|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 18:45:08 GMT -5
6. Paul’s final section in this context addresses questions pertaining to virgins in the church at Corinth. It seems from his transitional statement that the Corinthians had also raised this issue in their letter, probably in connection with the question of celibacy (cf. 7:1, 25). Paul’s terminology leaves no doubt that he was speaking in this passage of virgins – females with no sexual experience, but the exact referent is disputed by scholars. Was Paul referring to all women who’ve never been married (which is implied by their designation as virgins)? If so, why treat this group separately? Didn’t he already address the issue of singleness? What led him to distinguish this class of women from widows and divorcees? Clearly Paul regarded them as subject to the same ethic (ref. 7:25-26). The best answer seems to be that Paul was here addressing the question of women (and, by implication, men) who were engaged to be married (note that the ESV embraces this interpretation). The reason such individuals required separate treatment is that Paul’s ethic becomes ambiguous in their case: His counsel to Christians is that they remain as they are, but what does this require of those who are betrothed? In one sense, they are still single; in another, they are already bound to a spouse. For a betrothal was a formal arrangement – one that, in Jewish culture at least, rendered the engaged person legally bound to a marital contract, though the union was yet to be consummated. (So, for instance, Joseph was obligated to formally “put away” Mary when he discovered her to be pregnant; he couldn’t simply call off their engagement; Matthew 1:18-19). This created a perplexing ambiguity for the Christian desirous of honoring Paul’s instruction: Did “remaining in the condition in which she was called” require a betrothed virgin to consummate her marriage or remain a virgin, and therefore end her engagement? The first thing Paul did was qualify his instruction as expressing his personal judgment and opinion. In this instance, too, he had no direction or command from the Lord; his counsel was his own, and he wanted the Corinthians to understand that. At the same time, Paul knew his counsel to be trustworthy. He was fully confident in his judgment and he hoped the Corinthians would embrace his advice with the same confidence. Having clarified the source of his instruction, Paul proceeded to speak to the question of betrothed individuals. Here, too, he followed his characteristic approach of addressing the specific concern in terms of the larger principle governing it. His uniform ethic holds for the situation of betrothal: It is good for a man (or woman) to remain as he is, but subject to the obligation of conformity to the truth. Thus Paul answered the question of following through with one’s engagement by speaking to the larger issue of the believer’s life in Christ and how that impacts – and is impacted by – life as a married person (7:27-35). a. Perhaps the most challenging part of this passage is Paul’s mention of the “present distress” (NASB) as ground for his conviction that Christians should continue in their current condition (7:26-27). The difficulty resides primarily in the indefiniteness of the expression. Paul’s modifier indicates this circumstance as already present in some sense, but it’s unclear what is “present”: The rendering “distress” is an interpretive decision; the noun denotes a compelling/constraining force or necessity and has no inherent negative connotation (cf. v. 37, 9:16). Thus it’s no surprise that commentators differ widely respecting Paul’s meaning. 148 One view is that this phrase denotes physical hardships the Church was facing. Some believe Paul was referring to increasing opposition and persecution; others think he was alluding to the massive famine which affected much of the Roman world during the reign of Claudius (41-54 A.D.; ref. Acts 11:27ff). Typical of famines, this particular one was a protracted period of widespread food shortages resulting from several years of drought and poor harvests. Other scholars believe Paul was speaking of the troubles inherent in married life, and they point to his overall contextual argument to justify their conclusion (cf. vv. 28, 32-35). In somewhat related fashion, there are others who maintain that the “present compulsion” Paul was referring to was either the innate pressure on engaged couples to follow through with their marriage or the sexual pressure experienced by many single persons. A third view is that Paul was speaking eschatologically with respect to circumstances which will herald the Lord’s Parousia and the end of the age. This view obviously implies two things: that Paul believed Christ’s return was imminent, and that His Parousia would be preceded by difficult times for His Church (ref. 7:28-31; cf. Acts 14:21-22; 1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; 2 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 2:11-13). Others hold a composite view which combines the first and third views. That is, they argue that the various hardships being experienced by the first-century Church were symbolic signifiers of eschatological upheaval and tribulation associated with the Parousia and its judgment (cf. Matthew 10:16-23 with 24:1-14 and 24:15-31 with Luke 21:1-28; also John 15:18-21; 1 Peter 4:12-19; 2 Peter 3:1ff; 1 John 2:18-29; note esp. the Book of Revelation). All things considered, the correct view is probably a blending of the above. Paul clearly had in mind the transience of the present interadvental age (ref. v. 31), but he also recognized this age as uniquely characterized by the presence and interaction of two “worlds”: the form of this present world (7:31; cf. Romans 8:18ff) and the new order that is the new creation in Christ. Paul’s phrase must be interpreted in the light of this framework, which suggests that “present distress” embodies all the troubles and hardships that are inherent in the present world, but that are also experienced in unique and especially intense ways by those who are sharers in the new creation. Paul recognized the transience of the present order, but also apparently believed its passing was imminent (cf. v. 31 with v. 29). This troubles some who feel that ascribing this view to Paul implicitly challenges the inspiration of his letters. But this inference reflects a wrong notion of inspiration and the way it operates within the dynamics of human authorship. Inspiration isn’t undermined by the subjectivity, limitations and fallibility of the human author of the text or a character within the text. Satan is the “father of lies,” and yet his false words are part of the inspired text, as are the untrue notions and words of human beings. 149 Recognizing this fact, some argue that erroneous words and ideas are “inspired” in the sense that the biblical writer recorded them accurately. But while inspiration does demand an accurate textual record, such accuracy is only a requirement for an inspired text, not the essence of it. Inspiration concerns truth, but in the sense of meaning, not mere factuality. God’s concern in the notion of inspiration is not an accurate text as such, but the communication to men of the truth of Himself as He stands in relation to His creation and His design for it (centered in man). That all-encompassing truth is organic and bound up in Jesus Christ and is communicated by the Spirit. Thus, every portion of Scripture – including the kinds of textual “untruths” identified above – is inspired, not because it is recorded accurately, but in the sense that it contributes organically, by divine design, to the overall meaning of the text centered in Jesus Christ. So it is that Paul’s personal expectation regarding the Parousia might have been incorrect, and yet his instruction to the Corinthians was “inspired” in that it expressed the mind of God respecting how His people are to think and order their lives in this world in view of who they are and what they are a part of. This – not his conviction on the exact timing of the Parousia – was what Paul wanted the Corinthians to take from his words as one who was trustworthy (vv. 27-35). b. Paul began his response to the question of virgins by reiterating his general ethic (which, again, applies to every life circumstance): Whether married or unmarried, the Christian is to be content to remain as he is (7:27). But again, this ethic is subject to the law of freedom which demands that Christ’s people discern and conform to the truth of who they are in Him. Continuance in one’s present condition is recommended, but not prescribed; in the case of some, their freedom calls them to embrace marriage over their present singleness. So for those who are betrothed, they are not in sin if they choose to marry, but they must do so wisely, recognizing and accepting the challenges and difficulties it will bring (7:28). c. Paul recognized that marriage makes its own contribution to the inherent troubles of life, and, as a loving father desirous of his children’s happiness, he wanted to see the Corinthians (and all Christians) spared of them. But he also understood that all of life’s troubles – of which marital ones are a subset – reflect and must be viewed and treated within the present reality of already-but-not-yet (7:29-35). Starting from the widest vantage point (7:29-31), Paul reminded the Corinthians that the form of this world is passing away. Like all Christians, they were constrained to live their lives in the context of the present, penultimate form of the kingdom. God has inaugurated His everlasting kingdom of the new creation, but it hasn’t yet taken everything into its transforming grasp. The old order exists together with the new order in inseparable fashion and Christians are obligated to interact with both. To fail to do so is to deny the truth and so move away from true freedom: The believer who lives as if the present order has passed away is just as bound in falseness as the person who lives in denial of the truth of new creation. 150 - The Christian’s life is Christ’s life lived out in him; thus he transcends this present world (Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 4:17-5:8; Colossians 3:1-4). - At the same time, his existence is woven into this world. He must live his life in it though he dwells in the heavenlies (cf. John 15:19, 17:11-24). Unlike the rest of mankind, Christians must live in two radically different worlds – one that is tangible and the other intangible; one that is transient and the other ultimate and everlasting; one that is broken and groaning under the curse and the other glorious in unspotted perfection. This is the frame of reference for Paul’s instruction; without it, his words are confusing and even contradictory: “…from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it…” (vv. 29-31) Throughout the context Paul has insisted that married Christians are to “remain as they are” and devote themselves to their marital obligations and responsibilities; now he was exhorting the Corinthians that those having spouses were to, in some sense at least, live as if that weren’t the case. But far from contradicting himself, Paul was speaking with perfect consistency, directing his readers to regard and conduct their lives within the creational reality of already-but-not-yet. If this is unclear from his marital example, those that follow illumine his meaning. And what they show is that the Christian who would conform himself to the truth – and thereby live into true freedom – must engage and appropriate the particulars of life in this world, but with the recognition that those particulars, like the present order itself, are passing away. This is just as true for the believer who dies before the Parousia as for those who live to witness it: Christ’s return brings an absolute end to the present world; death ends it personally for the one who dies. - Christians are to make use of the features and things of this world; this is God’s design and they have no choice. But they are to do so in terms of sustenance rather than satisfaction; as enjoyment rather than ownership; as instruments unto an end rather than an end in themselves. The Christian isn’t to deny or forsake this world, but to regard and embrace it according to the truth. This orientation was a central feature of Jesus’ kingdom ethic (Matthew 6:24-34) and is thus at the very heart of the mind of Christ. - And where the believer regards and engages the world in this way, he will rejoice and mourn in this world, but as one who inhabits a realm which transcends this world. He will mourn as not mourning and rejoice as not rejoicing – which is to say, as one not bound over to this world and the passions and responses suited to it. He will live in this world as one who engages and utilizes it and its particulars, but as a discerning “lord” who transcends it rather than as a person determined by it and enslaved to it. 151 Thus the resolution to Paul’s apparent self-contradiction: The Christian who is married is to give himself sincerely and completely to his spouse and the marital relationship. He must conform to the truth of marriage and his participation in it, but in conformity to the truth that it, like the world it’s a part of, is passing away. Paul instructed married Christians to “remain as they are” and commit themselves to fulfilling the truth of their marital union by giving themselves wholeheartedly to their marriages. But there are cares and concerns that are inherent in being joined to a spouse, so that conforming to the truth of marriage requires that couples discern and respond properly to them. And at the heart of those cares is the fact that marriage imposes upon spouses a divided allegiance (7:32-35). One may well argue that this isn’t necessarily the case. A married Christian isn’t absolutely constrained to divide his loyalties and energies between God and his spouse; like the single person, he can choose to devote himself entirely to the Lord. This is certainly true, but only where the married believer renounces the truth of his marriage, and Paul didn’t acknowledge that as a possibility. Given his premise that Christians must conform to the truth of their persons, situation and circumstance, the only authentic “reality” for married believers is a divided devotion, and this is why Paul makes no exceptions: The one who is married is necessarily concerned about pleasing his or her spouse; only the single person is able to be single-minded in regard to pleasing the Lord. - Again one may argue that, if Paul’s ethic is indeed God’s ethic, then serving one’s spouse in conformity to the truth of marriage is itself pleasing to the Lord. Why, then, would Paul insist that the single person is free to please the Lord while the married person is obligated to please his spouse (in contradistinction to fully pleasing the Lord – vv. 32-34)? - The answer is that, kept within Paul’s argument, both assertions are true: The married Christian pleases the Lord by being concerned about his spouse; at the same time, his proper marital concern limits his freedom to please God in undivided devotion. The only way for a Christian to “please” the Lord with that sort of devotion is for him to remain single. Thus marriage in conformity to the truth imposes a burden of privation on both spouses: Both are deprived of the freedom to serve God without qualification. But it also imposes a burden of addition in that it demands of both spouses that they serve one another and bear with one another’s frailties, flaws and failures. d. Paul’s desire in his instruction was to spare Christ’s saints undue trouble and pain in this life. Thus he began by emphasizing that marriage complicates life and its difficulties and can even exacerbate its problems. Only then did he turn to the question at hand (7:36-38). These verses have two primary interpretations driven by how one understands Paul’s two terms, virgin and man. 152 As noted earlier, some believe Paul was using term virgin in the broadest sense of young Christian women at Corinth who’d never been married (but were evidently contemplating it). Others interpret the term more narrowly as referring to young women who were already engaged to be married. In this case, the question at hand was whether or not they should follow through with their marriage. So also there are two possible meanings for the term man. Perhaps the more common view is that Paul was referring to the fathers of these young women. This meaning is best supported when “virgin” is interpreted as referring to young women of a marriageable age still living under their father’s oversight. The second option corresponds to the view that “virgin” denotes a betrothed woman and holds that the term “man” refers to her male counterpart. In the case of the first view, Paul was addressing the question of how fathers should regard and decide the issue of giving their daughters in marriage. Recall again that at least some at Corinth were arguing that celibacy is preferable for all Christians. The Corinthians sought Paul’s input (better, his affirmation) on that matter, including the sticky question of fathers refusing to allow their daughters to marry for the sake of the “better way” of a celibate life in Christ’s service. Though widely held, this view has significant contextual and linguistic problems. Interpreted according to the second view, Paul was speaking to the issue of betrothed couples breaking off their engagement for the sake of celibacy and the corollary advantage of undistracted devotion to God (“consecration in body and spirit” – v. 34b). This interpretation is preferable for several reasons and overcomes the problems with its counterpart. At bottom, it assigns the most natural meaning to Paul’s language (so, for instance, his statement: “the one marrying his virgin does well and the one not marrying does better” – v. 38) and better suits the larger context in which Paul makes the decision to marry or remain single dependent upon the believer’s “gift” and mastery over his passions (cf. vv. 7-9 with v. 37: “the one who stands steadfast in his heart, having no inward compulsion, but having authority over his own desires…”). e. Paul concluded his discussion of the Corinthians’ questions regarding celibacy and marriage by briefly addressing the issue of remarriage (7:39-40). His position reiterates the same ethic of freedom, but adds a stipulation to it: Christians who decide to remarry following the death of their spouse (having faithfully appraised themselves and their life situation with the mind of Christ as Paul required), are free to do so. However, they are to remarry “only in the Lord.” Paul didn’t explain his limitation and its meaning; he obviously believed he didn’t need to. The marriage question – as every issue in the Christian’s life – is answered by the principle of freedom. All things are permissible for those in Christ, but freedom, not permissibility, is determinative. Marriage imposes cares and concerns, yet the married believer can find the freedom available in the married state when he conforms to the truth of marriage as the Lord designed it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 18:55:11 GMT -5
B. The Matter of “Things Sacrificed to Idols” The Corinthians raised a second issue in their letter, and that pertained to how they should regard foods which had been connected with pagan worship rites. This sort of situation is very remote to contemporary western readers and so tends to provoke two responses in them: puzzlement and disinterest. They’re so far removed from the Corinthian circumstance that, apart from doing historical research, they really don’t understand what was going on in Corinth or why it was such a contentious issue for the Corinthian church that they felt it necessary to write Paul about it. And while no one would argue that it’s unimportant to understand the issue and Paul’s treatment of it, it’s hard for contemporary Christians to see in the Corinthian situation any direct relevance to themselves and their lives. Who worries about whether the food they eat has been associated with pagan ritual sacrifice? For many, this is a context to be read with only passing interest, and preachers and teachers have sought to make it relevant to their audiences often by making idolatry (in the generic sense of devotion to something other than God) its central concern. Paul was indeed addressing a situation unique to the early Church – one that doesn’t exist for the western Church in the modern era. But this doesn’t make his instruction irrelevant to the contemporary Christian; on the other hand, its relevance doesn’t reside in a supposed concern on Paul’s part with the “idols” of self, materialism, status, pleasure, etc., or with Christians involving themselves in “worldly” practices. Manipulating the context in that way may prove useful to preachers anxious to draw out a convicting and compelling application, but it insures that Paul’s point – and the true relevance of his instruction – will be missed. Another interpretive challenge posed by this context is the fact that it actually consists of four smaller contexts. The first two are found in chapters eight and nine respectively, while the third and fourth roughly divide the epistle’s tenth chapter. These passages differ enough in their content and emphasis that some readers (and interpreters) treat them as separate and distinct contexts. This is especially the case with the second one (9:1-27) in which Paul turned his attention to his own ministry of the gospel and the way his ministry reflected his personal perception and use of his rights as Christ’s apostle. How many Christians recognize Paul’s discussion of his apostolic ministry in chapter nine as part of his answer to the Corinthians’ question regarding foods sacrificed to idols? Indeed, even some commentators fail to make this connection as they ought. And yet, if one reads this section as Paul intended – namely, as a cohesive whole, it’s not difficult to see how all four contexts function organically to answer the Corinthians’ specific concern regarding “idol meats.” 1. The question the Corinthians raised pertained to “things sacrificed to idols” (8:1a), and Paul’s subsequent treatment shows that they sought his counsel as to whether or not they should refrain from eating foods associated with those sacrifices (ref. 8:4ff). As with the previous issue of celibacy, the text leaves no doubt as to the general matter at hand; what isn’t explicit, but must be inferred from the passage and other considerations, is the exact nature of the concern and why and how it was causing confusion and contention among the Corinthians. The epistle makes it clear that the Corinthian church was plagued by a factious spirit, and this particular issue, too, contributed to the fragmentation of the body and its division into various factions, especially as it reflected the socio-economic distinctions among the Corinthians. 154 The place to begin, then, is with the historical circumstance in which the Corinthian believers found themselves. Corinth was uniquely situated so as to have two ports – one leading west into the Ionian Sea and the other leading east into the Aegean Sea. This made Corinth a priceless jewel among Rome’s holdings – a bustling and prosperous commercial center with a large population comprised of transient merchants and seamen as well as permanent residents. And as a major metropolitan city, Corinth also boasted a large and thriving religious trade. The city had numerous temples and shrines and the business of religion filled its streets and pervaded its culture. Corinth may not have equaled Athens in that regard, but its religious activity was ubiquitous and lucrative. Religion was an industry in Corinth, and so was woven into the fabric of the city’s commercial life. It was just as dependent on other businesses and industries as they were on it. Religion was big business in the Greco-Roman world; artisans and merchants, as well as priests and prostitutes, derived their livelihoods from it (Acts 19:23-27). And among the multitude of businesses and enterprises that were interwoven with the religious trade was the food industry. Human beings can be remarkably ingenious and efficient when it comes to making money, and this includes finding ways to maximize profit by more effective utilization of material resources and processes. So it was with those involved in Corinth’s food production and delivery system. It didn’t take long for them to realize that they had a perfect business partner in the religion industry. - Meat on the table means that an animal has been killed and processed for human consumption; so commercial meat production – meat in the marketplace – requires slaughtering and processing on a relatively large scale. - At the same time, animal sacrifice was a central feature of religious practice in the Greco-Roman world. In a large city like Corinth which boasted numerous temples and multitudes of worshippers, the religion business involved the ongoing slaughter of large numbers of various kinds of animals. Why not, then, form a “win-win” business partnership between the two industries? The food industry needed slaughter services and the religion industry needed animals for sacrifice. - Thus the common practice at Corinth (and elsewhere) was for animals earmarked for consumption to be first employed in sacrificial rituals. After that, the carcasses would be processed and the meat made available for sale to consumers. The result of this was that, when a person bought a piece of meat in the marketplace, it was virtually certain it had come to the market by way of a pagan temple and sacrificial rite. This was no secret and, far from being shocking to people, it was accepted as normal practice. Everyone at Corinth knew how the process worked and no one gave it a thought. No one, that is, except worshippers of the Living God. Jews in the Greco-Roman world had long refrained from consuming such meat, not merely because of the connection with pagan rites, but also because the Law established strict dietary rules (cf. Genesis 9:3-4 with Leviticus 11:1-31 and Deuteronomy 12:15-25). 155 Jesus had declared all foods clean (Mark 7:18-19), and those Jewish Christians who knew and embraced this fact doubtless promoted it among their believing brethren. However, many continued to observe Jewish dietary practice, either because of cultural norms or because they didn’t know or understand how it was that Jesus had fulfilled the Mosaic dietary code (as indeed the whole Mosaic Law) in His person and work. Thus it’s quite likely that Jewish sensibilities were contributing to the contention among the Corinthian believers. Nonetheless, the context indicates that the primary concern wasn’t whether the particular meat in dispute conformed to the Mosaic prescription. The issue was the fact that most, if not all, of the meat set on tables in Corinth found its way there from idol temples. The point of contention was the conviction of some in the Corinthian church that foods involved in pagan sacrificial rites were defiled, and thereby defiled those who ate them. Beyond that, Paul’s treatment suggests that some were even arguing that eating such meat indirectly involved the eater himself in idolatrous practice. The intensity of the dispute was heightened by the fact that the contending parties were divided largely along socio-economic lines. Hays’ comments are illuminating: “Feasts held in temples were common events in the daily life of a Greco-Roman city. For example, the sanctuary of Asclepius in Corinth comprised both an area for cultic sacrifice and several dining rooms that opened onto a pleasant public courtyard. The wealthier Corinthians would have been invited to meals in such places as a regular part of their social life, to celebrate birthdays, weddings, healings attributed to a god, or other important occasions. For those few Corinthian Christians who were among the wealthier class, their public and professional duties virtually required the networking that occurred through attending and sponsoring such events. To eat the sacrificial meat served on such occasions was simple social courtesy; to refuse to share in the meal would be an affront to the host… Within the social circle of the poorer Corinthians, on the other hand, such meat-eating would not have been commonplace. Meat was not an ordinary part of their diet; it may have been accessible only at certain public religious festivals where there was a distribution of meat. Consequently, the wealthy and powerful, who also had the most advanced education, would take the eating of meat in stride and readily accept the view that it was a matter of spiritual indifference; at the same time, however, the poor might regard meat as laden with ‘numinous’ [supernatural] religious connotations.” 2. This was the circumstance and point of contention which provoked the Corinthians’ question to Paul, and he constructed his response in characteristic fashion: Rather than simply answering their narrow concern, Paul began by framing the issue and showing how it needed to be considered more broadly. In this matter as in all matters, Paul understood that a simple answer is always the wrong answer; applying the mind of Christ to any given concern means viewing and addressing it according to the larger principles which ultimately determine right thinking and right action with respect to that concern. Thus Paul began his response, not by addressing the specific matter of food sacrificed to idols, but by speaking to the broader issue of knowledge: its relation to the Christian life in the Church and in the world, the limitations and perils which attend it, and its relation to the overarching virtue of love (8:1-3). 156 a. As with the subject of celibacy, Paul discerned a deeper issue behind the Corinthians’ query regarding food sacrificed to idols. Read through the lens of his close relationship with them, their letter showed Paul that they were reducing the whole matter to a question of knowledge – of who had the right understanding. - Evidently there were, on the one hand, those at Corinth who were convinced that, because there is one God, idols are merely products of the human imagination. Imaginary deities cannot defile things offered to them, and undefiled offerings cannot defile those who eat them (vv. 4-7). - On the opposite side were others who argued on the basis of their own knowledge that pagan religious practices are idolatrous and therefore abominable to God irrespective of the fact that idols themselves are human inventions. So the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-29) had forbidden involvement with idol sacrifices and the “eating of blood” (directly or by eating the undrained flesh of a sacrificial animal). Didn’t this prohibition extend to eating meat that had been involved in a sacrificial ritual? Each party in the contention was apparently trying to vindicate its position by claiming knowledge of the truth, and Paul responded by insisting that both were right in that regard: “We know that we all have knowledge” (8:1a). Every Christian is taught by the Spirit of truth, so that none has a monopoly on knowledge. Paul recognized – as the Corinthians needed to – that all believers have knowledge of the truth, and a crucial implication of this fact is that knowledge alone is not a legitimate basis for deciding the question at hand. b. Knowledge can’t answer the dilemma of eating meat sacrificed to idols because all of Christ’s saints possess it. But more importantly, it can’t do so because, in itself, it’s inadequate. Though the answer to any question in the Christian life obviously begins with knowledge – one can hardly resolve an issue he doesn’t rightly understand, it doesn’t end there. Indeed, it cannot end there, for the accurate knowledge of facts alone is insufficient, and that for two reasons: - The first ought to be the most obvious, which is that all human knowledge, however correct, is always incomplete and therefore inherently imprecise: Human knowledge is limited and conditioned by human finiteness. Even where a person’s knowledge coincides with actual truth, it does so only in a qualified way. Thus Paul: “If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know” (8:2). By this statement Paul wasn’t denying human knowledge (ref. 8:1), but he was attaching a crucial qualification to it. Again, no person – including the most mature Christian – knows anything exhaustively or flawlessly. Thus the one who asserts, “I have come to know,” has already disproved his assertion. For the one who really “knows” recognizes that his knowledge is always imperfect; he will always be in the process of learning. 157 - At the same time, the context indicates that Paul was making a slightly different point. It’s true that human finiteness precludes anyone from saying, “I have come to know,” but Paul’s emphasis was on the mindset behind this assertion rather than its falseness. The one who makes this claim betrays an arrogance by which he deceives himself and also sets himself over others. His arrogance, more than his human limitation, proves that he doesn’t know as he ought. But the one who has a right knowledge – knowledge which conforms to the mind of Christ – recognizes that human knowledge feeds upon and feeds arrogance; left to itself, knowledge undermines, tears down and destroys. c. Paul wanted the Corinthians to understand that knowledge is an insufficient criterion for resolving the issue of “idol meats.” But what, then, is the appropriate criterion? Paul expressed it with a word: love. Again, it’s not that knowledge is irrelevant, but knowledge must function under the governance of love: Whereas knowledge nurtures arrogance, love always effects edification (8:1b): In and of itself, knowledge inflates the self into a deformed caricature of a true human being; love builds up the other unto his conformity to the true Man. Though all of Christ’s saints possess His mind by virtue of His indwelling Spirit, their conformity to it is always a work in progress. No one knows as he ought or as he one day will (cf. 13:9-12 with 1 John 3:2), but many Christians go further by obscuring Christ’s mind within them. They do so by employing knowledge in the service of natural judgment, sensibilities and interests, thereby grieving and even quenching the Spirit within them (Ephesians 4:17-32; 1 Thessalonians 5:8-22). So it was with some at Corinth; so it is with many believers to this day. - Because men don’t know what they don’t know, they naturally assume that they know in truth; they assume that their knowledge is true simply because it is theirs. All men instinctively operate with the conviction that everything they believe is true, for who embraces that which he knows to be false? This dynamic alone shows that human knowledge stands on the foundation of arrogance while also nourishing it. - Knowledge and arrogance are intimate companions for the simple reason that men are self-referential and self-oriented. They are at the epicenter of every concern and endeavor, including their pursuit, acquisition and employment of knowledge. Thus their knowledge tends toward their selfexaltation and self-promotion at the expense of others, and this is just as much the case with what they know rightly as what they believe in error. Paul knew all too well the ugly and destructive face of knowledge: He’d lived his life in the erudite, self-assured world of Jewish Pharisaism; he’d known the prestigious and enviable title rabbi and enjoyed the respectful deference of others as tacit acknowledgement that they lacked his insight and scholarship. 158 If men are naturally convinced of their knowledge and the standing it affords them, Paul was all the more convinced. He knew what he knew and so had the obligation – not merely the right – before God to bring others into conformity with the “truth,” even if through death (Acts 6:9-8:3). But this laudable scholar who could boast a thoroughgoing knowledge of scriptural facts didn’t know the truth of those facts (cf. Acts 26:1-23; Philippians 3:4-6; 1 Timothy 1:12-13) and it took a confrontation with the living Christ for him to realize his ignorance and error. Paul discovered – to his great shame, but also to his great joy – that knowledge isn’t synonymous with truth; knowledge becomes “of the truth” only when it’s discerned and employed according to the mind of the Spirit of truth. The Corinthians were concerned to know what they should do about eating food that had been sacrificed to idols and they sought Paul’s input on that specific question. Both factions were convinced that the answer lay in knowing the truth about idols and their relation to the Christian life and they expected Paul to decide their dispute by siding with one set of convictions over against the other. But Paul understood that applying the mind of Christ to a given issue involves discerning and applying overarching, governing principles; otherwise, one is sure to “strain the gnat while swallowing the camel.” d. He recognized that this particular issue – as every issue – can’t be resolved by the criterion of knowledge: what is true versus what is false; what is right versus what is wrong. Rather, a true resolution comes from applying knowledge as it is conditioned and governed by love: Knowledge not governed by love fosters arrogance; knowledge brought into subjection to love serves love’s goal of edification. Thus the one who truly “knows” is the one who loves, and the one who loves will find his knowledge working toward the true good of others. This relation between knowledge and love is something the Corinthians should have understood, for they had personally experienced it as children of their heavenly Father. Knowledge and love function together in this way in God Himself, and He has displayed and exalted them in His restoring work in His Son in order that men should walk in them. This is the framework for understanding Paul’s assertion that the one who loves God has first been known by Him (8:3). Paul redirected the Corinthians’ focus from their knowledge to God’s: What mattered isn’t what they knew, but who they loved, together with their recognition that their love for God had its source in His knowledge of them. In turn, God’s knowledge of them (i.e., His relational knowledge) was itself grounded in His love. The saints at Corinth loved God because He first loved them, and in His love for them He had communicated Himself to them in His Son by His Spirit such that they had come to know Him even as He knew them. Thus Paul’s point: God orders and applies His knowledge in love, and so it is to be with those who share in His life. He embodies in Himself and in His self-communication the knowledge-love relation, and it’s in conformity to that relation that His children become true “knowers” who live out the truth in the Church and in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 18:56:16 GMT -5
3. In order to rightly answer the Corinthians’ dilemma regarding things sacrificed to idols, Paul had to first lay the necessary foundation. The Corinthians believed knowledge should decide the matter; what they sought from Paul was his opinion as to whose conviction was right and whose was wrong. But Paul understood that knowledge – even when correct – cannot itself resolve any issues in the Christian life; one can be right from the vantage point of factual truths and be wrong when measured against the truth as it is in Christ – the truth as God views it. Whether the present concern or any other, the resolution is found in discerning and applying the relation between knowledge and love: What matters is not what one knows, but how he appropriates and applies what he knows; what matters is faith working through love (cf. 13:1-13 with Galatians 5:6 and 6:15). Thus answering the Corinthians’ concern began with properly orienting their thinking. Paul was responding by letter, and he was well aware that they would be interpreting his words through the grid of their own perspectives and sensibilities. Paul wasn’t going to be present with the Corinthians to clarify his instruction, and so it was crucial that he do what he could to secure a “meeting of the minds” with them. Only then could he rightly turn his attention to the matter at hand (8:4-13). a. If it seemed at the outset that Paul was disparaging or discounting knowledge, he quickly dispelled that notion. Among other things, knowledge had to answer the foundational question of whether or not food offered to idols is defiled. Since that question was fundamental to the contention between the two groups, there was no basis for further discussion until it was resolved; if such food is indeed defiled as the one group contended, then the question of eating was settled: Christians should abstain from partaking in it. Knowledge thus played a crucial role in resolving the dispute, and the verdict of knowledge is that foods sacrificed to idols are not defiled for the simple reason that they are offered to imaginary beings. - Idols are nothing because there is only one God and one Lord. True, there are many so-called “gods” and “lords” whom men acknowledge, worship and serve, as the Corinthians well knew. They lived in a city filled with temples, shrines and altars, and they were well aware of the emerging imperial cult which venerated Caesar as a god and the “lord of lords.” - But those who know the truth – those who are of the truth – recognize that there is but one God who is the Creator-Father and one Lord who is Jesus Christ. This Lord is the co-creator of all things with the Father and the One in whom all things – and most especially man as God’s image-son – find their life, meaning and destiny (8:4-6). Paul’s unique language in describing this one God and one Lord has led some to speculate that it reflects a confessional formulation in the early Church. This is certainly possible, but it’s more likely that Paul chose this particular way of expressing the singular deity and lordship of the Father and Son because it highlights them as the source and goal of every other being. There can therefore be no other “gods” or “lords”; there are only created things, subject to the Creator. 160 b. Men devise in their minds “gods” and “lords,” and fictitious entities cannot affect things that are real. So idols, being imaginary beings, cannot defile food offered to them, with the result that there is no defilement or sin in eating food that’s come to the table from the idol temple. This is the truth of the matter, but not every Christian has this knowledge (8:7). Such individuals weren’t dull or foolish; they, too, had knowledge (8:1), but their knowledge was immature; they hadn’t yet attained to a mature understanding. In their sincere judgment, food sacrificed to idols is defiled. In the case of “weak” Gentile believers, they were coping with the baggage of years of devotion to the religious and cultural “truth” that idols represent real gods; their Jewish counterparts had the baggage of their lives under Torah’s dietary restrictions and the obligation of non-association with everything Gentile. In their own way, both were “accustomed to the idol until now.” Whether grounded in Jewish or Greco-Roman sensibilities, these immature believers had a conscience problem with eating foods associated with idol rituals and idol temples. Their consciences regarded such food as defiled, and the result was that, for them, it was defiled. So eating it left them in a state of defilement – not in their bodies or in God’s estimation, but in their own conscience (8:7). Paul was here making a crucial point that must not be missed: While there is no inherent defilement in the food itself, the conviction that it’s defiled results in a defiled conscience for those who act contrary to their conscience. Paul had settled the question of whether a sacrificial ritual or pagan site can defile food: they can’t. But the real concern in the matter isn’t the status of the food itself, but how a person regards it. The Corinthians were focusing on the defilement of “idol meats” when the issue was the defilement of human consciences. And that defilement occurs when the Christian goes against his conscience, regardless of whether or not his conscience is rightly informed. This is precisely what Paul meant when he insisted to the church at Rome that anything that is not an expression of faith is sin (Romans 14:23). God’s creation is good in all of its components and features. There is no sin in partaking in the world God created; sin and defilement are a matter of the heart’s perspective, orientation and conviction. This means that no thing is unclean in itself; rather, things become tainted by uncleanness when the human heart projects its own defilement onto them by regarding, embracing and employing them with an unclean mind and in an unclean manner (ref. 1 Timothy 4:1-6; Titus 1:15). Thus Paul’s point: Sin with respect to “idol meats” results from acting contrary to one’s faith (i.e., violating one’s conscience as it is submitted to Christ), not from the act of eating. This means that two believers can eat the same food and the act will be sinful and defiling for one and not for the other. The one who acts in faith, being fully convinced that God has given all things to be enjoyed with thanksgiving and praise, is free of sin; the one who violates his conscience and acts against his faith is guilty before God. By engaging himself with what he believes to be wrong or unclean he has defiled his conscience (Romans 14:5-14). 161 c. Paul understood – as does every mature conscience – that no food is unclean regardless of its substance, its history, or even the setting in which it’s consumed. Again, it was commonplace in Corinth (and elsewhere) for temple facilities to be used for various social gatherings and community events. Such facilities served a cultural as well as religious function, and social convention and obligations virtually insured that wealthier Christians at least would find themselves on occasion “dining in an idol’s temple” (8:10). This practice doubtless shocked some of the Corinthian saints, but Paul saw nothing wrong in it as such; like eating meat bought in the marketplace, it was a matter of indifference – of liberty (cf. 8:8-10 with 10:25-27). Echoing his Roman epistle, Paul insisted that neither eating nor abstaining has any value or import to God or the believer’s spiritual condition; neither “commends us to God” or makes us better or worse (8:8). - Paul stood alongside the mature saints at Corinth in affirming their knowledge and conviction that eating food associated with idol worship and sacrifices is indifferent. Moreover, this was the case whether one did so in a private home or on the grounds of a pagan temple. - At the same time, he withstood them in insisting that knowledge isn’t determinative; love is. The decision to eat or not eat isn’t driven by the truth of the food itself, which is indifferent, but by the obligation of love. - In contradistinction to knowledge which, in itself, “puffs up” the knower and fosters his preoccupation with what is right – and therefore with the rights which correct knowledge grants him, love always “builds up” the other. Love will act in any choice, situation or circumstance in the cause of the true good of others, whether nurturing a brother’s faith and life in Christ or laboring to see them formed in one who doesn’t know Him. So it is that love refuses to “ruin” a fellow believer by wounding his conscience or leading it astray, even when knowledge sanctions a different position or behavior. - Love will refuse its rights to dine in a temple if it encourages (wrongly “builds up”) other believers to either violate their conscience or conclude that idolatrous practice is acceptable (8:10-12; cf. Romans 14:10-21). - So love will push away meat served in a private home if its previous involvement in an idol sacrifice violates the conscience of another brother seated at the table (10:25-29). d. Love, not knowledge, determines what is finally right and proper in a given situation or concern. And such love isn’t the self-referential, ultimately selfserving sentimentality and affection that marks the natural mind; this love is of God and is the outworking of the mind of Christ: Viewed from the one side, this love for men is the expression of Christ’s love for them; viewed from the other, love for men is merely the extension of the believer’s love for his Lord (8:11-13). 162 The one who regards knowledge as he ought recognizes that knowledge must be subjected to love – love as it exists in God and as it is manifest in Jesus Christ, which means employing knowledge in the cause of the edification of others. But just as love must be defined in terms of Christ Himself, so it is with edification: Edification is nurture and growth in Christ, so that the one who serves his brother in this way is also serving his Lord. Jesus gave Himself that His people should enter into His life and be built up in Him unto their full “christiformity” (Ephesians 4:11-16). In that sense, He gave Himself for the sake of His saints’ edification. Serving that end is serving Him; undermining it is undermining Him. Paul understood the grave implications of deferring to one’s “rights” and failing to act in love (so v. 13): First, the consciences of weaker brothers are defiled and they are stumbled in their faith. This much was evident to the Corinthians; the mature believers were well aware of the effect their freedom was having on their less mature brethren. But what they likely didn’t realize is that an assault on the consciences of other saints is an assault upon Christ Himself; by following the dictates of “rightness,” the mature at Corinth were acting so as to ruin men whom Christ died to deliver from ruination. They no doubt told themselves that their actions were good because they provoked the immature to grow up. But, in fact, they were despoiling them and sinning against the Lord and His law of love. In this way Paul highlighted the crucial importance of properly employing one’s knowledge and the freedom it supplies. Again, the Corinthians – regardless of which side they took – considered the issue of eating food sacrificed to idols as a matter to be resolved by knowledge. They were concerned with upholding the truth, and this meant doing what is right, which is to say, conforming themselves to the conduct knowledge prescribed. In turn, by doing what is right they felt they’d be honoring their Lord. But the spiritual mind recognizes that rightness – and therefore authentic service and honor to the Lord Jesus – is determined by the dictates of love, not the insights of knowledge. - In this context Paul’s emphasis was on the mature believers at Corinth and their responsibility to the weaker ones among them. The “strong” were right in their conviction about food sacrificed to idols, but they were to subject their “right” to love’s lordship. Their eating wasn’t sinful unless it ruined their brother, either by directly assaulting his conscience or by inciting him to disobey his convictions. - But the same dynamic held true for the weaker, less mature individuals. They, too, were obligated to subject their knowledge and convictions to the lordship of love. Though their immaturity rendered them the “weaker vessel,” and therefore more vulnerable than their mature brethren, they held their convictions just as strongly and so were just as prone to the sin of judging their fellows. When Paul demanded of the Corinthians that they stop judging one another, he wasn’t singling out the mature ones among them; everyone who is convinced in his own mind is inclined to pass judgment on those who differ (cf. Romans 14:1-10). Knowledge fuels arrogance, and this applies to everyone who “knows,” whether his knowledge is accurate or false, mature or immature.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 22:08:07 GMT -5
4. The Corinthians raised the specific question of eating food sacrificed to idols, and Paul answered that question with a set of principles that apply to all matters of conviction and conscience. Such foods aren’t themselves defiled, but this doesn’t mean that they can’t be defiling to the eater or others who observe him eating. Because the issue isn’t the thing or action itself, but how a person regards it, sin and defilement can still result where a weak conscience is involved. And because knowledge must serve love’s goal of edification, every Christian must hold his convictions such that they don’t impede or stumble the faith of a brother or sister. This obligation pertains equally to the weak and the strong: Both are obligated to act in love toward the other by accepting one another and upholding the other’s faith. But the very nature of the difference between a weak and a strong conscience means that upholding one’s own convictions and conscience and those of the other person will look different in practice for the weak and strong. - A weaker brother cannot forego his “rights” because his conscience is bound. In the case of the present concern of “idol meats,” the weaker brother isn’t free to eat or not eat; only abstinence permits him a good conscience. - In contrast, the strong brother can yield his right to eat without violating his conscience. Unlike the weak one, he knows that eating is a matter of indifference; he is neither better nor worse if he eats or doesn’t eat; he is “free” with respect to eating and therefore able to forego his rights for the sake of his brother. Only the strong brother can set aside his rights and still uphold his own faith and conscience. This is why Paul’s exhortation to loving deference is directed toward the mature believer and not the immature one. But, as noted above, the weaker brother does have the same obligation of love when it comes to judging those who differ. He must refrain from condemning the brother who possesses freedom just as the brother whose conscience is free must not look down on the one whose weak conscience is bound. Both are to accept the other and apply themselves to the other’s edification. Paul regarded himself among the strong and so used himself as an example for his counterparts at Corinth. He wasn’t requiring of them anything that he didn’t require of himself; he’d gladly abstain from eating meat if it meant others would be kept from stumbling (8:13). Of course, the mature among the Corinthians might object that Paul wasn’t faced with that necessity; he wasn’t in their situation and so it was easy for him to talk about what he would do if he were. Some at Corinth would surely take a cynical view of Paul’s claim, but others would find in it further justification for questioning his apostleship (cf. 9:3 with 4:1-3): How could a true apostle who understands his authority and rights constrain himself in this way? Apostolic authority and commitment to truth are demonstrated through unyielding argument and action, not vacillation and compromise. It’s impossible to know whether or not Paul anticipated such objections as he wrote; nevertheless, he wisely followed his stated commitment to forego his rights with actual proof that he’d been doing just that as Christ’s apostle. Paul was no mere talker or pontificator; in every arena of his life and ministry, he practiced what he preached. He set aside his rights, not as a coward or a compromiser of truth, but for truth’s sake (9:1-27). 164 a. Paul set the stage for his defense with a pointed affirmation of his own status in Christ and the rights attached to it. If there were those at Corinth who could boast mature knowledge, understanding, and faith, their boast paled in comparison to his: He was Christ’s chosen apostle to the Gentiles; indeed even the “strong” at Corinth were his children in the faith (9:1-2). (It is likely that Paul used his apostleship as the platform for his defense, not only because it highlighted the extent of his authority and rights, but also because he knew it had already become an issue of contention and division among the Corinthians.) b. The strong among the Corinthians could claim the rights that come with mature knowledge (8:9). Paul also enjoyed those rights and more, for he could claim the title of apostle – the privileged status of one chosen by the Lord Himself and charged with the stewardship of His gospel and Church. If the Corinthians wanted to examine Paul and his life in the light of his demands upon them, he was ready and eager for them to do so. And his answer to them was that, in every arena, he had willingly foregone his rights for the sake of the gospel and its fruitfulness in the Church and the world. He exemplified that truth in several particulars: 1) First of all, he’d foregone his right to “eat and drink” (9:4). There are two likely meanings here: The first is that Paul was speaking of the right he and his apostolic associates had to have their sustenance provided to them without paying or working for it. This view is supported by what follows in verses 6-14. The other option is that Paul was referring to the right to eat and drink whatever they chose. This interpretation is supported by the larger contextual issue of eating food that had been sacrificed to idols. Whichever Paul intended, the general thrust is the same: Paul and his associates had a bona fide right that they refused to exercise. 2) The second right Paul had foregone was the right to include a believing wife in his labors in the gospel (9:5). The fact that Paul associated this right with the matter of being supported in his ministry rather than having to work (9:6) suggests two possible meanings. The first is that he was referring to the right to have a wife with him to care for his daily physical needs. In that way he’d be freed from concerns for his own provision and able to concentrate on the ministry of the gospel. The other possibility is that Paul was referring to the right of Christ’s ministers to have their spouses accompany them and also receive support from the churches. Many read this passage and find themselves sidetracked by such concerns as Paul’s marital history, the reason for his mention of Cephas (Peter) and the Lord’s brothers, and how it was that Barnabas was connected with the church at Corinth. These questions have merit, but can’t be answered with certainty. What is concrete and clear is Paul’s point: For all the hardship that comes from leaving one’s wife behind, Paul and Barnabas (at least) set aside their right to have their wives with them in order to not impose a burden on Christ’s saints – including the Corinthians themselves. 165 3) The third “right” builds upon the previous one: Like all those who devote themselves to the ministry of Christ’s gospel, Paul was entitled to the church’s financial support in his labors. If he and his associates had the right to have a wife accompany them and care for their daily needs – and they did, they equally had the right to the support of the body of Christ. Jesus had called them to give themselves entirely to the ministry of the gospel, and the Church’s obligation in that calling was to free them up from having to work in a different vocation (9:6). Having asserted that right, Paul proceeded to substantiate it from several vantage points (9:7ff): First, Paul drew upon the examples of a soldier and farmer, which he considered apt metaphors for Christian service (9:7; cf. 2 Timothy 2:3-7). With respect to the former, because soldiers serve on behalf of another and not themselves, everyone recognizes that they aren’t expected to pay their own expenses. Rather, the lord or nation they fight for supplies their provision. In the case of a soldier, the one who is served provides for the one who serves; in the case of a farmer, his provision is drawn from the crops and animals he tends. He may not himself own the fields, flocks and herds, but he is entitled to a portion of their yield. As it is with farmers, so it is with Christ’s ministers who are laborers in His field and shepherds of His flock (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:5-9 with Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-4). These considerations and practices are affirmed by all men, but also by God Himself: In His prescription to Israel the Lord insisted that they not “muzzle the ox while he is threshing” (9:8-9; ref. Deuteronomy 25:4). The direct purpose for this law was to insure that the sons of Israel would not abuse their oxen by keeping them from feeding on the grain they were threshing. By muzzling his oxen, a farmer would obtain more grain from the threshing process, but he would be requiring his “laborers” to work for free. The law pertained directly to threshing animals, but the principle was universal: Israel needed to recognize and comply with the ethic that every creature is entitled to receive compensation for its labors. If this applies to animals, how much more to human workers (cf. James 5:1-4)? The Mosaic Code specified that laborers draw a wage from their labors, but the Law served a larger, ultimate purpose. Like every feature of the salvation history, the Law prophesied of the Messiah and His kingdom (cf. Matthew 11:13 with Luke 24:27, 44-48 and John 5:39). Thus when Paul observed that God isn’t concerned with oxen (9:9b), he wasn’t pointing to a concern for human laborers as such, but for those who labor in God’s field in the kingdom of Christ. Paul recognized that this law, as the entire Mosaic Code, has been “christified” – fulfilled and transformed in Christ – and has now attained its intended meaning and relevance in relation to the “Israel of God” in and through the person and work of Jesus Christ. This dynamic is precisely the reason for Paul’s insistence that God was thereby “speaking altogether for our sake” (9:10). 166 “Paul claims that the text addresses the church of his own time directly, in an oracular fashion, metaphorically instructing them to provide financial support for Paul and other apostles. This is for Paul not a derived sense of the text, but its fundamental meaning, now eschatologically disclosed.” (Richard Hays, emphasis added) The above metaphors together highlight the principle of reciprocity: Those who serve the benefit of another are entitled to receive benefit for their labors. But in this particular instance, Paul heightens this principle by arguing from the greater to the lesser, and that in two ways: First, he and his associates had labored to impart spiritual benefit to the Lord’s people; were they not, then, entitled to receive back from the saints the lesser benefit of material support (9:11; cf. Galatians 6:6)? Secondly, the Corinthians had provided support to others who labored among them as spiritual leaders. If those men were worthy of material support, how much more was Paul who was their father in the faith (9:12a)? Lastly, Paul cited two pinnacle proofs in his contention of his right to be supported in his labors. These proofs provide a suitable capstone in that they emphasize the divine nature and orientation of the apostolic work. Paul and his associates weren’t serving themselves or their own agenda. Neither were they servants of a religious cause or program. They labored as God’s ministers in His sanctuary on behalf of the cornerstone Himself. - God required that His sanctuary (through its sacrificial ministrations) provide sustenance to the priestly ministers who served it; how much more is that the case in regard to His fulfilled, living sanctuary which is the Church (9:13; cf. 3:16, 6:19)? - Yahweh had commanded the Mosaic covenant community to provide this support; now Yahweh incarnate and glorified in Jesus Christ commanded His Church of the new covenant to provide it to their ministering servants (9:14). For all of these reasons Paul and his fellow laborers in the gospel could claim full rights in the sight of God to the Corinthians’ financial support, and yet he’d refused to require what was rightfully his. Paul (and Barnabas at least) willingly endured the hardship of providing for his own support in order to “cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ” (9:12). Not only had Paul set aside his right to financial and physical support, he provided for his own needs by working as a common laborer. Paul, the prestigious scholar, rabbi and divinely-chosen apostle, was willing to earn a minimal wage in the menial task of making tents (Acts 18:1-3). Ironically, this very act of love and service to the Corinthians became an occasion for their doubt and reproach against him: No man who was a true apostle would degrade himself in that way.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 22:09:14 GMT -5
c. Paul’s rights were neither self-devised nor self-serving, but were inherent in the very nature and fact of his calling and authority as Christ’s apostle. They were rights Christ Himself had bestowed upon him – first, by virtue of His general directive regarding His servants (9:14; cf. Luke 10:7-8), and then by His specific apostolic call to Paul (Acts 9:1ff). Paul knew better than anyone that he had been chosen and commissioned by the Lord; he knew his rights as Jesus’ servant in the gospel, and yet he willingly set them aside in Corinth in order to avoid causing a hindrance to the gospel. It was important to Paul that the Corinthians understand his motivation in refusing to require their support during his time of ministry among them. He had done so for their sake – more precisely, for the sake of their faith – and not out of personal or even altruistic concerns. And his motive remained unchanged. Doubtless some at Corinth would interpret his defense as a cynical, self-serving attempt to guilt them into supplying the support they’d previously withheld from him. Paul anticipated this reaction and intercepted it by declaring that this was not at all his motivation (9:15a); indeed, even if the Corinthians wanted to support him he would not permit them to do so. And not because he was a martyr or trying to punish them; Paul recognized that receiving support from the Corinthians would only reinforce the false perception of him held by some among them (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:7-13), thus making him even more of a stumbling block to those individuals and perhaps other brethren as well, and he was unwilling to allow that. These observations are important because they provide the necessary framework for interpreting Paul’s statement that he preferred death over permitting any man to make his boast an empty one (9:15b). Without them, it’s easy to conclude that Paul’s refusal to accept support from the Corinthians was a matter of his own pride – that he regarded his self-support as a badge of honor which distinguished him from others of Jesus’ servants and no one was going to deprive him of it. But this wasn’t at all what Paul meant, as his subsequent explanation shows (9:16-18). Here Paul finally made explicit what he’s implied all along, namely that his apostolic labors were a matter of compulsion (9:16): He was compelled to preach the gospel – first because the Lord Jesus Himself had set him apart and called him to it, but also because of the burden of his own heart. Paul had experienced the forgiveness, cleansing and life of the new creation in Jesus Christ and he longed for all men to share in it. Paul saw himself as a man under compulsion, but his point wasn’t that he was being forced to preach against his will, but that this compulsion afforded him no boast. He couldn’t take credit or praise for preaching the gospel, for he was only doing what the Lord called him to do; he was only fulfilling his commission. This understanding is critical to interpreting verse 17: - When a man willfully enters upon a vocation, he does so expecting to receive some sort of reward from his labors. He is serving at his own behest; he has, as it were, called himself into service, which means that he serves with a sense of his own personal concerns and interests. 168 - But Paul’s calling and vocation were imposed upon him. He didn’t choose to be Christ’s apostle; the Lord chose and appointed him (Acts 9:1ff). So Paul didn’t decide to preach, he was directed to do so by the One he’d come to recognize as Yahweh’s promised Messiah. He was under divine orders to bring the gospel of the kingdom to the Jewish people and the Gentile nations. The God of Israel had entrusted him with the stewardship of the “good news” that the deliverance, renewal and everlasting kingdom He’d been promising for millennia had now been realized in His Servant. God had chosen to reveal to Paul the mystery which had been hidden for ages and generations, and he was now to carry the revelation of that mystery to the sons of men (Ephesians 3:1-12). Paul’s stewardship was a glorious privilege as well as a high calling, and he considered his “reward” accordingly: Paul was entitled to material support in his labors, but such support had nothing to do with his reward for his work. Paul labored for the sake of the gospel and he regarded the fruit of those labors to be his reward, which was people coming to faith in Jesus. Thus Paul saw material support as merely serving his reward, not as the reward itself. - Paul’s reward was seeing men presented complete in Christ; if the saints’ support helped him – and them – toward that goal, he rejoiced and praised God for it (cf. 2 Corinthians 8-9; Philippians 4:15-19; Colossians 1:24-29). - But because of how Paul conceived his reward, he was just as happy foregoing support and providing for his own needs if that helped advance his work and the goal he had in it. For Paul, the presence or absence of material support was relevant only to the extent that either scenario contributed to the fruitfulness of his labors and so to his own reward in them: If being supported freed him up so as to make his work more fruitful, he rejoiced in it; if it created an obstacle or stumbling block, he gladly refused it. Paul’s reward consisted in the success of the gospel, and this is why he could say that he was rewarded in being able to offer the gospel without charge (9:18). Jesus called him to take the good news of His triumph and kingdom to all people, and thus Paul wasn’t going to let his ministry be limited by men’s ability – or willingness – to meet his expenses. Time and space might limit him, but financial concerns wouldn’t; rich or poor, generous or sparing, Paul was committed to preach the gospel to all men, with an eye not to his material support, but with the goal of receiving an abundant reward in a rich harvest of faith. d. As with the matter of food sacrificed to idols, the Corinthians were looking narrowly at the issue of Paul’s support. For them, it was a question of right and wrong and upholding one’s “rights.” But Paul viewed the question of his support as he did every issue of life: One’s relation to any particular issue is determined by the overarching obligation of conformity to the truth as it is in Jesus Christ. All things must be perceived and employed in the cause of Christ and His gospel; faith and edification, not personal rights, governed Paul’s thoughts and actions. 169 Thus, though he was “free from all men,” Paul made himself “a slave to all, that he might win the more” (9:19). Paul was free from all men in the sense that he wasn’t constrained by or obligated to their sensibilities and convictions. He knew no man could judge him and he didn’t subject himself to their judgment. But Paul recognized One who judges him and to whom he was obligated (cf. 9:16, 4:1-4). The love of Christ constrained Paul to loving, faithful servanthood, and this meant becoming the servant of all men for the sake of Christ’s accomplishment and glory as the source and substance of God’s new creation (2 Corinthians 5:11-21). Like the preceding verses, this passage (9:19-22) has often been misconstrued and misapplied in the Christian community. Not infrequently it has been used as biblical warrant for effectively (if not intentionally) “rounding the corners” of gospel truth for the sake of making it agreeable to men of various perspectives and persuasions. Reacting against this sort of compromise, others have rendered themselves equally guilty of violating Paul’s words. They’ve done so by minimizing or glossing over the yieldedness which Paul insisted upon as the paradigm for gospel witness in the Church and in the world. Paul wasn’t authorizing any compromise of the truth; he wasn’t calling for or approving any sort or degree of accommodation in the truth, but the accommodation of the truth to individual men. - Paul’s goal was the fruit of authentic faith in those alienated from God. But faith comes by hearing and hearing through the word of Christ – that is, through the truth of the gospel made living and compelling by the Holy Spirit (Romans 10:17). Paul’s goal depended upon the truth as it is in Jesus Christ; therefore, he recognized that any compromise of the gospel – whether by alteration, omission, or addendum – amounted to him shooting himself in the foot; all such compromise only undermined his labors. - The proclamation of the truth of Jesus Christ was the substance of Paul’s ministry, but his goal was that his hearers would be joined to Him and perfected in Him. Paul’s goal wasn’t agreement with the truthfulness of gospel content, but men’s participation in the new creation in Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17-20; Colossians 1:28-29). This depends upon truthful words and ideas being discerned and internalized as the word of truth as it is in Christ Jesus. Gospel truths have their proper effect when the Spirit renders them “spirit and life” in the mind and heart of the hearer, and this demands a “meeting of the minds” between the hearer and the preacher. In spite of how men might interpret his words, Paul wasn’t in any way allowing or approving compromise, but he was insisting upon accommodation. The goal and fruitfulness of the gospel renounce the former while demanding the latter. It was in terms of this rightful accommodation that Paul spoke of himself as the slave of all men, and in verses 20-22 he illustrated this “slavery” by means of four examples, all of which highlight what it means to “become all things to all men.” 170 The first three are closely related in that they deal with Jew-Gentile distinctions. Elsewhere Paul addressed at length the challenges faced by church bodies comprised of Jewish and Gentile believers, but this wasn’t his concern in the present passage. Here he was speaking with regard to the unique challenges in testifying to Jesus among Jews and non-Jews. 1) Paul first insisted that he became as a Jew to the Jews (9:20a). This is a peculiar statement because Paul was a Jew; in what sense, then, did he have to become like a Jew? The answer lies in Paul’s understanding of salvation-historical fulfillment: He recognized that, in Christ Jesus, there is no such thing as “Jew” or “Gentile”; there is only the one “new man” in Him (Ephesians 2:11-22; cf. Galatians 3:26-29). Paul hadn’t renounced his Jewishness, but, as a member of the “Israel of God,” he now transcended his Jewish identity as fulfillment transcends promise. Paul’s Jewishness – as that of all believing Jews – had been christified, and that meant he was no longer bound by Jewish definitions or prescriptions. 2) Jewishness has been christified because Israel’s identity and existence have been fulfilled in Christ Jesus, Yahweh’s True Israel. But this also means that the Law of Moses – the covenant by which Israel was identified, defined and ordered as the Abrahamic nation – has been christified. Echoing his Lord, Paul everywhere insisted that Jesus of Nazareth, as Israel’s promised Messiah, didn’t abrogate the Law, but fulfilled it (Matthew 5:17). He is the true Abrahamic seed (Galatians 3:16): Yahweh’s true Son, Servant, Disciple and Witness through whom all the families of the earth are blessed (ref. again Galatians 3). Jesus has fulfilled the Mosaic Law, but unbelieving Jews don’t understand or acknowledge this. As it is with their Jewish identity and practice, so it is with their relation to the covenant Law which prescribed their identity and practice: The veil remains unlifted, still laying heavy over their hearts and minds (2 Corinthians 3:7-17). The Jews to whom Paul brought the gospel continued to look at life through the lens of Torah; they perceived and processed his words through that ethnic, sociological and theological grid. Thus communicating the truth to Jews – rather than merely uttering truthful words – depended upon Paul “entering their world” and speaking their language (9:20b). Faith is grounded in truth, but truth is a matter of meaning and meaning is communicated from a meeting of the minds. Paul had been set free in Christ, but his Jewish countrymen remained in the bonds of darkness and unbelief. He longed for and sought their freedom, but in order to liberate them he had to go to them in the prison house where they were chained. He had to meet them where they were; he had to come as a Jew to Jews whose consciences were yet governed by Torah. Without denying his freedom in Christ – which he could not do without denying the gospel, Paul had to set aside his rights under that freedom for the sake of freedom coming to his fellow Israelites. 171 3) Paul’s third example pertains to the other side of the Jew-Gentile dynamic. Becoming all things to all men meant approaching his countrymen as a Jew, but it also meant approaching Gentiles as a Gentile: It meant coming to those “without law as one without law” (9:21). This qualification, too, demands careful consideration or Paul’s point will be missed. The first thing to recognize is that Paul was not indicting the Gentiles as “lawless” in the moral/ethical sense. But neither was he saying that he set aside all lawful restraint in seeking to witness to them. (Almost certainly some of the Jewish believers at Corinth – as in other congregations – chafed at Paul’s freedom from the Law and its demands, even as the “strong” at Corinth found fault with him for not exercising his freedom as he ought.) Paul was using the term “law” to refer to the demands of the Law of Moses, and his expression was simply affirming the obvious fact that Gentiles have no relation to the covenant by which Israel was defined and related to God. For the most part they don’t know its precepts and prescriptions, and to the extent that they do, they are not bound by them. The Jews viewed all spiritual truth through the lens of the Law of Moses, and Paul interacted with them accordingly. But the Gentiles to whom Paul witnessed have no such grid and so it would have been foolish and profitless for him to interact with them as he did the Jews. Whatever their ethnicity, local culture and religious conviction, the Gentiles are “outside the law” and Paul came to them in that way (cf. Acts 13:14ff and 17:16ff). These three examples importantly show that Paul was able to come to men as one “under the Law” or “outside the Law.” But what appears at first glance to be duplicity on Paul’s part actually highlights a critical component of his understanding of Christ and His relationship to the preceding salvation history. Paul recognized that Jesus had fulfilled the Law of Moses – not as a matter of legal conformity, but salvation-historical fulfillment: The Law of Moses was a pedagogue and prophet, not a collection of laws and commandments. The Law was the covenant by which God’s previous covenant with Abraham was upheld and administered at the level of his national “seed” (cf. Genesis 15:1-21 (esp. vv. 13-16) with Exodus 3:1-17). The Law specified and prescribed Israel’s Abrahamic identity and calling with respect to God and the world and so shone a spotlight on the nation’s failure to be “Israel”: The Mosaic Covenant taught Israel who it was as the Abrahamic people, and consequently revealed the nature and import of its failure and so also the necessity of a new “Israel” in order for the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant to be fulfilled. The Law served God’s covenant with Abraham by ordering and overseeing the salvation history centered in Israel: the historical process of the Israelite kingdom which God ordained to prepare for the Seed to whom the Abrahamic promise ultimately referred. This is the sense in which the law was both prophet (Matthew 11:11-15) and pedagogue (Galatians 3:15-29); this is the sense in which Jesus fulfilled the Law. 172 Paul understood these things and this is why he treated the Law of Moses as indifferent. Just as food sacrificed to idols is to be perceived and employed in terms of the gospel and its work, so it is with the Law. The gospel proclaims the good news that all things have been “christified” in Jesus Christ; therefore, what matters is the fruitfulness of Christ’s accomplishment realized in the production and perfection of faith. God’s goal – and so Paul’s goal – is the summing up of everything in Christ; everything, then, is to be considered in terms of that goal. In the time of preparation, the Law pointed to Christ as a forward-looking prophet; now in the age of fulfillment, it points to Him as a backward-looking witness. Paul recognized that the Law of Moses (as the entire salvation history recorded in the Scriptures) was intended by God to witness to His purpose and promise now fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The Law served the cause of the gospel and that is precisely how Paul utilized it, whether in relation to Jews or Gentiles. These considerations illumine Paul’s assertion that he wasn’t under the Law. This insistence provoked some – Christians and Jews alike – to charge Paul with “antinomianism” (cf. Galatians with Acts 21:27-28, 25:1-8). As they did with Jesus Himself, many heard in Paul’s gospel of the Law’s fulfillment in Christ the assertion of its abrogation and therefore a tacit promotion of “lawlessness.” But fulfillment doesn’t mean abolition; it means realization. Indeed, now being in Christ, Paul, the impeccable Jew, was for the first time properly related to God’s law (that is, torah as God’s revelation of Himself and His purposes for His creation as centered in Jesus Christ). Paul was living according to the truth of the Law precisely because he was living according to the truth of the One whom the Law served as prophet and pedagogue (ref. Galatians 4:21-31). The very fact that Paul was bound to the “torah” that is Christ Himself (9:21b) proved that he was bound – now in truth – to Yahweh’s “torah.” 4) Paul’s fourth example reveals the point of the previous three by returning to the contextual concern of the obligation of the mature to the immature: Punctuating his previous instruction in chapter eight, Paul declared that he “became weak to the weak” (9:22). Again, Paul wasn’t saying that he renounced his mature understanding and liberty for the sake of the “weak”; he was simply affirming that he interacted with less mature believers on their own terms, just as he did with unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. If his weaker brother’s conscience was offended by certain foods, Paul set aside his right (but not his mature conviction) to eat them. Whether Jewor Gentile unbeliever or weak or strong brother in Christ, Paul came to each individual person sensitive to his conscience and convictions. He didn’t compromise or disclaim his own convictions; indeed he upheld them by serving the faith of the other. For Paul’s convictions were bound up in the gospel of Christ and he oriented himself toward all men so as to make that gospel coherent and compelling. Paul recognized that all things have their truth in Christ and so all things are properly viewed and utilized when they serve His gospel (9:22b-23).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 22:10:25 GMT -5
e. Paul understood the truth and gravity of freedom in Christ. Christians are those who’ve been joined to the triune God so as to share in the divine life and love. They’ve been liberated from the bondage of their estrangement, not to “get on with their lives” in this world or even reorder their lives in view of a heavenly hope, but to live out Christ’s life in them. Paul recognized the ontological realities of being a Christian; it is not about a new conviction or new commitment, but a new creation. The Christian’s confession of the truth is that “I have died and Christ is now my life; my existence as a human being has been ‘christified’ – it is Christ living out His life in me” (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18; Galatians 2:20; Colossians 3:1-4 with Luke 10:16; John 14:1-20, 15:1-5, 17:20-23). Living the Christian life means living out the freedom that is ours in Christ, but because our lives consist in Christ living in us, the exercise of our freedom is our living in subjection to His lordship and leading. Freedom in Christ is existence as Christ’s bond-servant, which means serving Him in His work and designs. And because His design is the gospel’s triumph and fruitfulness in all the world (cf. Isaiah 11:1-12, 49:1-3, 52:13-55:5 with Matthew 28:16-20 and Acts 1:1-8), the Christian’s calling as Christ’s bond-servant is to become a slave to all men for the sake of their faith and completion in Christ (9:22-23; cf. Colossians 1:19-29). The Corinthians had their gaze focused narrowly on the question of eating food sacrificed to idols; Paul, as it were, lifted their heads to see the larger issue of their obligation to serve the cause of the gospel and its fruit in every interaction and situation. The real issue wasn’t whether or not they had a right to eat things sacrificed to idols, but what it means to live the Christian life – to live out Jesus’ life and truth and His purposes in the Church and in the world. Following Paul’s example, the Corinthians needed to become all things to all men. Paul showed them what living as Christ’s bond-servant means in terms of interaction with unbelievers as well as with one’s fellow saints, and he turned lastly to what it means for the individual Christian life (9:24-27). Here as well, Paul used himself as the example. The first thing to note is that Paul depicted the Christian life in terms of two closely-related metaphors: running a race (9:24) and competing in a contest (9:25). This is not the only time Paul employed these metaphors (ref. Galatians 2:1-2, 5:7; Philippians 2:14-16; 2 Timothy 2:5, 4:7; cf. also Hebrews 12:1-2), which shows that they weren’t notions which spontaneously occurred to him while he was penning this epistle, but were analogies he’d come to recognize as fitting and useful for understanding and approaching one’s life in Christ. Moreover, Paul used them in a particular manner: Whereas he earlier employed the metaphors of soldier and farmer to characterize the work to which the Lord calls His saints (cf. 3:5-9, 9:7 with Philippians 2:25; 2 Timothy 2:3-4; Philemon 2), he used the present athletic ones to express the sort of perspective, attitude and orientation the Christian should bring to bear in his labors for Christ. 174 Paul’s first metaphor was that of a runner running a race, and he employed it in order to make a specific point: A foot race may have a multitude of competitors or only two, but regardless only one will receive the prize; in any such race there can only be one winner (9:24). Every competitor recognizes this and so trains, not with the goal of finishing the race, but finishing first. He trains with the intent of besting all his fellows in order to win the prize. This was an apt metaphor for the Corinthians because the city of Corinth hosted the spectacle that was the bi-annual Isthmian Games. The citizens of Corinth had the opportunity to observe the finest athletes complete their rigorous training and then apply the fruit of that training in actual competition. The Corinthians were well aware of the discipline and hard work required for an athlete to prevail and take the prize. And they also knew that, in the world of their athletic games, there were no awards for the “runners-up.” Only the winner was decorated. Paul’s athletic metaphors were well suited to making his point, but in order to grasp his meaning one must understand how metaphors work. And most important is the fact that they correspond to that which they represent only at certain points. A metaphor is a form of analogy and therefore isn’t identical to the thing it refers to. And so, while it’s helpful to represent the Christian life in terms of running a race, the two aren’t the same thing and must not be treated as such. The distinction between a metaphor and its referent is obvious in principle, but too often it’s overlooked in practice when Christians interpret this context. 1) The importance of the distinction is evident in Paul’s assertion that “only one receives the prize.” This is true in a foot race, but not in the “race” that is the Christian life. If “winning” means obtaining the goal for which we “run” (cf. Philippians 3:7-14; 2 Timothy 4:6-8), was Paul then implying that only the most disciplined, hard-running Christian will receive the prize of finding himself complete in Christ? This clearly wasn’t his position (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:17-18, 4:13-14; Philippians 1:3-6). As well, applied too broadly Paul’s metaphor implies that Christians are in competition with one another: Every believer is engaged in running the same race, but only one will win. In athletic competition, each participant regards the others as opponents and all interaction has the goal of coming out on top. But this attitude and orientation are antithetical to Paul’s view of the Christian life; not only are Christians not in competition with one another, each one is dependent on his brothers to win the race. 2) The distinction is also evident in Paul’s exhortation to “run in such a way that you may win.” To some it’s seemed that he was here advocating a form of “works salvation” – that he was warning the Corinthians that their obtainment of the prize of the imperishable crown of eternal life depends upon how they run their race as professing Christians (cf. his statements in 3:12-15, 9:26-27, 15:1-2; also Galatians 2:1-2; 2 Timothy 4:7-8; etc.). 175 The clear implication of this interpretation is that, at the very least, the Christian’s hope and confidence of eternal life depend upon his personal performance. But one might go still further by interpreting Paul as implying that a person’s salvation itself depends upon his performance, whether in terms of “getting saved” or “staying saved.” Pressing Paul’s metaphor beyond his intention leads to problematic interpretations and results in missing his point in using it. He wasn’t implying that only one or just a few Christians will win the prize of eternal life or final completion in Christ; Paul was emphasizing the obvious truth that entering a race doesn’t itself secure the crown of victory. All finish the race; not all win the prize. So the Corinthians needed to understand that finishing their Christian “race” well depended upon them running well. God had, by His Spirit, laid the foundation of Jesus Christ in them, but they (as also those who were leading them) were responsible and accountable to build on that foundation using, as it were, gold, silver and precious stones rather than the more common and less costly materials of wood, hay, and straw. All believers build on the foundation of Christ; not all are faithful to construct a worthy and lasting edifice (3:11-15). Combining Paul’s metaphors, all who are in Christ will complete the race; they will be saved. But not all will win in the sense of being rewarded for faithful service to Christ. All will be given the crown of life, but some will suffer loss, finding their labors consumed in the divine examination of the last day. Paul’s second metaphor is more generic, referring to one who competes in a contest (9:25a). Whereas its counterpart emphasizes the discipline of outward exertion, this one emphasizes the discipline of inward temperance: The first metaphor speaks to how an athlete performs, the second to the mindset behind his performance. The athlete who competes well – indeed, the one who has any reasonable expectation of winning and receiving the crown – recognizes that the competition begins in his head. The most gifted and physically dominating athlete soon discovers that a person who has mastered himself is the most formidable competitor though he might possess lesser natural gifts and talents. In the end, professional athletes know that their competitors will meet them with relatively the same level of physical conditioning and expertise; the winning edge is the mental preparation and self-mastery an individual brings to his event. - Athletes are aware that only the slightest lapse in their mental discipline makes the difference between victory and defeat, and so they do everything they can to hold their minds in a state of undistracted focus and concentration, synching their minds and bodies in perfect harmony. - Moreover, this sort of mind-body discipline can’t be conjured up in the midst of a competition; like physical strength and skill, it must be brought to the competition, and that will be the case only for those who have labored purposefully and persistently to develop it. 176 Any athlete worthy of the title knows what it takes to be a winning competitor. He recognizes that he has no reason to even attempt, let alone hope for, the prize unless he is first willing to pay the price. True athletes subject every facet of their lives to the cause of realizing their goal, but, ironically, the prize they seek – whatever its particular form – is natural and therefore transient. Its glory will fade, even as will its substance. And even if the prize endures for the life of the victor, it will not follow its possessor into the grave. In every respect, athletes give their all to obtain a perishable crown (9:25b). But not so with Christians; the reward they await at the end of their race is the unfading crown of glory; the crown of righteousness that is their perfect, everlasting conformity to the One who is True Man and True God (2 Timothy 4:7-8; James 1:12). The prize which Christians press toward is the realization of the humanness for which they were created and destined – the full attainment of all that is embodied in and implied by the designation, divine image-son. f. Paul intended that the Corinthians would examine their own lives in Christ in terms of his metaphors, but, once again, he didn’t exempt himself. What applied to them applied to him and he expected of himself no less than what he expected of them: He disciplined himself for the sake of the imperishable prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (9:26-27; cf. again Philippians 3:7-17). Paul applied the same athletic metaphors to himself, but in his case the generic notion of an athletic contest took the form of a boxing match. But even with that alteration he continued the same emphasis upon discipline and self-mastery. Using the running metaphor, Paul noted that he didn’t run aimlessly. So also, like a skilled fighter, he didn’t box so as to merely beat the air (9:26). Both metaphors highlight the disciplines of discernment, purposefulness, and efficiency. - Whatever its particular form, every athletic enterprise begins with discerning the objective and the path to accomplishing it. How can one compete – let alone triumph – if he lacks a clear conception of what he’s attempting to do? Not only does he not know how to perform in his event, he has no way of knowing how well he performed. - An athlete must clearly understand his goal and the course he must take to get there, but then he must execute his task well. Discernment and purposefulness are meaningless unless they are accompanied by appropriate, disciplined and efficient execution. A boxer can devote himself to physical training, the mastery of fundamentals and the perfecting of his skills. He can study films of his opponent and devise the right strategy to defeat him. But, in the end, all the preparation in the world is insufficient; the victor’s crown depends upon him entering the ring and fighting the fight he trained for. He must fight, but also fight well: Execution without training is a fool’s errand, but so is execution which deviates from one’s training. 177 This was the problem with the “strong” at Corinth: The issue wasn’t their lack of mature understanding; it was their flawed application of it. They were enriched in all knowledge and utterance and not lacking any gift (1:4-7), fully equipped to live into their freedom in Christ. The problem was that they failed to employ their freedom in love; in practice, their maturity was counterproductive, undermining the faith and progress of their brethren. The Corinthians recognized that they were running their race for the sake of a crown, but they misjudged the nature of that crown. The problem wasn’t their goal, but how they perceived and pursued it. The Corinthians – both weak and strong – needed to recognize, as Paul did, that every believer’s crown is part of a whole. In a very real sense, Christ gives the imperishable wreath to His Church, even as every member of His body is a member of the whole. Though not all finish the race the same way, the unity of the body means that no Christian’s race is independent and no Christian’s victory is individual. The simple reason is that the body causes the growth of the body. Christ’s Church isn’t a unified whole merely because of its union with Him; it is unified in mutual edification (Ephesians 4:11-16). This is the focal premise of Paul’s present instruction. What the Corinthians were missing is the fact that the Christian’s crown attests his triumph in fulfilling his calling, and this calling involves his obligation to other people. A believer runs his race well when he runs it as a team event – that is, on behalf of Christ’s gospel and its fruit in the lives of men. This is why Paul spoke of the saints being his crown: He viewed his prize as bound up in the salvation and perfection of his fellow believers (cf. Colossians 1:27-28; Philippians 3:7-4:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1-20; cf. also 1 Peter 5:1-4). g. This is the framework for interpreting Paul’s summary statement in verses 26-27. His words must be judiciously governed by his larger argument, and where that isn’t done it’s easy to conclude that Paul was speaking of his personal efforts to ensure his own salvation. That is, he exercised the strictest control of his members out of concern that he might find himself disqualified from the very salvation he preached to others. But to interpret Paul in this way is to put a foreign doctrine in his mouth and completely miss the relevance and power of his words. Jesus set Paul apart to the ministry of the gospel and Paul devoted himself to this cause; he did all things for the sake of the gospel in order to fulfill his obligation to partner with it (9:23). Paul recognized his freedom in Christ, but he also knew that he’d been set free to become a bondslave; he knew that slavery was the key to living out his freedom unto the goal of fulfilling his calling. Paul was Christ’s slave and so the slave of all men for His sake, but this implied another component to his slavery: Subjecting himself to all men for the sake of their faith meant bringing his own body – that is, his own needs, concerns, interests and desires – into subjection. No slave can serve two masters, and the Christian who would serve Christ must renounce all other allegiances, even to his own rights, comforts and benefits. Weak or strong, believers must yield themselves to the Lord of love and the cause of His gospel, lest they find the very gospel they have proclaimed disapproving their supposed partnership with it as actually opposition to it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 22:12:28 GMT -5
Excursus: Running the Race to Win The principle of Christian freedom is central to the Corinthians’ quandary regarding food sacrificed to idols. How directly they raised the issue of freedom in their letter to Paul is uncertain; what is evident from Paul’s response is that the more mature at Corinth regarded freedom and its use in terms of knowledge and rights: Those who have knowledge on their side have the right – indeed, the responsibility – to act accordingly; to fail to exercise one’s rights as dictated by the facts of a matter is to denigrate the truth rather than uphold it. So the strong at Corinth felt it proper (if not altogether necessary) to uphold the truth concerning “idol meats” by eating them freely and encouraging their brethren to do the same. The Corinthians embraced and celebrated their freedom, as well they ought. The glorious truth at the heart of the gospel is that, in and through Jesus Christ, people are liberated from all that has bound and enslaved them (cf. Luke 4:14-21; John 8:31-36; Acts 13:26-39). Paul had experienced this freedom and he proclaimed it in his gospel (cf. 9:1 with Galatians 4:21-5:1); he had no intention of limiting the Corinthians’ sense of their freedom in Christ and their employment of it. Paul didn’t want to direct the Corinthians away from their freedom; to the contrary, he wanted them to embrace it more fully. So also he wanted them to employ their freedom, but employ it correctly – which is to say, employ it in accordance with the truth. Paul understood that freedom exists only where there is conformity to the truth. So one’s exercise of his freedom in Christ must accord with and serve the cause of the truth as it is in Jesus or it is not the exercise of freedom at all; all deviation from truth is bondage. And if life in freedom is life in conformity to the truth, then the Christian who would live into his freedom must live in accordance with the reality that Christ is his life – that the life he lives is Christ living His life in him. Thus true freedom for the Christian means living as the Lord’s bondservant and so the servant of His agenda and ends. And given that the divine goal is the summing up of the whole creation in Christ, the person who thus lives as the Lord’s “freedman” (7:22) gives himself to be the slave of all men for the sake of their faith and perfection in Jesus. Christ’s faithful bondslave is the slave of men, but in order to exercise that sort of slavery he must also exercise true mastery, namely mastery of himself. Again, no man can serve two masters: No Christian can be the Lord’s servant and the servant of another master, including the inherent “lord” that is self. Christ’s bondslave must exercise mastery over his own thoughts, desires, interests, concerns and agenda. And he does so as the slave of all men, but out of obedience to his master; he serves men unto the Lord. Any other servanthood is illegitimate and unholy (ref. 7:23). This is the sense in which Paul made his body his slave. He was determined to fulfill his calling to partner with the gospel and this meant that he had to bring every aspect of his life into subjection to that cause. And so, while Paul was no ascetic, moralist or pietist, he was fiercely committed to a life of self-mastery. There are two essential reasons for this: The first was addressed above, namely that the one who is Christ’s servant cannot serve himself as “lord.” The second is that the faithful servant must be on guard against everything that would distract, derail or destroy his servanthood. To use Paul’s metaphor, the runner who intends to win must do more than simply run fast and hard; he must be able to spot and avoid obstacles and pitfalls. 179 So it is with the Christian life: The believer who runs well is ever vigilant for those things along his course that can impede him or cause him to stumble (cf. Hebrews 12:1). The running metaphor is helpful in another way: It highlights the fact that the Christian’s vigilance serves his own interest. Christ’s servants serve Him and His agenda, but in so doing they serve themselves. - Many Christians think of their servanthood purely in terms of doing what God requires of them; they ought to think of it as serving the goal of their perfection in Christ. - Their labor for the Lord isn’t servile compliance with the demands of a strict master; it is the life of sonship and thus life in the freedom and flourishing of conformity to the truth. Serving Christ according to the principle of slavery which Paul embraced and promoted is the way of one’s own freedom, joy, fulfillment and self-realization. One of the most profound ironies held out in the gospel is that the self-actualization which all men long for and pursue through devotion to themselves is to be obtained by serving a different master. It is by being taken up in and conformed to the True Man that human beings realize their true humanity. The one who loses what he believes to be his life actually finds his life (Matthew 16:13-25). The true human life is life in conformity to the true humanity that is in Jesus Christ; it is the life of christiformity which is the life of a bondslave: living as Jesus’ servant expressed in being the slave of all men for the sake of their faith and perfection in Him. Those who serve men in this way truly serve their Lord and the goal of His lordship (Ephesians 1:9-10; Colossians 1:15-16). Living the Christian life well – running our race to win – means living as a bondservant. There is no other legitimate course to run and no other way to run it. This being the case, what does it mean in practical terms to live in conformity to the principle of slavery? 1. Of first importance is the matter of the Christian’s slavery to Christ. For the other two aspects of slavery (slavery to men and enslaving one’s body) must be understood in terms of being Christ’s bondslave. And being Christ’s bondslave means serving Him and His purposes with respect to oneself, the Church and the world. But in order to serve Christ’s purposes, the Christian must know what they are. And this necessitates that he know who he is and how he stands in relation to the Lord and His goals. Many Christians envision their servanthood in terms of obedience to a master. That is, Jesus is Lord, and thus believers are His subjects obligated to discern His will – generally expressed in explicit directives – and comply with it. (This perspective is evident in the prevalent understanding and application of the notion of “lordship salvation.” Regarded as the antidote to “easy-believism,” this doctrine insists that Christians cannot embrace Jesus only as Savior but must also obey Him as Lord, i.e., submit to His commandments.) Jesus is indeed Lord and Christians are obligated to obey Him. But true obedience doesn’t consist in compliance with a list of moral and ethical directives; it consists in living a life of love – love for the Father, Son and Spirit expressed in love for His people and the world of men (John 15:1-17; cf. 1 John 3:13-24). The obligation of Christian servanthood is the obligation of sonship – a life lived in conformity to the truth. 180 2. Christians fulfill their calling as Christ’s bondslaves when they live out their sonship. But their sonship is ontological and not merely a title given to them. That is, they are sons in the Son – sons by virtue of sharing in the life of the Son in union with the Father through the indwelling Spirit. And being sons in the Son, they live out their sonship when they live out Jesus’ life in them. In practical terms, this means ordering their lives according to His mind, purpose and work. But this raises the question of how the Christian discerns those things. Unless and until he does, he has no way of knowing that he is actually serving his Lord. He could be at cross-purposes with Jesus and never know it. The answer – not infrequently overlooked by Christians – is that the Lord’s mind and purposes are disclosed and framed in the Old Testament scriptures; true, Jesus’ person, words and actions are recorded in the New Testament, but their meaning is revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures which provide the basis and context for them. - All that Jesus is, said, and did – the totality of the “Christ event” – served to fulfill the scriptural revelation and promises regarding the kingdom of God and its Messiah. Thus the repeated refrain of the gospel writers, “This was to fulfill…,” and Jesus’ corresponding insistence that Israel’s failure to discern Him and His work reflected their failure to understand and believe their Scriptures (cf. Matthew 5:17-20 with Luke 24:13-32, 44-48; John 5:39-47, 10:22-26, etc.). - The Hebrew Scriptures reveal Jesus’ mind and purpose, and what they show is that His goal is to fulfill His identity and calling as His Father’s messianic Servant and True Israel, and therefore the promised Seed of Abraham. And as the true Abrahamic Seed, Jesus’ calling is to bring His Father’s blessing to all men. He is fulfilling this calling, but by His Spirit through those who are sons of Abraham by sharing in His life and so also in His calling (cf. Galatians 3:26-29 with Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:44-49; John 14:1-26, 15:26-16:15; Acts 1:1-8, 2:1-39). This is precisely why slavery to Christ means slavery to all men. Jesus’ bondservants do His will and work, which is laboring to see all men enter into and be perfected in His life. The gospel is the “good news” that God has fulfilled His word to Abraham by sending the promised Seed in whom His blessing comes to all of mankind. In Him God has reconciled all things to Himself and has charged those who are sons in the Son with carrying His word of reconciliation to all men (2 Corinthians 5:17-21). In Paul’s words, Christ’s saints – like he himself – are to do all things for the sake of the gospel: They are to partner with the gospel and its cause in the world; they are to become all things to all men in order to win them; they are to become slaves to all men for the sake of their faith. Most Christians are rightly concerned with being faithful to their obligation as Christ’s bondservant. But few seem to consider that their faithfulness as servants depends upon their labors conforming to the true nature and goal of their servanthood. Simply serving others and their needs isn’t what Paul was calling for. Indeed, Christians aren’t subject to men and their needs, sensibilities and interests as such (cf. 9:19a; Colossians 2:16); they are called to serve others for their good, which means that they are slaves of men unto Christ and their completion in Him (ref. again 9:19-23; cf. 2 Corinthians 3:1-4:18).3. Understanding our slavery to Christ and consequent slavery to men provides the foundation for rightly understanding and exercising the third component of Christian slavery, namely the subjugation of oneself. As noted in the treatment of 9:24-27, this slavery doesn’t pertain to the body as such, nor does it call for adopting severity or austerity in our daily lives (Colossians 2:20ff). “Making our bodies our slaves” (9:27) refers to self-mastery – bringing into proper subjection every aspect of our lives. But this self-mastery is of a particular sort and is unto a very specific end. The Christian’s slavery to men reflects his identity and obligation as Christ’s bondservant, and so it is with his subjugation of himself: The goal of self-mastery is service to Christ; the Christian makes his body his slave for the sake of the gospel and its fruit in his own life, in the Church and in the world. Two crucial implications flow from this: - The first is that self-discipline must be properly motivated and properly oriented or it is just another form of self-centeredness which nurtures self-righteousness. Since the first century the tendency has been to think of self-mastery in terms of self-denial for the sake of separation or devoutness. Strictness, pietism, monasticism, asceticism and other forms of self-denial are hallmarks of human religion, and they have infiltrated and tainted Christian faith and practice from the beginning. But Paul wasn’t calling for self-denial, but self-dedication: for committing oneself in every respect to Jesus Christ as His bondslave. Paul sought Christ-mastery rather than the mastery of oneself for the sake of oneself. His goal for himself and the saints was a self in full subjection to the mind, purpose and work of Jesus Christ – a self taken captive to the cause of the gospel (9:22-23). - The second implication proceeds from the first and is just as critical, though less readily discerned. And that is that the self-mastery Paul sought and prescribed is framed by a creational and communal perspective rather than our innate individualistic one. Though it pertains to the individual Christian, this selfmastery doesn’t terminate with him; it involves him but it’s not about him. The simple reason is that its aim is service to Christ and His gospel, not the personal benefits to be gained by a disciplined life. This ought to be obvious from the context alone, but very often it’s either missed altogether or lost in the process. For the most part, Christians understand and apply Paul’s ethic of “beating the body and making it a slave” in terms of personal exercises that have personal goals. The whole matter begins and ends with the individual believer. This inclination derives from our intrinsic self-centeredness. Human beings are the center of their own universe; each person lives in his own mind and views and judges all things through the lens of his perspective, ideals, values and desires. In a person’s thoughts and reasoning, actions and pursuits, all things are “from him, through him and unto him.” This is true whether he lives a profligate life or one marked by complete self-mastery. But Paul was talking about something entirely different. He was talking about the mastery of self which is merely the authentic Christian life – the Christian living out the truth that “he no longer lives but Christ lives in him”; the mastery that is ultimately Christ’s mastery of His own. 182 Paul’s concern was to press the Corinthians with the fundamental principle that freedom in Christ amounts to slavery for the sake of the gospel; the question of food sacrificed to idols was simply the occasion he drew upon to make his point. But this is not to say that the Corinthians’ question was merely his springboard into a new topic. Paul was answering their question, just not in the way they expected. The Corinthians sought a ruling on which faction was right in its conviction regarding such foods; Paul answered by insisting that they needed to think about the issue differently: They were focused on rightness; they needed to focus on love. They were concerned with upholding their freedom; they needed to recognize that freedom is realized in conformity to the truth. And the truth is that they were Christ’s bondslaves, and therefore slaves to another and to all men for the sake of the gospel. Paul wanted the Corinthians to understand that they would, in fact, honor the truth and their freedom when they subjected themselves in all things to the cause of seeing every man – including themselves – presented complete in Christ. If freedom is realized in conformity to the truth, then the Corinthians’ exercise of their freedom in Christ demanded that they bring the totality of their lives into subjection, and that for their own sake as well as for the sake of others. Their goal in all things needed to be their own edification as much as the edification of their brethren. Paul’s instruction in this section of the epistle is critically important, and yet the heart of his meaning is frequently lost. Readers acknowledge the specifics in his instruction – his discussion of “idol meats,” the need to not stumble a brother, the question of ministerial support, the obligation of self-discipline, etc., but they often fail to treat them organically and within the larger context. This failure is perhaps most evident in the fact that so many interpret 9:24-27 in purely individual terms. That is, these verses are treated in isolation as Paul’s exhortation to personal discipline for one’s own sake (whether one’s personal sanctity or one’s assurance of salvation) rather than as a critical component of his answer to the question of food sacrificed to idols. Paul’s statement does speak to the issue of personal discipline, which obviously entails personal benefit. But to reduce Paul’s point to this is to miss it altogether. Paul regarded the discipline of bringing one’s life into subjection as part of an all-encompassing concern: He was thinking in corporate rather than individual terms precisely because he saw self-mastery as serving the cause of the gospel rather than being an end in itself. Until we recognize this distinction, it is certain that our self-discipline as Christians will merely reflect and express our innate self-concern. Of all men, Paul knew the disastrous consequences of personal “holiness” informed and driven by a natural mind and its perspective and concerns. The natural mind regards self-mastery selfishly. In the case of natural-minded Christians, selfmastery concerns their relationship with God. If not determining their salvation, it at least grants them assurance of it and affords them confidence that God is pleased with them. But authentic self-mastery is Christ’s mastery of His own. As such, it doesn’t affect our relationship with God; it expresses it. We take the totality of our lives captive to Christ because this accords with the truth of who we are in relation to the triune God, not in order to secure, prove or enhance that relation. And conforming to the truth of our identity means serving the cause of the gospel in all things – not just in what we say and do, but in who we are among men and for their sakes.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 22:13:49 GMT -5
5. In the tenth chapter Paul’s discussion seems to return to the matter of foods sacrificed to idols. But, in fact, he never departed from the topic, and this chapter only continues his treatment of it. Paul wanted the Corinthians to understand that the answer they sought to the question of “idol meats” resides in discerning and living out the Christian life in truth. The strong at Corinth argued from the vantage point of their freedom in Christ; Paul affirmed that freedom and its importance, but insisted that it must serve the cause of Christ’s gospel or it’s a perversion of true freedom. Life in freedom is life as a bondservant, and this applies to the Christian’s personal walk as well as to his relationship with the saints and the world of unbelievers. Chapter nine ends with Paul focusing on the individual aspect of the freedom/slavery dynamic, and chapter ten continues that emphasis: Living as Christ’s freedman means the subjugation of oneself to the cause of the gospel. But, as seen, this self-mastery is Christ’s mastery of the believer, so that “beating one’s body and making it one’s slave” amounts to having one’s mind – and consequently one’s conduct – informed and directed by the Spirit of Christ. The selfsubjugation Paul insisted upon involves spiritual discernment before disciplined living; it involves conformity to Christ’s mind before conformity to His deeds. And so, as Paul advanced his discussion from “idol meats” to the larger issue of idolatry, he spoke in such a way that the Corinthians would understand that his charge to them to “flee from idolatry” implicated and obligated their perspective and thinking and not merely their actions. Anyone can restrain himself from idolatrous practices; only those possessing Christ’s life and mind can actually renounce idolatry as such. The reason resides in the very nature of idolatry: Idolatry doesn’t identify a set of religious practices, but the dynamic whereby that which properly belongs to God is ascribed – consciously or otherwise – to something other than Him. Once human depravity is rightly understood as speaking to man’s estrangement from God and his isolation within a fractured self, it becomes immediately evident that all human beings are consummate and hopeless idolaters. So the remedy for their idolatry is not the renunciation of certain attitudes and practices, but their reconciliation to God in Jesus Christ. a. Paul’s transitional particle (“for”) shows that he was building on his preceding statement regarding his own approach to the Christian life. Specifically, he was shifting his referent from himself to the Corinthians. Paul devoted his life to the cause of the gospel, and they needed to view and order their lives in the same way. They needed to imitate Paul’s single-mindedness – which expressed not selfdiscipline as such, but Paul’s sense of himself and his place in the divine scheme of salvation history. Paul didn’t see himself independently or abstractly, but as a man whom God had scripted into His all-encompassing purpose – the purpose centered in Israel and now realized in the One in whom Israel had found its own destiny and fulfillment (cf. Galatians 1:11-17, 3:15-4:5 with Romans 4, 9-11). Paul’s understanding of the Christian life was grounded in the Hebrew Scriptures and the nation of Israel, its covenant relationship with God, and the history and dynamics of that relationship. But he conceived the Israel/Church connection in a very specific and critically important way – one which multitudes of Christians have misconstrued to the detriment of Paul’s meaning in this passage. 184 Much can be said in this regard, but it suffices here to note that this misconstrual applies to both primary interpretive systems within contemporary Protestantism: Dispensationalism and Covenant (Reformed) Theology. - In the case of Dispensationalism, which regards Israel and the Church as essentially distinct entities, the Old Testament scriptures are treated as directly and primarily pertaining to Israel and its past, present and future in God’s program. Consequently, the Old Testament has indirect and secondary relevance to the New Covenant Church; in the main, it provides Christians with historical, theological, and ethical insights and instruction. - In contrast, historical Covenant Theology characteristically regards Israel and the Church as two different expressions of the one covenant people of God related to Him by the one “covenant of grace.” Whereas dispensationalists tend to divide the two testaments as speaking to different groups defined by different dispensations, Reformed people tend to conflate the testaments in the sense that they see them as speaking to the one and same ecclesia, distinguished primarily by their particular “economy” under the one covenant. Old Testament or New, both are governed (and interpreted) by the core principles of “law” and “grace.” But neither of these perspectives and approaches does full justice to Paul’s conception of the salvation history and its pertinence to Christ’s Church. Paul recognized that the Church derives its identity, meaning and role from Israel, but the two are not the same, either entirely or only substantially. But neither has the New Covenant Church supplanted or replaced Israel as God’s covenant household. Paul understood the relationship between Israel and the Church to be that of promise and fulfillment centered in the person and work of Jesus Christ. - Jewish Israel has attained its true identity and realization as Yahweh’s covenant (Abrahamic) people in the promised Abrahamic seed. Jews become Israelites indeed through personal union with the True Israelite (cf. Isaiah 59:1ff with John 8:31-42; Romans 2:28-29; Philippians 3:1ff). - So Gentiles become sharers in Israel in the same way (cf. Galatians 3:1- 28, 6:14-16; Romans 9:1-33). In the time of preparation, Gentiles entered the covenant household by joining themselves to Abraham through circumcision; now, in the time of fulfillment, they do so by means of the spiritual circumcision which is performed by the true Abrahamite. A predominantly Gentile Church hasn’t supplanted or replaced Jewish Israel; rather, both Jews and Gentiles become members in the “Israel of God” – God’s fulfilled and everlasting covenant house – as living stones joined to the Living Stone. In Christ, they become one new man, sharers in the Last Adam. The Jewish people have lost nothing, while Gentiles still come to God by entering Israel. Gentiles share in the covenant household, not supplant it (Ephesians 2:11-22). 185 b. These considerations are foundational for understanding Paul’s insistence that the Israelite history and experiences serve as types for the New Covenant Church: Those “upon whom the ends of the ages have come” – which included the saints at Corinth – are related to the Old Covenant people as antitype to type; as fulfillment to promise (ref. 10:6, 11). And that is precisely the perspective Paul wanted the Corinthians to adopt as they considered the issue at hand and the way the scriptural record speaks to it. In making that application, he drew upon four specific circumstances in Israel’s history (10:1-4). Before considering them individually, it’s important to observe that the four are related in several ways, all of which are critical to Paul’s argument. 1) The first is that the four circumstances pertained to the entire covenant house of Israel, highlighted by Paul’s repeated use of the adjective all. 2) Secondly, all four occurred during the wilderness period between Israel’s liberation from Egypt and the nation’s entrance into Canaan. Thus they highlight Israel’s deliverance and “new life” as God’s covenant people as promised to them in the Abrahamic Covenant and ratified at Sinai. 3) Thirdly, as they speak to Israel’s unique and privileged covenant status, so they implicitly highlight the blessings attached to the covenant and endowed to Israel as Yahweh’s elect, covenant son. 4) The final consideration is equally important but easily missed. And that is that Paul connected the Corinthian saints with the four circumstances by identifying them as children of the Israelites who participated in those circumstances. Though one might initially conclude that Paul was using the phrase, “our fathers,” with respect to himself and other Jewish Christians, his subsequent discussion shows that he intended that all of the Corinthian saints – Gentiles as well as Jews – would see themselves as bona fide children of the Israelite fathers. The previous discussion shows how Paul arrived at this conviction; his reason for introducing this context in this way will soon become evident. The first circumstance Paul cited was Israel’s passage “under the cloud” and “through the sea” (10:1). These are clear references to the Exodus event, but specifically to God’s presence and power by which He liberated His people and led them toward their rest after departing Egypt (Exodus 12:51-14:31). Yahweh was with His people and for them; He was, as it were, leading them to Himself, not merely overthrowing their enemies. Israel understood this and celebrated their covenant God and His faithfulness in the Song of Moses (Exodus 15:1-18). The second elaborates on the first by associating God’s power and presence with Moses (10:2). Paul’s emphasis here seems to be Moses’ role as Yahweh’s chosen prophet/mediator. It was in Moses that God fulfilled His covenant promise to Abraham with respect to his seed (cf. Genesis 15:1-14; Exodus 3:1-17, 6:1-8).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 22:14:55 GMT -5
Thus the children of Israel were “baptized” into Moses in the sense that he was Yahweh’s interface between Himself and the Abrahamic people. From the divine side, Yahweh spoke and acted through Moses; from the Israelite side, Moses represented the people as their mediator and intercessor. In practical terms, Moses mediated Yahweh to Israel and Israel to Yahweh; he was the chosen bridge between the maker and the recipients of the Abrahamic Covenant (cf. Exodus 4:1- 16, 20:1-21, 24:1-34:9 with Deuteronomy 34:9-12). Thus Paul’s declaration that all Israel was baptized into Moses was his recognition that the Abrahamic people obtained their promised covenant union with God through the vehicle of Moses. Paul’s third instance was God’s provision of manna to Israel (10:3). The question associated with its name (“what is it?”) attested its otherworldly character. The manna in the wilderness was Yahweh’s supernatural sustenance; it was “bread out of heaven” (cf. Exodus 16:1-35; John 6:24-31), and Paul was emphasizing this heavenly quality by referring to it as “spiritual food.” As with Yahweh’s presence, manifest power and provision of a mediator, His gift of heavenly bread testified to His covenant union with His people and the commitment that attended it. The fourth thing Paul mentioned forms the counterpart to its predecessor: As all Israel ate the same spiritual food, so they drank the same spiritual drink (10:4). Though God continually met the people’s need for water during their forty years in the wilderness, Paul was alluding to one of the two times when He supernaturally brought forth water from a rock. That incident occurred shortly after Israel’s deliverance at the Red Sea before the covenant was ratified at Sinai (ref. Exodus 17:1-7; cf. the second such occurrence at Kadesh recorded in Numbers 20:1-13). This provision, too, emphasizes Yahweh’s faithfulness to His covenant people, even to the point of providing for their needs supernaturally with “spiritual” food and drink (ref. Deuteronomy 8:1-18; cf. Nehemiah 9:1-15). Paul noted what is clear in the biblical text: On at least two occasions, God satiated Israel’s thirst with “spiritual drink” brought forth from a stone. But he went beyond the scriptural revelation, insisting that one “spiritual” rock followed Israel throughout its wanderings, and this rock was Christ Himself. This assertion is profound and spotlights Paul’s christological understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul was taught his gospel by Jesus Himself, and he’d come to grasp what the Lord and His disciples constantly affirmed, which was that all the Scripture testifies of Him. Interpreted properly, this particular statement helps to illumine how Paul conceived that all-important truth. - The first thing to note is that Paul was not in any way denying the literal truth that God provided physical water for Israel from physical rocks. At the same time, he recognized in those physical events christological significance that went beyond mere metaphor or prophetic promise. Paul’s statement shows his conviction, not that these physical events merely prefigured and anticipated what would come in Jesus Christ, but that, in a very real way, Yahweh’s messiah was present in them. 187 - Paul’s conviction points to a second observation, namely that the Old Testament speaks of the divine presence at Rephidim (Massah) where this event occurred, but it associates that presence with Yahweh Himself, not the pre-incarnate Angel of the Lord (cf. Exodus 17:1-6 with Psalm 78:15- 20, 35). Many Old Testament references to Yahweh are applied to Jesus in the New Testament (cf. Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58; Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12; Isaiah 44:6 and Revelation 1:17-18; Isaiah 45:23 and Philippians 2:9-11; etc.), and it might appear that Paul was only making the same association. Jesus Christ is indeed True God, and yet it seems clear that Paul was doing more than simply affirming the essential oneness of the divine Father and Son. In the first place, the Exodus text states that Yahweh stood upon the rock (17:6), while Paul asserted that Jesus was the rock (10:4). The issue for Paul wasn’t the divine presence at Rephidim or even that it was the second person of the Trinity who was present. Paul’s focus was on the event itself, what it represented in terms of the ongoing relationship between Yahweh and His covenant people, and the central role the rock played in settling the dispute. Treated in context, his assertion draws from salvationhistorical considerations more than Trinitarian ones. The interpreter must place the event at Massah (Meribah) within the larger salvation history if he is to rightly understand its historical meaning and, more importantly, its christological meaning (how it contributed to the revelation of Jesus Christ) as Paul discerned it. Several considerations are crucial in that regard: 1) The first is that this event was the third of five circumstances which tested Israel’s faith and devotion to Yahweh before He’d even formalized His covenant relationship with the nation. Those “tests” are recorded in Exodus 15-18, and this particular one paralleled the first. It, too, involved Israel’s need for drinking water, but it raised the stakes of Israel’s faith. The reason was that Yahweh had already shown Himself capable and faithful by purifying the bitter waters of Marah (15:22-27). Only weeks earlier Israel had experienced Yahweh’s care and miraculous provision; would they trust Him now that the same need had arisen again? The people had every reason to trust the Lord, but instead they brought a formal charge against Him. (The Hebrew verb rendered quarrel or contend connotes a formal dispute that can even take the form of a legal complaint or charge to be settled in a court of law). In a very real sense, Yahweh’s son was bringing a lawsuit against Him: The Lord and Father who’d proven Himself faithful from the day He made His covenant with Abraham – the One who’d delivered Abraham’s seed in order to take them to Himself according to His covenant oath – was now being charged with unrighteousness and malfeasance with respect to that oath by the very ones who were the beneficiaries of it and the blessings attached to it. 188 2) Israel was entering into judgment against Yahweh when they were the guilty ones; they were the ones who proved themselves unfaithful yet again in spite of the Lord’s unwavering faithfulness toward them. The people couldn’t stone Yahweh for His alleged offense, but they could stone His representative, and this is precisely what they were prepared to do. Moses knew they meant business and He cried out to the Lord to intervene before they took his life (ref. 17:3-4). 3) It was at this point that the Lord rose up in His own defense. The covenant son had brought suit against the Father for alleged malfeasance and was now prepared to carry out the sentence. Israel had appointed itself judge, jury and executioner in their case against Yahweh, but He was to have the last word. And His word of defense was to vindicate the truth – not by condemning the guilty party (as Israel had condemned Him), but by demonstrating His innocence: He once again showed Himself faithful to His covenant with Abraham – in spite of the incorrigible unfaithfulness of the sons of the covenant. Yahweh demanded that His accusers watch Moses strike the rock where He was present using the very staff with which Moses had testified to Him to the unbelieving Egyptians (17:5-6). And having done so, water flowed from the rock for the people to drink. 4) Israel was no better than the Egyptians, yet God remained faithful to His covenant. He’d rescued them in Egypt through Moses’ staff and was doing the same thing again – this time by symbolically taking the blows Himself. In and by Himself, Yahweh came to His people’s aid and satisfied the contention between them. The guilty were reconciled and satiated through the condescension and self-punishment of the innocent accused. Yahweh had pledged Himself as the surety of His covenant on behalf of the world (ref. Genesis 15:1-21), and He would not depart from His oath. Together with its four counterparts, this incident highlighted God’s covenant faithfulness and Israel’s inability to fulfill its identity and role as His covenant son: He hadn’t even ratified His covenant relationship with Israel at Sinai and yet it was already painfully obvious that the Abrahamic seed would be unable to uphold it; if Yahweh’s gospel promise to Abraham of global reconciliation and blessing (Galatians 3:8) were to be realized, it would be because He alone secured its triumph; He would have to meet the covenant obligation of Abraham’s seed. And He would so by raising up another Israel, a faithful son and servant. These considerations lay behind Paul’s assertion to the Corinthians. He may well have believed that the pre-incarnate Christ was Yahweh’s manifest presence at Massah, but his words look beyond that. The “rock was Christ” in the sense that that stone – associated with Yahweh Himself – took the blow deserved by His people and so poured forth life-giving water for the sons of the covenant. Ongoing preservation through their God’s self-giving faithfulness defined Israel’s covenant life; it was no empty cliché for Paul to insist that the rock followed them.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 22:16:02 GMT -5
c. All Israel participated in the divine care and provision epitomized by the circumstances Paul cited, and yet not all responded accordingly. All enjoyed Yahweh’s covenant faithfulness according to His oath to Abraham, but most despised it and incurred His displeasure and judgment; the entire Abrahamic nation departed Egypt as their covenant God led them toward their rest in His sanctuary land; most, however, fell short of that rest and perished under judgment in the wilderness (10:5; cf. Numbers 13:1-14:35, 32:1-15; Hebrews 3:1-19). The Old Testament narrative reveals that the sons of Israel were guilty of numerous sins and transgressions from the time the Lord reintroduced Himself to them in Egypt (ref. Ezekiel 20:1-27), but all such violations were the fruit of the singular sin which incurred their destruction in the desert, and that sin was unbelief (ref. again Hebrews 3): For all their oaths and tears, Israel would not – indeed, could not – trust and yield themselves to their covenant Father; Israel was not able to fulfill its election and responsibility as Yahweh’s first-born son (cf. Exodus 4:22-23 with Deuteronomy 31:14-30; Isaiah 1:1-9; Hosea 11:1-7). Israel’s unbelief was the violation of its covenant obligation of sonship, and this failure of sonship amounted to idolatry. Whatever Israel’s particular infractions and patterns of waywardness and disobedience, they all merely reflected and expressed the unfaithful, self-seeking hearts of the people. The children of Israel refused to give God the love and devotion He was due precisely because they didn’t truly discern Him for who and what He is: the God of all beauty, excellence, goodness and worth. They submitted outwardly to His directives, but their hearts were far from Him – and therefore also far from His other covenant children (cf. Isaiah 1:10-17, 29:13-14; Matthew 12:1-14, 15:1-20, 23:1-4, 15). The sons of Israel proved themselves idolaters by their lovelessness, not because they worshipped false gods, which was only the symptom of their idolatry. - They were idolaters because their hearts were set on themselves and their own perceived self-interest, not on their covenant Father and brethren. - They transgressed Yahweh’s commandments and broke His Law by violating the obligation of love which is what the covenant – the Law of Moses – was all about ( Matthew 22:34-40; Romans 13:8-10). In Paul’s words, they “craved evil things” (10:6): Their passions were inflamed and directed in ways which contradicted the truth of their God and their status as beloved sons; their passions were driven by unbelief (cf. Exodus 15:23-17:7; Numbers 11-14; Jeremiah 2:1-32). But this unbelief was not disbelief of truths revealed to them, but the absence of faith: Israel understood and embraced the facts concerning their God and their relationship with Him, but their minds – and so their lives – remained at odds with the truth of them. Isolated within alienated minds, they interpreted truth in perverse ways and so set themselves against the truth; the covenant sons became idolaters and adulterers (ref. Hosea 2:1-13). 190 d. This relationship between unbelief, disobedience and idolatry is critically important and everywhere affirmed by the Scripture. It was demonstrated continually in the life of Israel, and Paul here drew upon four particulars to make that point (10:7-10). The previous four circumstances highlight the uniform privilege and blessing of the nation as Yahweh’s beloved covenant son; these four highlight the failure of the majority to live into their sonship. The first of those proofs is the incident of the golden calf (10:7; ref. Exodus 32). This is the appropriate starting point for Paul for at least two reasons: 1) First, it was Israel’s initial violation of its covenant sonship; it was the first act of national unfaithfulness and covenant-breaking following the ratification of the covenant at Sinai (ref. Exodus 24). In this way it epitomizes Israel’s failure as the Abrahamic people – as Yahweh’s son, servant, disciple and witness to the world. 2) But it also speaks directly to Paul’s contextual concern with the issue of idolatry, and in doing so highlights the true nature of idolatry: It shows that Israel’s idolatry didn’t consist in its outright rejection of Yahweh, but in its failure to trust Him in His fatherly love and covenant faithfulness – the love and faithfulness which He’d demonstrated continually from the day He came to their rescue and led them in triumph out of Egypt. After ratifying the covenant with the whole nation, Moses again ascended Mount Sinai where the Lord gave him His prescription for His sanctuary and its furnishings (Exodus 25-31). This sanctuary was of first importance in the newly formalized relationship between Yahweh and Israel because His presence with them was the very heart of His covenant made with their fathers (ref. Genesis 17:1-8, 26:1-5, 28:10-22; Exodus 15:17, 24:1-11, 25:1-8). But when several weeks passed and Moses didn’t return to the camp the people became impatient and fearful. Moses was the mediator in their covenant relationship with God (cf. Exodus 20:18-21; Deuteronomy 18:15-18); if Moses was gone, how would they interact with Yahweh? How would they know to follow His leading, and, more importantly, would He even lead them without Moses? Day by day the children of Israel became more fearful that they were going to die there at the foot of Mount Sinai. They needed God to take them to Canaan, but the one who interacted with Him on their behalf was gone. Their only recourse was to make another mediator; another interface between them and Yahweh. This was precisely their aim in fashioning the golden calf. The people of Israel trusted Moses – at least to a point, but they really didn’t trust their God. With Moses out of the picture, they had no confidence that Yahweh would uphold His covenant oath to bring them to Canaan, and so they sought to motivate Him to do so by resorting to magic – not the magician’s slight-of-hand, but magic as fundamental to the psychology of human religion and worship. 191 The children of Israel sought (ironically, through the complicity of Aaron, Yahweh’s chosen priest) to secure His continued favor and assistance by embodying Him in tangible form and then appealing to Him through that image (Exodus 32:1-4). Again, this mindset lies at the heart of all human religion; indeed it is the only way in which man, the divine image-bearer, can express his innate spirituality and spiritual consciousness in the context of his fallen state and estrangement from the true God. Severed from life and communion with the living God, isolated within his own mind and driven by his sense of himself and his own concerns and interests, fallen man has no choice but try to connect with the divine by building a bridge between them – a bridge he himself designs, constructs and employs to his own ends. At bottom, the golden calf was about the manipulation of Yahweh, not the renunciation of Him, and this truth provides critical insight into the nature of idolatry. Idolatry can have its object in the true God as much as pseudo-gods or material things. The reason is that the idolater is a self-worshipper; the apparent object of worship is only the means to the worshipper’s ends. - In the case of images, men construct them with the belief that, in worshipping before them, they are worshipping the deity they represent. But this worship doesn’t occur at a distance; the physical image is thought to make that deity mystically present with the worshipper. And being present, the deity is more likely to hear and respond to the worshipper’s petitions and pleas. Thus tangible images have their goal in persuasion – in making a deity accessible and amenable to the worshipper. - People form physical representations of their gods and worship before them in the hope of coaxing from those gods the help and blessing they seek; in the case of the golden calf incident, Israel hoped to secure God’s favor, provision and leadership in continuing on to Canaan. The crucial implication of this is that Israel’s great offense wasn’t the impropriety and insult of representing the uncreated God in creaturely form, as bad as that was. Far more grievous was the people’s sense that Yahweh is like the false gods of the nations and thus susceptible to the same sorts of tactics and appeals. Men conceive of deities as quasi-human entities framed by and formed in their own likeness; entities that mirror human selfishness, caprice, and untrustworthiness. The interaction between human beings involves manipulation (however subtle or unconscious) for the sake of personal ends, and so it is with men’s interaction with the “gods” they invent: Such deities, like their human counterparts, are fickle, self-seeking, foolish and weak, and therefore subject to manipulation. What men call worship is actually flattery; it is disingenuous devotion and praise that indicts the worshipper’s conception of the deity being worshipped as much as the selfish concern of the worshipper. 192 Unbelief is the fundamental human sin, and unbelief always manifests itself in idolatry. The reason is man’s nature as divine image-bearer and his condition of alienation from God. He is a spiritual being, but can only express his spirituality in unbelief – whether that unbelief presents itself as atheism, skepticism, cultural religion or fervent devotion and piety. In each case the reality is the same: Men are consigned to order their convictions and life according to notions that are in their own heads, even when those notions pertain to the true and living God. Israel’s unbelief didn’t pertain to invented or adopted deities, but to their covenant God who’d led them out of Egypt in manifest power. So their idolatry didn’t consist in the first instance in pursuing other gods, but in forming their conception of Yahweh and ordering themselves toward Him according to their own notions. This understanding is critical to grasping God’s meaning and intent in the first three commandments of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:1-7): - Yahweh forbid Israel to have other gods, which obviously included the false deities of the nations around them. But His prohibition had a more profound import than that, evident in its phrasing: “There shall not be for you other gods over against My face” (20:3). Yahweh’s “face” speaks to His true, manifest self – the truth of who He is and revealed Himself to be, and Israel was not to devise any notions of Him that confuted or contradicted that truth. - The second commandment prohibiting the fashioning of idols builds upon the first by forbidding the physical externalization of false notions of Yahweh. As Israel was not to form false conceptions of their God, so they were to refrain from any physical representations of Him – which, in the nature of the case, would only give tangible substance to (and so provide an instrument of manipulation in the service of) their natural, self-derived, self-serving notions. - So the third commandment extends the prohibition of the second by forbidding verbal externalization of false conceptions of God. People today tend to associate “taking God’s name in vain” with profanity and other forms of open blasphemy. But the textual meaning has a different orientation: Yahweh was forbidding Israel to take His name onto their lips in any way that spoke falsely concerning Him, whether overtly in a self-serving ritual oath or incantation or subtly in presenting God as the advocate of their agenda. Again, the golden calf incident had the singular goal of securing Yahweh’s continued commitment to His covenant pledge. In this way Israel was indicting their God as foolish as well as untrustworthy. They thought He was altogether just like them (Psalm 50:16-21); they thought He could be moved by their exuberant, celebratory antics to do what He otherwise wouldn’t; they thought they could convince Him to be faithful when He was inherently untrustworthy. For their part, the Corinthians weren’t fashioning idols, but they were idolaters (10:7a); as will be seen, they were making an idol of their correctness and the freedom attached to it and they were tacitly invoking God to come alongside them in their rights.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 22:17:06 GMT -5
The second circumstance Paul referenced to show Israel’s failure occurred near the end of the nation’s forty years in the Sinai wilderness (10:8). In that way it forms a kind of bookend with the golden calf episode which occurred only a few months after Israel’s departure from Egypt: The golden calf was the first instance of Israel’s covenant-breaking and so came to define the nation’s unfaithfulness as the son of God and seed of Abraham; the present episode punctuated Israel’s failure as an exclamation point coming at the end of the wilderness period. This episode may not have carried the spectacular notoriety and depth of national shame of the one involving the golden calf, but it was certainly a low point in Israel’s early history. It came about through the influence of Balaam, a man whose very name came to be regarded by the children of Israel as synonymous with idolatry and opposition to Yahweh and His will. The account in recorded in the twenty-fifth chapter of Numbers and the background is as follows: - Balaam entered Israel’s experience at the end of the wilderness period when the nation was camped at Shittim on the plains of Moab just across the Jordan River to the east. This was Israel’s last campsite before crossing the Jordan into Canaan (ref. Numbers 22:1). - The text indicates that Balaam was a known diviner (seer) in the region of Moab, for when Balak, the king of Moab, learned that Israel was camped in his domain he notified the rulers of Midian and together they sent men to Balaam to ask him to intervene on their behalf (Numbers 22:2-7). (Midian lies to the south of Moab on the eastern side of the Gulf of Aqaba, but evidently these two nations enjoyed some sort of alliance at that time.) The text doesn’t explain how Balak knew of Balaam, but Balaam obviously had a reputation as a powerful seer. For Balak sought him out to curse Israel – the people whose deity had liberated them by destroying the awesome power of Egypt, carried them through the barren wilderness and given them victory over Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites to the north of Moab in the region of Ammon (Numbers 21:21ff). Balak was aware of these things, and Israel’s presence in Moab deeply troubled him. Perhaps his kingdom would be the next to fall to Israel and its God. Why Balak thought a diviner would be able to undermine Israel’s mighty deity and impose a curse on His people isn’t clear, but apparently this sort of notion and ritual invocation were not uncommon in the ancient NearEast. What is clear is that nations believed their strength, military success and national prosperity and well-being expressed the power and favor of their gods, so that a mighty and triumphal nation was believed to have superior gods (cf. 2 Chronicles 25:14f; Isaiah 10:5-11, 36:1-37:12). Balak knew what Yahweh, the God of Israel, had accomplished for His people, and yet he was hopeful – perhaps out of desperation – that Balaam would be able to prevail with Him to remove His favor from Israel. 194 - What followed was a series of attempts by Balaam to accomplish Balak’s desire to see Israel cursed. Balaam resisted the king, explaining repeatedly that he was constrained to speak as Yahweh directed; he had experienced first-hand His sovereign authority and power, and he knew Israel would only be cursed if Israel’s God determined to do so (cf. Numbers 22:8-35 with 22:36-38, 23:11-12, 25-26). But Balak persisted and discovered for himself the truth of the seer’s words: Rather than cursing Israel, Balaam was compelled by Yahweh to bless His covenant son in three powerful, prophetic blessings (ref. Numbers 22:41-23:10, 23:12-24, 24:1-9). And the heart of those blessings was the Lord’s sure word that Israel would triumph over all opposition to realize His will for her – not because of the nation’s strength, power or military prowess, but because of Yahweh’s unchanging purpose; and not through her own faithfulness to the covenant, but in spite of her failure. The God of the covenant was going to bring forth the royal seed pledged to the fathers and thereby fulfill His promise to Abraham of dominion and global blessing (cf. Genesis 17:1-16, 22:15-18, 24:1-60, 35:1-11 with 49:1-12): “I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near; a star shall come forth from Jacob, and a scepter shall rise from Israel, and shall crush through the forehead of Moab and tear down all the sons of Sheth. And Edom shall be a possession [cf. the later prophecy of Amos; 9:11-15], Seir, its enemies, also shall be a possession, while Israel performs valiantly. One from Jacob shall have dominion, and shall destroy the remnant from the city” (24:17-19). - This prophecy both capped God’s triple blessing of His covenant son and declared Moab’s future destruction. With it, Balak realized his efforts to see Israel cursed were futile and he allowed his diviner to return home. But this wasn’t the end of Balaam’s involvement with Israel; he’d acted against them without their knowledge in seeking to curse them, and he’d do so again through the women of Moab and Midian (Numbers 25:1-8, 31:1ff). Balaam could not himself turn the Lord against His people, but he was able to influence them to accomplish that end themselves by seducing them away from Yahweh to follow the Baal of Peor (the Moabite version of Baal whose sanctuary was in the city of Beth-peor.) This is the episode Paul referenced to the Corinthians. Interestingly, the account in Numbers 25 is silent about Balaam’s involvement, but the Lord Himself mentioned him and his corrupting influence when He later called for the complete destruction of the Midianite people (31:1-18). Balaam was commissioned to curse Israel, and in the end he did manage to undermine the relationship between Yahweh and His covenant son; from that time forward, Balaam’s name became symbolic of corruption and deception that seduce men away from the true and living God (cf. 2 Peter 2:1-19; Jude 1-13; Revelation 2:12-14). 195 The occasion for this apostasy was Israel’s prolonged season in Moab which provided opportunity for Israelite men to become involved with Moabite women (25:1). The text doesn’t say how this contact first came about, but informal contact between the two eventually led to greater interaction. Israelites were invited to Moabite celebrations where ritual sacrifices were performed, and many found themselves participating in those rituals (25:2). That cultural and religious engagement led to relational intimacy, and soon some number of Israelite men became romantically involved with Midianite women. The Numbers account provides little information as to how Balaam orchestrated this apostasy, but it does indicate that he encouraged the Moabite and Midianite women to engage the Israelites camped among them (Numbers 31:15-16). The narrative also importantly highlights the fact that God condemned Balaam for Israel’s unfaithfulness, which implies that he had evil motives in encouraging this engagement; Balaam’s goal apparently wasn’t cultivating friendly relations between Israel and Midian (which had existed in the past – Midian was a son of Abraham and Moses had married a Midianite woman), but seducing the sons of Israel away from their God. If he couldn’t directly prevail upon Yahweh to curse His covenant son, Balaam would turn Him against His son by drawing the son away from Him. However he carried out this deception, the end result was that multitudes in Israel “played the harlot” with the Baal of Peor, inaugurating in Israel a love affair with the gods of the nations that would plague the people and their relationship with Yahweh throughout their history. The Lord responded to this spiritual adultery by commanding Moses and Israel’s leaders to slay and hang on poles all who had involved themselves with Baal (25:3-5). But in spite of this gruesome display of Yahweh’s indignation – and as the climax of Israel’s harlotry at Shittim – an Israelite man brought a Midianite woman into the camp and presented her before his family and all the people (25:6). Though the text is vague, his action suggests that he had taken her for his wife. This intermarriage was outrageous enough, but the outrage was pressed to the limit by the fact that this woman was the daughter of a ruler in Midian – a man described in 25:15 as the head of several Midianite tribes, and in 31:8 as a Midianite king. Whether or not he recognized it, this son of Israel had effectively formed a political alliance between Israel and Moab/Midian by taking this woman as his wife. The text highlights the notoriety of this situation by naming the individuals involved in it (25:14-15); Israel would never forget the names Zimri and Cozbi: the man and woman whose foolish love affair threatened Yahweh’s covenant kingship and the integrity of the Abrahamic household. Ironically, and to add insult to injury, Zimri brought Cozbi into the camp in the sight of Moses and the people while they were weeping and imploring Yahweh at the tent of meeting. When Phinehas, the priest, realized what was happening, he took a spear, entered Zimri’s tent and killed both him and Cozbi. Phinehas’ righteous intervention turned the Lord aside from His anger and He withdrew His plague, but not before 24,000 Israelites had died (25:7-9). 196 Some, noting that Paul’s accounting of the dead differs from the Numbers account, have concluded that he either misspoke or that he was referring to a different circumstance. Some argue he was still referring to the golden calf episode; others, like John Calvin, resolve the difference as a matter of rounding. But the best answer is perhaps the one provided by Keil and Delitzsch, which is that Paul was speaking according to the rabbinical tradition which taught that 1,000 of the 24,000 were hanged while 23,000 died in the subsequent plague. (This tradition notwithstanding, it’s likely that the slaughter by hanging was itself Yahweh’s plague (literally, His “smiting”) that resulted in 24,000 deaths.) There is little doubt that Paul was referring to this episode at Shittim, and he did so intending that it, too, would be considered in the light of the Israelite salvation history, its typological function and its significance for Christ’s people who live in the age of fulfillment. Toward that end, a couple of observations are important: 1) The first is fundamental, and that is that Paul was employing the term immoral (“let us not act immorally”) in its spiritual sense. He was concerned with spiritual immorality – unfaithfulness to Yahweh, not sexual immorality. This is evident first from the larger context which specifically focuses on the issue of idolatry. It is also indicated by the array of episodes Paul chose to draw from, all of which highlight Israel’s idolatry as the heart of the nation’s covenant unfaithfulness. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is clear from the biblical pattern – well familiar to Paul – which treats spiritual violation in the language of sexual impurity. Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh amounted to adultery, for the covenant nation (often designated Zion) was Yahweh’s wife and individual Israelites were her children begotten for the Lord as their covenant Father (cf. Isaiah 50-54 and Hosea 1-3 with Jeremiah 3:1-10 and Ezekiel 16, 23). Thus, the Lord’s indictment of Israel’s idolatry was that she “played the harlot,” and so it was in this instance (Numbers 25:1-2). True, the text suggests that Zimri engaged in sexual relations with Cozbi, but probably as her husband; he’d have hardly been so brazen as to bring her openly into his family tent in the sight of Moses and all Israel if they weren’t married. Zimri’s “immorality” was that of the nation: It was the spiritual adultery of compromising his devotion to Yahweh. Zimri gave himself to a Midianite woman; Israel gave herself to the Midianite god. 2) Secondly, this episode contributes to Paul’s argument by highlighting the fact that Israel’s idolatry – its adultery – became more pernicious and pervasive with time. What began at Horeb with the nation’s idolatrous notions regarding Yahweh progressed to their actual engagement with the false gods of the nations around them – and that in the face of Yahweh’s constant warnings and punishments. Forty years of divine faithfulness, testing and smiting had secured nothing. Israel could not be Israel.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 22:18:31 GMT -5
The third occurrence Paul referenced was another hugely significant episode in Israel’s history. Like the others, it took place during the wilderness period and it, too, centered in the nation’s unbelief. Paul designated the golden calf episode as an example of Israel’s idolatry, the second as showing its immorality, and this one as Israel testing the Lord, but all three – together with the fourth – speak to the same fundamental sickness which plagued the covenant son: Israel was incapable of loving and trusting its covenant Father; in the end, Israel was incapable of faith. By the time its forty-year test in the wilderness ended it was clear that Israel’s only hope was for Yahweh to give them a heart to know, eyes to see and ears to hear; Israel needed a circumcised heart, and the Lord promised that the day was coming when He would circumcise it Himself (cf. Deuteronomy 29:1-4, 30:1-6). Paul identified this episode in terms of a destroying plague of serpents (10:9), which indicates that he was referring to the time when Israel’s unfaithfulness provoked Yahweh to send venomous snakes into their camp in order to begin killing them with their toxic bite. This account, too, is recorded in the book of Numbers (21:2-9), and its background and particulars are as follows: - This episode preceded the one Paul mentioned before it, but it, too, occurred near the end of Israel’s forty years in the wilderness. It took place after the nation had departed from Mount Hor – the mountain where God had executed His judgment against Aaron for his role in the act of unfaithfulness at Meribah (Numbers 20:1-29). Miriam had died and now Aaron was gone as well. Of the three siblings, only Moses remained, and he knew that he, too, was going to follow his brother in dying outside the sanctuary land because of Meribah (ref. 20:12 with Deuteronomy 34). - The general circumstance surrounding this episode was a recurrent one in Israel’s wilderness experience: The people resented their protracted wandering and its discomfort and difficulty and they gave voice to their resentment, first in grumbling and then in direct accusation against Moses and their God. As at Massah in Rephidim and then at Meribah in Kadesh, they accused Yahweh of malfeasance under the covenant: Their parched throats convinced them that He had brought them out of Egypt per His covenant oath to Abraham only to have them die before reaching the land promised to them (21:5; cf. Exodus 17:1-5 and Numbers 20:1-13). - This was now the fourth recorded instance of Israel’s accusation when confronted with the lack of drinking water. Three times before – at Marah, Massah and Meribah – the people had complained in disbelief and each time the Lord miraculously provided for their need. Yet here they were again, concluding from their unrequited thirst that their God had delivered them from bondage in Egypt only to abandon them in the wilderness. This was bad enough, but the people enlarged their accusation by again expressing their hatred for Yahweh’s provision: Not only had He left them without water, He was depriving them of real food (cf. 11:1ff, 20:1ff). 198 Even their Egyptian slave masters had given them meat, fruit, vegetables and spices. All their Deliverer had provided was this loathsome manna – something not worthy to be called food. Israel complained about the manna from the time God provided it (ref. Numbers 10:11-11:6), but now, decades later, their hatred and resentment of it had festered to the point that they could not even regard it as legitimate food. Whatever it was, it certainly was no good gift from God; indeed, it was just one more way in which He showed His unfaithfulness and lack of concern. - The result of their grumbling and accusation was that Yahweh sent poisonous serpents into the camp and soon many Israelites were dying from snakebite. However self-centered and stiff-necked the people were, they weren’t stupid; they knew their grumbling was an affront to God (though that hadn’t stopped them) and so quickly recognized that He had sent this infestation as just retribution against their insubordination. And so the sons of Israel came to Moses and begged him to intercede for them that Yahweh would relent and remove the serpents (21:6-7). This incident is notable in that it deviated from its three previous counterparts while also paralleling them: - It differed from them in two related ways. First, Yahweh didn’t respond to Israel’s complaints as He had before, namely by immediately providing water for the people. He obviously did supply that need at some point, for the nation didn’t perish there, but the text makes no comment regarding it. Instead it emphasizes an entirely different response: Yahweh didn’t miraculously provide water; He miraculously supplied poisonous serpents to punish the sons of Israel for their unbelief and blasphemous accusation. - But this episode parallels its counterparts in that God did show Himself faithful by interceding to deliver His covenant son. At Marah, Massah and Meribah He’d done so by satiating Israel’s thirst; here He did so by providing the remedy for His own retribution. In all four instances, Yahweh met the unfaithfulness and desperation of His people with His own abiding faithfulness. Once again He showed that He was determined to uphold His covenant oath and see it through to fulfillment, not because of or in conjunction with the faithfulness of His covenant son, but in spite of the son’s hopeless unbelief. Israel would not and could not fulfill its covenant identity and calling; Israel could not be Israel. But Yahweh would see to it that Israel did succeed – not in itself, but by Him taking upon Himself and meeting in Himself Israel’s obligation of sonship. He emphasized that truth here by the way He responded to Israel’s plea for deliverance. Yahweh instructed Moses to fashion a likeness of the serpents He’d sent against Israel and set it on top of a pole visible to the people. The bitten ones who gazed upon that image would be healed (21:8-9). 199 Several other things about this episode and Paul’s reference to it are important to consider. Of primary concern is the way Paul understood it and how he was relating it to the Corinthians and their question respecting “idol meats.” Toward that end, the first thing that stands out is the way he phrased his statement: “Let us not try Christ as some of them did.” This is the predominant reading in English versions, though the NAS and NIV reflect one variant in the Greek text, substituting the noun Lord for Christ. There is an obvious difficulty suggested by the more common reading, namely how Paul envisioned the Israelites testing Christ by their complaints and accusations. This difficulty may very well explain the textual variants (Lord and God) which, for various reasons, are likely alterations of the original. The issue has been addressed in various ways. 1) The easiest solution is to simply adopt the variant reading as the NAS and NIV do. But again, this is not particularly satisfying since the manuscript evidence and the principles of textual criticism argue for the noun Christ being the original reading. The very fact that this reading raises questions argues against a transcriber introducing it in the place of the noun Lord. Who would knowingly create a difficulty in the text? Rather, the tendency would be to mitigate a difficulty with an alternate reading. 2) A second answer is that Paul was alluding to his conviction that Christ was present with the Israelites as the pre-incarnate Angel of Yahweh, even as He was the rock which followed them through the wilderness (10:4). So also some have noted that Paul could have been drawing upon Jesus’ own statements that correlated His self-offering at Calvary with the bronze serpent (John 3:14-15). The problem here is that Jesus wasn’t in any way suggesting that He was present in that Israelite circumstance, but that it corresponded in some fashion to the cross event that lay ahead of Him. Beyond that, Jesus’ statement isn’t the least bit helpful in explaining how Paul could say that Israel was testing Christ; if anything, he’d have to say that Israel was looking to Christ to be delivered and healed. 3) Probably the best answer is that Paul was referencing Christ as the object of testing with respect to the Corinthians. That is, he was saying to the Corinthians, let us not be guilty of testing Christ as Israel tested Yahweh. Paul simply left the second direct object unstated, knowing that it was implied from the historical account to which he was alluding. A second issue that must be considered is how the serpent episode constituted an act of testing as Paul insisted it did. Psalm 78:18 is helpful in this regard, and perhaps it was this passage that framed Paul’s perspective on the incident. Israel “tried” Yahweh by indicting Him: They indicted His character by questioning His intentions and commitment in bringing them out of Egypt (ref. again Numbers 21:4-5a); but they also indicted His judgment by making themselves the determiners of what constituted “provision” (21:5b). God had provided; they just didn’t accept His provision – they asked for food “according to their desire.” 200 A third matter is how the issue of testing pertained to the Corinthians. Paul exhorted the saints at Corinth to cease putting the Lord Jesus to the test; in what sense were they doing that, especially in relation to the issue at hand, which was their involvement with food sacrificed to idols? This topic will be addressed in full later on, but suffice it here to note that Paul clearly regarded the Corinthians’ relationship with “idol meats” and the various issues surrounding it to be a matter of testing their Lord, even as it was a matter of idolatry. One final thing to consider is how the serpent episode should be interpreted in the light of Jesus Christ. Jesus Himself affirmed that the entire salvation history – and therefore the whole of the scriptural record – testifies of Him. Beyond that general affirmation, He drew a direct correlation between this episode and His own impending crucifixion (John 3:14-15). That much is universally affirmed; what is debated is the nature and import of the correlation. At the one extreme, there are those who tie the serpent motif to the biblical symbolism of Satan as a serpent creature (cf. Genesis 3:1ff with 2 Corinthians 11:3; also Revelation 12:1-17, 20:1-3). Noting that Jesus drew a parallel between the bronze serpent on the standard and His own crucifixion, they conclude that, in becoming the “sin-bearer” on the cross, Jesus was effectively transformed into a quasi-satanic being who, after dying, was consigned to hell as Satan’s domain before being liberated and resurrected on the third day. Others, recognizing the same serpent/Satan symbolism, are puzzled and even troubled by Jesus’ comparison and find themselves at a loss as to how to explain this correspondence without degrading the Lord or wading into blasphemous or heretical thinking. The simple, contextual explanation for God specifying a serpent image was the fact that serpents were biting the sons of Israel. Moses’ was to make a serpent that corresponded to the ones biting the people (cf. 21:6 and 21:8). The bronze serpent didn’t signify or symbolize Satan, but God’s just judgment and punishment of His people. He had Moses make a fiery serpent (hence, bronze) so that the people would discern the crucial truth that that which came against them in just judgment was also their source of deliverance and healing. The issue wasn’t serpents – either the living ones or the bronze one, but the God whose purpose they were expressing and serving. It was Yahweh who rose up against His people in just condemnation and it was Yahweh who arose on their behalf to deliver them. Here again the same salvation-historical theme comes to the forefront: The covenant son was an incorrigible covenant-breaker who could not be spared, and yet the covenant could not be voided. The only solution was for Yahweh to arise on behalf of Israel and fulfill their covenant obligation. But He had to do so in their name and not in His own; otherwise, He would effectively remove Israel as a party to the covenant and thereby nullify the covenant itself. No, Yahweh had decreed that His restoration and blessing would come to the world through Israel, and Israel could not be set aside without violating His oath. He would keep His oath, but by entering into and coming forth from Israel as Israel indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 22:19:47 GMT -5
The final circumstance Paul cited in proof of Israel’s failed sonship is general and therefore difficult to tie to one event or episode (10:10). Grumbling was a normative pattern during Israel’s time in the wilderness, and more than once that attitude resulted in Yahweh’s lethal retribution. But because Paul’s verb connotes defiance rather than simple displeasure, and so looks beyond mild complaining to the notion of slanderous, malicious, rebellious, and even conspiratorial murmuring, some commentators associate Paul’s reference with the incident of Korah’s rebellion (Numbers 16-17; ref. esp. 16:1-11, 41, 17:1-10). Others associate it with the circumstance that immediately preceded Korah’s rebellion, namely the “bad report” of ten of the twelve spies sent to spy out the land of Canaan and the grumbling and divine retribution which resulted from it (Numbers 13-14; ref. esp. 13:31-14:4, 26-37). It’s also possible, given that Paul’s statement expresses the general pattern of Israel’s relationship with Yahweh in the wilderness, that Paul was concluding his witness to the nation’s failure by encompassing all that he’d said within a summary statement. Thus he wasn’t citing a particular incident, but was effectively including all such incidents to punctuate his point: Yahweh’s testing of Israel in the wilderness proved the nation’s incurable unfaithfulness and its inevitable self-condemnation. Grumbling did define Israel’s posture during her forty years in the wilderness, but there were only a few instances in which that disposition was recompensed by Yahweh’s destroying hand – grumblers being “destroyed by the Destroyer.” While this helps to narrow Paul’s possible referents, it also complicates matters in that this is the only time Paul employed this term (“destroyer”) in his epistles; in fact it occurs only one other time in the entire New Testament, and then in a cognate form (ref. Hebrews 11:28, where the participle refers to Yahweh as the destroyer of Egypt’s first-born – Exodus 12:1-13, 23-29). The rarity of this term makes it difficult to determine Paul’s exact meaning; nevertheless – and in view of the Hebrews usage and the broader biblical witness (cf. Exodus 12 with Numbers 20:16; also 2 Samuel 24:1-16; 1 Chronicles 21:1-15; 2 Chronicles 32:1- 21), it is commonly understood as denoting a destroying angel – an angelic servant dispatched by Yahweh to administer His retribution. This translation has some biblical justification, but adopting it creates a new problem: There is no instance in the biblical text of Yahweh sending His destroying angel against Israel as a result of their grumbling and murmuring. Thus holding strictly to this rendering makes it impossible to conclusively tie Paul’s statement to any one episode. It may well be that Paul believed God used angelic agents to carry out His sentence against Israel; he certainly had some ground in the scriptural pattern. But this belief has no explicit or direct biblical warrant. On the other hand, rendering Paul’s term as “the destroyer” allows his statement to be tied to specific wilderness episodes. One of those was the serpent incident, and thus some commentators believe Paul was still speaking of that episode in v. 10. But given his pattern in this passage of treating each episode under one descriptor, it seems unlikely that he’d deviate from that pattern in this instance. 202 Other than the serpent incident, there are two recorded instances in which Yahweh destroyed Israelites because of their murmuring against Him. Those are the two Numbers episodes previously mentioned: Korah’s rebellion (Numbers 16- 17) and the report of the spies concerning the land (Numbers 13-14). Commentators generally point to one or both of these as Paul’s probable referent, and opinions seem to be fairly evenly divided as to which is preferable. - The strongest argument for choosing the Korah incident is that it was a powerful and shocking display of Yahweh’s supernatural destructive power. He didn’t act through some natural agency (as in the case of the serpent infestation), but personally and directly. Surely Paul would refer to that occurrence as Israelites being “destroyed by the Destroyer.” So also it is argued that Paul describes some being destroyed, which doesn’t seem to fit with the Numbers 14 circumstance in which Yahweh pronounced the destruction of the entire adult generation that had come out of Egypt, the only exceptions being Joshua and Caleb. - These are notable arguments, but they’re transcended by one compelling reason for opting for the Numbers 14 situation as being Paul’s referent. And that is that the destruction resulting from Korah’s rebellion was one execution of the comprehensive sentence issued at Paran: There God pronounced the destruction of the disbelieving generation, and those who perished in association with Korah’s rebellion were but “firstfruits” in the execution of that sentence. In that regard, even if one decides that Korah’s rebellion was Paul’s specific referent in 10:10, he is implicitly deciding for the spies episode as well since the former is but the fruit of the latter. The destruction decreed in the wilderness of Paran found expression in the later incident of Korah’s rebellion, but even considered in itself the spies episode satisfies Paul’s language. While God’s sentence at Paran extended to the entire adult generation that left Egypt, this still amounted to only some of the Israelite nation. The young people and children who grew up in the wilderness and those born during that time survived to cross the Jordan and enter Canaan. For all the multitude who fretted and grumbled at the spies’ report and were sentenced to die outside the land of promise, Paul was accurate in referring to them as “some.” So also it was true that the murmurers were “destroyed by the Destroyer,” whatever specific means – natural or supernatural – Yahweh may have employed over the next many years to carry out His death sentence against them. Whichever way one concludes, Paul’s reference must be interpreted in the light of what transpired with the spies’ return. For that circumstance was the turning point for Israel: There Yahweh came to the end of His patience with the covenant son’s unbelief and defiance; there the son’s triumph and hopeful expectation were shattered by the sentence of death; there the nation’s fate was sealed. 203 Even though Paul’s statement cannot be conclusively assigned to a particular episode, his indefiniteness doesn’t in any way obscure his meaning or its instructive value for his readers. What is important is the fact that Israel was a nation of grumblers and that their murmuring incurred severe retribution from their covenant Father. But while making an end of the offenders, Yahweh preserved the covenant house and the covenant itself. The very faithfulness to the covenant which Israel questioned guaranteed that Israel would not – indeed could not – be utterly destroyed, either by human enemies or by Yahweh Himself. Israel would endure, but not with impunity. The entire Israelite salvation-history is a woeful story of divine indignation that repeatedly caused Israelite blood to flow and Israelite bodies to fall to the ground in death. The son’s unfaithfulness to the covenant Father was no small matter and could not be tolerated. But what was there about grumbling – a relatively minor offense compared with other forms of disobedience and rebellion – that incurred the sentence of death? The answer lies in understanding what it was that Israel was doing and the implications of it. - As noted at the outset, this grumbling wasn’t merely the people giving voice to their weariness, frustration and discouragement; their murmuring was directed toward Yahweh Himself and expressed a disgruntled and defiant heart. The children of Israel grumbled about their situation and provision, but behind that complaint was the accusation that Yahweh had failed to uphold His covenant commitment to them; He had brought them out of Egypt only to watch them perish. Israel issued that charge the minute they departed Egypt (Exodus 14:1-12), and it was their continual mantra from that point forward. Whether in regard to their food and drink (Exodus 17:1-3; Numbers 20:1-5), their challenge in taking the land (Numbers 13:25-14:3), or the men Yahweh had provided to lead them and serve their needs (Numbers 16:1-14), the children of Israel viewed their circumstances as sure proof that Yahweh was an unfaithful Father. - Israel’s dissatisfaction with its circumstances reflected its dissatisfaction with its God: Difficult and trying circumstances indicated an uncaring and unrighteous God. The people (at least the vast majority of them) judged Yahweh on the basis of their perception of His promises and their expectations regarding them and their realization. They judged Yahweh’s heart by their perception and interpretation of His hand. Thus their murmuring gave open expression to their fundamental unbelief. So Yahweh didn’t condemn the Israelite grumblers because they were weary in their austere and trying circumstance; He condemned them because they defined and judged Him on the basis of their circumstance. - The sons of Israel had their own notions and expectations regarding their status and life as Yahweh’s covenant son. They defined Him according to their sensibilities, not the truth of who He’d shown Himself to be. Failing to conform to the truth of their God, Israel became a nation of idolaters. 204 - So also, by the mere act of “rethinking” Yahweh the children of Israel had become unrighteous judges; they made their own notions synonymous with the truth of their God and measured Him against that “image.” But this was only the beginning of their passing judgment on Him. At every point and in every circumstance they measured Him and His faithfulness against their notions of His word to them and how it was to be carried forward and fulfilled. Whether with respect to His person, purposes, promises or performance, Israel appointed itself the judge of Yahweh’s righteousness – His commitment and faithfulness to His covenant. And measured against the standard of their own personal “myths,” it was inevitable that He’d be found wanting. The covenant son judged and condemned his Father, and all in the name of believing and holding fast to the Father’s promises to him. This, then, was the psychology of Israel’s grumbling. The people’s murmuring articulated the defiance in their hearts. The son had set himself against the Father, but with the conviction that this posture was righteous because the Father had shown Himself unfaithful and untrustworthy. The people recognized that their murmuring expressed defiance, but defiance was warranted in the light of God’s unrighteousness and betrayal: They were only holding Him accountable to His stated purposes and promises; if it was right for Him to hold them accountable to the covenant, it was right for them to require the same faithfulness of Him. Israel had become a nation of unrighteous judges, but in the name of righteousness. What the people failed – or refused – to understand was that their apparently “just judgment” reflected idolatrous notions and convictions. The covenant son wasn’t wrong to judge his Father; indeed, judgment is a critical component of love and faithfulness. The son was obligated to judge the Father, but in truth: From the day He reintroduced Himself to Abraham’s descendents in Egypt, Yahweh challenged them to measure Him and see if He didn’t show Himself ever faithful to His covenant oath. And as the years and centuries went by, the Lord raised up prophets for Israel to exhort them to look back and see how He’d carried them, loved them, nurtured and supported them with patience, mercy and forgiveness. Israel had tried Yahweh and found Him good and true; only an unbelieving, idolatrous heart could conclude otherwise (cf. Deuteronomy 1:1-4:8 with 31:30-32:43, 33:1-29; so also Joshua 23:1-24:13; cf. also Psalm 78; Isaiah 46:1-4; Ezekiel 16:1-14 with Daniel 9:1-19 and Nehemiah 9:1-35). Israel’s murmuring deserved the most severe retribution because, as the manifestation of their unbelief, it gave voice to a lie – a lie that misrepresented and indicted Yahweh’s person and character as well as the integrity of His word and faithfulness of His work. And if this weren’t enough, it infected and poisoned others by enticing them to embrace and enter into the lie (cf. Numbers 13:31-14:3, 35-37). Israel’s grumbling was infectious and toxic; left unaddressed it would soon become a plague that destroyed the whole nation. The offenders needed to be destroyed in order that the covenant and its goal should not be forfeited.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 22:22:10 GMT -5
e. Paul drew upon Israel’s experience as Yahweh’s covenant son to help flesh out his instruction to the Corinthians regarding their question concerning “idol meats.” His intention was to clarify the issue and situate it within a proper perspective; the Corinthians needed to think about the issue rightly if they were to address it properly. And at the heart of Paul’s instruction was his insistence that the critical and determinative issue wasn’t whether or not it’s okay to eat foods that have been involved in pagan rituals. - The saints at Corinth sought Paul’s answer to that question; he responded by attempting to show them that the real issue was the obligation of Christians to fulfill their identity and calling by bearing faithful and accurate witness to the truth of the gospel. And they would do so when they brought the totality of their lives into conformity to the truth of Christ’s new creation, and so into subjection to Christ Himself. - Paul understood – and wanted the Corinthians to understand – that the question isn’t the lawfulness of Christians eating “idol meats,” but how this practice (and the larger, surrounding issues) relates to and impacts the overarching obligation of Christ’s saints to testify to the truth of the gospel on behalf of its work in the Church and in the world. Paul made this point in several ways: 1) He first emphasized that edification (that is, the authentic fruitfulness of the gospel in human lives), not correctness, determines the way a Christian is to approach every practical matter, including the one posed by the Corinthians; eating or not eating isn’t the issue, but how one’s choices and actions affect other brothers and sisters in Christ (8:1-13). 2) He next drew upon the example of himself, showing that this was precisely how he approached his own life and ministry – in relation to the Church (9:1-18), the world (9:19-23) and himself (9:24-27). 3) Lastly Paul turned his attention to the Israelite salvation history with the specific intent that the Corinthians would rightly see themselves, their status as Christians and the practicalities of their daily lives in terms of their identity and calling as the eschatological people of God: “those upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (10:1-11). In Paul’s judgment, the answer to the question of food sacrificed to idols is found in what it means to be a Christian: one who is not merely of Christ, but in Him; one in whom Christ Himself by His Spirit is living out His life, thereby bearing witness to Himself. These considerations are fundamental to grasping Paul’s argument in this context, and so also provide the necessary foundation for understanding and rightly responding to his series of summary exhortations (10:12-13, 14-22, 23-30, 31-33). 206 Each of Paul’s exhortations must be interpreted through the lens of the totality of his instruction in the larger context, but the first two (vv. 12-13, 14-22) in particular flow out of – and so are especially dependent upon – his preceding treatment of Israel’s history and its meaning for Christians. Paul’s first exhortation, then, was a charge to the Corinthians to guard against presumption and the complacency it nurtures (10:12-13). Again, this charge must be understood in the light of Paul’s preceding treatment of Israel’s history and its relation to the issue at hand; too many Christians treat these two verses as a stand-alone context – a generic proof-text for how to think about temptation. But any general application must derive from and reflect Paul’s specific meaning. - Rightly interpreting these verses depends upon setting them within Paul’s treatment of Israel’s history, but as that history has application to the Corinthians (and every Christian) in and through Jesus Christ. Paul’s clarifying statement – issued twice to punctuate the point (vv. 6, 11) – proves this thesis: The Israelite history was recorded for the saints’ instruction – those who share in the fruit of the consummation of the ages. - Paul acknowledged that Israel’s experience in the wilderness has relevance for Christians, but specifically as they are participants in the fulfillment and realization that have come in Jesus Christ – the fulfillment which Israel’s existence and history pointed to and prepared for. The crucial point in all of this is that Paul did not intend for the Corinthians (or Christians in general) to directly apply to themselves Israel’s circumstances and experiences (i.e., don’t be idolaters and grumblers like many in Israel were). The Corinthians were to regard the Israelite history as relevant to them (ref. again v. 11), but as that history has attained its fulfillment and true meaning in Jesus Christ and as they were sharers in His triumph and life: The Corinthians (and all Christians) are part of the fulfilled, eschatological Israel of God by being joined to Jesus Christ, the True Israel, who has Himself fulfilled Israel’s identity and calling as the Abrahamic Seed (cf. Isaiah 49:1-6 with Galatians 3:1-29 and 6:11-16; cf. also Ephesians 2:11-3:7; 1 Peter 2:4-10). Paul’s initial exhortation actually consists of an admonition (10:12) followed by a qualifying statement (10:13). Again, Paul was exhorting the Corinthians, but in light of Israel’s history and experience. And though Paul’s citations themselves don’t make it evident, the larger circumstances to which they point – not to mention the Israelite history as a whole – leave no doubt that the people of Israel approached their lives with God with a strong sense of confidence and assurance: For the most part, they regarded themselves as standing firm, and this perception reflected their sense of themselves as Yahweh’s chosen people by virtue of the Abrahamic Covenant. Their sense of their identity was right and proper; it was the implication they drew from it that put them in danger. 207 The sons of Israel were the heirs of God’s covenant with Abraham, and His commitment to His covenant – and therefore to them – afforded them a sense of great confidence and security. Even when the day of desolation and exile was looming, few Israelites could bring themselves to believe that Yahweh would come against them in that way. He’d bound Himself to Abraham’s seed and enthroned Himself on Mount Zion. Therefore, Jerusalem could never fall and the Abrahamic seed could not be cast off. And if Yahweh were to so act, He would be the one guilty of unrighteousness, not them (cf. Jeremiah 6:1-15, 8:1-12, 27-28 with 28:1-17; cf. also Ezekiel 18:1-32 and 24:1-27). It wasn’t that the Israelites had no awareness of their failure and unfaithfulness; they knew they’d fallen short as Yahweh’s covenant son. An individual Israelite might not ascribe covenant failure to himself, but he certainly acknowledged it of others and of past generations. The children may have believed they were suffering for the sins of the fathers, but they knew the nation wasn’t innocent. But in spite of their national guilt, the people of Israel retained their confidence before God; after all, they were His elect, chosen from among all the earth’s peoples. This is the framework for understanding what Paul meant by standing and falling (10:12). As the recipients of the Abrahamic Covenant and its blessings and promises, the children of Israel were confident that they “stood”: They believed they were secure in their covenant status and relationship with Yahweh. He had bound Himself by oath to Abraham and his seed, and this unilateral pledge meant that they could never “fall” unless Yahweh did the unthinkable and renounced His covenant altogether. While many in Israel charged Yahweh with being unfaithful at various times and in various ways in administering His covenant, they never believed that He could or would abandon or annul it. There was thus a profound irony to Israel’s confidence before God: The people were justified in believing that He would never forsake or annul His covenant; He’d chosen Israel as His instrument for bringing His blessing to all men, and He would not depart from that decision. But the inference Israel derived from this truth was unfounded, namely that their national well-being was insured. This conclusion reflected the nation’s fundamental idolatry – its insistence upon framing Yahweh and His promises according to their notions and expectations. - In particular, the Israelite people as a whole failed to recognize that Yahweh’s unwavering solidarity with Israel – that is, with the Abrahamic seed which was the recipient of the covenant and its promises – didn’t depend upon the Israelite nation continuing in His favor and blessing. And this being the case, His favor wasn’t guaranteed to them. - God not only could fulfill His oath to Abraham in the context of condemning and desolating the covenant nation, He had actually determined to do so. In the end, the Israelite nation needed Yahweh’s blessing mediated to it just as much as did the nations of the earth. 208 - Israel was itself in need of another Israel – another Abrahamic seed – both to fulfill the Lord’s oath to Abraham concerning the world and to meet the nation’s own need of healing and restoration. Israel’s realization of its identity and calling depended on another, and this is precisely what Yahweh purposed. From within the Abrahamic people He would bring forth a true covenant son – a true “Israel” through whom He would recover to Himself a remnant of Israel along with men of every tribe, tongue, nation and people (Isaiah 49:1-13; cf. John 4:19-22; Galatians 3). And so, from the vantage point of the covenant itself, Israel’s confidence before God was well-founded; but from the vantage point of their actual relationship with Him as a people, their confidence was misplaced: Assured in their own minds that they “stood firm,” the sons of Israel had no thought of “falling.” And in another point of irony, that very confidence – and the complacency and neglect it nurtures – propelled them inexorably toward the fall they thought impossible. In the playing out of their relationship with God, the children of Israel had desperately needed to heed the admonition: Let him who thinks he stands be on his guard lest he fall. But the Corinthians needed to pay attention to that warning as well. Like the Israelite nation before them, they enjoyed covenant status and favor with Abraham’s God. But, standing in that favor, they, too, were in danger of falling because of a misplaced and careless assurance. They, too, could find their secure complacency rewarded with divine displeasure and judgment. Paul was drawing an obvious parallel between Israel and the Corinthian church (and, by extension, all Christians) in terms of the dynamics of their respective covenant relationship with God. What is not so obvious is the crucial distinction between them. Correspondence doesn’t imply identity, even as analogy isn’t synonymity. Paul understood that Israel’s circumstance speaks to the Church and its relationship with God, but in a typological way (ref. again 10:6, 11): - In one sense, Israel and Christ’s Church cannot be separated, for both are identified as Abraham’s covenant “seed”: the community that shares in God’s covenant election and blessing according to His oath to Abraham. - But this very correspondence spotlights the critical distinction between them. The covenant nation of Israel functioned in the salvation history to portray, prefigure and prepare for the true Abrahamic Seed who was, all along, the true referent and recipient of the Abrahamic oath and promise. Israel and the Church are thus related typologically as promise is to fulfillment, with the point of fulfillment being Jesus Christ Himself. In Him, as the True Israel, the Church – comprised of natural and wild Abrahamic branches – is constituted the everlasting Israel of God as Christ’s body and fullness (ref. again Galatians 3, 6:12-16; cf. Romans 9-11). This distinction is highlighted by Paul’s qualification in 10:13 and must be taken into account in interpreting his words. 209 The first thing to note is that Paul’s qualification tempers his admonition. That is, while he warned the Corinthians about the very real possibility of “falling,” he also encouraged them that their falling was neither necessary nor absolute. And the reason is that they enjoyed in reality the covenant sonship which Israel’s sonship only signified and prefigured. Israel was the “son of God” in name and by virtue of covenant election; the Corinthians, as all Christians, were sons of God in truth by virtue of sharing in Christ, the Son of God and elect Abrahamic Seed. The importance of this distinction is that, whereas Israel could not succeed in living out its identity and calling, Christ’s saints cannot fail. They can fall, but not absolutely; they cannot stumble so as to be utterly ruined (cf. 3:1-15 with Romans 14:1-4; Philippians 1:1-6). Paul soberly warned the Corinthians about the human propensity toward idolatrous presumption (10:13a), but while encouraging them with the affirmation of God’s divine power and resource for meeting that human weakness in His children (10:13b; cf. Philippians 2:12-13; Hebrews 12:1-2). The second thing to note is that the temptation Paul referred to involves the matter of idolatry (ref. 10:14ff in relation to vv. 12-13). Many lift Paul’s statements out of context and wrongly conclude that he was speaking of temptation in general. This is not to say that his instruction cannot be applied beyond this context, but it must be done through the grid provided by his contextual meaning. The logic of the passage is thus: The Corinthians raised the question of eating “idol meats”; Paul responded by addressing the issue of idolatry itself, which he perceived to be at the heart of the Corinthians’ attitude and orientation in this and related concerns. All of his instruction in the larger context builds to this climax. Paul discerned a very real idolatry in the Corinthians’ posture toward “idol meats.” But like Israel, their idolatry didn’t involve the renunciation of God, but a reframing of Him. They, too, were regarding Him and interacting with Him in conformity to their own agenda – an agenda that they, like Israel in the wilderness, believed was consistent with the Lord and their relationship with Him as His covenant people. Israel’s idolatry (in the first instance) consisted in their measuring Yahweh against their notions of His promises and what it meant for Him to be faithful to them; the Corinthians’ idolatry consisted in making Him the ally of their notions concerning their doctrinal correctness and freedom. This becomes clear in Paul’s subsequent discussion, which indicates that some of the believers at Corinth – likely the mature ones who understood that idols and sacrificial foods are nothing (ref. again 8:1-8) – were involved to some degree in pagan practices, but with the confidence that God was their ally in what they wrongly regarded as their mature liberty (10:14-21). But this wasn’t the extent of their unrighteous judging; the same idolatrous notions led them to make God their advocate in their wrongful use of their legitimate liberty in eating foods sacrificed to idols (10:22-33). In both instances they were falling prey to the most basic and subtle of all temptations: the temptation to frame the living God according to the fundamental unbelief which defines and drives the natural mind.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 22, 2024 22:23:17 GMT -5
f. Like the people of Israel before them, the Corinthians were being continually assaulted by the temptation to idolatry. But unlike Israel, the saints at Corinth had a resource which gave them every reason to believe that they could stand firm in the face of that temptation. The Lord had provided them with a way of triumph: the way of faith and faithfulness grounded in their participation in Christ’s life and which draws upon the sustaining and perfecting power of God. This power was not simply available to them, but manifest in and for them for the sake of their attainment of the Father’s purpose for them (Ephesians 1:15-21). This resource didn’t lessen the Corinthians’ obligation to strive to stand firm; rather, it heightened their obligation because it removed all excuse and reason for doubt or fear. The fact that their final triumph was secure gave wings of joy and confident zeal to their efforts to run their race with endurance. Their discipline and diligence in running well were not in vain because of the author and perfecter of their faith (ref. again Hebrews 12:1-2). Paul had experienced the triumphant, transforming power of God “toward those who believe,” and so there was no half-heartedness or disingenuousness in his exhortation to the Corinthians: They were to flee from idolatry, confident that the Lord’s resource was sufficient to hold them steadfast in the face of temptation and set them on their feet again should they succumb and fall (10:14). The way of triumph in temptation is the way of faith, and faith is the living operation of the mind of Christ. Paul previously appealed to the Corinthians on the basis of their possessing the mind of Christ (1:10-3:23), and this core truth is the backdrop for his present appeal (10:15). Paul recognized a profound irony in what was transpiring in the church at Corinth and he wanted his readers to see it: - Possessing Christ’s mind as sharers in His life (2:16), the Corinthians were to manifest His mind and wisdom, not the wisdom of the world. - They believed themselves to be such men, but the very things they looked to as substantiating that claim (here, the way they oriented themselves toward things pertaining to idols) actually proved the contrary. Both the mature and immature believers at Corinth believed they were right in their respective, opposing dispositions toward “idol meats” and related issues, but the mature saints were doubtless the most ardent in ascribing wisdom to themselves. Unlike their immature brethren, they recognized that idols are nothing and therefore food sacrificed to them isn’t defiled. But apparently at least some of them were too “wise” by half: Knowing that idols are human inventions (8:4-6), they wrongly reasoned that all things related to idols are indifferent. Specifically, if idols are nothing and food that has been offered to them isn’t defiled, doesn’t it follow that the ritual offerings themselves are nothing? Paul didn’t identify the practices the Corinthians were engaging in, but it seems clear that some had moved beyond eating “idol meats” to association with idol rituals (10:19-20). 211 There were probably two dynamics in this association. First, almost certainly there were believers at Corinth who were indirectly associated with such practices by being present while they were taking place. As noted before, ritual worship was woven into the fabric of life in the Greco-Roman world, with rites and rituals being part of social gatherings and celebrations as well as civic events. So it was almost inevitable that Corinthian Christians – particularly ones of high social standing – would find themselves present at functions and events where tributes or offerings were made to pagan deities as part of the proceedings. For some of them at least, this sort of situation seemed to have posed no conscience problem. The unbelievers present took this ritual worship seriously, but they didn’t; they knew it was directed at imaginary “gods.” It’s quite likely that the only angst felt by these “mature” Corinthian believers was embarrassment and disdain for the foolishness of their pagan countrymen. But Paul’s words suggest that some of the Corinthians were actually participating in idol rituals. This probably resulted from social pressure brought to bear at the sorts of gatherings just described. Some rituals called for the participation of all present, which would have put Christians in a difficult position. Refusing to participate would mean awkward embarrassment at a minimum; it could bring ostracism, the loss of social standing or even financial consequences. Given such pressure, it would be natural for Christians with a mature understanding to excuse their participation on the grounds that they were merely playing along with an empty charade. Idols don’t even exist; therefore ritual worship is irrelevant. Paul agreed that idols and “idol meats” are nothing, but he took exception to the inference some at Corinth drew from this. Participation – indirectly or directly – in idol rituals is not nothing, because those rituals have demonic implications (10:20). Non-Christian worshippers believed they were worshipping GrecoRoman gods, whereas the Christian participants apparently believed they weren’t worshipping at all because those gods don’t exist. Though they approached such rituals from different vantage points, in the end both groups were unified in that neither was actually worshipping the supposed god. But they were united in another way that Paul regarded as far more important: neither recognized the demonic realities behind these rituals. The Corinthians needed to understand this and then, as wise men indeed, judge their own orientation and conduct. Paul recognized what the Corinthians didn’t, namely a very real connection between pagan practices and actual spiritual powers. The gods men worship don’t exist, but this doesn’t mean their worship is vacuous; there are spiritual entities behind that worship, regardless of whether the worshipper acknowledges them or directs his worship toward them. And this being the case, the Christian who associates himself with such rituals is intrinsically dividing his devotion between Jesus Christ and the angelic Accuser and Destroyer. Apart from the spiritual implications for his own soul, such a one is betraying the truth of what it means to be a covenant son – a man in Christ, and so is bearing false witness to himself, the community of believers and the world (cf. Deuteronomy 32:1-21). 212 Paul demonstrated this truth and its grave implications by drawing a comparison between pagan worship and the central Christian worship ritual – the Christian sacrament of the Lord’s Table (10:16-21). In making that comparison, and for the sake of making his point, Paul highlighted several key considerations. The first is that he treated these worship rites in terms of their being meals in which the worshipper eats and drinks. Paul doubtless knew that not all pagan rituals were of this type, but he treated them in this way for a specific reason. At first glance it might appear that he did so because the Lord’s Table, with which he was comparing these rituals, is itself a sacramental meal. But Paul was looking beyond the mere idea of a ritual meal – whether pagan or the Christian sacrament. His concern was with the principle of participation which such a meal implies. More narrowly, this concern focuses on the idea of fellowship between the worshipper and the entity being worshipped. Moreover, Paul conceived of this fellowship not as mere interaction or agreement, but a very real union between the two parties. This is evident in his use of the Lord’s Table as the paradigm for understanding the true dynamics and import of pagan rituals. As partaking in the sacramental elements of the bread and cup testify to union with Jesus Christ by virtue of sharing in His body and blood (10:16; cf. John 6:47-56), so partaking in the elements of pagan rituals speaks to “sharing in demons” (10:20-21). But Paul recognized a second component to this principle of fellowship (koinonia, or “sharing”), which is that the worshipper is brought into union with his fellow worshippers. Paul used the Lord’s Table to make this point as well (10:17), and he reinforced this principle of corporate unity by drawing upon Israel’s worship rituals (10:18): Priests performed the sacred rites, but the nation worshipped with them. In the case of certain offerings – notably the peace offering and the Passover, the people ate of the offering along with the sacrificing priests (ref. Exodus 12:1-20; Leviticus 7:11-21; cf. the tithing law in Deuteronomy 14:22-23). This principle of corporate solidarity has obvious relevance to Paul’s subsequent discussion (vv. 23-30), but it pertains to his present argument as well: It highlights the critical truth that the actions of one implicate and reflect upon the whole. In the very nature of the case, worship rituals have the intention of establishing a bond between the worshipper and the entity being worshipped. But they equally form a bond (or strengthen an existing bond) between the worshippers themselves. Paul drew out these truths by comparing three forms of ritual meals (Christian, Jewish, and pagan), and he did so to make two crucial points. The first concerns the issue of believers participating in idol rituals; the second the matter of Christians eating foods associated with those rites. With respect to the former, Paul was debunking the notion among the Corinthians that, because idols are fictitious entities, worship rites directed toward them are an empty and meaningless exercise. To the contrary, such rites form (or reinforce) a connection with demonic powers, even as they give expression to the satanic principles of unbelief and self-will which are the ground and substance of all idolatry. 213 Paul was making a vitally important observation that the Corinthians hadn’t at all considered. It wasn’t that they were ignoring the obvious in trying to rationalize their participation in pagan rituals; it didn’t occur to them to associate these rituals with demonic spirits, let alone consider that they were entering into fellowship with those spirits by their participation. They did, however, understand that their sharing in the Lord’s Table was a sharing in Christ – Paul had surely taught them this during his time of ministry among them (ref. 11:23-25), and this is why he drew the comparison between it and pagan sacraments. The Lord’s Table proved the principle of koinonia between the worshipper and the entity worshipped, and this principle held for pagan worship rituals as well. Any participation in them – regardless of the ignorance of the worshipper or the innocence of his conscience – amounted to sharing in the demonic powers whose influence informs and drives human religious conceptions and practices. Whatever alleged deity happens to be named and worshipped in a given sacred rite, it is demons that are honored, and this is precisely why Christians cannot argue on the basis that idols are nothing. The obvious implication of this is that the Corinthians who were involved in these practices were idolaters guilty of spiritual adultery: While believing and professing that they were wholly consecrated to the Living God in Jesus Christ, they were actually joining themselves to other spiritual powers opposed to their Husband. This news surely would have come as a shock, for these “mature” Corinthians regarded their clear conscience in participating in pagan rites as sure evidence of their solidarity and devotion to Christ: Their immature brothers were offended by such participation, but only because they didn’t understand that idols are nothing and so idol sacrifices and rituals are nothing. But the mature Christian understands these truths, and so testifies to his maturity and his mature relationship with Christ by exercising the freedom that his maturity affords. The problem with this thinking is that the Corinthians’ maturity was not what they thought. In one respect the mature ones were right: Idols and “idol meats” are nothing and so the Christian has a certain freedom respecting them. But in another respect they, too, were immature: They were ignorant of the larger concerns in the issue of idols and idol sacrifices. The mature looked down on their weaker brothers for being plagued by an uninformed conscience, but they suffered from exactly the same malady. The only difference was that their immaturity actually had graver consequences. Both the mature and immature were guilty of judging one another by the standard of their own convictions and conscience, but the mature were guilty of two additional offenses which arise from the careless confidence of maturity and mature liberty: They were guilty of causing their weaker brothers to stumble and they were guilty of idolatry and spiritual adultery. These offenses resulted from the wrongful use of their legitimate liberty as well as their use of false liberty. In the name of exalting their Husband and testifying to their devotion to Him, they were bringing another lover into their marital bed – a lover who hated them and their Husband and who was bent on destroying the fidelity and joy of their marital union; how could this outrage not provoke their Husband’s jealousy, and how did they think they could withstand it (10:21-22)?
|
|