New Thoughts (01/27/17-02/02/17)
Paul’s Abilities (01/28/17)
It might seem at least a little bit curious to hear Paul describe his preaching in the fashion he does here. Poor of speech? Lacking wisdom? Paul? How are we to justify this self-assessment given what we see in his writing, and given what little we know of his personal history? Even if we had only this letter from which to form a judgment, we should have to conclude that he has wisdom, and a certain skill with words. The worst we might suggest is that his presentation could stand a bit of organizing. But, then we add the letter to Rome, and all doubt is removed. This is a man of prodigious talents.
So, we come back to the statements he makes here. He didn’t demonstrate any such skill, at least so far as they were concerned. Indeed, he says the whole time he was with them he was struck with weakness and fearful trembling. It’s very hard to make a convincing argument for your all-powerful supreme being if you are shaking in your boots when you do so. And yet, here’s his description. And we have other comments. The one from 2Corinthians 10:10 is referred to repeatedly, and actually has Paul noting the apparent disparity between his writing and his live presentation. Oh, they say, his letters are weighty stuff, to be sure. But, in person? He’s got no stage presence and frankly, his speech is awful. At minimum, we know he was aware of the way he was seen.
What, then? Did he simply not care about this? That’s one perspective. And some, particularly after reading verse 2 here, take away exactly that sense. Paul just had no use for the art of argument and public speaking. That would, however, be an odd conclusion to make, particularly given the full evidence that Scripture presents. He may have been physically unimposing. I have to suppose that a tent maker’s labors were not of the sort that would encourage good posture or toned physique, though he probably had fingers of steel. It may be, as Matthew Henry surmises, that he was soft-spoken and this caused them to think less of him. But, then we have that other occasion in Asia Minor where Paul was supposed to be Mercury come down to earth because of his capacities for speech. This should be something of a warning shot to us if we think the man was simply a poor speaker.
No, as Matthew Henry proceeds to say, it is clear that Paul was ‘no mean speaker’. Whatever else may be said of him, this was not the issue. That being the case I find it odd when Barnes concludes that Paul was likely ‘never much distinguished’ for his oratorical skills. Really? We are at great risk of missing the power of what Paul is actually saying here. I know I have been dancing to either side of verse 2 thus far, but only because I know I shall circle back to it. It is the centerpiece, the explanation, and the full answer to any suggestion that Paul lacked the skill to be an imposing speaker should he so choose.
Barnes picks it up, noting that this approach Paul took in Corinth was no accident, but a determined decision on Paul’s part. Yes, it was. And it wasn’t because he was incapable of any other approach. Neither, to clear away another bit of confusion, was it because he’d already tried the intellectual approach in Athens and seen how poorly that worked out. It may well be that Paul’s approach was shifting because of the poor response of Athens to the Gospel, but the message wasn’t changing, nor was it a case of Christianity not being up to the intellectual challenge.
Here, I am particularly indebted to the JFB for providing a more complete context by which to assess Paul’s talents. We know Paul grew up in Tarsus, but that probably doesn’t mean much to us today. It should. Perhaps Alexandria has a higher place in our respect when it comes to ancient times. Now, there was a place renowned for its learning, and well we know it! Of course, we know it primarily because of the library it was reported to have built up prior to its destruction. But, we get that this was a place of learning. Tarsus was another such place, as highly respected at the time. And these two centers of learning shared something which we might find significant. In both places, the JFB notices, Greek and Rabbinic systems of learning had been fused.
This, I think, deserves some focus. There is much made, not only in our day, but throughout church history, of the divide between Jewish approaches to learning, and those of the Greek philosophers. Many believers have come down against the Greek side. They do so for some substantial reasons – substantial, if not entirely correct. Greek philosophy, we might note, has not arrived at Truth, and in fact has in many ways occluded Truth. Yes, that can’t really be argued, other than to suggest that maybe it wasn’t Greek philosophy particularly that caused the problem, but fallen humanity. I would have to say that Eastern mysticism and philosophy are no nearer to revealing Christ to man, nor African folk wisdom, nor Native American Spiritism, nor any other system of thought devised by man. In simplest form, no system of thought devised by man is going to get you there, and that includes Jewish Rabbinical thought.
But, Jews had a more holistic approach to learning; it was more experiential, so the argument goes. Really? Granted, religious learning was inculcated from an early age, but I have little doubt that Greek mythologies were likewise taught to the young. As to higher education, it seems to me that there is not so great a divide between the two. Both camps showed a rather singular devotion to the teacher. But, to be sure, there are distinctions to be drawn.
We might do better to ask what drives this determination to favor Jewish methods over Greek. There, I think, we come back to some of the less savory impacts of the Enlightenment, and the Renaissance. After all, the Renaissance consisted largely in a rediscovery of Greek arts and philosophy, and a desire to see this high point of human cultural development restored. As I have been reading this week, we cannot fail to notice the connection between the Renaissance mindset of going back ‘to the sources’, and the emergence of the Reformers who worked on exactly that desire for restoration.
But, something happened. Somewhere along the way, the Aristotelian influences got to be too much, if not in the Reformers, then in the counter-Reformers. Scholasticism had something of this to its ways, even though that movement predates the Reformation by a significant degree. But, I think in the popular mindset, they were found to be more associated with the Greek influence than the Reformers. It’s interesting that so many of the early Church fathers were not Greek but either North African or Middle Eastern. And this led, in some degree I think, to the divide between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox traditions. That’s not to say that the Eastern Orthodox folks got it right and Rome got it wrong. Arguably, they both got it wrong. But, something of this persists. Rome is the church of Greek philosophy and Protestants has at least sipped their poison. We must purge!
But, look again: Here is Paul, the product of Tarsus, where Greek and Jewish approaches to learning were fused. Over there is Apollos, from Alexandria, where the same thing held true. Paul, we must recall, moved on to enter rabbinical training under Gamaliel, one of the most learned of the rabbis in his day, and he was excelling. Apollos is likewise spoken of as a man extremely learned as to Jewish law, and particularly skilled in the oratorical arts so appreciated by the Greeks. Paul, as the JFB notes, adds this third advantage – I don’t know if Apollos shared it or not: He was a Roman citizen. And this is the man, uniquely prepared, which God chooses to push His kingdom out into the Gentile lands.
There is another problem for those who urge a return to Jewish modes of learning, as though Greek learning is a thing to be eschewed. That problem is the Bible. The Bible offers no support for any such an either/or view, but everywhere insists on a both/and perspective. The Bible, we might note, is written in both Hebrew and Greek. Ah, you may say, that’s just a product of the times. Writers in the New Testament times were trained primarily to write in Greek, so Greek it was. True enough. Yet, the writers were Jewish, for the most part, and could certainly have found Jewish scribes had they desired to do so. They did not.
More to the point, it’s not just the language in which the text is written that demonstrates this both/and approach. It’s the presentation. Take the Gospels. Matthew is pretty clearly designed to address a Jewish mindset, whereas Luke is clearly intended for Greek thinking. Mark is perhaps harder to assess, but I’ll say it’s aimed for its Roman audience, although it presents Peter’s very Jewish preaching style. We can look at the Epistles, as well, where we have the very Greek style of Romans and the very Jewish style of Hebrews. It’s both/and again. How about the Apostles themselves? We see Peter assessed as the Apostle to the Jews, and Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles. Yet, Paul presented to the Jews constantly, and Peter’s letters are addressing churches that must have been largely, if not primarily of Gentile composition. Both/and.
Coming back to this passage, though, the JFB also lists several Scriptural attestations to Paul’s learning, when it came to things of Greek culture. We have him quoting several of their more renowned authors in support of his preaching points. We have constant references to examples from Roman military and political practice as ways to understand matters of Christian life. We find him fit to answer every audience with the skills and talents necessary to that audience. If, in Athens, he had tried to meet them on their own terms, here in Corinth, he chose another route.
The simple conclusion we have to reach is that Paul was not incapable of being every bit as impressive as Apollos, should he so choose. And that is exactly the point: He did not so choose. He chose, deliberately and with aforethought, to throw all of that aside and preach the simple, unadorned message of Jesus Christ – the pure Gospel with no artifice. Again, it was not that he lacked the skill. It was that he purposefully decided not to employ that skill. That is the primary point to be seen in these five verses. We can ask why, but we cannot suppose the answer was inability.
The answer, it seems clear, is that he recognized the culture in which he was operating. If Athens had an appreciation for metaphysics – an appreciation, to be clear, which Paul shared – Corinth had an even greater appreciation for the art of debate. In fact, they loved it so much that it was something of an idol to them: The idol of rhetoric. Consider that, as Pastor Dana had brought out when preaching through this epistle, debate was an Olympic sport for the Corinthians. In the Isthmian Games, physical competition surely counted much, but so did mental gymnastics. The well rounded Greek excelled in both. This was the ideal.
Now, it must be noted that winning the debate does not mean truth has prevailed. It may very well mean the opposite; that clever technique has prevailed over truth. Consider that in high school or college debate, one side necessarily has to argue the wrong answer, and they have to strive to do so successfully. The winner is not the one with the correct answer, but the one with the more convincing answer. That is the problem these Corinthians faced. They were happier to pursue and follow the one with the convincing presentation than the one with the Truth. Their leaders were likewise more concerned with being convincing than with being correct. Church, for these leaders, had become a practice arena for the games, and the membership had allowed themselves to become judges in those games. Both had a share in the blame, and in the need for repentance.
What we have, then, is Paul declaring to them that the fundamental reason that he did not shine in his oratory before them was that he was determined not to play that game. He would not enter into their debates, because they loved them too much. He wasn’t in a competition, he was on a mission. He wasn’t a debater, he was a herald. We see that point made in the word he chooses to employ for preaching in verse 4. He has a message because he is a herald. Because he is a herald, he is in no position to improvise and expand the message. He has a simple proclamation to make. That’s his job. He does so simply. Here is the Gospel. If it is to prosper among you, it will not be by my arts, but by God’s power.
Paul, faithful ambassador of Christ, was not about to alter his methods to suit this culture. I would argue he has done just the opposite. He has gone counter-cultural, and insisted on an approach to his task that is purposefully designed to offend the culture by not playing to it. I will insist this is something far different than being determined to be offensive. We, when we seek to be offensive with our presentation of the gospel, tend to do so because we see it as a badge of honor when people revile us. What we fail to see, though, is that they are not reviling us because of Christ in that instance, but simply because we are being repulsive. Paul’s choice is not to go out and be rude and annoying. It is to expose the power of God by refusing to clothe His power in human skill. He will not steal God’s glory by promoting his own talents, or even by employing his own talents.
That is the point he makes here. Yes, you’re right! I didn’t demonstrate great oratorical skill among you. That was on purpose! Indeed, so fully did I set aside those skills that I feared I might fail in my mission. But, I did not. I could not, for God is with me. And the fact that God is with me is to be seen the more clearly in that His work among you has brought you to Christ in spite of my apparently simple, uneducated style.
The simple takeaway for us is this. Paul’s approach was not evidence of a lack of skill. It was evidence of a determined will. And that will was determined not by Paul attempting to solve the riddle of how to reach the Greeks. It was determined by God’s will and God’s Providence. God had prepared Paul as His messenger to great men and nobodies alike. God had prepared Paul to toss every prideful boast of man on its head, and perhaps nowhere so much than in the simple fact that Paul could have played their game as well as they played. But, in every instance, he was the instrument of grace, overcoming their skill by reliance upon God alone, by acknowledging the simple, inelegant Truth and Power of the Gospel.
The Message (01/29/17)
Having established Paul’s capabilities, we move to the content of his preaching. He spells it out in two words: Jesus Christ. I confess that prior to considering the sundry commentaries, I was inclined to hear, ‘and Him crucified’ as further description of content. But, I take the point that this is really more like an exclamatory addition. Perhaps a bit of change to the punctuation would bring it out. “I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ – and Him crucified!” The point is that he was sticking with the message in spite of the apparent absurdity. He knew what sort of reaction to expect, certainly from the Jews. They would see the curse and likely pronounce one in response. But, he also recognized what this would sound like to Greek ears. As philosophies go, this doesn’t seem to have much on offer, does it? Follow a dead man to life? Look to the guy crucified by his own people to save you? Paul, get serious. But, Paul was serious. And he was serious for very good reason. For that, we jump past verse 3 to verse 4.
Here, Paul speaks of his message and his preaching. Earlier translations took to the idea of his speech and his preaching, and this leads to some interesting takes on his meaning. The JFB, for example, thinks to differentiate between private discussion and public proclamation. For my part, I think this is something much stronger. We are presented with logos and keerugma; reasoned discourse and proclamation. One can see where the JFB authors arrive at their view. But, then, if Paul was referring to his reasoning, his private debate or discourse then wouldn’t that run counter to his stated intent? If he debates in private, still he debates, and returns to an appeal to reason.
Other authors suggest that Paul intends to point to his message and the method by which he delivered it. That is also a reasonable meaning to infer from the terms. I have adopted it to some extent in that I choose to use those ideas to mark out my topics for discussion here. That being the case, there is a clear statement made about this message. He has already told us what the message is: Jesus Christ. Now, he is declaring his sources. One might think that when he speaks of his logos he is pointing back to his own reasoning, as other philosophers might. But, he is pointing right past that, or behind that. If we collapse this and the following verse just a bit, the picture comes into focus. “My message … is the power of God.” What he is saying is that what he presents in his preaching is not some material that results from his own reasoning – the philosopher’s approach. No. It is a message given to him to proclaim. This is wrapped up in that second term, keerugma. He has been given a message to proclaim. He comes as a herald.
Put another way, he is a servant, not an artist. He is not in the business of painting fine word pictures. He is on the errand of accurately delivering the King’s own proclamation. What he proclaimed, being the power of God, came forth from God. Here, I appreciate Calvin’s comment on the matter. When Paul says this came forth from God he is not simply offering a passive description of his message. He is making a vital declaration as to its source. He is declaring God to be both the author of and witness to the gospel he preached.
Paul is a preacher, a herald. Paul is, more precisely and critically, an Apostle. He has been given a message. It has come to him, as we are reminded elsewhere, not through the agency of any human intermediate. Peter and James did not teach this to him, nor did he require their imprimatur on his doctrine. It wasn’t, after all his doctrine. It was God’s. God declared it to him by direct feed, and gave him explicit instruction: Bear this message to the place I am sending you, and deliver it unaltered and unadorned. Preach Jesus Christ – no more, no less. Paul, if he was in fear and much trembling, was in that state not for fear of man, but for fear of falling short of his duty.
Tempting though it is for me to launch off on a tangent regarding the Apostolic office once again, I am going to say only this: The qualifications for that office should suffice to make it plain that no man or woman living today could possibly meet them. Paul did, but only just barely. Apollos, we might note, did not. We might set him as a lowercase apostle, a man on an assigned mission. But, at that point, we are all lowercase apostles. It’s just that most of us are very negligent about pursuing our mission. Jonah did better. At least he knew he had a mission. We act as though we don’t, as though passive receipt of salvation is the end goal of our faith, and there remains nothing more with which to concern ourselves. But, enough. The tangent looms, and I must divert back to the main path of this message.
The Method (01/29/17)
We have heard the content and the source for this message. These are important matters to settle. They are made important because of the method by which the message is delivered. Paul would not resort to fine words aimed to persuade. He would not appeal to that sort of logic that men consider wise. This is not, to be sure, to suggest that logic should go out the window, as some are inclined to suppose. No. Logic is an expression of reason, and reason is an expression of Logos and Logos is THE Expression of God. But, where reason has become an idol, the man of God must turn elsewhere to convey the message. There is good reason for this, as we shall see in due time.
The problem with the approach Paul has eschewed is quite simple. We have touched on it already in discussing his abilities. The art of debate, as we have said, is not so much concerned with truth as with being convincing. The skilled debater can successfully argue that the most odious of foods is in fact desirable. He can convince you that you really ought to vote for him, if he is running for office, even though you are likely to find him entirely reprehensible. At risk of pushing the line too far, we might note that men like Hitler and Mussolini were perfectly adept at steering public opinion in their chosen direction. One would hardly accuse such men as being possessed of truth, or even interested in it. They were interested in manipulating opinion in support of their pursuit of power. And, it worked.
On what may seem a lesser scale, the scale of philosophical pursuit, the same arts were being employed. The Corinthian idol had nothing much of truth to it. It had a lot of persuasion, a lot of artful delivery. So we find them chasing after the sort of leader they chased. They had come to despise the simplicity of the message (and of its delivery) as Paul had proclaimed it. Instead, as Calvin points out, they were captivated by artful display. It’s not so terribly surprising. This is what they were used to. This is what they had trained themselves to see as the measure of the message. These things weren’t about arriving at truth. They were about the art of the debate.
But, when it comes to Truth, refinement is no argument. Fine words don’t establish the case. Rhetorical skills do not represent the sum and substance of apologetics. I have to say that it is somewhat disorienting to read so many men whose skill of words is most admirable insisting that skill of words is of no particular avail in ministry. It can be applied. It just doesn’t get the job done. God does. Eloquence, Mr. Clarke notes, cannot compensate for lack of truth. That’s a point worth holding onto as we consider the messages that come our way day after day. I might add that volume and passion do no better. Here, though, is the marvel that Paul sets before us, as Clarke describes it. The truth of God, of Christ and His salvation, is so excellent, “as to dignify any kind of language by which it may be conveyed.” I’ll take credit for the emphasis on any. Refinement is no argument, but the simple truth of the gospel will refine any argument by which it is presented. It will smooth the rough edges. It will back the most inelegant presentation. It will make its own way, for it is the power of God.
So, in spite of his earlier assessment that Paul simply lacked the arts, Barnes later concludes that he purposefully avoided the employment of those arts for the simple reason that he recognized the Greek proclivity for such fine words and subtle argumentation. He proceeds to point out that when Paul made this decision, “he must have been fully aware that the theme which he had chosen to dwell upon would be certain to excite derision and contempt.” Well, yes. Therein lies the cause for his weakness and fearful trembling. He knew exactly how his message was going to be received. Were it not for that midnight message from God, he likely would have left off much sooner and sought for more receptive climes. But, he knew what he had in this simple message. He knew Who had given it to him. And, he knew this was the place chosen for him to deliver it. If God is in it, the manner and the means are of no consequence. Not to say we can do as we please, let go and let God. But, our stammering lips, our halting words, our shy and quiet demeanor are no impediments to God. He who has defeated death and the devil can certainly manage piddling little issues like that!
But, in this case, and I think probably in the case of a large part of modern Western culture, we see the need for Paul’s choice. The appeal to reason, while valid, leaves the listener potentially trusting nothing more than reason. In plain point of fact, it leaves him potentially trusting in something far less – a clever argument. As the Wycliffe commentary points out by appeal to the ICC, “What depends upon a clever argument is at the mercy of a cleverer argument.” If all our hearer has to lean on are our fine words, we have done him great harm. Finer words will come along, and that poor man will be seen to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine that happens along. That’s what was happening in Corinth. That’s what is happening throughout the wider complex of the Church today. Rome is no less vulnerable to it than Protestantism. Nobody is safe where mankind is involved.
To close out this section, I turn to two comments from greater minds. I’ll begin with the JFB. “Persuasion is man’s means of moving his fellow-man. Ministers should rather seek God’s, which is demonstration, inspiring implicit faith by the power of the Spirit.” This begins to turn me toward the topic of the next section, which concerns lessons we ought to draw from Paul’s example here. But, this is so key. For me particularly, I know a certain needful care for such inclinations. Having come up in the Charismatic church, there is much of the persuasive approach that remains in my own style. I want to see response in the eyes of those I am teaching. I want results. I want to move people. That may be understandable, but it is inherently dangerous. That desire in me feeds a desire in them, and that particular desire is no good for either of us. The preacher that wasn’t to move people, and the people that want to be moved, have together gone off course. To be clear, that’s the sum of Paul’s point through this whole section of the letter. It’s not just the factional leaders that are off. The factions that form up behind them are just as off.
I’ll wrap up with Calvin, as he considers the weakness to which Paul points. “For those that intrude themselves confidently, and in a spirit much elated, or who discharge the ministry of the word with an easy mind, as though they were fully equal to the task are ignorant at once of themselves and of the task.” I think back to that time teaching at the men’s retreat several years ago. Never was I so glad of something solid to cling to. I look at our pastor preaching with nothing more substantial than a music stand in front of him, and it is a wonder to me that he can do it. Me, I want a fine, solid podium. I don’t want it for the prestige, nor even for the space to spread out notes and the like. I want it for the sole purpose that I want something I can lean on, cling to, and thereby remain upright under the weight of delivering God’s truth.
I’ve seen a difference in approach when I’m teaching in more of a classroom setting. Then, I discover a desire to move, to pace, to – shame to say – assume a certain air of authority. Look out! That should be a warning, and I have to say I’ve missed it for years. It’s not just nervous energy. It’s not just the caffeine. It’s a need in me to be recognized. But, I don’t need to be recognized. I need to present Christ Jesus, simply and without adornment, and let the power of God work as God wills.
Now, as I teach this Christology class, I work with slideshow and screen. I sit, but I am no more safe from my sinful self. I still want to see people moved. I hope and pray, and will endeavor to keep watchful eye to ensure that this desire is nothing but the outworking of my own reaction to the material as I have prepared. It really has been a thrilling reminder to consider my loving Savior these last several weeks. Saturday times of preparation are an absolute high for me, that I hope carries over into the Sunday presenting of the material. But, whether I exude excitement or whether I am in fact a rather monotonous drone, it matters little. What matters is Christ – and Him crucified!
Lessons for the Preacher (01/30/17)
Paul’s example sets our standard. Our task is simply this: Be faithful in delivering the message given you by the Master. That is what you are called to do. We might take away from this passage that we are to entirely avoid the use of artful speech, and to avoid debate. I came away with that sense last time through. But, I think this must be tempered. Paul is not rejecting these things. He is submitting them to the command of God. Here, God has said don’t use them. Therefore, here I won’t. If it happens that in Rome, for example, I am instructed to speak well and debate with all my skill employed in the effort, then that is what I will do on that occasion.
So, then, the message is not a question of what is or isn’t permitted in preaching. The message is obedience in preaching. We may use our arts and skills where they can be used to godly purpose. But, in so doing, we must be careful. We are every bit as capable of making our own skill an idol as the Corinthians were. We are every bit as capable of making an idol of our preparations. These study times, if I am not careful, become an idol. They become more important to me than the God whom I study. That’s a problem. The line between a rightly exercised desire to see God first in my day, and a wrongly emphasized insistence that I shall have this hour of study uninterrupted, come what may, is easily discerned. When study becomes my god, rather than God directing my study, though, I know that line has been crossed. Repentance is needed, and a return to things that matter.
Adam Clarke presents an interesting set of requirements for the preacher. He sees three things as needful, of which I can certainly concur with two. The third may be inevitable, but I would think it inevitable to all men. Let me look at the two. No man who would live near God can neglect prayer, he says. Indeed, how many of us would willingly dwell in a house whose other occupants never spoke to us, and who showed no signs of hearing when we spoke? Why stick around? What sort of fellowship is that? It’s one thing to know quiet times together. It’s quite another to know nothing BUT quiet, downright silent times. Yet here we are, a people in whom God dwells, with whom He seeks fellowship, and how often we refuse to talk to Him, refuse to hear Him. Oh, we’ll hear Him in His Word, perhaps, but conversation with God? What’s the point?
But, yes, if indeed we suppose ourselves to dwell near to God, to have God indwelling us, surely we ought to desire exactly such a thing. Surely, if we don’t, we had best consider whether we are hearing Him in His Word, or simply hearing our own thoughts echoing off the walls of our isolation. Yet, this is no call to abandon study. No! The second part of Clarke’s equation of ministry notes that no man who would rightly divide the Word would dare neglect study. How, after all, can we hope to rightly apply the truths of Scripture if we can’t be bothered to discern them? But, this loops us back to the first issue. How can we expect to discern the Truth of God if we won’t hear Him?
If the people of Corinth were inclined to take after those with fine philosophical arguments and a wonderful way with words, we are even more inclined to suppose our own thoughts fit that bill. I feel it when I go back through my notes. My, I really had a fine turn of phrase there. That’s a keeper! But, a fine turn of phrase, as we have seen, is not a sound argument. It may very well be disguising a failure to listen to the one Voice that matters. Fine words are fine, but they may delude, distract, and otherwise cover over a dangerous lack of godliness.
If it’s all study and no prayer, can we suppose we are in a good place with God? If it’s all prayer and no study, can we? In one case we are adding nothing to the conversation, and in the other, we are refusing to listen. We will do all manner of things to convince ourselves it’s alright as it is, that me and God, we’re like this, man. I may not pray in the same way you do, but my life is a prayer. I don’t have to use words. I may not study like you do, but I’m still hearing God in these pages, even if I don’t understand the words, or read the words that are actually there. I’ve got the direct feed! He tells me what it means. I hear it in my spirit. I have no need of teachers or textbooks. And so, we go off the rails, and lose sight of that third item Mr. Clarke insists we look at.
Item three: The man who would live near God and rightly divide the Word can be assured of facing myriad temptations. They may, as I have noted above, come in the very act of prayer and study. Pride has this way of clouding everything we seek to do in purity. It is the additive we can’t seem to avoid adding. And every time we do, what we add is our sin. We must be careful. If we are idol makers such as we are, we have to remain aware that the first place we are likely to make our idols is in those things we do for the sake of God. The very idea that we ‘do’, is already the foundation laid for an idol. God does. Yet, we daren’t make spiritual indolence an idol, either. Alas and alack! Temptation in every direction, and here we are in the midst of it all. What shall we do?
We shall, as Paul before us, thank God that He has put us in Christ, and made Christ our wisdom, our righteousness, our sanctification, our redemption, our all in all (1Co 1:30). We shall, it must be hoped, repent of our propensity to bend godly practice to our own preferences, and return to the task of declaring the message He has given us by the means of His choosing, being careful to seek His direction, and being careful to follow His direction.
If we have lost sense of how weighty this message is, we are in trouble. If we have convinced ourselves that we’ve got it well in hand, we are wrong. If we have come to think ourselves strong, then our weakness will surely be revealed in short order. It is, as Barnes says, only when we minister from a keen awareness of our weakness, only when we feel the full weight of concern that the message we have been given is delivered accurately and to good effect, “that God sends down His Spirit, and converts sinners to God.” With that in view, we consider another statement of his, which but echoes Paul’s point. “The preaching of the cross is the only kind of preaching that will be attended with success. […] So it was in the time of the apostles; so it was in the Reformation; so it was in the Moravian missions; so it has been in all revivals of religion.”
This is the message. This has always been the message. God, who does not change and who does not repent of His decisions, certainly finds no need to deliver a new message for our time. He is not in danger of becoming irrelevant, Who reigns over every last aspect of Creation. He Who made the creature surely knows what is best for the creature. It is, after all, His design and His handiwork. It is His power that upholds. It is His uninterrupted attention to the creature that allows its existence to continue. That would seem to be rather relevant to the creature, don’t you think? And what God says is of utmost importance to this creature is to know Him, and the Christ He has sent. It is to recognize that this Jesus, crucified and buried for our sins, has been raised for our redemption, has ascended into heaven to take His eternal throne, to be our eternal High Priest, to intercede for us, editing and amending our poor prayers to present good and earnest petitions to our Father. He has done it all, even to the point of instilling that faith in us by which we lay hold of His work on our behalf. Therefore, there is no place for boasting except in God (1Co 1:31). Therefore, faith is found to rest not on the word of any man, not on the skill of any argument, but solely and safely on the power of God (verse 5).
What shall we say to this? With the kaleidoscopic array of churches that populate the modern landscape, we may find ourselves inclined to dismiss any that do not look like ours. In large part, we may even be right to do so. Those who have wandered so far afield that they effectively, if not blatantly remove Christ from Christianity are certainly to be rejected as representing the God Who Is. Those who have sought to promote the idea that all religions are effectively equal and welcomed those who would worship Christ alongside those who would worship Buddha, or Allah, or a tree, or a rock? Clearly, they have missed some rather critical parts of the Biblical message, and equally clearly, they have missed some rather critical parts of general cognizance of facts.
But, that leaves rather a lot of churches to go yet. Much of the effort in this particular study has gone into exploring the rather gaping divide between Charismatic and Conservative Reformed perspectives. Having been in both camps, I find a particular need for care on my part. There is the temptation to simply reject outright everything to do with my former affiliations. That would be wrong. These were godly people, my brothers and sisters in Christ. There can be a temptation to view those in the Reformed camp of being too caught up in their intellectual pursuits of Biblical understanding to ever arrive at practice. That view is also wrong. But, we can start to set a few boundaries, I think. We just have to recognize that boundaries exist and apply on both ends of the spectrum.
If we go out to the edges of the Charismatic movement, we must surely recognize that where gifts and signs have become the focus, rather than the Gospel of Christ, and Him crucified, the mission of the church has been abandoned. The messenger is making up his own message and completely ignoring the mission to which he was assigned. He may still be a true child of God. The Corinthians, for all their error and confusion, were still accounted by Paul as beloved, sanctified, elect children of God. They were just children in need of some serious correction and maturity.
I say again: There is nothing wrong with speaking in tongues. There is nothing wrong with experiencing the prophetic move of God upon one’s words and actions. There is nothing wrong with experiencing and enjoying the more spiritual, mystical side of Christian faith. There is something seriously wrong when we suppose that this is the necessary definition of Christian faith. There is something seriously wrong when we suppose that those who show a marked disinterest in such things are therefore dead in their faith, false Christians and dangers to true faith.
But, this must be counterbalanced. Head on out to the edges of the Conservative Reformed end of Christianity, and Lo! Another fence; another border. Here, we discover those who are so utterly opposed to any sort of spiritual, mystical display that they consider any such act heretical. This is, I think, a rather small minority position, but it goes far beyond anything for which one can find Biblical mandate. How can one read this letter and conclude that Paul rejects every such practice? How can one read of Corinth and then declare that signs and wonders ceased with the Apostles? If that’s the case, why doesn’t he simple tell them to knock it off? How can one declare that with respect to the gifts, the Perfect came when Christ came, and therefore that time of cessation Paul pointed to has come has already come? Paul said that well after Christ had come and gone. We barely find evidence of the gifts at all until after Christ departs. In plain point of fact, these being the gifts of the Spirit, and the Spirit not being sent until Christ had returned to heaven, how could they come while He was here? To make this argument is to insist that they ceased before they began, and effectively marks out the apostles as the first heretics. Surely, there is a problem with such a theory!
By all means, let us note the abuses of these gifts. The counterfeits must be identified and rejected. But, this does not support the practice of assuming every such act false by very nature. On the Charismatic side, it’s time to stop being defensive every time error is pointed out. If we keep insisting that there is great danger in calling out a false prophet because Scripture says not to touch His anointed, then we are acting as fools. God’s anointed certainly demonstrate no concern over pointing out the false prophets that shared the stage with them. The Apostles were not inclined to simply accept every teacher who came along with his own, ‘message from God’. No! The Truth of God is something far too valuable to leave it open to such attacks.
The Devil remains a canny operator, and his favorite mode is to bend the Word slightly, to apply it just a bit poorly. Every small error he can introduce, he knows, will over time produce big error, and big error is just what he wants. When we become knee-jerk in our defense of gifts or our opposition to gifts, we are doing his work. When we become knee-jerk in our sense of superiority for the depth of our theological insight, or for rejecting theology and doctrine as divisive garbage to be avoided in favor of superficial unity, we are doing his work.
The more I see of church history and church present, the more I see that this tension between the mystical and the reasonable has always been there. They are the twin energies of faith and rightly applied, they both have their place. The faith that knows nothing of mystery is at risk of discovering it has been no more than another exercise in Greek philosophy. The faith that knows nothing but mystery is at risk of being led into all manner of error as the mind is disengaged. It takes both. It has always taken both. God has given both. We do well to embrace both, to balance the one with the other, and so to avail ourselves of all that God has supplied.
Lord, keep my mindful of this. Remind me once again that You are in control. You have not lost sight of Your church, and You have not chosen sides in this seesaw of mystery and reason. You gave both. You uphold both. You inhabit both. Let us, therefore, accept both, and cease from this tendency to fight for one over the other. Teach us, O, God, to love all Your ways, for all Your ways are holy and high. Teach us, O, God, to love all Your people, for they are all brothers and sisters with whom we shall spend an eternity. Let it not be that we spend an eternity regretting the way we treated each other now.
Spiritual Power (01/31/17-02/01/17)
We will need to wrestle with verse 4. Here, Paul appeals to the fact that his efforts were made ‘in demonstration of the Spirit and of power’. But, the question remains as to what exactly he’s talking about with these terms. We can state with certainty that the sign gifts were active in Corinth. We can state with certainty that Paul was familiar with such Spirit-imparted activity. He spoke in tongues ‘more than all of you’, as he tells the Corinthians. His work in Macedonia and Achaia had come about due to a Spirit-imparted vision of the night. His continuance in Corinth had been on largely on the basis of a word from God (Ac 18:10). What we cannot state with certainty is that Paul exercised sign gifts in Corinth. The brief account of that year and a half which we have in Acts 18:1-18 gives no evidence beyond the night vision. Nothing is said of Paul relaying word of this to those he sought to reach with the Gospel. Of course, we likewise cannot state with certainty that Paul did not.
This being the case, I cannot come to this verse with a preconceived determination as to his meaning. Context must inform how this is to be understood. That context certainly embraces the whole setting of the Corinthian church, so it’s quite possible that signs and wonders were accompanying Paul’s preaching such that he was bursting forth in tongues, or prophesying about this or that matter. It’s possible. It’s not certain.
Here’s the thing that gives me pause. Paul is discussing preaching, or if we would be more general, the matter of public speech. On the one hand you have these men who were pushing their views by means of the methods common to Corinthian experience, and lauded by their society. They came with fine words skillfully delivered. They came with carefully crafted, towers of rhetoric backed by buttresses of philosophical reasoning. But, that whole edifice, imposing though it was, had little to do with presenting truth and much to do with promoting the speaker.
Over against this, Paul insists he determined to declare nothing but the unadorned message of a crucified Messiah, Jesus Christ. As we have already discussed, this is not a case of Paul being incapable. He is very capable. He is also very determined. He will not set their faith on his prowess, for if it were only his prowess, the church would be prey to the next skilled orator to come along, even as it was happening. So, Paul is pointing to this firmer foundation. He is pointing to the substance of his message, and saying this is the real stuff. It doesn’t matter how it was dressed up, because the Truth of God is the point, not the art of the messenger.
This being the case, I just find that it runs counter to his argument to then start pointing at signs and wonders. Paul is, after all, the same teacher who would remind his readers that these are things that can be counterfeited. He had dealt with counterfeits. Moses dealt with counterfeits. Every prophet from start to finish encountered counterfeits. Yes, they could demonstrate the superior power of God, but those demonstrations would pass from memory. Think about it. Even the visible manifestation of God in a pillar of fire by night and cloud by day was insufficient to hold the mind of man faithful to God. Little demonstrations of odd speech, predictions of coming events, even healings were not going to provide an unshakable foundation. They still don’t. They thrill. They may serve to garner a hearing for the Word. They may provide some reason to accept that Jesus is Lord, which is why they were occurring during His years of ministry.
But, Paul’s whole point here is that the message – the unadorned message of the Gospel – is itself the power of God. How would an appeal to signs and wonders not be adorning the message? Again, this is not to deny or decry signs and wonders, but given the arc of Paul’s argument and the point he is trying to make, it makes more sense to look elsewhere for this demonstration of Spirit and power, to something unshakable and undeniable. Look, no matter what you or I think of sign gifts, the simple and obvious fact is that you can find innumerable people, pagans and believers alike, who will remain not just skeptical about the reality of those gifts, but will reject them outright. Even if they are eyewitness to the event, they will continue to maintain that there’s some other explanation for what was observed. This is nothing new. Lazarus, known to so many in Jerusalem, and whose burial and days of mourning had been observed by so many, was clearly seen up and about, strolling the streets of Jerusalem with Jesus days after he had been dead and buried. Nobody there doubted it was him. Nobody could deny that they had been to his funeral, had seen the rock laid across his tomb. Nobody could fail to count the days since they had seen this and conclude that the man must have been good and truly dead. Nobody could deny that he was now, very clearly, good and truly alive. And yet, the cries of, “Crucify Him!” testify to the fact that they somehow managed to deny the implications, the involvement of the very power of God. There must be another explanation.
We see the same unwillingness to accept the supernatural as a possibility when it comes to the empty tomb of Jesus. We see it in hyperactive form today. Never mind those who were eyewitness to events. They must have been charlatans, or hallucinating or something. Perhaps Jesus had just swooned, passed out so bad that he felt nothing as they stabbed His side, as they hauled down His cross, ripped Him off the nails, and lumbered Him off to that tomb. He was so far gone that even the shocking cold of that stone shelf that passed for his bed didn’t cause so much as a flinch, didn’t so much as produce goose-flesh. Maybe His breath was so weak at that point that nobody noticed He was still breathing. And somehow, this horribly weakened Man, having gone three days with no food or water after so harrowing an ordeal, managed to gain purchase on the face of a stone so large it would require several men to move, and clawed it out of the way so He could depart. Yes. That must have been the real story. It couldn’t have been the power of God.
My point is this: Paul is insistent that his message was simple, his words were simple, and yet the power of God demonstrated itself in his preaching by the Spirit. What could he mean? I should think that every single individual who had come to faith in Christ, to such faith as could give Paul reason to say to them that in spite of the current mess they were assuredly among the elect saints who had been – HAD BEEN – sanctified fits the bill rather nicely, wouldn’t you? The likes of you came to saving faith by this simple, laughable message, delivered by one whose presence you found almost comic, and whose speech you considered contemptible. And in spite of so great a handicap, the message of the Gospel brought you to life! Now, that’s power! That’s demonstration of God’s power (not Paul’s) in a fashion that nothing can ever undermine.
Remember where Paul is driving this: Your faith should not rest on men or their wisdom. It should rest in God and His power. This, I think, must preclude resting on what might later be construed to be nothing but a magic show. Believe me, I am not suggesting that the true exercise of the sign gifts as the Spirit provides and the Spirit directs is some sort of magic show. I am, however, suggesting that the mind of fallen man can readily discount it as such, and that includes believers as well as unbelievers.
I’ll put it more simply still. Whatever the method, whether through sound doctrinal argument or through the sign gifts, no man can arrive at faith apart from the power of God. No man can hear the Word preached to his own benefit except the power of God moves upon his heart to receive what is said with the understanding of the Spirit. No man can see signs and wonders to his own benefit except the power of God moves upon his heart to truly see not the spectacle, but the God Who Is, reaching out to him, calling him out of his present darkness into the Light of Life.
Here is the unavoidable issue. If man could arrive at faith apart from the power of God, then the whole work of the cross is not just foolishness, it’s an abomination. If man can find faith without God’s power making it so, then God is no god at all, but another demon disguised as an idol. We remain idolaters, condemned and awaiting our death sentence. We remain devoid of God and devoid of hope. We, who followed such a God, are in direst circumstance, for we have, like those who offered their children to Moloch, given our fealty to an abomination.
This is, however, not the case. We have not arrived at faith apart from the power of God. Whether Charismatic or Conservative, whether Anglican or Baptist, whatever branch of the Church has been party to your rebirth you need to comprehend this fact. It wasn’t the Church, or their particular brand of doctrine, which brought about your salvation. It was God. God having used that particular church with its particular brand of doctrine does not, I should add, guarantee that their particular brand of doctrine therefore has His full seal of approval. How could it be? Over there is your brother in Christ, who came to faith in another church, with a very different body of doctrine (once beyond the fundamentals). If you come to faith in a church that is certain the sign gifts have ceased, and I come to faith in one that believes they’re ongoing and ought to be practiced regularly, surely one of us has come to faith in spite of having some of our doctrine wrong. This is what is meant by relegating these things to being secondary issues. Belief in one direction or the other will not leave one cast into outer darkness. Believing one or the other will not prevent the power of God from doing as He wills.
This, to me, is an even stronger argument that, whatever the conclusions be that we may draw in regard to these sign gifts, what Paul is speaking of here is something more fundamental: The power of the Gospel to save. That power, being the power of God already, requires no further embellishment. Salvation does not rest on one’s capacity to speak in unknown languages, or on one’s ability to impart messages received on a direct feed from heaven. Salvation does not rest on experience of healing. It doesn’t rest on seminary educated preachers, either, any more than it could rest on Greek philosophers. It rests in the simple, unadorned, unbelievable Truth of the Gospel. And the only way it can rest on that solid Rock is that the Spirit has moved upon the individual to open ears, soften the heart, and implant that faith which will believe. Simply stated, every believer is a demonstration of the Spirit and of power! It has ever been thus, and there can be no stronger, firmer evidence upon which a believer may stand.
By and large, it seems the commentaries concur in taking Paul’s reference to Spirit and power as referring to the results of his preaching, rather than to signs and wonders. Calvin, for example, says these were indication that the ‘presence of the Spirit had shown itself in his ministry’. How? “In the furtherance given to Paul’s ministry.” That is to say, the presence of the Spirit was made evident in the changed lives that resulted. The Amplified Bible follows a similar line of reasoning in its amplification of the point, recognizing “a proof by the Spirit and power of God, operating on me and stirring in the minds of my hearers the most holy emotions and thus persuading them.” As Paul argues in these verses, this evidence was all the more astounding given the unimpressive means by which it was delivered.
Where do we go with this? Well, we can certainly agree with Clarke and with Matthew Henry in their conclusion that the Spirit was revealed both in the doctrine Paul spoke, and in its impact on those who heard. Paul elsewhere makes more explicit claim to the source of his doctrine being Spirit-revealed, Christ-imparted, with no human intermediary. Here, we see it more in that there is a church in Corinth in spite of the lack of Corinthian-approved arts. The Spirit is evident in that their lives were changed. Where had been darkness and corrupt idolatries, now there was holiness and purity; and this had been brought about by this simple message of Christ crucified. Mr. Henry’s statement on the matter is even more compelling. “He laid down the doctrine as the Spirit delivered it; and left the Spirit, by his external operation in signs and miracles, and his internal influences on the hearts of men, to demonstrate the truth of it, and procure its reception.”
What we could learn from Paul! This perhaps belongs more rightly in the previous section of my notes, concerning lessons for the preacher. But, hear it now, since it’s here. Paul delivered the doctrine which had been delivered to him by the Spirit. This is what we have recorded in the pages of his epistles, and laying it alongside what we have from John and Peter, and what we have in the word of Christ as recorded by the other evangelists, it’s clearly an accurate delivery. We, then, have something of an obligation to follow suit. We do not get our doctrine by this path of divine injection any longer. The Scriptures are sufficiently clear on this: The foundation was laid by the OT Prophets and the NT Apostles, and that foundation has been laid, with Christ the Cornerstone to which it is laid true. Revealed doctrine is the foundation. What remains is the building of the edifice, the setting together of living stones to assemble this magnificent, time-spanning Church of which Christ is the only head. We do so by being as faithful to the doctrine imparted to us by the Apostles as they were to that doctrine imparted to them by Christ.
Let it be clearly understood that this is no case of setting tradition up as being of greater importance than God’s instruction. It is recognizing that in Scripture we have God’s instruction. In Scripture, those things recorded by men of His own choosing, written under the careful, guiding, editorial hand of the Holy Spirit, we have the sole reliable measure of God’s self-revelation to man, and of man’s duty to God. Let it be accepted that prophecies, dreams, and visions persist, and still this must hold. Scripture is the sole standard. If prophecies come, they must either accord with Scripture’s doctrines or be rejected, and the purported prophet denounced vehemently. If the visions seek to add to Scripture, alter it, introduce a new order, then they must be rejected as pipe dreams and vapors at best, attempts by the evil one to disturb and distract the Church at worst. Far from being things to celebrate, they are things to renounce utterly. The apostles, were they alive to witness what insinuates itself into the beliefs of the faithful today would counsel as they always did. “Let such a one be anathema! Don’t even greet such a one, lest you be thought to agree.” These are not occasions for gentle remonstration, or open-minded debate. These are occasions to purge the evil from among you.
Paul’s doctrine, returning to Clarke, was revealed by the Spirit. This was demonstrably true, particularly for those in Corinth at the time. They were themselves the witness and testimony to this fact. They were living proof. Here were a people becoming pure and holy. It would stretch things too far to propose that their behaviors were already pure and holy. Had that been the case, this letter would not have needed writing. But, here, in the den of iniquity known as Corinth, God had established a very real, very operational, church. Here, God had reached into the enveloping darkness and switched on the Light! And people such as these, listening to so apparently dopey a message as Paul was delivering, heard it and believed. People such as these came to know God and to love Him! This could only have been the Spirit’s doing. It sure wasn’t Paul’s. Paul preached the truth of Christ unadorned, and a church sprung up. This was surely a demonstration that the Spirit and power of God were in the preaching. I say again, it needed no signs and wonders to confirm. The very existence of a church established among such a people by such a method was already a sign and a wonder! In spite of the absence of persuasive words and human skill, look what had happened.
It seems to me very evident that this is exactly the conclusion Paul desires that we reach. He is not pointing to sign gifts, as we call them. Again, it is not that he is rejecting these, but rather, he is deliberately downplaying such display. Why? For the same reason that he downplayed his own skills as a debater when he first came to them. They were overly impressed with such stuff, and a faith established on so flimsy a basis would not stand. I say it again. The point we have immediately before us is that faith that hinges on convincing delivery rather than the simple Truth delivered, is faith that is at the mercy of the next clever speech. It is not faith at all. It is just current opinion, and that opinion may change with the next argument heard. The same applies to these signs and wonders. Counterfeits will come. There is no ‘may’ about that. “Even now many antichrists have come,” John writes (1Jn 2:18). “I know that when I leave savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock,” Paul says (Ac 20:29). “Many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am!’ and will mislead many,” Jesus says (Mk 13:6). “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. It’s hardly surprising, then, that his servants disguise themselves as servants of righteousness,” Paul warns (2Co 11:14). “False Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. But, I have warned you in advance,” says Jesus (Mt 24:24-25).
How much clearer can we get? Faith that has no further foundation than some unusual, supernatural occurrence is as likely to be no faith at all as that which has only human reasoning as its foundation. Arguably, it has less to stand on, for it was human reasoning that assessed the supernatural event and supposed itself fit to measure the validity of that event. It will be argued that this was a spiritual assay of a spiritual event, but was it? Or is that just a prideful defense of opinions formed simply from a desire for miracles?
Which way do you lean? Do you prefer the careful argument or the thrill of the mysterious? Whichever describes you better, be careful! You are as prone to be misled by that which naturally appeals to you as you are to be guided to Truth. Peel it back. Peel it away. Find the Gospel Truth in its simplicity, and trust the God Who revealed that Truth. Trust it as it is written. Test every argument and every demonstration by its words. Then, and only then, and even then, only as the Spirit aids our efforts, can we hope to make proper assay of these other things.
Let me again stress that this in no way declares that sign gifts have ceased, or that those who practice such gifts or accept such gifts are declared heretics. Honestly, I don’t care how famous the personage who seeks to draw such a conclusion. It’s not there to be drawn. The very stuff of this letter makes it clear that one cannot draw such a conclusion. That may seem too strong a statement to make, but I do believe it to be accurate. If these gifts were solely for the apostles, or for the Apostolic age, it is hardly to be supposed that the Holy Spirit would have been bothered to deliver instructions as to their use to the Church down through the ages. If it was limited to the lifetime of the Apostles, there would have been no point in a permanent record. I’ll save further argument for another time and place. I’ve probably addressed it more often than is useful already.
I will note that both Barnes, and the JFB accept that Paul’s reference here is not only to the inward change evidenced in the Corinthians themselves, but also in outward display of signs and wonders. From Barnes’ perspective, this furnishes us with twin proofs of the Spirit and the power. There is inward proof and outward proof. The JFB follows a similar line, but then drops in this insistent note that only the inward proof exists in our day. The authors do not even attempt to lay out a Scriptural basis for holding to this opinion, but merely set it down as fact. Given that this commentary was written back in 1868, it may simply reflect the common experience of the time. It was never seen to happen, ergo, the author concludes that is simply doesn’t anymore. It remains some forty odd years in the future before we see the Pentecostal movement beginning. With that in view, perhaps it’s not too surprising that none of the commentaries incline to look in that direction. But, then, Barnes comes at about the same period, maybe twenty years later, and seems much less reactionary on the topic.
I don’t think I would change my perspective on the point Paul is making here, however. His point and his purpose are ill-served by an appeal to supernatural display at this juncture. It’s not that he’s opposed. It’s not that he counsels against such things. No. His counsel is simply to set them in proper perspective and proper order. Seek what edifies and do that. These things that are just empty display? Hey, if God gives it to you, fine, I guess, but don’t make more of it than it is. It certainly doesn’t do anything to advertise your own grand achievement, and it does no more for establishing foundational faith in the new believer than your philosophers have managed, which is to say, nothing. If you’ve been given a gift, understand its function and its purpose, and utilize it accordingly. But, don’t elevate it to the status of yet another idol. Please!
Do you want to see the Spirit working in your ministry, and in the ministry of the Church? Praise God! So do I! Do you want to see the power of God evident in the Church, in the lives of those who make up the Church, in the impact of the Church on the society in which it is set? Praise God! So do I! Do you think the answer is fiery evangelism, careful apologetics, or a ministry of miracles? Why not rather accept that it is at once all those things and none of those things. The mechanisms you choose are only of value if they are the mechanisms God has chosen. Whatever methods you may opt to employ in service to God, let it first and foremost be as He Himself directs. Let it also be that you utilize those methods according to the example we have before us here. Nothing captures that more succinctly, I think, than the conclusion Mr. Clarke provides.
It must be granted that Paul can hardly be counted a forgotten man. But the point remains. Paul was not interested in making a name for himself. He was interested in making a church for God. He took to the creed of John the Baptist. “He must increase. I must decrease” (Jn 3:30). He accounted himself the least of the apostles and the greatest of sinners. We, perversely enough, are inclined to think just the opposite of ourselves, that we are the least of sinners, and far exceeding the apostles. Far be it from us! May it be that as we minister, this same sentiment can be expressed in regard to us: “God was seen in the work, and the man was forgotten.”
Evidence and Faith (02/02/17)
I am in danger of simply restating what has already been said, but let us consider the evidence, if you will. The evidence Paul presents us tells us both what he did not do, and what he did. What he did not do was demonstrate intellectual skills and rhetorical arts. This, as he says, was a deliberate choice on his part, not simply dealing with his lack of such skills. He had them, but they were kept back, out of sight, lest they distract the attention of these Corinthians from the real power of God. How did he do this? Was it by public display of signs and wonders? Not according to what he tells us here. What he tells us he did was to preach. He had a message, given him by God. He had a mission, given him by God. He would be faithful to that mission by being faithful to deliver that message – exactly and exclusively that message. He would leave the results in God’s hands, ‘so that your faith should not reset on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God’.
The Wycliffe Commentary makes note of a particular nuance of this matter of demonstration to which Paul appeals. When he speaks of preaching by ‘demonstration of the Spirit and of power’, he is talking about presenting proofs of the sort one would present in a court case. What was that evidence? Was it tongues? No. Tongues may stun or surprise the unbeliever, but they’re not really geared toward convincing him. Was it the prophecies? In Greece? Not likely. They had plenty of oracular pronouncements already. And, it clearly wasn’t philosophical niceties. Those are excluded explicitly by Paul’s statements. What remains?
What remains is the undeniable, incontrovertible evidence of the believer’s changed life. As Barnes writes, “Every converted sinner furnishes such a demonstration.” Every new life, painfully evident to those who had known the believer’s old life, presented, “conclusive proof of God’s power in them,” as the Wycliffe Commentary says. Here is unshakable evidence. Here is something that is not subject to debate, not subject to finer arguments more skillfully presented by somebody next month. Here is something that will not be shaken by awesome and mysterious display, nor by the absence of such. Here is bedrock faith. Why? Because it rests on God’s power alone. In plain point of fact, true faith cannot rest on anything else, for apart from God implanting that faith it simply will not come into existence.
Come back around to Paul’s point. Any faith that was the result of nothing more than human reasoning would be no faith at all, having no foundation and giving no hope. To take Calvin’s point, “No one would pronounce that to be solid truth which rests on mere elegance of speech.” That may overstate the case. Many today would pronounce that very thing. They would simply be wrong. True faith, Calvin insists, ought rightly to stand on the word of God alone. I might add that in order for faith to stand on that word, reason cannot simply be sidelined. It has its place. We cannot understand the word without reason. Let me stress, then, that the point here is faith not resting on reason alone, not on faith that rejects and denies reason. Calvin accepts the ‘second support’ to faith that is found in recognizing God by the effect of His influence, which is to say by the influence of the word of God (at least as Calvin is stating things). Barnes points more widely, but with similar conclusion. “The EFFECT of the gospel is the evidence to which the apostle appeals for its truth.”
Personally, I find it difficult to set the sign gifts amongst the effects of the Gospel. The effect of the Gospel is a changed life, indeed the arrival of Life on one previously dead. Every person who has felt the effect of the Gospel has already been resurrected in a very real sense, though we await that final resurrection into eternal life. You were dead in your sins. Now you are alive. That’s a resurrected state, unless we choose to think of that as simply surrected. I suppose if one has never been alive before, the first time is a surrection. But, such a term is clearly unknown to the language.
The effect of the influence of the Gospel is seen in the thief who has become a generous and jealous protector of other people’s property. It is seen in the wanton who has become chaste, the fighter who has ceased to fight, the committed sinner who has left that sin behind. It is seen in the simple fact that those who once found God to be at very least ignorable, and more truthfully an object of angry derision now love Him, honor Him, and seek to please Him. It is seen in the fact that we, who were once the proclaimed enemies of God are made not just abject, defeated slaves in His castle, but sons and daughters in His house. No argument, however eloquent, is going to achieve this. No display, however ethereal and mysterious, is going to achieve this. It is God and God alone.
This is the thing about faith: It’s not some muscle that we exercise so that we can show off our great faith. Great faith doesn’t need to show off. Great faith rests in its strength, rests in its object. Faith is also not some access to special incantations we can use to conjure up signs and wonders. Faith is not an amulet by which to bind God to our purposes. It is the evidence of things unseen. It is the visible manifestation of the invisible God – manifest in your devotion, your recreation. It is the visible manifestation of the invisible God as the things that used to define you (and not in particularly flattering terms) are one by one removed and replaced with traits worthy of a son of the Most High God. Faith is not something we work up. It is something which God, by His indwelling most Holy Spirit, imparts. Faith grows and flourishes not because we are perfecting our spiritual chops, but because God continues to will and to work in us, bringing us to that perfection He requires, and which only He can impart.
We are willing coworkers with God in this, and are called to work hard at this process of sanctification. Faith will grow as time advances, but not because we have worked it up. It will grow because God is faithful. He lets us have our part, because He loves us. But it remains, as Paul made evident in the last chapter, Jesus Christ start to finish.
Final Thoughts (02/02/17)
Pastor Dana often comments on the fact that we human beings are ‘wired for works’. We are determined that there must be some part of this business of faith that is our job, our effort. It must somehow finally depend on us. Of course, nothing could be more deadly. That which depends on me is already doomed to failure. I am changing. I am error prone. I am inconsistent, easily distracted, and otherwise wholly unfit for anything requiring steadfast, unswerving devotion.
But, still, we have that wiring to deal with. We are faced by a constant barrage of claims that the real Christian has to do this, or that. In the AG, the insistence was that the real Christian had to speak in tongues. You couldn’t be an officer of the church without it. You couldn’t even be a proper believer without it. This just had to be done. You have to do it. This has, I think, led to some of the worst corruption of tongues, as it leads to a need in folks to work up some sort of babble language as proof of their faith. It proves nothing. It proves you can babble, I suppose, or that you can be a people pleaser, however absurd the demand. If tongues is a gift, it should stand to reason that it’s not something you can ever expect to work up. It’s not something you can teach another to do, or be taught to do. It’s not some mental exercise in letting go of your tongue so something else can control it. It’s something the Holy Spirit provides for reasons of His own, empowers through His own power. It does not require training. It requires giving. It cannot be demanded, any more than you can demand a gift on any other occasion. If it is given in response to demand, it’s no gift.
We could run the list of sign gifts and make the same points. They aren’t matters of training, and they can’t be demanded. If God gives them, great! Use them according to instruction – and not one step beyond. If He doesn’t, great! They don’t serve a purpose for you, apparently. If they were of use to you, and good for you, you would have them because He gave them. Be content.
But, it’s not just a matter of gifts. We have other demands. We make other demands. We are all of us inclined to think that whatever particular work God has us doing, everybody should be doing, and if they aren’t doing it, this can only mean they’re not really Christians at all. We might soften that, and just make it an excuse to account ourselves superior, but it’s really the same sentiment. You have to do this or you’re just playing at this Christianity thing. If you’re not there for prayer night, you’re obviously not really committed to your faith. If you’re not out on the streets every weekend hunting down the lost and force-feeding them the gospel, you’re just using the Church as a social club. If you’re not devoted to really learning the Greek and Hebrew languages, pouring over commentaries hours on end, and carefully parsing out every last tidbit to be found in each Scripture, you clearly aren’t living according to God’s way.
It really doesn’t matter what emphasis you choose. If everybody else isn’t doing the same, they must be viewed with suspicion. And so, we lose sight of the whole body metaphor. Reading that the hand can’t be a nose, we come away thinking, yes, but we should all be hands. Anything that isn’t a hand is suspect. But, Jesus has told us directly what the work of God is, the work to which we are to commit ourselves for a lifetime: Believe in Him whom God has sent (Jn 6:29). Notice the reaction. “Show us a sign!” But, no sign was given, for the Sign was standing there.
We have talked of this lately, my beloved wife and me. Faith is not built on “you’ve got to.” Faith recognizes that, “you get to.” You get to do things with God. He doesn’t need you to do it, and frankly, you’re not helping so much as getting in the way, anyway. But, God has chosen to let you have a part in His work. You get to be part of His plan and His purpose. You get to help others grow in their faith. You get to pray for folks who are facing trials. You get to come to church of a Sunday to sing His praises. You get to hear His word, read His word, and know His presence with you. You get to love Him, knowing He loves you. You get to rest easy, knowing He has you well in hand, and your future is absolutely, utterly, unshakably secure.
Don’t let any argument shake you from this. Don’t let any hunger for power and mystery distract you from this. You already have everything you need for godliness and salvation. If God sees that you need something more, He will give it. If He sees that something more would only distract and hinder you, He’s loving enough to withhold it, whatever sort of tantrum you may throw. Be content. You are loved. You are saved. You are sealed by God Who changes not. Just do the work of the Christian: Believe. No more, no less.
We are all of us Corinthians, and don’t let your pride convince you otherwise. We are all inclined to wander in one direction or the other, to abandon the simple path God has laid out for us in preference for some convoluted quest. Abandon the we musts, and the we must haves. Abide in Christ as He abides in you. Believe Him. Trust Him. Love Him and obedience to Him will follow.
