New Thoughts: (09/26/15-10/03/15)
The imagery of this last section is that of a father addressing his children. It might seem demeaning of Paul to speak of the Corinthians in this fashion, but his purpose is not to demean but to demonstrate affectionate concern. The thing that lends it a bit of a bite is the issue with which Paul has been dealing for some time now. The arrogance of those who were causing division might lead us to expect that Paul would seek to knock them down a peg. In fairness, he does so, but not by this reference to his readers as children. Rather, it is a term of endearment, used much the way John tended to address the church, or Peter for that matter. That is to say there is nothing offensive or demeaning about it, nor would it have been received as such.
Paul’s use of the image comes into sharper focus in verse 15, as he makes comparison between those who have acted as tutors and his own role as spiritual father. On one level, this may speak to degrees of authority. The tutor would have been a household slave under the father’s authority, whereas the father really was the primary authority in the household. But, if we look a little more at this term, some other aspects of the comparison come out.
What was the tutor’s role? In its original use, the term spoke of that slave who would take the children back and forth to school. We might equate him to a bus driver of sorts, or a cross between that and a nanny. But it went further than that, for in the culture of the day, the tutor would have charge of the boys particularly, and he would have charge of them for the better part of the day. As such, the one chosen to be tutor was a slave that could be trusted, not unlike the steward. His task was to supervise the life and the morals of the boys he tutored. He may or may not be an instructor in their scholastic pursuits or even in their weapons training, where that applied. But, he was a constant presence in their lives – more so than their father. But, there’s this which acts as a counterbalancing characteristic: For the tutor, whatever his demeanor, this was assigned duty, a job that must be done and done well, like it or not, on peril of punishment. For the father, the moral character of the boy was more important. This is the father’s legacy, if you will. The father has familial concern for the child. Thus, the tutor would have the job of being, as Thayer puts it, a ‘stern censor and enforcer of morals’, where a father would be more inclined towards compassion and love.
This sense of the comparison comes out in the closing verse of this chapter. Would you have me come with the rod, or with love and gentleness? Paul is essentially asking, would you have me come as just another tutor, or as the father I am to you? Returning nearer the beginning of the passage, I wonder to what degree a tutor could be expected to advise his charges to imitate him. One hopes that dad chose men of good character to serve as tutors, but the fact is that they remained slaves. Could they then advise the master’s son to imitate them? Their situation would hardly recommend their example, would it? For all that, would the master be pleased to hear his slaves advising his son to be a subservient slave such as themselves? It is unlikely, I should think. But Paul, though a bondservant and steward of Jesus Christ, could say this: I urge you to imitate me! Be as I am. Walk as I walk. Do as I do. He could do this because his relationship to them was not that of a tutor, but that of a father.
Let’s be clear about something here. This relationship was not due to Paul being instrumental in their conversion. We have that mindset, I think. If we have been so graced as to be used of God to bring about another’s conversion we come to think of ourselves as their father or mother in the Lord. It’s sweet, but it’s inaccurate. Whatever part our obedience to Christ may have had in their conversion, the reality remains unaltered: If they have been called sons, it is of the Most High. If they have come to faith it is because faith has come to them. The Holy Spirit has entered in to implant that faith. It may well be that He has worked through your efforts in bringing the Gospel before them in word and in deed, but it is He who has worked, not you. God is their Father, not you.
Paul’s claim is not based on his involvement in their coming to faith. Indeed, it would be unlikely that he was personally involved with everybody in that church. Just as he had no hand in their baptism, one hopes that there were many now in the church who were brought to faith through the efforts of those who came to faith before them. The growth of the church does not depend on the pastor alone. I could argue it doesn’t depend on the pastor at all. But, to the degree it depends on man, it depends on us all, each walking the life of sanctification, each living out the gospel before a watching world, each bringing the Good News to the attention of those we meet, not as obnoxious goads, but as exemplars of what God has done. Yes, this will require words, but they come atop deeds, else the words are empty.
But, the claim Paul makes to fatherhood in this case hinges upon his position. He is an Apostle. He is one under the authority of Christ, as are we all, but he is one given a particular, and particularly serious assignment. He has been handed authority above and beyond that which can be laid to any man today. He has been assigned specific duties in laying out the foundations of sound doctrine, in making certain the Church that Christ is building has solid footing. When he brings correction, it is not just because he disagrees with what some other has said. It is because he has been tasked to stand as an arbiter of Truth. He has been tasked to do so by Truth Himself, together with the other Apostles. They have a short window of time in which to work. Consider that these were men in their thirties by the time Jesus ascended into heaven. Life expectancy couldn’t have been much beyond fifty or sixty, and the lifestyle that came with the job of Apostle wasn’t such as would tend to length of days. And yet, by the grace of God, the work they established in a few short decades has withstood the ages.
We hear repeatedly – and accurately – that it takes but a generation for a sound church to become a spiritual wasteland. We can look around the landscape of America today, and see any number of denominations that began on solid ground, but wandered into quicksand from which they seem disinclined to escape. We have our particular heroes of sound faith, thanks be to God, but they are but men, and they will pass from the stage of history. What happens in their wake? This may depend somewhat on whether these heroes of ours have been laboring for Christ or laboring to make a name for themselves.
I thank God most earnestly for His care in leaving us with sound teachers in every age. But, it seems to me we live in an age of name brand teaching. Christians are no less brand aware than our pagan neighbors. We can duke it out over whether Billie Graham or Oral Roberts are more important to the spread of Christianity, or whether either of these men are anything at all. We can argue over the relative merits of R.C. Sproul, John Macarthur, Michael Horton, or Timothy Keller. Perhaps we find the televangelists more to our taste, and think them far more important to spreading the gospel than these dusty theologians. Or, maybe we find that a Scottish or Welsh accent somehow lends more credence to the message. But, as yourself this: What happens to Ligonier Ministries when R. C. is gone? Will it continue to uphold sound doctrine as it has in years past? What happens to White Horse Inn should Horton move on? Does it continue unchanged? Or Grace to You ministries; will that survive Macarthur?
I have no doubt that those in Puritan New England had every expectation that the church would continue strong and unchanging, that the colleges they were establishing would see to it that there was no end of sound preachers to supply the pulpits. But, ask yourself: Would you want a Harvard preacher in your pulpit? Or a Princeton preacher? Yale? Do they even produce preachers anymore? There is a reason why certain corners of the church have come to shudder at the thought of a seminary-trained preacher. It’s not because seminaries are a bad idea. It’s because in so many seminaries, novelty has supplanted theological soundness. Liberalism and societal opinions have come to occlude the truth of Scripture, and what is being taught is entirely of man and nothing of God.
We who are the children of God must take care that we don’t come to be overly invested in our tutors. God help the church of Paul’s day that held him in higher esteem than Christ! For all that, just ask yourself this simple question: Of those churches we know of which came into existence as the direct result of Apostolic effort, how many are standing? Look at those churches to which Paul wrote: Corinth, Philippi, Colossus, Thessalonica, Ephesus, Galatia. How many remain? Look at the churches addressed by Christ in The Revelation. How many remain? Look at the denominations that were being established in early New England. How many are still recognizably Christian? How many would still profess that Jesus Christ is the only name by which men may be saved? Watch out! It is neither men nor denominations that you have been called to, but Christ Himself. All else is but a means of His grace. You are but a means of His grace, to the degree that you help spread the Gospel. It’s not about you. It’s not about your pastor. It’s not about your favorite teacher or your denomination or your educational pedigree. It’s about Christ. Apart from Him, the fact remains: You can do nothing.
There are two matters that really stand out in this passage, and the more I think about them the more they are found to be connected points. On the one hand, there is the question of Paul’s meaning when he speaks of the kingdom consisting in power. But, before we come to that, there is that powerful exhortation to “Be imitators of me.” Nor is this a one-off comment on Paul’s part. We will find it again later in the letter. “Imitate me as I imitate Christ” (1Co 11:1). Add to this that Paul repeats this advice to other churches. “Follow my example, and observe those who do so” (Php 3:17). “Practice what you learned from me” (Php 4:9). “You became imitators of us and of the Lord” (1Th 1:6). “What we do is done in order to set ourselves as a model, an example for you to follow” (2Th 3:9).
Note well where the power of this lies. It’s not with Paul. It’s with Christ. Imitate me as I imitate Christ. That same message is in play here, it’s just spread out across more words. We have to wait until the end of verse 17, as Paul explains his purpose in sending Timothy. “He will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in the church.” There are two things to note – three really, but I’ll stick with two – in this. First, we have again the necessary condition for following Paul’s example: His example is to follow Christ’s example. Second, Paul’s practice is both consistent with the teaching he delivered in Corinth and consistent with what he teaches wherever he teaches. Corinth wasn’t given a Gospel tuned to their particularities. The message Paul had for the Ephesians wasn’t different in any way from that which he had for the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Athenians, or the Corinthians. His message was consistent because in the end his message wasn’t his. It was Christ’s. Hold that thought.
Before we develop it further, let’s step back to that bold exhortation: “Imitate me.” I cannot come across those words without marveling. Would I dare to recommend such an activity to my fellow believers? Would I set myself before my unbelieving coworkers with such a suggestion? I should be able to do so, but I am not so bold as to suggest it would be wise advice. I stumble. I have my failings and my weaknesses. I am not a perfect father, or perfect husband, or perfect elder. I have not so mastered the spiritual disciplines that I could hold myself forth as an exemplar of Christian endeavor. I can think of any number of people who excel me in any given aspect of the life of faith.
But, we ought to be able to offer this advice. We know it, and we also know our unfitness. Think of the old adage, “Do as I say, not as I do.” It is not said as something to be proud of, but as an acknowledgement that however noble our ideals, our practices fall short. Jesus saw this in His disciples, commenting how, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mt 24:41). Notice the context: a period when the spiritual discipline of prayer was most needful, but the disciples were overcome with sleep.
When they awoke, and were soon running from the scene, surely many of them found cause to ask themselves, “What do my actions say about my beliefs?” How now shall I ever suggest another man follow my example? Take courage! Of those who ran away that night, not one stayed away. Even Peter – especially Peter – though overcome by fear for his life, would come to repentance, would come to forgiveness, and would come to fulfill his purpose in Christ with the utmost mercy and compassion. Even Paul, who by his own accounting was the worst of sinners, having persecuted the very body of Christ, was not for this condemned and sent to the eternal torment he deserved. He was pulled from the fires of hell and found as tempered steel, unbreakable in his pursuit of Christ’s glory. “Imitate me!” Was he suggesting his perfection? Far from it. He was advising his humility, his circumspect submission to the plan and purpose of God. He was advising his full-bore, sold out for the Lord commitment to the Gospel that had rescued him.
We can offer that same exhortation, so long as we remain wise to our own failings, and admit to them. Imitate me in confessing my sins and repenting of them. Imitate me in my falling back into the arms of Jesus, in my loving worship at His feet, in my awed reverence of His holiness. Do not, dear brother, think to imitate my failures, for they are many. Do not suppose that my recommendation is to do so, nor even to find your own failures to step into. No! Learn from me that you may excel me.
I will, however, ask myself one related question here. What do my actions say about my beliefs? This morning, I have been revisiting the doctrine of Providence in preparation for teaching on that subject next Sunday. It is the doctrine I associate most closely with my own conversion, though at the time I understood it only as, “There’s no such thing as coincidence.” This is a marvelous truth, and a great comfort in times of trial. But, when I’m in those times of trial, do my reactions reflect belief in that truth? If there’s no such thing as coincidence, then I am wrong the moment I try and write off even the least event of the day as being insignificant. This morning, my wife happened to waken at pretty much the same time as I did. Given my propensity for waking at an absurdly early hour, this is hardly usual. Given God’s providence, it is hardly coincidental. She didn’t just happen to wake up at this hour any more than I did. Yet, I can’t say that I treat either event as much more than coincidence or, in my case, habit. But, if there is a God of Providence, then these things happen for a reason, and I do well to consider the reason. I do even better to go about my day in such a fashion as not only consults God for His reasons in arranging events as He has, but responding to them in support of His reasons.
If, as seems likely, there is significant traffic on the way to work, what should I make of that? Is it just the coincidence of my having chosen the same time of day to head in as everybody else did? Is it just there for my annoyance, or to inconvenience me? To be sure, that is my standard reaction. Having worked from home for so long, it is easy to take every red light as a personal offense. But, if I am sent along my course by a God who is in control, and who orders even the insignificant activities of a particular bird flapping by my window at some specific moment of the day, AND the God who does these things does so for the good of those who are working in His purpose, AND I am truly in that number, then certain realities emerge. Those lights were not red to inconvenience me, but to serve some good purpose in me. The traffic I may face later is not just to deliver me unto my employer in a bad frame of mind. It represents an opportunity; perhaps to pray, perhaps to hear some edifying message as I drive in which otherwise I would not have time to hear in full.
It’s funny isn’t it? I’m very much willing to subscribe to Providence the timing of things that comes about because of my tendency for procrastination. I’m not going to get all worked up, for example, over the backlog of Table Talk issues I haven’t read yet, or Message of the Month CDs that have been piling up on my shelf. I may be amused or surprised to discover that this pile now represents a year’s worth of messages, but hey. God has delayed my hearing of them for this time, so why should I complain? But, if the delay is in my drive time? That can’t be God, can it? If some complication renders my work more difficult to complete, or something about my work leads to complaints from the boss, schedule pressures, or the like, is this any less an act of God? Ought I to respond any differently? The clear answer is no. But, what shall my actions say?
The best bet for me is to contemplate this now, before the day has truly begun, rather than to wait for circumstances to arise. If I can ground myself sufficiently in the truth of God’s orchestrating hand being well in control of events around me, then I can hope to shape my responses to stimuli as befits that truth. If I allow myself to simply respond to stimuli as the mood strikes me in the moment, I am far more likely to prove the truth of that sad statement of our Lord, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” I may even find cause to ask myself if the spirit is willing at all.
As we have been studying these doctrinal statements of the early Baptist church, it does me well to remember that these are not merely intellectual pursuits, efforts to prove my understanding better than yours. They weren’t to such purpose then, and they mustn’t be now. The simple fact of faith is that our understanding of God’s Word MUST come to not only shape our thoughts and actions, but to control them. If we have a worldview, it cannot help but do so. So, again, as I face the day ahead, I must ask myself: What will my deeds this day say about my worldview?
Lord, I know too well that as often as not my deeds indicate something completely other than that which I would profess to believe. This is not right. Orthodoxy is nothing without orthopraxy. Paul’s example and his message are clear, and they are Yours: I live as I teach, and I live as to be able to say, “Imitate me.” God, I am not there yet. Not by a long shot. This is, of course, no surprise to You. But, it is shameful to me. When I think how swiftly and smoothly my tongue can segue between praising Your name and cursing the day You made, something’s wrong! When I find myself doing what I oughtn’t, even knowing in that moment that what I am doing is wholly incompatible with the calling You have set on my life, something is terribly wrong. And I, Lord, am utterly powerless in myself to stop it. Yet, I would that it would stop. I need You, and I need to be about those exercises You have designed to strengthen my spiritual backbone. May I, at least for some portion of this day, live as I believe. May I respond to stimuli not as some chemical response, but as a son of the Most High God, fully aware of Your presence around me, Your Spirit in me, and Your purpose upon me. And, Lord; it’s my earnest desire that this be the starting point, and not the ending point; that by Your work in me, I would see that indeed, each day finds me more and more aligned with Your purposes and plans. To the degree that my will is capable of acceding to Your will, I am willing. To the degree that my will is capable of prompting to action, I pray Thee help me to act.
I would add a brief note of encouragement to this. God does not leave Himself without a testimony in any age. It has been interesting to me to observe the annual Table Talkedition which covers a particular century of the Church age. In each century, there have been particular challenges that faced the Church, and there have been particular men in the Church who could indeed stand with Paul and say, “Follow my example. Imitate me.” I do not, in fairness, think that many of these men were inclined to state the case so boldly. Rather, they lived it. They stood when others fled. They persisted in the paths of righteousness when all around them were those who recanted to save their hides. They modeled Christian forgiveness when everybody else was looking to exact just recompense.
As with yesterday, I have spent a portion of this morning considering the London Baptist Confession’s declarations regarding Providence, that most wonderful topic. The final clause under that head speaks to God’s Special Providence towards the Church, by which He not only protects this object of His Love, but also directs her. This is His bride, after all, the apple of His eye. History demonstrates the reality of this most marvelous care He gives. If the Church is failing here, it is flourishing there. If it is falling to barbarian hordes in Rome, it is carefully preserved in Britain. If Nordic marauders have fallen upon that British remnant, it is only to discover that the Word has gone forth from Britain already to reseed those places the Barbarians had overrun.
There is a twofold lesson to learn. First, nations are not sacrosanct. Israel had that problem all along, thinking the presence of Shiloh, or of Jerusalem, or whichever holy site was in effect meant that they could sin with impunity and still count on God’s protection. Christendom has proven rather adept at making the same mistake. America would appear to be taking its turn at present. What is the believer to do? Pray without ceasing, certainly; but, ought we to pray that this corrupt state be preserved, or that God’s Word be preserved? If all the nations of the earth should fail, the Truth of God shall remain. It shall not be by dint of steel, nor shall it be by mass of numbers. It shall be by the preserving power of God acting according to His Providential will. The gates of hell shall not prevail, but it’s not because we’re so great. It’s because He has said it, and He will do it.
In the meantime, He does not and will not leave Himself without a testimony. Who is the testifier of our age? I don’t ask that we may boast of him, for then we fall right into the Corinthian error. But, that is not to say we shouldn’t take note. Paul was one to take note of in his time, and what greater sorrow than to have missed the significance when he came to town! I would certainly argue that Calvin and Luther were men of such standing, as was Augustine. These were not perfect men, to be sure, but they were men worthy of emulation. Jonathan Edwards was such a one. But, the number of such witnesses is not to be restricted to the Reformed tradition. I would have to say that Menno, Whitefield, the brothers Wesley; they, too, cut a path worthy to be followed, even if I might disagree with some of their doctrinal stances. I think we could learn much from a Francis of Assisi, or a Thomas Aquinas, not as perfect men to be followed in all things, but as earnest lovers of God who were moved to extraordinary lives by His power and will. They were testimonies. They were men we do well to imitate as they imitate God. May we, in our own quiet ways, and with utmost humility, live such lives that those who follow might look back upon us and say that there was a life worthy of emulating.
[10/01/15] Today, I would briefly consider a word that may come to have some impact on our understanding as we go forward. It is a word which appears twice in this passage, although the translation you read likely does not use the same word in both cases. The term is given as theleesee in the first instance, and thelete in the second. As to that first case, it is in reference to God and what he wills. In the second, it is reference to Paul’s readers and their desire. (Admittedly, the KJV offers the second as, “What will ye?”) Before I get to my intended point, let’s consider the two cases a bit further.
In reference to God, theleesee presents us with an Aorist Active Subjunctive. So, then, God is doing the willing. No surprise there. The Aorist Tense leaves us with limited sense as to the timing. It is often used of past activity, particularly in the Indicative, but that’s not what we have here. In general, as one reference describes it, the Aorist has taken a snapshot of the action, and isn’t really much concerned with its progress. It is viewed as a whole. To the degree that it may describe a future action (as would seem the case here), it may be taken as a Proleptic Aorist, presenting an action yet future as though already done and certain. The Golden Chain of Romans 8 is offered as a prime example. But, then we have the Subjunctive Mood, with its sense of Contingency. But, surely, if the Lord wills, there is nothing uncertain about it, is there? Indeed, should that first condition be satisfied, all uncertainty shall be removed. But, Paul has explicitly posited the condition. If God wills, then… The contingency, therefore, is on God’s own part. If He chooses, it shall be.
Now, let’s look at the case of thelete, a Present Active Indicative. We’re inside the action in the Present Tense. Things are still unfolding. The use of the Indicative Mood, in this case, puts us in the immediate moment: Right now, what is your preference? It can take on a sense of long-term, continuous activity. So, we could try and read this as the way you’ve been acting, and continue to act, what’s your desire? But, I don’t think we need go so far as that. The simple, “what’s your choice” sense of the Present Indicative would seem to suffice. Now, the Indicative Mood might cause some consternation, given its typical presentation of a certainty. But, used in a question, it only indicates that an answer presenting so certain a response is expected. In this case, Paul even presents the options. Which do you want? Your actions shall make the choice for you.
So, let us consider the choices made by our translator. In the first case, ‘will’, in the second, ‘desire’. It is intriguing that in both cases, there are aspects both of certainty and contingency. If God wills this shall happen. If you so choose, expect this outcome. Yet, there remains a difference, doesn’t there? In God’s case, the choice comes first, and comes with no contingency on any other thing. If God chooses, it is solely because He chooses. He is not reacting to stimuli. He is not setting Himself up, painting Himself into a corner. He chooses because He chooses. In the readers’ case, his choice could be said to be made by his actions. We could quibble, I suppose, and say that his actions demonstrate a choice already made. But, in the nature of the thing, the choice that is presented was not even in view when they acted. Their actions, as Paul notes, were predicated on his not returning to Corinth. They did not, therefore, find it needful to take into account what sort of mood he would be in if he did return. Now, Paul is laying out the necessary result of their continuing in the same vein. Now, you do see what must result. Do you want this? Then, continue as you have been doing? Would you prefer that? Then, knock it off. Standard parent talk, isn’t it? But, dear child, the choice remains yours.
So, then, in both cases, the term does express a very similar meaning: To will is, where thelo is concerned, to act upon the choice made. Lexicographers make note of another term regarding the will; boulomai. That, if we would make a distinction, gets more to a state of mind. It is to wish, to have in mind, but not necessarily to actually act upon that thought. It is, if you please, desire as opposed to decision. Much is made of the distinction this represents in regard to God’s willing. What He wills in the thelo sense is determined or decreed. What He wills in the boulomai sense is more an expression of how He would prefer things to go. It describes the things He finds pleasing, but it does not necessarily indicate a determined, inescapable course of action.
I am spending time on this because we will find several points further along where Paul speaks of his own thelo will in regard to certain matters. We must, in those cases, ask whether there ought to be that same sense of a ‘fixed resolve’ on his part as is typically expressed by the term. We must further ask whether Paul’s willing, even as an Apostle, carries the same weight as God’s willing. I might note that this becomes a particularly apt question when Paul is explicitly qualifying his expression of will as not representing knowledge he has from God. We shall, I expect, explore this further in its place. But, for now, I note the need for care. We do not wish to be so wooden in our interpretation as to refuse any nuance of intended meaning, however technical the Greek language may be. We also do not wish to take our sense of the word from how we choose to translate the surrounding passage, to infer meaning to the word rather than taking meaning from the word. There is risk in either direction. Lord willing, we shall travel safely to a correct conclusion as each case presents.
[10/02/15] Now I turn to the question of power. Paul indicates that he intends to test the power of those boastfully arrogant individuals in Corinth. “For the kingdom of God does not consist in words, but in power.” But, power in what sense? When I read that word, certain definite concepts come to mind. Power. It’s dunamis, dynamite. It’s explosive, showy, awe-inspiring. It’s the stuff of action movies and superheroes. Perhaps, being Biblically minded, we might think of Elijah facing down the priests of Baal. It’s time for a showdown, and Paul is packing!
The fact that this is the one book in all of Scripture that deals with the charismata only serves to amplify this impression, perhaps because of my own background in the Charismatic church. Power plays big in Charismatic thinking. We want to see the power of God! We want signs and wonders, and we want them so often that they cease to cause wonder. We want the extraordinary to become the ordinary. That’s the mindset, and it cannot conceive of any lesser meaning than that Paul plans to come with signs and wonders exuding from every pore. He is calling out these charlatans for what they are, and how does he intend to expose them? By showing that their faith is nothing but empty words – no signs and wonders.
But, let us consider the context, and what it is that Paul is addressing, and we may just find cause to question our notion of what constitutes God’s power, and what constitutes the Christian’s power. Consider that he is discussing, ‘those who are arrogant’. Consider the exhortation he just finished delivering: Imitate me as I imitate Christ. What is the point of this? My life is consistent with my teaching, and my teaching is consistent regardless of current audience. My life is, ‘just as I teach everywhere in every church’.
Now, there is something of strength to be heard in Paul’s thinking here. The Living Bible offers up that introductory thought as, “I know that some of you will have become proud, thinking that I am afraid to come to deal with you.” But, Paul comes with strength of conviction, as well as the clear understanding that he’s not doing anything unless the Lord wills, directs, decrees that he do so. Here’s a man with firsthand knowledge of that, as the record of his missionary journeys clearly shows. He wanted to go this way, but God would not have it. Instead, God, by means unavailable to man, informed Paul that his next stop was to be Macedonia. So, then, point one: If Paul has not, or does not now, make his way to Corinth, it’s not out of fear that he might be shown up by these upstarts. It’s because he is a man wholly submitted to the direction of God.
Insomuch as Paul moves solely as God directs, how can it be otherwise than that he arrives in and with the power of God? But, that still doesn’t give us a clear definition of what that might mean other than that God is with him. Honestly, that ought to be enough, but let us continue. Coming into verse 19, the Amplified Bible offers the following explanation for what is meant by power: ‘the moral power and excellence of soul they really possess’. And, if I return to the Living Bible for verse 20, I obtain, “The Kingdom of God is not just talking; it is living by God’s power.”
Do you see a picture forming? Let me bring in some lexical information from Thayer. Dunamis is that power inherent in the nature of the thing. It can, and as far as that text is concerned does in this case, indicate moral power. It is also a reference to natural ability, which is saying much the same as the first definition. Natural ability: The power inherent in the nature of the thing. Where the thing in question is a moral being, then its inherent power is, at least in some part, moral in nature.
Now, back out just a bit and see what Paul is saying here. “Imitate me, because I’m consistent. My actions reflect Christ, and my actions reflect my teaching. I don’t just talk a good doctrine, I live it. These arrogant boasters who have your attention: Can they say as much? More to the point, can they demonstrate as much? When I come, Lord willing, I shall find out.” So, then, a good Reformed reading of verse 20 might very well proclaim, “the kingdom of God does not consist in orthodoxy, but in orthopraxy.” Now, obviously, the latter does not exclude the former. For all that it cannot possibly exist apart from the former. We cannot possibly arrive at right living without understanding what right living is.
Looking forward to the later chapters of this letter, as Paul addresses the charismata, a careful observer will find that the same significance fills his teaching on that subject. It’s not about display. The flashier gifts are not more desirable, at least not on that basis. The proper measure of the gifts lies in assessing their capacity to edify. Now, let us recognize that edification is not merely filling the head with knowledge. It’s also filling the heart with the urge to action. It’s bringing orthodoxy to bear in order to stimulate growth in orthopraxy. Christianity that consists in words only is no Christianity at all. Christianity, I dare say, that consists only in the magician’s show of wonders is likewise no Christianity at all. I do not, in saying this, deny the reality of the continued existence of those gifts of the Spirit. I do, however, acknowledge the vast quantities of counterfeit and deceitful display that passes itself off as the real deal. And, I will say with utmost conviction that where the focus is on signs and wonders, visible ‘explosions’ of spirit-power, rather than on the life-changing, inward-working, Power of God, something is terribly wrong. To raise up a body of believers who think the visible display is the point is to seek their condemnation. It leaves them as victimized by a false sense of eternal security as does the prosperity gospel or any number of other false teachings.
If it’s all signs and wonders, then the guy who can speak a good tongue, but yet teaches heresy will find himself perfectly welcome before a most attentive audience. They don’t even need to display much of anything. Just prophesy a good word over the church. Tell them about the signs and wonders back home, where they can’t really be verified, and they’ll eat it up, just on the off chance that maybe they can get in on some similar action here. And meanwhile, the preaching is taken as sound, however heinous. I’m not discussing hypothetical cases here, nor fabricating events as I think they might unfold. I’m describing what I have seen firsthand, lived firsthand. The propensity for the watchmen in these congregations is to hear first and then, maybe, if it was too far off course even for that crowd, offer some mild corrections after the fact. But, as the adage goes, the Lie has run the world round before Truth has tied its shoes. The damage is done, the seed of doubt is planted.
Bring this mindset into Paul’s message here, and you will indeed be looking for a magician’s showdown. You’ll be expecting Paul’s return to Corinth to look much like Moses confronting Pharaoh’s magicians. But, for all that Paul speaks of the gifts here, it is telling how very little he says of his own practice thereof. Yes, he cops to speaking in tongues ‘more than you all’ (1Co 14:18). But, it is in the course of downplaying the significance of this, at least in any sort of public setting. Does he reject the gifts? No. He sets them in proper perspective. They are aids, and if they fail to aid, they should be set aside. If they have become bragging points, they are being abused. If they are causing confusion, they are being turned against their Giver. As to the rest of Paul’s writing, I cannot think of anyplace else he even bothers to make mention of these things, can you? That ought to give us some indication of where they ranked in importance so far has he considered the matter. And, given the numerous themes that repeat themselves through many of his letters, if he thought this was a critical component of Christian living, I dare say we would hear far more about it from him.
But, Paul’s interest in addressing the Corinthian church is not in improving their skill with the spiritual gifts. For one thing, they are gifts, not talents to be honed. But, that’s not an argument I care to get into at the moment. Paul’s concern is a right understanding of the faith, of God, of man, and how they ought to relate. His concern is that the Church not go off the rails, but serve its proper purpose of inculcating a godly life in godly men, of so proclaiming sound doctrine that sound practice follows in the lives of teacher and student alike. “Imitate me.” This is intended to be the call of every preacher, but the only way a preacher is ever going to be sufficient to make that call is by following the Apostolic example, adhering to the Apostolic teaching, and living it.
No preacher is ever going to be perfect. No Apostle was perfect. God is perfect. More, God is desirous of seeing His children grow in godliness, and He imparts His Holy Spirit to His children to that very end: To remind us of everything our Lord said and taught, both by word and by example. The Spirit comes that we may not only know how we ought to live, but that we may do so, however haltingly. He comes that we may make progress in the right direction, and that we may have God’s own assurances that we shall, in the end and wholly by His power, find that we have not only made progress homeward, but have actually arrived at His door. In that moment, we shall be completed, made as He is, knowing Him as He has always known us. In that moment, victory shall be completed on our part and we shall enter into the enjoyment of His fellowship forever. That’s power!
This power, this moral strength of right living, must come of the word of sound doctrine. Sound doctrine is that which not only describes the godly man, not only encourages godly living, but actually empowers it. It empowers godly living because it is the Word of God, the very voice of Truth proclaimed. It is the seed that the Sower plants.
Now, it must be said that it is entirely possible for the preacher to preach the soundest doctrine and yet discover that there are those in the pews who remain utterly unchanged by it. Sound doctrine does not in itself guarantee godly character. Preaching is not guaranteed 100% return. It is God’s choice who shall hear to advantage, and who to condemnation. The greatest work of man in the service of the Kingdom continues to be absolutely dependent upon the will of God for its fruition. By the same token, I would have to accept that God can, and doubtless does, save even where there is no preacher. If there is no man to bring the Gospel to one whom God has chosen, is He so powerless that He cannot preach it Himself? I think not! This does nothing to lessen the importance of preaching. It does nothing to alter the normative economy of the Kingdom as He has declared it to be. But, it is yet one more guard against arrogance on our part, lest we come to believe that His success depends on us. No. But, our success depends utterly on Him.
Let me just note here that the sense I have offered of Paul’s intentions in this passage are not merely the product of the immediate context. It is of a piece with the direction he has taken throughout these first four chapters. Go back to chapter two and what do we find? “My message and my preaching were not matters of wise words, but demonstrations of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith wouldn’t rest on human wisdom, but on the power of God” (1Co 2:4-5). What was the demonstration? Was Paul causing gold dust to waft down from the skies? Feathers, perhaps? We have no reason to think so. The power of God was shown, I will argue, in two specific ways: First, Paul was consistent – word and deed aligned. Second: Paul’s preaching, which by his own description was constrained to nothing but the foolishness of Christ crucified, was fruitful. It wasn’t delivered in the style of the great orators. It wasn’t delivered with an accompaniment of fireworks or the like. It was delivered in the weakness and foolishness of preaching a simple, and simply unbelievable message. “So that your faith wouldn’t rest on human wisdom, but on the power of God.” What was the power of God? Your acceptance of that word! Your salvation in spite of your own unwillingness to believe. Your belief in spite of your skepticism. Your redemption while you were yet dead.
What, then, is the message? I find it ringing so clearly from this passage that I am tempted to alter my sense of Paul’s theme in this letter, for it resounds throughout. “Be impressed with character, not words.” We can expand that to cover the middle section by saying, “Be impressed with character, not display.” Words and display are the dread fruit of the Pharisee. Character is the fruit of the Spirit.
Finally, with the concluding verse, Paul continues to address the church in fatherly terms. Now, it should be clear that his words are not directed at the whole body at this point, but solely as those arrogant ones of which he has just spoken. Or is this clear? Let me suggest it is not. True, those who are instigating the factionalism are as wrecking balls swinging at the church, but here’s the thing: They can do nothing unless the rest of the church opts to listen. It requires the will, then, both of the instigator and the instigated. All are guilty, with the exception of those who not only refused the bait but actively sought to counteract the error.
It is not enough to reject the error for personal consumption. If we stop there, we demonstrate that our concern for self far outweighs every other concern, even our concern for God. Self-preservation may be of value, but it is hardly laudable. The worst of sinners will yet seek to preserve himself against harm. The most deluded of individuals will yet seek to guard his thinking in some regard. Even this young man who just went on a killing spree out in Oregon acted primarily as an act of self-promotion. Granted, he knowingly brought harm upon himself as well as others, but the motivation? Everyone will know my name because of this: Self at the center, and God, from what we have learned thus far, not merely pushed aside, but violently opposed.
Let us put ourselves in such a setting. The gunman is apparently asking those who call themselves Christians to stand up and testify, and his intentions are clear in regard to what he will do to those who comply. What do we think of the one who watches his fellow believers stand while he himself remains seated and silent? What do we think of those who stood, seeing this fellow seated and knowing his purported beliefs, yet say nothing to bring him to the killer’s attention? Finally, what do we think of the one who ran back into harm’s way to take that killer down?
Self-preservation is not laudable. In many cases, it is not even commendable. It is servile, craven, and utterly reprehensible. This is no new test. The Christians in the early centuries knew the same trials, and this time, with government backing. It wasn’t the act of insane young men disillusioned with this or that. It was the agents of authority. The threat to life and limb was no less real for that. And many recanted, or hid their faith away, rather than face what was almost certain death. Others stood strong, even unto death. Eventually, the trial passed and those who had gone into hiding could return. But, for those who had stood the test and survived, there were very real questions as to whether these weak-hearted believers were really believers at all. Should they be allowed their return? Where was the justice in that? Could God really accept back those who had so decisively denied Him before men? Eventually mercy won out, but don’t think for a moment that it was an easy victory.
So, Paul writes to this church in a continuation of his parental theme, and asks if they would prefer their father to come to them as the disciplinarian or the proud poppa. Love on his part would dictate the nature of his visit, but it would be love in response to behavior. He couldn’t settle for pointing out the wrong in his children. They must be corrected, trained in such fashion as would steer them clear of a repeat of their error. He must root this error out of the family entire. If that effort requires banishing certain of his children from the house, then that option must be granted.
Paul, of course, has a particular authority in this regard, being and Apostle. And, make no mistake, it is that Apostolic authority that he is putting before them. That particular authority has departed the stage together with the Apostles who held it. But, authority remains in the church. Pastors, elders, bishops, whatever officers we have found cause to accept or appoint in our churches, are there not only to provide instruction and to lead us in worship. They are there to serve as the disciplinarians when necessary. If there are wolves amongst the sheep, it falls to them to guard the sheep. How do we do that? Do we simply point out the intruder, and say, “Look out! Wolf!” That would be the work of a particularly poor (and probably soon painfully terminated) shepherd. The wolf would likely have him first and then proceed to decimate the flock.
No, the wolf must be removed. Merely identifying the wolf, or even isolating the wolf is insufficient. The wolf may break free and threaten again. The wolf may, to utterly destroy the metaphor, disguise itself and return to its marauding undetected. If I followed this to its logical conclusion, even removing the wolf to some remote distance from the flock would not be properly dealing with the threat to the sheep. There is only one option that can be trusted, and that is elimination of the wolf. That, however, exceeds our authority as shepherds. We can, however, take every possible step to see that said wolf is no longer capable of threatening the flock. We can pull his fangs, have him declawed. Let me just say, that sending this wolf off to go bother another flock is as inappropriate as leaving him to his activities locally.
The leadership of God’s church has both the authority and the responsibility to deal with this sort of thing. It may be in matters that impinge upon the physical safety of the congregation, or some portion thereof. Those are the things that grab the headlines. Sadly, they are also the situations in which the leadership of the church may find their options most restricted, as they seek to operate within the confines of civil governance. I say this is sad, not because we must work with civil authorities, but because it so often winds up protecting the wolf more than the sheep, and rather than excising the evil, simply relocates it to prey elsewhere.
But, these are merely the more visible, sensational threats to the body of Christ. The spiritual assault, the assault on sound doctrine, is a much deadlier battle, and again, it falls to the leadership to stand against every inroad, to root out the error and not merely identify it, but eradicate it. Here, at least for the moment, we are more able to act as we must. But, do we? We are men, like any other men, and we have an innate desire to get along. It is easier, is it not, to tolerate differences of opinion, than to insist on our view of the Truth? In fairness, there are any number of areas of doctrine where humility requires us to recognize that our view is not necessarily accurate. But, this does not remove from us the duty of flagging those things that are just plain Lies, and then counteracting them with every bit of energy and effort that we can produce.
Look through the history of the Church. In particular, as we draw nearer the initial post-Apostolic years, great debates arose. But, these were not mere scholastic disputes amongst the leaders in various regions. These were matters of Truth. They arose, in every case, because some charlatan was taking his piece of the Church off on a crooked path that left Christ behind, whatever use he may have made of the Name. The way to counter heresy, it was determined, was to first carefully examine the Truth, and then, to insist upon the Truth. They must be renounced not as merely mistaken, but as dangerous to the spiritual well-being of the Christian. Men like Athanasius, arose, it seems in each century to counter the particular venom of the day. Augustine is rightly renowned not merely for being a brilliant man, or for being a late-breaking convert. His defense of Truth against the heresies of his time are as vehement as they are eloquent. He was a lion in defense of Truth. Paul is the same, described by Taylor Caldwell as the Lion of God. We see it in his writings. He may have been a meek and humble man in most regards, but when the truth of the Gospel was threatened, he was its defender par excellence.
Do we have it in us to continue the defense of the Gospel today? I recall, back near the beginning of my own journey in faith, the warning that one could not easily listen to even an hour of Christian broadcasting without hearing some ancient heresy being rehashed. Now, I would like to believe that if one is particularly selective in their listening habits this sad reality could be avoided, but on certain broadcast media, I have no doubt it is impossible. The fact is that as hard as the ancients fought to denounce and destroy the heresies they faced, they could only send it away, only drive it into hiding for a season. But, like Satan defeated in the desert by Christ, it departed only for a season, until an opportune time could be found for its return.
Today is an opportune time for heresy unlike any other, perhaps in history. The capacity for every lying liar to promote his message on the cheap and to reach millions in their unguarded moments is unprecedented. The Internet has been said to have brought democracy to the marketplace of ideas. That may be so, but it has hardly been a universal boon. If the Truth will out, so will every possible lie. If Paul was concerned about those who brought their ideas to unguarded housewives by day and thereby found their inroads into the church, how He would hate the youTubers, the Webinar producers, and all the rest. If the televangelists were a problem, that cancer has only grown worse with the advent of internet video. Every false prophet has a platform, and easy access to millions, and there are eager millions waiting for their ear-tickling, emotion-exciting messages.
Meanwhile, the message of Paul remains unchanged: I preach the gospel of Christ, and Him crucified. To the Jews it is offensive and to the rest it is foolishness. But the unalterable reality is that here, and here alone, is the power of God to save. How do we counter the Lie? Speak the Truth. Speak it in love. Speak it in utter dependence upon the God of Hosts to do with our words as He will. Trust the Sower to see to it that His seed grows. Be angry, but sin not. Don’t attack the messenger. Instead demonstrate from the pages of God’s Word that his message is deadly deception.
This may, for the leadership, require that certain of our flock be removed from the flock. To the best of my knowledge, no such case exists in our local congregation at this date. But, nothing prevents its arising. The Liar has his agents, and they will ever seek their way in. It falls to us to be diligent in our own pursuit of sound doctrine and also in listening carefully to those we oversee, that we may detect the cancer of false teaching early, and remove it before the patient is lost.
I would draw one last lesson from this. We see but a portion of the Corinthian record, and we see it, as it were, in reflection. We can discern from Paul’s writings that this letter was received to great benefit by that church. He was able to rejoice with them later that this issue, and some of the others that are yet to be addressed, were indeed addressed. The factionalism subsided. The tolerance for immorality ended, and the membership began to care more for one another than for self. It seemed that God had done His work, and all was well again in Corinth.
But, look at the letter Clement sends to Corinth after the passing of the Apostles. A sad thing becomes evident. All or most of those issues were back. His letter indicates that these same issues of “Envy and Emulation” were back with a vengeance. As I said, heresies and falsehoods depart for a season, but they are seeking that opportune time to reenter. They are waiting for the watchmen to let their guard down. On a congregational level, this is a problem, as we have limited interaction with the congregants. As churches grow larger, so does the challenge. We have perhaps two hundred or so in attendance of a given week, but to what degree do we have a chance to enter into any meaningful talk with them? There may be a few moments for greeting before the service, but then, many folks are showing up at or after the last minute. There may be some time after service to chat, but even there, the talk tends towards the casual catch up. It is rare to hear believers discussing what they believe, odd as that may seem. How, then, is the watchman to watch?
I don’t have any good answers there, yet, although it is much on my mind. We must do what we can to get past the casual, social niceties. We must find ways to engage on questions that matter, to do so with a sufficient sense of safety that real answers can be heard, and to do so in sufficient love as to seek gentle correction as our preferred alternative. But, we must also be prepared to take sterner measures when other options are exhausted. This is a necessary part of establishing and maintaining that sense of safety as not only a sense but a reality.
But, there remains the personal level. It is not only in community that we are at risk. It is as individuals, as well. I don’t know that I am willing to put a stake in the ground as to which risk is greater. To be sure, we are granted community as a great gift for our protection. But, if the community is together in error, as those heretical sects of old (and of new), then community is not protection but detriment. It’s akin to the idea that practice makes perfect. That is only useful if one is practicing what is right. If practicing what is wrong, one has merely perfected their error.
So, personal level: We have our particular sins to address. It is true of all of us. For some, one thing may be a persistent challenge which others have found easily conquered. For others, the case may reverse. Perhaps your difficulty is with pornography – certainly a common affliction in our day, and one not easily avoided. Perhaps you have no issue there (praise God!), but are prone to anger. Again, the nature of media today feeds anger like pine needles feed a fire. Perhaps your challenge is a tendency toward sloth, gluttony, or addiction. Now, whatever that challenge is, let us accept for the purpose of argument that you have had victory over this sin. God has set you free! Glory be to God! And, to be sure, if you have any freedom, it is for that cause alone: That God has done it in you and for you. But, take heed, lest you fall! That sin is yet lurking out there, seeking an opportune moment to rise up and strike you down again. I don’t say that to discourage you. By no means! I say that because forewarned is forearmed.
We are not engaged in a skirmish. We are engaged in a battle, and that battle will be ongoing so long as we draw breath. We are prone to false doctrine. We are prone to believing what we prefer to believe rather than the hard truth of Scripture. We are prone to forgiving our own sins rather than dealing with them. If we have had victory, let us be diligent to preserve and protect that victory. If we have overcome one sin, let us not suppose that we have emerged into purity. Let us not even suppose that we are now immune to that one sin. We are not.
For decades, I fought a losing battle with smoking. I would perhaps quit for a month or two, but would inevitably find some excuse to pick it up again. It might be as simple as the lie, “I’m strong enough now. I could have just the one for old time’s sake.” But, you know? Enough times around that track, you begin to recognize the starting gate. You’re not strong enough. You will never be strong enough. The only answer is to remain diligent. Never suppose that just one would be OK. One is not OK because it will never be just one.
What changed? For I have been free of this for a year or two now. For one thing, I ceased from trying to repent in private, as it were. I went to my brother elders to confess my issue and seek their prayers on my behalf. Was I incapable of praying to God, or was my faith so weak that it needed somebody else to pray for me? No. But, this is the way God instructs us to take, isn’t it? Confess one to another. Pray for one another. I have to say that in very short order, and without resorting to those sorts of aids that are available from worldly sources, the urge was gone. The stresses that would normally have triggered reversion to form have long since been met and far exceeded, but no capitulation. Do I dare to say, “I am free”? No. I stand guard over the ground my Lord has taken. I remain mindful that it would take but a moment’s foolishness to see the whole thing collapse.
Let me clarify here that I am not saying that smoking is a sin. What I will say is that the behaviors that smoking led to, the hiding of the habit, the deceptive practices that were developed to keep loved ones from knowing, and, I must add, the influence on my daughter who was not so deceived as I liked to believe, are where the sinfulness was exposed. Insomuch as smoking, at least in my case, promoted such behaviors, it becomes at least an accomplice of sin, and as such, must be treated as sinful. It is the wolf within my fold that must be slain rather than contained.
Again, though, it is the matters of spirit and doctrine that should have my greater attention. It would be easy for me to suppose that I have done sufficient study over these last several years to assure that my doctrine is true in every regard. I would be a fool to so conclude, but I know myself foolish enough to do so. I may not say it that way, but I can become so adamant in my views as to reject the correction my own Lord is bringing. Thanks be to God that He is strong enough to overcome my arrogance. But, even so, I must ever be on guard, lest in my arrogance I reject God in favor of my own misinformed opinions.
And again, I will remind myself that the soundest doctrine is not enough in and of itself. Belief is reflected in practice and in character. If practice and character are not reflecting what I hold as doctrine, that has got to be a flashing red light of alarm to me. If my tongue still tends towards language unbefitting a gentleman, I stand warned. Sin remains. If my eyes are yet drawn to look upon the flesh of a woman not my wife, I stand warned. Sin remains. These are not habits to feed, but sins of which to repent. These are occasions to seek the Lord while He may be found, and beg of Him to cut away this dead flesh, that I may better reflect His glory.
Lord, I know my sin. I know my weakness, and my sad willingness to pursue my sin rather than confront it. You have, I know, been making me more mindful of this inconsistency in me. I thank You. I also acknowledge my great need for You if ever I am to have any progress. I see the recurring habits, just as with the smoking that You have brought into submission. I set myself in submission, but I do so fully aware that the flesh is weak, and it may well be that my spirit is as well. If I am to be of service to You, Lord, I shall need Your strength, Your insistent reminder when facing temptation, that I may face it down, rather than racing after it.
God, You are able, and because You are able, I am able. Let me lean hard upon You, knowing that You are dependable. Let me be the man, the teacher, the elder, the father, that You have fashioned me to be. Let me not bring shame upon Your glorious name, and it will be well with my soul.
