... a fond farewell ... not so fast. 1 Corinthians 16.

As we've traveled through the New Testament together this year, whenever we reach the end of longish book like 1 Corinthians, I tend to think about the last blog entry like some of the early travelogues that filled local television time when I was growing up. Most of them were really hokey, not much more than a cut above home movies. Of course some shows rose above the typical ones and were the precursors to "Nature," and "Globe Trekker," and "The Discovery Channel."

But the early, local shows typically ended like this. "And so, as the sun sinks slowly into the west, we bid a fond farewell to the lovely island nation of (___ fill in the blank ____)." So how about this for the start of the blog entry for today:

And so, as we turn the last page of Paul's letter to the church in Corinth, we bid a fond farewell to that quirky group who fussed over hair and meat, and sued one another, was soft on sinning brothers and hard on outsiders, and rebellious toward Paul in general. Tomorrow we'll visit ... Corinth again. That's kind of fun.

The other thought that usually strikes me at the end of the letters, is how much these really are letters. "Say hi to Fred. Rosy and her niece are well and wish they could see you. Blessings to one and all." In Paul's case he adds a curse for those who don't love the Lord, so that's a bit unusual, although not for his day -- blessings and curses went hand in hand, so to speak.

I'd like to leave this letter, and the Corinthians for today, with Paul's thought expressed at the very end of the letter. It comes immediately after the curse. "Our Lord, Come!" (v.16:22b). Most of us have Bibles with some amount of footnotes, and so we read that this is a transliteration of an Aramaic phrase. A transliteration is not a translation, but a representation of letters or words from one language, in the corresponding characters of another alphabet. The Word of the Day in the right column uses transliteration to represent the Greek words in English letters. In this case, the Greek letters would be transliterated into English like this: marana tha. That's the sound of the Greek, which in turn is the sound of the Aramaic. In our English Bibles it's translated as above, "Our Lord, Come!"

But if you look closely at two words and combine them -- it's maranatha. I recognize that. Maranatha! Hippies, Jesus freaks, contemporary worship music, agape feasts.

Interestingly enough, the Greek words could possibly also be a transliteration of maran atha, which in Aramaic means something like "Our Lord has come!" Both are true, and wouldn't it be interesting if Paul dictated the Greek to reflect both the past arrival and future coming of Jesus.

And as we bid a fond farewell to the Corinthians, "may love be with you in Christ Jesus."

In short... 1 Corinthians 15.

It's pretty obvious that in the letter Paul received from the church at Corinth, someone must have asked about whether there really is a resurrection of the dead. Or asked about someone who was teaching this. Paul's answer and supporting argument is very extended, and in it he almost teases us with certain theological ideas. I'll get to those in a moment.

Paul begins by reminding the Corinthians why they're even communicating with Paul -- the good news. In a litany like way he states that good news: Christ died for our sins, was buried, and is raised on the third day. (Yes, the Greek means "is raised or has been raised.") He appeared to many, including finally, Paul. Since the Corinthians can't deny this good news, Paul then argues for the resurrection of the dead, on the basis that Jesus was/is resurrected. And it's our belief in this good news, that appropriates the gift of Jesus' sacrifice and saves us. All attested to by scriptures and by witnesses.
That seems pretty straightforward, but Paul likes to, "Dog pile on the rabbit." And as with so many of Paul's other arguments, there are the teasers. For example, in verse 29 Paul writes, "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?" Baptized for the dead? Hmmmm. What's that all about? Quick, consult the thesaurus, find the Greek words, use the Google. Well, there is lots of speculation, and most assuredly we can't tell from Paul's reference whether he actually approved of the practice, but in the end, I'm left with this answer -- I don't know.

Here's another. In verse 2, Paul writes, "by which [the gospel] you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message I preached to you – unless you believed in vain." Two questions arise from that: "Aren't we already saved?"; and "What does Paul mean by 'in vain?'" I'll save writing about the former until we read 1 Peter. As to the latter, there are at least two ways of translating the Greek. One implies that the person never really believed, and the other that the belief was in vain if the gospel isn't true. In either case, you're not being saved.

There are a couple of other teasers inside this chapter, but I'll leave them for you to discover and wrestle with. After all these supporting arguments in favor of the resurrection of the dead, we get to Paul's practical advice, based on the implications in the good news. It's the bottom line, and I want to quote once again from Andy Gaus' translation, because of the phrase he uses conveys that bottom line quality better than the usual translations of "so then" and "therefore." Verse 58: "In short, my dear brothers and sisters, be firm, immovable, contributing generously to the Lord's work always, knowing that your labors don't count for nothing in the Lord."

Thanks for that advice Paul. Sometimes we get too carried away worrying about the non-essentials. In short, Christ died and was raised, so get to work. Got it.

Uncomfortable and confusing words. 1 Corinthians 14.

There's more to deal with in this chapter concerning the role of women in church, and the meaning and utility of speaking in tongues. I claim blogger's prerogative, and will avoid those issues, except for this one verse that confused me in a dyslexic sort of way. The verse is 14:22 (updated incorrect verse reference). It reads: "So then, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers."

That seems straightforward enough. Backwards, but straightforward enough. I read that verse as saying tongues aren't a sign for believers -- they already believe, so when they see someone actually speaking in tongues it's not a sign, but just something another believer is doing -- more power to them. But an unbeliever would see this as an indication of God's power being manifested in someone.

However, Paul goes on to say, "Prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. So if the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and unbelievers or uninformed people enter, will they not say that you have lost your minds? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or uninformed person enters, he will be convicted by all, he will be called to account by all. The secrets of his heart are disclosed, and in this way he will fall down with his face to the ground and worship God, declaring, 'God is really among you.'"

So is speaking in tongues a sign for believers or not? Eventually I figured out my problem. Typically when Jesus performed a miracle, those who witnessed it saw it as a sign of His authority. But what about the one who received the miracle, say the 10 lepers who were cleansed. They experienced the power of God working through Jesus, not as mere observers, but actually transforming them physically, emotionally, and/or spiritually. Aha! When Paul meant speaking in tongues was a sign to unbelievers he meant that if an unbeliever began speaking in tongues it would be a sign because he was directly experiencing God's power. No place for skepticism or cynicism. 'No, I'm not drunk or on drugs -- God did this somehow.'

Once that was cleared up in my brain, much of what Paul was saying slipped into place. He wasn't opposed to tongues, but the Corinthians were abusing the practice. As usual he lays out several arguments to support his position, not the least of which is that he once again argues from a place of knowledge and experience greater than most. So consider him an expert when it comes to tongues, and realize that:

• prophesy is superior because it builds up many (v.3-5)
• pray for an interpretation (v.13)
• don't be mindless (v.14-19)
• it should be orderly (v.27,28)
• don't let the women sp...

Wait a minute, I said I wasn't going there. See you Sunday.

Do you... I do. 1 Corinthians 13.

When was the last time you heard someone read from this chapter of Corinthians? "Love is patient, it is not envious." I'm going to guess that most people would say in answer to that question, "at a wedding." It certainly makes sense to quote these exquisite, godly thoughts on love during a wedding ceremony, but Paul wrote these words to be read in the Corinthian church. The same church that was divided, tolerant of deliberate sinners, suing one another, and unclear on fundamental issues such as eating meat sacrificed to idols and the proper preparation for celebrating the Lord's supper.

Love is over all. We can't hear that enough. Grace and mercy are rooted in love. God's love for His creation manifested itself in the call of Abraham out of Ur and a voluntary binding in a covenant relationship, with Noah, Abraham, Israel, Joshua, David, Ezra, and finally with all of us. All of the law is summed up in love -- for God and for one another. Faith and hope over any gifting, but love supreme over all.

One of the metaphors for the church is the bride of Christ. Bride, not wife. So maybe we always hear 1 Corinthians 13 at a figurative wedding. Before repeating your vows once again to Jesus our Lord, listen to what Paul wrote about love, as translated by Andy Gaus.

   If I speak the tongues of mortals and angels, but have no love, that makes me a trumpet-blast or a cymbal-crash. And if I have the gift of prophecy and know all the mysteries and possess all knowledge and have faith enough to move mountains, but have no love, I'm nothing. And if I turn all my possessions into bread for the poor and deliver up my body for my greater glory hereafter, but have no love, it does me no good.
   Love can wait; love has a heart. Love doesn't begrudge, doesn't brag, isn't inflated, doesn't act crude, doesn't take advantage, doesn't pick fights, doesn't plot evil, and takes no delight in doing harm, but delights together in the truth. It is always accepting, always believing, always hoping, always enduring. Love never fails.

Paul's blog. 1 Corinthians 12.

Could Paul have used a blog? After reading chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians, I was thinking about how many words it took for Paul to make his point about the value of each member of the church. Blogs lend themselves to a short form of writing. Some of the best and most frequently visited blogs have brief entries, and use the ability to hyperlink to other web locations as a way to expand the delivery of information without writing more words.

This blog is usually far too wordy. But the flip side of a blog is that the page has virtually unlimited expansion capabilities. So there aren't any limits to the word count. Imagine Paul unrestricted by parchment size. In the Old Testament there are the books called 1st and 2nd Kings and 1st and 2nd Chronicles. Without a limit in the size of a scroll, these would be single books.

I think Paul would have taken advantage of the ability to easily create and transmit pictures.

“If the whole body were an eye, what part would do the hearing? If the whole were an ear, what part would exercise the sense of smell? But as a matter of fact, God has placed each of the members in the body just as he decided. If they were all the same member, where would the body be? So now there are many members, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I do not need you,' nor in turn can the head say to the foot, 'I do not need you.'”

He could have used hyperlinks, tying thoughts written in one place with his other writings. (This is what cross references are for in our Bibles, but in this case they would be from the author. Click on the link to see what I mean.)

“Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit.”

And he absolutely could have used the interactive nature of the web in general, and a blog in particular, to quickly clear up any misunderstandings in communication.

Spiritual Gifts
Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit.

Comments.
Why do the prophetic speakers think they're better than those of us who aren't?

Is it true that healers have a special gift from God?

As someone who heals, I just want to say that I feel specially gifted. I wish others would just stay away from me though. I get really tired of all the requests for help.

Paul sez:
In answer to all your comments, let me say it again, "Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit." It's God's Spirit in all gifting. Let me add: "And there are different ministries, but the same Lord. And there are different results, but the same God who produces all of them in everyone." It's all about God, and you don't want to let a gift from God become a source of division or hierarchy or disagreement. If your gift seems like a burden, keep this in mind: "To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit of all." Here's how it works.: "For one person is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, and another the message of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another performance of miracles, to another prophecy, and to another discernment of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. It is one and the same Spirit, distributing as he decides to each person, who produces all these things."

Got it now?

In a sense, our job in understanding what Paul wrote, is to try and figure out what the comments were that led to Paul's answers in this letter. It would have been easy if this were Paul's blog. But we still have hints within Paul's writing as to what questions were in the letter he's responding to.

Here are a couple more thoughts about the chapter, to prompt your own thoughts. Put the description of gifting in the perspective of both chapters 11 and 13. Chapter 11 is about disruption of the gatherings of the church, and chapter 13 puts all gifting underneath the manifestation of faith, hope, and, love, with love as the greatest. Also, notice how many times Paul reiterates the source of the gifts -- the Spirit.

And finally, remember that even a surfing eyeball needs legs and feet.

Uncomfortable words. 1 Corinthians 11.

I ran into a woman today, who in a jokingly sarcastic tone said something like, "Thanks a lot. I just read chapter 11 and now I have to deal with this all over again." This being the instruction for women contained in the chapter, and the seeming description of a hierarchical relationship between men and women. Much harm has been done down through the centuries with justification from this passage, and a couple others. (In the same way slavery was justified from Paul's writing in chapter 7.)

There isn't enough space on this blog, or time for me to write it, to do a full justification to this passage, so I'm going to suggest a couple of ideas for you to think about.

1. What is the relationship, if any, between eating the meat sacrificed to idols, and the admonition for women to have their heads covered? How do we apply the former to our lives, and do we apply the latter in the same way? Why or why not?
   
2. What does it mean for God to be the head of Christ? Is this about authority?
3. What is the context in which the instructions given in v.11:2-16? In particular, what teachings follow these verses and how would you group them all together?

This would be a great day to start a conversation in the comments.

Comforting words versus words of comfort. 1 Corinthians 10.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Today I'm going to make a somewhat arbitrary distinction between two phrases, although the concepts behind the distinction are valid. Just call me Humpty Dumpty.

1 Corinthians 10:13 is an oft-quoted verse. usually intended to provide "words of comfort." Paul probably intended them that way. When I say "words of comfort" I choose for them to mean this: truths that apply to a difficult situation which are intended to bolster someone in that difficult situation. Typically these words include advice, even if the advice is only "remember that this is true." Here are a few sayings that are sometimes used as words of comfort:

• There are plenty of fish in the sea.
• Time heals all wounds.
• It hurts now, but it'll get better.
• "No trial has overtaken you that is not faced by others. And God is faithful: He will not let you be tried beyond what you are able to bear, but with the trial will also provide a way out so that you may be able to endure it." (1 Corinthians 10:13 NET)

Sometimes words of comfort -- aren't. At least not at the moment they are expressed. That is the distinction I want to draw by using the phrase, "comforting words." I am using that phrase to express this idea: comforting words are primarily sympathetic words given to someone in a difficult situation. These words are less likely to contain a truth to be absorbed, beyond the establishment or reminder of relationship and empathy. Comforting words may not even be verbal, but expressed in an arm around a shoulder, or two hands holding two hands. It's also true that we sometimes use comforting words awkwardly so that they, too, aren't comforting.

But given equal intelligence and empathy in their use, comforting words of sympathy and understanding (which are almost never, "I understand.") will almost always provide comfort, while words of comfort may be perfectly true, yet not provide the comfort intended.

I think this has something to do with the immediacy of the pain, and the intensity of the moment. When someone has just lost a job it's probably not be the best time to remind them that God doesn't allow trials beyond their ability to bear. While it is true, and it will be a help, perhaps, at some point, even a truth they will attest to when they're on the other side of the trial, the moment of initial pain calls for comforting words, the arm around the shoulder, an offered prayer, someone who will listen in love and respect. (Guys can do this too, even if it's nothing more elegant than, "Oh man, that's rough," followed by a listening attitude.) Later, as the initial intensity and immediacy of the situation wears off, Paul's words of comfort may be just that.

It is good to remember that God is faithful. It is good to know that no trial is unbearable. It is good to be encouraged to look for the way(s) that God is providing to endure the trial.

It's especially good to discover these words and truths before you actually need them.

Rocky, the Apostle. 1 Corinthians 9.

"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle?" - Paul

"Who's got the right to tell you that, who? Nobody! It's your[my] right to listen to your gut, it ain't nobody's right to say no after you earned the right to be where you want to be and do what you want to do!" - Rocky Balboa

***

"So run to win. ... exercise self-control in everything." - Paul

"Cause all I wanna do is go the distance. Nobody's ever gone the distance with Creed. And if I can go that distance, ya see, and that bell rings, ya know, and I'm still standin', I'm gonna know for the first time in my life, ya see, that I weren't just another bum from the neighborhood." - Rocky Balboa

***

"So I do not run uncertainly or box like one who hits only air. Instead I subdue my body and make it my slave ..." - Paul

"You, me or nobody is going to hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard you hit, it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much can you take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!" - Rocky Balboa

Disciple = Disciplined.

It's the principle of the thing. 1 Corinthians 8.

I really like this section of Paul's letter, for one very specific reason. As I (you/we?) begin the chapter, I'm thinking, "What in the world does food given to idols have to do with me?" And by the end of the chapter, Paul gives me (you/us) the answer: "If you sin against your brothers or sisters in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. For this reason, if food causes my brother or sister to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause one of them to sin." (1 Corinthians 8:12-13)

Paul answers the very specific question of how to deal with food given to idols, by applying a general principle to the problem. And then he describes that general principle, and how he would apply it. In this case, the principle has to do with making sure we don't lead our sisters and brothers in the faith into some area of thought or behavior that for them, would be a sin. Or would exploit a weakness of theirs, or lead them into temptation. (Remember what Jesus taught us to pray?)

The simplest way to understand this is to take the issue of drinking alcohol -- should I drink or shouldn't I? Paul would say that there are those for whom drinking a glass or two of wine at dinner, for example, is perfectly acceptable. But if that same individual had a recovering alcoholic over for dinner, drinking that wine would now be wrong.

Sometimes what we read in the Bible is just as foreign as the question of eating food sacrificed to idols, but we don't have a general principle to connect it to written in the text. In that case, it's our job to be like Paul. It usually begins with the same question that I asked at the start of this passage: "What does ___________________ have to do with me?" Only now, we have to discover the answer, like Paul did. And then apply it to our own lives, like Paul did.

How about we watch for an occurrence like that as we continue to read through the New Testament and talk more about the process when we find one?

Oh yeah, we shouldn't forget what Paul said at the outset -- acting out of love beats acting out of knowledge, which is the starting point for his understanding. Again, consider the situation with alcohol. We might know that alcohol is permissible. We might know that our alcoholic friend could rationally understand why they shouldn't drink. But the loving act is to just take it out of the equation.

Follow Paul's example. 1 Corinthians 7.

In several of Paul's letters he suggests to the readers that if they're having trouble knowing what to do, or trouble keeping God's commands, then they should remember how Paul acted while among them. To the Philippians, for example, he said, "Be imitators of me, brothers and sisters, and watch carefully those who are living this way, just as you have us as an example." (Phil. 3:17). To his commissioned teachers, Timothy and Titus, he wrote that they should live exemplary lives.

In looking at 1 Corinthians 7, Paul once again refers to his own life as a way to think about how to live. In this case, which has to do with whether or not to live unmarried, he doesn't insist that people follow his example, unless they are able to. But this is not the example I want to briefly discuss.

The example I'm interested in is the distinction Paul makes between teachings from the Lord, and his own recommendations. Paul has been asked one or more questions about sexual relations, and as a part of his answer in verse 10, he says, "To the married I give this command – not I, but the Lord..." He then gives the command which comes directly from Jesus' teaching on divorce. In verse 11, he says, "To the rest I say – I, not the Lord..." Paul then gives his recommendation in an area where there is no direct teaching from Jesus or scripture, because this situation had never arisen before -- believers in Jesus married to non-believers. No doubt Paul's recommendation is based on Biblical principles, but he is careful to distinguish his advice from the direct teachings of the Lord.

Later, in verse 25, Paul once again gives advice and marks it as coming from himself. As Paul says, this doesn't make it binding, but it does carry the weight of Paul's trustworthiness as an apostle to the Gentiles.

Churches with a heritage in the Restoration Movement, take this example seriously. We teach it in this way:

• You can say:
• The Bible says... (if it does)
• I think this means...
• I believe... (in my opinion, etc.)
• You must... (to a Christian, quoting scripture)
• You can't say (if not quoting scripture):
• The Bible says...
• You have to believe...
• You have to...

Basically, the idea is to make sure you identify opinion as opinion, distinguishing opinion from what the Bible says. This gives us a certain amount of freedom to disagree, because we're clearly identifying opinion. In no case should these disagreements lead to division. By recognizing opinion as opinion, as Paul did here, enough of the passion (hopefully) is removed from the discussion, preventing division. Both the idea of disagreement without division, and the distinction between opinion and clear Biblical teaching come from this letter to Corinth. Which is pretty cool.

If you'd like to comment on the rest of the text, and the content of Paul's teaching instead of his example, go ahead, and I'll participate with you. Otherwise, for those in the 5x5 class, we'll get into the meat of this chapter on Sunday.

In the interest of brevity. 1 Corinthians 6.

Settle your disputes with fellow Christians within the community.

Don't distort the truth of freedom in Christ to justify immoral behavior. In particular, stay clear of the corrupting influence of sexual immorality.

Any questions?

Sidebar -- God's temple #2.
The Greek here indicates that Paul is now talking about each individual as a temple of God's spirit. In this letter, then, we have a dual understanding of God's indwelling of individuals and of us collectively. Recognition of this fact should moderate our behavior as individuals and as a community.

But they're my friends. 1 Corinthians 5.

This chapter has a really simple message, but somehow I'm unable to write it in less words than Paul. Here's attempt #4, the others salvaged as teaching notes for some other time.

Paul says that separation is what has to happen when members of the community continue to live immorally. This is the final act of discipline within the community, and a way to protect the community from the influence (leaven) of those living immorally. He says that we're not to attempt separation from those outside the community who are immoral. There would be no place to go, and it's not our responsibility to judge them.

Now let me ask you a question or two. Who would you tend to cut the most slack? Someone in your church who is an incorrigible gossip, or a lesbian couple who you find out own your favorite restaurant? Who would you distance yourself from? And who would be spoken out against in the Sunday sermon?

Paul says in this chapter that this is not the answer: "But they're my friends."

The Grups. 1 Corinthians 4.

I know many of you won't know anything about grups (except, possibly the generational label). It's the word that popped into my mind as I read 1 Corinthians 4. For those of you too young, too old, or too smart, to have watched the original Star Trek series on television, grups is a word coined by the writer of an episode called "Miri." Grup is a contraction of grown-up. Miri is in the center of the group of boys and girls in this picture, who were a cross between the "lost boys" in Peter Pan, and "Lord of the Flies."

In the Star Trek episode, the grups are feared by the children, which makes any connection between the episode and chapter 4 of this letter, almost exclusively in the domain of my mind. And now in yours. But I like the sound of the word, and chapter 4 is about grown-ups.

Yesterday, we looked at what Paul was saying about resolving the divisions in the church at Corinth. I characterized that as "grow up!" If you had any doubt about that, today we read Paul saying, 'live like me, grown up.' And Paul decides to send Timothy who, as a faithful son, must be doing that too. "I'm sending a grup."

A couple of random thoughts on this passage. First, Paul can be a harsh disciplinarian. Verses 6-13 drip with sarcasm, and then Paul says in verse 14,"I am not writing these things to shame you, but to correct you as my dear children." That correction is vigorous to say the least. He later asks if he should come with a whip. Somewhat related to this, we get a couple of indications that Paul's relationship with the Corinthians is a rocky one. "It's a minor matter to me if I'm judged by you..." and "Some have become arrogant, as if I was not coming to you..."

A third thought -- stewards are to be judged according to their faithfulness. We are all stewards, so adjust your thinking and actions accordingly. A final thought, what would it mean for Paul to come demonstrating the kingdom of God in power?

Oh yeah, one more thing. Punishment for the grups and anyone else who got out of line was invoked by chanting over and over again, "bonk, bonk."

Grow up. 1 Corinthians 3.

Bickering, fighting, lining up behind conflicting leaders, talking up one teacher, talking trash about another, caught up in the clever words of one person ignoring the real truth at the expense of the community. What's the solution?

Paul spends a good deal of time in these first three chapters of his letter describing both the causes of the strife in the church, and the contrast between those causes and the right behavior and understanding that would eliminate the division. Boiled down, the cause of the strife is rooted in leaders (and followers) enamored with their own cleverness -- what Paul calls the wisdom of the world. Earlier on the blog, I talked about rhetoric, the art of persuasion in speech and writing, as a highly valued technique of the Greek world, and how it became important in and of itself -- better to win the argument than arrive at the truth. In chapter 2, there are several clues to let us know that Paul is talking about rhetoric when he criticizes the wisdom of the world -- the use of eloquence in verse 2 and persuasive in verse 4. He also contrasts the way in which he demonstrated his message, through the power of the spirit, from the tradition demonstration used as a rhetorical technique.

If the source of the strife is this fascination with the fanciest arguments and best debaters, what's the solution? Paul reveals it in chapter three by repeating something he said earlier. My paraphrase -- just grow up. He says it in a roundabout way, but that's the message.

So, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but instead as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready. In fact, you are still not ready, for you are still influenced by the flesh. For since there is still jealousy and dissension among you, are you not influenced by the flesh and behaving like unregenerate people? (1 Corinthians 3:1-3 NET)

Earlier, Paul had said this, "Now we do speak wisdom among the mature..." and went on to describe that wisdom as the wisdom of God in opposition to the wisdom of the world. So he would speak wisdom with the Corinthians if they would just grow up. Mature spiritually. Think with the mind of Christ. But they haven't yet, and that's the source of their problem.

What's especially interesting to me, is that Paul doesn't offer much advice on how to grow up. But we can observe a couple of items. One is that Apollos is watering. That watering came in the form of apostolic teaching, Apollos having been trained to do so by Priscilla and Aquila. It's also the case that the growth comes from God, so we have to recognize that it isn't all under our control. Beyond that, however, we need to look elsewhere for help in understanding how to mature spiritually. What we can take away is the fact that growth is essential in the kingdom.

Sidebar -- God's temple #1.
I want to point out that due to the quirk in English when it comes to the word you, Paul's thought about God's temple in v.3:16 is often misunderstood. "Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit lives in you?" The yous in this verse are plural, while temple is singular. What Paul is saying is that God's temple is built from all of people of the church, His spirit dwells within us collectively, not individually. In the South, he might have said that "you all are the temple."

What did the Spirit teach you today? 1 Corinthians 2.

And we speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but with those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him.The one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. For who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him? But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:13-16 NET)

Any questions?
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK, that was snarky. It was really self-directed snark. There are mornings when after reading our passage for the day, I think, do I have anything relevant to say beyond how God's Word has spoken? Since this is a blog, its ostensible purpose is to record and share some thoughts of the poster, me, or our guests. In that sense, anything I write has some meaning, in a bloggy sense. But my desire is also that what is written here each day, will be a shared experience that adds to your own reading -- by stimulating your thinking, by modeling different ways to approach Scripture, but mostly by walking down the road talking together (even if I'm doing most of the talking.) In my mind, I picture each one of you reading through the New Testament, spending some time during the day reading the same words from God I have. I see you praying before your reading and reflecting afterwards. I see you sometimes struggling to grasp what Paul has to say, sometimes touched so deeply you may cry, and sometimes whapped up the side of the head with something you really need to get straight. And I see us in conversation sharing what happened in your reading and reflecting. Maybe you have a question for me, or want to know what happened during my reading and reflection. It's this shared experience, as virtual as it is, that takes me to the internet sometime during the day to write something.

But this happens to be one of those days when I read what Paul had to say, and I thought, God's Spirit does the real work in illuminating Scripture. We all have the mind of Christ. Some of us haven't grown up yet, as we'll see tomorrow, but maybe today is a good day to just let the Spirit speak, and get out of the way.

So that's my less snarky way of saying, any questions?

Masters of Snark.

Division - the punch. 1 Corinthians 1.

(There's a lot of setup to get to what was, for me, the punchline in today's reading. If you just want to read the punchline, skip here.)

"I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to agree together, to end your divisions, and to be united by the same mind and purpose." (1 Corinthians 1:10)

With these words, Paul launches into a lengthy call for unity in the church at Corinth, as the first of several issues and problems he addresses in this letter. The division he's addressing seems to be rooted in a very Greek practice -- the art of rhetoric, the ability to speak and write to persuade. Rhetoric and its cousin, politics, were one of the main areas of study for most of the history of western culture, from Greece onward. Paul employs the techniques of rhetoric in his letters, including this one. By which we understand that there's nothing inherently wrong with rhetoric itself. But even in Greece, the art of rhetoric came under scrutiny and criticism when it degenerated strictly into the art of persuasion and ostentation, divorced from truth.

In the latter half of this first chapter, and on into the second, Paul exposes the division in Corinth as coming from a sense of "who's the smartest kid on the block?" Enamored of human wisdom, reasoning, argumentation, and who made the most persuasive arguments, the Corinthian church had aligned themselves as followers of various teachers. And so we have Paul writing as a follow-up to his statement urging unity: Now I mean this, that each of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,” or “I am with Christ.” Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul? (v.1:12)

(Note: Some commentators think that Paul used the names he did, not because people were aligning under each of these leader/teachers, but as a way to describe the problem without naming the actual leaders causing the division.)

I can really relate to the idea of argumentation as a means of determining who's the smartest kid on the block. I used to think that it had to be me. And I'd argue to show it. And even when I say that using the past tense, I can't say I'm fully past that tendency. I still love to argue, especially in the sense of testing theses against other theses, when looking at God's Word and seeking to understand it better. Getting older has helped me understand that I'm not the smartest kid on the block, if for no other reason than I'm no longer a kid on the block. And so Paul's words at the end of this chapter, a quote from Jeremiah, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord," are like a good punch in the stomach.

Again, Paul doesn't say don't apply your mind in the exercise of your faith, and he doesn't shy away from the use of rhetorical techniques. But he cautions against the substitution of rhetorical tricks for genuine wisdom. He argues against valuing those who demonstrate rhetorical genius, or human wisdom, at the expense of God's wisdom, a wisdom demonstrated in the most unreasonable act imaginable - Christ's death on the cross. Because the Corinthians were placing value in the argumentation skills of different teachers, instead of the message they brought, there was division in the church. And Christ's church isn't supposed to about division, but about multiplication.

The punchline.
There's something very important in what Paul says in this chapter for the church today, and for our behavior toward one another. It hit me today as I read verse 12, quoted above. The shortcut quotation of verse 12, usually includes only Paul and Apollos, occasionally Peter. People talking about division in the church today might say something like, 'Remember how it was wrong that the Corinthians aligned themselves under Paul and Apollos.'

But Paul includes some who say, "I am with Christ." Whoa. Division in the church caused by those who say, "I am with Christ." He's not talking about the inevitable division between those who believe and those who don't that Jesus talked about in Luke 12, when He said He came to bring division, not peace. Paul's talking about division in the family of Christ.

And I recognize that. There are those who wield their Christianity, their knowledge, yes, even their prejudices, like a club, pounding the least deviation from what they consider the orthodox view, the view they hold. And pounding the people. I see that in those who hold to the King James translation as the only one correct translation. (And while I respect some of the thinking behind that viewpoint, and would never want to break fellowship with anyone over the issue, the precise point is that some are radical enough to think they should break fellowship with those who don't agree.) The same holds for many theological viewpoints that are held with such rigidity in areas that are both non-essential, and inconclusive from the Bible.

I recognize that attitude. "Well, I follow Christ." Implying the ones they disagree with don't. The most direct corollary to what Paul was talking about in Corinth are the people who attack various Christian leaders from Billy Graham to Chuck Smith (founder of Calvary Chapel) to Rick Warren, often with great venom. This is not to say that there are no false teachers, or false doctrines out there. There are all too many. But for all of them, there are thousands of sincere, upright women and men of God, serving Him, and doing so without 100% agreement amongst themselves on every issue of doctrine. And we're all capable of goofing up from time to time, in our understanding of Scripture, in our handling of relationship, in misplaced priorities, and in poor choices. Love and grace should be the defining characteristics of our relationship with brothers and sisters in Christ, and humility in our own estimation of what we know.

The correct answer, as Paul says, is that we are baptized in Christ, not Paul. We're not followers of Billy Graham, nor should we be detractors of Billy Graham. So... "I follow Christ," is the right answer, but only when that's what we really mean -- with no further divisive implications.

So act with care. As Paul said, "I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to agree together, to end your divisions, and to be united by the same mind and purpose."