keukabiblia

strange places

2012-02-26T12:04:00.001-05:00

“Twotablets of stone, a few vessels of oil, simple markings, a small army, a remotefield, a solemn oath—these are some of the strangest people, places, and thingsthrough which God revealed himself to his people in the Old Testament. And it is out of our study these stories fromScripture involving humble means that we see God foreshadowing the coming ofhis Christ, his Son, in flesh and blood to fulfill the promise he made to savehis people from sin and death forever.”

Thus reads the blurb on theback cover of the Bible study, Christ inthe Strangest Places: Foreshadowed, Fulfilled, Forever by ReedLessing. During Lent, we’ll be usingthat as our guide in looking at some of the lesser-discussed stories in thescriptures. Our meeting time will be onthe Fridays during March.

farewell again

2011-12-21T17:19:00.001-05:00

We have completed our study of the parables of Jesus. It has been eye-opening, as well as fun, but it is now time to bring back the dogs as we say farewell for a few weeks. We will start again in 2012.

wealth as God

2011-12-13T14:59:00.002-05:00

In The Compassionate Christ, Walter Bowiedescribes those who come under the spell of affluence—especially those in thechurch. (Please forgive the genderexclusive language.) “Does he not sit inhis pew on Sundays, send his children to Sunday school, say his memorized graceat dinner? He likes to consider himselfa Christian—if it does not cost too much. But in the decisive matters, he cannot serve God and mammon; andgradually God fades out.” (217)

Bowieoffers that as commentary on the parable of the dishonest manager, which is atthe beginning of Luke 16. Jesus tellsthe story of a manager who has been caught embezzling his employer’smoney. He notes how the manager craftilythinks on his feet to make sure that after he’s fired, he will earn enough goodwill to prevent his becoming destitute. Jesus asks, “If then you have not been faithful with the dishonestwealth, who will entrust to you the true riches?” (v. 11). He sums up, “You cannot serve God and wealth”(v. 13).

“Mammon” was originally the god of property. It morphed into a term for affluence when itis idolized. And if there were ever apeople who idolize affluence, it would be we Americans. That’s especially highlighted during Advent—Imean, during the shopping days before Christmas.

“I followed all the rules”

2011-12-06T16:40:00.001-05:00

In theparable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32), the story takes a sharp turn atverse 25: “Now his elder son was in thefield; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing.” The older son finds out that his youngerbrother has returned home, after wasting his share of the inheritance. His father not only is welcoming him, but he’sthrowing a big party. The older brotherfeels horribly slighted, because he has never been disobedient.

There’s ascene in the movie Legends of the Fall(1994) that reminds me of their relationship. Very briefly, the movie isabout the retired Colonel Ludlow (played by Anthony Hopkins) and his three sons,who live in early twentieth century Montana. At various times, all of the sons are in love with Susannah (played byJulia Ormond). The youngest, Samuel,dies in World War 1. The oldest, Alfred(Aidan Quinn) and his surviving brother, Tristan (Brad Pitt), vie for heraffections. Susannah is heartbroken whenTristan refuses to commit to her, and instead, decides to travel theworld. After she dies by her own hand,at her gravesite, Alfred says to Tristan, “I followed all the rules, man’s andGod’s. And you, you followed none ofthem. And they all loved you more. Samuel, Father, and my…even my own wife.”

In aparable in which the older brother is usually painted as a jerk, I find that it’simportant to humanize all of the characters.

(The image is Rembrandt’s The Return of the Prodigal Son.)

this Samaritan is a good one

2011-11-25T10:49:00.001-05:00

The doodling to theleft are my notes from twenty years ago on a presentation I gave to the youthgroup in our church. (It was in anotebook that I still have.) At the topI ask the same question that the expert in the Mosaic law puts to Jesus. His inquiry, “Who is my neighbor?” followsJesus’ commendation of his statement that it is necessary to love God andneighbor. In replying to the lawyer’squestion, Jesus tells the parable that has been titled the Good Samaritan.

I won’t dwell too longon the latent racism involved with that title. In making a Samaritan the hero of the story, Jesus is tapping into theJewish hatred for a people they considered to be mongrelized. Centuries earlier, when the Assyrians invadedand destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel, many different groups moved in,and there was considerable mixing of ethnicities. The point is that few, if any, of Jesus’hearers would expect the Samaritan to do the right thing. (Who would think such a thing? He must be one of the good ones!)

Looking back on mynotes from twenty years ago, there isn’t much I would change. Toward the bottom of the page, I make acomment about those with AIDS being considered profane or unclean by somepeople. That reflects the spirit of the time. A few months later, Magic Johnson wouldreveal to the world that he was HIV positive.

I might modify mystatement near the top of the page about the lawyer’s interest in “performingcertain acts to guarantee his salvation.” There is more going on here.

In telling hisparable, Jesus distinguishes between static and dynamic concepts of “neighbor.” That is, he sees it as a more fluid thing. He takes the noun “neighbor”—something thatcan categorized (either one is or one isn’t)—and turns it into a verb.

After telling thestory of a man beaten and left for dead and the responses of the priest,Levite, and Samaritan, Jesus poses this to the lawyer: “Which of these three, do you think, was aneighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” (Luke 10:36). “Neighbor” is defined as an action. He replies, “The one who showed him mercy.” Finishing the transformation in thinking andbeing, Jesus adds, “Go and do likewise” (v. 37).

Maybe being a neighborcan make any of us “one of the goodones”!

(The image is He Qi’s, “The Good Samaritan”)

sheepish goats

2011-11-14T17:43:00.001-05:00

“I washungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave mesomething to drink…I was imprisoned in a brothel and you rescued me.

So beginsDaniel Walker’s book God in a Brothel. It’s a bold and blunt beginning and therest of the book is nothing but boldness and bluntness. The book is a primer on the ugly reality ofhuman slavery—particularly sex trafficking.”

That’s howUnited Methodist pastor Roger Wolsey begins his review of the book, which he titles “Santa in a Brothel.” He explains the name by noting that, havingjust read the book, the Christmas season will soon upon us.

Hecontinues, “The basis of the Santa Claus myth is memory of a real life good guywho helped people in need. Nikolaos wasa historic person who was born in Patara in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) inthe 4th Century A.D. Nikolaos’ wealthy parents died when he was young and hewas raised by his uncle, the Bishop of Patara. Nikolaos became a bishop of the earlyChristian Church Myra in Lycia (who wore red clerical robes). While bishop he learned of three young sisterswho were destined to a life of poverty, and likely prostitution. Nikolaos intervened by providing dowries—anabundance of gold—to each of the girls (placing it in their stockings accordingto legend).”

As he says,we have lost the deep sense of compassion of the man. Life-changing hospitality has become, as ashopping season, an economic barometer.

As for the parable of thesheep and the goats itself (Mt 25:31-46), what really opened my own eyes to itwas the song by Keith Green. My roommateat Bible college introduced me to the artist who died in a plane crash in 1982.

with the hypocrites

2011-10-25T18:28:00.001-04:00

At the endof the parable of the faithful and evil servants in Matthew 24, we’re told thefate of the inattentive servant who goofs off when the master is away. This servant “begins to beat his fellowslaves, and eats and drinks with drunkards” (v. 49). When the master returns and catches himunaware, he is not pleased. The servantis consigned to an unpleasant outcome. He is to be “cut…in pieces and put…with the hypocrites, where there willbe weeping and gnashing of teeth” (v. 51).

The primaryfocus of the parable is on watchfulness. But that word “hypocrite,” or some variation of it, occurs over twentytimes in the New Testament—the vast majority being in Matthew’s gospel. This is the only parable in which it appears.

Our word “hypocrite” comes directly from the Greek hupokritēs. It originally meant “interpreter” (as in interpreterof dreams) or “one who explains.” Later,it took on the meaning of “actor,” like one who performs in a play. It had the idea of speaking the lines in aplay. It’s this definition of “actor”that was the commonly-understood meaning of the word for centuries. There was not necessarily a derogatory senseassociated with being a hypocrite. Thatis, unless someone was in a position of trust, like a political or religiousleader!

In fact, it appears that it’s only after the New Testament era that “hypocrite” takes on the metaphorical sense: people pretending to be something otherthan what they are.

Can we think of ways in which, in the morallyneutral sense of the term, we are hypocrites? Can we think of ways in which we act or play a role? Could it be that our interpretation is messed up?

Does that ever causeus to weep and gnash our teeth?

must we sing the song of Lamech?

2011-09-24T09:53:00.001-04:00

OurKeukabiblia Bible study will be taking on the parable of the unforgivingservant in Matthew 18:23-35. It’s quitea colorful story! It features a kingreleasing a slave from his debt, that slave then grabbing his fellow indebtedslave by the throat, and last but not least, God being pictured as a vengefultorturer.

(Of course,the amount owed by the slave to the king, ten thousand talents, should clue usin that the details of the story are fantastically exaggerated. One denarius was the usual wage for a day’slabor. With one talent equaling tenthousand denarii, ten thousand talents would equal one hundred million days oflabor!)

The parableis introduced by Peter’s question to Jesus regarding how often he shouldforgive a brother or sister (vv. 21-22). “As many as seven times?” he asks. Jesus responds, “Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.”

I’ll avoidthe temptation to go off on a tangent about our embrace of hateful, unforgivingpractices and policies. Often quoted injustifying those practices and policies is the principle of “eye for eye, toothfor tooth.” This is the lex talionis, the “law of retaliation”(Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:19-20, Deuteronomy 19:21). However, this wasn’t intended as a command tocommit violence; it was meant to limit violence. It was designed to keep blood feuds fromspiraling out of control.

Anexample of vengeance gone wild is shown in the song of Lamech (Genesis4:23-24). We see that “Lamech said tohis wives: ‘Adah and Zillah, hear myvoice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a youngman for striking me. If Cain is avengedsevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold.’”

Seventy-seven. Why is that number familiar? Jesus quite deliberately turns the song ofLamech on its head. In so doing, heturns plenty of our practices and policies on their head. Can we think of ways in which we want revenge? Can we think of ways in which we holdgrudges?

hidden treasure

2011-09-23T13:36:00.000-04:00

“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field” (Matthew 13:44). That’s one of the parables we’re looking at in our Keukabiblia study.

We can see ourselves as the field with the hidden treasure. How could we not be? We are made in the image of God. Still, we tend to settle. We settle for the 2nd best we can be. Or is it the 3rd best? How about the 15th best? Actually, putting any number on it misses the mark.

I would think that one lesson we can learn is that we’re always capable of more than we think we are. But often we’re too distracted, too lazy, or too uncaring for it to make a difference.

deep reality

2011-09-19T17:51:00.002-04:00

“The incarnation of Christ accomplished the mostsignificant in-breaking of God into human history.” That’s how Ruth Ann Foster and William Shiellbegin their co-authored article on the parables. (Cited below.) Most Christians would probably agree withthat statement, at least, those who understand their faith to be trinitarian.

Jesus not only preached about the kingdom of God, the reign ofheaven, but he himself personified it. Wherever Jesus was, there was the kingdom. Foster and Shiell speak of his “miraculous works and parabolic words [as] not merely pointers to kingdomtruth, but in actuality [as] vehicles delivering the reality of the kingdomitself. In the passing on and the receptionof the parables the one ‘who has ears to hear’ then truly experiences thepresence of the kingdom.” (259)

This is a viewpoint which sees the parables as morethan comparisons and stories. Rather,the parables are windows into deep reality. For those who are truly open to them, they are a powerful means in whichlife itself is opened up. However, thelight they shine “may be too revealing for comfort.” Still, as the authors say, we should “keep inmind that the mystery and paradox of the kingdom unnerves a culture which seeksimmediate resolution of the tension of paradox.” (265)

How willing are we to gaze through these windows that are the parables ofJesus?

(“The Parable of theSower and the Seed in Luke 8:1-10: Jesus’ Parable of Parables,” Review & Expositor (94:2) Spring 1997:259-267.)

seeing together, comparatively speaking

2011-08-27T11:41:00.000-04:00

After taking the summer off, Keukabiblia is returning in September. We’ll be looking at the parables of Jesus. There are a number of opinions on how to interpret them, but keeping something in mind is a big help. The word “parable” comes from the Greek word parabolē, which means “bringing something alongside,” or in a figurative sense, “comparison.”

Parables are comparisons. Not every word in those stories has some deep meaning.

Some of them appear in more than one of the gospels. We’ll look at how they compare among the synoptic gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. “Synoptic” comes from two words that mean “seeing together.”

We’ll get a good chance to test our comparative vision!

systematic strongholds

2011-06-17T14:57:00.000-04:00

When I was in college, I took several philosophy classes. In one class, we looked at logical positivism. Very roughly speaking, it holds that a statement is meaningless if it cannot be verified in an empirical, or experimental, manner. It has the effect of ruling out, for example, theology. When our professor asked us to critique this philosophy, I responded by saying that it simply chooses to ignore what doesn’t fit into its system.

In chapter 10 of 2 Corinthians, the apostle Paul deals directly with his opponents among the “super-apostles” and their followers. Here is his reminder: “The weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (vv. 4-5)

We don’t often think of “strongholds” as “arguments.” But we are more than capable of letting a philosophy or a system of thought become a “proud obstacle.” It can be a proud obstacle that hinders the flow of wisdom which opens us to “the knowledge of God.” It can be an obstacle in other ways. It can close our minds to other possibilities—possibilities which our self-imposed system doesn’t allow us to explore. Maybe we think those other possibilities are meaningless.

And maybe those other possibilities never occur to us because we only know our own system!

open

2011-06-03T14:17:00.000-04:00

“People of Corinth, we have spoken frankly and opened our heart to you. Any distress you feel is not on our side; the distress is in your own selves. In fair exchange—I speak as though to children of mine—you must open your hearts too… Keep a place for us in your hearts. We have not injured anyone, or ruined anyone, or taken advantage of anyone. I am not saying this to condemn anybody; as I have already told you, you are in our hearts—so that together we live and together we die.” (2 Cor 6:11-13, 7:2-3, New Jerusalem Bible)

This passage flows so smoothly. The apostle Paul speaks of openness. Inserted in the middle of it is 6:14-7:1, a warning about tying ourselves to the “untrustful,” the “unbelieving.” By his own admission, Paul is not the world’s greatest speaker, but his writings are at times more than a little eloquent!

It seems that while he repeatedly reassures the Corinthians of his good intentions and trustworthiness, Paul is also careful to warn his readers against being gullible. It is possible to open one’s heart without being naïve. The opposite temptation is to fall into the cynicism that hardens the spirit.

forgive me if I act crazy

2011-05-23T17:53:00.000-04:00

“If we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you” (5:13). As we move along in 2 Corinthians, the apostle Paul continues to explain his actions—actions that have stirred controversy in the church. In chapter 4, he speaks of the light from God stored in our frail bodies as “treasure in clay jars” (v. 7).

Given that, sometimes the situation described in the opening sentence seems unavoidable. In his paraphrase The Message, Eugene Peterson puts it this way: “If I acted crazy, I did it for God; if I acted overly serious, I did it for you.” Some people say that he’s talking about ecstatic experiences, such as speaking in tongues. That’s a possibility, but I tend to think Paul is referring to stuff a little more mundane.

Some in the church have compared him with the “super-apostles.” Unfair and ridiculous expectations have been voiced. In a somewhat sarcastic way, Paul is apologizing. In the past, he spoke of himself and his associates as “fools for the sake of Christ” (1 Cor 4:10).

We are all treasures, but as treasures in clay jars, we are fragile critters! There is a great danger of putting others on pedestals—and certainly of giving godlike status to anything or anyone.

reaffirm your love

2011-05-13T15:18:00.001-04:00

In chapter 2 of 2 Corinthians, Paul deals with the response of the church to an unnamed offender. In 1 Corinthians 5, there was the case of the man in a sexual relationship with his stepmother. Paul was angry because the church said nothing about it; they seemed okay with it. Some people believe that Paul is now dealing with the aftermath of the discipline that the church imposed.

Still, verse 5 suggests that a different situation may be in view. He says that “if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but to some extent—not to exaggerate it—to all of you.” It’s entirely probable that an individual in Corinth has been attacking the apostle, for whatever reason. Again, it’s not simply the possible slander that Paul is upset about. (He’s a big boy; he can handle it!) He’s upset due to the effect on the community. His response, a letter of reprimand, is one in which he wrote “out of much distress and anguish of heart and with many tears” (v. 4).

It seems that the church got the message—and now has gone overboard in its punishment! Paul urges them to show mercy and to offer restoration. He stresses the need of forgiveness, “so that,” as he puts it, “we may not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs” (v. 11).

Are there people we are slow to forgive? Do we harbor desires for continued retribution? Can we see ways in which that serves evil?

time again to co-respond

2011-05-02T09:14:00.002-04:00

Lent is now behind us for another year. We suspended our Keukabiblia Bible study of Corinthian correspondence for a few weeks in order to look at Terry Hershey’s book, Sacred Necessities. Now it’s time to take up 2 Corinthians. We will see evidence of the bitter factions, divisive teaching, and hurt feelings that characterize the church in Corinth. (In that regard, I think it’s something we all can relate to!)

One of the charges laid against the apostle Paul is that he was “vacillating” by delaying his return visit to them (1:17). It’s claimed that he has been waffling in his decision making. At some point in the interim, he issued a harsh letter to the church. Still, Paul insists that he has always had their best interests at heart. Returning too soon would have done more damage than good. Considering the situation there, he’s probably right.

Still, in our world of email, instant messaging, social networking—not to mention the spoken word—it’s all the more important to consider what impact our words will have before we unleash them.

such sweet sorrow

2011-02-24T17:18:00.000-05:00

Juliet said to Romeo that “parting is such sweet sorrow.”

For now, our Keukabiblia Bible study must say the same. We will reconvene after the Lenten season, when we take up 2 Corinthians. We will discover, within that epistle of Paul to the church in Corinth, evidence of a “sorrowful” or “tearful” letter. It is testimony to the pain they caused each other in the period between what we have in the scriptures as 1 and 2 Corinthians.

Fortunately, their outcome was happier than the “pair of star-cross’d lovers” mentioned above!

(The image is from www.flickr.com/photos/14807663@N04/5388420401.)

let anyone be accursed

2011-02-17T18:14:00.000-05:00

“The peace of Christ be with you.” Is that familiar to anyone? Do we include that in our public worship? As 1 Corinthians is drawing to a close, Paul says, “All the brothers and sisters send greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss” (16:20). I’m not sure how many churches still literally practice the “kiss” of peace, but we still pass the peace of Christ.

Throughout this letter, the apostle has gotten on the Corinthians’ case about plenty of stuff. Something he has stressed over and over is the importance of love. It’s a message this contentious bunch needs to take to heart. Still, only two verses later, he comes out with this: “Let anyone be accursed who has no love for the Lord.” Yikes! Now he’s breaking out the a-word, and I do mean the Greek one, anathema. Hasn’t he been trying to spread the love, not the hate?

We should notice that the word he uses for “love” in verse 22 is phileō. In all of his writings, he only uses that word one other time. It’s closely related to the word for “kiss” (philēma). It’s sometimes considered to be a love not quite as exalted as the one he usually refers to, agapē.

So maybe Paul is saying this. Those who don’t love the Lord, even at the level we might usually love each other (including our actions in worship), have somehow cursed themselves. Indeed, without the love of the Lord inside us, life itself can sometimes seem to be accursed.

That’s something to consider the next time we say, “The peace of Christ be with you”!

act like men

2011-02-14T18:32:00.000-05:00

In chapter 16, as part of his closing statements in his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul includes a quick series of commands. “Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love” (vv. 13-14). A single Greek word is used for “be courageous”: andrizesthe, which literally means “act like men.” (The New American Standard Bible leaves it just like that.)

What does it mean to “act like a man” when the audience includes everyone? Certainly, in the original context, it’s speaking about courage and valor. Still, I can’t get away from the example of Jesus, who I think would be the perfect model of “manhood.” In him we see what are often called “masculine” and “feminine” traits amply demonstrated. By the former, I mean characteristics like courage and honor. By the latter, I mean qualities such as compassion and humility.

Is it accidental that the apostle follows his commands of verse 13 with the call, “Let all that you do be done in love”? How “unmanly” are we without love?

if for this life only

2011-02-01T15:11:00.000-05:00

“If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” This remarkable statement by the apostle Paul appears in 1 Corinthians 15, a long chapter devoted to the resurrection. (It is verse 19.) Why is Paul so insistent that hope in Christ be not limited to “this life only”? Why is he so insistent in the necessity of the resurrection?

Much depends on what we imagine resurrection to be. It’s a mistake to think of it as a corpse brought back to life. Comedian Bill Maher has referred to the resurrected Christ, in rather crude terminology (but which captures the idea plenty of people have) as a “Jewish zombie.” Many in Corinth seem to have similar misconceptions.

The truth is that the resurrection is at the heart of Christian faith. However, as Paul tries to make clear, these bodies that we now have—these bodies that we now are—will indeed wither away. As Genesis 3:19 puts it, “you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Resurrection is a very different thing.

The apostle seems quite exasperated in fielding questions regarding the sort of body that is raised. “Fool!” he exclaims. “What you sow does not come to life unless it dies” (v. 36). Paul isn’t known for his tact! He goes on to speak of different natures, different kinds of reality. There is what we experience here and now, and then there’s something else. “It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body” (v. 44).

Speaking of “a spiritual body” seems like utter nonsense. How can such a thing exist? Physicists speak of our reality as having up to eleven dimensions. How can that be true? Does the resurrection body have access to dimensions beyond our familiar 3-D, plus time? (The post-resurrection Jesus does demonstrate the ability to pass through walls!)

Perhaps my speculations will have the apostle saying, “Fool!” to me. Ultimately, resurrection is about hope; it’s about promise. “When this perishable body puts on imperishability,” he says in verse 54, “and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’”

Paul continually speaks of being “in Christ.” That resurrection life is already present. The new creation yearns to break through—and is already breaking through—into this present creation.

adult xnty

2011-01-10T16:09:00.000-05:00

“Brothers and sisters, do not be children in your thinking; rather, be infants in evil, but in thinking be adults.” In 1 Corinthians 12-14, the apostle Paul has plenty to say to the church in Corinth regarding spiritual gifts. One thing this group cannot be accused of is being boring! Especially when it comes to gifts of the Spirit, they are quite enthusiastic. (And I do mean that in the original sense of the word, as being “possessed by a god.”)

That quote comes from chapter 14, verse 20. But he sets the tone early in this major section of the epistle. “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (12:7). This is a theme it seems he constantly has to revisit. Throughout the letter—be it their dividing into factions, arguing over who has the right to do something, whatever the case—Paul continually reminds them that it’s not all about you.

In chapter 13, he says, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways” (v. 11). This is a call to adult Christianity. (And yes, “Xnty,” like Xmas, comes from the early church use of the Greek letter “x” [chi], the first letter of Christos.)

In their century-old commentary on this epistle, the Revs. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer phrase 14:20 like so: “My brethren, do not behave as if you were still children in mind: and it is childish to prefer what glitters to what does good. Of course, in jealousy and ill-will be children, nay, be very babes; but in mind behave as full-grown men.” (303) (Apologies for the gender-exclusive language!)

In what ways do we refuse to grow up as Christians? What childish notions and behavior do we cling to?

pay attention to the body

2010-12-23T14:27:00.002-05:00

“All who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.” Our Keukabiblia Bible study is moving to chapters 10 and 11 of 1 Corinthians. Paul’s warning about failure to discern the body appears in verse 29 of the latter chapter. This is part of his critique of the Corinthian church and their observance of the Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist—or rather, the lack thereof.

The apostle begins this section in verse 17 with the rather diplomatic statement, “I do not commend you.” It seems that the divisions of rich and poor have not only been maintained among these followers of Christ, but they’ve found expression at the very heart of worship. He speaks of the agape or love feast, which was joined with the Eucharist, in which “each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk” (v. 21). His outrage boils over in the next verse: “What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?”

This failure of love—this failure of generosity—is due to the aforementioned failure to discern the body, to recognize the body of Christ. Consequently, Paul’s verdict is that “many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (v. 30).

What’s going on here? Verse 28 says, “Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” Is this failure in discernment a faulty self-diagnostic? Is it a question of being oblivious to what the body and blood of the Lord are all about? In extreme cases, does that lead to visible effects in health, even resulting in death? (I suppose the opposing maladies of overindulgence and hunger would seem to make that evident!)

There clearly is also in operation a reality that is communal, even political, in nature. Failure to discern the body is in line with one of Paul’s often repeated sentiments, “Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other” (10:24). When we fail to love our neighbor, across the street or across the world, we fail to discern the body. We fail to recognize our sisters and brothers and our unity with them.

In his book, Deeper than Words, Brother David Steindl-Rast uses the concept of “the holy catholic church” from the Apostles’ Creed and expands on it. He says that “our horizon has grown wider…Truly catholic is only that faith in Life and its ultimate Source that all humans share. It remains alive in the hearts of humans who are not even aware of it.” (139)

That’s something deserving of our attention!

I have the right to!

2010-12-04T12:42:00.000-05:00

Know your rights. The large majority of the time, this is an extremely positive statement to make. In a world in which rights are routinely violated (including human rights, women’s rights, patient’s rights, etc.), it’s very important to insist on this. However, as we turn our attention to 1 Corinthians 6, it seems that some correction must be made.

The apostle Paul is exasperated at how litigious the Christians in Corinth are with each other. They are constantly dragging each other into court, behaving no differently than the society around them. Paul isn’t saying that there is something inherently wrong with the judicial system; he also on occasion has made use of his rights as a Roman citizen. What he laments is the lack of wisdom and love that their behavior displays. His frustration is seen in verses 7 and 8: “In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—and believers at that.”

The overemphasis on my rights is also seen by the use of a slogan which was probably used by Paul, but now has been carried to extremes. “All things are lawful for me.” Used in its proper context, that statement speaks to freedom in Christ. Some people in Corinth are using Paul’s words, not for the sake of liberty, but libertinism.

“All things are lawful for me.” That’s true, the apostle says, “but not all things are beneficial.” “All things are lawful for me.” Understood correctly, that’s right, “but I will not be dominated by anything” (v. 12). Being unrestrained in this way, lacking self-control, can lead to a strange kind of legalism that prides itself on how anti-legalistic it is!

Can we see ways in which we display these same qualities of litigiousness and libertinism? Do we insist on our rights, no matter the damage we do to others, the environment, or ourselves?

“for the destruction of the flesh”

2010-11-26T17:33:00.000-05:00

“You are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” Yikes! That sounds like the tag line for a horror movie. It’s actually 1 Corinthians 5:5. When we look at the way the apostle Paul’s use of the term “flesh” has been misunderstood, and combine that with a literal application this instruction, we wind up with some pretty bloody chapters in the history of the church. A horror movie would be preferable!

This verse comes in the midst of Paul’s addressing the situation of a man involved in a conjugal relationship with his stepmother. It’s bad enough for such a thing to be going on, but what really gets the apostle ticked off is that the Corinthian church doesn’t seem to have any problem with it. So he chews them out and says they need to expel him from their community.

This brings up the whole question of church discipline, and especially its most severe sanction, excommunication. We Presbyterians use less dramatic terminology: removal from office or membership. Still, this action is taken with a view toward eventual restoration.

What offenses would we consider grave enough to warrant such a measure? People rarely jump to such behavior overnight; it’s a gradual process. Understanding that—and understanding that all of us are flawed and incomplete—what actions, if any, should be taken?

Corinthian correspondence

2010-11-09T09:08:00.001-05:00

Our Keukabiblia Bible study has finished Revelation. (We decided now and forever what all those strange images mean!) Now we will look at 1 and 2 Corinthians.

We can tell by reading those two letters that the apostle Paul actually wrote more than just the two. In 1 Corinthians 5:9, he refers to something he had already sent to the church. In 2 Corinthians (2:3-4 & 7:8-12), he mentions the “painful” or “tearful” letter, that came after what we have as 1 Corinthians. Some say that 2 Corinthians itself should be divided up in various ways; some see the “painful” letter as 2 Cor 10-13. Some place the number of letters that Paul wrote to the Corinthians as high as six.

I realize that this isn’t terribly interesting to a lot of people. Don’t worry, some juicy stuff is coming up. For example, there’s the case of the man in a sexual relationship with his stepmother—and the Corinthian church seems to be cool with it!

(The image is Rembrandt’s The Apostle Paul.)