Corinth's Communion (part 27 of 27)

By informing this body of believers that they should not be glad about injustice (1 Corinthians13:6), Paul not only comments on what was possibly a pervasive mindset, but he also reveals to them the fact of their unjust behavior.  By tagging his mention of injustice with “but rejoices in the truth” (13:6) he also appears to remind them that they should be glad that he is correcting them in a way that is designed to lead them into the truth that will come to be exercised in both word and deed, so that (again, considering his words within the flow of the letter) they will not be judged (11:31,34). 

In the light of Corinth’s receipt of truth, so that they might understand the way that love will actually look when it is put in practice, which was contrary to what was on display at what they also may have been referring to as their “love feast” (a fact which also helps to explain why Paul takes the time to make this explanation about love), Paul then adds that love “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.  Love never ends” (13:7-8a).

Throughout the whole of this letter, Paul builds and builds and never wavers from the subject at hand, never ceasing his offerings of correction while expressing his desire that this church over which he has so dutifully labored.  With their location in an important and somewhat influential city, they were to be a shining light of the kingdom of heaven, but were falling short of that call.  However, while he is being critical, one should not imagine that the problems to be observed here in this church at Corinth were somehow unique to them---when the eye and ear are properly attuned, these issues can be found throughout the New Testament letters

When Paul’s letters are read (along with the rest of the New Testament) while keeping in mind that the Gospel of Jesus as Lord and ruler of all and the kingdom of the Creator God was being preached in a world that was ruled by the Caesar as the Lord of all and the glory of the empire of Rome was paramount, which was shaped by glaring and pronounced social divisions (by no means is this reducing the message of the Gospel to merely a social gospel) in which the lines of demarcation (ethnic, religious, economic, etc…) between peoples were carefully drawn and tacitly enforced, it should not be surprising to find Paul and others hitting on this problematic theme of divisiveness in the church on more than one occasion (the letter to Laodicea in the book of Revelation springs to mind). 

Chances are, however, because most that are reading this study find themselves in a western world that is so far removed from a societal context that would allow this to be easily recognized (which means that many are terribly handicapped, with this made even more problematic because so many believe themselves to be in a position of superiority in Scripture interpretation), Paul’s treatment of similar situations has been read dozens and hundreds of time without ever considering the social and cultural realities of the world into which it was delivered.  Just like has so often been done with the Corinthian letter, many believers have heard Paul’s words in the context of the cultivation of an individual spirituality and focused pursuit of personal holiness that will result in achieving heaven (and avoiding hell) at death, rather than hearing Paul in the context of a responsibility to cause the Creator God’s will to be done on earth, which is the call of those that confess Jesus as Lord. 

Corinth's Communion (part 26)

What then was the injustice inside this church?  Has Paul mentioned it to this point?  Of course he has.  He has already written “For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper.  One is hungry and another becomes drunk… are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing?” (1 Corinthians 11:21,22b)  This may seem trivial at first glance, but when placed in perspective, the fact that there is an element of injustice at work can be easily perceived, and it is being perpetrated by the members themselves.  It should most certainly be the case that inside the gathered body of Christ, and especially as they were coming together for a meal that carried a considerable amount of theological weight, that all share equally in the meal. 

If the church itself was unwilling or unable to feed those inside the body, and if the church itself was unwilling or unable to be sure that those that were counted as brothers and sisters of the kingdom of the Creator God did not go hungry, then how could it possibly find itself in a position to do the same thing for the world?  Some members of the gathered congregation eating and drinking and doing so to their fill while others went hungry, with this hunger and thirst occurring within plain sight of those that ate and drank to their fill, who were themselves in a position to exercise a very small amount of the self-sacrificial love that took Christ to the cross by sharing so as to insure that nobody went hungry, was nothing short of an injustice that has no place inside the church. 

Indeed, Paul was right to bring up the issue of shame.  If the church was not the example that it needed to be in modeling out a different kind of living, and if it did not put that different mode of living on display at the meal table in recognition of the demands of its Lord, where it could be easily recognized by those both inside and outside of the church (no divisions, no separations, no stratifications, no inequality), then how was that church going to inspire the viewing world to change its mode of living and to recognize its true Lord?  If those that were supposed to be representing the end-time kingdom of the Creator were more than happy to eat and drink while their very own brothers and sisters in the covenant went hungry, then they were certainly not operating in love. 

Now, this is not to say that there is anything wrong with eating and drinking, but it is to say that those that lay claim to a confession of Jesus as their Lord, who are ambassadors for the existing kingdom of heaven while serving in anticipation of its consummation, are called to a position of conscientious love.  Believes are very much within their rights to enjoy that with which they have been blessed (in food and drink and in all other areas), but this enjoyment should be done in a way that is tempered by an understanding that there are those, perhaps through no fault of their own, who go without much of that which is basic to life. 

Perhaps the position here called for is to offer praises to the Creator God for His bountiful provisions, while also offering a lament for the evil that is active in this world (in so many ways) and which is working against the proliferation of the provision of the God that shows forth His rule through the Lord Jesus and through His church (His body) that is active in and for the world as an extension of the Creator’s care.  Of course, it is not enough to praise, and it is not enough to lament.  Both suggest a call to dutiful action by the church, for the world, in humble and loving service to its Lord and its God.

Corinth's Communion (part 25)

At the same time, one should not hear these words about love first as that which is to be achieved as an individual.  Rather, they are first to be heard within the context of the community that is to be defined by love.  As they are heard and understood communally, especially in relation to the kingdom of the Creator God, they are then put in practice on an individual basis by those who desire to participate in this community.  

When Paul writes about love being patient and kind in this letter, the reader knows that patience and kindness were not being exercised towards all in this church in a uniform way, but based on constructs of honor and shame.  Thus when Paul tells them that love does not brag, is not puffed up, is not rude, self serving, easily angered or resentful, it is possible to confidently assert that there was a great deal of bragging, puffery, rudeness, self-service, anger, and resentment at work in this church.  This was presumably being put on display through direct actions, while the separating and dividing actions that were part and parcel of the meals and therefore the life of the church were probably engendering anger and resentment from those on the receiving end of the hurtful and deleterious behavior that truly had no place amongst those called to represent the kingdom of heaven come to earth. 

In a similar vein, Paul insists that love “is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth” (13:6).  While this phrase, as others, can certainly make an independent stand, and it can be agreed upon that it is inappropriate to be glad about injustice while also concurring that the truth is something in which all should rejoice, this, like everything else in this letter (and in the whole of the collected works of Scripture), demands to be first understood within its editorial context before pulling it out as an isolated aphorism by which to construct dogma and make dogmatic assertions. 

If Paul is instructing this group of people that love is not glad about injustice, then it can be presumed that there was a certain gladness about injustice being exercised by this congregation.  It is probably not the case that Paul is here thinking about injustices being perpetrated outside the church (though that can be a proper extension once one rightly consider this statement in context and learns what it means for the church as a body), but rather that the injustice that is being perpetrated inside the church.  This would occur as the rampant injustices of the world outside the church infiltrates that which is to function as the living, breathing, present body of the Christ. 

Considering the fact that Paul would not mention it if it was not an issue, those injustices were likely being found on display at the church meal that is supposed to be evocative of the Passover and its liberation of the people of the Creator God, of the messianic banquet and the liberating rule of that God in the world, and especially at the Lord’s Supper portion of the meal that was to serve as the very explicit reminder that the rule of the Creator God of Israel is currently taking place through the Lordship of Jesus.  It was to be understood, with that understanding displayed by the way that believers treated each other, that those that come to the Lord’s Supper to take the bread and the cup, are agreeing to submit to that Lordship and to participate in the advance of that kingdom. 

That kingdom has as its mission statement (though these would have been circulating in oral form at the time of the writing of the letter to Corinth) words such as “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to proclaim good news to the poor.  He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives and the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19), along with words like “For I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited Me in, I was naked and you gave Me clothing, I was sick and you took care of Me, I was in prison and you visited Me…  I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of Mine, you did it for Me” (Matthew 25:35-36,40b). 

Ahab, Jezebel & A Vineyard (part 2 of 2)

So what happens with this plan that has been set in motion by Jezebel?  As directed, “The men of the city, the leaders and the nobles who lived there, followed the written orders Jezebel had sent them” (1 Kings 21:11), unaware of the source of the orders, and believing that they had come from the king.  With this belief in mind as the story is read, one can surmise that it is doubtful that the original communication that was presumed to have come from Ahab used the term “villains” (at least, not in the way that some tend to think of villains---in reality, they were the unwitting dupes of an oppressor). 

Ultimately, the men who carried out these orders would have believed that they were simply acting in accordance with the demands of justice.  As far as they knew, and regardless of his honor standing in the community, one would suppose that there would be little reason for them to think otherwise, Naboth had actually done that of which he was accused.  Accordingly, they would be predisposed to believe that he was indeed deserving of the rightful judgment that they knew would take place.  Jezebel took advantage of this situation.  So “They observed a time of fasting and put Naboth in front of the people.  The two villains arrived and sat opposite him.  Then the villains testified against Naboth right before the people” (21:12-13a), as this would have been a gathering of the entire community, “saying ‘Naboth cursed God and the king.’” (21:13b) 

Just as the community leaders were not necessarily complicit in this act of injustice, neither were those who testified against Naboth.  Again, as far as they knew, this information and directive came from the king himself.  Predictably, “they dragged him outside the city and stoned him to death” (21:13c). 

It would seem that this horrible achievement of Naboth’s death was predicated on honor and the meal table.  The two “villains” that were set opposite Naboth would be seated to his right and left, in what would likely have been the positions of greatest honor at a meal or any community gathering.  These persons that were seated immediately to the right and to the left of the chief seat could also have been presumed to be possessive of even greater honor than the one seated in the host position, and these two men would not have been unknown to the community.  If there were unknown, or known to be men of lesser honor, their testimony would not have been acted upon so seriously. 

Accordingly then, when these two men, who were undoubtedly well-respected men of the community and not simple villains whose words would carry no weight with the community, offered these words of testimony about Naboth, their testimony would have been presumed to be truthful and would have carried a tremendous amount of weight.  Thus the resulting fate of Naboth.  

Clearly then, when the opportunity is taken to move past a merely superficial reading of the story of Ahab, Jezebel, Naboth, and the vineyard, one can conclude that the story is less about Jezebel (who is undoubtedly cast as a villain) and Ahab, and much more about the abuse of power, corruption, and injustice that so often accompanies unnecessary acquisitiveness (desire to continually acquire things).  It is not primarily (or even necessarily) a story about a rebellious wife usurping her husband’s authority and lording over him, or the story of a weak man and husband, as it is so often portrayed.  It is a story of oppression and murder that is brought about by a perverted use of the very provisions of justice that were put in place by the Creator God so as to enable His image-bearers to reflect His glory.

Only Son (part 24)

As has been previously stated, Scripture insists that Adam was charged to steward the creation and to be the out-raying of the Creator God’s glory in and to the creation in which the Creator is said to have walked with man.  The whole of the creation was this God’s temple.  By Adam’s sin (not being the out-raying of his God’s glory through dis-trust and self-idolatry) this was lost, and the world fell into a terrible state of disrepair, becoming something quite far from the “very good” condition in which it had been ordered by God. 

As the outworking of the covenantal promises to Abraham, Israel was then charged with stewardship over a small portion of that now-fallen creation, with their God promising to dwell with them in the land (their God’s temple) that had been promised to them through Abraham.  From that land, they were to show forth the glory of the covenant God so that all nations would stream to the land of Israel in search of the reasons for their blessings, which would ultimately mean that all men were searching for Israel’s God.  Their record in this, as suggested by their defining historical narrative, is mostly one of failure. 

Solomon was then specifically charged with building a temple within the land.  This Temple, located within the promised land, would then be recognized to be the specific place of the Creator God’s dwelling with His people.  It would then be to the Temple itself to which nations would be drawn, as the Temple itself was filled with the Creator God’s glory, as well as being a magnificent structure that visually testified to the glory of the God for Whom it was made to represent.  Solomon, however, did not show forth his wholehearted trust in his God, falling prey to idolatry as had Adam and Israel before him.  As a result, the Temple of Jerusalem itself would come to be defiled and destroyed, just as the land of promise had been defiled by idolatry, as had the whole of the creation.  All of the Creator God’s temples had been brought to the place of desolation. 

When Jesus came upon the stage of history, the temple in Jerusalem was not the temple that the Creator God had ordered to be built (at least according to Israel’s story).  Rather, it was the temple that had been built under the direction of Cyrus, the king of the Persian empire (who was recognized as the ruler of the world at that point in time).  It was not the place where the glory of the Creator God was reflected into the world, and indeed, Jesus would deride the temple authorities as having turned this temple into a den of robbers, where theft and oppression and injustice took place on a regular basis. 

 In contradistinction to the temple that then stood in Jerusalem, Jesus would speak of Himself as the true Temple.  In doing so, He would speak of Himself as the place in which the glory of the Creator God now resided (according to the widely held belief that the Messiah would somehow be the physical embodiment of Israel’s God), thereby making a physical temple irrelevant and redundant. 

If He was the Son of God, and if He did understand the role and understanding of the son of God within the historical tradition that has here been explored, then it seems likely that Jesus would have understood at least a portion of His role to be the rebuilding and restoration of the very first Temple which the Creator God had originally desired to be the place of His dwelling, that being His once very good creation.  Yes, He would be for Israel what Solomon had been intended to be.  He would be for the nations what Israel had been intended to be.  He would be for the whole of creation what Adam had been intended to be.