Essay 4—Men and Women in Worship—(5) Spiritual Gifts in the Body

Outline: 025-E4.5-Spiritual Gifts in the Body
Passage: 1 Corinthians 14:1-25
Discussion Audio (1h14m)

Public Worship Should be Inclusive and Participatory

Paul returns to the discussion of tongues and prophecy in the first half of chapter 14. It is easy to see the point of this section as the better value of prophecy over tongues. However, in the overall context of the entire essay and in particular the corresponding portion of the chiastic pair found in chapter 12, the thesis of this passage is around the appropriate use of spiritual gifts in public (corporate) worship. Tongues and prophecy happen to be the two examples that Paul picks up and uses in this passage because both involve speaking, and the Corinthian believers (at least some of them) considered one (tongues) more “spiritual” than all other gifts.

A couple of other questionable conclusions sometimes drawn from this passage are: 1) that this passage is defining the theology of the spiritual gift of tongues[1]; and 2) that tongues are less valuable, and possibly even bad/evil, because the use of tongues is selfish[2] and/or does not engage the mind.[3]

The most important contextual point to keep in mind during the reading and interpretation of this passage is that Paul’s parenesis is directed at what happens during public worship. Private devotions are not a concern here.

The first part of this passage (vv.1-5) discuss the purpose of each gift. Tongues are for uttering to God mysteries that human language cannot convey. Prophecy is for uttering messages from God for the edification of the entire community. Since tongues edify only the individual and prophecy edifies the entire assembly, Paul’s preference is for prophecy in public worship.

The reason for prophecy is that it speaks "edification, exhortation and comfort" to the rest of the people. These three words set forth the parameters of the divine intent of prophecy, and probably indicate that in Paul's view the primary focus of a prophetic utterance is not the future, but the present situations of the people of God.[4]

The second part (vv.6-12) provides a number of different illustrations in which Paul shows that intelligibility is necessary in public worship. The parable of the foreign languages is sometimes used as a basis for defining the gift of tongues as the ability to speak foreign languages, but the context does not support this interpretation.

The analogy is not that the tongues-speaker is also speaking a foreign language, as some have suggested,  but that the hearer cannot understand the one speaking in tongues any more than he can the one who speaks a foreign language.[5]

In the third and final part (vv.13-25) Paul discusses why intelligibility is necessary in public worship. Worship is a communal experience. Everything that takes place should be done in a manner that invites participation from all present. If some people cannot understand what is going on, they are unable to participate. This goes against the purpose of unity of fellowship through worship. Not only are all invited to participate, but all are expected to participate.[6] In this section also, Paul affirms the value of the gift of tongues, but in public worship it must be made intelligible through the presence of an interpreter.

Verse 22 contains words that pose difficulties for interpretation. It is commentary on verse 21, but its sense is not immediately clear. C.H. Talbert offers one possibility.[7] He sees verses 21 and 22 as assertions being made by some of the Corinthian believers and verses 23-25 as Paul’s response against the assertions. In this interpretation the Corinthians are asserting that tongues are a sign from God as proof to unbelievers of their spirituality. Prophecy, on the other hand, is not for unbelievers because mysteries of God are only for believers. Paul turns their assertion upside down. He writes that when unbelievers see them speaking in tongues, they will associate it with the madness of pagan cultic worship. Intelligible words of prophecy work to convict all who hear, so it is more desirable in public worship.

The other alternative sees Paul’s position reflected in the whole of verses 21-25. In this interpretation, “signs” are a manifestation of God that can mean either blessing or judgment. Paul agrees that tongues are certainly from God, but when unbelievers and outsiders hear it, they won’t understand and instead of drawing them toward God, they will see this as madness and something to stay away from. Thus tongues, instead of having a good effect, has the negative effect of forcing people away from God and into judgment. On the other hand prophecy is also from God, but the utterances are understandable by all. It has the effect of bringing conviction to outsiders and unbelievers (who choose to come to a church assembly – this isn’t about general evangelism outside of a church setting) so that they are moved away from judgment into the community of grace; i.e., building up the church. The “sign” of God’s favor is the building up of the church through the conviction of unbelievers and outsiders, not manifestations of the Spirit.

Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians is about some of the principles of public (corporate) worship. It is not primarily a discussion about spiritual gifts, such as tongues and prophecy. The primary principle is that worship must be intelligible to all. Secondary principles arise out the primary: that it must be inclusive (believers, unbelievers, those who are well-versed in Christianity, and those who are not); and that it should be participatory (there are no spectators, all are invited to preach and teach as God directs). Whatever takes place during corporate worship must be edifying to the entire assembly. No one should be excluded.

For the 21st century church a major application I see is in the form of a question. How do our assumptions about religious topics, liturgy, language (jargon), etc. exclude people from participating in worship? How can we turn corporate worship from a primarily spectator activity into a participatory one?

At the same time Paul's clear preference for prophetic utterances is often neglected throughout the church. By prophecy of course, as the full evidence of this chapter makes clear, he does not mean a prepared sermon, but the spontaneous word given to God's people for the edification of the whole. Most contemporary churches would have to be radically reconstructed in terms of their self-understanding for such to take place.[8]

---

[1] That is not to say one can derive part of a theology of tongues from this passage.

[2] 14:4, “build up himself” (ESV). In response Gordon Fee writes (New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle, 14:2-4) “The edifying of oneself is not self- centeredness, but the personal edifying of the believer that comes through private prayer and praise.”

[3] 14:14, “my mind is unfruitful” (ESV).

[4] NICNT, 1 Cor. 14:2-4.

[5] NICNT, 1 Cor. 14:10-11.

[6] 14:24, “But if all prophesy,” with the implication that Paul assumes all present could prophesy if they so desired and God enabled them to do so – but not that all must prophesy or that all will.

[7] Reading the New Testament Series: Reading Corinthians, 1 Cor. 14-20-36.

[8] NICNT, 1 Cor. 14:5

Essay 4—Men and Women in Worship—(4) The Way of Love

Outline: 024-E4.4-The Way of Love
Passage: 1 Corinthians 12:31-14:1a
Discussion Audio (1h29m)

It’s not “love vs. gifts” but “love and gifts”

In many ways this section is what Paul has been leading up to in this letter. Although chapter 13 is frequently read as a standalone passage, and the overall rhetoric of the letter doesn’t seem to require it, examination of its details show that Paul tailored the topic and language to specifically direct attention to the problems in the Corinthian church. Gordon Fee writes,

Unfortunately, however, the love affair with this love chapter has also allowed it to be read regularly apart from its context, which does not make it less true but causes one to miss too much. Even worse is that reading of it in context which sees it as set over against "spiritual gifts." Paul would wince.[1]

One way in which this chapter has been misread (in conjunction with misreading chapter 12 on spiritual gifts, particularly 12:28 as a hierarchy of gifts) is that chapter 13 is describing something (i.e., love) better than spiritual gifts. This reading pits love against the spiritual gifts. It devalues spiritual gifts as something that is nice to have but really not necessary, because love is the most important thing for a Christian to pursue and have.

This is a terrible misreading and misinterpretation. Fee writes,

Thus it is not "love versus gifts" that Paul has in mind, but "love as the only context for gifts"; for without the former, the latter have no usefulness at all—but then neither does much of anything else in the Christian life…[2]

Love is not an idea for Paul, not even a "motivating factor" for behavior.  It is behavior. To love is to act; anything short of action is not love at all. Second, love is not set over against the gifts, precisely because it belongs in a different category altogether. For Paul it is not "gifts to be sure, but better yet love"; rather, love is the way in which the gifts are to function. To desire earnestly expressions of the Spirit that will build up the community is how love acts in this context.[3]

As I was preparing for the discussion on this passage, what really resonated were two sentences I read from Fee (above): “Love is not an idea for Paul, not even a ‘motivating factor’ for behavior.  It is behavior.” So often I’ve heard and have been taught that “Christian action must be motivated by love” or something similar to that. What I read from Fee turned this understanding upside down. For a Christian, “I do this because I love you” is a non-starter. It’s not a valid reason. Love simply acts. It doesn’t ponder motivations. If a Christian has to motivate herself or himself “because of love” then it isn’t love. This idea is genuinely convicting and something that is difficult, not only to live out, but even to accept.

There are many interesting things in this passage in regards to language, imagery, and historical-cultural context that the outline lists in more detail.

The main point Paul is attempting to make is that, for the Christian, there are permanent things and there are temporary things. Love belongs to the former and spiritual gifts belong to the latter. Love will continue throughout eternity whereas spiritual gifts will cease once God is revealed in his fullness at the completion of the Eschaton. What this implies is the purpose of spiritual gifts.

The Corinthian Christians seemed to think that manifestations of spiritual gifts were an end to themselves. They were the sign – in particular, manifestation of tongues – of having achieved spiritual maturity (completeness, perfection). Paul turns around their thinking: the presence of spiritual gifts is a sign that completeness has not yet arrived. Their very purpose is to reveal a partial picture of God in order to build up the church, for the common good of the community. In their pursuit of spiritual gifts, they had forgotten love and the church had become divided.

The solution to their problems (and ours): love. Not love as reciprocating goodness or positive feelings toward another, but love as actively participating in doing what it takes (which sometimes means refraining from taking hurtful actions that human nature might desire toward others) to seek the common good, to build up the church community. Spiritual gifts are valuable and necessary, but they are merely part of the “toolset” to be used in exercising love.

One must not mistake this emphasis with a devaluation of the gifts themselves. The fact is that we are still in the present; and therefore in chap. 14 Paul will go on not only to correct an imbalance with regard to the gifts, but to urge their proper use. Pursue love (14:1), he says, because that alone is forever (13:8, 13); but that also means that in the present you should eagerly desire manifestations of the Spirit that build up the community (14:1–5).[4]

---

[1] New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle, “3. The More Excellent Way (13:1-13)”

[2] NICNT, 1 Cor. 12:31

[3] NICNT, “3. The More Excellent Way (13:1-13)”

[4] NICNT, “c. The permanence of love (13:8-13)”

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 4—Men and Women in Worship—(2) Order in Worship—Eucharist

Outline: 022-E4.2-Order in Worship-Eucharist
Passage: 1 Corinthians 11:17-34
Discussion Audio (1h09m)

Actions and attitudes in the Christian church that abuse the poor
is the same as abusing Christ

The English Standard Version Study Bible notes gives the heading for this section of 1 Corinthians as “Social snobbery at the Lord’s Table.” Reading Corinthians from Reading the New Testament commentary series gives it the subheading “Social Significance of the Supper.” In other words, theology has direct bearing on social relationships. What, then, is Paul’s theology in this passage?

The passage is broken into three major sections:

1. The problem statement (vv.17-22)
2. Theology (vv.23-26)
3. Observations and solutions (vv.27-34)

The Problem

The Corinthian letter to Paul did not mention this problem. It is entirely possible that those in leadership did not even recognize it to be a problem. Or, they were too embarrassed to bring it up to Paul. Whatever the case, Paul heard about it, quite possibly from the servants and/or slaves of the house in which the Corinthian church met.

The best reconstruction of the problem appears to be that it happened during the meals held at the Corinthian assembly (gathering, church) at which time the Last Supper of Jesus was remembered. The church consisted of members from all social strata – from nobility and the wealthy to the slaves and the poor. It appears that the church was following Roman customs in its meals; i.e., those with leisure time – the wealthy – arrived early and had access to the triclenium and the best foods and drinks offered there, while the less well-to-do arrived later, hungry, and had to make-do with what was left and had to settle for seating or standing outside in the atrium area. Instead of united fellowship the meal was an event in which social divisions were heightened in visibility.

Paul offers no commendation (praise) for allowing this divisive cultural tradition/norm to exist at a church function. The Corinthians may be repeating words from the Last Supper, but because of their present actions, Paul writes that this is not “the Lord’s Supper” but “their own supper.” Instead of fostering community and communal good, the meal is dividing and highlighting the harmful aspects of individualism.

Theology

Paul writes that “remembrance” is not merely recollection about Jesus and the events of the Last Supper, but for it to be truly remembrance the church must participate actively in what the supper means.

Paul writes that the supper is an activity in which social divisions and hierarchies of authority are erased. It is a remembrance of the act of love of Jesus that led to his death on the cross. It is a remembrance of the birth of a new community, based not on nationality, race, gender, or social status, but on adoption into God’s family as a friend and brother of Jesus.

The manner in which the Corinthian church “remembered” the Last Supper was a travesty of what it was supposed to teach. The Lord’s Supper was supposed to be a proclamation of the gospel of restoration of relationships from hierarchy and roles to egalitarianism, but the Corinthians had made it the exact opposite of that.

Observations and Solutions

Paul writes that the church must examine herself before partaking of the Lord’s Supper to see if she is worthy. This section, in particular, has been lifted out of context by much of traditional Christian interpretations. It has been made to say that individual Christians must examine themselves to determine if there is any sin that might cause them to be unworthy of partaking of the Supper, and that if done unworthily, they will incur judgment from God.

That is not what Paul intended. The entire context is in the framework of social justice. The Corinthian church, as a whole, was allowing and even promoting social divisions and inequality through her actions. Paul is writing against this “sin.” It is a sin committed by the entire church, not specifically individuals. Paul is calling on the church to examine herself.

In the context of this letter and in the light of the discussion he has offered the Corinthians up to this point, one should see that, for Paul, to eat the bread and to drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way is eating and drinking with an attitude of self- centeredness, of individualism or arrogance.[1]

This is not a call for deep personal introspection to determine whether one is worthy of the Table… [It is] a call to truly Christian behavior at the Table. It is in this sense that the Corinthians are urged to examine themselves. Their behavior has belied the gospel they claim to embrace. Before they participate in the meal, they should examine themselves in terms of their attitudes toward the body, how they are treating others, since the meal itself is a place of proclaiming the gospel.[2]

When the church allows traditional and cultural social divisions into her life, she becomes unworthy and guilty of abusing Christ himself.

Such an abuse of the "body" is an abuse of Christ himself. The bread represents his crucified body, which, along with his poured out blood, effected the death that ratified the New Covenant. By their abuse of one another, they were also abusing the One through whose death and resurrection they had been brought to life and formed into this new eschatological fellowship, his body the church.[3]

Paul perceives that all is not well with the church and places fault on how the church is treating the poor. He attributes this to “judgment from the Lord.” But that should not be read as God causing or punishing, but as allowing consequences of their poor behavior to bear its fruits. It is also vital to note that Paul never writes that individuals will be the direct recipient of judgment but rather the church.

The solutions Paul proposes are twofold. First – his recommended solution – is that the church correct her abuses and welcome everyone to the Table so that she will become a worthy participant in the Lord’s Supper. The second suggestion that Paul makes is that if there are groups or factions that cannot accept the theological significance of the Lord’s Supper and want to continue traditional Roman banquets that they do so in their own homes before coming to meet with the rest of the church. That way judgment will not fall upon the church.

Throughout this passage Paul never directly attacks social and cultural customs. He never commands the wealthy to share with the poor. He never writes that social inequities are wrong. But what he does by introducing a theology of equality and egalitarianism is to quietly chip away at the foundations of human priorities of wealth and privilege, and the status and security those things can afford. What Paul does write is that within the church assembly, such things must not become sources of division and factions. When the church gathers, no individual or group must be allowed to feel shame and dishonor because of what they don’t have or who they are not.

As noted throughout, this paragraph has had an unfortunate history of understanding in the church. The very Table that is God's reminder, and therefore his repeated gift, of grace, the Table where we affirm again who and whose we are, has been allowed to become a table of condemnation for the very people who most truly need the assurance of acceptance that this table affords—the sinful, the weak, the weary. One does not have to "get rid of the sin in one's life" in order to partake. Here by faith one may once again receive the assurance that "Christ receiveth sinners."

On the other hand, any magical view of the sacrament that allows the unrepentant to partake without "discerning the body" makes the offer of grace a place of judgment. Grace "received" that is not recognized as such is not grace at all; and grace "received" that does not recognize the need to be gracious to others is to miss the point of the Table altogether.[4]

---

[1] Understanding the Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians, entry for 1 Cor. 11:27.

[2] New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle, entry for 1 Cor. 11:28.

[3] NICNT, introduction entry on 1 Cor. 11:17-34 (D. Abuse of the Lord’s Supper).

[4] NICNT, entry for 1 Cor. 11:31-32.

Essay 4—Men and Women in Worship—(1) Leading in Worship

Outline: 021-E4.1-Leading in Worship
Passage: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Discussion Audio (1h13m)

Paul could have easily solved the controversy
by commanding the women, “Stop leading in worship.”
But he didn’t.

Women (and men) were leading worship in the Corinthian (and all other) churches. They were leading prayers and proclaiming the word of God to the church through the spiritual gift of prophecy.

What then, was the problem?

The problem wasn’t with women preaching and leading in church.

The problem was with “clerical garb.”[1] Or, the problem was with “eschatological women,” believing that they had already become “like angels,” were casting off all symbols of gender distinctions.[2]

Many English translations of this passage are interpretations based on preconceived traditions of patriarchy and complementarianism. They fail to render words consistently. As a result they end up with biases with which many readers take as the “word of God” when in fact they are interpretations of men (literally!).

When Paul writes “head” (κεφαλή kephale) it is not ever meant to imply authority or establishment of hierarchy but simply “origin of life.” Fee writes, “Paul’s understanding of the metaphor, therefore, and almost certainly the only one the Corinthians would have grasped, is ‘head’ as ‘source,’ especially ‘source of life.’”[3]

Many translations mix “man” and “husband” when it should be rendered as “man” (ἀνήρ anēr) each time. Likewise with “woman” and “wife” (γυνή gyne). Paul did indeed speak to single and marital relationships in chapter 7 but in this passage he is broadening the discussion to relationships of “every man” and “every woman” to the church. It is inappropriate and out-of-context to read any kind of marriage relationships into this passage.

Another major translation issue involves how to translate διά (dia) in verses 9-10. Many translations translate this as “for” in verse 9 and “because of” in verse 10. As a result English readers get the idea that Paul writes in verse 9 that “woman [was created] for man,” i.e., woman/wife as a servant/subordinate role to man/husband. When dia is rendered consistently what is seen is,

For man was not created because of {dia} woman, but woman because of {dia} the man. Because of {dia} this the woman should have authority {exousia} on the head, because of {dia} the angels.

This rendering removes any kind of role or subordination and what is seen is simply the creation account of Genesis 2 in which the man is formed first and then the woman from [because of] the man.

Just in case the reader might be tempted to think that creation order matters, Paul counters that in verses 11-12 that the order, in fact, does not matter. Even more, if one thinks thinks that being first means priority in importance, the first creation account of Genesis 1 shows that later is better. Bailey writes,

The difficulty with this conclusion [that created first means more important] is that the creation stories begin with the lesser forms of life and move on to the more advanced forms. If created earlier equals more important, then animals are more important than people, the plants are more important than the animals and the primitive earth “without form and void” is the most important of all![4]

The creation account forms the center of Paul’s argument in regards to women’s right and authority to lead churches and worship. In Genesis 2 the woman is created as a helper (‘ezera) for the man.[5] The God of Israel is often referred to as ‘Ezer when he comes to save his people. Helper then refers to a being or a person who holds superior powers to the one being helped. In other words, if one is to read the Genesis account literally, woman is superior to man, who was found to be helpless. Lest women think they are superior to men Paul’s words in verses 11-12 apply just as equally to women as well as men. Bailey writes in regard to Paul’s argument in this passage,

Seen in this light, our understanding of the text and of Paul’s view of women are transformed. Women, for Paul, are not created “for men” … Rather women, as descendants of Eve, are placed by God in the human scene as the strong who come to help/save the needy (the men)… Paul emerges as a compassionate figure who boldly affirms the equality and mutual interdependency of men and women in the new covenant.[6]

The climax in the center affirms women in worship leadership and gives them a
sign of their authority… A part of this new creation is the restoration of the
equality and mutual interdependence between men and women in Christ.[7]

It appears that the women thought that part of their new freedom in Christ was to cast off traditional garbs of women, that they could (or should, even must?) appear as men when leading worship. For some in the congregation this was seen as unacceptable and even sexually enticing. Paul was apparently trying to find a compromise in a congregation of mixed cultural traditions. He tells the women, “I commend you for leading in worship, but please, keep your head covered so as not to be distracting to some in your congregation.”

Later in this essay (chapter 12 and 14) Paul will discuss spiritual gifts more fully. But he is foreshadowing the topic by writing that spiritual gifts are not distributed based on gender but on need, to build up the church.

To define ministry roles based on gender is
tantamount to destroying the church.

---

[1] Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes, locations 3484-3498.

[2] Fee, New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle, entry for 1 Cor. 11:3.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Bailey, location 3522.

[5] Bailey, location 3620.

[6] Bailey, location 3623.

[7] Bailey, locations 3655, 3659.

Taking a short break during Advent and Christmas

I’ll be taking a short break from 1 Corinthians during the season of Advent and Christmas. Summaries of what we discuss can be found at my other blog.

Essay 3—Freedom and Responsibility—(6) Food Offered to Idols, Revisited

Outline: 020-E3.6-Food Offered to Idols Revisited
Passage: 1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1
Discussion Audio (1h22m)

Paul was a Liberal^[1]

In this final section of the third essay, Paul returns to the original question posed to him by the believers in Corinth: “what about food offered to idols?” He has already made clear that Christians cannot participate in feasts that accompany pagan worship services. But what about “sacrificial meat” offered for purchase at marketplaces following pagan festivals? And what about banquets held in an unbeliever’s home to which a believer is invited? These are the loose ends that Paul ties up in today’s passage.

On the first question – meat offered for sale at the public marketplace – Paul writes that believers shouldn’t worry about its origins. All food and drink ultimately comes from God, not idols. Therefore, thank God and don’t concern yourself with whether or not the meat was offered to idols. Gordon Fee notes an interesting irony that Paul may or may not have intended in his use of Psalm 24:1 LXX:

But what Paul here does is full of irony toward his Jewish heritage, whether intended or not. The rabbis saw the text as the reason for thanking God for their food; but the food they thus blessed had been thoroughly "investigated" before the prayer. Paul now uses the text to justify eating all foods, even those forbidden by Jews, since God is the ultimate source of the food—even that sold in the macellum [marketplace]. For that reason it can be taken with thanksgiving. The clear implication is that nothing contaminates food as such along the way. Apart from his radical statements on circumcision, it is hard to imagine anything more un- Jewish in the apostle than this.^[2]

Paul next responds to the second issue – what about food at an unbeliever’s’ home? He writes that the default position for the believer is to not question the food’s origins, to not concern one’s self about it, but to partake of it. He notes that he himself partakes of such foods.

But there is one caveat. It is found in the center of this ring composition. What is “someone” informs the believer that the meat is “sacrificial meat?” In that case, Paul writes that the believer should respect the warning and abstain from eating the meat.

But who precisely does Paul intend by “someone?” It has been interpreted as another believer also at this banquet, the pagan host, and an pagan guest. Gordon Fee argues, referring to original language and syntax, that the best fit is a pagan guest.^[3] So the one situation in which a believer ought to refrain from consuming meat offered to idols outside of the pagan temple is when he or she is at a banquet hosted by an unbeliever and another unbelieving guest points it out “to be helpful.”

In our discussion, an interesting point was brought out that a “weak” Christian brother or sister should not be accompanying a stronger believer to such a banquet in the first place. This observation may not be present directly in the text, but it makes sense in the overall theme of mission that underlies this entire discussion. Paul had discussed earlier that it takes great discipline and effort to make one’s self effective for mission to outsiders (1 Cor. 9:19-27). In today’s passage, Paul wrote that everything should be done with “the other”^[4] in mind (1 Cor. 10:24). For Paul, a place where Christians must voluntarily retrain exercise of freedom is in loving consideration of an unbeliever’s beliefs. Gordon Fee writes,

The clue lies in the meaning of "conscience," which is not to be understood as "a moral arbiter" but as "moral consciousness." The one who has pointed out the sacrificial origins of this meat to a Christian has done so out of a sense of moral obligation to the Christian, believing that Christians, like Jews, would not eat such food. So as not to offend that person, nor his/her moral expectations of Christians, and precisely because it is not a matter of Christian moral consciousness, one should forbear under these circumstances.^[5]

But what about offending another Christian by one’s actions? Fee continues,

If this is the correct understanding of the text, then what Paul is not referring to is a fellow believer's conscience as restricting the actions of another, as is so often assumed [my emphasis]. The significance of this observation is that Paul does not allow any Christian to make food a matter of Christian concern; he does not even do that in Rom. 14, where he does allow people their differences in such matters.^[6]

My broad summary of Essay Three (1 Cor. 8:1-11:1) is as follows:

1. Consumption of sacrificial meat should not concern Christians, wherever it occurs, except…
   1. Eating as a part of idol worship is prohibited
   2. And when an unbeliever points out the sacrificial meat to you
2. Don’t make eating and drinking a “test of Christian fellowship”
3. In all things, keep mission to “the other” your foremost concern – as far as it is in your power, do nothing to offend them and do everything allowable to integrate with them, so that your actions and words will be seen as God’s glory and gospel

I return to the words of Gordon Fee as in his wrap up of this passage:

Despite this passage, the issue of personal freedom in matters that are adiaphora [nonessentials], and the limitation of freedom for the sake of others, continue to haunt the church. Usually the battle rages over what constitutes adiaphora. Conservatives on these issues simply fail to reckon with how "liberal" Paul's own view really is. Hence Paul is seldom heard for the sake of traditional regulations. On the other hand, the assertion of freedom to the hurt of others is not the biblical view either. However, in most contemporary settings the "offended" are not unbelievers or new Christians, but those who tend to confuse their own regulations with the eternal will of God.^[7]

---

^[1] “Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values… favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.” Via Google search “define liberal.”

^[2] New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle, entry for 1 Cor. 10:26.

^[3] NICNT, entry for 1 Cor. 10:28b-29a.

^[4] Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes. Kenneth Bailey discusses why “the other” is a better translation than “neighbor” and how this term means those outside one’s own family, tribe, ethnicity, and religion. Kindle edition, locations 3328-3339.

^[5] NICNT, entry for 1 Cor. 10:28b-29a.

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] NICNT, entry for 1 Cor. 11:1.