Speaking In Tongues (part 23)

Paul then makes his now rather familiar point by writing “Otherwise, if you are praising God with your spirit, how can someone without the gift say ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?  For you are certainly giving thanks well, but the other person is not strengthened” (1 Corinthians 14:16-17).  It returns to this.  Paul wants to see the church strengthened through every activity that is said to be rooted in the gifting of the Spirit of the Creator God. 

Paul wants every member (taking up and employing his language from chapter twelve) to be able to participate equally, on equal footing, with nobody feeling like a foreigner, with nobody marginalized as second-class spiritual citizens of the kingdom of the covenant God, and certainly nobody being held up or looked to as a superior within the body of the Christ simply because they engage in one or more particular activities that have been honorifically pre-designated by that body as gifts of the Spirit. 

Time and again, Paul, as he deals with what is happening in this church body because of the glossolalia that is occurring there, refocuses his audience on the strengthening of the church (which can also be seen in his dealings with the problems at the church meal and the Lord’s Supper in chapter eleven).  It is the strengthening of the entire body that should be the motivation and the result of speaking in tongues.  If that motivation and result is not achieved, regardless of the gift under consideration (with this going beyond speaking in tongues), then it’s place in the assembly needs to be reconsidered and carefully examined.  To circle back around to the issue of honor, it can easily be said that if one is concerned with accumulation of honor through the exercise of what are considered to be the gifts of the Spirit, then the strengthening of the church is probably not going to be in sight. 

Bringing honor back into consideration at this point allows what comes next to dovetail quite nicely, as Paul writes “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you, but in the church I want to speak five words with my mind to instruct others, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue” (14:18-19).  Paul knew that speaking in tongues would gain him honor, but this he did not seek, so he did not engage in this publicly, which his hearers would probably think quite odd.  If there was no public display and no witnesses, then what would be the point?  Paul did not want to limit his impact within the church to only those gifted with the ability to interpret or understand, thus contributing to a division and a spiritual hierarchy of elevation and exclusion (based on honor accumulation).  If he spoke plainly in church, then no matter how much or how little he spoke, all could share equally in the instruction.     

Galatians & Giving (part 1)

Now the one who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with the one who teaches it. – Galatians 6:6  (NET)

The sixth verse of the sixth chapter of Galatians.  It is a verse that has been held up as the basis for giving to one’s church, or specifically, one’s pastor.  More than that, it has been used as a veritable theological brickbat for many years and by many people, justifying the demand that Christians pay the people that instruct them in the Christian faith, presuming that this was the Apostle Paul’s demand as well. 

More than that, verse seven is brought into play, adding the insistence “Do not be deceived.  God will not be made a fool.  For a person will reap what he sows” (6:7).  Presumably then, if one gives to his or her pastor and thereby demonstrates a respect for the teaching of the word, then said person is one “who sows to the Spirit,” and therefore, “will reap eternal life from the Spirit” (6:8b).  Alternatively, if a person does not give to their teacher, presumably disrespecting the teaching of the word and the man (or woman) of the covenant God that delivers it, that person “sows to his own flesh” and will therefore “reap corruption from the flesh” (6:8a). 

Inevitably, verse nine is brought into play, insisting that even in times of struggle when it may seem difficult to tithe or to give in any way, “we must not grow weary in doing good, for in due time we will reap, if we do not give up” (6:9).  The fact that this is precisely the language of public benefaction is usually ignored, even though Paul follows up with “So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who belong to the family of faith” (6:10).  Some even use the language of verse ten to justify giving exclusively within one’s particular congregation, putting undue weight on the “especially” of the verse, while allowing “let us do good to all people” to fall unceremoniously to the wayside. 

While it is undeniable that Paul is here insisting that respect be given to those who offer instruction in the words of faith, what is also undeniable is that he writes to a congregation that does not at all reflect the type of church structure with which most in this age are familiar.  In this congregation that existed very early in the infancy of the church, it is highly unlikely that there would have been a particular pastor who was primarily responsible for the instruction of the congregation. 

Teaching would most definitely not have taken place in a setting with which most today are familiar---the setting in which a single person, usually the same person week in and week out (with the occasional guest speaker or associate pastor mixed in) stands at the head of a gathered crowd, with said crowd dutifully listening to the instruction week in and week out, nodding their heads in agreement and offering up the occasional “amen” in support of the teacher’s assertions.  Now, this is not to say that there is anything wrong with such a setting, and it must be said that the setting to which the vast majority of Christendom has grown accustomed has served the church of the Christ relatively well.  It is simply to say that this is not at all the setting into which Paul wrote, which he would have had in mind as he wrote, or in which his letter would have been shared.

Corinth's Communion (part 3)

Now, it must be said that what comes after the “instruction” portion of Paul’s rehearsal of the Lord’s Supper is regularly incorporated into the practice of communion.  The “words of warning,” as they are generally viewed, are usually included so as to induce introspection among potential participants at the table.  Paul writes “For this reason, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup.  For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself.  That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead.  But if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged.  But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned with the world” (1 Corinthians11:27-32). 

These “words of warning” have been appended to the “instructions” for good reason.  However, the way in which they are presented and in which they are urged to be taken, removes them from their practical and objective context, as participants are usually asked to apply this warning individually, as somehow related to their personal salvation or personal spiritual status, with considerations of personal and individual judgment falling if one does not have the right mindset or status of holiness in one’s taking of the elements or the absolutely correct understanding of what the bread and the cup represent.  

Pretending that Paul has such things in mind is unsatisfactory, and it ignores the corrective action that Paul is taking, first and foremost with this church, as this body of Jesus-followers fails to follow the example of Jesus and fails to understand that Paul is criticizing this church for their failure to embody the kingdom of heaven.  In addition, the encouragement to come to these words individually and personally, as if the recipients of this letter were silently reading their Bible for themselves in their studies, rather than hearing the letter read out loud to the entire congregation, has had a hand in creating an unreasonable and Scripturally unsupportable expectation of some type of Christian perfectionism and a need for confession of personal “sins” after a personal examination of the condition of one’s heart before taking communion.

Continuing on from the “words of warning” that Paul has delivered, corrective language from Paul is encountered.  He goes on to write “So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another.  If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that when you assemble it does not lead to judgment” (11:33-34a).  If one is allowed to jump right in to the communion at the twenty-third verse, not taking into consideration that which comes before in the same chapter, nor the building message and movement of the entire letter, then the addition of these words from Paul do not make a great deal of sense. 

Along with that, if there is a failure to take common first century meal practice into consideration when these words are read, then they are not going to make sense.  Finally, if one does not bear in mind the vision of the messianic banquet and the personal example of Jesus participating in communion in a way that goes beyond the “Last Supper” and takes in the whole of the tradition of His meal practice that has the vision of the messianic banquet standing in its background and informs the understanding of the early church as to why they are even engaging in this practice in this way, then there will be a high degree of difficulty encountered in the process of making sense of what Paul is getting at it with these final corrective instructions.  Thus it is more than likely that the reader or the exegete is going to approach and utilize the words of Paul incorrectly, missing out on the depth of the serious problem that is being addressed.

Corinth's Communion (part 2)

As Jesus invited tax collectors and sinners and those that would have been rightly identified by observers as being outside of the covenant to join Him at His tables, and as He did so with thoughts of the long-hoped-for messianic banquet clearly in the background, and as believers today (along with the early church) view the communion table in that light, it would seem ridiculous to raise such onerous limitations and boundaries that are productive of fearfulness and ultimately exclusion, around that which allows us for the mimicking of Jesus’ table practice and its associated and seeming inherent power to show forth the kingdom of heaven. 

When these words from the Apostle Paul are read, and as the communion table is considered, the thoughts that must be dancing at the forefront of the mind cannot be consumed by a concern for a personal salvation.  Rather, those deterministic thoughts must be the kingdom of heaven and its manifestation and advancement.  If the communion table is going to be correctly approached, the focus cannot be on the self, but on what the table and what happens there communicates about the kingdom of heaven. 

Based on what has been said to this point, it seems that this approach may be the right one, and that it is in approaching the table in this way that a better interpretation and understanding of Paul’s treatment of the subject is to be found.  Not only that, but bearing in mind the kingdom of heaven, and doing so in the context of the meal practice of the early church rather than one’s personal salvation, allows an observer to understand why it is that Paul even brings up the subject in the first place.

Most unfortunately, context is quite often neglected when it comes to Paul’s treatment of the communion in his first letter to Corinth.  So often, when the passage is referenced or quoted, the reference picks up at the twenty-third verse of chapter eleven.  There, Paul writes “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which He was betrayed took bread, and after He had given thanks He broke it and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you.  Do this in remembrance of Me.’  In the same way, He also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood.  Do this, every time you drink it, in remembrance of Me.’  For every time you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (11:23-26).  These are the words that are regularly shared for the purpose of creating the familiar setting in which one partakes of the elements of the table. 

When this happens, the words of the Apostle are treated as if they were some type of instruction manual on how to engage in the church’s meal practice.  In a sense that is true, but that is only a part of the story.  In the regular time of communion, is it the case that the opportunity is taken to look at what precedes the “instructions”?  Sadly, no.  As is the case in so many other exegetical situations, there is a tendency to simply pull things out of context and use them for the purpose that is immediately at hand---reading into the text that which one desires to see. 

Making reference to the “instruction” portion of chapter eleven without making reference to what comes before or after, forces an analysis or exegesis into the unfortunate situations of being ahistorical and subjective, thereby causing the hearers of the exegesis to miss out on the aspects of the kingdom of heaven and on the reference to Jesus’ meal practice that was so instructive and important for the early community of believers.

Describing David, Seeing Jesus (part 1)

I have discovered David My servant. – Psalm 89:20a  (NET)

As an attempt is made to fathom the depths of the Hebrew Scriptures for information and for instruction, it is eminently necessary for the reader to not view these writings through the lens of what they might personally mean for them today in the specific situation or circumstance in which the reader finds him or herself.  Rather, it is necessary (and expected), if one was to engage these writings as did those that composed the covenant community in the days and years after the Christ-event, to view them through the lens of the cross of the Christ. 

When one does so, the words of the page are brought splendidly to life and provided with a depth of meaning and value far beyond anything that might have ever been expected, as they become imbued with the living and salvific power of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ---the crucified and resurrected Lord of all.  This is quite true of the words of this Psalm.  Here in the eighty-ninth Psalm, the reader is said to be hearing the very words of the Creator God when reading, “I have energized a warrior; I have raised up a young man from the people.  I have discovered David, My servant.  With My holy oil I have anointed Him as king” (89:19b-20). 

As these words are viewed through the light that is cast upon them by the cross, Jesus is clearly and quickly to be found, especially when words such as “king,” “anointed,” and “servant” are employed.  Here one also finds the term “raised up” used, which should certainly cause the reader to contemplate Jesus’ Resurrection, though such should not necessarily consider such to be an implicit reference.  However, one can also here find the word “warrior,” which does not seem to fit what is known about Jesus from the Gospels. 

Moving on to the next verse, the reader finds it being said that “My hand will support him, and My arm will strengthen him” (89:21), which (again, appropriately reading conscientious of the cross) can serve as a reminder that it is the Creator God Himself that will fight battles on behalf of His anointed servant King Jesus.  It is on the other side of the cross and the grave that one is then able to speak of Jesus as a great warrior King, having flung Himself headlong into the most significant and terrible battle ever waged, which was the battle with death and the powers of evil, and emerging victorious.  With this said, the Resurrection can then almost be thought of as the Creator God having “energized a warrior,” though it makes the analogy a bit messy and one may not necessarily want to carry it too far. 

The Creator God of Israel is reported to go on to say, “No enemy will be able to exact tribute from him” (89:22a).  Throughout the Scriptures, there are reports about kings and countries “paying tribute money.”  Whether it was being paid to the kings of Israel, or whether Israel was paying it to an oppressing enemy, the purpose of paying tribute, ultimately, was to show subservience.  It was a bowing of the knee, by the king, through an economic transaction, that represented the bowing of an entire people. 

Whether it was the reported time of temptation at the hands of Satan, or the time in which He was subjected to the over-powering sway of death itself, it is understood that Jesus, the representative of Israel (the Creator God’s covenant people then, now, and forever) did not bow the knee to His enemy.  He would not become subservient.  He would offer no tribute and barter no deals, hoping for kind treatment.  This is part of the reason that believers have the hope of a bodily Resurrection within the covenant God’s creation in the same way as that which was experienced by Jesus.  Believers have that hope because Jesus does not allow His enemy to exact tribute. 

In My Father's House (part 4)

Now, at first glance, this should seem quite unusual and a bit suspicious.  Jesus was in the midst of the teachers, listening and asking questions?  This is difficult to believe.  Children were not afforded respect in those days.  Yes, Jesus had reached the age at which he could begin to sit at the feet of a teacher, but that would occur based on relationships and an invitation.  It is unlikely that such was the case here.  Yet here it is reported that Jesus is not only sitting and listening to the teachers, which means that He is intruding and out of place when it comes to His station, but that He is even going so far as to ask them questions.  Can this be true to life?  Is this believable?  Even if a boy of the same age was there at the feet of his teacher, one can be certain that no other twelve-year-olds were allowed to ask questions in the Temple courts. 

So why is this grace, and this honor, extended to this particular child that has no particular honor standing, and who does not even yet participate in the honor and shame culture and competition (which is one the reasons to engage in listening and asking questions)?  One would have to presume that it is because He is of David’s family line, and that this has been somehow made known to this group of men.  He is of Israel’s true royal lineage, and this in a day when the three kings of Israel were considered to be nothing more than usurpers upon King David’s throne. 

Together with that, because the Creator God’s messiah (Israel’s king and deliverer in the mold of Moses, who led forth Israel from its exilic subjection to a foreign nation) is called the Son of David, and because messianic expectations were running quite high in that day, owing to what would have been popularly believed to be the conclusion of the four hundred ninety years set forth in the book of Daniel, a place among the teachers might very well be granted to a boy (on the cusp of adulthood) that can make a legitimate claim of descent from King David.  Now, that’s not to say that Jesus would be automatically granted the floor, treated with the utmost of honor and respect, and deferred to in the asking and answering of questions, but that as long as He did not make Himself too much of a nuisance, He would be tolerated.   

When Jesus’ parents found Him in the Temple courts, not only did they observe that He was asking questions, but they were also able to see that He was able to interact with the teachers.  Luke writes, “And all who heard Jesus were astonished at His understanding and His answers” (2:47).  Remembering that Jesus was fully human, it must be said that this is indeed quite remarkable for a twelve-year-old.  Now, it is one thing to be able to ask an intelligent question.  Many twelve year-olds are capable of such things.  It is quite another thing altogether to be able to make informed inquiries based upon the answers provided. 

It is unlikely that these teachers were actually asking Jesus questions in order to solicit His opinions on the subjects under discussion, but rather, it is more likely that His “answers” were along the lines of additional, probing questions.  Quite simply, a boy would not presume to instruct a group of teachers, nor would a group of teachers in that day, regardless of how astonished they might be at His instruction, sit and listen.  There is always honor at stake, and a child of that age is not going to be allowed to accrue any of the limited good of honor to himself.  It is quite reasonable to think in this way, as it would be in the mold of what can be seen throughout the records of Jesus’ ministry.  While Jesus would teach, quite often the teaching would be prompted by a question that has been put to Him; or Jesus would receive a question, and in response, posit an additional question, with all of these engagements occurring under the pretext of honor challenges in the honor and shame culture and competition.