Speaking In Tongues (part 9)

Now it is possible to read through Paul’s Corinthian correspondence against the appropriate backdrop of the prizing of rhetorical skill and the honor competition and assignment associated with public speech acts.  In this, one gets the distinct impression that Paul did not quite measure up in this area.  It appears that some of the Corinthian believers derided Paul, going so far as to question his apostolic credentials, simply because, in his speeches before the assembled church community, he failed to employ the rhetoric and rhetorical skill that was so-highly-valued.  At the same time however, Paul had no difficulty whatsoever in deploying his rhetorical arsenal in his written communications. 

One can see evidence of this attitude towards Paul in the second Corinthian letter, when reading “For they say, ‘His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak and his speeches of no account.’” (10:10)  It seems that they were uncomfortable with the idea that the person to whom they pointed as the presumptive founder of their community was not able to command respect through his public speaking.  Thus, because Paul was unable to accrue honor for himself through his rhetorical abilities, the community was also going to be unable to accrue honor.   

This goes a long way towards understanding the divisiveness in the Corinthian church that Paul references in the third chapter of the first letter.  Paul writes “For whenever someone says, ‘I am with Paul,’ or ‘I am with Apollos,’ are you not merely human?  What is Apollos really?  Or what is Paul?  Servants through whom you came to believe, and each of us in the ministry the Lord gave us.  I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused it to grow” (3:4-6).  Apollos, according to the eighteenth chapter of Acts, “was an eloquent speaker, well-versed in the Scriptures.  He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and with great enthusiasm he spoke and taught accurately the facts about Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John.  He began to speak out fearlessly in the synagogue” (18:24b-26a).  Chapter nineteen commences with mention of Apollos in Corinth, while Paul is in Ephesus. 

Apparently, Apollos put his skills to use in service of the church at Corinth, with his eloquent speech causing some to see him in a more positive light than Paul (read: more honorable).  One should not immediately surmise that Apollos was somehow in competition with Paul, but with some understanding of the honor and shame culture, it is not difficult to figure out that his rhetorical abilities caused him to be assigned honor in a way to which Paul apparently did not have the same access.  Thus, again, because Apollos could accrue honor through the use of his rhetorical skills, so too could a community that he led accrue honor.

Paul, without condemning or criticizing Apollos, his speaking, his eloquence, or his learning, refocuses the Corinthian believers by criticizing them and their continued introduction of societal (old age) values into the church as they elevated and assigned honor to one based on accepted custom.  Paul attempted to make sure that they understood that both he and Apollos were nothing more than servants (diakonoi in Greek, those who were assigned to “wait on tables” in Acts 6), and that honor was to be assigned to the one that they served (both the believers and the Creator God).  Paul stresses the unity and equality between he and Apollos in their role of servants, disavowing the attempts at elevation and emphasizing the need for the same amongst the congregation of believers, writing “The one who plants and the one who waters work as one, but each will receive his reward according to his work.  We are coworkers belonging to God.  You are God’s field, God’s building” (3:8-9). 

Speaking In Tongues (part 8)

Given the high value placed on public opinion, one can understand the high value placed on the use of rhetoric in the ancient world, as skilled speakers could do much to shape consensus, dragging public opinion concerning that which should be understood to be truly honorable in the direction desired by those that wished to either gain in status or cement their positions.  It is the importance of the orator in this regard, as not only would the orator have his own honor while also being employed in ways that would gain honor for others, that stands in the background and informs Paul’s words about eloquence and wisdom and status and identification with certain individuals in his first letter to Corinth. 

Eloquence, which was associated with wisdom, was also associated with honor.  A highly effective public speaker would be viewed with much honor and could be employed to achieve the same for others by either “singing their praises” or shaping the consciousness of the community in such a way that they found themselves wishing to bestow honor in accordance with the actions of the one being so praised.  One cannot pass this by without acknowledging Paul’s focus on eloquent speech, understanding its function within the culture.  An observer must also acknowledge that glossolalia is a speech act as well.  This particular type of speech act, which was intimately associated with the gods, when performed publicly, was yet another means by which honor would be accrued. 

Paying attention to the value of the orator, it is worth perusing a papyrus fragment dating from 110 A.D., roughly fifty years beyond the time of the writing of Paul’s letter.  That fragment reads “Pay to Licinius the rhetor,” rhetor being a specific type of orator (short for rhetorician---one specifically skilled in the art of rhetoric, which was a foundational component of the education system of the day and a valued tool for the shaping of opinion well employed by Paul), “the amount due him for the speeches in which Aurelius… was honored… in the gymnasium in the Great Serapeion, four hundred drachmas of silver.”  According to the first century Roman historian by the name of Tacitus, the amount of money that was paid to Licinius exceeded the wages paid to a Roman soldier for a year’s worth of service.  This serves to demonstrate the high value that was then placed on this skill.  

Accordingly, as there was much money to be made, especially because the skill was put to use in connection with the pursuit of honor (or the conferring of shame---it served a dual role), training in such speech and writing was central to the education provided in the institutions of the day.  Indeed, the mastery of rhetorical speech was a potentially lucrative enterprise, serving to assist in the accrual of both wealth and public honor. 

Again, the gaining of position in society, and by extension within the institutions and associations of that society whatever those may be, is connected to public speech acts.  Those that were more charismatic, outgoing, engaging, and comfortable with public speech were able to serve themselves quite well.  Because of this, rhetorical speech was prized almost universally in the ancient world.  Romans, Greeks, and Jews, rich and poor alike, slaves and free, men and women, all enjoyed listening to the presentation of an eloquent speech riddled with lofty rhetoric.  In this way, the people in Corinth and in the church in Corinth were no different (and there is nothing wrong with that).

Corinth's Communion (part 5)

It is of interest to note that on one hand, this Corinthian church is remembering Paul and maintaining the traditions that he had passed on to them, but on the other hand and in many ways, they had become completely dismissive of that which Paul passed on to them as coming from Jesus Himself.  Thus, no praise from Paul when it comes to their practice of the early church tradition of the table of the Lord.

Continuing to move forward, and considering what is happening within this church, it is paramount to keep in mind that the culture possessed strong, dividing, separating, stratifying societal forces that were in existence and readily demonstrated at the meal tables of the ancient world.  Because of the language that is in use, when great pains are taken to understand and reflect upon the importance of meals in that time, it becomes possible to identify the fact that Paul is communicating in the context of problems centered on meal practice.  It is with this in mind that Paul can be heard saying “I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.  For in the first place, when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it” (1 Corinthians 11:17b-18). 

Paul is not speaking into a vacuum.  This body of believers that meets regularly around the meal table as a central feature of their gathering is going to know about their own divisions, and they are going to know where those divisions are most clearly able to be seen.  This letter, which would have been read out loud to the congregation in one sitting, has already made mention of “jealousy and dissension” (3:3), and beyond the eleventh chapter---quite noticeably in chapter twelve---Paul is going to address further divisions that have sprung up in connection with the ongoing honor competition.  Because those divisions come on the heels of what he is communicating in the eleventh chapter that is going to be clearly situated within church meal practice, and because the congregation is going to hear these words in short order (with no private reading and no artificial chapter and verse divisions), they actually play into the divisions that Paul is referencing in the eleventh chapter.

Returning to the nineteenth verse, Paul is found to have written: “For there must in fact be divisions among you, so that those of you who are approved may be evident” (11:19).  This is a rhetorical exercise (part of the basic education process of the Greco-Roman world), and the use of rhetoric is commonly employed by Paul.  He is not saying “there must be divisions so that we can know, and know correctly, who among you is truly saved and approved by our God.”  Such a thought would move the analysis in the wrong direction.  Rather, he is being critical of their divisions and of the steps that are taken to highlight or to make quite evident who it is that can be identified as those who are “approved.” 

Because he goes on to write “Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper” (11:20a), it can be noted that Paul is indeed addressing divisions and those who are “approved” in the context of the church’s meal table (their celebration of the Lord’s Supper/communion).  This talk of the “approved,” which is directed to a people steeped in the honor and shame culture and the social stratification associated with it, seems to be a clear reference to the honored guests and the chief seats of the world’s banqueting tables.  Realizing this opens up a whole new world of understanding. 

Transgressions & Sins (part 1)

And although you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you formerly lived according to this world’s present path, according to the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now energizing the sons of disobedience… - Ephesians 2:1-2  (NET)

Before we embark on an attempt to understand Paul’s communications here in the second chapter of Ephesians, it is imperative that we find its context.  To do so, we revert to the first chapter of Ephesians, where we find Paul in presentation of the establishment of God’s kingdom in and through the Christ.  He writes: “…He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly realms far above every rule and authority and power and dominion and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come” (1:20b-21).  When we hear such things, it is probably worth considering the possibility that Paul is not necessarily merely making statements about the location of the Christ or offering facts about heaven, but that he is also adopting the lofty rhetoric of the Caesar cult.  Paul and other New Testament authors routinely lift and adapt language applied to the Caesar, and instead apply it to the Christ---the world’s true ruler. 

Additionally, we must make note of Paul’s statement in regards to “this age” and “the one to come.”  It seems that Paul wants his readers to avoid any possibility of thinking that Christ’s reign is something limited only to the future, but that it is very much present in this age, owing to history’s climactic events of cross and Resurrection.  Indeed, it is manifest whenever the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) is preached in word and deed.  His talk of the age to come in which all things will be renewed, of which we are given a taste in this age in the power of His eternal life in union with Him as we preach and act according to the Gospel’s proclamation (ordering our lives according to the claim and acting according to the example and teaching of the Christ), points us to the hope of our faith, which is to participate in the Christ’s kingdom, to share in the resurrection, and to participate in God’s restoration and re-creation of the world. 

To drive home the point that Christ reigns in this age, with His kingdom very much present, Paul writes, “And God put all things under His feet, and He gave Him to the church as head over all things” (1:22).  Yes, all things are under His feet.  There, that “all” means “all,” as in “Jesus is Lord of all;” and His Lordship is extended through His people of this confession.  Again, it is worthwhile to hear Paul parroting the language of the Caesar cult, insisting that these things are actually true of Jesus, with the Caesar and his empire being merely a parody of the kingdom of God and its King. 

Having established that Paul is referencing the kingdom ruled by the Christ, Paul appears to engage in the presentation of a contrast concerning kingdoms.  Based on what we have already observed, not only can we sense a subversive counter-imperialism to be understood by all of his readers, but we can also acknowledge the potential premise of a polemic directed at those of his hearers that would have been Jewish.  Owing to their long-held expectation of their God’s entrance into history on their behalf, and the attendant kingdom that was to be established with all nations becoming subservient to Israel, we can surmise that Paul’s Jewish hearers would have been steeped in a nationalistic mindset as it relates to the kingdom of God.  Along with that, we can be confident that his audience consisted of both Jews and Gentiles, because in the eleventh verse of the second chapter, he directs his words specifically to “you, the Gentiles in the flesh.” 

When it came to the establishment of kingdoms, what was this world’s present path?  The path was war.  The path was violence for overthrow and for subjugation.  Specifically, Caesar’s path for the expansion of his kingdom was “war, victory, peace.”  In a stark contrast, we know that the path that Jesus took to establish His kingdom was far different.  Of course, we can all well understand that peace attained through the constant threat of violent death is a shaky and transient peace indeed.  It seems to be in this light that Paul addresses the Jews in his audience, when he says that “you were dead in transgressions and sins, in which you formerly lived according to this world’s present path.”