From: A Torah
Commentary on First
Corinthians 1-6 Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2011
Chapter 4:
[Page 59]
The Epistle’s Doctrine of the Supernatural
1.
Doctrine of God
The believer’s relationship to God. A number of isolated texts make passing reference to this subject. He is identified as “our Father” at the beginning of the epistle (1:3). He is One to be prayed to, as Paul himself did: “I thank my God always” concerning the spiritual blessings others had received (1:4). Though there are many things that claim to be “gods” (8:5), in reality there “is no other God but one” (8:4). Furthermore, He is the creator of all things through Christ (8:6).
God
had “bought” them “at a price” (6:2).
This is an obvious allusion to the ancient, universal practice of slave
purchasing. As the result of that new
relationship, then, one should “glorify God” both in “your body and in your
spirit” since both are His in the final analysis (6:2). He will ultimately raise
up their bodies from the dead (
God’s character. The expression “faithful” as a description of God (1:9) sums up His reliability and steadfastness. This trait of being “faithful” is held up as an encouragement in the time of temptation: because this is God’s desire and nature, the believer can be confident that somewhere there will be a way of escaping yielding to temptation (10:13).
Since
God expects His temple to be “holy” (
God’s method of
redemption. A central thrust of much of chapter one
is that God saves believers through the teaching of the reality of a crucified
Jesus and that this represented an approach toward reconciliation with the
supernatural that was totally out of touch with Jewish and Gentile thinking (
God
“gave” to every Corinthian Christian their “belie[f]” through the teaching they
heard from Paul and Apollos (3:5). Hence their conversion could be described as
the work of God who “gave the increase” and caused the seed to growth to full
maturity that Paul had planted and Apollos had
watered (3:6). Due to their redemption
Christians became “the
[Page 60]
2. Christology
Paul’s
teaching about Jesus can be divided into several broad categories. The first concerns Jesus’ relationship to the Father. Jesus was for believers “wisdom from God” and
that made possible our “righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (
God
Himself is occasionally referred to as “Lord” in this epistle. In quoting the Old Testament, the term “Lord”
most naturally refers to Yahweh and, barring contextual requirements, should be
interpreted this way here as well. In
But
this is a minority usage of the term in the epistle. The expression “Lord Jesus Christ” (or a
slightly different verbal equivalent) is utilized repeatedly: 1:3; 1:7; 1:8; 1:9;
If
Paul’s teaching is sound that God has made Jesus the ultimate power
figure in our world (
Jesus’ as current ultimate authority
figure. This concept is
concisely summed up in the term “Lord,” which carries with it the connotations
of authority, power, and supremacy.
Jesus is identified as having this relationship to all believers almost
at the beginning of the epistle (1:2):
“our Lord, both theirs and ours” is the wording Paul utilizes. The implication is that this Lordship carries
with it power, strength, and control greater than all human beings. Hence Paul challenges the Corinthians, “Do we
provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we
stronger than He?” (
Jesus’
authority is a delegated authority.
Matthew 28:18-20 speaks in these terms as to its beginning. Paul speaks in these terms of when the
authority comes to an end. He will rule
until all rival authorities are subjugated (
Jesus’ death. Paul
emphatically asserts the reality of that death.
It was a “stumbling block” to Jews and “foolishness” to Gentiles (
This concept is conveyed in
chapter five by a powerful Old Testament image:
Jesus is described as “our Passover [who] was sacrificed for us”
(5:7). The allusion, of course, is to
the sacrifice of the Lamb whose blood was put on the outside of the Hebrew
[Page 61] homes in
Jesus’ return. Paul calls this the “revelation of our Lord
Jesus Christ” (1:7) and “the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:8). He looks forward to it with enthusiasm and
virtually ends his epistle with the prayer, “O Lord, come!” (
Jesus and Paul. Paul reminded the Corinthians that however
the techniques and methodology of his teaching might not measure up to the
cultured Greek standards of their society, the fact remained that he had
received a commission from Christ “to preach the gospel (1:17) and had done so
effectively enough to have converted many of them. Furthermore that “message of the cross” had
the “power of God” standing behind it (
If this were not enough to support his authority, Paul had personally “seen” Jesus (9:1), though not specifying where or under what conditions. He makes a longer allusion to an appearance in 15:8-9 and puts it on a par of reality and importance with the appearances immediately after the resurrection (15:5-7).
On a moral plane, Jesus was the apostle’s role model. Paul “imitate[d]” Christ (11:1). They should imitate the apostle for the same reason (11:1)--after all, he was following the right role model.
Jesus’ teaching as given by given Paul. This falls into three categories:
(1) Teaching
that we know from the synoptics and which was already
accepted as coming from Jesus.
Paul attributes the prohibition of believers divorcing not to himself
“but the Lord” (
Interestingly, Paul
presents this supplemental teaching as also fully authoritative. He conspicuously does not suggest that
following a different course would be acceptable to God. This is in vivid contrast to that emphasis
when he discusses continued virginity versus marriage (
Later
in discussing the communion Paul quotes the words of its institution (
(2) Teaching independent of the synoptics and John that Paul attributes to Jesus. Paul refers to how “those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel”
[Page 62] (
There are two possibilities. The “command” Paul refers to may be considered by him a necessary inference from the principle in these synoptic texts. Alternatively, he is alluding to how Jesus had at some unknown point afterwards delivered such explicit teaching or application though the apostles or other prophetic voice.
Paul
refers in 11:2 to the “traditions” that the Corinthians
were keeping and which he had “delivered” to them. “Delivered” suggests that they had not
originated with himself, but that he was the
transmitter of that teaching from someone else.
In other contexts Paul quite vigorously denied that the teaching he presented
had come from the original apostles (Galatians
Even
if we attribute the previous examples to a use of pre-existing materials by the
apostle, this can not be the case in regard to his regulations on the exercise
of spiritual gifts in the church assembly (chapter 14). After giving these, he stresses, “If anyone
thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the
things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord” (
(3)
Closely akin to the above type of teaching is Paul’s teaching authority based upon being Christ’s apostle. Some of this teaching is worded in such a way
that he seems clearly implying that this is new revelation given by
Jesus for their benefit. Hence the fact
that Paul could invoke the authority of Jesus in regard to teaching He was now
writing to the Corinthians. For example,
in regard to his initial rebuke of their divisiveness, he “plead[s]” with them
“by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” to be united in thought and action (
Likewise in demanding that they expel the incestuous man, he issues the instruction “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:4). Since the instruction has the Lord’s backing, it is not surprising that when it is carried out the Corinthians will be acting “with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:4), i.e., with His approval, support, concurrence, and backing.
3.
Doctrine of the Holy Spirit
Relationship of Spirit, Son, and Father in the epistle’s teaching. The words
[Page 63] Paul
spoke, he insists, were “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power”
(2:4). He immediately adds that this was
so that their faith would be grounded “in the power of God” (2:5). This could be either an assertion of the
Spirit’s deityship or that the preached message had
the backing of both the Spirit and the Father. Read in isolation the former is more
convincing, but since Paul immediately enters a discussion of how “the wisdom
of God” (2:7) is revealed by God “through His Spirit” (
Indeed,
the Spirit, the apostle tells his readers, has a unique access to the complete
thoughts and intents of God (
The
role of Jesus in all this is finally touched on at the close of the chapter,
though just barely. The end result of
having received this teaching of God (and the Spirit) is that “we have the mind
of Christ” (
The miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit (12:7, 11) also manifested “God who work[s] all in all” (12:7). This God/Spirit linkage could again intend a deityship implication but the primary point of emphasis is more likely that both are involved, that the Father as well as the Spirit is working through them. In a similar vein is Paul’s discussion of the usefulness of the miraculous gift of prophesying (inspired teaching) in the assembly: though He calls this a gift of the Spirit (12:7-10), He also argues that its effective use in the assembly will so impress the unbeliever that he or she will “report that God is truly among you” (14:25).
Individual
believers are described as “the
Paul
is not concerned with the “how” this was done only the fact that it did occur: either a literal personal indwelling by deity
is compatible with this or a symbolic indwelling through the impact of the word
which the Spirit had revealed (cf. 2:10-13) upon the life and behavior of the
individual. The reference to Corinthian
Christians constituting the
Some have argued that in Paul’s mind the lines of demarcation between the
[Page 64] actions of Christ and the Spirit tended to blur and even disappear.[1] It should be noted that much of the evidence comes from passages that attribute the same action or result (salvation, peace, etc.) to both Christ and the Spirit. However, if one believes in a triune Godhead, then it would not be surprising if more than one Person in the Godhead were involved in each or all of these matters.
Perhaps the simplest illustration for this is by the example of God sending Jesus to earth to save the human race. Would not the fact that both were involved permit salvation to be attributed to either or both, according to the contextual appropriateness of the observation? If the Spirit were also involved in some manner (see next section), would it not also be appropriately attributed to that source without any needful deduction that the lines between Father, Son and Spirit have been blurred or made indistinct?
In the Corinthian correspondence
two more direct equations of Spirit and Christ are found as well. In 2 Corinthians
In 1 Corinthians
The Holy Spirit and salvation. According to this letter, the Holy Spirit
played a role in producing salvation.
Believers were “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus” as well as “by
the Spirit of our God” (
Miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. Heavy emphasis in chapter 12 is on the various forms of the supernatural expression of the power of the Spirit (12:8-10) and it was exclusively the Spirit’s decision who received what (12:7, 11). In short, it was not a learned experience secured or mastered through repetition; the gifts were simply given and were utilized or they were not given and there was nothing within human power to acquire them.
Chapter 14 zeroes in on
the gifts of tongue speaking and prophesying in particular. These are closely regulated as to number of
participants in each service (never more than three,
Even so there were limitations on recognizing something as the act of the Spirit. For one thing there are statements the Spirit absolutely would never make, such as “call[ing] Jesus accursed” (12:3). Paul clearly does not believe that a mere claiming of
[Page 65] having such a gift was to prove actually possessing it. The presence could be tested, at least in part, by what was being said—whether it was in conformity with the known will of God. Anything clear-cut out of line with it proved the illegitimacy of the claim.
Furthermore, these gifts
were controllable ones. The demand that
would-be tongue speakers remain silent if there were no interpreters present
implies it (
4. Doctrine of
Divine Justice:
Rewards and Punishments—
Temporal and Beyond
The
“judge” at the final accounting is described as “God” (
The Corinthians had a particularly unsavory case of incest among them (5:1). Paul insists that they expel the member who was guilty so that the rejection might bring him to his senses and “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (5:5). Since this was about as extreme an evil behavior as Gentiles could imagine (5:1), the possibility of his redemption carries the idea that any form of behavior is potentially forgivable. The difference between “potentially” and “actually” lying in the person’s response to the situation.
God judges (as in rejecting and holding accountable the practicer) far more individuals than just those involved in such socially repugnant behavior as incest; indeed, all believers and unbelievers are held to account—but only the evils of their own brothers and sisters lie within the immediate review of the church (5:13). Paul lists a number of such types of conduct before making that assertion of ultimate answerability to God (5:9-12).
Paul lays stress on such matters because he is trying to get the Corinthians to recognize that such conduct is wrong for them as well. They had apparently gotten it into their heads that the moral norms they would expect of outsiders were, somehow, not binding on themselves as well. This seems a reasonable deduction from the fact that they were whitewashing the incest (5:1) and if they could sanction that great an extreme, was
[Page 66] there much they would not excuse?
In some sense Christians themselves would participate in the judgment of the world and even of angels (6:2-3). Paul uses this to argue the rightness and propriety of them judging disputes with each other (6:4-5), but leaves undeveloped the concept as it applies to the final accounting of the human race.
There was a “reward” that the individual will receive for teaching others about Jesus (3:7). (When this reward will be received is not specified.) Their continued persistence in the faith, however, does not determine whether the converter will be saved (3:15); hence the door is left open to the possibility of apostasy and the reassurance that in the final analysis each person must come to terms with God and that no one is responsible for the other’s refusal to do so.
Paul
looks upon life as a race with a prize to be won (
The
apostle concedes that a person might not measure up and thus, while others are
rewarded, they themselves would be “disqualified” (
Although
Paul does not explicitly link the ideas of rewards or punishment with his
doctrine of the resurrection, one would be hard pressed to imagine any other
linkage could have been in his mind. It
is in this connection of the resurrection that Paul emphasizes that the nature
of the human body will be instantaneously changed “at the last trumpet” (
Yet
the writer of the epistle also recognized that there would be a “day” of
testing “by fire” in this life which would reveal the true commitment and faith
(or lack of it) of those who were converted (
Notes [Page 67]
[1] For detailed argumentation (and the citation of
specific Pauline texts) see Yves M. J. Congar, I
Believe in the Holy Spirit; volume 1, The Holy Spirit in the “Economy”--Revelation
and Experience of the Spirit, translated from the French by David Smith
(New York: Seabury
Press, 1983), 37-39.
[2] With this basic thought in mind but worded considerably differently, see Neill Q. Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul, Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers No. 6 (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., 1957), 6-7. Moule, Holy Spirit, 26, is inclined to find a reference to God the Father and Exdous 34 since that text “is referred to in this passage.”
[3] Moule, Holy Spirit,
26, makes the distinction between a person who was merely “a creature” and one
who had been transformed into a “life-giving and spiritual” being.
Roland H. Worth, Jr.
A Torah Commentary on First Corinthians 1-6:
Interpreting the Text in Light of
Its Old Testament Roots
© 2011