New Thoughts (05/16/17-05/24/17)
What? (05/18/17)
In general, I find the JFB to be a find commentary which offers substantive and useful insight, as well as a wealth of Scriptural backing for its views. However, I found two points made in regard to this passage to be surprising in the degree of supposition required to arrive at such a view, and the lack of supporting evidence to back the theory proposed.
The first concerns the reference point for Paul’s comment regarding admonition and shame. “I do not write these things to shame you,” he says. The JFB determines somehow that this is actually pointing forward – and rather far forward at that – to Paul’s comments regarding his support, which come up in Chapter 9. I cannot fathom the reasoning behind this. The connection to his discussion in that chapter seems tenuous at best. “If we sowed spiritual things, is it too much that we should reap material things from you? Don’t we have as much right to this as others? But, we didn’t use this right, lest it hinder the gospel” (1Co 9:11-12). First, while Paul is defending his authority there, it is not on the basis of support that he makes his primary argument. See the context. He has just finished a discussion in regard to ‘things sacrificed to idols’, and in particular, foodstuffs purchased at market which may have been the result of such sacrifices (1Co 8).
Notice the transition point that brings him to the discussion of his apostolic rights. “If food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again lest it cause him to stumble” (1Co 8:13). This leads directly to, “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle?” (1Co 9:1). There is, I think, little enough of either shame or admonition in that point, although those things are not entirely absent. But, shaming? Where is that? It is not to be found. Any accusations in that chapter are implied rather than explicitly stated. Further, it makes far more sense for Paul’s statement opening this passage to refer back to what has already been covered. He refers to ‘these things’. That would certainly seem to require that the things to which he refers have already been made clear. It’s not, “I do not write what comes next.” And frankly, when it comes to the things he is about to cover, it’s pretty clear he does think they should be ashamed. That still comes by way of admonishment, but it’s shame nonetheless.
The second JFB conclusion that I find questionable is this: That the passage before us implies that the Corinthians had more teachers than was desirable. On what basis shall we arrive at such a position? On the fact that Paul says, “if you were to have countless tutors”? But, his point there is surely a bit of hyperbole. It is pretty clearly a comment intended to convey the simple point that there can be no other with the same fatherly quality and authority for them. It doesn’t matter how many teachers may come their way. Paul’s status with them remains unique. His claim on their attention remains unique. There is nothing in this which complains of too many teachers. It’s not the quantity that he is taking issue with, it’s the quality! To read this implication into his message would seem to blunt the point by diverting attention.
But let us turn to considerations of what is there, for there is quite a bit.
Edifying Admonition (05/19/17)
One of the least pleasurable aspects of parenting, whether in the family or in the church is the need to be the disciplinarian. I would love to say that nobody likes the role, but I fear there are those who do, and those who do are assuredly the least fit to occupy the role. Paul might come across as such a one if we weren’t careful. I think he knew that, and therefore he was careful – exceedingly careful. For all that he declaims an artless approach to teaching, the artfulness that is on display in his technique here is impressive and instructive.
Let me just say by way of aside that my first impressions of this letter were that they showed Paul at a less mature stage of his ministry. It has not the polish and carefulness of organization that we find in Romans. Again, I say that was my first impression. More and more, I am impressed that this is a far more mature, carefully organized and carefully crafted letter every bit as much as that one to Rome. But, its care and craft are necessarily targeted to a different need and purpose.
What we have before us in this passage is the loving father finding it necessary to take up the task of discipline. A loving father doesn’t do so from some innate love of causing pain, or even from a desire to assert authority. There is an assertion of authority, but not from desire; rather from necessity. This is not the terrible and wholly inappropriate discipline of vengeance. It is the loving correction of a father who finds his child recalcitrant and unready as yet to correct his ways. Let it be said as well that a father doesn’t approach this place of discipline over mere disagreements. My child may have a political perspective that I find incompatible with my own. But, this is not a place for discipline – instruction perhaps, but not discipline.
Taking it to the church setting, differing views on secondary issues are not cause for discipline. – instruction perhaps, but not discipline. Indeed, even instruction may be too strong a thing for such a case. It is an opportunity for discussion as between equals holding one another in mutual and loving respect. I have dear and beloved brothers in this church who hold views which, though I once held them myself, I find unbelievable now. At most, one of us is right, for the two views cannot coexist as accurate presentations of Truth. They can, however, coexist as conclusions reached in a truly committed desire to know God, love God, and serve God as He truly is. This is not to say that right motive somehow gives a pass to wrong teaching. But, love does, according to God, cover a multitude of sins, and I dare say such misunderstandings are among that number.
But, there are other points where tolerance cannot be the order of the day. Patience is insufficient, and love requires discipline. This is never to be desired. The pastor or elder who has a hunger for such severity is unfit for his office. By the same token, the pastor or elder who shuns that duty when it becomes necessary is just as unfit for his office. If there is among the congregants somebody who is teaching or practicing what is clearly contrary to the Truth of God, that one must be corrected, and if he or she will not be corrected, that one must be disciplined – up to and including expulsion from the Church. But, again we take our example from the Apostles – not as filling their shoes, but as following their training: If it must be expulsion, it is expulsion in the hopes of eventual restoration. It is the earnest desire of every right thinking child of God that the fallen brother may yet be lifted up on his feet, and like every other prodigal son find himself welcomed back to the loving arms of his Father.
This point of how Paul exemplifies proper admonition in this passage is something that pretty much every commentary picks up on. Calvin advises us to learn from it that our efforts to correct ought not be such as would wound the mind of the one admonished by the severity of our efforts. Neither allow yourself to fall into rejoicing at their disgrace, or such shame as they may feel from your words. If we must discipline, it must be to promote that one’s welfare. The pastor and the elder alike must show a marked preference for mildness such as draws men to Christ rather than a sternness that seeks to drive them to Him. That marked preference, however, must not lead us to spare the rod when the rod proves needful.
Let me quote a few others. Matthew Henry writes, “It is a happy temper in a minister to have the spirit of love and meekness predominant, and yet to maintain his just authority.” Note the balance: Exude love and gentleness, but never to the detriment of rightful authority. To be loving and meek is not to make oneself a doormat. It is a preferred mode that must give place to disciplinarian when such becomes necessary.
Barnes writes, “No man, no minister, ought to reprove another merely to overwhelm him with shame, but the object should always be to make a brother better.” This naturally echoes Calvin’s point. It also, I would note, echoes one of the overarching themes of this entire letter: Let everything be done to edify. This is Paul’s summation of the gifts of the Spirit. This is Paul’s summation of the tasks of preaching and teaching. It is also, by word and example alike, Paul’s summation of the duties of discipline and correction. Let it be done to edify, to build up rather than to tear down, to correct rather than to crush.
Does our careful application of this principle assure that there will be no harm done? No. For one, we are as imperfect as those we would correct, and we may err in our efforts. For another, those we would correct may, even in the face of so stern a discipline as expulsion, refuse to hear, refuse to repent, refuse to even acknowledge the need to repent. I find myself in the midst of just such an occasion these days, and it is an occasion of deep sorrow. How can one be pleased to see one who faced one of those, “choose you this day whom you will follow” moments, and chose to walk away? Who can look upon one I still count a fellow believer, seeing the blinders that the enemy seems to have set upon his eyes, and not pray that God will yet open that one’s eyes to the full and glorious truth of God?
At present, this one doubtless supposes that severe discipline has come upon him for what is a mere disagreement, a misunderstanding, but this is not the case. Paul would not bring correction except it was needful as the official arbiter of Truth. I cannot claim such a title, nor can our pastor or any of my fellow elders. I can, however, and must accept that God has seen fit, through the work of the Holy Spirit in all who are part of our congregation, to set me in the place of watchman, of under-shepherd, of overseer. It would be a poor watchman who gave not warning of danger. It would be a miserable parent who left his children to pursue their reckless course without at least advising them of the clear and present dangers before them.
No, the issues are those of both guarding the weaker among us from incipient error, and of seeking to bring the erroneous one to recognize the truth of the situation. Things are not as they seem. Spiritual darkness and the lies of the enemy are not such that they are blatant and obvious. If they were, they would be powerless annoyances rather than serious threats to the life of the church. The lies of the enemy are insidious, clothed in words of truth, but containing that little bit of leavening corruption which, left unaddressed, will soon spoil the whole.
Whatever officers we have as leaders in our church, let us recognize that they aren’t just there for instruction and they aren’t just there to organize the worship service. They aren’t even there primarily to comfort us in crisis. All of these are a part of the task, and many more things besides. But, among those many more things MUST be a willingness and fitness to serve as disciplinarians when necessary, and I would add, the discernment to know when it is necessary. This is something for leader and led alike to bear in mind. Leader, be meek and loving but do not forget to lead, and lead with discipline when you must. Led, understand that your leaders want nothing more than to be gentle, loving caretakers of your spiritual health. And be glad that they are willing to deal with the unpleasantness of discipline if that is what it takes to love you with the love of Christ.
Edifying Example (05/20/17)
The call to “be imitators of me” is stunning, isn’t it? From just about anybody else it would come across as arrogant in the extreme. From Paul it comes across as challenging in the extreme. It challenges because we recognize that we ought to be able to do the same; we ought to be able to look our brothers in the eye and say, “Be imitators of me.” We also know how hypocritical we would feel and be were we to do so. It is of critical note, therefore, to see that later in this letter Paul repeats the admonition, but with a clear limit set upon it. “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1Co 11:1). That may not immediately strike as limiting his scope. We might see it as a further burnishing of reputation. See how careful I am? Do the same! But, the boundary implied in his words is one that has been at the core of Protestant understanding about as long as there has been a Protestant understanding.
It’s an idea I associate with the Pilgrims as they established their first colony in Plymouth. But, I find it stated quite clearly by Calvin, which probably shouldn’t come as any surprise. “This limitation must always be observed, so as not to follow any man, except in so far as he leads us to Christ.” That same idea is stated by pretty near every commentary I have used. Matthew Henry adds an explanatory note, observing that we are called to be Christ’s disciples, not disciples of any man. On those grounds, the only example to follow is the one that directs us to Christ, the example that demonstrably exemplifies Christ.
In the context of these first four chapters, the point Paul is making is that what he exhorts the Corinthians to do here is something these other teachers could not make. As we ourselves feel that such a call to imitation would be asking for a closer inspection than we might wish to undergo or feel that we could withstand, so the point is made for these teachers. We could hear Paul as saying, “I don’t just talk a good doctrine. I live it!” Could this be said of these others? Get the nuance here. Their doctrine may well have been just fine. They may not have been teaching heresies per se. But are the living it? Are they modeling their doctrines or are they just making pretty speeches. Are they pastors or politicians?
Paul, perhaps more than any other, knew the danger of religion reduced to words and display. If the Church becomes a place for fine words, fine garments, and fine posturing, it has followed the path of the Pharisees, the very thing Paul had been so integral a part of; the very thing Paul had been called away from and cured of. The Pharisees could not say, “Imitate me.” They could only say, “Follow my rules.” But, the Pharisees had become consummate artists when it came to skirting and subverting those rules. Can’t travel more than x distance from home? Establish a cache of personal goods x-1 from home, and it becomes your home away from home. Now you’re clear to go 2x.
I know I’ve used the illustration before, but it still applies. I worked some years back with a very conservative, very traditionalist Jewish gentleman who followed in the footsteps of the Pharisees. They are, after all, the sect that survived the fall of Jerusalem, whereas the Sadducees did not. At any rate, he would scrupulously depart work early on Friday so as to be home on time for sunset in Jerusalem (minus an hour for safety, if he was of the same mind as those who were at temple where my prior church moved). He would not work a Saturday no matter the state of panic, and that particular company was pretty much always in a state of panic. He told us of the requirements against work on that day, and that even turning lights on and off could be construed as work. What to do? They hired help to come in and do such things on Saturday so that they could properly observe the Sabbath. But, as I asked him at the time, does not Scripture insist not only you, but your servants and visitors are to observe this Sabbath? Well, yes, came the answer, but allowances have to be made.
It’s easy to look at this and say, Ha! Foolish Pharisees. You lay on burdens that you yourselves will not bear, and have the audacity to rebuke those who, like yourselves, set them aside, only more honestly. Paul could not have written these words, particularly to a church that was dealing, at least in part, with a Judaizing faction, without being keenly aware of this sentiment, and particularly how it applied to his own past as a Pharisee of the Pharisees. We must recognize, then, that when he says “Imitate me”, he is saying something grand indeed! He is saying, “Don’t just follow my teaching. Follow my example. For they are one and the same.”
The challenge which is issued by those words is echoed by his intentions of assaying these other teachers when he comes. What do they have? Words and commands that they insist you should heed and follow, but which they themselves do not? Or do they have the power of character to set themselves as examples of Christlikeness worthy of emulation? If the Church in Corinth was to avoid going off the rails, it would have to be served by godly men who could inculcate godly character by both word and practice. It would have to be served by those who could and would say, “Follow me so far as I follow Christ.”
If the Church in Chelmsford today is to avoid going off the rails, it needs the same. It needs teachers who will cling tenaciously to the Truth once revealed, who will build only upon that foundation which was laid by the apostles and prophets. It needs teachers who, to their utmost ability, seek to live what they teach. It needs teachers who know how to fail that task graciously, and how to repent when wrong, seek forgiveness from God and brother alike when having sinned and caused harm. It needs teachers who are willing to take up the task of discipline when necessary, and who are able to do so with the love and mercy by which they themselves are disciplined.
“Imitate me.” It is the rightful goal of every pastor and teacher in Christ’s church that they be able and willing to advise such a course. It is the rightful goal of every child of God that, having heeded that advice from godly leaders, they may say the same. We are not all called to lead or to teach in the context of the church, any more than we are all called to be employed at the same trade. We do, however, lead and teach by our example in some capacity, whether intentionally or not.
It is often said of the Christian that the world is watching, usually with an eye toward catching us out in hypocrisy so they can discount our doctrine. There is truth to that. There is truth to that, in all fairness, whether Christian or not. We watch it play out in the news, whether it relates to politicians or sports figures or whoever it may be. We watch for the slip up. We’re sure it will come, and we’re sure, based on that slip up, that we can therefore discount everything about the person. It’s patent nonsense, and yet we all find occasion to play the game, don’t we? Is it any surprise, then, that others play the same game in regard to us? No. But, it is instructive to bear that reality in mind. It is instructive for our character to live as best we may in such fashion as gives us no cause to be concerned about such close observation of our own activities. It is instructive for teaching us to avoid the game in our own practice.
Live like God is watching. As Table Talk proclaims on pretty much every page, “Coram Deo”; live before the face of God. You can’t live anywhere else anyway. But live in conscious awareness of the fact. There are no hidden moments. Your brother may not see today, but he will see it in the end. On that last day, when every man comes before the throne of Christ, we are told that every dark secret will be revealed, every hidden thought be exposed. I think we get it in our minds that somehow we whom God has called His own are exempt from this. I don’t think we shall be so lucky. I think we shall know in full just how great was our need for a Savior – a thing that, no matter how well we take to heart we still never quite appreciate in full. No matter how often we are forced to recognize, “I am a sinner”, we remain convinced in our inmost thoughts that, “I’m a good guy.”
“Words and display are the dread fruit of the Pharisee. Character is the fruit of the Spirit.” I wrote that a year and more back, when I made my first effort on this passage, and I hope I can be forgiven the social faux pas of quoting myself – again. But, that’s what this is about. What fruit do I bear? This morning, not so very long from now, I shall be moderating our church’s annual business meeting. I shall be called upon to offer some opening words of instruction and prayer; to stand before brothers and sisters who, at least in some cases, are surely farther along on the road of sanctification than I am. I am set in a place where I must be able to stand with Paul and say, “I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me as I imitate Christ.” I must, I know, emphasize the last part more than the first: Thus far and no farther. But, still, as God has seen fit to set me here, it is my call and duty to live, as best I may, not only in the church but every day, such a life as can advise this course of action to my fellow congregants.
If ever there was a duty that left one repenting constantly, this is it. Today may prove difficult. It may not, but the potential is there. But, whether the tide of opinion recognizes the godly desires of godly leadership, or whether they find cause for complaint against us, so I must stand: Firm so far as my convictions as to Truth are concerned; gentle and loving as to their application; not seeking to justify myself, but seeking that come what may, I may respond in a fashion worthy to be followed, as I follow my Master. I cannot and should not expect better treatment than He received from His own.
Father God, I set myself in Your hands. I set this church in Your hands. In truth, neither has ever been anywhere else, nor could they be. But, You know the challenges ahead and You know the resolutions. I pray that You hold each member of this dear family close. I pray that You would send Your Spirit in power today – again, fully aware that He is ever with me; ever with us. Let us, in spite of questions, in spite of possibly divergent views on lesser matters, yet recognize the unity of Your Spirit and serve in that unity.
Jesus, You prayed with all the fervency that the hour demanded of You, that by the indwelling power and Spirit of the Godhead, we who are Your church, Your body, Your bride, might be one, ‘just as We are one’, perfected in unity so that the world may know that You love us. I know You were heard. I know You were answered. Let this, then, be evidenced in Your house today. If, by any choice or action of mine, I have brought harm to Your family, I pray You would forgive me, correct me, and show me how I may make amends both to them and to You. If, however, I have been faithful to this office I pray not that You would vindicate me, but that You would speak to Your own and guide them into all Truth, sanctify them in Your Truth, and give them rest in Your Truth.
As for me, I ask only that I would know in my innermost parts, that “it is well with my soul”, for You are ever with me, and will not forsake me. Strengthen me to stand, if stand I must. Soften me to love, for that I surely must. Today I have been focused on the edifying example. Let me be such today, that You may be glorified. Amen.
A Distinction of Roles (05/21/17)
Paul makes a distinction between himself and the others whom the Corinthians counted as leaders. He alone could be accounted their spiritual father. The rest were but pedagogues. Now, that is not a term we are necessarily all that familiar with, although I did hear my brother use it last time I talked to him. His usage is telling. The pedagogue in the setting of Corinth would have been what the Wycliffe Commentary refers to as a slave-guardian. They did not so much teach as supervise. We might also suggest that while they were not the parent, they quite possibly had a closer relationship with the child than did the father for the simple reason of having more contact and conversation with the child.
Needless to say, a father would be careful as to the selection of a pedagogue to aid in the process of maturing his children. In strictest definition, the pedagogue was not the teacher, but the one who brought the youngster to the teacher, and home again. That said, he would be the one to help explain the teacher’s lessons when the child had questions. One might engage some renowned philosopher or one of his more apt students to impart his wisdom, and the pedagogue wouldn’t be an apt choice for such teaching. He would, however, be sufficiently versed in the philosophical arts, as well as the general wisdom that comes of making one’s way through life, to help explain the meaning and application of those lessons.
What is noteworthy for us is that there is nothing derogatory about this, beyond the man’s status as slave. And quite frankly, I think we would find even that status was not terribly derogatory for the culture. In fact, this pedagogue was, much like the steward to which Paul previously compared himself, a slave of standing. He was one found trustworthy and reliable. He carried a great deal of his owner’s authority. This was no menial given no further trust than to work the fields or sweep the house. He was being trusted with that which was most valuable to his owner: His son, his heritage.
As such, I think Calvin may be a bit off course in viewing these men as hirelings seeking to keep their people in subjection. Yes, they hungered for admiration from those people, which is problem enough. But, to suggest they were holding their people in subject seems to go a bit too far. In plain point of fact, nobody was holding them. They were choosing to follow. Their teaching may not have been wholly accurate, but Paul is not accusing them of heresy here, only of a mistaken value system; and that message is for leader and follower alike. When style and form are of greater interest than content and power, there is a problem.
But, the distinction Paul is making is not one of doctrine in this case. I don’t think it is even rightly a matter of the teachers’ concern for their charges, although that might factor into the case. Rather, the primary focus is on authority – on authoritativeness of the doctrine imparted. If there is a difference, the finding must be that Paul is right. If their instruction differs from his, his must supersede. He is father to their pedagogue. He is master to their tutor.
This point is very much in keeping with how Paul describes the purpose of the Law to the church in Galatia. “The Law has been a tutor to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gal 3:24). It’s the same term. The Law was a pedagogue. And, note the terminology there. The pedagogue led us to Christ. It could not supplant Christ. It could not teach what Christ taught. But, it shepherded us safely to Him, warning of the dangers along the way, defending and guarding. And, having reached Christ, we are indeed taught by Him what faith really means, and how justification before God is really obtained. Having come to Him and learned from Him, we are brought to maturity. Having come into our maturity, we are no longer in need of a tutor. This is not to say the Law is set aside entirely, but its role has changed. Likewise, the young Grecian might outgrow his tutor, but still find reason to visit with that wise aid, to hear advice from him.
Here, it does seem as though Paul is expanding the concept of the pedagogue to fit the way it is commonly used today as describing a teacher. We don’t, after all, consider our school bus drivers to be pedagogues, nor even expect them to do much of anything by way of guardianship over our children. They are drivers. They may enforce enough discipline to keep themselves sane, but we aren’t expecting much more than that. The teacher, however, does fill a role akin to these Grecian pedagogues. They do spend, quite probably, more time with our children than we do. They do serve to help explain and apply lessons derived from wiser minds. Our students may no longer go directly to the learned professor to hear his instruction first-hand, but the general flow of things isn’t all that different.
Adam Clarke makes note of the Jewish cultural aspect of this, particularly as it informs Paul’s closing question. Clearly, Paul makes reference to the natural tenderness a father will have towards his children. Discipline, as we have seen, may become necessary, but a father’s heart is always going to tend toward tenderness where it is at all possible. But, what to do with the recalcitrant child? In the sort of setting Paul would have grown up in, that child would be brought to the synagogue and whipped. This still comes, I should note, in hopes of bringing correction, not out of some perverse pleasure in pain. Jewish practice had one step further, if this did not bring about the desired result, and that was stoning. This was not a punishment to correct, but a purging of evil. It is admittedly harsh, and intentionally so. It is as God had instituted and instructed. He takes these matters seriously. Perhaps we ought to do likewise, rather than letting our progeny go feral with impunity.
Transferred back to the Grecian milieu, we would find that whereas a father, like any father, will use tenderness in discipline, the teacher would use the rod. Some of us are old enough, and unruly enough, to have experienced this. We called it corporal punishment. This was back in the day when we didn’t medicate the rambunctious child into docility. I’m not sure it was that much better, but it was certainly more affordable. Stand a child on his knees in the corner for twenty minutes or so and it might just bring about a change of heart. I can’t say that it worked particularly well in my case, but there were those for whom this proved useful. A wrap across the knuckles with a ruler might also convince the unruly one to turn inward for awhile and nurse his injuries rather than disrupting everybody. But, a teacher, particularly one with thirty odd students to manage, has little time or cause for tenderness. Authority is to be maintained. Period. If that authority is once lost, it will prove impossible to re-establish. I think we can find sufficient proof of that in the present tense.
The thing with all of these images is this: A father still holds special right toward his child, and is due a special deference. I should have to go back and reread Barnes to see where he lays that duty of deference, but in my thinking it applies particularly to the teacher. For the pedagogue to seek to instill a moral character not in keeping with the father’s desires would be a severe breach of charge. The pedagogue who did so and was found to have done so would likely face something far worse than unemployment. He was, after all, but a slave. He might be sold, but who would buy? He had proven untrustworthy at his task, and what other task was he fit to serve? This, I think, is where Paul is going. Yes, there is issue to be taken with the child who comes to prefer his tutor to his father, who takes the tutor’s lessons to heart rather than his father’s. But, the greater blame lies with that teacher.
Now, I have said that Paul’s complaint is not so much with doctrine, when it comes to these teachers. I suppose that’s probably going to prove to be only partially accurate. If there were indeed Judaizers troubling the Corinthian church, yes, doctrine was going to be an issue. If there were those actively encouraging continued attendance over at Aphrodite’s place as acceptable and even expectable behavior for a Christian, doctrine was going to be an issue. But, it’s the character matters that are really in view. It’s not that they’re teaching something explicitly unsound. They are, however, imparting and feeding this tendency to prefer style to substance. Their substance may still be OK, but by playing to this native tendency, they are setting their charges up for failure.
I think we can generalize this a bit, though. Whether it is in the way of teaching a wrong system of valuation when it comes to teaching, or whether it is teaching error outright, the point remains the same: The teacher must have a due deference to the Apostle, which is to say to Christ and His Gospel. Christ is the original Philospher, to continue our previous image. The Apostles are both His most apt students and His appointed trainers in the Way. They have written the Authorized Textbook under His careful supervision. They have been carefully, thoroughly instructed in His ways; tested for accuracy of understanding and sent out to teach His children. These others are tutors, and must either impart the same doctrine in service to developing the same character, or cease from their employments.
In the present, if we discount those who insist that the apostolic office persists (and I think they must be discounted), we have only tutors, only teachers. The pastor is a teacher. The elders are called to be teachers. Parents are called to be teachers. Each serves in his appropriate setting. But, each must hold the Apostles in particular regard, giving them due deference. What does this mean? It means exactly what it meant for these leaders in Corinth. Teach what they taught. Pursue the character they had. Imitate them, and become such as others can imitate. Check yourself against the template of their writings and if you find yourself in any way out of alignment with that template, “God will reveal that also to you” (Php 3:15).
Here is at least a partial antidote to thinking too highly of ourselves as we lead. We are but tutors, bringing our charges to the Apostles, to the Word, to Christ. We can teach only what we have been taught. We can impart only what has been imparted to us. To completely shift metaphor, we can guide these sheep but we shall never own them. We can love these people, but they remain children of the Most High God.
A Singleness of Truth (05/21/17)
My next point is of a piece with the last. If we are bound to each what the Apostles taught, it is for very good reason. We serve the same God in the same Spirit. Paul makes a point of emphasizing his consistency of message. What I tell you is what I tell folks in Galatia, what I tell folks here in Ephesus. I don’t have one truth for you and another for somebody else. That same point holds across the Apostles. Matthew Henry captures it for us. “The Truth of Christ is one and invariable. What one apostle taught every one taught. What one apostle taught at one time and in one place, he taught at all times and in all places.”
This must continue! Paul taught as the Spirit directed, which must be as necessary in Corinth as elsewhere, as the JFB notes. So did Peter. So did John. They were certainly individualized as to their style and to some degree their particular emphasis. We all, I think, develop themes that tend to recur. I see it with myself. Mention Providence and I light up. (We’ll get to that in the next section.) Other matters clearly capture my attention more than others: Doctrine, balance, etc. But the underlying Truth imparted by the Apostles is One. The underlying Truth and doctrine that we teach today must necessarily continue to be one.
It is patently obvious that this does not preclude disagreements or varied understandings. After all, we are not apostles. We are students who seek as best we may to remain true to the Apostolic understanding of our One Teacher. We share a desire to be faithful to His message, faithful to His ways, and faithful tutors to His children. Yet, we disagree on many points. We may reach very different conclusions, for example, as to the proper application and signification of baptism. We may perceive the elements differently in Communion. We may have wildly variant interpretations of the end times. We may disagree on the role of women in the church. We may as well roll matters such as predestination, free will, the scope of atonement, the security of the believer, and so on in here too. We may (and really should) be absolutely convinced of our understanding of these matters. We must, however, acknowledge that those who disagree are just as devoted to knowing the Truth and practicing it. Unfortunately for us, we can no longer appeal to the Apostles, as some in Corinth had apparently done with Paul, to help sort out which of us has it right.
And yet, we are servants of one Master, tutors in the employ of one Father, given charge over His children for a season. It is an awesome duty and an awesome responsibility. I have only stood in the pulpit once, and that, only at a men’s retreat. I can say this, though: I was very glad there was a very solid pulpit to hang onto on that occasion. It is a fearsome thing to stand as presenting God’s Truth to God’s children. If you can do it without feeling the responsibility, you probably ought not to be doing it. The same sense ought to inform us in all our teaching duties, in all our shepherding duties. These whom we serve are the apples of God’s eyes. We want to be very careful to do right by them and by Him.
One other point which the commentaries make in regard to this oneness had, I thought, escaped my attention when I came through the passage under my own power. But, I see that I have copied in a note from that prior trip which reaches the same point so, contrary to my editorial claim that this point had not occurred to me before, it apparently had. Perhaps it’s just sinking in better. Paul makes it clear that he hadn’t tuned the Gospel to the particularities of the Corinthian public. That is about as far as I had taken the point before. Barnes takes me the next step. His point in this was not only to proclaim his own constancy. His point was to inform the Corinthians that contrary to their proud notions, they had not received some special revelation of unique doctrine from him.
Barnes goes on to say, “The Christian church is founded everywhere on the same doctrines; is bound to obey the same laws; and is suited to produce and cherish the same spirit.” Take this back to what the Wycliffe Commentary had to say in the previous section about how the Corinthians had effectively decided that they had their own personal millennium going. The kingdom had come for them, and they were already reigning. This is aimed at bringing them back down to earth. No. You did not get a special allotment that nobody else received. The gifts you have poured out in Corinth don’t mark you out as more advanced. (They might just mean that you’re more in need.) You have what everybody else has. God is no respecter of persons. He doesn’t play favorites with His children. There is one Truth, imparted by one Spirit, to one Body of the Church. It is laid on one foundation, and it leads to one God by one path. Accept no substitutes.
The Place of Providence (05/22/17)
Providence comes up in connection with verse 19, where Paul speaks of his plans. He will be coming to Corinth soon, but only if the Lord wills. “The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps” (Pr 16:9). That’s the reality. It’s a reality we are too ready to forget. We plan. We lay out our days and think ourselves in control of our destiny. We are not. And, as children of God we ought not allow ourselves to slip into such a habit, though we so often do.
Barnes writes, “No purpose should be formed without a reference to His will; no plan without feeling that he can easily frustrate it and disappoint us.” This is echoed by Matthew Henry. “All our purposes must be formed with a dependence on Providence, and a reserve for the overruling purposes of God.” It gives us pause, doesn’t it? Ask yourself how you plan. I know my answer isn’t as it should be, as it has been on occasion in the past.
Let’s take it in steps. First off, there is nothing wrong with making plans. It is a wise thing to do, and God being the God of wisdom, we can expect that He is pleased when we don’t run haphazardly. You can apply this in the call of the Church to be intentional in pursuing fellowship, in addressing evangelism, in applying discipline and cleaving to the accurate exposition and application of the Word. Plan. But, as Adam Clarke reminds us, don’t mistake your will for God’s. Just because you planned it doesn’t mean He did. Just because you prayed is not a guarantee that you have taken yourself out of the answer and heard Him clearly. Submit all to God’s overruling purposes.
Let’s take it a second step. Having planned, what do we do? On big items, house purchases, job changes, marriage, and the like, we may have the wisdom to submit our plans to God’s approval as we ought. Lord, if this is Your will hold the door open, if not, shut it such that I can in no wise open it. This is a fully appropriate prayer, and one I have remembered to pray on occasion. I have to say that on those occasions when I have remembered to pray in that fashion, God has been pleased to answer. This has not always been in the way of holding the door open. He has often answered by slamming shut the door I thought just might be His Providential knock. Nope. You misunderstood.
This, of course, supposes the third step has already been taken. That third step is really the first. It’s well and good to check with God after the fact and see if He agrees with us. It’s well and good, having undergone some experience or other, to seek out God to help us understand what that was all about and what we were to learn. But, imagine this. Imagine seeking Him first. Imagine taking the time in prayer before making plans, before wandering into the day. “You ought to say,” says James, “’if the Lord wills, I shall…’” (Jas 4:15). You ought to pray beforehand, seeking that the Lord might make His will known such that your plans reflect His desires. Imagine if we were to do this consistently.
I would hope that this applies at least to those plans we may be involved with in regard to the church. As pastor plans the preaching series, I’m sure he is much in prayer, particularly as that series projects into the future. Lord, is this where we need to be going this year? I know its’s there in the planning of mission trips. Lord, prepare our hearts, and prepare the hearts of those who need to hear Your gospel. It’s there in the planning of the weekly worship service. But, is this where it stops?
Today being Monday, I do well to ask, Lord, what would You have me do today? Yes, I know it involves going to work, for vocation and productive employment are a part of His will. Doing my work as unto the Lord is part of His will – a part I struggle with from time to time. Tomorrow I go to the office and spend the day in a cubicle shared with somebody fresh moved to the area and living out of a hotel until his wife comes out and they have found a house. Now, I can give him some idea of where to find housing suited to his income, commute, and so on. I could also offer him a homier, if not necessarily more comfortable, place to stay. Lord, is this Your will? Returning to today’s duties, is it in keeping with God’s plans for me to keep up my generally snarky sense of humor, or would He desire that I present a more sober face for a change? For all that, is there a place for snark in His will or is that automatically evidence that I’m ignoring His will? I can claim that it is necessary to my sanity, but is that defense or rationalization? Or is it just further snark?
Now, I am back at the reactive issue. I can look at this differently, with all three steps in view. First, Lord, what would You have me to do for Your kingdom today as I go about my labors? Alternately phrased: Why this job at this time? I can seek to be more aware of my God with me as I work. He who sees the heart sees my situation and sees my response. God strengthen me that I may not simply respond to stimuli but may respond as Your son, as one who resembles You in whatever small way I am able. I can plan out my tasks, but leave room for His intervention in my plans. Lord, inform me of any change that needs to be made, any point in time where I need to shift my focus and perhaps even my location. I am Yours. That’s the sum. I am Yours, sworn into Your service and devoted to Your exclusive use. I know have too often taken it upon myself to pursue my interests instead, and I ask Your forgiveness for those many occasions. I pray that You might work with me, more properly that I might work with You, to bring about the change that needs to come in me, that I might better reflect You, might better suit Your plans, might better serve Your kingdom.
Hirelings (05/22/17)
Now, I take a rather abrupt turn, to look at those who might, like Paul, advise others to imitate them, but whose example Paul warns us daren’t follow. In this, there is a caution for all of us. The issue Paul sees very clearly, and bring out very clearly, is that these teachers show a marked preference for fleshly honors, even to the point of dismissing things that bear on their spiritual health. This has been strongly addressed in the section immediately preceding our text. You teachers sit in your comfortable homes preaching a comfortable message. We apostles are required by our office to preach a message that is rarely welcome, to suffer as our Master suffered, to live as He lived, near enough to homeless, always laboring, always risking all that we might save some. Compare and contrast.
In that call to compare, his gaze has moved to the followers. It is probably safe to say that everybody imitates somebody. We have our heroes and idols, our role models and ideals. It’s a matter of choosing the right ones. The message, then, is don’t be so ready to follow these pretend apostles. They abounded in Paul’s day. They abound in our own. Don’t be so ready to neglect those who sow to your salvation. They may not be as exciting. You may feel like you’ve heard it all before. If you’ve been in the church awhile, I should hope you have. There’s nothing new under the sun (Ecc 1:9), as Solomon wrote how long ago? It still holds. The Word of God does not change. The Gospel does not require revision. It is supremely to be hoped that the message we receive from the pulpit today accords with the message delivered once for all to the saints by those true Apostles whom Jesus appointed to the task.
The rest, however skilled and however careful, remain but tutors. It was true of those teachers that Paul and Peter and John set in place in the churches they fostered. It was true of those who continued the work in the years following the departure of the Apostles. It is assuredly true of any teacher or preacher around today. They are not in position to propound new doctrines. They are not, contrary to any conceits they may hold, recipients of a new revelation, any more than these Corinthian teachers were. They have not come into possession of a new order to impart. God has not changed. He established the Church to stand against, and in fact to storm the gates of the enemy. His plan being perfect, on what basis are we expecting it needs to improve? It doesn’t.
But, let us consider those who are faithful preachers of the Gospel, faithful shepherds to the flock. The same message really applies. Don’t become overly invested in your tutors. Yes, they are to be honored, even highly honored if their faithfulness allows of it. As we have seen repeatedly from these commentaries, they hold authority and that authority of office is to be honored and respected. They are, Lord willing, to be examples that we may follow in turn – so far as their example leads us to Christ. But, they are also men such as ourselves. They will inevitably provide examples in some regard that we must not follow; that they would not advise us to follow – again assuming that they are faithful servants of God.
They may, almost certainly will, be called to other duties as His servants. If we have invested ourselves too much in them, their moving on may leave us bereft rather than blessed. The fault is not with them, nor is it with God who ordains their duties. The fault is ours entirely. We can assign it to our human nature, but that, of course, is no excuse, true though it may be. I suspect we have all experienced it at some point. We find ourselves a mentor, somebody to help us grow in Christ. What happens? We become attached to that mentor. It’s not their fault. They’re not trying to be Christ to us. They’re trying to guide us to Christ, but instead we have grown too attached to the guide.
I remember well the first such occasion for me. The worship leader in my first church was a great model for me, somebody I could talk to as I went through the challenges both of being a new believer and of being a new husband and parent. How does this work? Help me out! And he did. We would talk, we would pray, we would laugh. And never any sense of being called out as a failure, just comforting direction and encouragement along the right path. But, what happened? I grew attached to this guide, and the time came for him to move to new endeavors. I was devastated. How could he? How could God? Didn’t He see how much I needed this man’s advice? Well, He certainly saw how much I had come to depend on this man rather than Himself! As somebody pointed out at last night’s meeting, God is very clearly a jealous God. He will not long suffer His children to entertain competitors for His place. It matters not whether our idols are other gods, other people, or even other activities. He will have first place in the lives of those He has called. He will have their exclusive devotion. If that means shocking us out of our complacency, or even shaking us with the earthquake of change, forcibly removing that to which we have transferred our allegiance, so be it! And know well that whatever the sting of that change, it is most assuredly for our good – both our eternal good and our immediate good.
Sheep (05/23/17)
Adam Clarke brings up a point which at first blush seems to be orthogonal to Paul’s message. But, it is in fact a critical component. He says, “The obligation is not all on one side; those who watch for our souls have a right not only to their own support, but to our reverence and confidence.” Stated differently, it is well and good to expect much of your pastors and elders. They are just as right to expect much of you.
I would focus us first upon the matter of confidence. It is a certainty that your elders, should they be called upon to undertake a matter of church discipline, do not do so lightly or eagerly. I would say we do not do so gladly, except inasmuch as this is God’s call upon us to uphold His glory. Like Aaron witnessing the discipline of his sons at God’s hands, we cannot be sorrowful that God’s will is done. When the discipline is given to us as our duty to implement, we can, I think, be glad that God has granted a discipline less severe than that visited upon the sons of Aaron; at least at this juncture. We can be glad that His will is done, and we can be hopeful that what He has willed will produce the fruit of repentance in the one called under discipline.
But, we know from our own experience that nobody faces discipline with gladness. There may be one or two who can accept the rebuke without the flesh rising up, but I’ve not met them yet. “All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful” (Heb 12:11). True for the imparter as well as the receiver, I assure you. Nothing rang more hollow than my father’s claims of, “This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you.” Nothing is more certain in the necessary application of discipline in the house of God. And it is almost as certain that the one receiving the disciplinary action will not be appreciative or particularly receptive in the moment. Repentance may come; hopefully will come. But, it would be surprising in the extreme for repentance to come at that moment.
Clarke, however, does not appear to be focused primarily on the matter of discipline. I am because I have been in the midst of just such a time as this. I have to say that I was thoroughly blessed and utterly encouraged to see the response of our church. The loving concern and the concomitant determination to see the Gospel upheld have blessed me utterly. Were my arms big enough, I would hug the church. But, I’ll leave that to Jesus, who loves the Church far more and far better than do I.
Here, though, Clarke gets at something that’s been an undertone in the letter all along. While we may tend to view Paul’s concerns as aimed primarily at these arrogant teachers, his words have encompassed leader and follower alike. If the people have been quick to take up with these puffed up leaders, they are as much at fault as those who seek to lead them. What is at danger here is that the people come to despise their leadership.
There are times in the life of the church where it may indeed face a crisis of leadership. Those who have had charge of guiding the church are found wanting, or found to have been remiss in their duties, perhaps to the point of allowing great harm to the church. I’ll just inject the point that even then, Providence reigns, and God is working events to the overall good of those who love Him and serve Him. But, for those leaders, there is a challenge: Can they still lead? Are they held in so low an esteem by the people that their capacity to lead is gone? The call to them is to self-examine, and if this is found to be the case, to step down. But, there is a call to the people, as well. Have you come to despise your leadership? Perhaps it’s not a crisis situation, but merely a matter disagreeable to your own views. Perhaps it’s a question of secondary doctrines.
But, even if there is such a disagreement, the call remains. God has appointed these leaders for this time and place. Whatever the particular mechanisms of governance in your church, that point remains true. God has appointed them. That alone is cause to offer them reverence and confidence. It remains true that as far as obedience is concerned, the boundary that Paul sets for his own example applies. “Follow me as I follow Christ, and not a step further.” If in truth I have gone astray, guide me back, but do not follow me blindly into error. There are churches that advocate such a devotion to leadership, but that is in itself error, and not to be followed. But, reverence and confidence? Cultivate it. Even if you find them to be mistaken in some regard; even if they are caught in sin and undergo a period of repentance; yet there remains due cause for reverence and for confidence.
Now, I suppose I must inject the counterbalance. If there is unrepentant sin, an unwillingness to return to the way of Christ, confidence may need to be laid aside for a time. Yet, even here it is a fallen brother you consider, and every effort should be made and every desire be that they may be restored to fellowship and trust. But, “not a step further,” so far as following is concerned.
If we fall into a place of despising and distrusting our leadership, here’s the problem. We come to despise the Church. We come to despise the ordinances and doctrines of the Church. There is that leaven of sin again! As it metastasizes, what comes of it? We will discover, if we do not stop the process dead, that it leads to despising salvation itself. This is the chain of events Clarke sees developing, and I think he is dead on in his surmise.
In a secular sense, I think we are watching this play out in society around us. Regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, a large portion of the nation despises him. A larger portion still has come to despise the overall form of governance as corrupt, self-serving, and benighted. It really doesn’t matter what decisions are reached or how. They are not going to be accepted as applying to all. We are come to an age where we see the people despising the nation. Laws, ordinances, and doctrines, as they apply in that sphere, are heeded only insofar as they are agreeable. There are no laws, effectively, only suggestions. Law officers are to be feared, perhaps, but only if they cannot be overpowered or ignored.
It’s the same issue playing out in a different circumstance. Those same attitudes, being ours, come with us into the Church. Either we are actively seeking that these attitudes be renewed and transformed by the Word of Christ, or we begin to apply the same failed logic to our faith and practice. We know better than our leadership. They may give us advice and tell us their conceptions of Truth, but it’s only advice. We shall do as we please, and if these leaders don’t please us, we will either oust them in favor of those who do, or we shall take our Christian commerce elsewhere. And having done so, we will have proven Scripture true once more. “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths” (2Ti 4:3-4). That time has come. That time has always been. Our great defense against joining in such practice is to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, so as to prove what the will of God is: That which is good and acceptable and perfect (Ro 12:2).
People of God, I would implore you, as brothers and sisters of one Father, who is in heaven, to give all due honor and confidence to those whom our Father has set as careful, loving guides over us. Yes, your shepherds will leave the ninety nine to go after that one sheep who has gone astray, tenderly carrying that one back to the fold. But don’t be that sheep. Stick with the ninety-nine, and make your shepherds’ jobs a bit easier, a bit more joyful.
In What Sense Power? (05/24/17)
“The kingdom of God does not consist in words, but in power.” That seems a clear enough statement, but in fact, it can’t help but lead to questions. If it does not lead to questions, it is most likely because we have already solidified our preconceived notions of his meaning. The section we are in is titled, “In What Sense Power?” That is one obvious question that has to be asked, given the later chapters. But, we could as easily ask, “In what sense words?” If we take these few verses in isolation, or even in combination with Mark 16:17-18, and other like passages, we come away with a strong advocacy of the charismata as a necessary marker for the preacher and leader in the Church. And yet, we have that opening gambit from Paul describing his time in Corinth. “I was determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1Co 2:2). And yet, it seems unlikely that the Corinthians hadn’t learned of the charismata until after Paul had departed. He’s quite aware of them, and even approving of them in their proper place.
But, what is Paul after here, in this context? The words, I think we have properly defined by verse 19. It is the ‘words of those who are arrogant’. It is the empty show of words. It is the use of words for the sake of appearing refined and clever, rather than for imparting Truth. Clearly, it’s not all preaching, for Paul rates preaching as the chief gift to the Church, indeed seeks that we evaluate all that is given to the Church on the basis of its capacity to edify, to educate and inculcate.
But, when we turn to power, the picture gets all muddy. Even surveying the commentaries I find such a wide range of interpretation as to leave me effectively on my own to reach a conclusion. Clarke might be said to hold down one extreme of viewpoint, saying that religion isn’t a matter of fine speech, nor even of ‘refined doctrines’. It is so far tilted toward this matter of power that he says, “All his genuine apostles are enabled, on all necessary occasions, to demonstrate the truth of their calling by miracles.” Now, were that declared in the past tense, we would have a pretty standard description of the apostolic office, and that may very well be Clarke’s intent. But, one inclined to see that office as continuing in our day could take that as support, and since there is a pretty solid overlap between that viewpoint and those who hold that the charismata not only continue, but continue to mark out the True Believer, here is some strong food indeed! See? Even Clarke recognized it, writing before Pentecostalism had even been conceived of. A quick reversal of the arguments while nobody is looking and we’ve got this idea that all those who perform miracles must be apostles as well. That’s lousy logic, but it’s not unusual to find such thinking.
I will note, though, that Clarke does actually couch this a bit. They are enabled for this miracle working ‘on all necessary occasions’. Let me stress the necessary part of that. This must be understood as saying that even the apostles, even restricting our view of the apostles to those whom Jesus clearly named as Apostles, did not hold power to perform miracles on demand. I don’t think for a moment that these Apostles were inclined to view the gifts of the Spirit as playthings, but had they done so, the implication here is that they would soon have found themselves corrected. If the purpose of these signs is to confirm the validity of the Apostolic message and the validity of Apostolic authority, such frivolous use of power would undermine the purpose.
Saying that, we must immediately move to the question of why, this being the case, the Corinthians were allowed to go off the rails like this? I can arrive at two answers. I could probably arrive at more given time, but I’ll stick with two. First and foremost, it might be that a portion of what was on display at Corinth was not legitimate gifts of the Spirit, but rather counterfeits foisted off on the Church by her enemy. I say that’s a possibility, but I must hold it an unlikely one under the circumstance, for Paul does not denounce the gifts, only corrects their use. In similar fashion, he does not so much denounce the message of these other teachers as if they were heretics in need of being purged from the church, but rather he addresses their character and example. The words may be true, but they are coming out of a vessel which is in need of hearing them more clearly, applying them more rightly.
Clarke also, leading up to his point about ‘all genuine apostles’, gives a definition of this power which might be missed by those inclined toward the showy gifts. His idea of this power in which Christ’s religion consists is, ‘the mighty energy of the Holy Spirit; enlightening, quickening, converting, and sanctifying believers’. Read that carefully. We see the Spirit’s energy and many of us jump straight to the charismata. Not Clarke. He actually goes to the same place Calvin does, only describing it differently. But, Calvin perhaps pushes too hard to the other end of the spectrum, insisting we are not to restrict this idea of power to that of performing miracles; but must grant that it encompasses something more extensive: The saving power of the gospel.
You know, you lay those two side by side and they start not to look so different after all. Perhaps there is greater agreement here than I had supposed. Perhaps I am discovering my own preconceptions.
Barnes is not far removed here. He allows that power in the first place does indeed refer to those sorts of miracles that were displayed in Christ and those by which He confirmed the authorizing of His Apostles ‘at the founding of the church’. There is a limit set in those words. There is the past tense that Clarke displays as present tense. Power also refers to the gifts that had so captivated the Corinthian imagination, such as are addressed later in the letter. But, it has further points of reference. It refers to the Holy Spirit’s influence, so necessary to the converting of unbelievers. It also refers to His continued power exerted in the protection and governance of His church. Which is it that we have in view, then? Or is it all of them together? I don’t think Barnes says outright where his opinion lies, but it is evidenced, I think, in this statement. “Unless teachers showed that they had SUCH power, they were not qualified for their office.” SUCH power, in this case, is that which results in conversion. We’re back with Calvin and Clarke. It’s that ‘mighty energy of the Holy Spirit; enlightening, quickening, converting, and sanctifying believers’. It’s the saving power of the Gospel which is inextricably bound to the work and mission of the Spirit.
Where are we then? The Living Bible gives the idea as, “The Kingdom of God is not just talking; it is living by God’s power.” That’s not quite it, though, is it? It’s certainly a part of it, but that’s not it. The Amplified wants to express power as, ‘the moral power and excellence of soul’, this being what Paul aimed to test when he came. But, that also feels a bit wide of the mark. It’s assuredly necessary to us that our faith demonstrate in fruit. We cannot be Christians in name only. We cannot claim to be His on the sole basis of being able to propound doctrine accurately. Yet, we ought to be able to propound doctrine accurately. How else shall we ever think to live it accurately? Of course, if that sound doctrine is actually understood and not merely parroted, we must recognize that to live it accurately is beyond us, however desirous we are of that good end. But, yes: Orthodoxy must lead to orthopraxy, and the only way we arrive at that combination – the mark of sanctification – is by the power of the Holy Spirit, the power of the Gospel. That same Triune power that brought about our salvation is just as necessary going forward.
This is where Paul is focused. You with your fine words: Is there evidence that you understand what you say? Is there evidence that you believe what you say? Or are you just spouting off to impress the locals? That was the art of rhetoric, and still is. Consider the modern debate club, which is the training ground of rhetoric. Or consider the legal profession. You are required to argue one set of statements successfully, and you are required to do so whether you actually believe the statements true or know full well that they are false. It’s not about expressing personal conviction of Truth, then, but merely about presenting convincing arguments. It has more in common with advertising than with educating.
Empty speeches do not demonstrate the kingdom. There is Paul’s point. Fine sermons do not a pastor make. Effective sermons – effective not because they produce an emotional response, but because they plant and fertilize the seed of the Gospel; because they water that seed and nurture the growth of the believer and bring about conversion of the unbeliever – mark the pastor that God has set in place. The effective pastor relies on the Spirit, knowing he can do no other. And, God is pleased to work through such a one, for when the pastor is weak, God can be shown strong. And so He is: Strong to the reigning over His kingdom; strong to the tearing down of all that seeks to tear down His Church; strong to save the individual; strong to preserve the Church entire.
There is our contrast with Corinth. You may recall that the Wycliffe Commentary had spoken of the Corinthian conceit as being that they had already received this kingdom God had promised, and were in that regard significantly ahead of other churches. Looking at this, at Paul’s warning and rebuke, that commentary concludes, “The Corinthian’s kingdom was a kingdom in word, not in power.” That is as much as to say it was a phantasm: Vanity and wind. History would seem to confirm that in large degree. What shall history have to say about us in our turn?
Christianity that consists in words only is no Christianity at all. But, then, neither is a Christianity that consists in a magic show decorated by Scripture quotes. There is a power to perform miracles. That power God displays as He sees fit, for His purposes, through those whom He authorizes. There is also a power to perform counterfeit miracles. That power the Devil exercises to fool, if possible, even the elect. How do we discern the difference? Is not one healing much the same as another? Is not one miracle as much an evidence of God’s presence as the other? Well, obviously not, if one comes from God and the other from the Devil. Only a Universalist could suppose any sort of equivalency there. I think we must find the distinction in the purpose.
The power which God displays, in whatever form He chooses to display it, is ever geared toward the mission of the Gospel, which is after all His mission. That power is exercised to turn lost sheep back toward their Shepherd. It is exercised for the sustenance, expansion, and defense of the kingdom of God and its citizens. It is exercised to exalt God’s glory. It is never exercised for show; never for entertainment; never for frivolous ends. Even the frivolity of the Corinthians in their excessive attention on these gifts must in the end be recognized as serving God’s purpose, if only for the purpose of demonstrating that these wonders were not the point, but the pointers.
The power that matters is that work of the Spirit which brings moral strength to the man. This must come of hearing the word of sound doctrine. Let it be said that sound doctrine is that which not only describes the shape of the godly man, but encourages one to take that shape and even empowers one to do so. But, if it empowers, it is solely by the Word of God made living and effectual by the Holy Spirit of God. The power lies in the voice of Truth, the seed which the Sower plants. We who serve, serve solely as instruments in His most capable hands. We who grow, grow because He has sown; He has watered; He has weeded and fertilized and pruned.
