimensions. They are, indeed, the whole domain of science. My own claim is that the four dimensions may be all that we physically perceive and that it is the sole domain of science, but that does not mean that they represent the totality of reality. There can be more. There is much that cannot be explained and may not ever be explainable in the four dimensions.

Those on the religious side of the debate err similarly. It is their domain to make claims about the extra-natural but they have little in the way of what a scientist would call Òevidence.Ó Spiritual matters tend to prove themselves and the crossover from spiritual to natural and back has proven exceedingly problematic.

One thing is clear, at least to me: Everyone has Òreligion,Ó that is, a faith based on un-prove-able axioms. For the scientist we were just discussing, those axioms are that the four dimensions and their content is all that exists and what we can demonstrate therein is all there is. Other religions, including the formal ones, begin from different premises.

My personal challenge to any such ÒfaithÓ that claims whole self containment is to ask two questions: ÒWhy does anything bother to exist at all when it would be so much easier for there ÔneverÕ to have been Ôanything?ÕÓ ÒGiven that existence, what is Ôlife?ÕÓ True enough, we know it when we see it, but what really is it? Metaphysical questions? Indeed. They rupture the self-containment theory, thus the word, Òmeta-Ò.

Anyway, returning from cosmology to the spiritual teaching of Paul:

Fleshes are different: people, animals, fish, birds, and so forth.

ÒThe body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.Ó

The things of earth and heaven are different. Adam is of the earth; we bear his image now. Christ is of heaven; we will bear his image.

Paul now declares a mystery, ÒWe will not all sleep, but we will all be changed – in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.Ó

Rapture theology is based on this. People have painted pictures of people flying out of cemeteries (the dead rise first) followed by those still living.

End times eschatologies aside, the good news is that ÒDeath has been swallowed up in victory.Ó He quotes Isaiah,

ÒWhere, O death, is your victory?

Where, O death, is your sting?Ó

This was one of my dadÕs favorite quotes.

Although it may have been a surprise to Paul himself (and some conjecture that it was), all who were alive when he was writing did sleep (died in the natural body) before Christ returned. This is, in fact, a prediction that has required reinterpretation in every generation since then in which Christ has not returned, that is, every generation since then.

PaulÕs conclusion from this is that it is all about the work of the Lord until this happens:

ÒTherefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.Ó

I Corinthians 16 2006 April 8^th for May 4^th

Paul now closes his first letter to the church at Corinth with a set of miscellaneous instructions.

First he suggests that they do as he had instructed the Galatians to do. On the first day of the week, each should save up some money and when Paul comes, he will collect it all and consecrate people of their choosing to take this offering down to Jerusalem for ÒGodÕs peopleÓ there. If needed, he will go with them to Jerusalem or, as he puts it, Òthey will accompany me.Ó (I think the protocol is that the lesser accompanies the greater.)

He plans to come visit Corinth after Macedonia but he does not want to do so passing through quickly, so will try to arrange for a long visit, maybe the entire winter. Right now there is an opportunity at Ephesus where he will stay until Pentecost. ÒA great door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many who oppose me.Ó Perhaps the magnitude of the opportunity is measured by the magnitude of the opposition.

Then there are personnel issues. If Timothy comes, he is to be totally welcomed. Timothy is doing the same work Paul is doing with PaulÕs full support. Paul has encouraged Apollos to come down too, and he plans to eventually. We see shadows of the Corinthian conflicts with which Paul opened the letter. It would be interesting to have a letter from Apollos to the church at Corinth in the record.

ÒBe on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong. Do everything in love.Ó

ÒSubmitÓ to those from the house of Stephanas, the first converts in Achaia, whenever they Òjoin in the work.Ó I canÕt really guess what this is about, perhaps just a simple endorsement.

Finally come the greetings, from the churches in Asia, Aquila and Priscilla and their house church. Paul writes a piece in his own hand as is his custom. (This is certainly lost in translation!)

ÒIf anyone does not love the Lord – a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!Ó

In Aramaic, the expression ÒCome, O LordÓ is ÒMarana tha.Ó

Finally the benediction, ÒThe grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. My love to all of you in Christ Jesus. Amen.Ó

Closing Thoughts on I Corinthians 2006 April 10^th for May 5^th

As in Romans, Paul has written here to a specific church with specific problems and given considerable specific direction, along with some advice. It is not so much the particulars of what he has said to the Corinthians, however, that has become the major discussion point here, it is the disparity between what Paul has said and what we find practiced in Christianity (then, now, and at all time in between) and elucidated in its doctrine that has given us grief over the last several chapters. Every church ignores or marginalizes some of PaulÕs teaching (and Scripture in general) and hangs on to other parts as if it were the last and only word from God. Much confusion and dispute arises over which parts to ignore and which to embrace but the disputes are rarely over these technical matters of textual grounding, more commonly they are over the developed subtexts themselves, inspired or otherwise, and their juxtaposition with current societal norms.

There is the matter of Òspiritual gifts,Ó particularly tongues, and of their use and ranking within the church. There is the matter of womenÕs role in community life, family, and the church. There is the matter of belief in the resurrection. The nature of love is discussed and it is held up as the paramount virtue, the very nature of God and therefore of his people (desired at least). There is the matter of sectarian leadership and divisiveness. There is the matter, carried over from the same discussion with the Romans, about food that has come from pagan temples, as to whether it can be consumed by Christians or not. There is the matter of sexual immorality. There is the principle: All things are permissible but not all things are profitable. There is the distinction between the power of God and the wisdom of men. There is the admonition to do all things in love and not to do things that make the brethren stumble.

In all of these Paul gives sound advice and coherent expansion. In most he speaks for God, in much the way we remember Moses speaking for God. In a few places he speaks only for himself and is clear that he is not representing God. ÒGod is silent.Ó (We donÕt remember Moses ever explicitly doing this.)

This is another doctrine you donÕt see expounded much. ÒGod is silent on this issue.Ó I guess you wouldnÕt think youÕd heard much in a sermon that talked about what God did not say.

While some churches work diligently to mold the faith into the self-evident dictates of modern tolerant culture, others stubbornly latch onto snippets of these and other texts as mandates of divinely ordered oppression. All seem to miss the reality that all such thought, science ÒfactÓ, religious interpretation, and cultural norms, are always in flux. Yes, religious interpretation is always in flux too. God himself may be unchanging, but our understanding of him as individuals and as a society is in as much flux as any other understanding that we pursue.

Life is tough, true enough, and it is sometimes incumbent upon our God and ourselves to be stern in the face of evil and corruption, or even mere adversity. Some err in not acknowledging this. On the other hand, God loves every person on the earth as they are and not as they should be because no one on the earth, no matter how close or far from God, is as they should be. If God loves anyone, therefore, he loves everyone. ÒAll have sinned and come short.Ó God, being infinite, finds all of us infinitely far below, and equal to each other in this respect and yet, miraculously, he still desires us to be his children, his family.

Some err in not acknowledging this, good news though it is.

I err here as well; of this we can be certain but, I am profoundly disturbed that we have discovered the truth that our faith, though free and simple, is quite complicated. Strict and literal readings are seen not to be practical. No one does it completely, anyone who thinks he does denies or is unaware of reality. This being the case, we all find ourselves in camps of scriptural selection and interpretation. Membership in any of these camps requires extra-Biblical knowledge, training and agreement, knowledge of ancient culture, language, customs, and many other facts not found in Scripture. Some of this is so strong that it has found its way into translations of the Bible itself, such as reading ÒRed SeaÓ in Exodus where the text always says ÒSea of Reeds.Ó Suddenly we are not talking solely about the Bible and what it plainly says, but about our personal heritages, our choices of training, our culture, our traditions and our assumptions. Clearing the smoke away from this is a much greater task than I, personally, am qualified or capable of doing. I have been reminded, however, that am not alone in this but that in this confusion, in this quest to synthesize incomplete information into real guidance using inadequate tools (i.e., my own intellect and history), the Spirit is still present.

May your mileage be comparable.

© 2006 Courtney B. Duncan