New Thoughts: (07/25/15-08/01/15)
Before we can hope to properly interpret this passage, we must first answer one question as best we can. Who is Paul including in ‘we’? Our inclination is to simply accept that Paul is speaking of something common to all Christians in all ages. This may be the case, but I am not absolutely convinced of it. That said, I am not entirely certain how I might arrive at a firm answer. Is there evidence of Paul using such a royal ‘we’ in regard to himself? Is that a necessary understanding of his usage here? That is to say, are the only choices Paul speaking of himself exclusively, or all believers inclusively? It seems to me that there’s at least the third possibility of Paul meaning himself together with Apollos, or maybe together with the Apostles.
Let me attempt to make the case. What is the immediate issue Paul is addressing here? It is that of factionalism. And, what has formed the basis for these factions? It is not necessarily a choice of apostle, but it’s not far from it. Let us say a choice of teacher. They’re almost in that place we see in Rabbinical history, where the learned sought to prove their learnedness by whom they quoted. I am of Hillel, I am of so and so. But, Paul is not addressing this issue by seeking to establish his own supremacy. He is addressing it by demonstrating equality. We who teach are of one mind with one doctrine and one goal. We work together, not in hopes of establishing our own little fiefdoms.
There is also the larger issue of spiritual pride which Paul addresses throughout most of this letter, and that is clearly in view in this second chapter. As we saw in the previous section, the general thrust is that Paul does have wisdom to impart, but they were incapable of receiving it when he was there. Arguably, they remain incapable, because they have not matured as they ought. For all their display of spiritual gifts, they are not demonstrating spiritual understanding in what they have become. Faith should rest on the power of God, not the wisdom of men, Paul has said (1Co 2:5), but their factionalism demonstrates that they are doing the opposite, building up a faith in this man or that.
Given these two developments of spiritual pride and factionalism, I can think of little that would be more dangerous than to feed that with the idea that we, including you proud ones, have direct lines to heaven, hearing from the Spirit and speaking from the Spirit. Indeed, the fact that Paul is having to bring so severe a correction would seem conclusive proof that they do not speak from the Spirit, but from the flesh. This is not to say that they do not have the Spirit indwelling. I must insist that the indwelling Spirit is necessarily the common lot of the Christian. The two concepts are synonymous, and as I understand it, the Spirit’s abiding within is a necessary precursor to being able to believe. Isn’t that what Paul is saying here, as in other places?
So, then, to the degree that ‘we’ speak things taught by the Spirit in words provided by the Spirit, it seems to me there must be a somewhat restrictive sense to ‘we’. If all Christians speak spiritual doctrines in spiritual words, then the Spirit is chaotic, for we have a seemingly endless and often contradictory array of doctrines in Christianity today. We can’t all be right, given the contradictions. So, then, either the Spirit speaks nonsense and we hear clearly, or He speaks to some, but many are claiming His revelation where all they really have is vain imaginations. The answer of Scripture seems clear enough, that He does not speak as one insane, but as a God of order. That leaves us in the position of needing to realize the limitations of passages such as this.
Last night at dinner we heard an example of just what can come of too loose an application of the spirit of revelation. This poor girl had a brother who had come under the sway of some sect which presented themselves as Christian. Yet, the things he was insisting upon as doctrine were painfully, terribly at odds with the clear message of Scripture. The interpretations were in some case wooden, taking figurative language as literal, in other cases nearly fabricated out of nothing but ether. The end result was a man declaring as clearly revealed truths things that were clearly untrue, unwise, and utterly counter to God’s own Law. The end result, in terms of spiritual fruit, was even worse, as the only seeds being sown by this man must be accounted as tares, causing dissent and distress amongst his hearers, and rather than recognizing his own error, insisting that the outcome, however negative, was clearly God’s will. At one level, I have to agree, in that all that transpires does so in accordance with His will. But, as to the reason, I think the poor man was blind as a bat. His efforts to appear holy and obedient only served to remove himself farther from grace, and to delay any likelihood of his family members from arriving anywhere near salvation.
There may be a time and a place for so severe an approach, but it seems that to offer out such dire condemnation without the message of the Gospel is painfully at odds with the example we are left in Scripture. It may give one the emotional charge of acting like the prophets of old. But, then, I don’t see that the prophets of old ever got much of a charge out of the woes they were called to pronounce. It was more a duty that must be done of obedience, but one generally done with great regret and sorrow. It was also a duty undertaken only after there was clear and relatively public evidence that here was a man directed by God Himself. Here was one of the restrictive ‘we’. The record of Scripture is that it is a very select few who can rightly claim that status. Their words have been the stuff of Scripture. They have been so because the words were not so much theirs as God’s.
If anybody had the mind of Christ, to write and interpret the words of the Spirit, it was this select group. By and large, I would count as suspect any other claimant to that capacity. The one who says, “The Lord says,” and is not reading from the pages of Scripture should be treated with utmost suspicion. At minimum, his words should be checked carefully against those Scriptures. In fairness, having taken on the language of the prophet, he should take upon himself the penalty of the prophet as assurance. If any false message be found in his history or his future, let that one be stoned, that his lies not taint the people of God. Severe? Yes. As it should be. It is no light matter to lay false claim to speaking for God.
At the same time, there are aspects of what Paul says that I believe he would agree are part of the common lot of the Christian. We do all receive the Spirit so as to know what God has so freely given to us. The fact that we have understood at least enough to receive salvation is already evidence of this by his own words. For, if we had not the Spirit, we could not understand. Beyond this, though, I’m not sure I would go. Do we all speak spiritual words? In the sense that we speak of the things of heaven, or discuss Scripture, I could see that apply, but I don’t think that’s what Paul is saying here. I think he’s discussing something more: The issue of revelation knowledge. I know there are plenty who lay claim to that today, but most don’t understand the terms correctly, and those who do are quite often charlatans seeking to make a name for themselves at Christ’s expense.
Are we all in a place where we are not appraised by any man? Where then is church discipline? This, it seems to me, must have a more narrow application. But, I will consider that further in its place. Do we all have the mind of Christ? In the word He has revealed to His prophets and apostles, assuredly we do. Do we have it as some internal state of our own, a direct line, as it were? I won’t preclude that, I guess. Being indwelt of the Spirit, we do have this sort of access. But, I think many read this with a sense of pride wholly inappropriate to the child of the living God. He remains far beyond our capacity and ever shall. Will this change when we are received into heaven? I have my doubts. I know we are told that we shall know Him as we are known. But, I do not really see that we can expect to be fully like Him in wisdom and knowledge. God, after all, will not cease being God upon our arrival. Neither shall we cease being created beings. The gap may lessen, but the gap remains.
Now, let me turn to a bit of application that I think we can take as our own, even if we are not fully part of Paul’s ‘we’. Let me shorten the first two verses rather significantly. “We have received. We also speak.” He is talking about things given by the Spirit of God. We can include ourselves here as recipients of the Scriptures, granted understanding by that same Spirit of God. That we can understand is indeed one of the things freely given, isn’t it? But, how do we walk with that? We have received. Freely, without limit it seems. But, if we have received so as to horde it for our own use, satisfied with our own salvation, then I dare say we haven’t really received at all. “Freely you received, freely give” (Mt 10:8). We have received. We also speak. It’s the same message.
If I may wander for a moment, think about the setting into which Jesus spoke those words. He is giving His disciples instructions. Go heal. Go raise the dead. God cleanse lepers and cast out demons. But, don’t acquire gold for your money belt in doing this. That you can do it at all is something freely given to you. You didn’t pay for the privilege or for training. Don’t you dare go charging for the results. What should we say, then, of these sundry healing ministries that grow wealthy on the proceeds of ‘training’? What should we say to schools of prophecy that charge tuition? Is there a place for such things? I understand that we could apply the principle of not muzzling the ox while it threshes applies (Dt 25:4). The worker is worthy of his wages (Mt 10:10). After all, this is the same passage. It’s ok to make a living. It’s not ok to make a killing.
I understand that ministries take finances to maintain. But, when maintaining means maintaining a lavish lifestyle, no. When maintaining involves personal jets, multiple mansions, and sequined suits, something is terribly, horribly wrong. When the ministry devolves to “Just send money”, it is no longer a ministry, if ever it was. We have received and we impart. There is no record of Paul accepting money for his labors, and strong evidence that he worked his own trade of tent making to support himself rather than require his support of those he served. To what degree do our ministers and such maintain this approach today?
I do not in any way begrudge the minister his salary. I have seen his salary and it is modest for the work he does. I have seen larger ministries who are careful to have their finances reviewed to ensure that the proceeds they obtain from those they serve go not towards enriching the management, but into the serious work of ministry. It may go to buy air time, to run the presses, to maintain websites and bandwidth, or even to building projects. But, all that is done is done to the glory of God, not the aggrandizement of man. This I dare say is good and acceptable in the Lord’s sight. But, when men start insisting that God wants His people living in style, I think somebody’s either missed the message, made excuses for his own excesses, or simply doesn’t care much what God wants at all.
But, let’s take it closer to home. We have received and we impart. How are you with the imparting part? I know I am horrible about it. It’s one thing to post these studies on the web, where it is unlikely anybody apart from me and the robots ever look at them. And even there, the robots probably have read them more than I have. What about approaching unbelievers? Or even other believers who may not be part of the same church or denomination or set of secondary tenets? Am I so free to give what I have received? Or, do I hide behind the command not to cast my pearls before swine? Praise God, somebody cast those pearls before me! Were it not so, I should still be in my sty. But, they had received and they imparted, and I got the benefit thereof. I did not pay for this. Silver and gold could not purchase what I have found – what I have been freely given. But, it wasn’t given to me to keep to myself. It was given that I might give and give freely. It was given in overflowing abundance so that I might know that I have more than more than enough to share with one and all. “Give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over. By your standard of measure, it will be measured to you in return” (Lk 6:38). Words to live by. Words to live for.
Of course, we know that even as we obey the responsibility set upon us, the commandment given us, we have no assurance whatsoever as to the response. “The world can’t receive the Spirit of truth, because it doesn’t see Him or know Him” (Jn 14:17). “The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God. He can’t. They are spiritually appraised.” Hard, and stony soil, the seed may land upon him, but it finds no place to take root. It is washed away by the lightest rain, pecked away by the birds, and that patch of soil is left just as barren as before. But, you know this Spirit of truth because He abides in you and will be with you. “We have received the Spirit who is from God.” Truly, the Apostles speak with one voice. And the voice with which they speak is the voice of the Son. There is nothing surprising about this, but everything of assurance. Here is the Word of Truth, imparted to men of the truth by the Spirit of Truth. Faithfully have they interpreted these things to us. Faithfully have they recorded them. And, faithfully, God has preserved them against all attack, against all odds, that we may today read those words and understand what it is the Lord has done for us. Glory to His name!
[07/27/15] The end of verse 13 presents a bit of a challenge for interpretation. This can be seen in the variety of phrasings that have been used to do so. Paul, having noted that his doctrine and his very words are things taught by the Spirit ‘who is from God’, then describes his action as pneumatikois pneumatika sungkrinontes. The first two words are actually variants of the same term, in the first case, a dative adjective, and in the other, an accusative one. In the first case, we have the object, the ‘what’ answer, and in the other case, a direct object. So far, this is not terribly helpful in arriving at an understanding of Paul’s intent. What we can see is the root pneuma underlying both terms, with the kos ending adding the adjectival sense of ‘pertaining to’. Thus, we have ‘of the spirit’, or ‘pertaining to the spirit’. The verbal action lies in sungkrinontes, to combine or connect so as to form a judgment.
I’ve been reading a series of police detective novels of late, and you can see this activity play out in their line of work. One gathers various bits of evidence, combining this bit of information with that, collating what is known to arrive at some idea of what exactly happened and why, as well as who should be held accountable. Now, in this case, Paul is not seeking to solve a crime scene, but he is assuredly concerned with arriving at the truth of the matter. So, he is combining what pertains to the spirit with what pertains to the spirit to arrive at truth. The NASB, if we remove the italicized interjections, reads, “combining spiritual with spiritual.” What they interpolate into the passage is that the first refers to thoughts and the second to words.
Other translations offer other ideas of Paul’s intent. The ESV tries out, ‘interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual’. The NET has, ‘explaining spiritual things to spiritual people’, which is relatively similar. Then, the NKJV offers, ‘comparing spiritual things with spiritual’. How shall we resolve this? Can we? In the most immediate context, we have Paul speaking of what he (or we) received from the Spirit, and what is thereafter spoken in words taught by the Spirit. One can see how the NASB might decide to interpolate thoughts and words as the things being combined.
The ESV and NET seem to be looking downstream from this phrase to find an answer. For, Paul next turns his attention to the spiritual man versus the natural. The ‘spiritual man’ is again pneumatikos, yet another variation on the same word, in this case nominative, or naming. I suppose this understanding could also be arrived at by looking farther back, at Paul’s point about speaking wisdom to the mature back in verse 6. But, I have to say the idea of thought and word seems the nearest to a natural understanding of his point, if you’ll pardon the use of natural in connection with the spiritual.
I’m not sure I would choose ‘thought’, but ‘word’ seems right. Again, we have reference to both the source of doctrine and the word choices made in conveying that doctrine in immediate context, and in both cases, referred back to the Spirit. The content of Apostolic doctrine – and let me stress, not solely Pauline doctrine – is received from the Holy Spirit, sent by God at the behest of Christ to be our tutor, adviser, and lawyer. The words by which this doctrine is made known are likewise words given by the Holy Spirit. Does this suggest the apostles are akin to the Delphic oracles, men under trance, fully controlled by some spirit which speaks through their lips? Are they just passive vessels of revelation? Not as such. Insomuch as they are given to know received wisdom, revealed from heaven itself, yes, they are passive vessels. They did not actively devise their doctrine. They received it. Insomuch as the Holy Spirit guides their preaching, their writing, again one could suggest they are passive instruments, played by God. But, it is clear that they have their own voices. Paul and Peter and John may teach the same Gospel, but their personalities and particular emphases are clearly to be seen. I would suggest more of a middle voice sense to their labors of teaching. It is Spirit and man together, laboring as one, joined in the work of the kingdom. And, this is as it should be.
So, then, what to make of the idea of interpreting spiritual things to spiritual people? To my ears, this seems at least marginally at odds with the way Jesus describes the work of the preacher. His doctrine must assuredly be Spirit-provided, and one hopes His words are Spirit-directed. But, his audience, as I understand it, consists of anyone who will stop and listen. It is effective only where the Spirit likewise fills the recipient and opens the ears to hear to good effect. But, the message delivered is no different when delivered to the natural, or fleshly, man. It’s not the message that changes, only the reception.
Likewise, where the NKJV speaks of comparing spiritual this with spiritual that, it seems to me to miss the point somewhat. While Paul may be making some reference to the supposedly spiritual mystery religions, or to the spiritual pride of the Corinthian church in its then-present state, that does not appear to be the thrust of this immediate passage. We received, and we also speak. In both cases, the Holy Spirit is actively involved, as He must be, for who else can know the thoughts of God (1Co 2:11)? Now, Paul is adding the point that the Holy Spirit is just as essential in receiving and accepting the things taught by Him.
The GNT moves into verse 14 saying, “Whoever does not have the Spirit cannot receive the gifts that come from God's Spirit.” But, Paul is not discussing gifts here. He is discussing Truth. The natural man does not, cannot accept the things of the Spirit of God. He is unequipped to do so, because it requires spiritual appraisal to accept them. This is deliberate receipt of what is given, this acceptance, unlike the rather more neutral receiving of verse 12. It’s interesting. Strong seems to find this accepting to be more neutral than receiving. But, both Zhodiates and Thayer reverse the sense. Receiving implies nothing about preference or pleasure. It is simply taking in hand. I think of some act akin to taking hold of a doorknob. That may not be quite the idea, but it will suffice for the moment. There’s no particular pleasure in doing so, no real preference for this doorknob over any other. It is taken in hand because it is there and it is needful for opening the door. But, this accepting is something else. Thayer describes it as embracing, approving, making it one’s own. Zhodiates speaks of receiving deliberately and gladly. If the former referred to opening the door of a car, this latter has more the sense of being given the keys.
In present application, it’s the difference between hearing the words of the preacher and truly laying hold of the significance and truth of his message. It’s the distinction between a hearer of the word and a doer, or between the fertile ground and the stony.
Here, however, is the thing we need to lay hold of ourselves: Apart from the Spirit, the mind, being of the flesh, not only will not accept what the gospel speaks. It can’t. It is impossible for the good news to be received to good purpose except the Spirit is already there. This gets at the heart of that particularly Reformed understanding of the order of salvation. And, lest you think it is but one verse being used to build a doctrine, this is not an isolated statement here in 1 Corinthians. The same message was delivered to the church in Rome. “The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God. It does not subject itself to His law, and couldn’t if it wanted to” (Ro 8:7). I am paraphrasing somewhat, but not much. There is simply no way for the mind unassisted by the Spirit to receive this. It cannot subject itself. It cannot accept. It will not perceive in the cross anything beyond foolishness and offense. The sum of it is that if the Spirit has not already been sent forth to indwell the heart of that poor man who has not yet accepted the gospel, he never will. If the Spirit has not already been sent forth to open the ears and the understanding, the best preaching of man, though Spirit-filled and Spirit-led, will be to no avail.
Here is comfort and humility for the preacher. Assuming he is faithful in his duties, there is no fault to be laid at his feet should his preaching fail to produce converts. The sower sows, and he is called to sow no matter the receptiveness of the soil at hand. For the exact same reasons, the preacher has nothing of which to boast should he have ever so many converts made through his ministrations. Had the Spirit not been at work both in him and ahead of him, all his talents would achieve nothing. It’s not the preacher or the preaching, in the end, though these remain the means ordained by Christ for the spreading of His kingdom. It is the Spirit of God first and last. This Truth does not require us to assume that every believer is made a conduit for revelation knowledge. It does not even require us to accept that any man living is such a conduit. Were the Bible the sum of all knowledge as concerns God, it would be more than enough. It is more than enough. But, without the Holy Spirit sent abroad to touch and mend the elect, none would read to advantage, none would hear to advantage. It is the Spirit of God first and last, that no man may boast.
What happens, though, when we overvalue the more manifest and flashy ‘things of the Spirit’? The Truth of Scripture gets lost in speculation. The simple message of the Cross is no longer enough. We must have supernatural occurrences with such frequency as to make them natural. It is possible, to be sure, for men of God to be used to miraculous effect by the Spirit of God without falling into the traps of distraction and pride, but it is clearly an exceedingly rare event. The Apostles, to the degree that we see them in the record, managed it. Paul will later boast to some degree of his capacities in these spiritual gifts, but only so as to downplay the spectacle and deflate the pride of those who make more of the gifts than the cross. It goes back to his earlier point. “I determined to know nothing among you but Christ, and Him crucified” (1Co 2:1), so that whatever boasting might remain in Corinth, it would be in the Lord and not the man (1Co 1:31).
Given that the Spirit of God taught Paul the words by which to teach the wisdom he had received from God, and this same Spirit of the same God taught Paul, John, James, and all the others whose words compose the Scriptures, it might seem to us that each word we read should bear the same meaning at all times. On the face of it, such thinking should be seen as misguided, and yet there are those who will hold to exactly that. This word meant x on this occasion when used by this author. Therefore, it means exactly x on every occasion regardless the author. But, that is not the way language works, and it is not the way the Spirit works. Yes, there will be a primary definition most commonly found to be the sense of the word. But, so often, words may have multiple meanings or shades of meaning, and particular authors may attach particular significance to particular words.
One well understood example of this would be the use of the term logos. It always has some signification of word behind it. It may have implications of intelligence or rational thought. And, when John uses it, it often has the very specific – and specific to him – significance of being a title for Christ. Knowing that John uses it in this specialized sense does not permit us to export that specialized sense to other authors. When Paul talks about speaking in words in this passage, though Christ is in view (we have the mind of Christ), he is not saying that he speaks in Christ. To read such a thing into this passage would be an invalid mode of interpretation.
That said, words do have meaning, and that meaning is intended to be understood by the use of specific words. These authors did not just make up terms, or use them to convey secret meanings known only to the initiate. They used words that all would know to impart meanings that all would understand. That holds in spite of what Paul is saying of the need for the Spirit here. Understanding the message conveyed by the words does not necessitate accepting them or properly appraising them. We have all been in classes where the teacher went on and on with his lesson. We understood the words spoken. There was no language barrier to overcome. But, we did not retain what was heard. We may have absorbed the facts without reaching the real knowledge being imparted. We may read the pages of Scripture, understanding well enough what it says, but yet fail to arrive at even the first glimmerings of wisdom. The same applies here. Paul uses words with meanings that are intended to be understood. And yet, what he is saying is not always easy to lay hold of. He also has those terms that he uses with a particular, or we might say technical, meaning.
In this passage, for example, we have a contrast between pneumatikos and psuchikos, spiritual and soulish, as they would typically be distinguished. Yet, it is not the soulish aspect of man that is in view, as if spirit and soul were in conflict somehow. It is more the heavenly versus the earthly. Further, we cannot consistently view these terms as distinct. Often, they are used in nearly synonymous fashion by other authors. So, to the degree that Paul makes a distinction between the two, we cannot assume that distinction holds in other places. There are places where a distinction is made, and then we see the two terms take on particular definitions. There are other places where only one or the other is in view, and they may actually be referring to the same aspect of man. So, we have occasions where psuchikos has more in common with pneuma, and others (such as here) where the meaning is nearer to sarx, the flesh.
In yet other locations, we find man described in more of a three-fold fashion, as pneuma, psuche, and soma, spirit, soul, and instinct. But, again, that division cannot be assumed where it is not explicit. And, where only two out of three are mentioned, the contrast in view differs.
What is the contrast we have here? We are given pneumatikos, the spiritual man, and psuchikos, which the NASB translates as the natural man. That is a fairly consistent rendering across the translations, although you’ll get a few, like the NET with unbeliever, or the NIV with ‘man without the Spirit’, who seek to make Paul’s meaning clearer. In fairness, the natural man is so because he is without the Spirit, or at least is thinking and acting apart from the Spirit. I think it’s fair to say that the Christian is still capable of functioning in ways the reflect more of the natural man than the spiritual. The indwelling of the Spirit, much as we might wish it were otherwise, does not guarantee consistently spiritual behavior. We seek to grow nearer to such a reality, but there is ever the need for growth.
Zhodiates suggests a distinction between man’s vertical window and his horizontal window. That is to say, it is the pneuma of man which thinks about God and heavenly matters. It is the psuche of man which thinks about your surroundings and circumstances. Wherever there is a contrast between these two, one thing we can say with confidence is that pneuma is the higher function. Thayer offers this idea, that the soul is the element of life (and therefore held in common with the animals), whereas the spirit is the element of faith. That latter sets us apart from the animals, assuredly. And, in some applications, we must acknowledge that all men are possessed of a spirit. We must also acknowledge that Paul’s use of the term here signifies something more. For, whether pneumatikos or psuchikos, he is referring to man, not animal. Of the particular significance given to pneumatikos here, Martin Luther said, “It is the house where faith and God’s word are at home.” That is the particular distinction we can find Paul applying. The words of the Spirit, the Truth of the Spirit has found a home in the pneumatikos, in large part because the pneumatikos is one in whom the Pneuma of God abides, having taken up residence. He is present. He is opening heart and mind and soul and spirit to receive.
The soul is not, in itself evil. The call of Scripture is not for us to somehow dispose of the soul in favor of the spirit. What Paul is saying here is that the soul apart from the spirit – more properly apart from the Spirit – is insufficient. It will not accept spiritual truth because it cannot. It is not equipped to do so. The vertical window, if you will, is slammed shut and nothing can get through. The light may shine. The one within may see the trees waving in the wind outside, but the wind cannot enter. Meaning cannot take hold. Something blocks the way, isolating the man within his earthbound soul.
We have another set of terms in this passage which are prone to being given more hidebound meaning than is proper. One of them I’ve already mentioned: logos. What precedes that term almost immediately is laloumen. Paul’s meaning is sufficiently plain. We speak in words. We laloumen in logos. Clearly, he is not distinguishing between mere sound and language. He is not claiming on the one hand to make inarticulate sounds, and on the other articulate ones. The two are connected. Indeed, laloumen does not preclude words or meaning. Attempts to retain a rigid, wooden distinction between these two words must fail. Sometimes they are set in opposition to one another in exactly such a sense, as comparing non-intelligent speech with intelligent. That is not necessarily the case, though. The fact that lalia, the root for laloumen, is used in reference to speaking in tongues while logos is not neither implies that there is no intelligible content to such speaking nor does it require that such speaking is done without words.
There is that school of thought (to use the term rather loosely) that supposes speaking in tongues must be gibberish. Indeed, you’ll find those who seek to impart this gift by instructing their recipients to either repeat known words faster and faster until they are reduced to incomprehensible garbage, or to simply begin blathering out one syllable or another repeatedly. Neither of these begin to approach the sense of ‘speaking in other languages’, certainly. If we look at the first occurrence of this, on the day of Pentecost, it is clear that while those speaking may not have known the language in which they spoke, those who heard them did. There was still intelligible content to the words. It was simply conveyed in a language not known to the speaker.
It is equally clear that in other cases, such as those Paul will address later in this letter, where whatever that language was, it was not one known to anybody present. There was no interpreter capable of interpreting. The Spirit of God, having provided the words, can be presumed to have understood the words, but no other. This is not, so far as I’ve ever seen in Scripture, some means of sneaking a message through the domain of the devil so it can reach heaven unmolested. And yes, I’ve heard this idea taught. Neither is it random noises utterly devoid of content. Groanings beyond words, yes (Ro 8:26), but note the context. The Spirit Himself is interceding. Are we to suppose that He falls into a state where He’s just throwing off noises to which God Himself could not assign meaning? It should be obvious that this is not the case. If He is interceding, He is stating the case in our favor. Remember, the Holy Spirit is our Advocate, our Attorney in the court of heaven. He intends to be understood by the Judge, if not by us.
From all this, I would draw the conclusion that, like so many of the things of the Spirit, much of what lays claim to that label is counterfeit. It may be well-intentioned, but it is counterfeit. When the Spirit speaks, He conveys understanding. He edifies. That is a point best reserved for much farther into this letter, but let it start to sink in even now. Whatever else may be said of Paul, he clearly intends to instruct, and he cannot do so by incoherent mumblings. He uses words. He has received in. He also speaks out. He speaks words that convey wisdom, but the wisdom he conveys is not of the sort men impart. It is not of the sort men can impart. It is wisdom taught by the Spirit. That brings in a third term: didactois. He uses his voice, his words, to express intelligent thought as instructed by the teaching of the Holy Spirit. What, then, is the claim? His doctrine is given by the Holy Spirit, taught to him personally by the Spirit. It is received by those in whom the Spirit dwells. It is imparted as directed by the Spirit.
And that wraps us back around to that odd phrase of combining spiritual with spiritual. But, as that concludes this line of thought, perhaps its meaning comes clearer. We received the Spirit of God so as to know the things given to us by God, so as to speak those things in words taught by the Spirit. The knowledge is there, the wisdom. The capacity to impart it in ways that can be understood in retained is there. It is Spirit first and last. He interpreted it to Paul. He instructed Paul as to how he could instruct others. He interprets Paul to his hearers. Paul’s part in this is combining spiritual with spiritual: Doctrine with teaching. He knows, and he can impart to others what he knows. Again, I arrive at the simple truth that the best teacher of sound Christian doctrine is nothing unless the Spirit provides his words. Even then, the lesson will be to no avail unless the Spirit provides the student with understanding. We are almost ancillary to the process, and yet we remain integral to it, because thus has God ordained that things should be done.
One last note I should like to make about Paul’s declaration here. When he says ‘we speak’, he does so as a Present Indicative. This syntax has the implication that his speaking is a continuous and contemporaneous action. He’s constantly speaking, and what he is constantly speaking is what the Spirit taught. It’s not that he came to Corinth once with a message and if you were there and you got it great, but if you missed it, too bad. It’s not that he went to them with this message, and wandered off later on some other business. This is Paul. He speaks. He speaks to high and low, slave and free, male and female, Gentile and Jew. It doesn’t matter. He was given a mission by God: Go and preach. That’s what he does, no matter where, no matter when. We heard this earlier on. I wasn’t sent to baptize. I’m not against it, and I did it where it was necessary, but that’s not my job. My job is to preach the gospel, the message of the cross, with the words given me by my Lord and Master. That I shall do. We have received. We also speak.
Coming to verse 15 we arrive at a challenging statement. Let me suggest there are actually two challenges in that statement. Let’s begin with the first clause. He who is spiritual appraises all things. Clearly, this connects back to the preceding point that the natural man cannot appraise the things of God, since he is unequipped to do so. So we have this comparison of the natural man who can only appraise the natural, and the spiritual man who appraises both natural and spiritual. There is, at minimum, a demonstration of the superiority of the spiritual man. This is not, of course, a matter of bragging. It is simply stating the facts. But, with those facts come implications. We look upon the natural man through our spiritually informed eyes and find him wanting. He is but half a man, missing the better part of himself.
There is that cliché amongst Christians regarding how man walks around with a Christ-shaped hole in him until he receives the Gospel, and Christ takes up His residence in that hole. Man is incomplete apart from Christ. The Christ-shaped hole business may sound a bit corny, but it makes the point. The natural man is an incomplete man. But, turn that around. The spiritual man appraises all things. What if that spiritual man takes up the idea that natural things are beneath his consideration? There is that other bit of Christian jargon about being too spiritually minded to be any earthly good. Again, corny but true. If we are granted this capacity to appraise all things by God, and then limit ourselves to only appraising those things we deem spiritual, are we not likewise incomplete men?
This is the way of dualism, which found expression in Manachianism, and to some degree in other forms of Gnosticism. Flesh bad, spirit good. You’ll never apprehend the great mysteries if you remain earthbound in your thinking. This dualism has found expression in many sects and at many times. The ascetics of the early era of Christianity were one case. The hermit goes out seeking to eschew all the trappings of earthly existence so as to focus entirely upon the heavenly. The monastic movement was, in some ways, the same effort. Eliminate as much of worldly influence as possible, even talking in some cases, so as to focus more completely on the spiritual. But, there is nothing in the message of the Bible to suggest that what is earthly is evil. Far from it! God looked upon His creation and repeatedly proclaimed, “It is good.” On what basis, then, shall we look upon it and say, “No it’s not”?
We may look upon what sinful man has done to the environment and find some cause to pronounce upon the evils done. But, even there, one could take an opposite view and give thanks for what God has enabled man to do. Does he despoil nature? Oft times the answer must be yes. But, he also makes incredible use of the things of nature to better the life of man, and shall we complain of this? Shall we pronounce modern medicine the work of the devil? Some would. Most would not. If a man is healed through the work of surgeon or physician, is this any less the work of God than otherwise? Is the farmer who works alone any more or less a farmer than the one who is part of a large operation? Does the beef produced by the one somehow attain to higher purity simply because it was the product of one or the other? There may be some small-farm produce that is of higher quality than others. But, the same could be said comparing small farm to small farm. It’s not the scale that makes the difference, but the care.
For all that, shall we declare food to be evil because it’s earthly? Shall we reject all forms of medical assistance because they are things created by the hands of man? I suppose we shall then need to reject clothing and housing as well; refuse both automobile and bicycle, instead walking barefoot and naked through life until the elements and want of nourishment take their toll. Now, that’s spiritual!
But, that’s not the call of Scripture. The spiritual man appraises all things. He is supposed to be complete, with awareness and understanding of the Godward, vertical part of himself, and also awareness and understanding of the earthward, horizontal part. This is not to say that when focused on the earthward, he should neglect the Godward. Neither is it to say that when focused on the Godward, he is right to neglect the earthward. “If anyone does not provide for his own, especially those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever” (1Ti 5:8). To be such a ‘believer’ as sets earthly needs and responsibilities aside in pursuit of a more purely spiritual existence is to be worse than an unbeliever! Such a one has not appraised all things. Arguably, such a one has appraised little to nothing at all. We are not called or granted to neglect the natural. What we are called to do is appraise it, and to do so in light of the spiritual.
What does this business of appraising entail? There is a sense of judgment to it, but there is also the matter of investigation and scrutinizing. It is the effort of making an informed assessment. When we take a piece of jewelry to be appraised, what are we asking that appraiser to determine? There is the matter of genuineness. Are the stones real, or imitation? Is the gold solid or plate? Then, there is the question of quality and workmanship. The general question could be stated simply as, “What’s this worth?” Similar questions apply in appraising a property. The house may look good, but what’s hidden beneath the exterior? Are there issues with the foundation? With termites? With flooding? How old are the roof, the windows, the siding? What’s it worth?
To appraise wisdom is a similar matter. We don’t just take the speaker’s word for it. “This is wise.” We don’t, I should also say, simply assume that whatever our teacher pronounces is fact. We investigate. We question. We scrutinize and form a judgment. Hearing the direction our educational system has been heading, this should certainly be true of those who teach us matters of science, history, and the like. Certainly, anything they might have to say that touches on ethics or morals is going to be suspect, and should be most thoroughly investigated before being accepted. The same should be all the more true of those who propose to teach us of the things of God. The preacher should not be heard with skepticism – or, if that seems necessary, perhaps it’s time to find a better preacher. But, he should not be granted to speak as an unquestionable expert, either. The best teacher we can ever hope to find remains but a man, and is therefore finite and fallible in his thinking.
Appraise what you are taught. How do we do this? Certainly, our first tool is the word of Scripture. If the teaching does not accord with the clear message of the gospel, and with all that the prophets and apostles have written, then it must be most thoroughly rejected. But, it may be that our own understanding is what needs rejecting, so care must be taken to ascertain where the error lies, lest we wind up expunging the truth instead of the lie. Paul points us to something equally critical to the task: We must have the Holy Spirit indwelling, and more important still, we must be listening as He teaches.
Here’s where we get bogged down. Some will insist they will just listen to the Spirit’s prompting, and if they get a good feeling about what they’ve heard, well, it must be true. If they are not ‘at peace’ about what they’ve heard, it must be false. This passes for discernment. But, is it? If the only appraisal applied is that of feeling, spiritual intuition if you will, how is the spirit tested? How is it even determined whether it is spirit or simply personal imagination? The appraisal is insufficient. At the same time, if we neglect the Spirit in favor of our own powers of rational thought, we also fall short. We are operating on the level of the natural man, and ignoring the spiritual. Natural powers of reason are insufficient to the task, but are a necessary component of the task. We do not set aside rational thought when we become a Christian. Far be it from us to think such a thing! Paul is eminently rational. Peter and John are perfectly rational. The Bible is, after all, a rational proposition. Here is the case for Christ. Here is a presentation of the historical record, with annotations to demonstrate how all of this has centered on His incarnation and ascension. This is what it was all about, and in these 66 books you have both the evidence that this was the result of long and superhuman planning, and that it truly happened in real time among real people with real results.
But, to the natural man, all that evidence is as nothing. He cannot appraise it correctly. We can. We can also appraise the things of this world correctly because we have been given the necessary tools of both thought and spirit. We are equipped to look at the world around us through the eyes of the Spirit. When bad things happen to us, we can do more than grumble at the unfairness of it all. We can – we don’t always, but we can – consider what it is God is doing through these circumstances. We can ask what it is He would have us to do in these circumstances.
Why has He set us in the workplace He has? Why has He seen fit to make us part of this particular church family? Why this particular human family? If our spouse is just somebody with whom we found the chemistry worked, or who happens to satisfy some particular needs of ours, then our spouse is undervalued. He or she will become disposable should something change. But, if he or she was specifically arranged by God? If our meeting, connecting, and marrying were things He ordained and ensured would come to pass? Perhaps this deserves more care and attention. Does this preclude the possibility of what we would consider bad marriages? Does it require us to insist that however bad, abusive and even physically threatening the marriage, the couple must persevere in it because that’s what God wants? That would seem a tall order. It would seem to require that we suppose those who entered into the marriage were not fallen creatures, not capable of being mistaken in hearing God’s leading when they married. The evidence would seem to indicate otherwise. But, even if that marriage ought not to persist, one ought still to ask why He saw fit to have it thus for a season. What am I to learn from this, Lord? What ought I to do with it? Is there something here that, even in parting, becomes an opportunity to minister to him or her? Is it simply about learning to be perhaps a bit more understanding of others and what they’re going through? Is it about setting aside my own religiosity? The possibilities are endless. But, we ought to appraise them through the lens of the Spirit and the Word together.
This is all well and good, but Paul emphasizes another comparison in this verse. The spiritual man appraises all things, but is appraised by no man. What to make of this? It seems pretty clear that there’s a degree of hyperbole in Paul’s statement. After all, is he not appraising those Corinthians? Is he, then, making distinction between spiritual and natural still? Perhaps. But, even there, it’s not by way of setting the spiritual man above the natural as though above the law. Paul is clear that the Christian should be the model citizen, even though the system is run by natural man, developed by natural man, and as corrupt as natural man. There comes a point where disobedience is required of the Christian, but that point is not at the first inconvenience or even at the point where persecution comes. It is not when the law permits what is ungodly, only when it insists we participate therein.
Neither is there room in this idea for those who would set aside all responsibility for past actions because now they’re a new man. I’m a Christian now, so I apologize and all, but that wasn’t me. I shall not make reparations. No. That is more clearly evidence that it’s not a Christian you’ve become, but something else. Far be it from the believer to shirk responsibility for his actions! How is this repentance? No. It is one thing to recognize that the due penalty for our sins has been paid in Christ. It is quite another to pretend He has also taken upon Himself the responsibility for committing them. That is overstepping the line. That is making a mockery of the sacrifice made on our behalf.
Perhaps we need to be more careful how we understand this term appraised. While it can take on a forensic sense of holding an investigation and examining witnesses, Thayer suggests that here we are to see a more general sense of the term: Making estimate of or determining the excellence or defects of any person or thing. The natural man, Paul is continuing to say, is wholly unequipped to make such estimate. He hasn’t the wherewithal. It would be like asking an art history major to serve as your dentist, or asking a blind man to determine if some newly discovered painting is the work of Rembrandt or not.
It is not, then, that the spiritual man is above being judged by man, or above the law. Certainly, he is not above his spiritual brother. Consider that one of the requirements Paul sets upon the elders of the church, those he would leave to manage and steer the congregations he founded, is that they are held in high regard by those outside the church. This should make plain to us that it’s not a question of us completely disregarding what the world may have to say. It does mean we take it with a degree of caution. We recognize that their value system and ours are very different. We recognize that there is much about the man of God that they do not comprehend. But, we also recognize that they are nevertheless made in His image, image-bearers with wisdom and understanding of their own, however truncated and distorted. Their views are not wholly without merit, and to the degree that they appreciate godly character, their assessment is of value to the godly.
For most of us, there remains that time in our life when we were as they. Granted, our system of morals was sorely lacking in that time, and we did many things that we would (hopefully) no longer consider doing. Yet, we know that in that time we were not completely amoral or immoral. We still preferred to be with people we could trust, however misplaced that trust. We would not willingly choose to associate with somebody we were certain would stab us in the back at first opportunity. The concept that there is honor among thieves holds true. It may be a rather skewed honor, but it is honor just the same. I can think back to that point when my then girlfriend (now my wife) made clear that I needed Jesus to save me, my initial reaction was to wonder what from. After all, I reasoned with my worldly wisdom, I’m a good guy. I haven’t done anything so terribly wrong. If I looked at the ten commandments with a sufficiently wooden and unimaginative understanding, I could probably convince myself I was doing ok. Nobody dead by my hands, and so on. No. In fairness, I couldn’t have. But, then, I didn’t care, either. That wasn’t my book. They weren’t the laws of my land. In truth, so far as I was concerned, there weren’t a whole lot of laws of my land. But, there was this chivalrous root that remained. There was a sense of fair play. There was some stunted recognition of right and wrong. But, I was not, at that point, equipped to assess this spiritual business. I was not, certainly, capable of properly laying hold of the implications inherent to those ten seemingly simple commandments.
Now? For the most part, I recognize that I am still largely incapable of an accurate self-assessment, and near to hopeless so far as taking another man’s measure goes. That’s God’s territory. He can see the heart and take true measure. He is kind enough not to reveal to me the full scope of my own corruption, but reveals that which is to be worked on as He oversees and accomplishes the work. Too much time has been lost in seeking to fix the things He isn’t currently concerned about fixing.
This is a discussion I’ve had with my wife recently, as she wondered how I viewed this process of sanctification. I take as my example the matter of my smoking. For years, pretty much from the time I became a believer up through last year, I continued to smoke and struggled with the guilt of it. I knew, particularly having come to faith in the AG, that smoking was a thing frowned upon in the church. It was an evidence of addiction, and therefore a form of idolatry; a thing held higher than God. Not that I viewed things that way, but I knew that was the general perception, or at least I thought I knew that.
So, this had been a matter that weighed on me. After all, it was a moral lapse that was particularly noticeable by the senses. I could be seen – caught. I could be smelled if I were not exceedingly careful to leave time to air out. Even with all my precautions, I was no doubt fooling myself. And then, on those occasions when I would seek to quit, the anger, tiredness, irrationality and worse that cropped up would soon convince me that the moral thing to do was to go back to smoking. It wasn’t fair to them, you see, to have to suffer through the me that was revealed. And through those periods of attempting to quit, there would be this questioning of why so many others had been able to do it and I couldn’t. There was guilt at my apparent lack of faith. After all, if I truly believed God would help me through this, shouldn’t it be a breeze?
But, here’s the thing: God would appear to have been more interested in other matters of character, sins held in a deeper place, less outwardly evident but more malevolent in their effects. Those were the things He was working on, and those things seemingly departed without a great deal of effort, or even thought, on my part. It was like I more or less just noticed that things were different one day. Something had changed in me while I was looking elsewhere.
Eventually, the time came to address that thing I had thought so awful. But, it was not going to be handled as a private matter, which had always been my tendency. No. It was a matter confessed to my fellow board members. Based on my time with the AG, when this matter of smoking had been enough to keep me from being a deacon, I had been careful to keep the matter to myself. There. Now it was a sin. Good work, Jeff. But, it came time to confess to the board and seek their prayers. Do you know, for all that I struggled to quit for some twenty years, when the time came, and it was done with God and done His way, it just went. Done. I don’t belittle the potential for relapse, but I’ve felt no such urge, and I’ve been through sufficient things which would normally have triggered a return to that habit. Am I free and clear? God willing, yes.
Returning to Paul’s message here: Would a natural man understand this? Not a chance. A natural man may or may not see reason to quit smoking. Certainly there has been sufficient effort expended to prompt a national change of opinion on the matter. But, ask a European or an Asian, and they might wonder what all the fuss is about. There are any number of things like this, behaviors that might be viewed as socially unacceptable in one place while being considered entirely benign in another. Sins? The world cannot think in those terms. They may apply the word. They may even make moral judgments. But, the assessment of sin is beyond their skillset.
Meanwhile, the spiritual man appraises all things. He looks beyond the natural. Note well: He doesn’t ignore the natural or deny it. He looks beyond it. He sees more, considers more. As best he may, he looks upon the world around him through the eyes of the Spirit who is within him. He doesn’t take circumstances as merely circumstantial, but providential. Lord, what is it You have in mind here? Knowing You have arranged this situation and set me in it, what is it You would have me to see or to do? You have prepared a good work for me to do, help me to walk in it. There is your spiritual appraisal. It’s not a matter of passing judgment on unbelievers, or on other believers you don’t deem spiritual enough. That’s the way of the Pharisee, not the way of Christ. Appraise all things. Consider the God Who has determined that they shall be as they are and ask Him what His point is, not as challenging His wisdom, but as seeking it. We have the mind of Christ. We have the Spirit indwelling.
As I explored at the beginning of this, I find plenty of room to question how widely Paul is applying that ‘we’. But, I will accept this: In so much as every Christian is by very definition a person indwelt by the Holy Spirit, this final ‘we’ applies to every Christian. That is not, by any stretch, to suggest we have the perfect knowledge that belongs to God alone. We are assuredly not all-knowing or all-wise. But we have within us One who is. This does not require us to suppose that He who knows all must reveal all. But, to have such a One as our Advocate, our Advisor! We should walk our days in wonder. We have the mind of Christ. We have available to us One who is able to interpret the events of our day according to God’s plan and purpose. We have within us One who is willing and able to explain what it is we should do with whatever situation we face this day.
We may fear our lack of wisdom. We may, like Moses, tend to advise God of our inability. I wouldn’t know what to say or how to act in this or that situation. I don’t wish to go see brother so and so, because it would be awkward, I’m just not equipped. No, you are not. But, you are the vessel of He who is. And, you are a vessel with a promise: “Don’t be anxious about what you are to say. Say what is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit” (Mk 13:11). It’s not your wisdom they need, friend. It’s His.
Let me just touch on that quote Paul takes from Isaiah. Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct Him? The clear answer is no one. You do not teach God, nor is He in any particular need of your talents. But, He teaches you, and provides you with talents. He made you, after all! He designed you to be as you are. All of this fascination with body art and modification that plagues our culture notwithstanding, you were made to be as you are, and it was not from caprice or malice. God has His reasons. You may be dissatisfied with His choices, but then, you are not the wise one. He is. Far better to seek to know His reasons and His purposes. Far better to discern the blessing in what you are than to curse what you are and thereby curse Him who made you.
This, it seems to me, is the issue with all these attempts to ‘improve’ on His handiwork: It declares Him incompetent. Whether intentionally or not, that is the statement it all makes. You didn’t make me well enough. I’ll have to take matters into my own hands. I have to say that in most every case, the result has not been an improvement, whatever the one who has done so may think. God is perfect and works perfectly. But, the natural man is incapable of appreciating the wonder. The natural man looks upon his fellow and sees only the imperfections, and the need to improve upon what nature has done. As if he could. The spiritual man, having the mind of Christ, should be inclined to consult the Holy Spirit within to discern why and to what purpose, that in seeing even the broken things of this world, he may discover what is true, what is honorable, what is right, what is pure, what is lovely, what is of good repute, any excellence and anything worthy of praise in that broken thing, and how he might practice what he has seen and heard of God in this time, in this place, and in this condition (Php 4:8-9).
This is a matter that requires our constant attention. We are inclined to fall back on our own devices and our own understanding. We have been trained to bifurcate our day, dividing it between those times we can think about the things of God and those times when we must be about the work of the world. The workplace, we are told, is not the place for evangelism. But, of course it is. There is no surprise in recognizing that our employers won’t see it that way. There is no ground for the believer to so pursue the course of evangelism as to neglect the job he is paid to do. No. The Christian should be a model employee just as he is to be a model citizen. But, in the course of doing so, what prevents us from praising God, and demonstrating His love for our coworkers?
Lord, I pray that you would work upon me today, to be more about Your work and less about my own. May I begin to come to this place of seeing through Your eyes, perceiving Your purposes, and being about Your work. I ask this not as a matter about which to become anxious, but as one knowing Your gracious willingness to allow us a part in what You do. May I be found to be malleable clay in Your hands, ready and willing to do Your will.
