The Ordering of Ethical Instruction in Paul

From time to time I make the claim that Pauline ethics exhibits a usual ordering of issues, moving from:

Issues related to “corporeal” bodies – particularly involving the avoidance of sexual immorality, greed, and impurity…

through to

Issues related to the “corporate” body of Christ – particularly involving the pursuit of mutually edifying love

This seems to occur both when Paul is being ‘negative’ – eg Romans 1, where the progression of idolatry begins with sexual sins and moves toward social sins – and when Paul is being ‘positive’ – eg Romans 12, which begins with the offering of renewed bodies and moves to loving participation within the body of Christ.  But the emphasis in Paul’s ‘negative’ mode is on corporeal issues; and the emphasis in Paul’s ‘positive’ mode is on corporate issues. 

So, to over-simplify, Paul seems to envisage the Christian life as a movement from godless bodily habitation (expressed quintessentially in self-owning sexual immorality) to Godward bodily habitation (expressed quintessentially in other-centred love).

So anyway – here are some further thoughts I’ve been having about this: I think that for Paul, the sense of this ethical movement is bound up with his conception of Christianity as essentially involving union with Christ (particularly in his bodily achievements of cross & resurrection).  But the general pattern seems to be inherited from Diaspora Jewish ethics, which often seems to exhibit a similar ordering of topics (though without the unifying “body” terminology sometimes found in Paul).

Here’s an example: Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, in his 1987 book on early Jewish literature, notes the following movement of ethical topics exhibited throughout the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs – a work which he sees as bearing a general likeness to the other (earlier) expressions of Jewish ethics that he explores (if you can’t read it or the font doesn’t show, just see below for an explanation of it):

πορνεία        μοιχεία   πλεονεχία   ἔλεος   ἀπληστία

κλοπή   ὑπερηφανία   ψεῦδος   καταλαλία   ζῆλος   φθόνος   δόλος   μάχη

Notice how the opening issues are especially related to sex and greed (fornication, adultery, greed, desire); while the latter issues especially emphasise daily social interaction – particularly verbal interaction (arrogance, lying, jealousy, deceit).  The dividing line is Niebuhr’s.

So I’m gradually working my way through early Jewish literature – as well as Greco-Roman examples of ethical discussion… and we’ll see where all of this goes.

Ways to deceive people into thinking you are doing work

As a community service, I offer these humble ideas:

• Look pensive/thoughtful: Put your hand on your chin and stare intently into space.  On the inside you can be thinking about anything at all – I suggest you imagine being served a piece of warm banoffee pie, or wonder about why people don’t play hopskotch anymore.
• Furrow your brow and write furiously.  As long as your brow is properly furrowed, this will enable you to get away with anything.  At one theology seminar here at uni, the guy next to me appeared to be furiously taking notes – complete with appropriate brow-furrowing.  When I peered over for a peek, it turned out he was drawing circles and then colouring them in.  Respect.
• Go onto youtube or ebay or cryptotheology or a similar online time-waster, and just do whatever you want to do – but make sure that, if others are within earshot, you emit an occasional thoughtful “hmmmm” or an enthusiastic “aHA – I think I understand this concept now!”  Just make sure no one can see your screen.
• Similar to the above idea: Do anything at all that you want to do (I recommend re-enacting the hilarious “Uncle Rico throws a steak at Napolean Dynamite” scene in your head), but clutch a large copy of Nietzche’s “Also sprach Zarathustra” in your hand – it’s very important that this should be in German.  This will give the impression that you’re just taking a bit of time to digest something you’ve just read.  If someone approaches you and says, “Ahh ist das ein gutes buch?” you have two options: 1) Give an ambiguously dismissive chortle: “Pffft!!”; 2) Throw a steak at them and run.
• And finally: Look for all the world like you’re typing up a chapter of your dissertation, when you’re actually coming up with a community service announcement about ways to avoid work…

1 Corinthians 11 and Head Coverings… What the???

You know how television current affairs programmes, when they are desperate to boost ratings, run a story about some predictably sensational and sensitive issue, with scant regard for their own integrity as a respectable media outlet?  In that vein, let me present…

My Greek reading group is about to hit 1 Corinthians 11, so I’ve been reading and pondering, pondering and reading this difficult section (vv2-16).  I don’t intend to comprehensively analyse this section here – but simply to look at the passage with one question in mind: How does the passage as a whole relate to its context?  How does this passage function within the flow of 1 Corinthians?  I should say first of all that I view 1 Corinthians as a literary unity – a position that I won’t try to justify here.  Anyway – here are a few little observations and questions that relate to this passage, within its broader literary context:

• Notice firstly that this section as a whole (2-16) ostensibly consists of Paul’s ‘praise’ for the Corinthians, for keeping the traditions he passed onto them – preceding a section in which he does ‘not praise’ them (v17ff).  Curious…
• Notice also that, at least at first, the application is for men and women: BOTH men and women are warned not to shame their “head”.
• A consistent theme throughout the passage, then, is the advocacy of acknowledged dependence or interdependence, as opposed to independent autonomy.  This theme becomes explicit in v11, where it again applies to both men and women: “Nevertheless, neither woman is apart from man, nor man apart from woman in the Lord.  For just as woman is from man, so also man is through woman; but all are from God.”
• This term “from God” (theou), used as a corrective to bold autonomy, should ring some bells for those who have been paying attention to the rest of the letter (or those who have been paying attention to cryptotheology!!): In the opening chapters, Paul relentlessly opposes the bold autonomy of the Corinthians, by calling them to stop “boasting in humans” and rather to depend on God, from whom they receive all that they have.  Indeed the provocative wording of the introduction to this section (“Of every man the head is Christ; the head of woman is man; and the head of Christ is God”) reminds somewhat of a previous provocative call to subvert assumptions of independence: “All things are yours – whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come – all are yours; and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”
• This call to move away from boastful autonomy (in chs.1-4) culminates in a call to imitate Paul (as he embodies the way of the cross) in 4:16.  The present section in ch11 is preceded with the same words: “Become imitators of me, just as I am of Christ.”
• Following that summons to follow Paul’s embodiment of the cross in ch.4, chapters 5-7 arguably apply the cruciform summons to issues of bodily sexual immorality, greed, and impurity, calling the Corinthians to acknowledge that they do not exercise autonomous authority over their bodies – but rather, “you were bought at cost – therefore glorify God in your body”.  For husbands and wives, this means acknowledging that they do not “own” themselves: “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband; likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife.”  There are obvious parallels here to the thought of chapter 11.
• Following on from chapters 5-7, chapters 8-14 seem to continue to apply the example of Paul’s embodiment of the cross to issues of interpersonal interaction within the “body” of Christ, the church – calling the Corinthians to edifying love rather than the self-absorbed exercise of “freedom”/”authority”.  Chapter 11 contains a lot of the same words and themes, exhibiting the general pattern of a call to move from bold autonomy to acknowledged dependence & interdependence within the body of Christ.

This doesn’t explain the difficulties of chapter 11 itself – and it doesn’t give specific direction to how the passage might be applied today; but at least it hopefully sets the passage within the flow of the letter, suggesting that the general idea is that (in relation to this particular issue of headcoverings) the Corinthians need to move from the self-absorbed expression of personal autonomy to the enacted acknowledgement of dependence on God, as seen in edifying inter-dependence within the body of Christ.

Favourite Coins

Being a big time nerdburger, one thing I occasionally do is collect ancient coins.  The one above is one of my favourites.  You can see where it’s from on the reverse (assuming you can read Greek – start at the top left):

And one other favourite is this Jewish coin.  Again, you should be able to make out the name of the famous ruler, in Greek:

Is Justification by faith alone?

Not in 1 Corinthians…

But don’t light the torches and grab your pitchforks just yet: Why isn’t justification by faith alone in 1 Corinthians?  Because Paul doesn’t talk about justification by faith in 1 Corinthians at all.  I think one of the unhelpful legacies of the Protestant Reformation is this idea that “justification by faith” is central to Paul’s expression. 

I do think that the concept of “divine grace” is present throughout Paul’s letters, along with a strong insistence that this grace is found in Christ alone, and is applied by the Spirit to those who have a (divinely granted) orientation of humble reception (that rules out boasting).  Sometimes this is expressed forensically, as “justification by faith”; sometimes it’s expressed relationally, as “reconciliation of enemies”; sometimes it’s expressed bodily, as “resurrection of the dead”.  Always this “orientation of reception” is emphasised as being the corollary of the insistence that salvation is of God; and if any human activity - whether knowledge or spiritual ability or visions or even baptism or sharing the Eucharist – effectively operates as a denial of this orientation of humble reception, then salvation is in question.  All of these activities are to be pursued by the church as an expression of receptive identification with Christ in his death and resurrection, and not as, in themselves, a ground for human confidence or assurance.

In other words, Paul’s major problem with the Corinthians seems to be that they are “puffed up” and “boasting in humans” – and that this puffed up attitude finds expression in their corporeal bodily life as well as their corporate bodily life – thus bringing into question their very knowledge of God.  Paul challenges their puffed up practices of bodily ownership, knowledge, freedom, baptism, tongues-speaking, and participation in the Lord’s Supper:

“What do you have that you did not receive?  And if you did receive it, why do you boast, as though you did not?” (4:7)

So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall.  (10:12)

A genuine orientation of humble reception – that is, of dependence on God in Christ - must, for Paul, be at the base of everything a Christian is and does.  It is, I think, reductionistic to always label this “justification by faith” – nevertheless the pattern is the same.

[These are just my rambling thoughts, given that last night there was a debate here at the Uni of Nottingham over the question: "Is justification by faith (in Christ) alone?"]

We too with him are dead

I’ve been looking through some Christian hymns, trying to find any that emphasise our sharing in Christ’s death and resurrection.  I just came across this brief, really interesting Eucharist hymn by Charles Wesley:

1 LET all who truly bear The bleeding Saviour’s name Their faithful hearts with us prepare, And eat the Paschal Lamb.

2 This eucharistic feast Our every want supplies; And still we by his death are blessed, And share his sacrifice.

3 Who thus our faith employ, His sufferings to record, Even now we mournfully enjoy Communion with our Lord.

4 We too with him are dead, And shall with him arise; The cross on which he bows his head Shall lift us to the skies.

Was Paul faking “the weak”?

I’m thinking about 1 Corinthians 8-10 at the moment, and I’m intrigued by Garland’s development of Hurd’s idea that there was no squabble between “weak” and “strong” over idol-meat in Corinth; and that the “weak” are a pretend/hypothetical invention of Paul, for rhetorical purposes: According to Garland, the essential message of 1 Cor 8-10 is not that the “strong” (who correctly see that eating idol-meat is okay, in-principle) should restrain their freedom for the sake of the “weak”.  Rather, the essential message is that any conscious association with idols is absolutely off-limits for Christians.

Garland makes a number of noteworthy points in support of this view:

• Paul himself is elsewhere presented as horrified by the idolatry of Athens (according to Acts 17); and we should not think that Paul’s acceptance of “unclean” foods (i.e. non-kosher) equalled an acceptance of “idol” foods (i.e. actively offered to other gods)
• In 1 Cor 8-10 Paul never identifies any particular group as “the strong”; and never directly addresses “the weak” – the latter group comes up (as an illustration?) at the beginning of the section, and not thereafter.
• In 1 Cor 8, the problem is not that the weak might have their faith shaken and compromised; the problem is that the weak might be “strengthened” to eat idol meat (and thereby be destroyed)
• By chapter 10, Paul’s argument – which started off gently by using the hypothetical example of weak brothers – becomes emphatic and uncompromising: Flee idolatry!

This is worth considering, and has made me realise that perhaps I have been reading 1 Corinthians 8-10 while subconsciously picturing the situation of Romans 14-15, which does seem to be presented differently.

I do think, though, that the “traditional” reading is, on the whole, worth sticking with – but with modifications.  It still seems to me that the essential point is that the strong should restrain themselves for the sake of others – as well as for their own sake.  This application comes up repeatedly in chapters 8 and 9, and is not absent from chapter 10, which argues not only for the abstract avoidance of idolatry, but for responsible participation in the body of Christ.

In honour of Melanchthon: Now you see him, now you don’t

Jim West mentions that today is Philipp Melanchthon’s birthday - so in honour of this Protestant Reformer, I present two photos I took last month, of Philipp Melanchthon’s study in Wittenberg.  If you get your mouse-hand ready, you are in for an absolute HOOT!!!  Here’s what to do:

1. Scroll this page down so that the top picture fits into the screen
2. Open this same blog page in another tab/page, and scroll so that the bottom picture fits into the screen at the same position
3. Click between the two pages, and you will see an astonishing effect: MELANCHTHON LOOKS LIKE HE IS APPEARING AND DISAPPEARING BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES!!!!!!

Is Colossians also among the Hauptbriefe?

The more I’ve looked into Colossians, the more I’ve been intrigued at intricate and deep affiliations with 1 Corinthians.  For this reason, I’ve revisited the question of authorship.  Thankfully, discussion of authorship has largely moved on from issues of vocabulary and style, which should never have been thought of as decisive – or even of much interest at all.  The more significant questions concern the alleged theological/ecclesial development evidenced in the letter.

Moo notes:

Four theological issues are consistently mentioned in terms of the Pauline character of Colossians: the teaching of the letter on authority, on Christ, on the church, and on eschatology.  (Moo, p32)

Given that I spend all of my time considering these sorts of topics (authority, Christ, church, eschatology) in 1 Corinthians, perhaps it’s worth just noting a few of my humble reflections:

In terms of authority (ie of Paul), I don’t find anything in Colossians that goes beyond 1 Corinthians: 1 Corinthians vigorously emphasises Paul’s authority, as the one whose message founded the church, whose life is a model for the church, and whose words are to be treated generally by Christian churches as “spiritual” – and indeed as the “Lord’s command” (14:37).

In terms of Christ, I find that 1 Corinthians and Colossians evidence a striking harmony: Christ is the one in whom all of God’s riches are found; and thus the Corinthians/Colossians must understand their Christian identity as lacking nothing, so long as they are “in Christ”.  So in Colossians 2:2-3 we read, “…in order that they might know the mystery of God: Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”  In 1 Corinthians 1:30 we read, “…you are in Christ Jesus, who has become wisdom for us from God: righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”  In principle, Christians therefore have fullness in Christ; but this fullness will not be seen until Christ himself is seen.  In 1 Corinthians 15:22-3, we read, “for just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.  But each in its own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming, those who are of Christ.”  In Colossians 3:4 we read, “When Christ is revealed, who is your life, then also you will be revealed with him in glory.”  This latter passage should not be passed over as an “exception” in Colossians: Not at all – this verse represents the heart of the conception of Christian life in Colossians: identification with Christ in his death, resurrection, and future appearing.

In terms of church, I can see that Colossians emphasises “the (universal) church”; whereas Corinthians speaks of “the (widespread) churches”.  Perhaps there is a development here.  It should be recognised that 1 Corinthians certainly emphasises the concept of Christians “in every place” who, together, “call upon the name of Christ Jesus” (see opening verses); but, it is true: this is not called “the church”.

In terms of eschatology, there is clearly a difference of emphasis between the two letters: 1 Corinthians emphasises the present participation in Christ’s death, and future participation in Christ’s resurrection glory.  Colossians emphasises the present participation in Christ’s death and resurrection, and future participation in Christ’s glory (akin to Romans 6).  This difference of emphasis, however, does not seem to represent development or contradiction: The same general idea of identification-with-Christ is maintained, along with both realised and deferred applications of this identification.  The difference of emphasis is attributable to different situations.

Conclusion:

I really think it’s bold to say that the theology of Colossians is so obviously developed that it can be attributed to a post-Pauline author.  The evidence certainly doesn’t bring me to that conclusion.  Furthermore, I just don’t see the evidence that a paraenetic letter, including the name and personal details of a just-dead author, was ever considered acceptable.

1 Cor 15 as Forerunner to Romans 7?

A while ago Thiselton mentioned to me that he thinks 1 Corinthians effectively acted as something of a “first draft” for the themes of Romans, which was written about 5 years later.  The other day I was reading Romans 7, and was struck by a number of similarities to 1 Corinthians 15:50-8… This is no astonishing claim, but it’s interesting to see Paul making a roughly similar point in quite different contexts:

Problem: Flesh, law, sin, death

Question: How can this be overcome?

Victory: Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ