Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Mars Hill Athens, and The Nature of the Gospel Message

Extract from B. Ward Powers (2008), First Corinthians: an exegetical and explanatory commentary, Wipf and Stock. In 1 Corinthians 1:17b Paul embarks on an Excursus which raises the question: did Paul make a mistake at Athens? (pp.35-37).

Some scholars have seen in Paul’s Excursus a deliberate repudiation by Paul of the policy which (on their view) he had followed in Athens, the city from which he had just come, where he preached philosophy and logic rather than the simple gospel (Acts 17:22-31). Paul’s approach at Athens was a failure (these scholars say), and thus he changed his message for his ministry at Corinth to a simple gospel presentation, as he outlines in his Excursus.

But this is reading some rather far-reaching conclusions into the text on the basis of flimsy evidence. It is highly probable that Paul’s comments on the Greeks seeking wisdom (1:22), and not being able to perceive the wisdom of God, are indeed made against a background of his recollection of his difficulties in proclaiming Christ at Athens. But what he did at Athens was, in accordance with his established policy (see 1 Corinthians 9:19-23), to seek for a bridge for the gospel to the thinking of his hearers. He began with their religious beliefs and practices (Acts 17:22-23) and quoted their poets (Acts 17:27-29) to gain their attention and goodwill, and to win a hearing for himself. In this he was successful - but in his sermon, just as soon as he reached the subject of the death and resurrection of Jesus (Acts 17:31), they laughed him to a standstill (Acts 17:32). He never got to finish his address: they sneered at him; they said, “We will hear you on this subject some other time” (NEB): but they would not let him continue his presentation of the gospel to them then, and he was forced to leave them (Acts 17:33 - note particularly the force of the word “so”, ESV/RSV/TEV/NEB, “at that”, NIV). There was a small response (Acts 17:34), but the attitude of the Athenians was such that Paul could see it would be pointless to persevere there, so “After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth” (18:1).

The difference between Athens and Corinth was not that he preached an unsuccessful message at the one and had more success after changing his message for the other city, but that the Athenians were not prepared to grant him a hearing and he gave up the attempt as futile, whereas at Corinth there were significant numbers who were at least willing to listen to his message (Acts 18:4-11).

It would be interesting to learn what Paul would have said at Athens had he been permitted to finish his address. He had reached the presentation of the resurrection when the sophisticated Athenians stopped him in his tracks and said to him, “Some other time” (Acts 17:32). I suspect his message would have been very like his outline of the gospel that we find in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2: for, he says (1:23), “we preach Christ crucified - to both Jews and Gentiles.” Note the “we” and the “preach”. In context we can see that Paul is speaking of himself and his fellow apostles and evangelists. And “preach” is present tense: this is their universal and their habitual message: “Christ crucified”. There is no other.

The full gospel message is found in here, in Paul’s Excur­sus, plus 15:1-10. It has an objective and a subjective element.

Objectively, historically: Christ was crucified, dead and buried, and rose again. This is “the message (λογοσ, logos) of the cross”, which is utter foolishness to those who are lost (1:18) - but which is the demonstration of the power of God to those who are being saved (1:18, 2:4). Subjectively, personally: It was for our sins that Christ died (15:3); and the gospel becomes effective in our individual lives when we encounter the resurrected Christ ourselves, as Paul did (15:8, 10), and experience the forgiveness of our sins that he died to accomplish for us. This is what Paul and the others preach (15:11, again present tense), this is the gospel message in which the Corinthians had placed their faith (2:5; 15:11), and by which they are being saved (1:18; 15:3). This must continue to be the center of our own proclamation, and we can thus have confidence that, in demonstration of the Spirit and of power (2:4), we shall then see God at work saving those who believe (1:21).

Ward
--
[Click for "First Corinthians Commentary" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Ministry of Women" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Divorce and Remarriage" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Marriage and Divorce" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Learn to Read the GNT" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "The Sin we Treat as a Virtue" contents, overview or order info.] [Click to go to the Ward Powers Home Page.]

Fracturing and Fragmenting the Church of God

Extract from B. Ward Powers (2008), First Corinthians: an exegetical and explanatory commentary, Wipf and Stock. Comments on Dissension in the Church as a theme of the letter introduced in chapter 1 (pp.33-35).

In 1 Cor 1:10-12 Paul speaks, in some considerable concern, about how the Corinthians are plagued with divisions and quarrels. They are dividing themselves into factions clustered around the names of Paul, Apollos, Cephas (Peter), and Christ himself.

Commentators are agreed that the factions were neither started by nor supported by the men whose names they bore. We have no real knowledge now of the basis for these factions, nor do we know what they were differing about. Various conjectures have been made. For example, that the Jewish Christians laid claim to Cephas and probably Apollos, and the Gentiles to Paul. Or those who were (or wanted to be) married pointed to the marital status of Peter, while those who were unmarried elevated Paul and Christ himself as their exemplars (the married status of Apollos is not mentioned in 9:5-6, and remains unknown). Or the differences between the factions may have centered in differences of methods, of preaching, of behavior, or the like, which the Corinthians detected (or thought they detected) between the persons around whose names they gathered themselves. The fact is, we do not know.

But for the Corinthians - and for Paul - the matter was a serious one. Paul has many important issues to raise, requiring careful consideration and extensive change. But before discussing any of these, Paul feels obliged to tackle this issue of their disunity. It is dividing brother from brother in a destructive way (3:17). It must be faced. It must be dealt with. It must be stopped. Paul’s approach is, first, to reiterate the nature of the ­gospel, which is the major factor which unites them all; then, to emphasize that he and Apollos (and the others) are equally inspired and led by the Spirit, and are colaborers, even if their ministries may perhaps differ in some ways (“I planted, Apollos watered”).

Christ is the foundation (3:11): all of us (Paul indicates) are building upon that foundation - and we must be very careful just how we build (3:12-15). As we shall see in subsequent chapters, there are various kinds of differences to be seen at Corinth. In addition to those indicated in this first chapter (whatever in fact they were), there are the different builders of chapter 3; the differences between the “libertarians” and the “ascetics” in the church in regard to their attitude to sex (chapters 6 and 7); between the “knowers” and the “weak” in relation to food offered to idols (chapters 8 to 10); between the “haves” and the “have nots” at the Lord’s Supper (chapter 11); between those more obviously gifted by the Spirit and those less so (chapters 12 to 14); and between those with various views concerning the resurrection (chapter 15). Where there were moral or doctrinal errors involved, Paul pointed these out clearly and called for change. But, these apart, Paul did not ask them to become what they were not. His basic approach, which we can see exemplified in 7:20, was, “Stay as you are.”

What he did ask was that there be no disunity, no quarreling, “but that you all be united in the same mind and the same judgement” (1:10).

Some churches of today, in seeking to put into practice the spirit of this teaching of Paul, have adopted as their policy not to make any changes to the status quo unless the whole church (or at least the whole body of the leadership of that church) are unanimously agreed. So till then they will continue to pray and to “wait upon God”.

But there are so many issues which Scripture leaves open for our own determination (e.g. various aspects of how we conduct our worship of God), and so many ways in which we will differ (perfectly legitimately) from one another, that when this approach is followed rigorously it often happens that that church moves very slowly in any matter, or not at all. In some ways, some matters, this may be to the good; but overall it inhibits progress in adapting the eternal gospel to the circumstances of a changing world. Often this means that those people who are most vocal or have the strongest personalities (or who simply get in first to express their views) carry the day, because the less vocal, or the less pushy, or the more reticent, do not want to jeopardize the “unity of the Spirit” by expressing a different opinion.

Some have had, historically, a different approach: when (say) 75% want this and 25% want that, and they cannot agree or accommodate each other’s differences, they split - often acrimoniously. Then in their separate enclaves they can each have their “unanimity” over the issue. And thus perhaps another denomination is created. Then because of our investment (both emotional and financial) in the whole situation, the divisions and the divergences become so totally entrenched that they continue long after the basic causes have been forgotten and the original antagonists have passed from the scene.

Sometimes God blesses them all in this situation, and good may result. It can happen. The most famous example in Scripture is the quarrel between Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:36-41), which resulted in two missionary parties going out, each under an experienced leader. But more often, in modern times, this simply results in bad feelings, a more divided Christian witness to the world, the waste of precious resources through the doubling-up on church infrastructure, and the fact that the one group can no longer benefit from the gifts of ministry which the Lord has given to members of the other group. Oftentimes the fact that a minority dissents over an issue will mean that the whole matter receives more careful consideration. Issues should still be decided by majority, but it will happen with an awareness of how often in history significant progress was made in any given field of endeavor only because a minority - or a single voice - dissented from the accepted outlook or the consensus of the majority or the status quo. It may indeed be that he or she is a voice in the wilderness, but they could be voicing prophetic insights from the Lord. Or not.

Paul’s earnest plea in this section is not a call for uniformity. Or unanimity. We need to distinguish clearly between the danger of the factions forming in our church which was of so much concern to Paul, on the one hand, and on the other, the expressing in valuable robust discussion of differing points of view. Different people espousing differing views and opinions is no justification for fracturing the unity of the body of Christ in a given church.

Ward
--
[Click for "First Corinthians Commentary" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Ministry of Women" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Divorce and Remarriage" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Marriage and Divorce" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "Learn to Read the GNT" contents, overview or order info.]
[Click for "The Sin we Treat as a Virtue" contents, overview or order info.] [Click to go to the Ward Powers Home Page.]