Speaking In Tongues (part 29)

Fifteen thousand words of foundational material in this study allow for what comes next from Paul to be quite readily consumed, grasped, and comprehended, with proper conclusions readily drawn.  So moving along then, Paul writes “What should you do then, brothers and sisters?  When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation” (1 Corinthians 14:26a). 

Here, Paul again deploys “brothers and sisters,” which feels like a way for him, as this is discerned from the contextual and textual flow of the entire letter, to produce unity of mind and of purpose within the congregation gathered at their standard assembly to hear this letter read in its entirety and as a group.  With this, one cannot escape the fact any more than the divided and possibly stratified Corinthian believers could escape the fact, that Paul emphasizes and expects an equal participation by all in the events of the assembly. 

One must not take it lightly when Paul says that “each one” should have a song, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.  This does not mean that each should have the ability to demonstrate all of these things, though this would not be problematic and could certainly be encouraged as long as it did not result in an unwarranted accrual of honor to anybody but the Creator God and His Christ, but that each one is encouraged to participate at some level, doing so, at least initially one would expect, in one of the ways that is being recognized as being influenced and directed by the covenant God through the Holy Spirit. 

Of course, the rest of verse twenty-six falls directly in line with all that Paul has said concerning tongues to this point, which is “Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church” (14:26b).  This is always the crux of the matter for Paul in his letter to Corinth.  The strengthening of the church is the matter at hand in this letter.  What they have been doing, which is what Paul is criticizing on multiple levels, apparently exacerbated with the elevation of the speech act of glossolalia, has led to, in his opinion, the weakening of the church.  One is then able to come to the conclusion that Paul sees a weakened and discouraged church through his constant exhortation that expresses the need for strengthening and encouraging. 

If the church is weakened, then by definition the kingdom of the Creator God (the bringing of heaven to earth---causing the overlap of God’s realm of existence with man’s realm of existence, manifested whenever selfless and sacrificial love that reveals the character of God that is also to be the calling card of those that are His image-bearers is being put on display) is damaged, as it is the church that functions as the ambassadorial arm of that kingdom. 

It is with such thoughts (including in these thoughts that there were problems, including the bestowal of honor in competition with other spiritual gifts or other factions within the church, being created and exacerbated through the displays of speaking in tongues) under consideration that one then goes on to hear “If someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret” (14:27).  

Corinth's Communion (part 12)

Paul first writes concerning the bread, reporting the words of Jesus that “This is My body, which is for you” (11:24).  He does this after first mentioning that Jesus had taken bread, given thanks, and broke the bread (11:24).  Then he goes on to indicate that “every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (11:26).  Continuing on to what would eventually be designed as the twenty-seventh verse of the chapter (it’s worth pointing out every once in a while that there were no chapter and verse divisions in the original letter, which serves as a reminder that the letter asks to be read as a letter, in a sing sitting), Paul again speaks of bread, with the verse closing out with “the body and blood of the Lord” (11:28b).  This calls attention to and reaffirms the symbolic nature of the bread, as it stands in for the body of Jesus.  In the twenty-ninth verse, Paul writes “the one who eats and drinks,” omitting but clearly implying the bread and the cup, “without careful regard for the body eats and drinks (the bread and the cup again implied though omitted) judgment against himself” (11:29). 

Changing gears a bit, the insistence that follows, in which Paul reasons “that is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead” (11:30), along with “if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged” (11:31), “but when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned with the world” (11:32), the address to “my brothers and sisters” (11:33a), and the final addition of “when you come together to eat, wait for one another” (11:33b), seems to indicate a change of focus.  Paul is, it would appear, speaking to the group again. 

Taking that into consideration, a re-reading of the twenty-ninth verse, in which Paul makes two implicit references to the bread and the cup while also mentioning “the body,” should arouse some curiosity.  To which body is Paul referring?  Is he here using “body” in the same way that he used it in the twenty-fourth and twenty-eighth verses?  If so, why the multiple implied references to the bread and the cup in verse twenty-nine, with a sudden shift to the body, if “body” here is to be taken as yet another reference to the bread? 

The Greek word that is in usage has a minor variation, sharing the same root, so it is incumbent upon the hearer to tease out the subtle shift that has taken place in this verse.  It is unlikely that the original audience, immersed in the situation that is being addressed, would have missed out on this shift.  Paul’s use of “body” here has been shifted away from a reference to the bread of the communion table, and has been re-directed and used in reference to the body of believers---the church to which Paul writes.  This causes the usage to fit well with the words that began to be directed to the group, as Paul confers his attention upon the congregational body. 

At first glance, this seems like a strange conclusion, but when the larger context (the whole of the letter) into which the treatment of the subject fits is reconsidered, and when one listens to the letter in a single sitting, with those problems within the church as a whole top of mind, then what seems like a strange conclusion becomes not so strange at all.  When considering the genius in what he is doing, never forget that Paul is a thoroughly trained and gifted rhetorician.  He is highly skilled in argumentation.  He is quite capable of building a case for his teachings through a sustained narrative in which pieces function as essential building blocks.  His letter to the Romans is probably the finest example of these studiously acquired skills.  Just as Israel identified itself according to its own historical narrative, and just as Jesus saw and fit Himself within that narrative of the Creator God’s redemptive plan for the restoration of His good creation, Paul goes to great lengths to provide the recipients of his letters with a narrative structure that will aid in their coming to terms with that which he is attempting to communicate. 

Recognition (part 1 of 2)

Joseph recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him. – Genesis 42:8  (NET)

Delving into the life of Joseph will almost invariably produce a comparative analogy to the life of Jesus, and with what is transpiring in association with this particular verse, the statement proves to be true.  The reader of Scripture can never be allowed to forget that the way in which Israel thought about itself, the way the disciples would have heard and understood the words and ministry of Jesus, and even the way that Jesus thought of and presented Himself to Israel, would all have been couched in the regularly told history of Israel, as grounded in the Abrahamic covenant and in the history of the Egyptian exodus. 

To that end, not only was every Passover an explicit reminder of their exodus experience and that their God was the God of exodus, but the long subjugation to various empires---the latest of which was Rome---was productive of a general (though not exclusive) mindset of a people in an exile from the full manifestation of their God’s promises to them.  Thus, among many, there was a consistent longing for a new exodus led by a new deliverer. 

Owing to that the groaning desire of freedom from Rome’s yoke (not unlike the groaning of Israel in Egypt, as recorded in Exodus), one can be assured that thoughts of the Creator God’s miraculous deliverance of His people from the power of Egypt would never have been too far from their minds.  Quite naturally, the story of Joseph, which was so closely connected to the story of Israel’s arrival in Egypt (which was itself part of the God of Israel’s confirmation of His promise to Abraham), and which was itself a poignant story of vindication and exaltation after an ordeal of wrongful suffering, would have been a popular story in Israel. 

Because it offers a tight analogy to that which was experienced by Jesus (suffering, vindication, exaltation), stories of Joseph, especially following the Resurrection of Jesus, would have been fertile ground for gaining an even greater understanding of Jesus and His mission, of the covenant God that raised Him from the dead, and of the redeeming, rescuing movement of that same God throughout all of history---with comprehension of that work, enacted primarily through His covenant people, given shape by the Abrahamic covenant and its associated pointers and promises that are rehearsed and recorded throughout the written history (including the poets and prophets) of Israel.  

Now, some misguided souls might be tempted to look at these analogies from a resurrection-denying perspective and draw the conclusion that followers of Jesus, subsequent to His unexpected and defeating death and seeking to keep alive the cult that had grown around Him, simply searched the Scriptures so as to pull together bits and pieces by which it was possible to build a better foundation for their ongoing worship and subsequent proclamation of Him as the embodiment of Israel’s God. 

However, reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of God’s redemptive plan that was commenced through Abraham, carried on through Israel, climaxed in Jesus, and continually out-worked through the Church of Christ, becomes an exercise in learning about the Creator God and His purposes, so that one might gain a greater measure of trust through what is somehow understood to be the out-spiring work of the Holy Spirit. 

Thus, believers come to be able to identify the places that connect them to the culminating event in the history of the entire cosmos, which was the Christ-event.  This operation is undertaken, presumably, so that those that confess Jesus as Lord and who seek to live according to that proclamation, might be able to more effectively operate by the mysterious power of the Resurrection, that they might be the means by which the Creator God applies that transformative power, by the Spirit, through that Gospel proclamation of Jesus as Lord. 

Joseph & Jesus (part 1)

Now Joseph’s brothers saw him from a distance, and before he reached them, they plotted to kill him.  They said to another, “Here comes this master of dreams!  Come now, let’s kill him, thrown him into one of the cisterns, and then say that a wild animal ate him.  Then we’ll see how his dreams turn out!” – Genesis 37:18-21  (NET)

Just before this set of verses, which is set within a larger narrative (and within a sociological setting) that must always be borne in mind as the Scriptures are approached, as we are introduced to Joseph, we learn about his dreaming of dreams, and their implication that one day, his father, his mother, and his brothers will all bow down to him.  Coupling this with the fact that he was his father’s favorite---being the son of his father’s favorite wife---and had received special gifts due to that favored status, it is understandable why it is that his brothers did not care for him.  Natural sibling rivalries and jealousy aside, this also takes place within a world defined by honor and shame, and the competition for honor.  Here, Joseph is receiving greater honor from his father, while also attempting to accrue more honor to himself.  In a society in which honor is a limited good, he is creating problems for himself. 

As we are able to view all of Scripture through the lends of the Christ-event and the cross, so much of what we see in the life of Joseph becomes a pre-reflection of themes that will eventually be found in the life of Jesus.  This makes sense, especially when the biographers of Jesus are steeped in the story of Israel, defining themselves in accordance with the shared traditions associated with the stories of their patriarchs.  Thus, as we hear the words of his brothers, do we not also hear those that presented themselves as opponents of Jesus?  Can we not hear the scribes and the Pharisees, along with the other leaders of the people of Israel in Jesus’ day, with whom Jesus would not align Himself and with whom He would not come into agreement in the larger competition for honor, saying “let’s kill Him and see how His dreams turn out”?  Obviously, we do not have to look very far to find the plot to kill Jesus, as we find it executed in the pages of the Gospels. 

As the story goes, Joseph was sent to his brothers by his father.  After a bit of searching, we find that “When Joseph reached his brothers, they stripped him of his tunic, the special tunic that he wore” (37:23).  This was the famed “coat of many colors” with which we are all familiar.  This was the special gift from his father that indicated his special status (enhanced honor standing) and invoked the ire of his siblings (envy---a powerful social force in the honor and shame society, of which Jesus will also be victim). 

Following that, “they took him and threw him into the cistern” (37:24a).  This was done because Reuben, Joseph’s oldest brother (the first son of Jacob and his first wife Leah---ironically, the one that should have been held in the highest honor by his father and brothers), convinced the rest of his brothers not to kill Joseph.  Reuben had said, “Let’s not take his life!...  Don’t shed blood!  Throw him into this cistern that is here in the wilderness, but don’t lay a hand on him” (37:21b-22a).  Following this, we are given a special glimpse into Reuben’s mindset, as we read “Reuben said this so he could rescue Joseph from them and take him back to his father” (37:22b). 

It is likely that Reuben saw this as an opportunity to gain some honor for himself while also returning to his father’s good graces, after having sexual relations with one of his father’s wives (35:22).  We cannot allow ourselves to forget that every interaction in the ancient near east would have a component of the competition for honor.  Not only would this have been the case, but anyone who heard this story told would naturally expect there to be some element of honor competition and would process the story along those lines.  Indeed, it would be counter-intuitive for an interaction, or the story of an interaction such as this, to lack this element.