Essay 4—Men and Women in Worship—(3) Spiritual Gifts and the Body

Outline: 023-E4.3-Spiritual Gifts and the Body
Passage: 1 Corinthians 12:1-30
Discussion Audio (1h09m)

Unity of the body requires diversity of its members.

Another problem in the Corinthian church appears to have been their overvaluing of the ecstatic gifts, particularly of “tongues,” over all other gifts. So much so that it was seen as the sign of true spirituality, of having “arrived.” In the process people in the church who did not show this sign may have been told “we don’t need you.” Perhaps in not so many words, but in the attitudes toward them. In addition, the problem between the haves and have-nots from the previous section, the disorder around the Lord’s Supper, may be playing a part here. The haves may have felt they were sufficient to themselves and they did not need the have-nots.

Whatever the precise nature of the problem, Paul writes a corrective: all members are necessary to the health and building up of the body of Christ.

Christ here is not the name of an individual, Jesus, but of the community that derives its existence and identity from the individual. Just as in the Old Testament Israel could serve as the name of an individual (Gen 32:28) and of a people, so in Paul the name Christ is used both for the individual (1 Cor 2:2; Rom 5:17) and for the Christian community (1 Cor 15:22).[1]

Paul writes to the Corinthians that the gifts are not signs of anything – he reminds them that in pagan worship, there are signs of ecstasy – but are tools given by the Spirit for the common good. It is only the appropriate use of these gifts that is evidence of the type of spirituality of the person exhibiting the gift.

It is in this context that Paul introduces an extended “parable of the body.” It speaks both to those who might feel marginalized as well as those who assert self-sufficiency. All parts of the body are necessary. All are equally valuable. The head is not more valuable than the feet. The head cannot sustain itself without the mouth and the rest of the digestive system.

The center of the parable is the statement, “God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose” (v.18, ESV). There is no hierarchy of gifts. Every member is interdependent on another. One has no more authority than another. Verse 28 begins, “And God has appointed…” Ken Bailey writes:

The emphasis is again on “God has appointed.” Paul is not discussing elected church officers or natural abilities, but spiritual gifts.[2]

Bailey also writes that the principle of mutual interdependency can be applied beyond a single congregation to include all congregations:

The emphasis is on the problem of self-sufficiency. This cameo can be understood to reach beyond the status of individual Christians and apply also congregations… [Congregations] needed each other… The strong tendency then and now was and is for each tradition to become self-sufficient and say to the rest of the Christian world, “We do not need you! We have our own language, liturgy, history, theology, tradition and culture. All we need we find within ourselves.” … God’s Spirit is not promised uniquely to us in our divergent organizational structures, but in our faithfulness to the one body of Christ. The sin condemned is not pride but self-sufficiency. The deepest problem is not, “I am better than you” but rather, “I don’t need you.” … God has made us so that we will need each other. No church is an island.[4]

Human nature leads us to associate with people with whom we find much in common, i.e., people like us. We prefer uniformity. It is more comfortable. Denominations form around what is common. Denominations strive to maintain what are core and common. Large congregations feel they can minister to their communities by themselves. There is a temptation for congregations and denominations to think of themselves as “specially chosen by God” so that all other churches are “less-than” and not really necessary. Maybe not explicitly, but often subconsciously. In public we might say that all churches are valuable and fulfilling God’s purpose, but do we sometimes think “we don’t need you” in the privacy of our minds?

Paul writes that all Christians, from individuals members to distinct congregations, are all necessary. Each one has been placed there specifically according to God’s purpose. Diversity of beliefs and practices are necessary for the unity of the body of Christ and for its upbuilding.

The “parable of the body” ends with a discussion of the “unmentionables” – the genitals, the reproductive organs of the body. Ken Bailey observes that the body which cannot reproduce will die.[4] Based upon this observation he suggests that evangelism is like sex (my interpretation). He provides the following seven points in support[5]:

1. Evangelism is primary a very private affair
2. Evangelism involves deep personal relations
3. Evangelism is intended to be sacred and honorable
4. Long-term commitments are assumed
5. Personal advantage must never be involved
6. Evangelism must always be motivated by love, not by a will to power
7. The fact the Paul repeats this theme four times in a row is surely indicative of its importance

In fact then, spiritual gifts is not really the main focus of this passage. Paul is trying to focus his readers away from the specifics of gifts to the mutual interdependency of actions that take place within the church. When something happens to a member of the body, the whole body is affected, for good or for bad. No one can be over another because every member has equal value and every ministry is equally necessary. No one can claim a role based on birth, social status, ethnicity, or even gender because it is God who determines where he places a person and what gift will be given to fulfill his purposes.

Spiritual gifts are not roles or abilities.
They are actions that build up the body of Christ.^[6]

---

[1] Reading Corinthians from Reading the New Testament Commentary Series, entry for 1 Cor. 12:12-27.

[2] Bailey, location 4089.

[3] Bailey, location 4034.

[4] Bailey, location 4067.

[5] Bailey, locations 4051-4067.

[6] Bailey, location 4094.

Essay 2—Men and Women in the Human Family—(1) Immorality and the Church

Outline: 008-E2.1-Immorality and the Church
Passage: 1 Corinthians 4:17-5:6a
Discussion Audio (1h26m)

Arrogance is the disease.
Immorality just happens to be one symptom of arrogance
that Paul encounters in the Corinthian church

Although most English scholarship places the thought break between the first and second sections of 1 Corinthians at the ending verse of chapter 4, we follow Dr. Bailey’s rhetorical, historical, and literary analysis and begin the second essay with 4:17.

In many commonly held views of this epistle, Paul seems to be preoccupied with sex and immorality among the Corinthian church. Careful reading and interpretation show that this common view may actually be a misinterpretation and an overemphasis of something Paul indeed saw as a problem, but not the problem. Paul uses what he hears among the Corinthian Church as an example of something larger. A number of commentaries astutely note this observation. For example,

“As one sees through a careful, close reading of the text, Paul is upset because of the immorality in Corinth, but he treats that flamboyant phenomenon as a symptom of the true, deeper problem that he faces among the Corinthians, namely, their spiritual arrogance, which produces elitism or indifference that renders the congregation inactive and ineffective in living out God's will for their lives in this world.”^[1]

For the modern Christian to use these texts then, as being primarily about sexual ethics places us in a dangerous position. The specific immorality that Paul condemns was certainly against Roman and Jewish laws and tradition, but in the modern West, legality of the practice differs from one jurisdiction to another. Thus some vital questions are raised in how modern Christians are to approach application of biblical text.

• How much of what is considered ethical, moral, and legal are derived from cultural norms?
• Does scripture prescribe/proscribe, or does it simply describe the way things were?
• How can we determine when to apply specifics today, or to dismiss specifics and instead reach for deeper ethical considerations?

The purpose of laws regulating sexual practice and marriage in the ancient world were primarily for keeping clear legal heirs and lines of inheritance. The West, over the centuries, has assigned moral concepts to things in scripture whose existence was primarily legal, rather than moral or ethical in a universal sense.

Paul seeks to address the underlying disease: arrogance. It would appear that there was a small, vocal, powerful group within the Corinthian Church that flaunted and boasted about their supposed “spiritual freedom.” On the other side were those (larger in number) who saw the other group’s behavior as inappropriate but were afraid to do anything. Perhaps they were hoping that Paul or some other apostle would come and deal with the problem. Paul criticizes both groups. Both behaviors are equally bad, since both contribute to diminishing the true power that is found Jesus Christ.

Paul’s instruction is that churches must take responsibility for themselves to deal with issues that arise. By inference he states that he and the apostles do not hold any authority greater than that present in each gathering: the only Christian authority is found in “our Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul and the apostles will suggest and give counsel, but only the church can take action. Each member of the church has equal responsibility and authority to address and work out solutions to problems when they arise.

The counsel Paul provides is to throw the ____ (fool, idiot, or a stronger term) out of the spiritual body. The purpose is redemption. Based on our own culture we read “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” as some kind of punitive action where it is nothing of the sort. It is a metaphorical description of what Paul hopes to see happen when this man is shamed into repentance. Collectivism and shame/honor are so foreign to the Western mind that we too often fail to properly understand what Paul writes in this and other passages.

In a collectivist culture, the most important entity is the community—the family, the tribe or the country—and not the individual. Preserving the harmony of the community is everyone’s primary goal, and is perceived as much more important than the self-expression or self-fulfillment of the individual. A person’s identity comes not from distinguishing himself from the community, but in knowing and faithfully fulfilling his place… The highest goal and virtule in this sort of culture is supporting the community. This makes people happy (makarios).

Scripture is clear that when we become Christians, we become—permanently and spiritually—a part of the church. We become part of the family of God, with all the responsibilities and expectations that word connotes in the non-Western world. We don’t choose who else is a Christian with us. But we are committed to them, bound to them by the Spirit. And we are not free to dissociate our identities from them—mainly because once we are all in Christ, our own individual identities are no longer of primary importance.

Jesus viewed us—his church—as a collectivist community. He came to establish a people of God, over which he would reign as king. It is not really “me and Jesus.”[2]

For Paul there is no individual Christian or even individual congregations. All Christians and all churches exist as the universal church. In a mysterious way every Christian is spiritually connected to all others. What happens in one corner of the physical world does affect Christians on the other side of the globe.

Paul is unhappy with the whole of the Corinthian Church. He is displeased with the man who is violating legal codes and social taboos. He is displeased with the group that flaunts this as evidence that they are spiritually free and thus no longer bound by human traditions. And he is displeased with the silent majority that has failed to take action.

Paul appears to be of the mind that when the reputation of Christ is being tarnished, Christians must not remain silent, even if that means for a period of time it might result in strife and discord. The long term goals of Christ’s mission outweighs short term setbacks.

Christian unity is a foundational principle, but it cannot be achieved when one group arrogantly proclaims itself as true and silences everyone else. This is Paul’s primary concern in this section of 1 Corinthians.

---

^[1] Understanding the Bible Commentary on 1 Corinthians, entry 13 for 1 Cor. 5:1-13.

[2] Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understanding the Bible; E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien; Kindle edition, locations 1010, 1141, 1173.

Essay 1—Cross and Unity—(4) Unity Revisited, Part 2

Outline: E1.4-Unity Revisited-2
Passage: 1 Corinthians 3:18-4:16
Discussion Audio (1h54m)

Christianity is not about who “I follow” but who “We imitate”

This session discusses the closing of Paul’s first essay in his First Epistle to the Corinthians. Paul continues to focus on the cross of Christ event and applies its meaning as the solution to the problem of divisions.

At least some of the Corinthians had broken into factions, each looking to a different leader and placing him on a pedestal as above all the others. They thought they were doing the leaders a favor, but Paul writes that what in fact they are doing is attempting to elevate their own positions, using the leaders as weapons against one another. Paul denounces this anti-Christian behavior. Paul writes that ethical behavior must take priority over knowledge or doctrinal purity. When the question is on who is teaching a more pure gospel, it is not for him or anyone else to judge, but judgment is to be left to Christ. All who are faithful to their calling from Christ are building the temple of Christ. All who promote harmony in the community of believers are doing the work of building up. Any who foster strife, quarreling, and division are destroying the temple.

Paul writes that all teachers have something to contribute to the church. By claiming only one is worthy, or one is more worthy than others, Paul writes that the Corinthians are in fact rejecting God’s gifts.

The Corinthian error is an easy one to repeat… Our slogans take the form of "I am of the Presbyterians," or "of the Pentecostals," or "of the Roman Catholics." Or they might take ideological forms: "I am of the liberals," or "of the evangelicals," or "of the fundamentalists." And these are also used as weapons: "Oh, he's a fundamentalist, you know." Which means that we no longer need to listen to him, since his ideology has determined his overall value as a spokesman for God. It is hardly possible in a day like ours that one will not have denominational, theological, or ideological preferences. The difficulty lies in allowing that it might really be true that "all things are ours," including those whom we think God would do better to be without. But God is full of surprises; and he may choose to minister to us from the "strangest" of sources, if we were but more truly "in Christ" and therefore free in him to learn and to love.^[1]

Paul writes that Christians are responsible to serve one another, but they are only accountable to God. The measure of evaluation is not what results have been achieved, but have they been faithful to God’s assignment. Paul’s employer is God, not the Corinthians. He serves the Corinthians, but he will not be dictated or influenced by their evaluations and criticisms.

In the concluding remarks on this first essay, Paul engages in strong irony and sarcasm to gain the Corinthian Christians’ attention. He repeats back to them statements they have made about themselves and infuses them with sarcastic irony. He then contrasts himself and his colleagues against what the Corinthians are saying about themselves.

Paul and the apostles live the way of the cross. The Corinthians (at least some of them) thought Paul’s way was weak and foolish. Paul cites scripture to show that his way is true and their way is false.

Paul describes his way as that of non-retaliation. He does not respond to violence and abuse in kind.

[Paul] knew what physical deprivation meant… His reward was often insult, persecution and slander; but Paul responded according to the irenic admonition of Jesus. The end result of all this was that the dirt scoured from the world was poured upon him and his apostolic co-laborers. They then acted as cleansing agents, taking to themselves hate, malice, and bitterness; and by absorbing this without violent or vengeful response, they took away those evils. Thus in a particular way they were carrying on the work of Christ.^[2]

Paul’s final appeal is “imitate me.” He does not say “follow me” or “follow my teachings” or to follow anyone else’s teachings. It is “imitate me.” Christian discipleship is not all about gaining more knowledge, more book learning, more lectures, more sermons, but it is more about imitating Christians in our midst who have developed the character and display the glory of Christ.

What becomes transparent in this final appeal is that for Paul right thinking simply is not enough. The gospel must result in appropriate behavior as well.^[3]

---

^[1] New International Commentary on the New Testament, The First Epistle; entry on 1 Cor. 3:23.
^[2] Orr/Walther, 1 Corinthians; quoted in Bailey, loc. 1748
^[3] NICNT, 1 Cor. 4:14-21

Essay 1—Cross and Unity—(4) Unity Revisited, Part 1

Outline: E1.4-Unity Revisited-1
Passage: 1 Corinthians 3:1-17
Discussion Audio (1h33m)

You – the church community – are the restoration of the Land and the Temple
promised to Israel by the prophets of old.

[Paul] was not de-Zioning the tradition; rather he was transforming it into a new form of Zionism that needed no particular geography and no special building.^[1]

In this section of the letter, Paul crafts his argument around a radical thought: the Third Temple of Old Testament prophecies is fulfilled in the community of the faithful, the believers of Jesus Christ. The Second Temple in Jerusalem was still operating, going through its rituals and traditions. For Paul, however, the presence of God was no longer found in a physical temple located on a physical plot of land, but in the spiritual Temple of spiritual Israel. (No wonder many Jews in Jerusalem were upset with Paul and his teachings – see Acts.)

As children of the Enlightenment we have largely come to see the acquiring of truth as a head trip, and that a good mind and a willingness to work hard is all that is required to understand any form of truth, including theological truth. Paul disagrees.^[2]

In the first part of the section under discussion, Paul returns to the problem of division and the Corinthian claims that they were “following” one named leader or another. As a result of their claims the church was undergoing division and strife, as each faction claimed they were better than the others.

Paul would have none of that. The truths of Christianity are not found through teachings alone. Dedication to teachings is not enough. Placing teachers on pedestals, holding up their teachings, and making the claim to follow them are not enough.

Paul sees ethical actions (orthopraxy), not intellectual orthodoxy, as the primary evidence of a genuine Christian life. By their quarreling and strife, the Corinthians demonstrate that they are not spiritual, in contrast to the claims they have made about themselves.

As Paul works through the closing arguments in this first essay, he introduces motifs that he will repeat in subsequent essays, and which he will bring to a climax in the Ode to Love in chapter 13.

Paul uses two parables—the parable of the farmer and field, and the parable of the builders and building—to illustrate the importance God places upon the community of believers, the Church. Paul declares that this new land and temple, placed on the foundation of Jesus Christ and being built up by his servants, is the eternal temple. God will protect this temple. Nothing will be allowed to destroy it. Anyone who works against it will be destroyed. Salvation is found, not by an individual devotion to God, but by choosing to enter into a relationship with God by becoming a part of his faithful community. (This thought is foreign to modern Western people where a “personal relationship with Jesus” is so often held as the key to salvation; but the concept of salvation through belonging to a community would have been perfectly normal and expected in Hebrew thought.)

The security of God's people is found not so much in their individuality ("if anyone destroys") as in their membership in the corporate people of God ("you are that temple"). God formed and God guards God's temple from destruction.^[3]

---

^[1] Bailey, loc. 1447
^[2] Bailey, loc. 1378
^[3] Understanding the Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians, entry for 3:17

Essay 1—Cross and Unity—(2) Wisdom of the Cross–Part 1

Outline: E1.2-Wisdom of the Cross (1)
Passage: 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:2
Discussion Audio (1h30m)

Is Paul in favor of anti-intellectualism?  

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.[1]

This section of 1 Corinthians is sometimes used by Christians to discourage (in particular) exposure to secular knowledge, including but not limited to: literature, arts, philosophies, and sciences. It is sometimes used as a proof-text to promote the idea that any apparent conflict between biblical knowledge (whatever that really means) and “secular” knowledge must always be resolved in favor of the apparent biblical view (again, whatever that means). It is a bedrock and foundation for Christians who hold to anti-intellectualism of whatever degree.

We must ask ourselves, not, “What did Paul write?” but rather, “What does Paul mean?” (And I will concede here that this is already a Catch-22 for those who reject any kind of interpretive flexibility in regards to scripture.)

As we analyze this portion of 1 Corinthians this session and in the next, we will observe that Paul uses very polished and powerful rhetoric that includes forms and reasoning that come from both Jewish and Greek traditions. He weaves the patterns artfully and skillfully into his material so as to appeal to as broad an audience as he can.

For rhetoricians of his time, polished rhetoric may have been the end – for entertainment, for acclaim, and for making some money. For Paul, rhetoric is just the means, not the end, of the gospel. But Paul does not want poor or bad rhetoric to get in the way of the gospel, either. Paul does his best, in writing and in speech, to put the cross of Christ in the best light possible. But the cross is inherently foolish, weak, and a stumbling block. That’s what he means when he writes, “I didn’t come to you proclaiming the gospel with lofty speech or wisdom.”

Paul is not writing against good and excellent practice of reason, knowledge, and intellect. Paul is writing against minimizing or eliminating the cross of Christ, because of embarrassment or shame or appearing weak, in the proclamation of the gospel. The true gospel will always appear “weak” and “foolish” when compared to the world’s standards and expectations of power.

The Roman could boast of the power of empire. The Greek could boast of the greatness of Greek civilization. The Jew could boast in the covenant, the patriarchs, the law and much more… But for Paul the power and the wisdom of the cross made all such boasting meaningless… [Paul affirms] that earthly power is not a mirror image of the power of God. Granted, righteously executed earthly power was not for Paul inherently evil… The problem emerges when individuals, communities and nations begin subtly to see their power as an extension of the power of God. Then “boasting” emerges, and as that happens, disaster ensues.[2]

---

^[1] 1 Cor. 2:1-2, ESV
^[2] Bailey, loc. 824

Essay 1–Cross and Unity–(1) The Problem

Outline: E1.1-Problem
Passage: 1 Corinthians 1:10-16
Discussion Audio (1h11m)

[Paul’s] point is that any division is wrong, even one based on the claim to be of Christ alone and so rejecting Paulinists and followers of Apollos. (IVP Bible Background Commentary; 1 Cor. 1:12)

What defines Christian community? What is the appropriate focus for Christians?

Paul begins to address the first major issue in which the Corinthian church is embroiled – factional splits. These are not just mere disagreements but, based on Paul’s language, he equates them to all-out war that is tearing the church apart.

Paul appeals to the Corinthians to reconcile in the strongest terms possible. He appeals, not on the basis of leadership – not even Christ’s – but upon the cross of Christ and their initial entry into fellowship through the symbolic act of baptism.

Paul appeals to the Corinthians to “speak the same thing” (literal translation of phrase more commonly translated “agree with one another”, 1:10). It is clear that they are not speaking the same thing. Each faction is saying they follow a different leader. Paul implies that even “I follow Christ” is not appropriate as the primary basis for community.

So what should the Corinthians be saying? What should we be saying? Paul does not yet provide an answer.

1. Summary Points^[1]
   1. Ethnic divisions are unacceptable. Loyalty must not center on human leadership.
   2. No group has the right to claim they alone are loyal to Christ.
   3. “Our Lord Jesus Christ” is the only rightful center and source of unity.
   4. The cross and baptism form the central pillars of the believing community.
   5. Christianity is not about me; it’s about us.

The question is not “Who is my leader?” but rather, “Who died for us?” (Kenneth E. Bailey; location 736)

---

^[1] Bailey, loc. 731