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.

Essay 3—Freedom and Responsibility—(5) No Identification in Mission

Outline: 019-E3.5-No Identification
Passage: 1 Corinthians 10:14-22
Discussion Audio (54m)

What is Idolatry?

When we sit down to partake of Thanksgiving dinner, we in America don’t worry that somehow the turkey was first offered to idols to be blessed and think that somehow a demonic presence might have become a part of the flesh as a result. Or when we go to restaurants we don’t worry that in the front of the room is a altar where all the food is first offered to idols and blessed, the wait staff perform a ritual over them as we watch, and then they are cooked and offered to us.

This is the reality that was an everyday affair for the church in Corinth. This is the context to which Paul writes 1 Corinthians.

We have no way of truly identifying with the thoughts and emotions of the Corinthian believers. So it is easy to dismiss today’s passage as irrelevant to us. Or we reinterpret idolatry in a more general sense – which isn’t necessarily wrong, but I believe ends up missing Paul’s intent. For example, the consumerism, wealth, and preoccupation with material acquisitions during this time of year might lead to associating these things with idolatry of wealth. Idolatry can certainly be associated with wealth, but I don’t think this is a proper application of Paul’s words in our passage for today.

Paul affirms two spiritual realities: God’s and everything else. Paul’s words are directed against spiritual ideas, traditions, and practices that lead a person into communion with a spiritual reality that is opposed to God (which Paul describes as “communion with demons”). Here again the problem is that although most Christians still affirm two opposing spiritual realities, we really don’t live in an environment where reminders of these realities surround us.

The challenge for us is to find a way to bring home Paul’s message into our context without compromising his intent.

Throughout this third essay Paul’s concern has been around the issue of effectiveness in mission. He has written that the default position is to “become weak,” to become in need, and integrate into the community to become an incarnational missionary. He then wrote that some practices – those that are true to Christ and are reminders of his work – are appropriate to adopt and maintain, provided they do not become “magical” ends in themselves.

In today’s passage Paul writes about cultural practices that Christians ought never adopt. These are practices that are antithetical to the nature of Christ – his love, his compassion, grace, free-will, humility, faith. These are practices that if adopted by Christians and the church, will lead the community away from Christ and into the realm of “demons” – law over love, dogma over compassion, formulaic propositional “truths” over grace, manipulation and coercion over free-will, authoritarianism over humility, certainty over faith.

We might wish that Paul left a more concrete list of things to avoid, but he didn’t. No, what he left were principles by which we are left to judge for ourselves (v15) as we encounter our own questions about what practices to adopt and what to avoid. What will build up the community of Christ? What will destroy? What is motivated by love? What is motivated by self-interest?

Essay 3—Freedom and Responsibility—(4) Partial Identification in Mission

Outline: 018-E3.4-Partial Identification
Passage: 1 Corinthians 10:1-13
Discussion Audio (1h33m)

Sacraments are Reminders of Your Identity

If we are truly honest with ourselves, most (all?) of us would prefer a magical religion; a happily-ever-after, fairytale religion – a religion where a deity magically makes everything better and we are lifted out of all the trials and temptations of life. If we can’t have that, the next best religion is the kind where everything is prescribed: follow these exact steps and you can better the odds of blessings. We prefer religions that can do something for us.

Some of the Christians in Corinth seemed to hold to a magical view of Christian sacraments. They apparently thought that Baptism and Eucharist conferred some kind of divine warding against paganism and idolatry. Thus, they reasoned, it no longer mattered where and what they ate and drank, or whether or not they participated in some of the pagan temple rituals, as long as they continued to observe Christian sacraments. Not only that but they were trying to force this magical view as “Christian” upon others who had questions and reservations about this line of reasoning and action.

In today’s passage – 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 – Paul works through Hebrew history of the exodus to correct the errant view of sacraments. He writes, by analogy, how the Israelites were afforded experiencing the great sacraments of miraculous deliverance and provisions, yet most failed to respond in an appropriate manner to these sacramental signs. Paul writes that those in Corinth, because of their erroneous reasoning, are likewise in danger of failing to fulfill the purposes that God desires for and through them. Paul explains that the sacraments are not magic that provides benefits to those who participate in them, but rather, the sacraments are reminders of what God has done for them in the past and present reminders of who they are in Christ: the sacraments have no innate magic or even value. They are reminders that we are nothing apart from Christ.

We can easily turn our religious beliefs and traditions into magical wishes, or idolatry.

Jews thought of idolatry as a matter of worshiping the wrong gods, and therefore something that only Gentiles could do. Paul thought more deeply on the matter. He saw that idolatry was a disease of human freedom, found as widely among Jews as among Gentiles. Idolatry begins where faith begins, in the perception of human existence as contingent and needy. But whereas faith accepts such contingency as also a gift from a loving creator from whom both existence and worth derive, idolatry refuses a dependent relationship on God. It seeks to establish one's own existence and worth apart from the claim of God by effort and striving ("works '') of one's own.^[1]

Whenever we look upon beliefs and traditions as somehow granting, or helping us to maintain, a right relationship (righteousness) with God, we turn religion into an idol whereby we try take control of how God relates to us and to other people; i.e., idolatry.

“No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Cor. 10:13 ESV)

This is a text that is too frequently misunderstood and misapplied. Understanding the Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians explains,

Dealt with in isolation from the passage in which it occurs, this verse is sometimes turned into a quasitheological philosophical explanation of human suffering, evil, and divine will. The statement is elaborate and does perhaps invite such exposition and speculation. Yet, one must see that this verse is not an isolated philosophical statement that purports to delineate intricate facets of life. Paul speaks to the Corinthians in context: They are arrogant, overly self-confident, believing themselves to be "standing firm." But, Paul says, "Watch out!" The Corinthians are not above the unpleasant complications of normal human existence, and facing that fact they have one hope: the faithfulness of God. God is trustworthy, and even if the situation seems impossible, nothing is beyond God's power and grace. When the Corinthians confront times of trouble they should not deny their susceptibility to temptation or trust their own superspirituality to see them through. Rather, they need to remember, to know, and to act on the one ultimate assurance that is their real security: God is faithful. The tendency to overread this verse is a temptation within itself, but despite the mysterious matters that it raises, the plain sense of the verse is a call to recognize and to trust God.^[2]

When seen in context, verse 13 contains words of encouragement specifically in regards to the tension that Christians face when dealing with the question of how best to “become weak” and “identify fully” with those whom they are called to minister to. The text is not a blanket promise that Christians will never face any trials or temptations beyond their ability to cope.

What the text, in context, promises is that in mission work Christians will be given wisdom and strength to avoid succumbing to idolatry. The text does not promise that difficulties in making appropriate decisions will be magically removed. Rather the text implies that mission work will always involve difficult issues. The promise is that Christians will be “able to endure it” because God is faithful. This returns to the end of chapter 9 where Paul wrote about discipline: effective mission work requires great energy and discipline. In 10:13 Paul writes that God will reward those who discipline themselves for mission with the strength to sort out the tensions such work involves.

Christianity does not promise magic for us.
It promises the faithfulness of God and the strength to endure
so that Christians can be effective in their incarnational ministry
for others.

---

^[1] Reading the New Testament Series: Romans, entry for Romans 3:9.

^[2] Understanding the Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians, entry for 1 Cor. 10:13.

Essay 3—Freedom and Responsibility—(3) Full Identification in Mission

Outline: 017-E3.3-Full Identification
Passage: 1 Corinthians 9:19-27
Discussion Audio (1h05m)

Flexibility requires enormous effort and discipline

In my experience, the passage for today – 1 Corinthians 9:19-27 – is frequently treated as two separate topics: 1) vv.19-22 dealing with how Christians need to adapt their behaviors and message to their audience; and 2) vv.23-27 dealing with how Christians need to discipline themselves so that they will receive the “prize” and not be “disqualified.”

The problem with looking at this passage as two separate topics is that v.23 begins, “I [Paul] do it all for the gospel…” Paul refers to his words regarding adaptation as the goal of his discipline. When seen this way, the commonly given interpretation of “prize” as heaven/eternal life/salvation no longer makes much sense.

Christians often have trouble with the first part as well. Paul seems a bit wishy-wash, an accommodationist. “Why can’t he be consistent in his behaviors?” we might ask. Or, “Why can’t he stick to his principles?” – if he really believes the Torah has no bearing on salvation and righteousness, why does he admit to kowtowing to the Jews?

The range of interpretations that has been suggested by commentators is remarkable, moving from an understanding of Paul as being totally selfless—perhaps in a psychologically unhealthy manner indicative of a loss of identity—to the contention that Paul was an opportunist in his dealings with potential converts. Careful reading of the text, however, indicates that such extreme interpretations are stereotyped, falling short of full comprehension of the subtlety of Paul's methods of mission and ministry.^[1]

To put it in more contemporary terms, when he was among Jews he was kosher; when he was among Gentiles he was non-kosher—precisely because, as with circumcision, neither mattered to God (cf. 7:19; 8:8). But such conduct tends to matter a great deal to the religious—on either side!—so that inconsistency in such matters ranks among the greatest of evils… The difference, therefore, between his own behavior and that of his social companions is not in the behavior itself, which will be identical to the observer, but in the reasons for it. The latter abstain because they are “under the law”; it is a matter of religious obligation. Paul abstains because he loves those under the law and wants to win them to Christ. Despite appearances, the differences are as night and day.^[2]

The first part of today’s passage is Paul’s defense of his approach to mission. He will go as far as he must to become “weak,” to participate in the incarnational mission pattern of Jesus, to be among the people, to identify with them. Paul will not serve from a position power.

D. T. Niles of Sri Lanka wrote, “To serve from a position of power is not true service but beneficence… We run schools, hospitals, orphanages, agricultural farms, etc. But what we do not adequately realize is that these institutions are not only avenues of Christian service but are also sources of secular strength. Because of them, we can offer patronage, control employment, and sometimes make money. The result is that the rest of the community learn to look on the Church with jealousy, sometimes with fear, and sometimes even with suspicion.^[3]

The second part of today’s passage is actually Paul’s description of how he is able to work cross-culturally. It has nothing to do with personal salvation or his own eternal life. The “prize” is the progress of the gospel. Paul writes here of acquiring and maintaining skills and abilities that will allow him to become a part of each people group that he goes to. Paul writes of the tremendous effort, energy, and discipline that is required to work cross-culturally.

“Disqualification” is not a loss of salvation, eternal life, or heaven. It is about not being fit enough to participate in mission work that Paul was commissioned to do.

With the Isthmian Games sponsored by the city of Corinth, the citizens of that city could not help being fully aware of the time commitments and energy required to complete in those games. Paul builds on that awareness and tells his readers that the same level of discipline is required to cross cultural lines in the name of Christ…

Paul is not talking about ascetic disciplines, he is discussing the high commitment required if one is to successfully cross cultural barriers in the name of Christ. He is discussing mission…

He warns his readers that the task of “all things to all people” takes enormous energy He is discussing the cost of crosscultural, incarnational mission…

Language, culture, history, art, literature, politics, worldview, music, civil unrest and war—all must be experienced, comprehended and embraced if one is to effectively enter into another culture.^[4]

According to this passage, the purpose of spiritual disciplines is not for yourself.

1. Discipleship and spiritual disciplines aren’t about me. It’s not spiritual self-improvement to express gratitude, to keep in Jesus’ good graces, to prove that I really belong, or even to be a better evangelist and witness (at least not in the usual way of thinking about it).
2. Spiritual disciplines are about learning and finding ways to partner with God’s Spirit in the work of the gospel that is already happening.
3. Spiritual disciplines are less about an individual’s personal spiritual condition and more about how to benefit others.
4. You don’t have to participate – you can be a spectator. Your salvation isn’t the issue. But you might lose out on the greater joy and satisfaction of going beyond the minimum call.
5. Spiritual disciplines include more than just the usual prayer, Bible study, and church attendance. It can and should include learning about anthropology, psychology, sociology, history, literature, music, arts, language, mythology, sciences, pop culture, etc. Anything that will help you integrate better with the people you have been sent to.

Paul does not argue that he “must become all things to all people” so that the gospel can receive a hearing and be accepted. For him, God, through the gospel, was already at work across cultural lines and he wanted to become its partner. The gospel train was moving and he could jump on or get left behind.^[5]

---

^[1] Understanding the Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians, entry in section 25 (1 Cor. 9:19-23).

^[2] NICNT, 1 Cor. 9:20.

^[3] Bailey, location 2995.

^[4] Bailey, locations 3043, 3048, 3065, 3069.

^[5] Bailey, location 3031.