Love & The Public Good (part 3 of 3)

Because this is a mixed congregation of both Jews and Gentiles, one can surmise that Paul’s use of “the law” would be well understood to be those basic provisions of the law (circumcision, Sabbath keeping, food regulations, refraining from worship of idols) that served as identity markers for Jews, and were constant points of contention and division in the early church.  Knowing this allows one to see how the unity and actions of love that are outlined and encouraged in chapter twelve of Romans come into play.  In addition to that, when considering that this is a letter that will be read to a gathered church at a single sitting, it is worth remembering a very early statement in the letter, wherein Paul uses the phrase “from faith to faith” (Romans 1:17). 

This simple statement sees Paul borrowing from the imperial propaganda of the day, which presents Caesar as the supreme benefactor.  The statement implies that Caesar is faithful to his subjects, providing them with peace and security, and therefore his subjects are faithful and loyal to him and to Rome.  One must hear the words of the thirteenth chapter with such words and thoughts in mind, in the knowledge that Paul is presenting Jesus as the actual supreme benefactor, of which the Caesar is merely a parody.  All civic interactions proceed within this framework, and the self-sacrificial love modeled by Jesus which saw Him go to the cross (unconcerned with the shame because of the honor He trusted would come), becomes the model upon which the life of the Christian community is based (unconcerned with shame because of the honor that comes with what counts as the fulfillment of the law, thereby marking one out as a member of the people of the Creator God and a participant in His kingdom). 

From here, Paul advances towards the meal table, which it is clear that he has in mind as he goes on to write “Let us live decently as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in discord and jealousy” (13:13).  Though it is not meant to serve as an accusation, this is language of the portion of the Hellenistic meal referred to as the “symposium” (period of revelry---singing of songs, debates, speeches, etc…---following a meal), and as it is possible that this church is hearing this letter while gathered for fellowship that will include a meal, the language would not be lost on them either.  It is to this then that Paul adds “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to arouse its desires” (13:14). 

A great disservice is done to the apostle if one simply substitutes personal and subjective notions of “the flesh” here, rather than considering “the flesh” within the context of the potential for disunity, division, stratification, and unwarranted authoritarianism within the church, as well as its connotations of the old age prior to the Resurrection, the inauguration of the new creation, and of the kingdom of the covenant God, in which preferring others above oneself is to be the norm. 

One must also take this statement into consideration in the context of the dissertation regarding the Christian’s responsibilities towards governing authorities.  Because one considers himself or herself to be part of the kingdom of God, a desire of the flesh might be to cast off all restraint and disregard governing authorities.  This was obviously a real possibility, which would account for Paul’s insistence that such authorities are “God’s servant for your good” (13:4a), and that it is “necessary to be in subjection” (13:5a)  (Note: Though democracies did exist, Paul does not have knowledge of a government that is constituted by “We the people,” such as to be found with the United States of America; so it is incumbent upon all generations of Christians, the world over, to understand Paul’s words in context and then to work out the implications of those words within their own time and place, guided by the dictates of the existing kingdom of heaven.) 

Rather than thinking about putting on the Lord Jesus Christ in the context of the cultivation of private spirituality, the understanding of putting on the Lord Jesus Christ should be shaped, and processed horizontally and outwardly, by embodying the transformational, kingdom-of-God-contexted love that was put on display by Jesus throughout the entirety of His mission, culminating in the cross.  This would certainly serve to quell any fleshly desires that might be manifested (separations based on honor and shame) or discussed (open rebellion against Rome that could result in the taking up of arms and the discrediting of the Jesus movement) at the meal table, thus resulting in a life of true holiness (a life laid on the altar of sacrifice in service to Israel’s God). 

Speaking In Tongues (part 12)

The language of honor and shame should heavily influence any reading of these passages in the Corinthian letter.  Also, one must take note that it is Paul’s treatment of the standard division-inducing practices that were common to their world, and their being unfortunately put on display at the Christian meal gathering that included an honoring of Jesus while also hearkening to His meal practices that were designed to show forth the messianic banquet that denoted the coming of the Creator God’s kingdom and rule, that precedes Paul’s going on to deal with “spiritual gifts” (12:1). 

An observer should most definitely hear Paul, through his treatment of meal practice and his decrial of division and giving weight to those considered more honorable, forming the basis for what comes next in his letter.  One cannot underestimate the importance of that to which Paul has been building in this letter.  To be sure, he has dealt with a number of issues, but there is nothing that takes up more of his attention than the issue of spiritual gifts, and they take up a large measure of his attention within a letter directed to a church that is overly concerned with issues of honor and shame and are allowing that construct to dictate the functioning of the church.  The “spiritual gifts” are the subject of chapters twelve, thirteen, and fourteen---the largest section of the letter by far.  The practices of the church, and the way that honor was being assigned within the church loom large when delving into chapter twelve. 

This study has prepared for this special attunement by all that has been covered to this point, especially so that Paul can be heard doing more than offering a list of spiritual gifts in the first part of the chapter.  It is now possible to join the Corinthian believers at their meal gathering that has been stratified based on honor concerns, fully realizing the potential honor gathering opportunities linked to public speech acts, and hear Paul say “With regard to spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed.  You know that when you were pagans you were often led astray by speechless idols, however you were led.  So I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is cursed,’ and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (12:1-2). 

Paul makes it clear that everyone, without exception, who refers to Jesus as Lord (a public speech act) is somehow motivated to do so by the Spirit of the Creator God (the confession of Jesus as Lord is said to be evidence of the work of this Spirit, however that takes place).  This can then be heard as a leveling out of the church body.  Regardless of the quantity or type of speech acts that Paul will go on to detail, it is clear that the entire body of believers stands on equal footing, both spiritually speaking (in the area of gifts) and when it comes to honor---all have the Spirit of the covenant God operable within them---when they call Jesus “Lord.” 

Now an observer is in a position to be able to hear about the “gifts of the Spirit” in a different and perhaps more enlightened way than has perhaps been previously experienced.  Honor and shame constructs must be held in mind.  There must be an awareness of the role of ecstatic speech (glossolalia), along with a rudimentary historical knowledge of the practice.  There are divisions and factions within the church, with these factions linked to speech acts.  There are concerns regarding the meal practice, and that this meal practice, more than anything else, was a lamentable demonstration of the importation of the societal values of the surrounding culture into the life of the body of the Christ. 

It is incumbent upon the reader to bear these things in mind and to hear the words of the apostle from the position of being seated at a meal table.  Seated at that meal table, it is possible to look around and mentally register the results of the functioning of the honor and shame culture, the value placed on ecstatic speech, the divisions that Paul has referenced, and the fact that this meal practice looks quite a bit different from that of the Jesus tradition (and apparently, from that which Paul first taught them).    

Galatians & Giving (part 5)

Having removed the barriers of separation between Jew and Gentile, Paul continues that process, moving along to other potential sources of division or stratification in the church that could lead to a weakening of the effective presentation of the message of the Gospel to an onlooking world, as he goes on to write “For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith.  For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female---for all of you are on in Christ Jesus.  And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise” (3:26-29).  This, along with the operational “structure” of the earliest of Christian gatherings, will have a bearing on the conclusions to be drawn.    

In addition to Jews and Gentiles as classes of people that were part of the Galatian group that was defined by meal-gatherings at which Jesus was recognized as the embodiment of the Creator God (that being church), slaves undoubtedly formed a portion of their band.  Not only can one draw out this conclusion from the fact of Paul mentioning “Jew… Greek… slave… free… male… female” (3:28), but such is made even more obvious by what can be seen in the fourth and fifth chapters, with Paul’s references to slaves and slavery.  While he is surely employing a metaphor by utilizing the familiar imagery of the slave-market, the metaphor and the imagery would have a more pronounced impact for those that had either been acquired by their master at the slave market, or who had purchased a slave at the slave market. 

Continuing the “heir” language that closes out the third chapter (bearing in mind that Paul wasn’t closing out any chapters or writing with verse divisions as such things would come much much later---always a useful reminder), Paul writes “Now I mean that the heir,” meaning, all that are children of Abraham by faith,” as long as he is a minor, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything” (4:1).  Can one read a bit deeper into this text?  Does this illuminate another problem within this congregation of believers?  Is there a younger member of the church, perhaps a relatively wealthy slaveholder who has had the goods of his parents fall to him at a young age though “he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father” (4:2), who thinks himself better than his slaves or the members of their gathering that were slaves? 

Though there can certainly be a larger analogy at play, specifically the issue of Jews and the covenant markers of the law versus Gentiles and the covenant marker of belief in Jesus, this may not be an unreasonable proposition.  Regardless of the situation at hand, Paul takes yet another step to level out the community by writing “So also we, when we were minors, were enslaved under the basis forces of the world” (4:3).  The point being that all are slaves in one way, shape, or form.  That said and at that point, it may be appropriate to add “For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself” (6:3). 

Corinth's Communion (part 23)

Then, with the honor and shame constructs in mind, and with a profound reflection upon the Jesus tradition as he well understood it, Paul adds: “Instead, God has blended together the body” (1 Corinthians 12:24b)--- noting the flattening out and removal of the kingdom-of-God-obstructing divisions within the congregation and going on to read “giving greater honor to the lesser member” (12:24c).  This would certainly call to mind the portion of the shared Jesus tradition that would eventually come to be well-communicated by Luke, who reports Jesus as having said, in conjunction with the parable of the great banquet, “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted” (14:11). 

There, it is worthwhile to reflect on the fact that Luke’s precise construction has Jesus saying such things in the wake of His insistence concerning the kingdom of the Creator God (in the context of Jesus’ talk that reflects His understanding of the messianic banquet), that “some are last who will be first, and some who are first will be last” (13:30).  All of this, for Paul, is reflected in his own insistence “that there may be no division in the body, but the members may have mutual concern for one another” (12:25).  To that he adds “If one member suffers, everyone suffers with it.  If a member is honored, all rejoice with it” (12:26).  

Capping off his dissertation concerning the body that simply must be carefully regarded along with the eating and drinking, Paul goes on to write “Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you is a member of it” (12:27).  He has made clear his point that the distinctions being set forth by the church in Corinth, which were so unfortunately on display when they gathered together for the meal that they were erroneously referring to as the Lord’s Supper, were all artificial and counter to what Jesus intended because of the divisions and apparent spiritual honor competition.  As has been said, this was a source of some distress for Paul, as it served to undermine the unifying, gathering message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord of all), as amply pronounced through Jesus’ life and words. 

However, Paul does go on to point out that there are actually going to be some types of divisions in the church, writing that “God has placed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, gifts of healing, helps, gifts of leadership, different kinds of tongues” (12:28).  While he does this, he does it while having already told them that “It is one and the same Spirit, distributing as He decides to each person” (12:11a), while also having made it very clear what he thinks about putting divisions and hierarchies on display at their corporate meals in a way that allows honor to be accrued by one member at the expense of another (honor being a limited good).  So the last thing that he would expect them to do is to take this list of what “God has placed in the church,” and use it to create a spiritual hierarchy that will then be reflected in their table fellowship, so that their gathering looks no different from any other meal gathering of the time.  This will only create a competition for status based on a new set of honor securing instruments---spiritual gifts---that will be used to create the same types of unhelpful social and cultural divisions of which the church of Christ is to have no part. 

If read properly, keeping in mind the sense of narrative and structure that Paul has labored hard to develop, these questions will be heard in light of Paul’s insistence that all of the members of the body (as he speaks to this particular stratifying and dividing church) are equally valuable, with a reminder that “those members that seem to be weaker are essential, and those members we consider less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our un-presentable members are clothed with dignity” (12:22-23).  The questions are also heard according to the statement that “God has blended together the body, giving greater honor to the lesser member, so that there may be no division in the body, but the members may have mutual concern for one another” (12:24b-25). 

Corinth's Communion (part 22)

Picking up at the seventh verse of the chapter: “To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit of all” (1 Corinthians 12:7).  Note the “all.”  “For one person is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, and another the message of the knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit” (12:8-9).  Noting the “all” of the seventh verse, attention is again called to the use of “same” and “one” that is repeatedly on offer to this apparently factionalized and segregated church.  Continuing, Paul writes “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” (12:10). This short soliloquy is capped with “It is one and the same Spirit, distributing as he decides to each person, who produces all these things” (12:11). 

Lest there be any confusion, the stress of the final statement, based on the movement of the entire letter, does not fall upon the “each person,” but rather, upon the “one” and “same,” as the subject matter is the spiritual gifts (and therefore presumably the “one and the same Spirit” that provides said gifts).  With that in mind, one can continue a quest towards concreteness and illumination, having so much of the socially-identifying-meal-practice-shaped analysis reinforced when reading “For just as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body---though many---are one body, so too is Christ.  For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.  Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit.  For in fact the body is not a single member, but many.  If the foot says, ‘Since I am not a hand, I am not part of the body,’ it does not lose its membership in the body because of that.  And if the ear says, ‘Since I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,’ it does not lose its membership in the body because of that” (12:12-16).  By noting the use of “whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free,” which would have been common and recognized points of division and reasons for honor or shame, does one not hear the stinging criticism being leveled through these words? 

Continuing then, “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” (12:17-20).  If these suppositions are correct, one can only envision the dramatic pause that may very well have taken place after this portion of the reading.  It takes very little effort at this point to imagine that the person who was reading this letter to the congregation, whether it was a member of the church or an emissary of Paul, had been instructed by the Apostle to read these particular words and then stop, and then to scan the room and meet the eyes of each and every person in an effort to make a dramatic point concerning the “oneness” of the body of Christ and this congregations failures.

Having done that, the reader, also knowing full well the divisions and separations that were at work in this church, whether socially constructed or based upon constructs rooted in opinions concerning a hierarchy of spiritual gifts, would continue with “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I do not need you,’ not in turn can the head say to the foot, ‘I do not need you.’  On the contrary, those members that seem to be weaker are essential, and those members we consider less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our un-presentable members are clothed with dignity, but our presentable members do not need this” (12:21-24a).  With this, one would have to agree that the honor and shame notions presented in this study are completely inescapable, practically clinching the argument here being made.