Purity

1 Corinthians 5-6

            Paul’s main topic in these two chapters seems to be the kind of purity that ought to mark God’s renewed people. He is shocked that immorality of a sort that even Gentiles cringe from is being tolerated in their midst. Not just shocked—he’s offended and tells them to cast the sinner out. Note that his intent is that the ‘flesh’ should be destroyed, that is, that the sinner might not be driven by the powers of the fallen world anymore. Instead, Paul wants the ‘spirit’ to live. This does not mean a disembodied life in heaven; it means that the man might repent and be empowered by the Spirit.

            Paul adds several clarifications. First, that tolerance of sin simply is not good; sin, like mold, spreads. He powerfully uses the image of yeast ‘infecting’ a whole loaf, shifts gears to remind the Corinthians that they are a loaf made without yeast, and ties the whole thing off with reference to Christ, our Passover Lamb, making a neat circle back to unleavened bread. A second clarification is that there is a sense in which judgment belongs to believers, especially with those who claim to be believers. This leads to a digression about lawsuits and the ways that Christians resolve their conflicts.

            Finally, he moves back to sexual immorality and demolishes even the modern sexual revolution. The arguments that sex is just biology, that it makes us happy so it must be ok in many forms, that it just doesn’t matter—all of these Paul dismisses: it does matter because it unites the bodies of the lovers. Paul describes this in the terms that Genesis uses for marriage. C.S. Lewis once described divorce as more similar to losing a limb than to breaking up a business partnership. It seems that Paul is suggesting that promiscuous sex is almost like promiscuous marriage and the switch to new partners is similar to promiscuous divorce.

            So, the purity and monogamy of God’s renewed people matter and they matter on levels that we should think about more deeply.

Of the Spirit and the Flesh

1 Corinthians 3-4

            There are two important words in this reading: ‘spiritual’ and ‘worldly.’ The Greek word underlying ‘spiritual’ is used 21 times in the New Testament, 11 of those uses in 1 Corinthians. Couple it with hundreds of times that the word ‘spirit/Spirit’ is used in the New Testament and clearly that’s an important word for Paul. ‘Worldly’ only occurs 4 times in the New Testament, but the word ‘flesh,’ which is the root of our word, occurs about 130 times. So, it’s important, too.

            A couple of things to note, though, about these words: first, ‘worldly’ is not the best translation of the Greek word sarkinos. Something like ‘fleshly’ would capture the word better. Second, we need to re-tune our ears to hear ‘spirit’ and ‘flesh’. We tend to hear ‘spirit’ as non-bodily and ‘flesh’ as bodily, and that’s not the case at all. As a matter of fact, later in 1 Corinthians, Paul will talk about a spiritual body (15:44). No, ‘spiritual’ and ‘fleshly’ have to do with the powers that animate and drive us. Those who are animated and led by the Holy Spirit of God, who have the Spirit’s own life, are ‘spiritual.’ Those who are driven by the desires of sin, who are still dominated by this present evil age are ‘fleshly.’

            So, what Paul is saying here is that he wants to address the Corinthians as Christians, renewed by the Holy Spirit, brought to new life and being transformed into Christ’s likeness, but he can’t. The Corinthians power games and one-upmanship reveal that they are more than a little dominated and directed by the powers and values of the fallen world. Now, I don’t think that Paul really believes the Corinthians aren’t believers, but he certainly is using blunt language to call them out for their immaturity. All the more ironic and forceful because they think that they are mature and ‘spiritual.’

            The ways of the kingdom look different than the ways of the world. In the kingdom, the first is last and the greatest acts as the servant of all. Jesus made that abundantly clear. In fallen ways of the world, you look out for yourself and assert your rights. The two ways couldn’t be further apart. We could all stand to look critically at ourselves and ask “Am I behaving as one ‘of the Spirit,’ or is my life marked too much by the ways of the ‘flesh’?” Such reflection could lead us to profound repentance and a new way of life.

1 Corinthians 1-2

1 Corinthians 1-2

            Paul’s opening is polite. His openings usually are. (Galatians might be an exception.) But even in a very polite beginning, he is setting up the themes and topics that he will discuss very bluntly in the coming pages. First, he identifies himself as an apostle. No surprise there—he makes the same point in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 1^st and 2^nd Timothy. However, in Corinth Paul’s apostolic credentials are a matter of debate. Some of have called them into question; he asserts them. It’s a theme through 1^st and 2^nd Corinthians. Second, he names the Corinthians as holy, “together with all those everywhere who call on the name of Jesus.” Since elements of the Corinthian congregations think they’re better than others, Paul’s address serves as a reminder of the unity that Christians have in being recipients of God’s grace. Third, Paul gives thanks that God has enriched the Corinthians in every way. Again, there are deep divisions in the Corinthian churches—divisions along the usual line of social and economic status, divisions because some seem more gifted than other, divisions because some claim greater insight. Paul’s tongue is firmly in his cheek when he says that they do not lack ‘any spiritual gift,’ since that is exactly what one party has been saying over against other parties.

            A polite opening should not blind us to Paul’s conviction that there is work to do, and Paul gets right to it, appealing for unity among them. The chapters proceed along these lines: the Corinthians ‘rank’ themselves according to which ‘school’ of Christianity they follow—Paul or Peter (Cephas) or Apollos. Paul, who founded the Corinthian church, comes under particular scrutiny because, apparently, Apollos was more eloquent and polished than he was. That leads to a discussion about what’s really valuable—eloquence as the world judges it or faithfulness in preaching the cross. (You can imagine where Paul comes down on that debate.)

            Style or substance? It’s a debate that keeps on raging. You can’t deny that a polished speaker is easy to listen to. But the big question is, “What is the speaker saying?” I’ve heard very conservative people praise the oratory of very liberal people and I’ve found myself having to remind them, “You disagree with everything that person just said. You just like the way he said it.”

            If we take nothing more from this reading, let it be these two things: a congregation can’t afford to be divided, but its unity needs to come from the one thing that matters, the one thing of substance—the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Prophets

            This week we began reading Isaiah, the first of the so-called “Latter Prophets.” In the Hebrew Bible, Joshua through Kings (minus Ruth) are called the Former Prophets; they are followed immediately by Isaiah through Malachi. (Lamentations and Daniel are in the last section of the Hebrew Bible.) In English, we more typically call these books the writing prophets, as opposed to, say, Elijah and Elisha, who didn’t write anything.

            Here are a couple of notes to get us going: First, the ‘writing prophets’ keep on writing in Hebrew poetry. Now, we’ve lived with Hebrew poetry since Job, but it’s important to remind ourselves: Hebrew doesn’t do poetry like English does. There is no meter or rhyme in Hebrew poetry. Hebrew poetry is characterized by parallelism, saying a line, repeating it a little differently, sometimes going over it again. The idea is that the repetition reinforces and strengthens the idea.  To my way of thinking, the poet/prophets of the 8^th century BC are some of the best—Isaiah, Amos, Micah, Hosea.

            Second, we should be clear on what a prophet is. I think that too often we think of the prophets as some sort of fortune-tellers, but I don’t think that’s very helpful.  Certainly there is forward-looking material there, but I think it’s a mistake to think that the material only looks forward or that the prophets’ main job is to look to a distant future. I think it is much more helpful to think of prophets as preachers. They are looking at the world and trying to interpret it for their hearers from God’s point of view. I take it as axiomatic that what the prophet said had to make sense to his original audience.

            That leads to a third point about Isaiah in particular. It is typical of scholars to divide Isaiah into two or three books (chs. 1-39, 40-55, and 56-66) and to argue that two or three different people wrote it. We note first of all that no one but Isaiah is ever mentioned in Isaiah itself or elsewhere in the Bible as the author of the book. The book and the whole Bible assume one author—the 8^th century BC prophet Isaiah! But aren’t there noticeable thematic and stylistic differences in those three parts of the book? Absolutely there are. But, if Isaiah was a preacher who ministered for over 50 years you would expect 1) that the things he had to address shifted over the years and 2) that his style changed. (I’ve only been a preacher for 16 years and I already note that there are themes that appear in my sermons for a few years and then fade out.)

            Isaiah will take us through December on our Today’s Light schedule, and the rest of the prophets will take us through Easter. Hopefully, I’ll have a chance to work through some of these issues as they come up in the daily readings!

Introducing Ecclesiastes

            Personal confession: the very first Bible study I ever taught was on the book of Ecclesiastes. I can’t say it was the best Bible study I ever led; nor can I say that I fully understood it.  (Mr. Harks, our youth counselor, took me aside afterward and spent some time on the distinction between Law and Gospel.) The truth is the book appealed—and still does appeal—to my dark side. And read on a surface level, the book itself is pretty glum,  Reduce it to a t-shirt and you have, “Life sucks and then you die.”

            Derek Kidner, whom I cited about the nature of wisdom and Proverbs a few days ago, comments that there are two main options in interpreting the book. First, it could be Solomon’s own interior debate about the value and purpose of life, a “debate with himself, torn between what he cannot help seeing and what he still cannot help believing,” a struggle between faith and sight (2 Cor. 5:7). Second, it could be understood as a “challenge to the man of the world to think his own position through to its bitter end, with a view to seeking something less futile.” That is, it could be understood as a response to the nihilist, the atheist, the one who says this life is all there is. “If this life is all there is,” the Preacher seems to say, “you’ll have a pretty dismal time of it. Want to reconsider?”

            Under the first view, one of the more poignant verses in the book is 3:11, “He has made all beautiful in its time; moreover, He set eternity in man’s heart.” On the one hand, the author is aware of the beauty of the world; on the other, he is keenly aware of its trials, travails, and contradictions. Yet he knows that he is more than a beast: a beast wouldn’t even notice the tension; an animal doesn’t live in dread of its death or of its legacy. He senses there must be something more and can’t turn his heart from that confidence.

            On the second view, it is the believer who can look the futility, the nonsense, the contradictions of life full in the face.  And he does so, to drive the unbeliever to the deciding point: either it is glum, depressing, and pointless … or there’s more—one who sets eternity in human hearts, who provides, who determines. Sometimes you have to push the argument to its bitterest conclusion to cause someone to draw back and create space for the Gospel.

            On either view, I find this a strangely, darkly compelling book—even if I can’t teach it with any more clarity than I mustered 25+ years ago.

            One more introductory technicality: nowhere does the author identify himself as Solomon. He identifies himself as the Preacher, a son of David, a king in Jerusalem. Frankly, those titles could make him any of a number of people from kings before the exiles to kings-in-name only after it. Once again, as I’ve said before, the particular of authorship is unimportant. That the Holy Spirit inspired is very important.

Jesus and the Proverbs--A Quick Note

Proverbs 28-29

29:3—A man who loves wisdom brings joy to his father, but a companion of prostitutes squanders his wealth.

            I’ve been surprised at how often Jesus alludes to the Proverbs. It’s early, and I can’t think of the other instances offhand. But this verse is clearly in Jesus’ mind when He sets up the parable of the prodigal son, in which a foolish son does exactly that—squanders his wealth in wild living. All of it fairly screams, “This is the very folly that Solomon warned about!” There is a serious study yet to be done on how Jesus uses the proverbs, how His confrontation and condemnation of Israel is clothed in the notion of self-reliant foolishness, and how much of His call to discipleship picks up on God-fearing wisdom.  We’ll leave the formal study to someone more qualified than me.  But pay attention when we get to the Gospels. Some of these wisdom themes are coming back!

More reflections on Proverbs

Proverbs 26-27

26:4-5—Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.  Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.

     The wise man recognizes the truth of these two seemingly contradictory proverbs.  On the one hand, there’s a warning not to lower oneself to the standard of the fool. On the other hand, there’s a recognition that you have to speak at a level that person can understand.  You find the same balancing act throughout the Scriptures: associating with the wicked can lead you into temptation and wickedness; on the other hand, if you never hang with the unbelieving how will you ever witness to them.  Much of wisdom is knowing how (and when) to say yes and no.

26:11—As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly.

     Well! That’s graphic. And gross. And completely relatable. Dogs are gross and can’t help themselves. Fools are gross and should be able to stop themselves.

27:10—Do not forsake your friend or a friend of your family, and do not go to your relative’s house when disaster strikes you—better a neighbor nearby than a relative far away.

     I suspect this has in mind occurrences like plague or famine and the idea is that one ought not only look to his own concerns. I’m reminded of the story of Ruth in which Naomi and her husband had sought refuge in Moab instead of struggling with family and neighbors at home. We do owe something to those around us.

    That’s an insight I share with youth all the time. Ask the question, “Who’s your neighbor?” and they’ll often jump right out into the whole wide world, “Everyone!” Well, yeah, sure, but the your greatest responsibility are to those who are right next to you and in you most immediate circle.  In our context, it’s a wonderful thing to be concerned for world missions, as long as we don’t miss the fact that there are unbelievers right here in Hartford; and it’s a wonder thing to be concerned for social problems in Milwaukee—again, as long as we don’t miss the fact that there are people in need across town from us and in our own congregation.

27:17—As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.

     A favorite of mine, it reminds me why my friends are so dear to me. In college, we challenged each other’s thinking; we debated and argued; we critiqued. And it was not mean-spirited. It made us better thinkers, better writers, better pastors. The word ‘accountable’ only appears in the Bible a handful of times. (I can only find one legitimate use in the New Testament.) But here’s a verse that reminds us that holding one another accountable makes us better.