Speaking In Tongues (part 20)

Why?  The reason is at least two-fold.  Paul wants all to prophesy because it leads to the strengthening, encouragement, and consolation of the entire body of believers, whereas ecstatic speech, historically among other religions and within this early church, generally leads to the elevation of one person above the rest.  With this sensibility created, it feels as if Paul engages in a bit of shaming of those that are vaunted or vaunting themselves owing to their glossolalia, writing “The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be strengthened” (1 Corinthians 14:5c).  With this, it becomes apparent that interpretation was not a regular component of the glossolalia in Corinth.  Without interpretation, there could be no strengthening of the church, only of the individual, for it is interpretation that turns the ecstatic speech into prophecy.  Commensurately, the necessity of interpretation reduces the honor of the ecstatic speaker, as the interpreter is elevated in honor as well. 

Paul’s concern is with that which is good for the body, and ultimately, with that which brings honor to Jesus as Lord of all.  A strengthened body, rooted in equality and preference of others and completely unconcerned with honor and shame competitions, would accomplish this quite well.  With what can be heard from Paul, it becomes clear that some of the members of this church had highly elevated that which they referred to and classified as the “spiritual gifts,” which is reflected in what was probably their own list recited by Paul in chapter twelve.  Owing to the extensive treatment that it is going to receive, it appears that the ability to speak in tongues was the most prominent of those abilities---affording the highest degree of honor to those engaging in the activity. 

As has been made clear throughout this study, this particular spiritual activity was in no way confined to Christian gatherings, as it was an accepted religious practice of the day and for quite some time before Pentecost or the phenomenon of the church, so this does appear to be an instance of the believers of Corinth importing the values of their society into the gathering that was supposed to reflect their life in pursuit of the Creator God’s kingdom. 

It was not the practice that was problematic, or even the issue, or even Paul’s concern.  Rather, what was of concern to the Apostle were the values (pursuit of individual honor and status) that stood behind and motivated the practice that were the cause for concern.  As was said earlier, a common feature of religious assembly was the belief that a god could possess a believer or worshiper with their spirit, leading that person to communicate directly with the god in what sounded to onlookers and gathered hearers like unintelligible speech.  Paul echoes this common understanding with “the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God.” 

Unfortunately, what appears to be happening in this church is that the believers were allowing for the establishment of a new social hierarchy not unlike that with which they were familiar, and allowing for this on the basis of spiritual abilities---with those capable of speaking in tongues receiving the greatest honor.  Paul, as has been observed, takes great pains to repudiate this practice of creating social divisions on the basis of spiritual ability, while strongly emphasizing that these spiritual activities (even the limited list to which the Corinthian church seems to have confined and contented itself) are gifts from the Creator God and evidences of the presence of His individual-honor-eschewing kingdom.  

Speaking In Tongues (part 18)

In verse three of the chapter Paul writes “If I give away everything I own, and if I give over my body in order to boast, but do not have love, I receive no benefit” (1 Corinthians 13:3).  The use of “boast” should be a reminder of the constant jockeying for status and honor that was the dominant component of the culture.  Again, this seems as though it could be directed towards a single individual within the Corinthian congregation. 

If that is so, then while he is most certainly ascribing honor to love (and probably the one that is thought to embody love), Paul can also be heard taking aim at various members of the community, pricking the conscience of a number of those that are assembled and listening to the reading of his letter, as they hear “Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious.  Love does not brag, it is not puffed up.  It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful.  It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth.  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (13:4-7).  Clearly, some of these things have no place in the church of Christ, nor should they be on display between and among the members of that body.  Envy, bragging, puffery, rudeness to those lower in the social order outside the church, and self-serving behavior would stem from the pursuit of honor.

With all that has been said to this point, one should be sufficiently capable of catching the ethos of the remainder of chapter thirteen---listening to Paul in concert with his original audience and hearing: “Love never ends.  But if there are prophecies, they will be set aside; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be set aside.  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside.  When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.  But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways” (13:8-11). 

The bottom line here is that all of these things that are being employed so as to gain individual honor will come to an end.  What’s more, Paul equates the pursuit of honor as it was then in effect as little more than childish ways.  An adult---a mature member of the body of Christ---does not engage in such ultimately meaningless pursuits, especially if those pursuits stand in opposition to that which the covenant God expects from those that constitute His kingdom come to earth (when those that believe in Jesus act as if Jesus is King of all). 

“Paul continues on to write “For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face.  Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known.  And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love.  But the greatest of these is love” (13:12-13).  Paul would seem to be here insisting that true honor will come from demonstrations of love that are not concerned with individual honor but with the honor of the one that is ostensibly being served. 

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 2)

Shortly after the statements of verses fifteen through seventeen, Jesus makes His famous and popular statement of “For where two or three are assembled in My name, I am there among them” (Matthew 18:20).  So many tend to revel in this statement, while also tending to forget that it is offered in the context of conflict and what appears to be discipline.  This discipline, it shall be seen, is not necessarily the discipline of the individual in question that is being brought before groups of brothers or before the church, but rather the teachings of Jesus that are meant to provide a disciplining effect for the covenant community---guiding their actions and behaviors. 

Along with this, one does well to recognize the fact that these words on offer by Jesus, as reported by Matthew and as placed in the structure of His narrative concerning Jesus, follows immediately from the parable of the lost sheep.  That parable presents a shepherd leaving ninety-nine sheep to go after just one that is lost, and closes with Jesus saying “In the same way, your Father in heaven is not willing that one of these little ones be lost” (18:14).  This statement must be kept in mind when Jesus is heard to say “treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector.” 

At the same time, the reader is forced to come to grips with the fact that Jesus, after speaking about His presence in the midst of gathered ones, is reported to have conducted a conversation with Peter, who has asked about the necessity of multiple offerings of forgiveness.  Jesus effectively informs Peter that forgiveness must be limitless.  This demands to be understood within the narrative flow of the entirety of Matthew’s Gospel, as well as the flow of the section in which it is to be found (not to mention that seventy times seven, or 490, would have a strong connection to Daniel and the end of exile), so it can be asserted that it does have bearing on the way Jesus’ insistence in regards to treatment as a Gentile or tax collector is to be understood.   

The questions that must be asked are “What would this mean to Jesus’ audience?” and “What would this mean to Matthew’s audience?”  These are interesting, provocative, and interesting questions.  Jesus’ audience would not be unaware of His activities to that point.  They would have known who it was with which Jesus surrounded himself, and they would have known things that were thought and said about Jesus by both His supporters and His detractors.  In the case of Matthew’s audience, one must never lose sight of the fact that Matthew’s written narrative---apparently drawing from Mark, perhaps some unknown written collections of Jesus’ teaching, and a community-controlled oral tradition---would have been composed for a largely oral community, and would have been designed to be orally performed in a communal setting, presented from start to finish in a single sitting. 

So what would both Jesus’ and Matthew’s audience already know when it comes to their hearing of the words recorded in the eighteenth chapter, that would inform their comprehension of Jesus’ words about Gentiles and tax collectors?  In the fourth chapter, Matthew records Jesus’ re-location from Nazareth to Capernaum (in the region of Zebulun and Naphthali).  This is picked up on as a historical actualization of words from Isaiah, which read “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphthali, the way by the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles---the people who sit in darkness have seen a great light, and on those who sit in the region and shadow of death a light has dawned” (4:15-16).  Though it is not possible to come anywhere close to presuming that Jesus’ audiences would have made this connection, Matthew’s audience hears this reference to a light to the Gentiles very early on in the telling of the Jesus story. 

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 1)

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.  If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector. – Matthew 18:17  (NET)

Stern words from Jesus.  The context, of course, is relationships between covenant brethren.  Jesus has said “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you are alone.  If he listens to you, you have regained your brother.  But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, so that at the testimony of two or three witnesses, every matter may be established” (Matthew 18:15-16).  The introductory verse to this study follows from this statement, presenting something resembling a system for dealing with intra-Jesus-community conflicts. 

So how are these words generally interpreted?  Upon first reading, is there a thought of something along the lines of “Yes.  That’s right.  If the necessary efforts have been made, and if the response is not correct (meaning, the response is not that which the community wishes to see), then that individual is to be marginalized and ostracized---treated as a Gentile (or a pagan) or a tax collector, for he is unrepentant and beyond reach”?  

One could venture to say that, instinctively, especially in light of an often all too parsed reading of Scripture, that such thoughts do indeed tend to present themselves.  In general there is a custom, especially within the church world, to the creation of an “us vs. them” mentality, with the “us” being those inside the church, and the “them” being the pagans, heathens, and veritable Gentiles and tax collectors that stand outside of and presumably opposed to the church and its claims on behalf of the Christ and His cosmic and unquestioned Lordship of all.  This treatment, though probably stemming from a customary reading of the text, would also and unfortunately be patently incorrect. 

Without going into too much detail, it is worth recounting that the Jews, in recognizing their role as the Creator God’s elect and chosen covenant people, and according to the prescriptions of the Mosaic law and the rather large assortment of traditions grafted on to that law, kept themselves separate from Gentiles.  Purity laws, and especially those encouraged by the strictest of the orthodox in the days of Jesus the Matthean community, demanded that there be no mixing with Gentiles.  For them, and painting with an extraordinarily broad brush, Gentiles were those people that stood against the claims of their Creator God, while also functioning in an ongoing role of oppressors (very much an us vs. them mentality). 

Tax collectors, of course, were the hated group (often of their fellow countrymen) that collaborated with their Roman oppressors to continue their ongoing exile from the place and situation that it was believed their God had promised to them.  This disdain went well beyond the general disgust that is almost universally felt towards those that collect taxes, as their presence and their role were constant reminders of Israel’s covenant failures, and their God’s ongoing punishment of them as His covenant people. 

If these basic facts are taken into consideration, then it would seem rather odd to say that an assessment of Jesus’ statement that affirms an isolation and ostracizing of unrepentant individuals through treating them as Gentiles or tax collectors is an incorrect statement.  Still, that statement stands, and this study resolutely denies that Jesus came anywhere near to implying that an unrepentant individual should be isolated, ostracized, or condemned.  At the same time, His statement is unquestionably affirmed, and said individual should absolutely be treated like a Gentile or a tax collector.