http://theshovel.net/writings/ Good News of freedom in Christ http://theshovel.net/writings/ http://theshovel.net/writings/yourimage.gif 48 48 en-us Copyright (c) 2008 Jim Minker Program Witch ASP Code 2.0 120 youremail@email.com (Your Name) youremail@email.com (Your Name) http://theshovel.net/writings/dig.asp?TID=404#1416 http://theshovel.net/writings/dig.asp?TID=404#1416Sun, 22 Aug 2004 08:00:10 EDT
How in the world do we so easily overlook this reality?!  For when men set themselves up as authorities by which they set forth the principles by which the work of God in you is to be judged they only establish a climate of fear and intimidation.  All they do is to promote fleshly comparisons according to their own fleshly standards.  And the result is always the same, for flesh only breeds more of itself!

Should anyone ever assume Paul was in any way focused upon sin in the course of his letter a simple consideration of his stated focus might put all to rest: "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." (1 Cor 2:2)  And should you suspect he deviated from his viewpoint somewhere between the first and second letter consider this:  "Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Cor 5:16-17)  Like I say, how do we ever let anyone convince us of anything else?]]> 1 Corinthians the shovel http://theshovel.net/writings/dig.asp?TID=404#1758 http://theshovel.net/writings/dig.asp?TID=404#1758Sun, 23 Dec 2007 16:22:39 EST Overview: The Corinthian perception about Paul

Imagine finding a letter in your mailbox with a message that reads: "I don't love you anymore. I'm leaving and won't be back ever again. Leave me alone or something bad will happen to you." Do you think it would it make a difference to know that the letter wasn't written to you? The fact is that we've gotten used to reading excerpts of other people's mail as if they were personal messages written to us. Why, then, would it surprise us when one day we read the note that seems to say God doesn't love us anymore?

What I'm telling you is that if you don't pay attention to the many references in Paul's letter regarding the relationship between himself and the Corinthians - especially taking note of his numerous references to third parties - you're going to find yourself misreading some things he wrote. You see, there's a reason we end up finding so many problem verses or passages, and it's mainly related to our habit of reading verses as if they were random fortune cookies. Of course, there are many truths that will shine through nonetheless, but it sure can't hurt to consider what the letter reveals about itself.

In view of this, consider the following passages:

Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
(1 Corinthians 1:12-13)

For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.
(1 Corinthians 3:4-6)

So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you,
(1 Corinthians 3:21-22)

If we take these small excerpts from this rather long letter at face value we would assume that the Corinthians were divided between Paul, Apollos, Peter (Cephas) and Christ. But guess what? That wasn't the case, for he clearly says so later on in the letter:

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.
(1 Corinthians 4:6)

"Ladies and gentlemen: the story you are about to hear is true. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent." (from the long-running radio/TV police-drama series, "Dragnet").

How many times I heard that as a kid I can't remember, but I did understand the technique of the name-change. Now Paul did it, not "to protect the innocent", but to avoid naming the perpetrators. In other words, if he had given credit to the actual faction leaders somebody would have taken what he wrote out of context in order to turn it into an endorsement. Paul had no intention of playing into their competitive game. After all, how could he even mention their names without writing one of them first? And what if he didn't include all their names? Competitors will use anything to their own benefit.

That any naming would have been negative is immaterial. History proves that sometimes the best publicity for a candidate is to be rebuked by a notable person, especially when the current consensus of opinion is against that person ... as both letters reveal it to be so against Paul. While many comments in 1 Corinthians merely allude to this opinion, the second letter makes it quite clear. For example: "For they say, 'His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive and his speech contemptible.'" (2 Cor 10:10)

When he wrote, "For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you." (1 Cor 1:11), the Corinthians would have realized that Paul knew what had been going on in his absence. As Paul didn't hesitate providing the name of his informants, I think we can safely assume that "Chloe's people" had nothing to do with any faction but instead would have been recognized as a source of reliable information.

I think the Corinthians would have also known that "Chloe's people" wouldn't have told Paul that he and Apollos were among the most favored candidates in their current "quarrels". Actually, I think the substitution of the real names with his own and Apollos' would have thrown the Corinthians off guard as they listened to the reading of the letter in one of their gatherings. Imagine them glancing around the room wondering what Paul might be up to by having so obviously avoided stating the names of those considered important.

The only way Paul's name would have been mentioned in the face of such divisive claims can be understood in view of the contents of the whole letter. After all, it obviously presents a reiteration of what they would have previously heard from him. I'm sure some would have brought his name up, but it would have been as a rebuttal to the whole idea of division and competition.

Now, what about the mention of Cephas (Peter) and Christ in 1 Cor. 1:12? Paul didn't say anything about using their names figuratively. But then consider, would he have had to? Having substituted their own names he already set the stage upon which he added two others that would have only increased the absurdity of the situation.

First, there's Peter. I have no doubt the Corinthians would have heard that Peter was the apostle to the circumcised as Paul was to the uncircumcised. But did they actually know him? Now I've read the speculation, based upon this reference alone, that Peter must have visited the Corinthians ... otherwise, why would Paul have mentioned him? But what if Paul used his name specifically because they had not personally known him? What I'm suggesting is that the name of Cephas was a safe name to use because it neither would not nor could not have been mistaken by them. But I think there's more to it.

Paul also referred to Peter as "Cephas" in the letter he wrote to the Galatians. Perhaps, being a Jew himself, Paul preferred the name Jesus gave Simon [John 1:42, "Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas' (which is translated Peter)"]. Then again, Paul may have used it to emphasize Peter's role among the Jews, especially in Galatia, where the confrontation between himself and Peter (Gal 2:11) revolved around a rift caused by Peter's fear of "the party of the circumcision".

Here's what I think. Paul included Cephas' name because the Corinthians were familiar with the story of that confrontation because he had told them about it. After all, why wouldn't he have? It occurred in Antioch (the starting point of Paul's travels) about 3-4 years before he ever visited Corinth and 9 years before he wrote the letter of 1 Corinthians. I think they also knew that Cephas, so named by Jesus and sent to the Jews, had been intimidated by the same kind of fear that had caused their own schisms to develop. And to think ... all of this just by the addition of one substitute name!

And then there's the name of "Christ". I had heard it suggested once that those who claimed "I am of Christ" were some who used it to say that they were more spiritual than the rest. Now I have no doubt this very thing has happened repeatedly in the course of the Christian religion, but I don't think a group of them was actually using these words. However, I do suspect that the desire to sound authentically superior may be implied by Paul's inclusion of Christ as representing the head of one of the divisions in his own body. Of course, the absurdity that Christ could have broken off a part of himself to form a superior faction would have been made painfully clear.

Once again, Paul knew the names and could have confronted them about it by using some examples, but that would have only given certain people more reason to boast. Unless Paul had made sure to mention every single one of those involved it would have established a basis by which the mentioned folks would gloat over those who were not mentioned. It made no difference that the more arrogant men among them publicly criticized and demeaned him. For they knew that even a negative endorsement from Paul would still carry a lot of weight among eager followers who would be awed by the fact that the great apostle Paul knew the name of their preferred leader. Of course, I think these boastful men were actually afraid of Paul and only spoke against him because he was not around.

Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.
(1 Corinthians 1:12-15)

Notice how Paul switched between applying the situation to himself by referring to himself as "Paul", and then speaking specifically about himself by referring to himself in the first person. The distinction would not have been missed by the Corinthians, for they were well aware that Paul was not even a player in their baptism competition. That fact may have had something to do with why they decided to turn an initiation ritual into a competition in the first place. Think about it. They knew Paul had no interest in competition, nor in the immersion ritual (as he had performed less than a handful) so it presented an ideal platform where he was not a factor. After all, how could they compete in an arena where competition has no meaning?the shovel39456.7502083333]]> 1 Corinthians the shovel http://theshovel.net/writings/dig.asp?TID=404#1760 http://theshovel.net/writings/dig.asp?TID=404#1760Sat, 12 Jan 2008 07:58:54 EST Divisions: in reference to "planting and watering"

Now other than the one verse where he included the names of Cephas and Christ (1:12), Paul figuratively applied what he wrote to himself and Apollos. His stated purpose was: "so that IN US you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other." His approach thwarted any opportunist in the group by giving him no place to conveniently launch into his own agenda.

I suspect that numerous among the Corinthians impatiently waited for that right moment - just the mention of a name - only to realize that the opportunity passed them by. Some had schemed to go beyond ("exceed") what Paul had written in order to use it as a promotion of one above another, but Paul nipped that in the bud by writing as if it was all about himself and Apollos. Of course, there was far more to it than just silencing the opportunists. Paul used the conflict among them to highlight the night and day distinction between that which is of God and that which is of flesh, that which is permanent and that which is temporal.

While it is true that many of them had believed through Paul and then later continued to learn through Apollos in his absence, Paul was using Apollos and himself to comment on the current trend of competition for importance and authority among the community of believers.

For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
(1 Corinthians 3:4-11)

By figuratively applying these things to himself and Apollos, Paul placed this issue into perspective for the Corinthians. How so? By forcing a square peg in a round hole ... one that so obviously didn't fit. The very idea that Paul or Apollos could have been competitors in Christ was totally absurd. It smacked against everything Paul had ever said and everything they had known him to be. His applied presentation contrasted a hypothetical Paul and Apollos with the men they had known.

But that was not the whole of it, for there was a flip side. You see, the Corinthians would have been mentally filling in the blanks with some very familiar names, which would have resulted in yet another contradiction. Just as the Corinthians would not have been able to picture Paul and Apollos as sect leaders, they most certainly would not have been able to imagine the unnamed rivals as being fellow workers cooperating with one another. Competition between the factions led by these men gave rise to the jealousy and strife that ran rampant throughout the group. Division defined these rivals. Whereas Paul depended upon God to cause the growth, the rivals depended upon man-made divisions, jealousy and strife to strengthen those they led. ]]> 1 Corinthians the shovel http://theshovel.net/writings/dig.asp?TID=407#1419 http://theshovel.net/writings/dig.asp?TID=407#1419Sun, 22 Aug 2004 09:43:17 EDT [This is still a rough draft and will most likely be changed in the process of working on 1 Corinthians. Jim]

Paul, one who was chosen by God's desire and sent forth to testify of Jesus Christ, I address this letter to the new creation of God in Corinth, for you are those who have been claimed for God's own possession in Christ Jesus, together with everyone everywhere who miraculously recognize the risen Jesus Christ as the very source of life itself, for they belong to him as surely as we do.

To you I proclaim this freely bestowed favor and assurance from God our father and from the one who is our all in all, Jesus Christ. For this grace was freely given to you in Christ, and because of this I thank God concerning you, for you have already been made immeasurably rich in all things in him - yes, immeasurably rich in all speech and all knowledge -  even as the witness of Christ himself was validated in you, a witness declaring that you lack nothing regarding that which has been given, as you eagerly await the miraculous revelation of the one who is our everything, Jesus Christ, who will also validate you to the end, perfectly blameless in the day of Jesus Christ, who has become our all in all. God can be counted on to bring this to pass, as it is through Him that you were called into the total sharing of His son, Jesus Christ, our everything.

My brothers, I urge you to find your true agreement according to one name, Jesus Christ - our mutual lifesource - and put an end to the divisions that have been erected among you!  Instead of the fractured mess you force together into a false unity I encourage you to find your completeness in the same mind and in the same judgment - which is that of Christ. I say this because it has been brought to my attention that there is much contention and in-fighting among you.  

As I've come to understand it each one of you has been naming yourselves according to men and saying things like, "I am of Paul," and "I am of Apollos," and "I am of Cephas," and "I am of Christ."  Since when did Christ get divided?  And when was Paul crucified for you?  Furthermore, was it in the name of Paul that your testimony of faith in Christ was publicly made known?  I thank God I wasn't involved in any of these welcome-to-the-family events except that of Cripus and Gaius, because I surely wouldn't want any of you to suggest your membership in Christ was somehow attached to my name!  I also recall officiating the public welcome of Stephanus' family into the faith ... and if I happen to be overlooking any other I am not concerned, as it's unimportant, because Christ did not send me as the validator of faith, but to simply declare the good news.  I do not do this according to the persuasive power of one who knows how to use words to bring about a desired effect, for that would only negate the real power of the cross of Christ.

After all, the message of the cross is absurd, for it makes no sense to those who are passing away, but to us who are being delivered it is the power of God.  From the written record, "I will bring the wisdom of the wise to an end, and the intellegence of the intelligent I will throw away."  And so I ask you ... where is the wise, and the recorder of this world's wisdom, as well as the disputer of this enlightened age? Hasn't God drained all of its significance so that it has become nothing but babbling foolishness?  After all, it was God who - by his understanding - set it up so that this enlightened age - by its understanding - would never understand him. However, God was delighted in doing the very thing that could never work, which was to send messengers declaring what could only be understood as insanity -- and then save those who believe the unbelievable message!

But what of the radical differences in this world's reasoning?  I tell you, all such distinctions are immaterial.  For the institutional Christian mind is hung up on outward fleshly indicators, while the rational assume their advanced knowledge will lead them into all truth.  But our message - Christ crucified - is accepted by neither.  For the religious mind, though attached to his name and strengthened by its established practices and doctrines, is still offended by its impotent savior. As for the scientifically enlightened mind?  It only perceives him as the symbol of primitive ignorance!  But to those who have heard him Christ has become something else entirely.  To those rescued from religious bondage he has become the power of God; while to those who rejected him according to their higher knowledge he has become the wisdom of God!  Because Christ, who is judged as the absurdity of God, blows man's wisdom away ... and Christ, who is judged as the weakness of God, destroys the fortifications of the religious mind!

Do you need any other proof regarding what I say than to consider your own status in society before having heard him? After all, how many of you were considered wise according the standards of this world?  How many of you held positions of power?  How many of you were held in high esteem?  Not very many.  For God has deliberately chosen the ignorant to shame the wise, the weak to shame the strong, the dishonorable and the despised, yes, and the things that are not, in order to make nothing of the things that are, in order to remove any and all possible reason one might boast before God.  But it is of God that you are in Christ Jesus!  For Christ has become our wisdom (not intellectual wisdom, but that which is from God).  Christ has also become our true righteousness, and our belongingness to God, and our total completeness, so that our boasting is found in God alone ... which is testified to in written words held sacred by the institution, "Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord." ]]> 1 Corinthians the shovel http://theshovel.net/writings/dig.asp?TID=407#1756 http://theshovel.net/writings/dig.asp?TID=407#1756Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:00:16 EST Some thoughts on the matter of baptism in relation to Paul's letter.

I'm sure some will immediately dismiss my attempts to reword what has become one of the most significant words in many Christian religions. I mean, how else can it be viewed when a specific word has so obviously and purposely been avoided or reworked into much longer phrases by a person claiming to be capturing the true feel and meaning of Paul's letter?

Then again, what is it about the Greek word "baptiso" that escaped translation in the first place so that it was merely transliterated into an English equivalent? Why did "baptiso" become "baptize" instead of actually being translated into a word like "immerse" or "dip" or "put into"? Was it perhaps that the ritual of baptism had become so integrated into the accepted English religion of Christianity that they would not or could not consider adjusting the word for the sake of a real meaning?

Even in the English version of 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 consider how Paul used the word "baptize" in a dismissive sense. Now, I'm not suggesting he denounced the ritual of immersing or dipping believers in water in a public display of their faith in Christ; instead, our understanding of what actually happened has been altered by the very word we're familiar with. After all, what was Paul dealing with except the fact that a ritual meant to signify unity had become used to divide Christ and elevate men? And then, here we are born into a finely divided and fractured concept of Christ whose groups argue over the manner and importance of a ritual  that might have more to do with the importance or authority of the group that administers that ritual.

Here's what I'm suggesting in considering the meaning of the word "baptize": Does the continued use of this transliterated word help or hinder the meaning of Paul's message? In fact, at this stage of our religious progress (or I might say, regress), would even replacing the word "baptize" with a literal translated word do any better? Well, I can tell you from my own attempts that it still ignores the context and conforms to established religious concepts.

It is said that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and with that I fully agree. However, I suggest this matter has less to do with the renaming of a rose and more to do with pooh-pooh having been dubbed as being a rose. The problem, as I see it, is not really in the Greek word "baptiso" or even in the English equivalent; it is in the fact that our Christian religious mentality has come to accept the same sense of division and human elevation.

Okay, so when I say that Paul addressed the matter with a sense of dismissal I'm looking at the whole reason he brought it up in the first place and how he used it to make his point. The Corinthians, as a group, had bought into the lie being perpetuated by those who used the ritual to substantiate their own authority and importance above others. Instead of trying to come across as an authority on the matter Paul highlighted his own insignificance in how few "baptisms" he was involved in. I don't think he pretended not to care who or how many but that it was such a petty thing to have even considered. He wrote the words as they came to him (or possibly as dictated to a scribe), which means that we're given the opportunity to hear what was really important to him not only by what he wrote but also by how he remembered it.

And not only this, but Paul further dismissed the importance of the ritual in view of preaching the good news of Christ by writing, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel". To Paul, being sent to baptize and being sent to preach the gospel were two different matters altogether, and that flies in the face of much of Christianity today.

Now, what if the issue of baptism was not crucial to Paul's discussion at all? What if it was merely the current localized expression of an ongoing trend away from the oneness brought by Christ? Consider that with the Galatians it was circumcision. How Paul integrated baptism into his letter to the Corinthians could be replaced with other issues. If we can't see the heart of the matter without the baptism issue then I say we really don't see the heart of the matter at all. This is why I center my rewording around what I see as the heart of the matter rather than the issue of the day.

Everything about the issue of baptism as discussed by Paul had to do with the overall context of man's logic versus God's logic. It was merely the thing used by men at the time to validate themselves in front of others. It embodied man's sense of importance by turning a ritual into a stamp of approval. One's sense of validation increased by the importance and authority of the man who had performed his baptism. Today it might be who one's "pastor" is or which denomination (or even which individual group in that denomination) he belongs to. Within any group, one might find a greater sense of importance based on which Sunday school class is attended or whether one is part of a ministry. The ways in which people find a sense of validation is endless. Some even find a sense of validation by NOT attending any group.

The real matter at hand in this discussion is that there is no division in Christ, despite all the attempts at creating those divisions. The divisions we think men have made in Christ only reflect the division found in man. And though it may seem that we have to choose a particular division over another that is only the deception of man's logic. Those who are in Christ are in truth not divided. To insist upon this reality will find no validation from men, but only from God. ]]> 1 Corinthians the shovel