May 20, 2016  1 Corinthians 12:18-13-3

Two obstacles (at least) confront an inductive study of this passage.  First, the passage is (for many Christians) relatively familiar.  Sermons or books or Sunday School classes have provided some understanding (or at least “hearsay impressions”) of how spiritual gifts fit into the life of a church.  Familiarity often (maybe not always) makes inductive study more difficult.  If we already know what the passage says (or think we do) we focus on those truths and may miss new insights from the text.  The second obstacle is the popularity of the topic.  Most people are very interested in spiritual gifts, and their focus is naturally drawn to the list of gifts, what the gifts are, how they are exercised, etc.  Once again we might miss other details of the passage.  How do we get past those potential obstacles? Continue reading →

May 20, 2016  1 Corinthians 12:18-13-3

The Corinthians seem to find unlimited reasons for division among themselves.  Maybe that divisiveness came from living in a culture of multiple deities and a variety of worship cults.  Everyone was distinguished by which idols they worshiped.  The diversity of spiritual gifts could provide just one more schism to add to the list.  Paul wants them to understand how contrary that is to the Christian unity.  Their unity is based on the unity in diversity displayed by the Trinity – one Spirit, one Lord, one God the Father.  This passage continues that theme with the emphasis on an undivided body.  See what you can discover from this passage.  Maybe our discussion group this week will be an example of just what Paul is describing.

May 13, 2016  1 Corinthians 12:1-20

How many sermons or Sunday School lessons have you heard on 1 Corinthians 12:4-20 about spiritual gifts?  And how many on the first three verses of the passage?  One of the advantages of an inductive-study discussion group is that we get to explore unfamiliar parts of familiar passages.  The discussion on this passage was a great example of that benefit.

Paul starts out the passage with a reference to spiritual gifts (v. 1).  His “Now concerning” (peri de, Περὶ δὲ) transitions seem to mark topics that the Corinthians had specifically asked him to help them with (1 Corinthians 7:1; cf. 7:25, 8:1 as well as this passage).  We don’t know exactly what they asked, but we have Paul’s extended response on this subject (1 Corinthians 12-14).  After our discussion on the passage I suggest that we learned something about what the Corinthians were asking.

In order to answer their questions about spiritual gifts, he first brings up what might have been an uncomfortable memory, their pagan past.[1]  A question came up about the meaning of pagan.  Was that the same as atheist?  We talked a bit about the categories Paul might have had in mind – Jew and Gentile (essentially everybody else, all non-Jews).  Gentiles, those not part of the Jewish race, could have a variety of religious views.  Monotheists were non-Jews who still worshiped one God.  Atheists believed there was no God at all, and polytheists believed in multiple gods.  “Pagans” would be followers of polytheistic or pantheistic religions.  They had not been atheists who denied the existence of God.  They had any number of gods they followed.  The Corinthians Christians had that background.

Twice in verse 2 he reminds them of how they were “led” or “led astray” to the idols.  If they were led, someone (or something) must have been doing the leading.  Paul has already connected idol worship to demonic influence (1 Corinthians 10:14-21).  The Corinthians were used to hearing about countless different deities and idols.  Many of the church members had probably actively participated in various forms of worship to different gods.  Now Paul is about to describe the variety of spiritual gifts and experiences.  How were the former pagans who were now Christians to be able to distinguish the work of the one true God from the activity of numerous demons?  Perhaps that was the question they had asked Paul about.

As a result of that confusion (“Therefore” in verse 3), Paul gives them a straightforward test with both a negative and a positive standard:  “No one speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is accursed,’ and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (v. 3).  Simple, right?  The first part makes sense.  Cursing Christ is never the work of the Holy Spirit (assuming Paul is using “Spirit of God” and “Holy Spirit” as equivalent descriptions).  Anyone cursing or belittling or sneering at Jesus is “being led” (as Paul said before) by a very different spirit.  There may be a hint here referring back to the Corinthians’ tendency to blend Christian and pagan worship, to “drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons” (10:21).  Any worship practice that disparages Jesus is not legitimate.

The second part of the test gave our discussion group more difficulty.  Several members suggested that they knew people who claimed to be Christians, and who would easily say the words, “Jesus is Lord,” but who really did not follow Him.  Numerous suggestions were made, especially pointing to other passages, such as Romans 10:9-11 that mention spoken testimony along with genuine heart belief.  Perhaps “Jesus is Lord” is, as one participant offered, “shorthand” for that genuine faith.  But the question persisted:  That is not what Paul says in this passage.  He is giving the Christians an uncomplicated test, so it is unlikely he would leave out a critical element such as belief in the heart.  What was the criterion he was giving them?  Surely he would want the test to be clear and unlikely to be misunderstood.  “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.”  How do we reconcile a clear Biblical statement that seems so contrary to our experience?

After considerable discussion we began to think about the culture surrounding the Corinthians and comparing it with our culture.  Saying the words, “Jesus is Lord” in our culture is generally not a big deal.  Some people might think you are odd, but there is not much cost or risk involved in making the statement.  Saying the words doesn’t really make you stand out, since our culture generally has a Judeo-Christian background and history.  Other than ardent atheists many Americans identify somehow with Christianity.  Saying “Jesus is Lord” to identify with Him doesn’t draw much attention, and there is little or no personal cost as a result.

For the Corinthians it might cost them their social standing or their job.  Identifying with Jesus as the Lord of Lords over all the pagan gods would be more counter-cultural than we can imagine.  Whereas in our culture, being a good, upstanding church member might be good for social contacts and business reputation, it would likely be just the opposite in first-century Corinth.  Saying “Jesus is Lord” could ruin your social and business life.  “The Christians were accused of atheism.  The charge arose from the fact that many in the empire could not understand an imageless worship.  Monotheism held no attraction for such people.  As a result they blamed the Christians for insulting the gods of the state.”[2]

When Paul wrote, “No one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” he was not thinking of twenty-first century, pseudo-Christian America.  He was writing to a group existing in a culture where only the work of the Holy Spirit could overcome the fear of what might happen.  No one would risk the ostracism or worse that would result unless they genuinely had the Spirit working within them.  The open, bold identification with Jesus and the willingness to face the potential cost were much different for the Corinthians than for us.

Paul then moves into his well-known discussion of spiritual gifts, and more specifically the divine unity behind the diversity of gifts.  Our group did not spend much of our limited meeting time on this section.  One thought was that since the Corinthians were accustomed to such a wide variety of so-called gods and different types of idol worship it would be all too easy for them to mistake the variety of gifts for a variety of spirits or powers.  Given their already-demonstrated tendency toward divisions and factions within the church (1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 11:18) Paul probably saw the possibility of one more source of disharmony among them.  He emphasized the unity underlying the diversity based on the unity of the Triune God (vv. 4-6).  The identification with Jesus grows from a heart transformed by the Holy Spirit, and the place where the Spirit’s work is seen dramatically is within the diversity of the church.  His work in Christians as individuals and in the church is the power that enables genuine, costly identification with Jesus as Lord.

Those two aspects, identification and cost, still affect our application of Paul’s test.  How do we identify with Jesus?  What costs might be involved for us?  Our culture continues to accelerate down several paths that make that identification potentially more costly.  The test that Paul gave the first-century Corinthians – open identification with Jesus and His lordship over all areas of life – may become a more realistic test in our culture as well.  As the cost increases for deviation from political correctness fewer superficial followers will be willing to make such a statement.  Dr. Shelley’s comment about the culture “blaming Christians for insulting the gods of the state” takes on a whole new dimension.  The “gods of the state” are not always carved in wood or stone.  Ideological gods can be just as fiercely protected by a culture with equally strong reactions to those who sincerely say, “Jesus is Lord.”  May God the Holy Spirit empower us to continue that proclamation.

[1] Lit, “Gentile” (ethne, ἔθνη).  Twenty-one translations use “pagan” (e.g., NASB, ESV, NIV); eight use “heathen” (RSV, WYC); thirteen use “gentile” (ASV, Phillips, KJV).  The contextual emphasis on idols seems to justify the translation of pagans, non-Jews who worshipped idols.  https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Corinthians%2012:2

[2] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (Nashville, Tennessee:  Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 42.

May 13, 2016  1 Corinthians 12:1-20

Paul begins a new section addressing specific questions from the Corinthians, marked by another “Now concerning…” introduction (cf. 7:1, 7:25, 8:1).  This topic flows right out of the previous sections.  After the distractions of cultural issues (hair length and head coverings) and arrogant abuses of the Lord’s Supper, now he turns to the church gathering in general.  Why do we meet together?  What should that look like?  How do we relate to each other when we are so different?

Hopefully the handouts we have been using in our study and discussion group have been helpful.  Having a convenient way to read and mark up a passage, all using the same translation, is helpful in the process of learning the skills of inductive Bible study.  However, some situations (an impromptu conversation over coffee, for example) may not have a readily available prepared handout.  Also, looking at different translations together can add another layer to a discussion – sometimes helpful, sometimes confusing, usually profitable.  This week use your own Bible translation (or several) to read and study the passage.  The suggestions in the article on Methodical Bible Study provide good reminders of the kinds of questions that will stir your thinking in the Observation, Interpretation, and Application phases of study.  Read the passage and come to the group ready to ask questions to help all of us learn from this text.

May 6, 2016  1 Corinthians 11:17-24

The Lord’s Table, the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, the Eucharist, the Mass – the diversity of descriptions reflects the wide spectrum of practice associated with the sacrament (or the ordinance, or the memorial, or the sacrifice – we don’t even always agree about what it is).  Somehow from very early in the history of the church, this central display of Christ’s work has been distorted into a dividing point.  The Corinthian Christians may not have been the first to go wrong over the celebration of Communion (the term I will use here), but they certainly experienced divisions.  Paul’s response to the chaos that Communion had become might help us see what it ought to be for us.

The section does not start off well (for the first Corinthian readers):  “I do not praise you” (1 Corinthians 11:17a).  In fact, he says they are worse off after they meet (v. 17b), quite a serious criticism of a church gathering!  His first confrontation is over divisions, or “schisms” (schismata, σχίσματα, v. 18).  Apparently Paul is shocked; he only “partly” believes it.  Division in the church is bad enough, but (as we soon learn) the division is over Communion.  Paul can hardly believe how wrong they have gone.  But they have a decided tendency to find just about anything to differ about (cf. 1:10‑13; 3:4‑6, 21‑23; 4:6), so he needs to address this expression of their divisiveness.

One question that came up in our discussion related to the next thing Paul says:  “There must be factions among you” (v. 19).  Was he encouraging factions (lit. “heresies,” haireseis, αἱρέσεις)?  Or was he saying that factions were inevitable?  It seems unlikely that Paul would be stirring up the divisions he has been trying to eliminate in the church.  However, he does not want divisions to be ignored or covered over lightly.  The inevitability of disagreements has a potentially positive outcome:  “that those who are approved may become evident among you” (v. 19).  If A and B disagree, A may be right, or B may be right, or both may be wrong.  The benefit of open (but courteous and respectful) disagreement is to find truth.  Pretending we “all just get along” and ignoring differences blurs genuine truth.  When he mentions “those who are approved” he is not describing a popularity contest, but a test of genuineness.  “Approved” (dokimoi, δόκιμοι) means refined, tested and approved, proved to be genuine.  (We saw the negative form of this word earlier when Paul expressed concern about being “disqualified” in 1 Corinthians 9:27.)  The word group (noun, verb, adjective) is used thirty-nine times in the New Testament, suggesting that such proven genuineness is an important part of the Christian experience.  With that important goal in mind, if Paul was not encouraging disagreements, he was at least encouraging them to work out the truth.

The specific division in this instance was over the “Lord’s Supper” (v. 20).  He scolds them that the Supper is not the main reason they meet.  Instead of an atmosphere of fellowship with each other and communion with God, Paul describes a potluck where nobody waits in line.  Helping myself first with no thought of leaving something for others, even if it means overindulging (v. 21) seems to be the mindset.  The problem might have been about early arrivals not waiting for others (mentioned in v. 33).  There could have been cliques of friends who brought food but wouldn’t share.  There were likely economic divisions that would “shame those who have nothing” (v. 22b).  Our group was not certain if this was a first-century version of a potluck, where each family or individual brought food for themselves, or possibly to share.  Or maybe the homeowner (whose prosperity allowed him to have a house large enough to meet in) provided the food.  In any case, the problem of the rich having (or taking) special privileges at the expense of the poor (as in James 2:1-4) would squeeze out the believers of lower social rank.  They would be left hungry amid their stuffed and drunken brethren (v. 21).  No wonder Paul had no praise for them (v. 22b).  Their self-obsessed behavior even in a church gathering to remember the death of Jesus revealed not their genuineness but their scorn for the Body of Christ, the church, and their disdain for His people.  Earlier Paul had warned them about the danger of confusing or even blending pagan practices with Communion (10:21).  Now he warns of an equal danger of the relational sin of “despising” the assembled people of God (11:22).

In contrast, Paul reminded them of what “coming together to eat the Lord’s Supper” should look like (vv. 23-26).  In words that most Christians recognize and can probably repeat, Paul summarizes the actions and the significance of the Passover meal that Jesus celebrated with His disciples.  The details of that description were not a significant part of our limited discussion time.  What we did note was Paul’s introduction:  “I received from the Lord” (v. 23a).  When and how (at his conversion on the road to Damascus?  By a special revelation at some later time?  Some other means?) are not stated. What is clear is Paul’s emphatic authority for these instructions.  Several places in this letter he says puzzling things about his teaching (“I give instructions, not I, but the Lord” in 7:10;  “I say, not the Lord” a few verses later in 7:12; “judge for yourselves” in 11:13, just before the present passage).  Here there is no ambiguity.  Paul is telling them exactly what Jesus told him.  This is what Communion should look like, and this is what it should be about.  Our discussion about hair and head coverings in the previous passage raised questions about timeless and time-bound truth.  Paul seems clear that this topic, directly from Jesus, is not a cultural issue, but is timeless until Jesus returns (v. 26).

That brief but authoritative paragraph probably made some of the church members feel a bit awkward, maybe even ashamed of their behavior.  Paul doesn’t depend on their emotional response.  He continues forcefully (vv. 27-30).  What they are doing potentially makes them “guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord” (v. 27) and “drinking judgment” on themselves (v. 29) and even risking physical effects of sickness or death (v. 30).  Paul’s exhortation to avoid participating in Communion in “an unworthy manner) is self-examination (v. 28).  And here again we find the wording from verse 19 about those who are “approved.”  Here, using the verb form, each one is to “examine” himself (dokimazeto, δοκιμαζέτω) to test himself for genuineness, for authenticity.

That verse is often used as a part of a Communion service when each member thinks about their own life, perhaps confessing sin or repenting of behavior that needs to change.  That self-examination is a worthy exercise, but may not be exactly all Paul had in mind as he wrote this instruction to the Corinthians.  Specifically, he wants to ensure that they “judge the body rightly” (v. 29b) with the result that “if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged” (v. 31).  Our group discussed what “judge the body rightly” might mean.  One suggestion was that the “body” represented by the bread was the body of Jesus, so the verse means we need to examine our relationship with the Lord.  Or since the bread represents the body we should be sure we are remembering that symbolism as we eat the bread during Communion.

In the context of the divisions in the Corinthian church and the selfish behavior at church gatherings, Paul could be reminding them that they are the body of Christ.  They need to “judge accurately” (diakrinon, διακρίνων) or “recognize” (NIV) the true nature of the body of Christ in His church.  While the preceding context certainly is more about the bread representing the body, Paul is about to move into his extended discussion of the church as the body (1 Corinthians 12-14).  This double meaning of “body” might be a transition point in his teaching.  We would do well to think of our relationships with others in the body of Christ as our preparation for receiving Communion.

That kind of self-examination is reminiscent of a similar warning expressed by Jesus regarding worship in general:  “Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering” (Matthew 5:23-24).  Relationships affect the authenticity of our worship.  Relational sin always pollutes worship.  Even in the context of the old system of animal sacrifice Jesus put a priority on relationships that had been corrupted by anger or gossip or slander (Matthew 5:21-22).  Other types of sin may come to mind when we are exhorted to examine ourselves before Communion.  We should be particularly thorough in our self-examination regarding relationships when we celebrate and remember and share in the one true Sacrifice.