Corinth's Communion (part 19)

With this foundational context in place, it’s now possible to let Paul speak for himself at length, as the modern observer is now situated at a meal (with symposium not far from the thoughts) with this particular Christian body and able to hear: “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.  In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world.  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard or a swindler.  Do not even eat with such a person.  For what do I have to do with judging those outside?  Are you not to judge those inside?  But God will judge those outside.  Remove the evil person from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13). 

When attempting to consider how this is to be interpreted first by its recipients, and then by the later church (throughout the centuries) that should make every effort to hear and understand as a first century listener so as to make proper application to practice in an attempt to live out what it would mean to be a Christian in their own situation (place and time), this cannot be read apart from a comprehension of the social forces that were at work and in place in that time. 

Just as the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (initially a community meal to be sure that would eventually devolve to the symbols of bread and wine and the communion ceremony) would be a microcosm of all that was intended for the kingdom of the Creator God, so too would a celebratory meal and attendant symposium be a microcosm of the larger society in which such are taking place.  Additionally, this section of the letter demands to be heard as a whole, without division or isolation of independent thoughts. 

Because of the mention of not eating with such people and with the dis-association list given here that is repeated and expanded upon in the sixth chapter, it also demands to be heard in the context of a meal, thus reinforcing the insistence of this study.  Finally, the letter demands to be heard in the context of what the meal says about the gathered body of believers, both to its participants and any observers.  For purposes of this study, because of Paul’s mention of judging, the letter must be heard with a pronounced mindfulness of what Paul says about eating and drinking without careful regard for the body (of believers) and the eating and drinking of judgment that such would entail. 

Yes, at the risk of redundancy, this letter must be considered in whole as the mounting argument that it is.  One does violence to the text and to Paul’s thesis when statements are carelessly isolated and used as aphoristic-truth clubs with which to beat people over the head in an effort to reinforce previously arrived at conclusions that are based on subjective prejudices and biases.  While one should recognize that Paul does indeed deal with a variety of problems, failing to see that there is a substantial progression that is based upon an underlying rhetorical movement with a particular point of reference, would be a wanton abuse of the Apostle’s work that might lead the reader into all sorts of erroneous conclusions while missing the larger point of the letter altogether.  It is imperative to recognize that the substantial progression in the letter appears to be closely related to Paul’s concerns with “the body.”

Water Into Wine (part 7 of 8)

If a reader of the story was to have been present at the feast in Cana (and if the two protagonists of the scene were speaking English), it is likely that said reader would have heard the head steward putting a tremendous amount of emphasis on the word “you” when he says to the bridegroom “You have kept the good wine until now!”  Based on the presence of the honor competition in the honor and shame culture, and with the perceived intense slighting of the more honored guests perpetrated through the best wine now being served at the end of the feast to the less honored guests, this could certainly be seen as an attempt at self-preservation by the head steward. 

Yes, what the head steward is doing is protecting himself and his own honor.  He is not congratulating the bridegroom.  Almost assuredly, these words to the bridegroom would have been spoken in a manner that would allow them to be heard, and heard well by the honored guests, so that as and when the new and better wine begins to be enjoyed by those who would normally have received the inferior wine (if any at all), the honored guests, who have now become the insulted guests, will see that the head steward recognized their honor status and hence the problems inherent in the situation. 

The head steward, it would seem, wanted to position himself as being more concerned with the honor of these sure-to-be-offended guests than was the bridegroom, so that if and when the bridegroom relieved him of his duties as head steward, with this happening due to the public shaming that was now sure to be coming to the bridegroom because of the very words of the head steward and the service that was now taking place, he would be welcomed into the home of one of these other guests and charged with similar types of duties.  Most importantly, his own honor would be undiminished. 

Now it may seem as if the head steward is acting somewhat dishonorably here, but that would be over-reading the situation and ignoring a key feature provided by the text itself.  It is clear that the head steward did not know the source of the new wine.  The text is clear in its indication that he did not know, though the servants knew (John 2:9), while ironically also knowing that they were going to be the ones that got to drink the new wine, as regardless of the quality of the wine, the honored but insulted guests would not lower themselves to partake of the wine that was being provided to the servants and those at the tail end of the table service structure.  What was transpiring was unthinkable. Indeed, it would strike the honored guests as absolutely impossible that the wine served to the less honorable and the servants would be better than what had been served to them.