Corinthians A.3.1 - Aw, Grow Up!

Chapter 3.1

Paul opens a new comparison in verse 1: the difference between spiritual Christians and carnal Christians. My Bible notes on verses 1-4 state "Although the Corinthians were Christians, they were not fully spiritual (v. 1); they did not live in full obedience to the Spirit." I do not believe that is the sense in which Paul is using pneumatikois ("spiritual people"). Just as in 2:14 where he used psuchikos to describe the person who is motivated primarily by their intellect or some other facet of their soul, i.e. the soul-driven person, so now he uses pneumatikois to describe the person who is motivated primarily by their spirit, i.e. the spirit-driven or spirit-ruled person. And yet, here in v. 1, Paul tells the Corinthians he could not speak to them as spirit-driven or spirit-ruled people, but as carnal (sarkikois), i.e. body-driven or body-ruled. It was not even their intellect that was driving them but rather their desire for physical experience. I can't even say "pleasures," because the physical experience is not always pleasant: it sometimes involves pain, anger, envy, jealousy, discord, and strife. And yet these are as much a part of the physical experience as the pleasurable sensations. True, they are transmitted to and processed by the soul, but they are centered in the body.

Because of this tendency on their part to focus in this area, Paul calls them "babes" (nepiois) or infants in Christ. Now, Paul had spent considerable time among them (about 18 months) and then had gone on to other endeavors, and yet, in his absence, things had not progressed but rather had gone downhill, as he proceeds to detail. Thus, he says, he was not able to and still is not able to give them solid food (spiritually) but must feed them milk; nutritious, nonetheless, but lacking substance. He is still having to address issues that are usually in the arena of dealing with brand-new Christians, those who don't know any better, those who are striving to overcome old habits of their heathen ways and become more mature in Christ, able to crawl, some to walk, not an infant who must be carried everywhere by an adult. And the symptoms of their infancy? Personality cults (vs. 4).

Within the body at Corinth, they had splintered into clubs or cliques built around different teachings and teachers. Some aligned themselves with Paul, the original source of their introduction to the Gospel. Others had found new ideas and fresh "fire" in the teachings of Apollos, the fireball preacher from Alexandria. When he first came to Corinth, he really stirred the people up, but Aquilla and Priscilla had to take him under their tutelage to straighten out some of his theology. Still, a following developed around him. Others had taken their allegiance even further back and decided they wanted to associate with the original apostle, Peter.

Does this sound like anything today? What about the different denominations? Weren't they built around some person and their personality? True, it often coincided with their reception of revelation; for example, Martin Luther's revelation of salvation by grace; the Wesley's rescission of Anglican abuses; Calvin's concepts of predestination. Even more contemporaneously, what are the megachurches except personality cults around an individual, e.g. Jakes, Hinn, et al? True, they afford the opportunity to accomplish much more on a much larger scale, but having been part of such an effort, I can attest that there is lots of baggage that goes along with that kind of effort, and not much of it is positive. It becomes difficult to discern, after a while, what is gold, silver, and precious stones as opposed to wood, hay, and straw (v. 12).

Corinthians A.2.1 - And in this corner...

Chapter 2.1

The Gospel (i.e., "The testimony (marturion) of God," vs. 1) is not designed to convince people with its logic. In fact, Paul says, it is of all things the most illogical. Rather, it demonstrates the power (vs. 5, dunamei) of God. And yet, the Gospel holds a mysterious Godly wisdom (vs. 7, sophian theou en mysterio). In order to begin to understand how this works, we must dissect ourselves. We know we are constructed of three components: spirit (pneuma), soul (psuche), and body (sarx). The Bible states we were created in this image of God. This happens on at least two different levels: first, God is spirit (John 4:24); second, just as God is a tri-unity (three in one), so we are three parts in one person. Our bodies are easily recognizable. They are the corporeal evidence of our existence; yet, they bind us within the space-time continuum and limit our existence to the finiteness of our sensory perception. The soul combines the mind, will, and emotions into personality and gives us sentience. Animals possess bodies and souls. It is our spirit, however, which makes us unique in creation. Ministers often speak of humans in their natural state as having a "hole inside us only God can fill." It is not a hole; it's our spirit. And it's not dead; if that were true, we'd be like the animals. Instead, it is cut off from God, which is ironic, since the spirit was created by God to communicate with Him in a way that transcends mere intellect. Our spirit is constantly striving to bring the soul and body in obedience to God's will. It is a struggle that will continue daily throughout our Earthly lives that will require us to constantly discern what God's will is and then use our volition to subjugate our wills to His.

Paul continues his dissection of the human composition by quoting Isaiah 64:4, "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love him" (vs. 9). The inference is clear: the human eye can perceive only a narrow band of wavelengths call (appropriately) the "visible light spectrum." Correspondingly, the ear can perceive only a narrow band of frequencies that are within the boundaries of "audible" tones. Yet, our technologies have revealed to us that there are other wavelengths of light (e.g., infrared) and sound (e.g., a dog's hearing capacity) that we are not capable of naturally perceiving. In the same way, there is a spiritual plane of existence, which is God's domain, that only our spirits can perceive and appreciate. C.S. Lewis, in his The Great Divorce (which is not about marriage at all but rather about the divide in experience between life and death), attempts to express this through natural metaphors, such as grass so real it hurts to walk on it, colors so bright they hurt the eyes, etc. In the same way that the sense receptors we use to perceive our physical world are ineffective (i.e., incapable) of perceiving spiritual phenomena, so our intellectual abilities are incapable of making sense (i.e., rationalizing) spiritual truth or even its component truths. Which is why Paul compares natural (psuchikos) man (vs. 14) to spiritual (pneumatikos) man (vs. 15). Just as the natural physical sensory receptors cannot perceive spiritual reality, so natural psychological faculties cannot understand spiritual truth. Which is why we must trust our spirits in faith, because through our spirit, we have access to and through faith we possess the mind (nous, from ginosko) of Christ (vs. 16).

A.1.3 - His Way or the Highway

Chapter 1.3

In verses 18 through 31, Paul contrasts the Gospel with earthly wisdom and defines two major hindrances to faith: logic and tradition. The Greeks were all about logic; it was their passion. Aristotle included it as one of the three ingredients of rhetoric, along with ethos and pathos. To the Greeks, if you could not persuade them logically regarding a thing, then it really didn't exist. There was even a period in their history marked by the "Stoic" philosophers, a reference to the national pasttime of sitting on their porches ("stoa") and arguing (debating) with each other about the ideas of that day. It is interesting to note, however, that their logic failed them when it came to describing the origins of the universe and of themselves, causing them to devise an elaborate but metaphorical mythology. It seems they just weren't able to accept the truth that an eternal God could exist that created everything, so instead they determined that the creation must have existed eternally and that it spawned the pantheon they worshiped for Gods, who were really no more than superhumans with all the human failings.

The Jews, on the other hand, were all about tradition (okay, somebody tell Tevye to take his fiddle and get down off the roof). And if a little tradition (10 commandments) was good, more (over 600 laws) was better. They carried this even into their thinking processes. Everything had to be referenced by some recognized authority; if you expressed a thought, it had to be backed up by a reference, usually to some famous Rabbi, who had referenced someone else. This was one reason why Jesus was such a problem for them. In a way, they probably didn't want the prophecies of the coming of the Messiah to be fulfilled; it would undo their tradition of waiting for Him to come. In addition to that, Jesus didn't fulfill their expectations. They were looking for a political leader who would overthrow their Roman oppressors. Instead, He came the first time to suffer and die, completely opposite to their tradition. And then, to top it all off, when He spoke, He referenced no other authority than Himself! If you have an electronic Bible with search capabilities, check it out sometime. Use the keyword phrases "You have heard it said" or "But I say to you." He uses the latter phrase six times within twenty-two verses of Matthew chapter 5. So when Jesus came preaching a message of personal reform, it upset their apple cart, especially since they were making a good living off everyone else's tradition. Though not the Messiah, Luther performed the same function in the Catholic Church in the Reformation of the 15th century by coming against their un-Biblical traditions.

True God-faith will always defy logic and tradition. Those who are willing to take off these blinders will see the wisdom and the power of God, Paul says. It is the only way to recognize (look at that word: re-, again, and cognize, a form of to think: to think again!) that our natural ways are not God's ways and learn that if we are to be righteous and holy (sanctified) and redeemed, it has to be His way, not ours, so that only He gets the credit. After all, it was His idea to begin with; but that takes us back to Genesis, doesn't it? And we don't have time to go there just now. Next time we'll go on to Chapter 2 of Corinthians A.

A.1.2 - Agreement and Opinions

Chapter 1.2

Going back to the meat of the chapter, in verse 10 Paul first pleads (parakaleo) with them to "speak the same thing." KJV uses the archaic word "beseech" which really doesn't say anything special to us today. However, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (which will be a common source in these studies) says it "literally denotes to call to one's side, hence, to call to one's aid. It is used for every kind of calling to a person which is meant to produce a particular effect, hence, with various meanings, such as comfort, exhort, desire, call for, in addition to its significance to beseech, which has a stronger force than aiteo (see Ask)." Therefore, Paul is actually "begging" them. He makes it even more emphatic by doing so "through the name (onomatos) of our Lord (kyrios) Jesus Christ." Vine's again indicates that "name" means more than just what someone is called. It is used "for all that a name implies, of authority, character, rank, majesty, power, excellence, etc., of everything that the name covers."

The word used here for "speak" is also especially significant. It is a form of the verb lego (now, how did that become the name of a children's building-block toy?) which is contrasted with another common verb for "say" which is laleo. Again, Vine's is especially helpful here, defining lego as "primarily, to pick out, gather, chiefly denotes to say, speak, affirm, whether of actual speech or of unspoken thought or of a message in writing." Further, there is a note on the word in Vine's which is even more elucidating: lego refers to the substance or meaning of what is said, laleo refers only to the mechanical words that convey the meaning or the physical act of speaking. The inference here is that "Paul does not ask that they agree with one another in all points, but he pleads for a common basic understanding of the Christian faith. He asks that different judgments not create broken fellowship. The Corinthians were still brethren [adelphoi], yet they needed to be restored to their former condition of full fellowship in Christ" (The Open Bible, NKJV, Notes, p. 1646).

So, how far does this agreement go? Do we all have to mimic one another, using the same cult-like jargon to prove our unity? Is this why we developed dogma out of doctrine? I grew up in a conservative, very liturgically based denomination (we used a liturgy for our services that followed a very distinct pattern and was very organized) and we were indoctrinated at a very young age in the church doctrine. Now, I have nothing against teaching children what is wrong and what is right (I'm an Educator!) but I have since found that some of what they taught was not actually based upon the Bible but on tradition. For example, have you ever compared the list of what some of the major denominations teach for the Ten Commandments against the actual list in Exodus 20? You may find that the second Commandment has been removed and the tenth has been altered in order to fill the gap that is left. What is the second Commandment? "You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6) This is especially problematic to denominations that historically have included icons (statues of historical figures, people who have been elevated in importance) as part of their worship process and those denominations that are descended from them through the Reformation that did not revise the teachings they were brought up on. My point is, I can still fellowship with them based upon our mutual belief in Jesus as the substitutionary sacrifice for the sin of mankind, but I don't have to believe everything they believe, especially if it's just opinion, and I don't have to pass judgment on their opinions either. I'm content to go with the rhema God has given me.

Corinthians A.1.1

Paul's letter is very well organized and follows a very clear outline that is broken up, in my Bible's notes, into three distinct parts. Part 1, which begins in chapter 1 and extends through chapter 4, is written in answer to a report of divisions from the household of Chloe. Part 2 covers chapters 5 and 6 and deals with reports to Paul of fornication and other problems of relationships in the church body. Part 3 covers answers to their questions in a letter they sent to Paul and goes from chapter 7 to the end.

Chapter 1

After greetings of grace and a prayer of thanksgiving, he jumps right into the water in verse 10. They had splintered into personality cults around Paul, Peter, and Apollos. It seems like even then, people tended to align themselves with the speaker at least as much as what was spoken. It's not even about the denomination so much anymore but how "charismatic" or dynamic the leader is. Sure, you'd have to have a strong personality to manage a mega-ministry (if that's what God really wanted you to do), but Paul reminds them in and around verse 26 that God's ways are different. Look around you in Church some Sunday. How many movers and shakers do you see? How many rocket scientists sit next to you? Is the church full of leaders? The concept is almost ludicrous, because the fact is if you get to know some of the people in your congregation, you'll find they are just simple folk who love Jesus. The Kingdom of God is not built on our strength but rather our weakness so that God's strength would be pre-eminent. It seems almost a contradiction to build a ministry around someone simply because they have a strong personality, yet there seems to be a symbiotic relationship between those who want to follow and those who want to be followed. Paul says, in response to this, "Don't follow me: follow Jesus!"

Further, Paul points to three misunderstandings at the core of their divisions. First is their misunderstanding of the Gospel message. They are trying to fathom it through their intellect, but the Gospel is not about Earthly wisdom. It is Heavenly wisdom, and there is a distinct difference. The Greeks had two words for "word": most people are familiar with "logos." It's the word used by the Apostle John in his Gospel to describe Jesus as the "logos made flesh"; however, the second form is "rhema" or "revealed word." Romans 10:17 brings this out in a very familiar yet little understood passage, "So then faith (pistis) comes by hearing (akoe), and hearing by the word (rhematos) of God. The Apostle Peter, in his second letter, points this out in chapter 1, verses 19 through 21: "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed [or We also have the more sure prophetic word], which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, 'but holy men of God spoke [or but men spoke from God] as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.'" Peter is comparing the written word to the voice he heard from Heaven when he was on the mountaintop with James, John, and Jesus at the transfiguration. He says the written word is more sure than that voice of God that he personally heard. Here's the second point from this: if "men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," what's the best frame of reference from which to interpret Scripture? If the Holy Spirit inspired it (Paul calls it "God-breathed" in his second letter to Timothy), then certainly the Holy Spirit is the best one to interpret it. When this happens, the logos becomes rhema which leads to hearing and hearing and hearing which leads to faith.