Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 13)

Paul writes that “The overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money.  He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity” (1 Timothy 3:2-4).  Putting flesh and blood on these words and remembering that this is a letter to a real person in a real church full of real people in a real community that would have functioned according to the ideals of honor and shame, then this list of “requirements” appear to be a way to screen out those that would, according to accepted customs and practices of the wider community, normally be expected to preside over the meal assemblies of the church. 

Indeed, Paul may very well have specific people in mind that are subtly addressed and ruled out as overseers by what is here insisted upon.  One may think this harsh, but the primary concern is the strengthening of the church body, and those who are possessive of honor and standing outside the church are those that most need to understand the humility and the embracing of shame demanded by the way of the cross and the kingdom of the Creator God.  One way for such people to experience shame is for their honor to mean nothing inside the assembled church. 

Conversely, it might very well be the case that Paul is less concerned with making sure that the most holy or least sinful person (by the popular and not overly helpful way of thinking) is overseeing the church’s gathering (again, this is not about an overseer in the way so many are programmed to think), and more concerned that those that would normally be considered less honorable are the ones that take up this function, thus making the point that those that society considers to be more honorable are to be subject, at least inside the assembly that is supposed to represent the kingdom of Israel’s God to those that are considered less honorable by that same society.  This subjection is not one of a heavy hand, but it is a subjection rooted in the counter-cultural egalitarianism of the church.  It is by these instructions that the culture is countered, and through which Timothy and the church are forced to broaden their scope and manner of thinking. 

The directive is expounded upon, and one can be further convinced that there are, in fact, specific individuals in mind when going on to read “But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God?  He must not be a recent convert or he may become arrogant and fall into the punishment that the devil will exact.  And he must be well thought of by those outside the faith, so that he may not fall into disgrace and be caught by the devil’s trap” (3:5-7). 

It is helpful to look at these as being person-specific---directed towards an individuals or small group of individuals, rather than as ideals left up to subjective analysis.  Since it has been established that Paul is not writing about pastors or church leaders in the traditional sense of the term or of those that meet specific qualifications as determined by a council of elders, but rather, those that are overseeing the meal-based gathering of the church in the home of one of the believers, functioning as the host of the meal (with this rotating regularly so that one person does not accrue undue honor or prestige), it is possible to glean the principle and make the application that is so very prevalent in the Pauline corpus, which is that of equality amongst believers and the need for the church to be strengthened, with self-sacrificial love and the preferring of one another (eschewing honor and embracing shame, as demanded by the cross) the transcendent ideal to be embodied in the assembly.  

Speaking In Tongues (part 30)

Paul is placing what he hopes to be effective boundaries around the particular religious exercise of speaking in tongues, as he continues his extensive and specific dealing with the issue.  He underscores the universal recognition that ecstatic speech, through all of the recorded history of the practice that preceded the Christian church, demands interpretation as part of its functionality, and for both components of the act (speaking and interpretation) to be put to good use for the strengthening of the church (its most important role). 

Without interpretation, the act most likely serves to draw attention to oneself, rather than to the god that is attempting to speak through the ecstatic speaker.  Plus, the interpreter allows for joint participation with another person (or perhaps more than one person?), thus achieving the goal of strengthening and encouraging, while not allowing for honor to accrue to just one individual through whom the god is speaking. 

Accordingly, Paul insists that “if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church.  Let him speak to himself and to God” (1 Corinthians 14:28).  Can one not see that this deals quite effectively with the issue of competition and the honoring of self?  To this, with the strengthening of the church, along with its fellowship, equality of station, and universal participation in mind (with the always ongoing competition for honor also in mind), Paul adds “Two or three prophets should speak (prophecy calling authorities to account or offering commentary about the actions of the covenant people, sometimes speaking apocalyptically) and the others should evaluate what is said” (14:29).   

Prophets, of course, are those that prophesy, which Paul encourages all to do, so this is certainly not to be hailed as a special class of people within the church.  Plus, one must catch the flow of the thought.  “Two or three prophets should speak, and the others,” presumably the rest of the assembly who also function as prophets (as Paul encourages the entire assembly to engage in speaking forth the words that attempt to reveal the Creator God’s character for the purpose of shaping the response of a people, or shaping a people into a responsive people), “should evaluate what is said.” 

Again, the entire church assembly is engaged, with speakers that come from the entire societal range of the body, and the words of those speakers subject to the entire body that also encompasses the entire range of society.  This once again devalues the honor system (though one must confess to the possibility that this analysis represents an over-reaching and over-reading of the impact of the honor and shame system and Paul’s thoughts and concerns related to that system and its unfortunate and undesirable functionality inside the church) and disregards the social standing that one may have outside of the Christian body as irrelevant to one’s standing within the body of Christ. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 29)

Fifteen thousand words of foundational material in this study allow for what comes next from Paul to be quite readily consumed, grasped, and comprehended, with proper conclusions readily drawn.  So moving along then, Paul writes “What should you do then, brothers and sisters?  When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation” (1 Corinthians 14:26a). 

Here, Paul again deploys “brothers and sisters,” which feels like a way for him, as this is discerned from the contextual and textual flow of the entire letter, to produce unity of mind and of purpose within the congregation gathered at their standard assembly to hear this letter read in its entirety and as a group.  With this, one cannot escape the fact any more than the divided and possibly stratified Corinthian believers could escape the fact, that Paul emphasizes and expects an equal participation by all in the events of the assembly. 

One must not take it lightly when Paul says that “each one” should have a song, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.  This does not mean that each should have the ability to demonstrate all of these things, though this would not be problematic and could certainly be encouraged as long as it did not result in an unwarranted accrual of honor to anybody but the Creator God and His Christ, but that each one is encouraged to participate at some level, doing so, at least initially one would expect, in one of the ways that is being recognized as being influenced and directed by the covenant God through the Holy Spirit. 

Of course, the rest of verse twenty-six falls directly in line with all that Paul has said concerning tongues to this point, which is “Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church” (14:26b).  This is always the crux of the matter for Paul in his letter to Corinth.  The strengthening of the church is the matter at hand in this letter.  What they have been doing, which is what Paul is criticizing on multiple levels, apparently exacerbated with the elevation of the speech act of glossolalia, has led to, in his opinion, the weakening of the church.  One is then able to come to the conclusion that Paul sees a weakened and discouraged church through his constant exhortation that expresses the need for strengthening and encouraging. 

If the church is weakened, then by definition the kingdom of the Creator God (the bringing of heaven to earth---causing the overlap of God’s realm of existence with man’s realm of existence, manifested whenever selfless and sacrificial love that reveals the character of God that is also to be the calling card of those that are His image-bearers is being put on display) is damaged, as it is the church that functions as the ambassadorial arm of that kingdom. 

It is with such thoughts (including in these thoughts that there were problems, including the bestowal of honor in competition with other spiritual gifts or other factions within the church, being created and exacerbated through the displays of speaking in tongues) under consideration that one then goes on to hear “If someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret” (14:27).  

Speaking In Tongues (part 22)

This benefit of the body is a component of Paul’s continued focus on the issue of speaking in tongues.  He continues: “There are probably many kinds of languages in the world, and none is without meaning.  If I then I do not know the meaning of a language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.  It is the same for you” (1 Corinthians 14:10-12a).  There might be a tendency to get hung up on these words, with an attempt to discern if Paul is indicating that the ecstatic speech is more than just a string of incomprehensible syllables. 

This mention of “languages” may prod some to compare the ecstatic speech being practiced in the Corinthian church with the events of the second chapter of Acts, in which the disciples “were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them” (Acts 2:4).  This is often seen as a proof text for justification of the practice.  It is not likely that Paul had justification of the practice of speaking in tongues in mind.  After all, it was a historically accepted and understood religious practice, and it did no harm unless it caused divisions in the church.  So the nature of the speech was not Paul’s abiding concern. 

With the words quoted, it is Paul’s use of “foreigner” that should grab attention.  Because he is dealing with activities that take place within the assembly, someone being made to feel like a “foreigner” would be problematic.  An attendee may feel cut off from the proceedings, feeling as if there are components of what is there taking place of which they may be unworthy in some way.  Any feelings of isolation or distance from the fellowship of the assembled church would militate against unity.  Of course, this commentary by Paul runs back to the question asked in the sixth verse, which was “Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I help you unless I speak to you with a revelation or prophecy or teaching?” 

Once again, the issue is being helpful to the body.  This question is nicely bookended by the remainder of verse twelve, which read “Since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, seek to abound in order to strengthen the church” (14:12b).  Indeed, if there is a desire to abound in manifestations of the Spirit, those manifestations should abound in such a manner that the church is strengthened.  It is this that is Paul’s abiding concern. 

Paul is not surprised by the ecstatic utterances, nor is he about to limit the manifestation of the Spirit to the same.  For Paul, the evidence of the presence of the Creator God’s Spirit, regardless of the activity in which one is engaged, is the strengthening of the church.  This can be accomplished in an unimaginable number of ways, which is what makes it absolutely impossible to create lists of the gifts of God’s Spirit.  To the end of strengthening the church in connection with speaking in tongues, Paul goes on to write “So then, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret” (14:13).  To that he adds: “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unproductive” (14:14). 

This is not new ground.  Speaking in tongues, as an accepted and widespread religious practice that was understood to be the result of a god taking over the mind of a worshiper, was looked at in this way.  So Paul asks: “What should I do?” (14:15a)  He answers his own question with “I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind.  I will sing praises with my spirit, but I will also sing praises with my mind” (14:15b).  Paul is not devaluing speaking in tongues by contrasting mind and spirit, nor is he elevating activity that is mind oriented.  He is simply discussing speaking in tongues as it was then widely understood. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 19)

With no break in continuity, Paul continues his line of thinking from chapter thirteen (which was continued from chapter twelve) into chapter fourteen and writes “Pursue love and be eager for the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy” (1 Corinthians 14:1).  Why does Paul here highlight the activity of prophecy?  It is because “the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation” (14:3).  The contrast to the one who prophesies, for this church, are those that are engaging in glossolalia.  Drawing out that contrast, Paul writes “the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit” (14:2). 

Because Paul is engaging in a rhetorical action here, it is not appropriate to isolate the statement here in verse two or in other verses.  It demands to be heard in context and in contrast.  So when one hears that “the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God,” and that “he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit,” the proper response is not to throw up ones hands in a glorious salute to the person so speaking, but rather, to hear it in juxtaposition to what Paul says about the one who prophesies, who “speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation.” 

This sufficiently directs attention away from a judgment call about the propriety of speaking in tongues, directing an observer instead to a consideration of the motivations for speaking in tongues.  With the honor accorded to public speech acts, and the honor that would be accorded to the person that is said to be possessed by the spirit of a god when engaging in the ecstatic and incomprehensible speech, the motivation of those doing so in Corinth is called into question. 

It follows then that when Paul writes “The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up” (14:4a), he is not making this assertion as if it is a good thing.  Once again, it stands in contrast to what follows, which is “but the one who prophesies builds up the church” (14:4b).  In this case, and in consideration of the honor and shame culture, and especially what has already been seen when it comes to the meal gatherings and the divisions in the church, a person building himself up needs to be viewed as a negative (this is not a positive thing).  He builds himself up because he is more concerned about his honor and demonstrating in historically acceptable ways his special relationship with his god, whereas the person that prophesies, by engaging in strengthening, encouragement, and consolation, is concerned about the church---concerned about the body. 

Paul does not rule out speaking in tongues, but he also does not make it a litmus test for the identification of one that is filled with the Spirit of the God that raised up Jesus from the dead.  He apparently sees it as a legitimate expression, but is concerned with why it is being employed and what results from its employment within the gathered church.  To that point, he writes “I wish you all spoke in tongues” (14:5a). 

Indeed, if all spoke in tongues, then there would be no opportunity for one person to gain undue honor from the practice, thus eliminating the problem as he sees it.  Here, one must be careful not to assert that Paul desires for this to be the norm among Christians.  It must be heard from within the context, which is that of the pursuit of honor in connection with speaking in tongues.  If all speak in tongues, then there will be no special awarding or assignment of honor to the speaker.  Paul understands that it is not the case, nor is it going to be the case that all speak in tongues, and concludes his statement with “but even more that you would prophesy” (14:5b).