1 Corinthians 14

14:1-5

Vocabulary

• παραμυθία, ἡ – comfort, consolation
• διερμηνεύω – I interpret, translate

Translation

1. Διώκετε τὴν ἀγάπην, ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ πνευματικά, μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε.	Pursue love, and eagerly desire the spiritual [gifts], especially that you may prophesy.
2. ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ θεῷ· οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια·	For the one speaking in a tongue speaks not to men and women but to God; for noone hears, but in the Spirit that one speaks mysteries.
3. ὁ δὲ προφητεύων ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ οἰκοδομὴν καὶ παράκλησιν καὶ παραμυθίαν.	But the one prophesying to men and women speaks [words of] building up and encouragement and comfort.
4. ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ ἑαυτὸν οἰκοδομεῖ· ὁ δὲ προφητεύων ἐκκλησίαν οἰκοδομεῖ.	The one speaking in a tongue builds up himself; but the one prophesying builds up the church.
5. θέλω δὲ πάντας ὑμᾶς λαλεῖν γλώσσαις, μᾶλλον δὲ ἵνα προφητεύητε· μείζων δὲ ὁ προφητεύων ἢ ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσαις ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ διερμηνεύῃ, ἵνα ἡ ἐκκλησία οἰκοδομὴν λάβῃ.	I want all of you to speak in tongues, but especially that you prophesy; greater [is] the one prophesying than the one speaking in tongues, except if someone interprets, in order that the church receives edification.

Notes

• Practical application.
• Primacy of love, and right view of spiritual gifts as related to gatherings.
• Priority of prophecy over tongues, based on guiding principle of building up (which shapes entire chapter).

1

• Summary of 13 (pursue love) but combined with 12:31 (Inclusio)
• Reiterates encouragement of 12:31.

2-4

• Contrast two gifts.
• Tongues are positive – offered to God – but prophecy is better in context of gathering.
• Is self-edification positive or negative?
  • Thiselton (tentative) argues negative, i.e. building up status and ego. But this is only for untranslated tongues in assembly
• 3 terms in v. 3 are cumulative, stressing beneficial character of prophecy.
• Witherington, on implications of tongues being to God:
  • Not human, but special prayer language
  • Tongues + interpretation != prophecy (praise ->
    God not exhortation -> people)

5

• Surprising, given Paul’s statements about diversity in ch. 12. Perhaps he desires that they all receive the benefit, although aware that God does not give gift to all.
• Prophecy to be valued in the gathering, although interpreted tongues also to be valued.

14:6-12

Vocabulary

• ὠφελέω – I profit, help, benefit
• ὅμως – likewise; nevertheless, yet
• ἄψυχος – inanimate, lifeless
• αὐλος, ὁ – flute
• κιθάρα – harp
• διαστολή, ἡ – distinction, difference
• φθόγγος, ὁ – sound
• αὐλεω – I play the flute
• κιθαρίζω – I play the harp or lyre
• ἄδηλος – uncertain, indistinct
• σάλπιγξ, ἡ – trumpet
• παρασκευάζω – I prepare
• πόλεμος, ὁ – war
• εὔσημος – clear, distinct
• ἀήρ, ὁ – air
• τοσοῦτος – so many, so great, so much
• τύχοι – aor. opt. of τυγχάνω meet, happen
  • εἰ τύχοι – perhaps
• ζηλωτής, ὁ – zealot, enthusiast
• περισσεύω – I abound, overflow

Translation

6. Νῦν δέ, ἀδελφοί, ἐὰν ἔλθω πρὸς ὑμᾶς γλώσσαις λαλῶν, τί ὑμᾶς ὠφελήσω ἐὰν μὴ ὑμῖν λαλήσω ἢ ἐν ἀποκαλύψει ἢ ἐν γνώσει ἢ ἐν προφητείᾳ ἢ [ἐν] διδαχῇ;	But now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I benefit you if I do not speak to you either in revelation or en knowledge or in prophecy or [in] teaching?
7. ὅμως τὰ ἄψυχα φωνὴν διδόντα, εἴτε αὐλὸς εἴτε κιθάρα, ἐὰν διαστολὴν τοῖς φθόγγοις μὴ δῷ, πῶς γνωσθήσεται τὸ αὐλούμενον ἢ τὸ κιθαριζόμενον;	Likewise, the lifeless things giving a sound, either flute or harp, if it does not give distinct sound, how will what is played on the flute or played on the harp be made intelligible?
8. καὶ γὰρ ἐὰν ἄδηλον σάλπιγξ φωνὴν δῷ, τίς παρασκευάσεται εἰς πόλεμον;	Indeed, if a trumpet gives an indistinct sound, who will prepare themselves for war?
9. οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς γλώσσης ἐὰν μὴ εὔσημον λόγον δῶτε, πῶς γνωσθήσεται τὸ λαλούμενον; ἔσεσθε γὰρ εἰς ἀέρα λαλοῦντες.	Likewise with you, by means of the tongue, if you do not give an intelligible word, how will the one speaking be made intelligible? For you will be speaking into air.
10. τοσαῦτα εἰ τύχοι [2aor opt] γένη φωνῶν εἰσιν ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ οὐδὲν ἄφωνον·	If it may happen that there are many different sounds in the world and none are unsounded;
11. ἐὰν οὖν μὴ εἰδῶ τὴν δύναμιν τῆς φωνῆς, ἔσομαι τῷ λαλοῦντι βάρβαρος καὶ ὁ λαλῶν ἐν ἐμοὶ βάρβαρος.	Therefore if I do not know the power of the sound, I will be a foreigner/barbarian to the one speaking and the one speaking foreign to me.
12. οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς, ἐπεὶ ζηλωταί ἐστε πνευμάτων, πρὸς τὴν οἰκοδομὴν τῆς ἐκκλησίας ζητεῖτε ἵνα περισσεύητε.	So it is with you, since you are zealous of spirits, seek to abound towards the building up of the church.

Notes

6

• Hypothetical question
• First person
  • Rhetorical device, to invite participation?
  • Reference to his own practice?
  • Reference to his impending arrival?
• List is intended to cover all understandable utterance, hence no point trying to divide between elements.

7-8

• Analogy: flute, harp & trumpet
  • Intended to convey a message – sound is meaningful
  • Message requires distinction/clarity in order to be understood
  • Trumpet heightens the urgency

9

• Analogy is applied
• εὔσημον is parallel to ἄδηλον in v. 8 and γνωσθήσεται τὸ λαλούμενον is parallel to γνωσθήσεται το αὐλούμενον ἢ τὸ κιθαριζόμενον in v. 7.
• ‘By means of a tongue’ rather than ‘in a tongue’.

10-11

• Further analogy – compared with speaking in unknown language.
  • Is it an analogy? If Paul can use foreign language as analogy it reinforces argument that ‘tongues’ are not real human languages.
• τοσαῦτα… γένη – ‘so many kinds of’
• εἰ τύχοι – 2nd aor. opt. of τυγκάνω
  • ‘it may be that…’ or ‘if one were to count them’
  • Signals protasis to the apodosis of οὐδὲν ἄφωνον?
  • cf. Psalm 19:3, where there is a similar ambiguity.
• v. 11 makes point clear: every language makes some sort of noise, but if it is not understood it is meaningless
• Analogy effective in cosmopolitan Corinth

12

• Conclusion: give priority to building up the church
• πνεῦματα
  • ‘Spiritual things/gifts’?
  • Zeal to excel in their possession of ‘spirits’ that they can tap into in worship?

14:13-25

Vocabulary

• διερμηνεύω – I interpret,
  translate
• ἄκαρπος – unfruitful
• ψάλλω – I sing, sing praise
• ἀναπληροω – I fill, fulfill
• ἰδιώτης, ὁ – layman; ungifted person
• σός – your
• μύριοι – ten thousand
• φρήν, ἡ – thinking, understanding
• κακία, ἡ – evil, wickedness
• νηπιάζω – I am a child
• χεῖλος, τό – lip
• εἰσακούω – I obey, hear
• μαίνομαι – I am mad, out of my mind
• ἐλέγχω – I reprove, convict
• κρυπτός – hidden
• ὀντως – truly, indeed, really

Translation

13. Διὸ ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ προσευχέσθω ἵνα διερμηνεύῃ.	Therefore, let the one speaking in a tongue  pray that he/she may interpret.
14. ἐὰν [γὰρ] προσεύχωμαι γλώσσῃ, τὸ πνεῦμά μου προσεύχεται, ὁ δὲ νοῦς μου ἄκαρπός ἐστιν.	[For] if praying in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
15. τί οὖν ἐστιν; προσεύξομαι τῷ πνεύματι, προσεύξομαι δὲ καὶ τῷ νοΐ· ψαλῶ τῷ πνεύματι, ψαλῶ δὲ καὶ τῷ νοΐ.	Therefore what is it [that I shall do]? I will pray in the Spirit, but I will pray also in the mind; I will sing in the Spirit, but I will also sing in the mind.
16. ἐπεὶ ἐὰν εὐλογῇς [ἐν] πνεύματι, ὁ ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου πῶς ἐρεῖ τὸ ἀμὴν ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ εὐχαριστίᾳ; ἐπειδὴ τί λέγεις οὐκ οἶδεν·	Since if you praise in Spirit, how will the one filling the place of the uninitiated say, ‘Amen,’ concerning your prayer, since he does not know what you are saying?
17. σὺ μὲν γὰρ καλῶς εὐχαριστεῖς ἀλλ᾿ ὁ ἕτερος οὐκ οἰκοδομεῖται.	For you are giving thanks well, but the other one is not built up.
18. Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ, πάντων ὑμῶν μᾶλλον γλώσσαις λαλῶ·	I give thanks to God [that] I speak in tongues more than all of you;
19. ἀλλὰ ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ θέλω πέντε λόγους τῷ νοΐ μου λαλῆσαι, ἵνα καὶ ἄλλους κατηχήσω, ἢ μυρίους λόγους ἐν γλώσσῃ.	But in the church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order that I may instruct another, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
20. Ἀδελφοί, μὴ παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς φρεσὶν ἀλλὰ τῇ κακίᾳ νηπιάζετε, ταῖς δὲ φρεσὶν τέλειοι γίνεσθε.	Brothers [and sisters], do not be children in thinking but be infants in evil, and in thinking be mature.
21. ἐν τῷ νόμῳ γέγραπται ὅτι ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις καὶ ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέρων λαλήσω τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ καὶ οὐδ᾿ οὕτως εἰσακούσονταί μου, λέγει κύριος.	In the Law it has been written, “In other tongues and in other lips I will speak to this people, and not even thus will they hear me,” says the Lord.
22. ὥστε αἱ γλῶσσαι εἰς σημεῖόν εἰσιν οὐ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀπίστοις, ἡ δὲ προφητεία οὐ τοῖς ἀπίστοις ἀλλὰ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν.	Thus tongues are not a sign for believers but for unbelievers, and the prophecies not for unbelievers but for believers.
23. Ἐὰν οὖν συνέλθῃ ἡ ἐκκλησία ὅλη ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ πάντες λαλῶσιν γλώσσαις, εἰσέλθωσιν δὲ ἰδιῶται ἢ ἄπιστοι, οὐκ ἐροῦσιν ὅτι μαίνεσθε;	Therefore if the whole church gathers in the same [place] and all are speaking in tongues at the same time, and an uninitiate enters or an unbeliever, will they not say you are insane?
24. ἐὰν δὲ πάντες προφητεύωσιν, εἰσέλθῃ δέ τις ἄπιστος ἢ ἰδιώτης, ἐλέγχεται ὑπὸ πάντων, ἀνακρίνεται ὑπὸ πάντων,	But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or uninitiate enters, he is convicted by all, judged by all,
25. τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται, καὶ οὕτως πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον προσκυνήσει τῷ θεῷ ἀπαγγέλλων ὅτι ὄντως ὁ θεὸς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐστιν.	The hidden things of his heart will become revealed, and in this way, falling upon the face he will pray to God, declaring that God is really among you.

Notes

13

• διὸ indicates that 13 is application of 12
• Don’t discard tongues, but desire edification of hearers.
• προσευχέσθω – 3rd imperative
• διερμηνεύω – more than translate, perhaps ‘put into words’

14

• Tongues without interpretation of no benefit, because speaker doesn’t understand their own words – the ‘barren’ mind yields no fruit.
• ‘My spirit’ need not be explicitly defined – the important thing is the contrast with ‘my mind/understanding’.

15

• Sets scene for 16ff.
• Public praying and singing.
• Referring to himself hypothetically in place of tongues-speaker.
• Parallel usage of pr
  aying/singing: singing in tongues?

16

• Example: thanksgiving prayer calls for others to join in, but they can’t unless they understand.
• ἐπει (‘since’) here seems to function with an implied ‘otherwise…’
• ‘In the position of’
  • Literal?
  • Figurative?
• ἰδιώτης? – ‘uninitiate’

17

• Paul desires that all present should understand and thus have opportunity to be built up.
• εὐχαριστεῖς – indicative, Paul not casting doubt on belief that one who speaks is genuinely giving thanks to God.

18-19

• Priority of intelligibility in the assembly
• Uses first person
  • State personal practice, calling on them to emulate
  • Confirms Paul’s own practice of often speaking in tongues, but in private. Possibly Paul was disrespected because of apparent lack of this gift.
• ἢ in last clause implies a μᾶλλον in previous clause (‘[rather]… than’).

20

• Fresh address (Ἀδελφοί) prepares way for what follows
• Present tense prohibition (μὴ παιδία γίνεσθε) ‘stop being children’ rather than ‘stop becoming…’.

21

• Selective quotation from Is 28:11f.
• Sound of foreign language is work of God’s judgment on Israel for not listening to his voice.

22

• Tongues a sign for unbelievers, prophecy a sign for believers
  • Tongues place believers/unbelievers alike in position of unbelievers, not understanding God, whereas prophecy brings grace -> Corinthians should seek way of grace.

23

• Hyperbolic situation, with all in one place, all speaking in tongues
• Outsiders/uninitiates (ἰδιῶται) and unbelievers (ἄπιστοι) enter.
  • Different/same? Perhaps unbaptised enquirers and total unbelievers respectively.
• Perceived as ‘out of one’s mind’, thus left in judgement. cf. Acts 2, where tongues were human

24-25

• On the other hand, hearing intelligible prophecy may lead to positive result.
• If 2 categories in 23, Paul seems particularly concerned about unbelievers.

14:26-33a

Vocabulary

• ψαλμός, ὁ – song of praise, psalm
• πλεῖστος – superl. of πολύς most
• ἀνα μέρος – in turn
• διερμηνευτής, ὁ – interpreter
• σιγκάω – I am silent
• διακρίνω – I judge, pass judgement
• καθ᾽ ἕνα – one by one
• μανθάνω – I learn
• ἀκαταστασία – disorder, confusion

Translation

26. Τί οὖν ἐστιν, ἀδελφοί; ὅταν συνέρχησθε, ἕκαστος ψαλμὸν ἔχει, διδαχὴν ἔχει, ἀποκάλυψιν ἔχει, γλῶσσαν ἔχει, ἑρμηνείαν ἔχει· πάντα πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν γινέσθω.	What then, brothers and sisters? Whenever you gather, each has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation; let them all happen for building up.
27. εἴτε γλώσσῃ τις λαλεῖ, κατὰ δύο ἢ τὸ πλεῖστον τρεῖς καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος, καὶ εἷς διερμηνευέτω·	If someone speaks in a tongue, according to two or at most three and upon part [turn?], and let someone interpret;
28. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ᾖ διερμηνευτής, σιγάτω ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἑαυτῷ δὲ λαλείτω καὶ τῷ θεῷ.	But if there is not an interpreter, let him be silent in church, or let him speak to himself and to God.
29. προφῆται δὲ δύο ἢ τρεῖς λαλείτωσαν καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι διακρινέτωσαν·	Let two or three prophets speak and let the others evaluate;
30. ἐὰν δὲ ἄλλῳ ἀποκαλυφθῇ καθημένῳ, ὁ πρῶτος σιγάτω.	But if it is revealed to another who is sitting, let the first be silent.
31. δύνασθε γὰρ καθ᾿ ἕνα πάντες προφητεύειν, ἵνα πάντες μανθάνωσιν καὶ πάντες παρακαλῶνται.	For you are all able according to one [singly?] to prophesy, in order that all may learn and all may be encouraged.
32. καὶ πνεύματα προφητῶν προφήταις ὑποτάσσεται,	And the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets,
33a. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκαταστασίας ὁ θεὸς ἀλλὰ εἰρήνης.	For God is not of confusion but of peace.

Notes

• Call for orderly procedure in gatherings (theme for remainder of chapter)
  • ὑποτασσομαι (32, 34)
  • οὐκ… ἀκαταστασία… ἀλλὰ εἰρήνη (33)
  • εὐσχημόνως καὶ κατὰ τάξιν (40)
• Order reflects character of God (33) and leads to edification (26, 31)
• Garland’s breakdown:
  • General principle (26)
  • Applied to tongues (27-28)
  • Applied to prophecy (including weighing) (29-35)
    • Assumes 33b-36 not third sub-section relating to women speaking in assembly, but continuation of prophecy instructions.
  • Concluding injunction and restatement (36-40)

26

• Rhetorical question introduces practical conclusions preceding arguments
• Terms cannot be exactly defined, but seem to suggest contributions by members of assembly
• Edification the key principle.

27

• Three requirements for orderly exercise of tongues:
  • Limited number
  • One at a time
  • Interpretation
• Does εἱς have numerical force (after δύο/τρεῖς)? i.e. single interpreter, separate from tongue-speaker
  • Not necessarily – may simply mean ‘a person’

28

• Requirement for interpreter is emphasised as essential
• No interpreter -> silence
  • At home?
  • ‘Under breath’?

29

• Begins to regulate prophecy in similar fashion
• Absence of conditional structure found in 27 and absence of ‘at most’ suggest Paul regards prophecy as essential element of gathering.
• ‘Weighing’ is unclear, but at least indicates prophecy not unconditionally accepted.
• ‘Others’ presumably whole congregation
  • Possibly ‘other prophets’, but this would negate responsibility Paul places on all to evaluate in 1 Thess 5:20-21. (cf. ‘discern all things’ 1 Cor 2:15).

30-31

• There is a place for spontaneity
• Repetition of ‘all’ serves to remind of Paul’s emphasis on community setting.
• Desired effect is both instruction and encouragement.

32

• Anticipated objection: Paul rejects idea that prophecy is involuntary (presumably also tongues, or else previous injunctions impractical).

33

• Further reason for orderly gatherings: reflects nature of God.
• ‘Peace’ is more than order – wholeness or well-being (shalom).

14:33b-40

Vocabulary

• ἀκαταστασία, ἡ – disorder, confusion
• σιγάω – be silent
• ἐπιτρέπτω – I allow, permit
• αἰσχρός – shameful, base
• καταντάω – I come to, arrive, reach
• ἀγνοέω – I do not recognize, disregard, do not know
• ζηλόω – I strive, am jealous
• κωλύω – I hinder
• εὐσχημόνως – decently, becomingly; properly
• τἀξις, ἡ – arrangement, order

Translation

33b. Ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων	As in all the c hurches of the saints,
34. αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν· οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν, ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει.	Let women be silent in the churches; for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be subjected, as the Law also says.
35. εἰ δέ τι μαθεῖν θέλουσιν, ἐν οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσαν· αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστιν γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ.	But if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husband in the home; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
36. ἢ ἀφ᾿ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν, ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν;	Or [was it] from you the word of God came, or into you alone it has arrived?
37. Εἴ τις δοκεῖ προφήτης εἶναι ἢ πνευματικός, ἐπιγινωσκέτω ἃ γράφω ὑμῖν ὅτι κυρίου ἐστὶν ἐντολή·	If anyone thinks to be a prophet or a spiritual one, let him recognise the things I am writing to you are a commandment of the Lord.
38. εἰ δέ τις ἀγνοεῖ, ἀγνοεῖται.	If anyone ignores, let him be ignored.
39. Ὥστε, ἀδελφοί [μου], ζηλοῦτε τὸ προφητεύειν καὶ τὸ λαλεῖν μὴ κωλύετε γλώσσαις·	Thus, my brothers and sisters, eagerly desire the [gift] to prophesy and do not forbid the [gift] to speak in tongues;
40. πάντα δὲ εὐσχημόνως καὶ κατὰ τάξιν γινέσθω.	But let all things become honestly and according to order.

Notes

33b-35

• Either third subsection concerning ‘ordering of women’ or continuation of instructions regarding prophecy, and the role played by women/wives.

33b

• Connected with preceding or following?
  • Some mss. show vv. 34-35 after v. 40.
  • Forms inclusio with v. 36.
  • Repetition of ἐν … ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις is awkward, but preferable to alternative.

34-35

• Interpretation must be consistent with 11:2-16.
• Placement here or after v. 40?
  • Later interpolation?
  • More likely simple scribal error, then corrected by adding to margin.
• Silence
  • Within gathering.
  • Not absolute silence, otherwise 11:2
    -16, where women are described as praying/prophesying with head covered, would not make sense.
  • Disruptive speaking? Assumption that synagogue-seating, with women in separate part of room.
    • Pro: concern for speaking one at a time vv. 27, 31
    • Pro: general concern for order
    • Con: Unlikely modelled on synagogue.
    • Con: Paul gives instruction only to women.
  • When prophecy weighed
    • Something to do with submission of wives to husbands
    • Women or wives? Assumed they have their own husbands at home.
    • Submission to husband or to order established by God?
    • ‘Shame’?
      • Husband’s prophecy publicly examined by wife?
      • Intrinsic shamefulness? Or Greco-Roman social more? cf. ‘glory’ & ‘disgrace’ of 11:2-16.

36-38

• Reinforce importance of heeding previous instruction.
• Rebuke.

36

• Rebukes arrogant pursuit of own way.
• cf. 33b, and ‘all the churches’.
• Primarily applicable to 34f., but also more widely applicable.

37

• More specific rebuke of arrogance of those claiming to be ‘prophets’ or ‘spiritual’.
• Textual variants for last couple of words are manifold, but not shown in UBS4.
• Which things? Previous verse(s) or entire chapter?
  • Which would Paul be most defensive over?

38

• Word play: ignores/ignored.
  • ἀγνοέω is negation of ‘I know’
  • ἐπιγνώσκω is an intensification.
• Who ignores?
  • Passive indicative -> God
  • Third person active imperative -> community

39-40

• Reiterate main points of chapter.
• Prophecy is strongly endorsed (ζηλοῦτε), tongues less so (μὴ κωλύετε)
• κατὰ τάξιν
  • Pragmatic – order within gathering
  • Theological – reflect God of order.

1 Corinthians 13

13:1-7

Vocabulary

• χαλκός, ὁ – copper, brass (gong)
• ἠχέω – I sound, ring out
• κύμβαλον, τό – cymbal
• ἀλαλαζω- I clash; cry out loudly
• κἄν – and if, even if
• μεθίστημι – remove
• ψωμίζω – I feed, divide in small pieces, fritter
• τὰ ὑπάρχοντα – one’s belongings
• καίω – burn
• ὠφελέω – help, benefit, profit
• μακροθυμέω – I have patience
• χρηστεύομαι – I am kind
• ζηλόω – I am jealous; I strive
• περπερεύομαι – I boast, brag
• ἀσχημονέω – I behave disgracefully, dishonourably
• παροξύνω – provoke to wrath, irritate
• συγκαίρω – I rejoice together with
• στέγω- I bear, endure
• ὑπομένω – I bear, am steadfast, patient

Translation

1. Ἐὰν ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαλῶ καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, γέγονα χαλκὸς ἠχῶν ἢ κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον.	If I speak with the tongues of men [and women] and of angels, but don’t have love, I have become a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2. καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω προφητείαν καὶ εἰδῶ τὰ μυστήρια πάντα καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν ὥστε ὄρη μεθιστάναι, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐθέν εἰμι.	And if I have [the gift of] prophecy and I know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to move a mountain, but I do not have love, I am nobody.
3. κἂν ψωμίσω πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντά μου καὶ ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμά μου ἵνα καυχήσωμαι, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι.	And if I gave away all my possessions, and if I delivered my body in order that I might boast, but I do not have love, I gain nothing.
4. Ἡ ἀγάπη μακροθυμεῖ, χρηστεύεται ἡ ἀγάπη, οὐ ζηλοῖ, [ἡ ἀγάπη] οὐ περπερεύεται, οὐ φυσιοῦται,	Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous, [love] does not brag, it does not cause conceit,
5. οὐκ ἀσχημονεῖ, οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ ἑαυτῆς, οὐ παροξύνεται, οὐ λογίζεται τὸ κακόν,	It is not rude, it does not seek [the good] of itself, it does not suffer provocation, it does not consider [or keep a record of] evil,
6. οὐ χαίρει ἐπὶ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ, συγχαίρει δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ·	It does not rejoice concerning unrighteousness, but rejoices together with the truth.
7. πάντα στέγει, πάντα πιστεύει, πάντα ἐλπίζει, πάντα ὑπομένει.	It bears all things, believes (trusts?) all things, hopes all things, endures all things. [Alternately, πάντα may be adverbial, i.e. ‘always bearing…’]

Notes

1-3 – ‘The Necessity of Love’

• Applicable both at a personal and community level

1

• Distinction between human & angelic tongues (angelic in emphatic position at the end)
  • Human eloquence vs. glossolalia
  • Difference of opinion amongst Corinthians re glossolalia – human or angelic? cf. Testament of Job 48-50, were a daughter of Job is said to speak ‘ecstatically in the angelic dialect’.
  • Reference to glossolalia + hyperbolic ‘even if they were the tongues of angels’. Paul uses angels as form of heightening elsewhere (1 Cor 4:9, 6:3; Gal 1:8)
• ἀγάπη is not a precise term, but rather a colourless one taken up in LXX and NT.
• χαλκὸς (brass gong) and κύμβαλον (cymbal) are both monotonic instruments. cf. flute & harp of 14:7-9. Used in mystery religions either to invoke a god or, drive away demons or rouse worshippers (Prior, 227-8).

2

• Broadens his reference beyond tongues to other types of giftedness. Intensifies it to hypothetically extreme degree.
• Echo language of Jesus in Mk 11:23

3

• Further broadening to encompass laudable and self-sacrificing action:
  • Charitable giving
  • ??
• t.v. καυχήσωμαι (‘boast’ or ‘glory’) vs. καυθήσομαι (‘be burnt’)
  • Selling oneself into slavery (literal or metaphorical??), an intensification of previous giving. But for one’s own glory rather than love for others.
    • PRO: Early and reliable early evidence
    • PRO: Harder reading
    • PRO: Transcriptional evidence – scribes more likely to try and improve the sense by substituting similar sounding word
    • PRO: 35 other uses in Pauline corpus
    • CON: PRO: Internal evidence, for no need to declare boasting or glorying worthless – ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω becomes superfluous. Although, Paul doesn’t necessarily consider ‘glorying’ to be bad cf. 15:31.
  • Martyrdom by fire
    • PRO: Impressive number of witnesses
    • CON: Martyrdom more likely to have crept in in later era, when death by fire was more common.
    • CON: would expect, as more natural expression, ἵνα καυθῇ (‘that it may be burnt’) or ἱνα + subjunctive.
• ‘Gain nothing’ instead of ‘am nothing’ – shift may not be significant, but if it is, it could be addressing Jewish ideas of gaining credit with God by unusually good acts.

4-7 – ‘The Character of Love’

• Definition of ἀγάπη.
• Unbroken series of verbs – love is known by how it acts
  • All present continuous, denoting habitual action (Prior, 229-30).

4

• Both passive (μακρθυμεῖ) and active (χρηστεύεται).
• Series of 7 negatives
• περπερεύεται – a fairly gross boasting (rare)
• φυσιοῦται – being puffed up, which Paul has already condemned numerous times in this letter.

5

• οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ ἐαυτῆς – ‘it does not seek the things of itself’ – cf. 10:24, 33
• οὐ παροξύνεται – verb to be angered -> ‘not easily angered’

6

• οὐ χαίρει ἐπὶ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ
  • Seeing others in the wrong
  • Taking pleasure in gaining advantage over others through wrong-doing.
  • Sympathy with wrong-doing.
  • Whichever, it is lack of love that is important, so probably one of first two.

7

• Climax
• Rapid fire πάντα repeated. Adverbial function? This makes best sense of middle two clauses at least.
• στέγει – bears, endures, protects, covers, sustains
  • cf. 9:12b, hence synonymous with ὑπομένει (‘endures’).
  • Chiasm, with faith & hope also closely related.
• How do these things relate to love? Live life of Christian faith and hope in all circumstances, and this will govern how you relate to God and to others.

13:8-13

Vocabulary

• οὐδεποτε – never
• παύω – cause to stop; mid. cease
• φρονέω – I think
• ἔσοπτρον, τό – mirror
• αἴνιγμα, τό – riddle, indistinct image
  • ἐν αἰνίγματι – dimly
• μείζων – greater, better

Translation

8. Ἡ ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε πίπτει· εἴτε δὲ προφητεῖαι, καταργηθήσονται· εἴτε γλῶσσαι, παύσονται· εἴτε γνῶσις, καταργηθήσεται.	Love never falls. Now prophecies, they will be nullified; tongues, they will cease; knowledge, it will be nullified.
9. ἐκ μέρους γὰρ γινώσκομεν καὶ ἐκ μέρους προφητεύομεν	For we know from a fragment and we prophesy from a fragment
10. ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ τὸ τέλειον, τὸ ἐκ μέρους καταργηθήσεται.	But whenever the perfect thing comes, that which [is] from a fragment will be nullified.
11. ὅτε ἤμην νήπιος, ἐλάλουν ὡς νήπιος, ἐφρόνουν ὡς νήπιος, ἐλογιζόμην ὡς νήπιος· ὅτε γέγονα ἀνήρ, κατήργηκα τὰ τοῦ νηπίου.	When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child; when I became a man, I nullified the things of a child.
12. βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον· ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.	For we see now through a mirror in a dim reflection, but then face to face. Now I know from a fragment, but then I shall fully know, even as I have been fully known.
13. Νυνὶ δὲ μένει πίστις, ἐλπίς, ἀγάπη, τὰ τρία ταῦτα· μείζων δὲ τούτων ἡ ἀγάπη.	Now faith, hope and love, these three remain; but love is the greatest of these.

Notes

8-13 – ‘The Permanence of Love

• Return to contrasting love with prophecy, tongues & knowledge

8

• Does ‘love never fails’ connect with what precedes or follows? Bridge between them. Thus, both love continues under all circumstances and is eternal.
• End of sign-gifts after apostolic era? Context makes clear that the eschaton is in view.
• Cessation of γνῶσις refers to end of partial knowledge.

9-10

• Explanation of why these things come to an end – they belong to an age of incompleteness.
• ἐκ μέρους – ‘part by part’ or ‘piece by piece’

11

• Reinforces image of incompleteness by suggesting childhood state in which the aid of spiritual gifts is appropriate, in contrast with time of perfection to come.

12

• Second analogy: mirror. Indirectness (and hence incompleteness) of vision.
• God’s knowledge of us is already complete (καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην).

13

• Conclusion: triad of faith, hope, love, then singling out love.
• Singling out:
  • Context?
  • Eschatological?
• νυνὶ δὲ μένει – logical rather than temporal
• Triad unexpected, and thus independent origin of passage? but cf. v. 7.

vv. 1-11

vv. 1-3

Vocabulary

• ἀπάγω – I lead away
• διαίρεσις – apportionment, division; difference, variety

Translation

1. Περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν, ἀδελφοί, οὐ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν.	Now concerning the things of the spirit, brothers [and sisters], I do not want you to be ignorant.
2. Οἴδατε ὅτι ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε πρὸς τὰ εἴδωλα τὰ ἄφωνα ὡς ἂν ἤγεσθε ἀπαγόμενοι.	You know that when you were gentiles you, if you were being led, you were being led astray towards mute idols.
3. διὸ γνωρίζω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐδεὶς ἐν πνεύματι θεοῦ λαλῶν λέγει· Ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς, καὶ οὐδεὶς δύναται εἰπεῖν· Κύριος Ἰησοῦς, εἰ μὴ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ.	Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking in the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is cursed,” and no one is able to say, “Jesus is Lord,” except in the Holy Spirit.

Notes

• Response to Corinthian letter – ‘περὶ δὲ’.
• Is πνευματικῶν masc. (i.e. ‘spiritual people’) or nt. (‘spiritual gifts’)? Treat as neuter and as encompassing both (cf. Fee & Thiselton).

2.

• Paul uses ἔθνη here to speak of past state of gentiles.
• tr. Required to supply an additional ἦτε between ἤγεσθε and ἀπαγόμενοι
• ὡς ἂν ἤγεσθε = subordinate clause
• ἦτε ἀπαγόμενοι = periphrastic imperfect
• cf. ESV ‘You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led.’
• Being led?
  • Cultic processions? (Garland)
  • ‘Led’ by spirits – cf. being led by the Spirit. Not a new experience for pagans.

3.

• διὸ – ‘therefore’ i.e. because spiritual phenomena can be either pagan or Christian (v. 2)
• Rule of thumb: Spirit’s work is seen where Jesus is glorified.

vv. 4-11

Vocabulary

• ἐνέργημα – activity
• φανέρωσις, ἡ – manifestation, disclosure
• συμφέρω – I am profitable
• ἴαμα, τό – healing, remedy
• γένος, τό – class, kind; nation
• ἑρμηνεία, ἡ – interpretation
• βούλομαι – I wish, will

Translation

4. Διαιρέσεις δὲ χαρισμάτων εἰσίν, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα·	There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit;
5. καὶ διαιρέσεις διακονιῶν εἰσιν, καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς κύριος·	And there are different kinds of ministries, an d the same Lord;
6. καὶ διαιρέσεις ἐνεργημάτων εἰσίν, ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς θεὸς ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν.	And there are different kinds of workings, but the same God who is working them all in all.
7. ἑκάστῳ δὲ δίδοται ἡ φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον.	To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the bringing together.
8. ᾧ μὲν γὰρ διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος δίδοται λόγος σοφίας, ἄλλῳ δὲ λόγος γνώσεως κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα,	For to one a word of wisdom is given through the Spirit, but  to another a word of knowledge according to the same spirit,
9. ἑτέρῳ πίστις ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι, ἄλλῳ δὲ χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ πνεύματι,	To another faith in the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing in the one Spirit,
10. ἄλλῳ δὲ ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων, ἄλλῳ [δὲ] προφητεία, ἄλλῳ [δὲ] διακρίσεις πνευμάτων, ἑτέρῳ γένη γλωσσῶν, ἄλλῳ δὲ ἑρμηνε tyle=”font: normal normal normal 12px/normal ‘Lucida Grande'; letter-spacing: 0px”>ία γλωσσῶν·	To another workings of powers, to another prophecy, to another discernment [weighing?] of spirits, to another kinds of tongues, to another interpretation of tongues;
11. πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ καθὼς βούλεται.	All these the one and the same Spirit works, apportioning to each individually, just as he wills.

Notes

4-6.

• Contrast different (διαιρέσεις, ‘different kinds’) vs. same (αὐτὸ).
• χαρίσματα, διακονίαι, ἐνεργήματα
• Garland – different ‘categories’ of gifts (unconvincing)
• Fee, Bruce et al synonyms
• Starting with χαρίσματα may emphasise origin of gifts. Remaining words broaden scope.
• Spirit/Lord/God – trinitarian

7

• ἑκάστῳ – each and every
  • Over against Corinthian elitism.
  • cf. ἐν πᾶσιν in v. 6.
• φανέρωσις implies activity or ability that reveals the presence of Spirit.
  • cf. v. 3 for a sign of revealing Spirit
• Paul corrects view of gifts as being συμφέρον – ‘for the common good’
  • Thus anticipates chs. 13-14.

8-10

• Variation between ἄλλω and ἑτέρω
  • Structure list by breaking into 3 groups:
    • A: Word gifts (knowledge and wisdom)
    • B: Diverse gifts
    • C: Tongues
• Deliberately ordered list
  • First, emp
    hasis on edifying others by intelligible wisdom and knowledge
  • Middle, reinforce diversity of gifts
  • Last & least is tongues
• λόγος σοφίας and λόγος γνώσεως
  • Wisdom cf. 2:6-16, ability to convey message of cross
  • Knowledge cf. 8:4, truth about idols and oneness of God.
• χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων
  • Plural – many gifts? many types of healing?
• προφετεία
  • Agreement
    • Intelligible verbal content (14:2-3)
    • Originates with Spirit (12:11)
    • Different from pagan ecstatic speech (14:31-33
    • Functions to edify and encourage (14:3)
    • Distinct from teaching, but those who receive prophecy can be instructed by it (14:19, 31).
  • Disagreement
    • Pastoral preaching?
    • Spontaneity?
    • Require testing? (1 Cor 14; 1 Thess 5)
      • cf. διακρίσεις πνευμάτων
• διακρίσεις πνευμάτων – ‘weighing’ of spirits
  • cf. 14:29
  • Parallel with προφητεία in the same way that γένη γλωσσῶν parallels ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν.
  • γένη γλωσσῶν and ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν
    • Last, therefore least?
    • Real tongues?
      • But addressed to God, not humans (14:2, 14, 28)
      • Ref to foreign human languages in 14:10-11 is analogy
    • Heavenly tongues?
    • Instructions in 14:28-29 suggest able to control, i.e. not ecstatic.

11

• Ties together vv. 4-11 as a paragraph, echoing language and ideas of vv. 4-7.

vv. 12-31

vv. 12-26

Vocabulary

• καθάπερ – just as
• ἀκοή, ἡ – faculty of hearing, art of hearing; report
• ὄσφρησις, ἡ – smelling
• χρεία, ἡ – need
• ἀναγκεῖος – necessary
• ἄτιμος – insignificant, dishonoured
• τιμή, ἡ – honour, price
• περισσότερος – greater, more
• περιτίθημι – grant, bestow; put around
• ἀσχήμων – shameful, unpresentable; indecent
• εὐσχημοσύνη, ἡ – propriety, decorum
• εὐσχἠμων – proper, presentable
• συγκεράννυμι – mix, blend, unite
• ὑστερέω – I lack, miss, am inferior
• σχίσμα, τό – division, dissension
• μεριμνάω – I am anxious, care for

Translation

12. Καθάπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα ἕν ἐστιν καὶ μέλη πολλὰ ἔχει, πάντα δὲ τὰ μέλη τοῦ σώματος πολλὰ ὄντα ἕν ἐστιν σῶμα, οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστός·	For just as the body is one and has many parts, and all of the parts, though they are many, are one body, so is Christ.
13. καὶ γὰρ ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες εἴτε δοῦλοι εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι, καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν.	For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all given one Spirit to drink.
14. Καὶ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἓν μέλος ἀλλὰ πολλά.	For the body is not one part but many.
15. ἐὰν εἴπῃ ὁ πούς· ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ χείρ, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος;	If the foot says, “I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” it is not because of this not of the body, is it?
16. καὶ ἐὰν εἴπῃ τὸ οὖς· ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ ὀφθαλμός, οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος, οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος;	An if the ear says, “I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” it is not because of this not of the body, is it?
17. εἰ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα ὀφθαλμός, ποῦ ἡ ἀκοή; εἰ ὅλον ἀκοή, ποῦ ἡ ὄσφρησις;	If the whole body were an eye, where the hearing? If the whole hearing, where the sense of smell?
18. νυνὶ δὲ ὁ θεὸς ἔθετο τὰ μέλη, ἓν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἐν τῷ σώματι καθὼς ἠθέλησεν.	But now God has placed the parts, each one of them in the body just as he willed.
19. εἰ δὲ ἦν τὰ πάντα ἓν μέλος, ποῦ τὸ σῶμα;	If they were all one part, where the body?
20. νῦν δὲ πολλὰ μὲν μέλη, ἓν δὲ σῶμα.	But now many parts, but one body.
21. οὐ δύναται δὲ ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς εἰπεῖν τῇ χειρί· χρείαν σου οὐκ ἔχω, ἢ πάλιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῖς ποσίν· χρείαν ὑμῶν οὐκ ἔχω·	The eye is not able to say to the hand, “I do not have a need of you.” Nor again, the head to the feet, “I do not have a need of you.”
22. ἀλλὰ πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὰ δοκο ῦντα μέλη τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενέστερα ὑπάρχειν ἀναγκαῖά ἐστιν,	But rather many parts of the body  seeming weaker are necessary to have for existence.
23. καὶ ἃ δοκοῦμεν ἀτιμότερα εἶναι τοῦ σώματος τούτοις τιμὴν περισσοτέραν περιτίθεμεν, καὶ τὰ ἀσχήμονα ἡμῶν εὐσχημοσύνην περισσοτέραν ἔχει,	And the parts of the body we think to be dishonourable to these we put on more honour, and our shameful parts have more modesty,
24. τὰ δὲ εὐσχήμονα ἡμῶν οὐ χρείαν ἔχει. ἀλλὰ ὁ θεὸς συνεκέρασεν τὸ σῶμα τῷ ὑστερουμένῳ περισσοτέραν δοὺς τιμήν,	but our presentable parts do not have a need. But God has united the body, having given greater honour to those lacking,
25. ἵνα μὴ ᾖ σχίσμα ἐν τῷ σώματι ἀλλὰ τὸ αὐτὸ ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων μεριμνῶσιν τὰ μέλη.	in order that there is no division in the body but the parts are anxious for each other.
26. καὶ εἴτε πάσχει ἓν μέλος, συμπάσχει πάντα τὰ μέλη· εἴτε δοξάζεται [ἓν] μέλος, συγχαίρει πάντα τὰ μέλη.	And if one part suffers, all the parts suffer together; if one part is honoured, all the parts rejoice.

Notes

General

• Teaches diversity through analogy with parts of body.
• Is the emphasis on unity or diversity?
  • Majority say unity
  • Fee argues diversity
    • Culminates in string of rhetorical questions about diversity in vv. 29-30.

12

• tr. ὄντα is concessive – i.e. ‘though being’
• Introduction of analogy… although cf. 6:15, 10:17.
  • Initially only an analogy, but by end of verse could be metonymy.

13

• Unity traced to common baptism/drinking-of one Spirit
  • Primary image is bathed in Spirit, secondary is water baptism, as βαπτίζω was not a technical term.
• Parallelism:
  • πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶμα    ἐβαπτισθημεν
  • πάντες       ἓν πνεῦμα ἐποτίσθημεν
  • Synonymous or synthetic?
    • σῶμα / πνεῦμα held together (spiritual body) in 15:44, so there is no implicit contradiction… although the σῶμα πνευματικὸν is spoken of as the post-resurrection state.
• Explicit inclusions reinforce point that within community there is no room for divisions/hierarchy
• Not ‘second blessing’, for this would undermine Paul’s argument for abolishing distinctions.

14

• Recapitulate initial analogy and introduce development.

15-16

• Personification of parts to paint ridiculous picture.
• All are needed in their variety.
• Questions or statements?
  • UBS4 shows questions but majority of English versions translate as statements – probably to avoid necessity of unravelling double negatives.
  • οὐ usually indicates expectation of affirmative response – very difficult to render.
  • Given that this is a change from UBS3, surprising that Metzger’s Textual Commentary contains no comment.

17

• tr. Need to supply a subjunctive form of verb to be.
• Continues absurd image to reinforce point that envy is not appropriate, as all gifts (and all those gifted) are necessary for the whole body to function.

18

• Diversity is both necessary and desirable – indeed, it is according to God’s plan.
• νυνὶ δὲ is logical rather than temporal – indicates the status quo.
• Redundant ἓν is for emphasis – ‘every single one’… although this is not entirely satisfactory because throughout the rest of the passage ἓν refers to the whole rather than the parts?

19-20

• Reiterate conclusion of v. 17, stressing both unity and diversity.

21

• Focus on hierarchy becomes clearer here than in 15-17, with distinctions between part and part rather than part and whole.
  • It is a single part that excludes another, rather than that part excluding itself from the whole body.
  • Outward focused here – excluding others rather than excluding self.
  • Parts who speak are representative of ‘puffed up’ Corinthians.

22

• Paul directly contradicts superiority (strong adversative)
• ‘Unimportant’ members are necessary.

23-24a

• From unimportant to shameful/unpresentable, suggesting that these we treat with special honour.

24b – 25

• Positive conclusion.
• Analogy or allegory?
  • Members caring for one another demands application to church.

26

• Again, suffering together and rejoicing together demands application to the church.

vv. 27-31

Vocabulary

• ἀντίλεμψις, ἡ – help
• κυβέρνησις, ἡ – administration
• διερμηνεύω – I interpret, translate
• ζηλόω – strive, be jealous
• μείζων – better
• ὑπερβολή – excess, extraordinary quality;
  • καθ᾽ὑπερβολήν – better
• δείκνυμι – show

Translation

27. Ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶμα Χριστοῦ καὶ μέλη ἐκ μέρους.	Now you are the body of Christ and part of a part.
28. Καὶ οὓς μὲν ἔθετο ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ πρῶτον ἀποστόλους, δεύτερον προφήτας, τρίτον διδασκάλους, ἔπειτα δυνάμεις, ἔπειτα χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων, ἀντιλήμψεις, κυβερνήσεις, γένη γλωσσῶν.	And whom in the church God has appointed first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then powers, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, earthly tongues.
29. μὴ πάντες ἀπόστολοι; μὴ πάντες προφῆται; μὴ πάντες διδάσκαλοι; μὴ πάντες δυνάμεις;	Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all are [workers of] powers, are they?
30. μὴ πάντες χαρίσματα ἔχουσιν ἰαμάτων; μὴ πάντες γλώσσαις λαλοῦσιν; μὴ πάντες διερμηνεύουσιν;	Not all have gifts of healings do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all interpret, do they?
31. ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ χαρίσματα τὰ μείζονα. Καὶ ἔτι καθ᾿ ὑπερβολὴν ὁδὸν ὑμῖν δείκνυμι.	But be zealous for the greater gifts. And yet according to a greater way I show to you.

Notes

27

• Emphatic identification between body of Christ and Corinthians church
  • Ὑμεῖς is in first postion for emphasis
• ἐκ μερους indicates role of individual in the whole body, rather than that this is how to view the whole community.

28

• Second list of things God has given church
  • Reflects Paul’s emphases.
  • Introduction stresses God’s sovereign role.
  • Numbered items (first/second) remind of Paul’s founding role
    • Although Fee notes plural of apostles reminds of larger work of God, beneficiary of all the apostles.
  • Unnumbered items intersperse ‘unspectacular’ gifts amongst the more ‘spectacular’.
  • κυβερνήσεις is metaphor for leadership from steering of a ship.

29-30

• String of slanted rhetorical questions, requiring negative response, by way of conclusion.

31a

• Statement or question?
  • Statement: ‘You desire… but now I shall tell you the greater way’
  • Command: ‘Desire greater gifts… and this is the greatest’
  • Latter to be preferred:
    • No adversative conjunction
    • cf. 14:1 and 14:39-40
    • μείζονα clearly redefined from Corinthians’ interpretation

31b

• Depends on
  interpretation of 31a, but intention is clear. The way of love (expounded in 13:1-13) is the priority.

A comparison of 1 Corinthians 15:29 with 2 Maccabees 12:44

Many scholars have posited a Greco-Roman influence upon the Corinthian practice of vicarious¹ baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:29).² Fewer have investigated the possibility of a Jewish origin for such a practice. This paper seeks partially to redress that imbalance by investigating the apparent parallel between the Corinthian practice and that described in 2 Maccabees 12:44 of offering prayers and sacrifices for the dead.³

2 Maccabees⁴ is an abridgement of a larger history by a man named Jason of Cyrene.⁵ It covers the events of the Maccabean revolt from the priesthood of Onias III (180 B. C. E.) until the defeat of Nicanor (161 B. C. E.) and focuses on the life of Judah Maccabee.⁶ The specific incident of interest comes in the aftermath of a battle, when Judah and his companions discover idols on the bodies of the Jewish dead (12:40-45). Judah’s response is to praise God for revealing their sin (12:41), pray that God might not remember the sin of the slain (12:42), and take up a collection of money to send to Jerusalem as a sin offering (12:43). In doing these things, the author says,⁷ Judah clearly demonstrated that he believed in the resurrection of the dead, ‘for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead [ὑπὲρ νεκρῶν εὔχεσθαι]… he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin’ (12:44, 5).

This passage, then, is clearly of interest when trying to understand 1 Cor 15:29, for in it we see a similar confluence of vicarious action on behalf of the dead and argument for a resurrection.⁸ But many important questions must be answered before any link between the two can be established.

Would Paul and/or the Corinthians have been aware of this text?

Scholars are generally in agreement that 2 Maccabees was composed some time in the last 150 years before Christ, probably in Alexandria.⁹ Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, on the other hand, must be dated some time after Gallio’s proconsulship (either 50-51 or 51-52 C. E.) for Paul was brought before Gallio during his stay in Corinth (Acts 18:12).¹⁰ Thus at least half a century had elapsed between the composition of 2 Maccabees and 1 Corinthians, allowing time for transmission from Alexandria to both Jerusalem and Corinth. The likelihood of transmission is increased by the fact that there was a significant trade between Alexandria and Corinth.¹¹ Indeed, at least one Alexandrian had some prominence in Corinth (Acts 18:24; 19:1). Paul himself may well have studied 2 Maccabees as part of his rabbinic studies under Gamaliel, since 2 Macc 7:9 is one of the principal texts underpinning the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection,¹² one of the hottest theological issues of his day (e.g. Matt 22:23-33; Acts 4:2; 23:6-8 etc.).¹³ Thus it is reasonable to conclude that both Paul and the Corinthians would have been aware of 2 Maccabees.

Are the two texts genuinely similar?

At a macroscopic level the two texts are quite different, being of different genres (Hellenistic historiography vs. epistle) and having different audiences (a general and implicit audience vs. the explicit audience of the community in Corinth). But what of the microscopic level? Let us consider 2 Macc 12:44 and 1 Cor 15:29 side by side.¹⁴

2 Macc 12:44	1 Cor 15:29
εἰ μὴ γὰρ τοὺς προπεπτωκότας ἀναστῆναι προσεδόκα, περισσὸν καὶ ληρῶδες ὑπὲρ νεκρῶν εὔχεσθαι·	Ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν; εἰ ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, τί καὶ βαπτίζονται ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν;
For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.	Then what will the ones baptising on behalf of the dead do? If the dead are not raised at all, why are they being baptised on behalf of the dead?

The most striking parallel is the usage of the phrase ὑπὲρ [τῶν] νεκρῶν. Whilst the Apostle’s meaning in using this phrase is unclear, the meaning in 2 Macc is indisputable: the prayer was that ‘the sin committed might wholly be put out of [God’s] remembrance’ (12:42) so that the dead might participate in the resurrection.¹⁵ Thus we see a vicarious action on behalf of those who were dead which, it is hoped, will bring about their reconciliation to God.

There are two main differences between these two passages which represent difficulties in linking 2 Macc 12:44 and 1 Cor 15:29. The first is the actual action being undertaken (prayer and sacrifice vs. baptism) and the second the direction of the authors’ arguments. The first is not insuperable, for the Corinthians clearly held a high view of baptism (1 Cor 1:14-17; 10:1-5);¹⁶ this, combined with a Greco-Roman respect for ritual and tradition,¹⁷ may well have led the Corinthians to think of baptism in the same instrumental terms as the Jews used for prayer and sacrifice. The second difference is more complicated. Paul refers to baptism for the dead in the middle of a sustained argument aimed at refuting the belief that there is no bodily resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:12). The Maccabean author, on the other hand, presupposes the resurrection. His argument is intended to cast Judah Maccabee in a favourable light, perhaps thus appropriating him as a proto-Pharisee. Nevertheless, whilst Paul’s purpose is very different, he is not averse to appropriating such texts for his own purposes.¹⁸ The passing nature of his comment and the apparent difficulties of reconciling vicarious baptism with his theology of baptism elsewhere suggest that his argument is ad hominem. If he was consciously referring to 2 Maccabees, he was most likely reminding the Corinthians of the ‘moral’ or ‘punch-line’ of the story.¹⁹

Thus, at the microscopic level, 2 Macc 12:44 and 1 Cor 15:29 are similar in language but differ in rhetorical purpose. The vicarious action in question is different, and the point drawn from it is tangential in 2 Macc 12 but closely related to the overall argument in 1 Cor 15.

In conclusion, the value of 2 Macc 12:44 in understanding 1 Cor 15:29 is that it provides evidence that at least some Jews in Paul’s time held beliefs that may render baptism for the dead an intelligible process.²⁰ It provides a clearly defined meaning in a Jewish context for the phrase ὑπὲρ [τῶν] νεκρῶν, a phrase that Paul uses. The Apostle’s brief response is to draw the implications of the practice to their logical conclusion – perhaps echoing the Maccabean author – that vicarious action on behalf of the dead makes no sense if there is no resurrection.

Works cited

Bartlett, John R. The First and Second Books of the Maccabees, The Cambridge Bible Commentary: New English Bible. Cambridge [Eng.]: University Press, 1973.

Brenton, Lancelot Charles Lee. The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha. With an English Translation and with Various Readings and Critical Notes. Grand Rapids,: Zondervan Pub. House, 1972.

DeMaris, Richard E. “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) : Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology.” Journal of Biblical Literature 114, no. 4 (1995): 661-82.

Doran, Robert. Temple Propaganda : The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees, Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Monograph Series 12. Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987.

Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1997.

Herms, Ronald. “‘Being Saved without Honor': A Conceptual Link between 1 Corinthians 3 and 1 Enoch 50?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29, no. 2 (2006): 187-210.

Horsley, Richard A. “Gnosis in Corinth : 1 Corinthians 8:1-6.” New Testament Studies 27, no. 1 (1980): 32-51.

Mearns, Christopher L. “Early Eschatological Development in Paul : The Evidence of 1 Corinthians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament no. 22 (1984): 19-35.

Meijer, Fik. A History of Seafaring in the Classical World. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. New Testament Theology. London,: SCM Press, 1955.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.

White, Joel R. “”Baptized on Account of the Dead” : The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in Its Context.” Journal of Biblical Literature 116, no. 3 (1997): 487-99.

Witherington, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995.

Endnotes

1. This paper presupposes a Corinthian belief in the efficacy of being vicariously baptised for those who have died. Whilst certainly not the only view, this is nevertheless the majority view amongst scholars. For an enumeration of some of the other options, please see the other paper in this series. Helpful summaries may also be found in Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1242-49. and Joel R. White, “”Baptized on Account of the Dead” : The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in Its Context,” Journal of Biblical Literature 116, no. 3 (1997).
2. Notable examples include Richard E. DeMaris, “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) : Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology,” Journal of Biblical Literature 114, no. 4 (1995): 663. and Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995), 293-4.
3. The comparative framework used is in part modelled on that used by Ronald Herms, “‘Being Saved without Honor': A Conceptual Link between 1 Corinthians 3 and 1 Enoch 50?,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29, no. 2 (2006).
4. Both Greek text and English translation of 2 Maccabees are taken from Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha. With an English Translation and with Various Readings and Critical Notes (Grand Rapids,: Zondervan Pub. House, 1972), 207.
5. Little is known of Jason of Cyrene, and even less of the anonymous abridger.
6. Also known as Judas Maccabeus.
7. Or possibly the abridger.
8. Several scholars note this parallel e.g. Ethelbert Stauffer, New Testament Theology (London,: SCM Press, 1955), 299 n. 544.; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987), 767 n. 32.; Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1997), 297.; Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1247. Of these: Stauffer merely asserts the connection without argument; Fee argues that Judah’s actions ‘were not so much vicarious sacrifices for the dead as an appeal to God to have mercy’ and therefore an ‘innocent’ practice that Paul feels no need to rebuke in the Corinthians; Hays sees evidence that provides a way to render vicarious baptism an ‘intelligible process'; and Thiselton rejects the connection as ‘too slender and tenuous to bear the weight of such an extension of the theology of baptism’.
9. So John R. Bartlett, The First and Second Books of the Maccabees, The Cambridge Bible Commentary: New English Bible (Cambridge [Eng.]: University Press, 1973), 215. cf. Doran, who argues for a date sometime during ‘the early years of John Hyrcanus’ Robert Doran, Temple Propaganda : The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees, Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Monograph Series 12 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), 112.
10. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 29-30.
11. cf. Fik Meijer, A History of Seafaring in the Classical World (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986), 143. Meijer notes that it was the Alexandrian corn trade that was the cause of ‘rapid development’ and ‘economic revival’ in Roman Corinth.
12. Others include Isa 26:19 ; Dan 12:2; Tob 13:2. cf. Christopher L. Mearns, “Early Eschatological Development in Paul : The Evidence of 1 Corinthians,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 22 (1984): 20.
13. cf. Herms, “Being Saved without Honor.” and Richard A. Horsley, “Gnosis in Corinth : 1 Corinthians 8:1-6,” New Testament Studies 27, no. 1 (1980): 51. If Herms’ hypothesis of a link between 1 Corinthians 3 and 1 Enoch 50 is correct, 1 Cor 15:29 is not even the first text in the epistle to be connected to Alexandrian literature. Similarly, Horsley’s conjecture is that the Corinthian conception of σοφία is largely congruous with Wisdom and Philo; the latter is certainly Alexandrian, whilst the former, if not Alexandrian, is at least heavily influenced by an Alexandrian worldview.
14. The Greek text of 1 Cor 15:29 is taken from UBS4, whilst the English text is the author’s translation. As mentioned above, both Greek and English texts of 2 Macc 12:44 are from Brenton, Septuagint, 207.
15. Similarly, the sin offering was, apparently, ‘a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin’ (12:45).
16. cf. DeMaris, “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) : Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology,” 662.
17. Witherington, Conflict & Community, 294.
18. cf. Acts 17:28, where Paul repurposes the writings of gentile poets. One of the texts, in its original context, applied to Zeus, but Paul uses them both for his own purposes.
19. In a similar way, a Christian today might complete a half-quoted proverb or an alluded to parable.
20. Hays, First Corinthians, 267.

Question

How much evidence is there in 1 Corinthians that a distorted eschatology lies behind the errors and excesses of the Corinthian church? What do we learn from 1 Corinthians concerning Paul’s own eschatological perspective?

Abstract

This paper posits an ‘over-realised’ eschatology in Corinth as foundational to many of the errors and excesses observed and addressed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians. The evidence for this position is presented, largely following the work of Thiselton,¹ and defended against the competing claim of Hays that the Corinthians suffered from a lack of eschatological thinking rather than an overabundance.² This over-realized eschatology is then connected to many of the errors and excesses on view in 1 Corinthians, particularly those associated with their pneumatic enthusiasm. A second stream of eschatological distortion, a denial of future bodily resurrection based on a Hellenistic dualism, is then identified. This is tied to the errors and excesses of the libertines and ascetics in chapters 5-7. Throughout, the Apostle’s own eschatological position is traced, and found to reflect a dialectical tension between that which is and that which will be: the age to come is inaugurated in the life, death and resurrection of Christ, and this brings attendant blessings; but the present age has not yet passed away, nor will it do so until all things (including death) are placed under Christ’s feet.

Essay

The Apostle Paul uses eschatological language throughout his first epistle to the Corinthians, starting in his opening prayer (1:7-9) and eventually climaxing in his sustained defence of a bodily resurrection (15:1-58). He frequently stresses future events as a basis for present action (4:5; 6:2, 9; 7:29-31; 11:26, 32; 15:58). In fact, this very stress on future events (as future events) has led numerous scholars to posit the presence of an eschatological distortion in the Corinthian church, which Paul attempts to correct in this epistle. The most common such reconstruction is that of an ‘over-realised’ eschatology, in which the Corinthians saw themselves as already living in the eschatological kingdom. This view boasts support from impressive array of scholars, including Barrett, Thiselton, Mearns, Fee and Witherington.³ Recent years, however, have seen the rise of a new theory, offered by scholars such as Hays (1997), Horsley (1997), and Wright (2003).⁴ This reconstruction suggests that the Corinthian problem was not one of too much eschatology, but rather too little. In spite of Wright’s confident assertion that ‘[m]any scholars have come round’ and that the earlier reading is ‘increasingly abandoned’, this latter is still by far the minority reading.⁵ The works of Thiselton and Hays may be considered representative of these two viewpoints, and will usefully serve as touchstones for the following comparison.

In his landmark article, Thiselton lays out the evidence for an over-realised eschatology in Corinth by showing that it provides a ‘single common factor which helps to explain an otherwise diverse array of apparently independent problems at Corinth’.⁶ Thus, he detects in chapters 1-4 a Corinthian party challenging the need for spiritual leadership now that all believers have the Spirit;⁷ an anti-nomian party in chapters 5-10;⁸ the Lord’s Supper interpreted as an eschatological banquet in chapter 11;⁹ eschatologically driven pneumatic enthusiasts in chapters 12-14;¹⁰ and a denial of a future bodily resurrection in chapter 15.¹¹ Repeatedly, on Thiselton’s reading, Paul urges the Corinthians to remember that significant aspects of the eschatological kingdom remain yet future. Christ will return (1:7-9; 11:26; 15:23) and it is in his wake that resurrection (15:23), judgement and reward (3:10-15; 4:5; 6:2, 9; 9:24-27; 11:32), perfect knowledge and wisdom (4:8-13; 8:2; 13:2) will follow.

Hays offers a number of criticisms of Thiselton’s reconstruction.¹² He accuses Thiselton of basing his hypothesis on ‘an improbable construction about Gnosticism in Corinth’,¹³ although Thiselton explicitly denies this in a later work.¹⁴ Hays’ primary criticism, however, is that Thiselton’s case rests on only two substantive texts (4:8 and 15:12).¹⁵ The rest, he says, is merely repeatedly showing that Paul appeals to future eschatology in order to correct the Corinthians’ behaviour, but this does not prove a realised eschatology. Hays’ criticism is undermined by his imprecise characterisation of Thiselton’s position,¹⁶ yet he is correct in his analysis of Thiselton’s exegetical support. 1 Corinthians 4:8 and 15:12 are the key texts upon which Thiselton’s case hangs.

Over against this position, Hays offers two theses: (a) Paul was trying to teach the Corinthians to think eschatologically; and (b) Paul wanted the Corinthians to reshape their identity in the light of Israel’s Scripture.¹⁷ Of these the first is directly relevant to the present discussion, for it implies that the Corinthians did not have any concept of an eschaton to start with, whereas a realised or over-realised eschatology necessarily presupposes such an eschatological framework.¹⁸ Instead, Hays posits that the Corinthians drew upon non-eschatological Greco-Roman culture, and specifically popular Cynic and Stoic thought.¹⁹ In support of this he reads πάντα ἔξεστιν (10:23) as a Corinthian slogan reflecting the belief that the σοφός is free to do whatever he wishes for he possesses knowledge to choose.²⁰ On Hays’ reading, then, the source of freedom is wisdom and knowledge. But it may be argued in response that wisdom and knowledge were themselves considered eschatological gifts (cf. 12:8; 13:12b). Paul says that, when they were called, not many amongst the Corinthians were σοφοὶ κατὰ σάρκα (1:26), and the implication is that if they are now wise they are σοφοὶ κατὰ πνεῦμα. Hays has not disproved eschatological thinking in Corinth but may rather have identified a means by which it may have been expressed in the language of the contemporary culture.

Both sides claim 4:8 as positive evidence for their respective positions, and so this is the obvious place to begin comparing them. 1 Corinthians 4:8-13 represents biting irony on the part of the Apostle, made apparent by the emphatic ἤδη at the start of the first two statements.²¹ The difficulty lies in discerning Paul’s purpose in using such irony. Lincoln is here representative of the over-realised eschatology reading, arguing that the Corinthians believed themselves to be living – indeed, ruling (4:8) – in the eschatological kingdom, and thus the beneficiaries of the Spirit and attendant charismatic gifts.²² Hays concedes that they were ‘suffering from an excess of pride and self-satisfaction’ but responds that ‘there are other ways to arrive at such a state besides having an accelerated apocalyptic timetable.’²³ In support of this, he points out that claims to be rich and to reign were made by both Cynic and Stoic philosophers.²⁴ Witherington goes further, citing numerous specific instances.²⁵ Importantly, however, he does not find this insight incompatible with the over-realised eschatology reading.²⁶ In fact, in noting the presence of an imperial eschatology in Corinth he may well have suggested the idea linking the two.²⁷

Fee points out that the three verbs chosen – κεκορεσμένοι, ἐπλουτήσατε and ἐβασιλεύσατε – directly attack both the Corinthians’ pride in general and specifically their view of spirituality.²⁸ The aorist tenses of the latter two suggest eschatological fulfilment.²⁹ They believed that all gifts had been given and were enthusiastically exercising them to the exclusion of all else. This led to significant errors and excesses, such as arrogance (4:18), flirting with idolatry (8:9-13; 10:14-17), a ‘magical’ view of the sacraments (10:1-6; 11:28-30; 15:29)³⁰ and an exalted view of the χαριματα that precluded a need for others (12:21). They believed that by the Spirit, and especially the gift of tongues, they already spoke the language of the angels, the language of heaven (13:1).³¹ This last is particularly important, since it highlights a significant weakness in Hays’ reconstruction: it is unable to account for the evident pneumatic enthusiasm in Corinth. If the source of the Corinthian excesses and errors lies in their Stoic knowledge and wisdom, how did they understand the presence of the Spirit and the charismatic gifts? It is difficult to conceive of a Christian pneumatology not derived from eschatology; 1:7 suggests that Paul made an explicit connection between the two,³² whilst 13:1 may suggest the Corinthians did also. Thus Thiselton’s conjectured over-realised eschatology is to be preferred as it brings coherence to more of the overall epistle than does Hays’.

Paul attempts to correct both the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ of the Corinthian position. He does this by emphasising the contrast with the acknowledged leaders of the church, the apostles, for whom suffering was a present and continuing reality (4:9-13).³³ He also reminds them later on that they are in a race not yet completed (9:24f.) and that they do not yet know as they ought (8:2; 13:8-10). On the subject of spiritual gifts and spirituality, he explains that they are not of the same order as those that characterise the eschatological kingdom, though they may herald it; they will not be needed in the age to come.³⁴ The only thing with abiding significance is love (13:8). As Thiselton writes, ‘Paul’s futurist perspective… is not only to qualify an over-realized eschatology at Corinth; it also represents an anti-enthusiastic stance’.³⁵

According to Paul, Christians live at the intersection of two ages: the proof that the new has come is the availability of eschatological gifts (1:7; 4:7);³⁶ the proof that the old is not yet gone is the continuing presence of affliction and death (4:9-13).³⁷ The Corinthians evidently think of themselves as having commenced life and reign in a kingdom (whether eschatological or otherwise) as evidenced by the repeated ingressive aorist ἐβασιλεύσατε (4:8, twice).³⁸ Paul instead points to a kingdom inaugurated but not yet consummated.³⁹ Similarly, the Apostle’s response in 15:54-57 suggests that the Corinthians made much of the ‘victorious’ life, so that Paul had to point to a victory still future.⁴⁰ The kingdom is inaugurated by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, but will only be consummated when the full and final victory is won and every enemy is placed under his feet (15:25).⁴¹ And the last such enemy is death (15:26).

Death, or rather life after death, is the subject of another Corinthian eschatological distortion. That this is proved by 15:12 – ‘some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead’ – is not seriously contested by scholars. This is as far as the consensus goes, however, with the exact nature of the distortion hotly debated. Reconstructions are legion, but most commentators posit one or more of the following as Corinthian beliefs: (a) there is no life after death; (b) the resurrection has already occurred; (c) their Hellenistic dualism precluded belief in a bodily resurrection.⁴² To the first, Barrett objects that they could not have been considered Christians – ἐν ὑμῖν (15:12) – and hold such a belief. Mearns raises the possibility that this is Paul’s (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of the Corinthian position, but his case is unpersuasive.⁴³ Of the second there are many variant readings. Schweitzer argued that the Corinthians believed the Jewish notion that only those alive at the Parousia would enter the kingdom, and the corollary that those alive at the coming of the Messiah (a past event in their eyes) would enter the kingdom; thus, since they were alive at his appearing they must now have gone through the resurrection event (baptismal regeneration) and be living in the Messianic kingdom.⁴⁴ Davies argues against this, pointing out that there were unlikely to be such ultra-conservative Jews in Corinth, and that there are other far more plausible explanations.⁴⁵ Instead, Davies endorses Héring’s view that there was no need for resurrection, as they were already experiencing the blessings of the kingdom.⁴⁶ Mearns develops this further, suggesting that they believed the mechanism by which they were transferred into the kingdom was through baptism, and thus the Corinthians interpreted resurrection as a metaphor for baptism,⁴⁷ whilst both Fee and Lincoln suggest that the Corinthians’ magical view of baptism and eucharist was such as for them to preclude the possibility of death altogether.⁴⁸ Thiselton argues strongly against all of these, on the grounds that they could hardly have misconstrued Paul so thoroughly after he lived with them for 18 months.⁴⁹

The third main view, that the Corinthians were possessed of a Hellenistic dualism that held a low view of the body, is the majority view.⁵⁰ Such a preconception would cause a natural resistance to the new (to them) idea of a bodily resurrection.⁵¹ As Davies puts it, ‘it was escape from the body, not any future reunion with it in resurrection, that seemed desirable to the Hellenistic world owing to its particular anthropology’.⁵² The main textual evidence for this is that the apostle devotes substantial energy in 15:35-49 towards answering the questions: πῶς ἐγείρονται οἱ νεκροί; and ποίῳ δὲ σώματι ἔρχονται; (15:35). Wright is persuasive in his argument that these are distinct, though related, questions.⁵³ On his reading, the first question pertains to the mechanism by which resurrection is accomplished (the Spirit) and the second relates to the nature of the post-resurrection existence.⁵⁴ The most attractive aspect of Wright’s hypothesis is the neatness of Paul’s use of σῶμα πνευματικόν as an answer to both questions. Ultimately, however, the syntax of 15:35 mandates against this as it would require δέ to function in a correlative manner without a corresponding μέν (or οὐ).⁵⁵ Thus the more natural reading is to take the second question as a specification of the first, with δέ functioning in a more mundane connective manner.⁵⁶ Thus Robertson and Plummer capture the sense of the first question in their paraphrase, ‘Can we conceive of such a thing? We cannot be expected believe what is impossible and inconceivable’.⁵⁷ In either case, judging by Paul’s response the emphasis seems to be on the second question: ‘With what kind of body do they [the dead who are raised] come?’ (15:35, NRSV). The nature of the anticipated objection is suggestive that Paul believed the Corinthians would not accept a future bodily resurrection.

In addition to denying the resurrection, the Corinthian disparagement of the body apparently led to errors and excesses in two other directions. Firstly, a party of libertines reasoned that if the body was doomed to eventual destruction anyway then what was done with, through and to it was of no importance. Their slogan was πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν (6:12; cf. 10:23). The results of this logic may be seen in the case of the incestuous man (5:1) and subsequent pride on the part of the church that such a thing should occur in their midst (5:2, 6). Similarly the sexual promiscuity on display in 6:12-20 may be attributed to this radical devaluing of that which is physical. The body was free to indulge fleshly appetites so long as the spirit was also free to meet spiritual appetites (6:13). To these people Paul offers the instruction δοξάσατε δὴ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ σώματι ὑμῶν (6:20). Secondly, however, a party of ascetics applied their understanding of physical existence in a different direction. They reasoned that any indulgence of the σῶμα would be at the expense of the πνεῦμα.⁵⁸ Thus they argued that believers should abstain from sexuality altogether, reflected in their slogan  καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι (7:1b).⁵⁹ Paul is more circumspect in his response to this group, acknowledging that abstinence is indeed appropriate if it aids in serving the Lord (7:32-35); if it does not, however, there is nothing wrong with sexuality providing it is in the context of marriage (7:36). Thus, whilst Paul agrees to some extent with the ascetic party line, he does not agree with the reasoning that led them to it.⁶⁰

That Paul himself conceived of a bodily resurrection is quite clear. Resurrection is mentioned first in 6:14, in support of the argument that culminates in the imperative, ‘glorify God in your body’ (6:20, NRSV). Robertson & Plummer note that the inclusion of ἐκ νεκρῶν in 15:12 suggests a bodily resurrection, for Christ could not be conceived of as among the spiritually dead.⁶¹ The strongest evidence, however, is Paul’s response to the anticipated Corinthian objection (15:35). Paul offers two analogies that reveal the shape of his thought: (a) the planting of a seed (15:36-38); and (b) different kinds of bodies (15:39-41). The first emphasises both continuity and transformation.⁶² That which is sown goes from one existence to another by passing through death (36), at which time it is transformed from one body to another, according to the will of God (38). The second analogy stresses the adaptation of each body to its sphere of existence (39-41), with the implication that there will be an appropriate body for resurrection life. The σῶμα πνευματικόν is both continuous with and utterly distinct from σῶμα ψυχικόν. Thus Paul, whilst affirming a bodily existence in the age to come, distinguishes his position from a ‘crass Jewish conception of a “fleshly” resurrection’.

Neither σῶμα nor ψυχικόν hold negative connotations in this context, except possibly that of perishability (15:42b).⁶³ As Vos points out, the absence of the σαρκικός / σαρκινός word group in this passage is strong proof that the contrast here is between the creation body and the resurrection body, for these are Paul’s stock terms for describing the body invaded by sin (e.g. Rom 7:14; 1 Cor 3:1, 3; 2 Cor 10:4).⁶⁴ The Apostle is neither disparaging the ψυχικός nor exalting the πνευματικός but rather contrasting between the bodies belonging to the pre-eschatological and the eschatological ages respectively.⁶⁵

In 15:45-49, Paul appeals to the analogy of Adam and Christ, further reinforcing the eschatological flavour of his argument. Lincoln points out the progression in his comparisons: first, types of bodies (15:35-41); next, representatives of those types (15:42-46); finally Adam and Christ are reconsidered as representatives of two world orders, γῆ and οὐρανός (15:47-49).⁶⁶ Once again, the trajectory of Paul’s thought is an eschatological one.

What, then, may be said in conclusion? Thiselton’s case for an over-realised eschatology in Corinth is persuasive. The key exegetical evidence for the position is found in 4:8-13, wherein Paul satirises their arrogance and wilful blindness to the affliction that surrounds them, not least his own. The real strength of Thiselton’s argument is that it provides sufficient cause for the Corinthians’ pneumatic enthusiasm, something that Hays’ reading cannot. Even if one allows Hays’ position, however, this merely transforms the Corinthians’ eschatological distortion from too much eschatology to too little; rather than an over-realised eschatology they had an undeveloped eschatology. Either way, Paul’s consistent methodology is to repeatedly emphasise the remaining imperfections of the present age, and the blessings that await in the age to come. In particular, he lays great stress on a future somatic existence. In so doing, he comes into conflict with the second main stream of Corinthian eschatological distortion, a Hellenistic dualism that values the ‘spiritual’ (πνευματικός) to the exclusion of the ‘unspiritual’ (ψυχικός) and thus denies a future bodily resurrection (15:12). Between them, these two eschatological distortions may be seen to be causal in many, if not all, of the excesses and errors observed and addressed by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians.

Works cited

Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London,: Adam & Charles Black, 1968.

Blomberg, Craig. 1 Corinthians, The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994.

Carson, D. A. The Cross and Christian Ministry : Leadership Lessons from 1 Corinthians. Paperback ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 2004.

Davies, W. D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism : Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. 4th ed. Mifflintown: Siegler Press, 1980 (1947). Reprint, 1998.

Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1998.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987.

Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1997.

———. “The Conversion of the Imagination : Scripture and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians.” New Testament Studies 45, no. 3 (1999): 391-412.

Horsley, Richard A. 1 Corinthians, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998.

Hurd, John C. The Origin of 1 Corinthians S.P.C.K, 1983.

Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993.

Kreitzer, L. Joseph. Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology, Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series 19. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1987.

Lincoln, Andrew T. Paradise Now and Not Yet : Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Mearns, Christopher L. “Early Eschatological Development in Paul : The Evidence of 1 Corinthians.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament no. 22 (1984): 19-35.

Morris, Leon. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians : An Introduction and Commentary. 2nd ed, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1985.

Pate, C. Marvin. The End of the Age Has Come : The Theology of Paul. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1995.

Plevnik, Joseph. Paul and the Parousia : An Exegetical and Theological Investigation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.

Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. Edited by Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer and Charles Augustus Briggs. Second ed, The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914.

Thiselton, Anthony C. “Realized Eschatology at Corinth.” New Testament Studies 24, no. 4 (1978): 510-26.

———. The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.

Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics : An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996.

Witherington, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God. London: SPCK, 2003.

Yarbrough, O. Larry. “Not Like the Gentiles : Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul.” PhD, Scholars Press, Yale University, 1986.

Endnotes

1. Anthony C. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” New Testament Studies 24, no. 4 (1978).
2. Richard B. Hays, “The Conversion of the Imagination : Scripture and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians,” New Testament Studies 45, no. 3 (1999).
3. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Black’s New Testament Commentaries (London,: Adam & Charles Black, 1968), 108f.; Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology.”; Christopher L. Mearns, “Early Eschatological Development in Paul : The Evidence of 1 Corinthians,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 22 (1984): 25.; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987), 12, 172.; Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth : A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1995), 139, 292, 302-4.
4. Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1997), 70.; Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination.”; Richard A. Horsley, 1 Corinthians, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 69.; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God (London: SPCK, 2003), 279, 96-7.
5. Ibid., 279.
6. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology,” 512.
7. Ibid.: 513ff.
8. Ibid.: 515ff.
9. Ibid.: 521-2.
10. Ibid.: 512, 22.
11. Ibid.: 523-4.
12. Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination,” 407-8. cf.
13. Ibid.: 408 n. 41.
14. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1174.
15. These are representative of two of the three main categories of eschatological thought found in this epistle: fulfilment/abundance (1:7-9; 4:8-13; 8:2; 10:11; 13:8-12; 15:20-28) and resurrection (6:14; 15:1-58). The third category is judgement/reward (3:10-15; 4:5; 6:2, 9; 9:24-27; 11:32).
16. In addition to reading a Gnostic element into Thiselton’s article (on which see above), Hays attacks the ‘tortuous interpretation’ of 15:12 as a belief that the Corinthians had already experienced resurrection ‘on the analogy of 2 Tim 2.17-18… which requires us to suppose that Paul misunderstands or misrepresents the Corinthians’ actual opinions’ (Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination,” 408.). In this he misrepresents Thiselton, whose actual position was that the Corinthians ‘placed such weight on the experience of transformation in the past and present that when they thought about resurrection the centre of gravity of their thinking was no longer in the future.’ (Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology,” 524.)
17. Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination,” 391.
18. Ibid.: 407.
19. Ibid.: 399. cf. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 279. Contra Barrett, First Epistle, 108f.
20. Hays, “Conversion of the Imagination,” 399. cf. 8:1.
21. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 172. Both Fee and Witherington note the possibility that these could be a continuation of the rhetorical questions in 4:7 (Ibid., 172 n. 36.; Witherington, Conflict & Community, 141.). The force of the irony remains undiminished in either case.
22. Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet : Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 33.
23. Hays, First Corinthians, 70.
24. Ibid.
25. Witherington, Conflict & Community, 142f.
26. Ibid., 139.
27. Ibid., 139, 304.
28. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 172.
29. Barrett, First Epistle, 108f.
30. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 34. Lincoln suggests that the Corinthians viewed the sacraments as expressions of pneumatic existence in the kingdom.
31. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 12, 778. cf. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 34, 41.
32. Admittedly the connection in this case is with the ‘already’ of Paul’s eschatological outlook, but the emphasis here seems to be on the fact that they are given for the interval until the parousia.
33. D. A. Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry : Leadership Lessons from 1 Corinthians, Paperback ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 2004), 105.
34. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 295.
35. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology,” 515.
36. James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1998), 477.
37. C. Marvin Pate, The End of the Age Has Come : The Theology of Paul (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1995), 106.
38. Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), 138. Kistemaker also argues that the periphrastic construction of the perfect passive participle κεκορεσμένοι together with the verb ‘to be’ in the present tense ‘signifies that for a considerable time the Corinthians have had all the things they needed’.
39. Of seven occurrences of the phrase ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in Paul, five of them are found in this epistle (4:20; 6:9, 10; 15:24, 50). cf. Joseph Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia : An Exegetical and Theological Investigation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 148.
40. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 52. Yet, as Lincoln points out, Paul can still use the present participle διδόντι for the giving of victory in 15:57
41. L. Joseph Kreitzer, Jesus and God in Paul’s Eschatology, Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series 19 (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1987), 148.
42. cf. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1172ff. Thiselton also notes the possibility that there may have been more than one group with more than one problem (Ibid., 1176.).
43. Mearns, “Early Eschatological Development,” 24.
44. Schweitzer, cited in Barrett, First Epistle, 347.
45. W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism : Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, 4th ed. (Mifflintown: Siegler Press, 1980 (1947); reprint, 1998), 292.
46. Héring, cited in Ibid. cf. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 37.; Kistemaker, First Corinthians, 540. This is the view that Hays latches on to as representative of Thiselton’s reconstruction of an over-realised eschatology in Corinth (on which, see above).
47. Mearns, “Early Eschatological Development,” 20.
48. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 715.; Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 34.
49. Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 511.
50. So Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 11-12.; Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 301.; Horsley, 1 Corinthians, 200.; Plevnik, Paul and the Parousia : An Exegetical and Theological Investigation, 151.; Witherington, Conflict & Community, 306.; and Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 316, 30.
51. cf. John C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (S.P.C.K, 1983), 286.
52. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 303.
53. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 343.
54. cf. Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians : An Introduction and Commentary, 2nd ed., The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1985), 219.
55. cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics : An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996), 670.
56. So Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 775, 80. and Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 38.
57. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Second ed., The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914), 368. and quoted in Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1262.
58. Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, The Niv Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994), 132.
59. O. Larry Yarbrough, “Not Like the Gentiles : Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul” (PhD, Scholars Press, Yale University, 1986), 119.
60. Ibid., 5.; Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 136.
61. Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle, 351.
62. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 779.
63. Both Fee and Wright follow Jeremias in suggesting that Paul’s usage of φθείρω in 15:42, 50 indicates ‘the dead’ οver against the living. On this reading, ‘perishable’ is an indication of mortality and not intrinsically negative. Ibid., 799.; Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 358.
64. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 168.
65. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, 40.
66. Ibid., 44.

An art critic once decided to judge, once and for all, which of the great master painters was the most true to life. He arranged for representative works from each of these masters to be gathered in one gallery. He wandered around for a while, gazing upon paintings of great beauty, rich with colour and form, but try as he might he could not decide. Then he struck upon the answer: Going to the gallery’s lighting controls, he dimmed the lights until the paintings could barely be made out and, standing at a distance, declared them all to be the same!

This story is, of course, absurd. You cannot evaluate the truthfulness of a painting (or anything else) by obscuring or ignoring the things that make it distinctive… yet that is exactly what some people try to do when they examine the competing claims of the world’s religions! ‘All religions are the same,’ they claim, ‘they all teach the same things.’ A common illustration used to explain this is that different religions are simply different paths up the same mountain; they all lead to the same God in the end. The name given to this viewpoint by people who like to name such things is pluralism.

What motivates such people? Some do it out of laziness – there are so many religions, so many views and perspectives, that it is easier to lump them all together and condemn them all at once.¹ Others prefer a kind of generalised spirituality that borrows from each of the major religions, allowing them to pick and choose the elements that most appeal to them and binding them to none. More commonly in recent years, however, it is driven by a fear of religious intolerance. This last is a genuine concern, yet it is best dealt with not by closing our eyes to the differences between, say, Hinduism and Judaism, but by encouraging adherents of each to listen to one another respectfully even when we disagree.

Occasionally, pluralists will claim that, ‘If you put Abraham, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad and other religious leaders in the same room they would get on just fine.’ This is the claim that I intend to explore today. To do so, we will consider the lives and teachings of three very different men, each of whom in his own way changed the world. Incidentally, if you wish to explore further on this topic, I can highly recommend John Dickson’s book A spectator’s guide to world religions, from which much of the material for this sermon has been gleaned.²

Some time in the 5th century BC, a man name Siddhartha Gautama was born into a Hindu family of the ‘warrior-king’ caste of Indian society. Around 29 years of age, so it is told, he left his palace to survey his kingdom, and was overcome with grief by what he saw: a frail old man; a desperately ill man; and a corpse. The next day, however, Gautama saw a very different man who was to change his life forever: a Hindu ‘ascetic’ – a guru who had chosen to pursue the ‘Path of Knowledge’. Siddhartha was so impressed by the serene appearance of this guru that he decided then and there to give up his life of luxury and seek the secret of serenity in a world of suffering. And so he left his privileged life, his beautiful wife, and his newborn baby, to search for an answer to the problem of suffering. He found it, one May night, sitting under a tree meditating. This was the moment of ‘enlightenment’ for Prince Siddhartha, and henceforth he was known to his disciples as the Buddha, which means ‘the enlightened one’.

What was the Buddha’s insight? It may be summarised in what has come to be known as ‘The Four Noble Truths’ of Buddhism: (1) suffering exists; (2) suffering springs from desire; (3) suffering goes when you eliminate desire; and (4) to eliminate desire you must follow the ‘Eightfold Path’, a sequence of steps that aim to help eliminate any concept of the self. The force of the logic is powerful: it is our desire for self-satisfaction, self-existence and self-advancement that creates the experience of pain. Therefore if you remove the self, desire goes; and when desire goes, so too does suffering.

Some thousand years after the Buddha lived another man, named Muhammad. Born in modern-day Saudi Arabia, his early life was filled with tragedy: before he was born his father died, whilst his mother also died when he was 6; after a brief stint living with his grandfather (who died when he was 8 ) he was cared for by his uncle, Abu Talib, a prominent clan leader in the city of Mecca. Muhammad was a contemplative man who frequently left the busyness of Mecca in favour of a cave where he could consider the mysteries of life.

One day, when he was about 40, he heard a heavenly voice repeating the word, ‘recite’. Muhammad didn’t know what to ‘recite’ until finally the voice – identified as that of the angel Gabriel – explained that he had been chosen as a ‘Messenger of God’ to restore to the world the truth about the Creator. From that moment on, Muhammad was referred to by his followers as the ‘Prophet’.

At first, Muhammad found little welcome in his home town of Mecca. His calls for equity and charity were not popular in this centre of commerce and trade. In the end, Muhammad was forced to leave Mecca for Medina, a city some 400km north. In Medina, Muhammad was able to establish a community founded on two things: belief in Allah as the one true God (rather than a Zeus-like overlord of the gods); and belief in Muhammad as his messenger. More than just being the religious leader of this community, however, he was also made the civil ruler of the city – and so the first Islamic state came into existence.³

Relations with Mecca continued to be strained until, in the year 624AD, Muhammad fought a major battle at the town of Badr. In spite of being massively outnumbered, by about 3 to 1, Muhammad prevailed. Over the following years, Muhammad’s forces steadily grew, until in 628AD the Meccans were forced to sign a truce, allowing the Prophet’s followers to visit his birthplace. This did not last long, however, for in the following year Muhammad accused the Meccans of breaking the truce, and lay siege to the city with 10, 000 men. The Meccans, helpless, surrendered and converted to Islam.⁴

The central concept of the Muslim life is submission to God’s law as revealed in the Koran and the example of the Prophet. Indeed, the word ‘Islam’ means ‘submission’, whilst the word ‘Muslim’ means ‘one who submits’ (to Allah). Surrendering yourself to God’s law leads to eternal Paradise, whilst disobedience leads to destruction on the Day of Judgement. The heart of the law is found in what are often called the ‘Five Pillars of Islam’. These are (1) a declaration of faith, that ‘There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet'; (2) daily prayers; (3) payment of a tax for the poor; (4) the fast of Ramadan; and (5) a pilgrimage to Mecca. By submitting to these 5 demands, men and women hope to secure their place in Paradise.

Nestled in the middle of the years separating these two men is Jesus of Nazareth. The birth of this man literally divides history, with the preceding years numbered as BC – ‘before Christ’ – and the following numbered as AD – anno domini, or ‘the year of the Lord’. Born to working-class parents, and growing up in the backwater Palestinian town of Nazareth, Jesus had little to distinguish him from other men, except some unusual events surrounding his birth. Yet in his early thirties he began a public ministry that was attended by extraordinary miracles and, in the eyes of some at least, even more extraordinary teachings. About 3 years into this ministry, he was arrested by Jewish authorities, illegally tried, and turned over to the Roman authorities to be put to death. He was certified as dead by a Roman executioner, buried in a tomb, and yet 3 days later he was seen alive by numerous people – even as many as 500 at one time!

Chief among Jesus’ teachings concerned the nature of his relationship with God, whom he claimed as his Father in an utterly unprecedented way. As he spoke the words that we have heard read, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’ (John 14:6), he both affirmed his own ability to bring others into relationship with God, and denied that anybody else was able. In fact, the relationship between Father and Son is so profound, that knowing the Son is equivalent to knowing the Father (14:7, 9), for Jesus and the Father are one (10:30)!

It is at this point that it becomes utterly impossible to sustain the belief that ‘all religions are the same’. The Buddha rejects the notion of any God at all, yet Jesus claims not only that there is a God, but that to know Jesus is to know God. You don’t have to be a mathematical genius to realise that no God is not the same as one God – let alone the many gods of the Hindu religion! Muhammad claimed to have a revelation from God, whereas Jesus claimed to be a revelation from God. And for Jesus to claim, as he did, that he and God are one would be cause for death in Muhammad’s eyes.

Another irreconcilable difference between Jesus and the others is their different solutions to the problems of human existence. The Buddha taught that the problem was suffering, which originates in desire; the solution, then is to eliminate desire and so eliminate suffering. The Prophet taught that the problem is that men and women are disobedient towards Allah, and that the solution is to submit to the Law. Both men implied that you have the ability, by what you do, to solve the problem of your existence. This is attractive in our age of self-help, where independence is almost the cardinal virtue.

Jesus’ view of the problem is similar to both the Prophet and the Buddha: disobedience towards God – which he calls sin – leads to suffering, death and, ultimately, judgement. It is Jesus’ solution that is so very different for, he says, men and women are not capable of overcoming this problem. Instead, it is only by the actions of Jesus himself – God taking on human flesh, suffering death as a penalty for sin and being raised from the dead – that sin, suffering and death can be defeated. Where the Buddha and the Prophet point you to what you must do, Jesus points to what he has already done.

It is this personal intervention that is at the heart of the often-used image of the shepherd in Jesus’ teaching. A man was travelling with a guide through Palestine, and came across a shepherd and his sheep. The shepherd showed him the fold into which the sheep were led at night; it consisted of four walls with a way in. The man said, ‘But there is no door,’ to which the shepherd replied, ‘I am the door.’ ‘What do you mean?’ ‘When the light has gone, and all the sheep are inside, I lie in that open space, and no sheep ever goes out but across my body, and no wolf comes in unless he crosses my body; I am the door.’⁵ This is what Jesus means when he says, ‘I am the gate for the sheep… whoever enters through me will be saved’ (Jn 10:7, 9) and ‘I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep’ (Jn 10:11). It is Jesus who acts to rescue us from the terrible fate that sin has brought us to. Without the shepherd we are but prey; with him, we are utterly safe. Men like Siddhartha Gautama and Muhammad may give an appearance of protection and security through what they teach, but when the wolf comes they are no help, for they are merely hired hands and have no investment in you.

Consider the case of Kobayashi Issa, a Japanese poet and devout Buddhist, whose life was marked with tragedy. He believed what the Buddha taught, that the things of this life are fleeting, in his words a ‘world of dew’. Yet after the death of his second child, he wrote the following haunting words:

This world of dew
Is only a world of dew
And yet… and yet…

When tragedy struck this man, the teachings of the Buddha were little consolation.

A lot more could be said in comparing these three men, if time permitted… but unfortunately it doesn’t! As mentioned earlier, if you’re interested in exploring these issues further, I highly recommend John Dickson’s book A spectator’s guide to world religions, which also considers the teachings of Hinduism and Judaism.

What then are we to conclude? Claiming that all religions are the same is nonsense, for as we have seen even the three religions we have examined are neither compatible nor interchangeable. Indeed, claiming two things are the same when they are not leads to tragedy, as witnessed by a Sydney couple convicted this week of the manslaughter of their nine-month-old daughter. Tragically, the couple wrongly believed that their homeopathic remedies for the girl’s eczema were as effective as western medicine… and their little girl paid the price as a result.

So a choice must be made. The Buddha offers a path from a life of suffering to a life stripped of desire. The Prophet prescribes a life of submission to the Law in order to achieve Paradise. Jesus Christ calls you to a life lived under the protection of the Good Shepherd… and has himself done everything necessary for that to happen. The choice is yours.

    – Tim Campbell (4/10/2009)

Bibliography

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006.
Dickson, John. A Spectator’s Guide to World Religions : An Introduction to the Big Five. Sydney South: Blue Bottle Books, 2004.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Rev. ed, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1995.

Endnotes

1. e.g. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2006), 35-6. Dawkins writes, ‘Life is too short to bother with the distinction between one figment of the imagination and many… I decry supernaturalism in all its forms. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.’
2. John Dickson, A Spectator’s Guide to World Religions : An Introduction to the Big Five (Sydney South: Blue Bottle Books, 2004).
3. This event was so important, that it marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. The current year, for a Muslim, is not 2009AD, but 1430 AH, where AH stands for the Latin anno Hegirae, ‘in the year of the emigration’ to Medina.
4. Lest it be thought that Islam is a religion founded on military force, it is important to recognise that Muhammad was no more warrior-like than any other clan leader of his time; in many ways he was considerably more just and compassionate. He customarily offered three options when communities came into contact with Islamic expansion: (1) Conversion; (2) Protection, meaning that the community could keep its way of life, but was obliged to pay a tax to the wider community; or (3) Battle. Only when a community refused the first two options was the third exercised.
5. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Rev. ed., The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1995), 451 n. 32.

On the first of January, 1863, the American Emancipation Proclamation came into effect. By it, all of the black slaves in the United States were set free. Yet a strange thing happened, for many continued to live in slavery. When an Alabama slave was asked what he thought of Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator he replied, ‘I don’t know nothin’ ’bout Abraham Lincoln cep they say he sot us free. And I don’t know nothin’ ’bout that neither’.¹ It is not enough to declare someone as being free if they ‘don’t know nothin’ ’bout it’ – instead, they must be taught and shown what it means to be free. And, as we shall see, this is very close to the Apostle Paul’s heart.

In tonight’s passage, Paul proclaims life and freedom for those who are in Christ. But he doesn’t leave it there, going on to explain what this life and freedom looks like, and encouraging the Colossians not to return to the death and slavery from which they have been liberated. This is signalled in the opening three verses:

So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. (6-8)

There are two things here. Firstly, Paul says to the Colossians ‘just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him’ (6). And secondly he gives an instruction: ‘See to it that no one takes you captive’ (8). These two ideas form the framework for the rest of this passage, as he explores them and explains them in greater depth.

‘Just as you received Christ Jesus, continue to live in him’ (6-7, 9-15)

We cannot know exactly what it was that prompted Paul to write this letter, but we can take some pretty good guesses based on the things he says. One of the recurring words in Colossians is the word ‘fullness’.² One of the most widely held theories about the situation in Colossae is that new teachers had come and were teaching that the gospel they had received was not the ‘full’ story, that there was more to know and to do. As we know, Paul did not bring the gospel to Colossae himself. That was the privilege of Epaphras. But Epaphras was not an apostle, and perhaps the newcomers were claiming some superior authority to proclaim that his gospel was in some way defective, and that to achieve ‘fullness’ as Christians more was required. The Colossians were missing out, unless they paid attention to the new teachers and did what they said.

This still happens today, doesn’t it? Our entire advertising industry is built on the premise that you, the consumer, are missing out unless you buy this product or that service. And Christian marketing is not immune. Consider the list of titles in a recent catalogue from a popular Christian bookstore: Happiness is a lifestyle; Leadership on the Front Foot; The Power of Prayer to Change Your Marriage; and Your Best Life Begins Each Morning. Each of these titles makes an implicit promise that your life will somehow be better, more fulfilling, if you buy and read the book.

Paul’s response is clear:

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ. (9-10)

The fullness of God is found in Jesus Christ. You can’t get much more full than that. And those who have received Christ, including the Colossians (6), have been given fullness in him. If you are a Christian then the good news is that you have been given all the fullness of God; you will spend the rest of your life learning what that means, but there is nothing more to do for all has been done for you by Jesus.
What does this fullness look like? Paul gives us a couple of images to help us understand, and they are all expressed in terms of freedom. First, we are freed from the dominion of other powers and authorities, for Christ is head over them all. The powers and authorities here are spiritual beings. Many of you will be familiar with C. S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, either from the book itself or the more recent movie. In it, the Witch stands before Aslan and demands the life of the traitor, Edmund. ‘You know,’ she says, ‘that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to a kill.’³ The impression is of a debt owed to the evil power, yet the reality is very different for God owes no debt to Satan. Jesus Christ is the head over every power and authority, and that includes the devil. No longer are the spiritual powers and authorities to be feared, for they have been publicly humiliated in Christ’s triumph on the cross (15).

We belong to Jesus, and so our allegiance is to him, not to the powers and authorities. We know this because of three signs: the sinful nature is removed by Christ, a kind of circumcision (11); the Christian is buried with Christ in baptism (12); and the Christian is raised to life through ‘faith in the power of God’ (12).

Paul expands on this point with his second picture of freedom, freedom from sin and death.

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. (13)

Death comes because of sin, and sin from sinful nature. But for Christians, God has removed our sinful nature and forgiven our sins, thus making us alive! If you are not a Christian, you need to know that the only place where you will find fullness and life is in Jesus Christ. This is the amazingly good news – the gospel – of Christianity: those who are dead, God makes alive with Christ; those who are captive, God sets free in Christ… and that offer is open to you!
Paul’s point is that there is life, fullness and authority in Christ, and those who are in him are given freedom from oppression, sin and death. Why then does Paul warn the Colossians not to be taken captive (8)? I believe that he is correcting a misguided view of the gospel.

‘See to it that no one takes you captive’ (8, 16-23)

Christian brothers and sisters, how do you see the gospel? Some Christians think of it as the first step of the stairway that leads to God, or a doorway which one passes through and leaves behind as they approach him. Let me suggest to you a better image: the gospel is the hub which holds the wheel called ‘Christianity’ together. The gospel is the fullness, if you like, of Christian teaching and theology. If you cannot see the ‘spoke’ connecting a teaching to the gospel then it is likely an addition to what is already full. And you cannot add to fullness, or else, by definition, it was not really fullness in the first place.

It seems that that is exactly what was happening in Colossae, for Paul feels the need to instruct the Colossians not to let themselves be taken captive by things that are ‘hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ’ (8). He gives three examples of these: hyper-religion (16-17); hyper-spirituality (18-19); and hyper-discipline (20-23).

Hyper-religion is where the forms of religion are stretched beyond their original intention, and where observing them gives one a ‘status’ beyond that of other believers. The examples Paul gives are of people observing religious rules, festivals and holidays, things that he says are mere shadows of the reality found in Christ (16-17). Have you ever wondered why we do not make sacrifices as the Old Testament priests did? Or why we do not strictly observe the Sabbath as Jews did and do? The reason is that these things were pointers to Jesus who is both sacrifice (Heb 8:26) and Sabbath rest (Heb 3-4). So do not be fooled by those who say you must pray in a particular way, sing specific songs, perform certain rituals or support such and such a cause to be a ‘full’ Christian. The fullness that comes in Christ is not dependent upon which church you attend or which preacher you listen to. In Christ ‘you have been given [past tense]4 fullness’ (10).

A variant on this theme is hyper-spirituality. In Paul’s language, hyper-spiritualists are those who delight in ‘false humility and the worship of angels’ (18). Where hyper-religion says a person achieves fullness by what they do, hyper-spirituality emphasises what a person has experienced. Their humility is false because they point away from themselves to their experiences, expecting that they will in turn reflect well upon themselves. Some examples today might be Christian leaders who claim influence and authority because of a vision they have seen, a word that they have received from God, a supernatural healing performed through them and so on. When I was in Year 12, all I wanted was to be able to speak and pray in tongues. For a long time I felt like an inferior Christian, because I did not and do not. This seemed to me to be something every Christian should expect, and those who didn’t were missing out. But the truth we find in this passage is that fullness is found in Jesus Christ, not Christ plus something else.

Hyper-discipline is where a person imposes rules upon themselves and others in order to bring about perfection in themselves. Some examples would include those who fast, refuse alcohol or will not watch television in order to make a point to those around them how holy they are. In extreme cases, this manifests in what Paul calls ‘harsh treatment of the body’ (23), such as the self-imposed beatings and cilice employed by the fictional character Silas in Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code. The rationale such a person gives if asked is that they are ‘restraining sensual indulgence’, but Paul says that these things ‘lack any value’ in doing so (23).

One of the clearest signs of a hyper-religious, hyper-spiritual or hyper-disciplined person is that they judge others according to their religion, spirituality, discipline or lack thereof. ‘Unless you are like I am, you do not have everything that the Christian life has to offer,’ they say. Thus they ‘judge’ (16) and ‘disqualify’ (18) others. Their teachings ‘have an appearance of wisdom’ but they are ‘self-imposed worship’ (23) and so are ultimately ‘destined to perish’ (22).

How are we to respond when confronted with hyper-religious, hyper-spiritual or hyper-disciplined people? The instruction is clear: ‘Do not let anyone judge you… Do not let anyone… disqualify you’ (16, 18). Some will remember the 20km walking event at the Sydney Olympic Games, when Australian athlete Jane Saville was disqualified as she entered the stadium for violating the rules of the competition; how silly it would be if she had allowed herself to be disqualified because of something that was not in the rules, such as the brand of shoes she wore, or the amount of water she drank.

Religion, spirituality and discipline are not in and of themselves bad things. In most cases, in fact, they are tremendously beneficial. Yet good though they are, they do not have the authority or power to govern our lives, for life in Christ is governed by a different set of rules, namely Christ, the head. Unless teacher and teaching are connected to Jesus Christ and his gospel they are but ‘human commands and teachings’ (22) and they have no hold over us, so do not be taken captive by them.

The only thing more tragic than a slave who does not know he is free is one who, having experienced and understood freedom, returns to slavery. Let us suppose that the slave we heard from earlier, having tasted his freedom, was approached by a man claiming the virtues of slavery and offering to take him captive once more. Would he accept this proposal? Of course not!

If you are in Christ, you have been given fullness and freedom. Do not seek them in anything that does not have Christ as its head, or else you will be taken captive.

Bibliography

Lewis, C. S. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. London: Lions, 1980. Reprint, 1987.
Swindoll, Charles R. Swindoll’s Ultimate Book of Illustrations & Quotes (Formerly Tale of the Tardy Oxcart and 1501 Other Stories: A Collection of Stories, Anecdotes, Illustrations, and Quotes), Swindoll Leadership Library. Nashville: Word Pub., 1998.

Endnotes

1. Charles R. Swindoll, Swindoll’s Ultimate Book of Illustrations & Quotes (Formerly Tale of the Tardy Oxcart and 1501 Other Stories: A Collection of Stories, Anecdotes, Illustrations, and Quotes), Swindoll Leadership Library (Nashville: Word Pub., 1998), 524-25.
2. Gk. plērōma (1:19; 2:9) and the verbal cognate, plēroō (1:9; 1:25; 2:10; 4:12, 17).
3. C. S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (London: Lions, 1980; reprint, 1987), 128.

As you know, the sermons preached throughout this term have been ‘by request’, and tonight is no exception. In looking through the list of topics nominated by members of this congregation, the one that stuck out to me was, ‘Worshipping God in life’. I spent some time reflecting on what the topic was supposed to be about, and concluded that I was expected to talk about how Christians need to worship God not only on Sundays but every minute of every day. I might have preached such a message from any number of Scriptures, including the passage Rod preached on last week (Romans 12), and it would have been good to do so. However, the more I meditated upon it, the more I realised that the fundamental problem for Christians is not that they don’t worship enough, but rather that they worship the wrong things, or in the wrong way.

A young woman buys another pair of shoes she doesn’t need. An audience sits enthralled by Beethoven’s 6th Symphony. A middle-aged man buys the Lamborghini he has always dreamed of. A man spends his evenings buried in internet pornography. A new mum and dad greet their baby boy. A tour group gaze upon Monet’s ‘Water Lilies’. As many and varied as all of these things are, each one is an act of worship.

Worship is an act of response to someone or something’s worth.¹ Thus, any time we are provoked to wonder by an extraordinary sunset, or sacrifice to save up for a guitar, or just can’t wait for the new John Mayer album to be launched, we are worshipping. Everyone worships every day, whether they recognise it or not.

The Bible has two categories for worship: acceptable and unacceptable, which is called idolatry. Acceptable worship is worship directed to the God of the Bible. Idolatry is placing anything else – good or bad – ahead of God, and this is unacceptable worship. Everyone falls into one of these two categories.

Tonight we’re specifically interested in acceptable worship. We will focus primarily on John 4, where Jesus teaches that Christians must worship the Father in Spirit and in truth. But what does that mean? And how do I do it? Let’s turn to John 4 and find out!

At first glance, a discussion between a wandering Jewish rabbi and an unnamed Samaritan woman at a well in a rural town is probably not the first place you would look for a profound discussion. The conversation seems to start out conventionally enough: Jesus asks for a drink of water.² Pretty soon, however, the discussion turns in an unusual directions. Jesus, the one asking for a drink of water, tells the woman that she should be asking him for a drink!³ She asks for the living water that Jesus speaks of and is told to fetch her husband.⁴ She replies with a half-truth – “I have no husband”⁵ – and is absolutely blown away when Jesus shows that he knows the whole truth, for she has had five husbands and is now shacked up with a guy who is not her husband.

This is where we pick up our story:

“Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet.⁶ Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” (4:19-20)

The Samaritans were enemies of the Jews. They claimed to worship Yahweh, but chose to do so in their own way, rather than in the way God had commanded; they set up their own temple in opposition to the temple at Jerusalem.⁷ This was a source of great bitterness between Samaritans and Jews: the Jews had destroyed the Samaritan temple,⁸ whilst the Samaritans in return had attempted to desecrate the Jerusalem temple.⁹ So there are two conflicting temples, each claimed as the location of God’s presence. Each of these temples was built on a mountain: the Jewish temple on the imaginatively named Temple Mount, ¹⁰ and the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim (where this story takes place). Mountains in Scripture consistently represent places where people meet with God, and where God reveals himself.¹¹) The conflict between the Jews and Samaritans came down to this: where is God found, and to whom has he revealed himself?

It is not a surprise, then, that this woman should choose this issue as the litmus-test for establishing the identity of this ‘prophet’. She wants to know where she should go to find and worship the true God.

This is a quest that many today undertake. A 1998 survey found that 74% believe in a God, although only 35% believe in a personal God.¹² People seek god in many places, some physical but most not. For example, the same survey showed that in the previous twelve months 18% of Australians ‘often or occasionally sought direction from a horoscope’, whilst 9% practised Eastern meditation and 7% used psychic healing or crystals. How can we know the right ‘place’ to find God?

Once again, Jesus surprises us with his answer.

Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. (4:21-23)

The woman wants to know which is the right place to worship: Jerusalem or Gerizim. Jesus says, in effect, “Your location doesn’t matter.” It is true that he asserts the Jewish position as being the correct one when he says, ‘You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we [Jews] worship what we do know’ (4:22). Doing so, however, is not so much about claiming that the Jews got it right but rather that God has the right to dictate the way he is approached.¹³

The only way to worship acceptably is in obedient response God’s revelation. The Samaritans had chosen to ignore a large portion of this revelation by throwing away all except the first 5 books of the Jewish Scriptures, those written by Moses.¹⁴ The Jews, whatever their other faults, had not.¹⁵ Yet Jesus declares that something new is happening: ‘A time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem… a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth’ (4:21, 23). Jesus shifts the focus from the where of worship to the how of worship. True worshipers of God will worship in spirit and truth.

The word ‘spirit’ in these verses is strongly contrasted with the idea of place. Jesus was asked where worship was to happen and his answer is ‘in spirit’. In other words, worship is no longer to be tied to a place – at least, not a physical place.¹⁶ ‘God is spirit,’ we are told, meaning, at the least, that he is not approachable in the physical sense. How then are we to approach him? The Apostle John doesn’t spell out the answer to this question here, but he doesn’t need to for he has already done so.

In chapter 3 Jesus tells a man named Nicodemus that he must be born again. ‘I tell you the truth,’ he says, ‘no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit’ (3:5-6). So for us to worship in spirit, we must first be born again, born of God’s Spirit; only then will our spirit be enabled to worship.

How may we receive God’s Spirit in order that we be reborn? It is only by the gift of God; more specifically it is only by the action of Jesus. This is the meaning of the early part of the conversation with the Samaritan woman, the discussion about living water. Jesus often uses symbols and metaphors of himself – he describes himself as ‘the bread of life’,¹⁷ ‘the gate’,¹⁸ ‘the Good Shepherd’,¹⁹ ‘the way and the truth and the life’,²⁰ ‘the vine’,²¹ etc. Yet here, in chapter 4, Jesus is not the living water, but the giver of the living water (4:10). Instead, this living water is the Holy Spirit,²² who John refers to as the Spirit of Truth.²³ It is the transforming presence of the Holy Spirit that enables us to worship in spirit. Only Christians can truly worship God, for it is only through Jesus that the Spirit comes.²⁴ Once the Spirit is at work in us our worship is no longer tied to places or times. It is, instead, ‘a spring of water welling up to eternal life’ (4:14). And when the Spirit of Truth enters you, ‘he will guide you into all truth’ (16:13).

That being the case, what does it mean to worship in truth?²⁵ First, we must approach God truthfully. This means being honest with God; don’t try and hide from God your anger, sadness, fear or hope. If you are happy, be happy; if you are suffering then bring it to God rather than pretending you’re not.

Second, truthful worship must be according to God’s revelation of truth. Jesus prays for his disciples, ‘Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth’ (17:17). The Samaritans had rejected much of even the partial truth that they had been given, in throwing away the prophets and the Psalms and so on, leading Jesus to conclude that they worshipped what they didn’t know. We, however, are fortunate to have God’s word written down for us to learn from and to be sanctified by. Practically, this means reading, meditating on, praying and, finally, living the Scriptures.²⁶ These stages are described by a 12th Century monk called Guigo the Second:

Reading… puts the solid food in our mouths, meditation chews it and breaks it down, prayer obtains the flavour of it and contemplation is the very sweetness which makes us glad and refreshes us.²⁷

The Samaritans and Jews had only a fraction of the truth that we have, for we have been given God’s ultimate revelation in Jesus. ‘No one has ever seen God,’ John writes, ‘but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known’ (1:18).

Spirit and truth are both necessary all the time. They are like the map and compass of the Christian life: having one without the other is not sufficient. The map, God’s Word of Truth, gives us direction and purpose, and outlines the world around us. Yet without a compass, we have no way of orienting ourselves and applying the map to the surrounding landscape. Such worship ends up in dry religion, with God’s Word being an object for study but never application. The compass, God’s Spirit, allows us to be certain of the way we are facing and the direction we’re travelling, but without the map we are still lost. This kind of worship is full of passion and fire but lacks the deep roots of Truth, the strong foundation of bedrock, that will allow it to stand in the sun and the storm. ‘Our churches can’t be Spirit-led unless they’re Word-fed.’²⁸

Put both spirit and truth together, however, and you’re in business!²⁹

Worship in truth without spirit or in spirit without truth is not true worship, but rather idolatry. If either of these describe you, you must repent, and ask God to supply what you lack. It is only together that compass and map, spirit and truth, work together to provide navigation through this life and into the next.

And the only ‘place’ to find both spirit and truth is in Jesus. To worship in truth we must be in the one who says ‘I am the Truth’ (14:6). To worship in spirit we must be born of the Spirit, who can only come from Jesus. In previous chapters, Jesus is presented as the true tabernacle³⁰ and the true temple;³¹ here he is presented here as the true holy mountain where God can be encountered.³² The tabernacle, temple and mountain that we must go to if we are to offer acceptable worship is Jesus Christ. Spirit and truth are no longer found in a place but in a person.

This explains the apparent paradox of Jesus’ words: ‘a time is coming, and has now come…’ (4:23). How can something be coming and here at the same time? Jesus uses the same language in chapter 16, where he speaks of a pregnant woman whose ‘time has come’ giving birth. The child in the womb can be considered to be both ‘coming’ and ‘here’. Clearly, however, this implies a momentous event, a ‘birth’, that will signal a transition from one stage to another. What is this event?

In John’s Gospel, the word translated here as ‘time’³³ regularly refers to the events of Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection and exaltation.³⁴ At the time he spoke these words, Jesus was the only true worshiper. He was the one upon whom God’s Spirit came down and remained,³⁵ whereas the Spirit had not yet been given to anyone else,³⁶ for that could only happen by means of his death.³⁷ Without wanting to push the image too far, there is a sense in which the true worship of God is conceived in Christ, and given birth by his work on the Cross. The result is that we can also be true worshippers. More than this, we must be true worshippers, for that is what the Father seeks (4:23). ‘God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship him in spirit and in truth’ (4:24).

There are three main occurrences of the word ‘must’ in John, and together they outline the gospel.³⁸ First, Jesus instructs Nicodemus: ‘You must be born again’ (3:7). This is the first step, the source from which a life of faith and worship springs. If you are not a Christian, this is where you must start, for flesh can only give birth to flesh and not to spirit; if you want to worship God in spirit, as he requires, you must first be born again. Jesus knew that this could not happen unless he was obedient to his Father, submitting himself to his Father’s will even though it meant death. This is the meaning of the second ‘must': ‘Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert the Son of Man must be lifted up’ (3:14). Walking through the desert, the people sinned against God, and his wrath was turned against them; only those who looked to the bronze snake that the LORD told Moses to make and lift up on a pole were saved.³⁹ The message is clear: we must be born again, but cannot because we are sinful and God’s wrath is against us… yet God has provided a way by ‘lifting up’ Jesus, so that anyone who looks to him can be saved. There is only one proper response to this, the third ‘must': ‘God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship him in spirit and in truth’ (4:24).

Don’t miss the importance of this. Worship is not an additional extra to the Christian life; it is not something the Christian chooses to do, or not, according to their preferences, plans or passions. It’s not just that God accepts worship in spirit and truth, God seeks it! (4:23) Worshipping God is the responsibility of all believers. ‘God is spirit, and his worshippers’ – all of us! – ‘must worship him in spirit and in truth’ (4:24).

Bibliography

“A Question of Beliefs.” National Church Life Survey, http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=2336.
Boice, James Montgomery. The Gospel of John : An Expositional Commentary. Pbk. ed. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2005.
Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1983.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991.
Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus : Complete and Unabridged. Translated by William Whiston. New updated ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987.
Kauflin, Bob. Worship Matters : Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Rev. ed, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1995.
Peterson, David. Engaging with God : A Biblical Theology of Worship. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
Peterson, Eugene H. Eat This Book : A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006.
Piper, John. Desiring God : Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. Updated [i.e. 3rd] ed. ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2004.
Thettayil, Benny. In Spirit and Truth : An Exegetical Study of John 4:19-26 and a Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology. Leuven ; Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2007.

Endnotes

1. In fact, the English word ‘worship’ is derived from an older word ‘worth-ship’ – words and actions that demonstrate worth.
2. Actually, this was highly unusual for the culture of the day; for a Rabbi to be alone with a woman was scandalous, and for a Jew (especially a Jewish Rabbi) to talk to a Samaritan was unheard of (cf. 4:9).
3. 4:10
4. 4:15-16
5. 4:17
6. The Samaritans interpreted Dt. 34:10 to mean there were to be no other prophets until the coming of the great prophet promised in Dt. 18:15, 18. On this basis, they rejected all the Jewish Scriptures except for those written by Moses. Thus, if the Samaritan woman is serious about thinking Jesus a prophet, she is already on the verge of concluding what she is later told: Jesus is the Messiah. [F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1983), 108.] The Samaritan name for the Messiah was Taheb, which means restorer, although the evidence for this is from a 4th Century Samaritan text (Memar Markah 4:12) cf. Benny Thettayil, In Spirit and Truth : An Exegetical Study of John 4:19-26 and a Theological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology (Leuven ; Dudley, MA: Peeters, 2007), 185ff.
7. The justification for this rests on their rejection of the other Scriptures, for the Pentateuch only speaks of the place where God would place his name (e.g. Deut. 12:5, 11, 21; 14:23; 16:2 etc.), and not specifically Jerusalem. However, Josephus’ account in Ant. 11.306-312 suggests that the temple was set up by a high-priest who was censured for marrying a foreigner. Perhaps the theological position was taken to justify an action already performed?
8. Josephus, Ant. 13.275-81.
9. According to Josephus, the Samaritans ‘threw about dead men’s bodies in the cloisters’ (Ant. 18.30).
10. Whilst Mount Zion is traditionally associated with Jerusalem and the temple, particularly in eschatological literature, it was not the location of the Temple. It is, instead, a mountain just outside of Jerusalem.
11. The most obvious example is the meeting at Mount Sinai, where God gave the law to Moses (Ex 19:3ff.
12. “A Question of Beliefs,” National Church Life Survey, http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=2336.
13. cf. Boice, who writes, ‘Salvation is always of God’s grace, not of human merit; and since grace was offered to the sinner on the grounds of the death of an atoning sacrifice and since in Christ’s time that sacrifice could only be offered at Jerusalem by a legitimate priest, a descendant of Aaron, it is obvious that there could be no salvation for anyone except through the Jewish priesthood which in turn was available only to a circumcised member of one of the tribes of Israel. Jesus was impressing this upon the woman, thereby reasserting the right of God to establish the means of approach to him and encouraging her to turn from any trust in human religions.’ James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John : An Expositional Commentary, Pbk. ed., 5 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2005), 290.
14. See note above.
15. Thus ‘salvation is from the Jews’ for they were the people chosen by God to bear his name and receive his self-revelation.
16. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Rev. ed., The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1995), 240. fn. ‘Cf. G. S. Hendry, “[John 4:24] has commonly been taken to mean that God, being Spirit, is present everywhere and can be worshiped anywhere; the important thing is not where men worship, but how they worship.” This he vigorously denies. The saying “means the precise opposite; it means that God is present in his own realm, to which man as such has no access. To worship God in spirit is not a possibility that is always and everywhere open to man… But this is just the gospel of Christ, that this possibility has now been opened to men… The meaning is that the location has been redefined, and God is now to be worshiped in the place where he is present, i.e., in Him who is the truth incarnate”.’
17. 6:35
18. 10:9
19. 10:11
20. 14:6
21. 15:5
22. 17:38-39
23. 14:17; 15:26; 16:13
24. 7:39; cf. 16:7
25. Adapted from James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John : An Expositional Commentary, Pbk. ed., 5 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2005), 298.
26. Eugene H. Peterson, Eat This Book : A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006), 91.
27. Ibid. fn.
28. Bob Kauflin, Worship Matters : Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008), 89.
29. ‘The fuel of worship is a true vision of the greatness of God; the fire that makes the fuel burn white hot is the quickening of the Holy Spirit; the furnace made alive and warm by the flame of truth is our renewed spirit; and the resulting heat of our affections is powerful worship, pushing its way out in confessions, longings, acclamations, tears, songs, shouts, bowed heads, lifted hands, and obedient lives.’ John Piper, Desiring God : Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, Updated [i.e. 3rd] ed. (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2004), 82.
30. 1:14
31. 2:19
32. David Peterson, Engaging with God : A Biblical Theology of Worship (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 97.
33. Gk. hōra = ‘hour’.
34. 2:4; 4:21, 23; 5:25, 28; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 16:2, 4, 21, 25, 32; 17:1. cf. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 223.
35. 1:32-33
36. 7:39. cf. 14:16-17; 15:26-27; 16:13ff.
37. 16:13
38. Actually, there are 10 occurrences of the word dei in John (3:7, 14, 30; 4:4, 20, 24; 9:4; 10:16; 12:34; 20:9). The three under consideration here, however, are the so-called ‘divine imperatives’.
39. Num. 21:4-9

Question

Compare and contrast 3 public worship services held in different settings.

Your written consideration will include comments on the theological and pastoral value of the various components of each gathering.

The essay needs to give evidence of the reading of your textbook and appropriate readings about New Testament, Reformed, Separatist, Anabaptist, ‘Frontier’ and Pentecostal forms of worship provided in the lessons.

Abstract

This essay compares and contrasts three different public worship services: the ordination and induction of a Uniting Church minister; the launch of a diocesan vision in an Anglican church; and a Pentecostal church’s first Sunday service in a new building. Each of these services is considered in terms of its content, structure and style and assessed for theological and pastoral merit. The most noticeable difference between the three services is found to be the level of interaction and participation on the part of the congregation. Finally, the common elements of the three services are highlighted, with the conclusion that the services differed greatly in the categories of structure and style but were remarkably similar in their content.

Essay

Over two successive weekends I attended three very different public worship events. The first was the ordination and induction of a Uniting Church minister; the second a diocesan-wide satellite link-up and vision launch in an Anglican church; and the third the first public worship service in a Pentecostal church’s new building.¹ In what follows I will describe each of these events in terms of their theological and ecclesiological distinctives and endeavour to assess their pastoral merits.² In doing so, I adopt an evaluative framework common to many writers, namely that of content, structure and style.³

On the 7th February, 2009, a Saturday,⁴ Kamaloni Tu’iono was ordained as a Minister of the Word and inducted as Minister of Sutherland and Loftus Church Congregations. Clearly this was a significant moment in the life of this church, and a good deal of effort had gone into preparing for the event. I attended with my own pastor, as unofficial representatives of our neighbouring church. We were greeted at the door and handed a copy each of the liturgy printed especially for the occasion.⁵

The building where the ordination was held is relatively modern, laid out along fairly conventional lines with a raised platform at one end and movable plastic seating for the congregation. On the platform, from left to right, were: seating for dignitaries; a lectern; the communion table (center); and a band consisting of 4 instrumentalists and 3 singers. As we found our seats, a sole pianist, located by himself off to the left-hand side of the building at the same level as the congregation, played 20-30 year old Christian choruses as a kind of ‘overture’.

The content of the service was appropriate to the occasion. An ordination is a recognition of a man or woman’s call into Christian ministry, and every aspect of the service reflected this. The music was thoughtfully chosen,⁶ the preachers were seasoned members of the presbytery nearing the end of their own season of faithful ministry, and the prayers focused on Kamaloni and his calling.

Proceedings were conducted by the secretary of the local presbytery. His role was apparently to facilitate and explain events as they occurred, as well as to act as a representative of the local presbytery who had appointed Kamaloni.⁷ According to the Uniting Church in Australia’s Basis of Union, ‘[b]y the participation in the act of ordination of those already ordained, the Church bears witness to God’s faithfulness and declares the hope by which it lives.’⁸

The presbytery were not the sole actors in this rite, for one of the key elements of this ordination and induction service was the participation of the congregation. 
Again, according to the Basis of Union, ‘[t]he Presbytery will ordain by prayer and the laying on of hands in the presence of a worshipping congregation’.⁹ Theologically, this is reminiscent of the commissioning of Paul and Barnabas, which also occurred in the context of a worship gathering (Acts 13:2). The implication is that the church, gathered to worship God and hear from him, is given ‘the guidance of the Holy Spirit to recognise among its members women and men called of God to preach the Gospel, to lead the people in worship, to care for the flock, to share in government and to serve those in need in the world.’¹⁰

Pastorally, it is important that the people bear witness to ordination for in so doing they take ownership of and responsibility for the ordinand.¹¹ This is doubly vital in the case of an induction, where the ministry of the inductee is exercised in the midst of the same congregation. In this instance, the congregation expressed their affirmation and acceptance of Kamaloni in many ways. He was presented to the congregation by representatives of the local presbytery, who indicated their belief that ‘Kamaloni is worthy to be ordained as a Minister of the Word in the Church of God’, to which the people responded ‘Amen. Thanks be to God,’ followed by applause.¹² Perhaps most strikingly, a representative group from the local church responded to the induction vows, bringing forward a Bible, water, bread and wine, ‘as signs of the ministry to which [Kamaloni was] ordained.’¹³

Use of such symbols was a characteristic of the service as a whole. Most of the symbols were at least briefly explained. For instance, in addition to the symbols already mentioned, Kamaloni was presented with a Bible as ‘a sign of the authority given you to preach the word of God and to administer the holy sacraments’ and a stole as ‘a sign of the joyful obedience which you owe to Christ’.¹⁴ Similarly, the elements of the Eucharist were explained as being a ‘sharing in the Body [and Blood] of Christ’.¹⁵ The pastoral advantage of such explanation is not that it exhaustively details the nature of the symbol but rather that it provides an entry point into its mystery. There is also theological value in exposing congregants to symbols, for it helps them grow accustomed to biblical imagery and thus to understand the Bible better.

The service was structured in a traditional manner. The distinct movements of proceedings were highlighted by headings in the “Order of Service”, and were as follows: gathering; the Word; ordination; induction; communion; and sending.¹⁶ These elements were clearly and logically connected, with the connection often made explicit by means of explanation (either by the chairperson or printed in the “Order of Service”). Again, this explanation has great pastoral implications, as it helps participants to realise that worship is not a set of discrete, isolated events but rather an organic response to God’s action in Christ.¹⁷

The style of Kamaloni’s induction service might best be described in terms of temporal, cultural and theological continuity. An important part of the act of ordination was a ‘narration of steps’, wherein the secretary of the presbytery spoke of the ordinand’s journey towards ordination, including his training and previous ministry experience. Indeed, many members of his previous congregation were present, with some contributing to a musical item. This acknowledgment of temporal continuity was matched by a recognition of Kamaloni’s cultural heritage, which found expression both in the decoration of the church and some of the music selected for musical items. Indeed, the stole presented to Kamaloni was decorated in the fashion of the Pacific Islands. Finally, it was clear that the service of ordination  and induction was in theological continuity with the historic Christian church, incorporating such well-attested elements as the salutation,¹⁸ sursum corda,¹⁹ sanctus²⁰ and the Nicene Creed.²¹

Thus the service as a whole was distinctly purposeful, as appropriate for the occasion. The leadership was entrusted to those who were themselves already ordained, lending both their authority and their experience to the occasion. The congregation was encouraged to actively participate and respond, through verbal response, symbolic actions and a clear and logical structure, supplemented by explanation where required. The service as a whole was in temporal, cultural and theological continuity with historic Christianity.
Contrast this singleness of purpose with the worship service that I attended the next day at my own church. In addition to being a regular Sunday service, this particular day was the day nominated as the diocesan vision launch, with a diocesan-wide telecast, and also the parish’s Annual General Meeting of Parishioners! The service commenced at 9.30AM, 15 minutes earlier than the regular starting time, allowing half an hour for ‘local’ content before the telecast started. The pastor, acting as service leader for the day, welcomed us with a brief explanation of the agenda for the day followed by singing, prayer, notices and the annual Churchwarden’s report.²² There followed a time of intercessory prayer, with specific attention given to current events,²³ missionaries, and the events to follow.²⁴

Much of the structure and style of the service was dictated by the telecast portion of the service, which was conducted according to a strict timetable. Where the ordination could take as long as required, the time allotted for the telecast was one hour.²⁵ These timing constraints, whilst necessary for the coordination of such a large event, led to a feeling of spectatorship rather than participation, amplified by the use of the television medium which is intrinsically passive.

Worship according to program is a growing trend in the church today. Some church-goers prefer the predictability of knowing that the service will be over in an hour and they can have the rest of the day to themselves. Others derive comfort from the familiarity of at least the structure and style, and often the content as well, being maintained from week to week. According to Dawn, ‘the development of perfect sound tracks has caused many worshipers to be dissatisfied now with merely human musicians who make mistakes’ and planning gives those ‘producing’ a worship service opportunity to make sure everything is polished.²⁶ All of this, however, results in a culture of passivity, with a corresponding perception of worship as entertainment rather than participation.

In the case of this event, there was obviously some recognition of this potential for passivity and, wherever possible, steps were taken to overcome it and to invite participation. For example, the event was hosted by a church within the diocese rather than broadcast from a studio, and the footage included many shots of the host congregation. This made it feel like an extension of a single church’s gathering for worship; it was clearly a live event rather than a pre-packaged production. Similarly, there were many of the participational elements of a regular Anglican service, including singing, a prayer of confession, Apostle’s creed and an occasional prayer for the event. When compared to the interactivity of the ordination service, however, it was still predominantly one-way, and this was a direct consequence of the medium employed.

The use of technology in this service was ground-breaking, at least for the Anglican church in Sydney. Churches could either connect to the telecast via digital television or an internet connection. According to an Anglican Media release, 25% of churches used the event as an opportunity to improve their technological capabilities, and ours was no exception.²⁷ In doing so, churches gain access to numerous digital video resources that may be used in church services.²⁸ Some churches are taking this one step further, leveraging similar technology on a week to week basis in order to support multiple campuses.²⁹ This allows greater specialisation within a large church, as pastors at the individual campuses are released from preaching duties and can focus on local concerns. On the other hand, our culture conditions us to be passive receivers of what we see on television, and it is all too easy for this to occur where the immediacy of a physically present preacher is lost.³⁰ On balance, then, telecast is appropriate for special events such as the one under discussion, but substantial education is required before it is pastorally viable for regular worship.

It was clear to all that there was a purpose behind the telecast, and that purpose was not, primarily, to worship. The key intention was to launch the diocesan vision and the Connect ’09 program, in which the Anglican church in Sydney seeks to reach every person in the diocese with the gospel. The centrepiece of proceedings was the Archbishop’s sermon, entitled “A Great City and a Great God”, a message based on Jonah 3 & 4.³¹ One of the virtues of the televised service was that entire diocese were able to hear the same message at the same time. This is particularly important in launching such an ambitious program of evangelism, for which a significant commitment is required on the part of each church. People will not own a second-hand vision, and vision is pastorally important: ‘Where there is no vision, the people perish’ (Prov 29:18 KJV).

The structure and style of this service, then, were largely driven by the technology employed as a medium, as well as incorporating some elements of traditional Anglican corporate worship. In particular, the telecast format limited the amount of interactivity possible, making it very different to the Uniting Church ordination described above. Like the ordination, however, the content was determined by the occasional purpose of the event, in this case to present a vision for evangelism.

Vision was also a hallmark of the third worship event that I attended. This Pentecostal church had formally opened their new church building in the preceding week, and this was the first Sunday in the new auditorium. This was a significant milestone in the life of this church, and as such the pastor took the opportunity to once again set before the congregation the church’s vision. All who attended were handed a copy of the church’s vision statement printed on an A4-sized piece of cardboard, complete with fridge-magnets on the reverse side.³² This document calls the church to imagine a ‘God infused community of people’ and to recognise that ‘the Holy Spirit is at work bringing the church we have just imagined into being’.³³ The Connect ’09 vision launch was calling people to participate in something new, but this vision had clearly already been articulated and disseminated in the church. It was both an encouragement that progress was being made in the realisation of the vision and an exhortation to continue on, for there was still much to be done.³⁴

In his sermon, the pastor reiterated the prophecy that had directly led to the building of the new auditorium. The prophecy centred on the initial chapters of Joshua, with the people of Israel on the verge of entering the land promised to them, yet the emphasis of the sermon was on the prophecy rather than the scripture that the prophecy purported to interpret and apply.³⁵ This was a strong contrast with the sermons at the other events described above where the address, though occasional, clearly arose directly from the text of Scripture. This model of preaching is not uncommon in Pentecostal churches, where extra-biblical prophecy is taken seriously. Most churches stop short of according them the same respect and authority given canonical Scripture, instead assessing their validity in the light of what the Bible says.³⁶ This is in accord with apostolic mandate (1 Thess 5:20-21; 1 John 4:1). I can only assume that a similar process was followed in this case, for it was clear that the prophecy had been accepted as genuine.

The new building itself, dubbed ‘the Lifeboat’, is a 700-seat auditorium, with a raised platform at one end and large projection screens on either side. The walls of the room were decorated with brightly coloured banners and posters, but otherwise indistinguishable from a modern theatrical or concert-hall. The seating was comprised of individual plastic chairs laid out in rows facing the stage.³⁷ This was very different to the fixed wooden pews and wooden pulpit of the Anglican church and the richly decorated and tapestried Uniting church. Clearly the purpose driving the design of the auditorium was functionality and flexibility, as there was little of the numinous found in previous generations of church buildings. Nevertheless the cosmopolitan architecture will doubtless make the building more accessible to those who would not set foot in a stained glass windowed cathedral and the flexibility will aid the church in being ‘people [who] know there are no rules when it comes to “doing Church”‘.³⁸

This ‘no rules’ mentality was reflected in the content and structure of the service. Where the Uniting Church ordination was entirely according to a printed liturgy, and the Anglican vision launch partially so, here there was no sense of continuity with the historic church: no creeds, no sense of logical progression in the ordering of the service, no communal prayers. The eucharistic elements were accompanied, not by the traditional words of institution, but rather by a visual metaphor: the lights in the building were gradually darkened to simulate sin entering the world, then lightened to reflect the ‘light coming into the world’.³⁹ The commentary was certainly Christ-centred but not really cross-centred. In contrast to the use of symbols in the ordination service, it was not unclear how the symbols used (light and dark) applied to the actions that followed (taking wine and bread). Perhaps the intention was to ‘purposefully avoid any liturgy or other sacred actions to demonstrate the simplicity of the gospel’,⁴⁰ but I found the mixture of images confusing rather than clarifying.

The style of the service was also apparently geared towards ‘seekers’. The stage was lit, but the rest of the room was in darkness for the singing portions of the service. This lighting arrangement, together with the video being projected either side of the stage, the large band, multiple vocalists and ‘worship leader’ on stage all combined to produce a concert-like atmosphere.⁴¹ As with the telecast service above the danger was of passivity and spectatorship but, unlike the telecast, little was done to counteract this risk. There were no congregational prayers or creeds, and the only participation invited or expected was in singing, sporadic affirmations interjected by individuals during the sermon and occasional bursts of congregational applause.⁴² Even in the area of singing the engagement was inconsistent, for as I looked around during the musical portions of the service I estimated that only about half of the congregation actually participated in the singing. Yet the volume issuing from the band was such that their voices were not missed. It is often argued that this atmosphere is part of removing ‘any unnecessary barriers… to make way for teaching and living the gospel’,⁴³ as it is less confronting for the unchurched. Yet we must heed Kauflin’s warning that ‘what you win people with is what you generally win them to’ for if we don’t we will end up with a church of consumers desiring to be entertained rather than worshippers wanting to worship God.⁴⁴

This content of this service, like that of the two already considered, was according to its occasional nature and purpose. The structure and style, and even the architecture, were ‘seeker-sensitive’ and non-confrontational. As a consequence, however, the service was also prone to passivity for believers and non-believers alike.

On the whole, the strongest contrast between the three services was in the area of interactivity. On a continuum from full participation to non-participation, the ordination was toward the former, the Pentecostal service toward the latter, and the vision launch somewhere in between.

For all that there were many differences – theological, pastoral and practical – the three worship services included many common elements. Most of the differences were in the categories of structure and style; in spite of the occasional nature of the three services, the content was remarkably similar. All three were gospel-centred churches, focused on ordaining a minister of the gospel and transmitting it by means of an evangelism program and a new facility respectively. In doing these things all were looking to the future, whilst the Uniting and Anglican churches also acknowledged their past in the form of prayers and creeds of the historic Christian church. All of the services included preaching for instruction and exhortation, and all the sermons were based to some extent on Scripture. Prayer was a common element, as was singing. All three gatherings were local expressions of the Christian church. Above all, they each expounded and embodied the person and work of Jesus Christ, which is the very definition of Christian worship.

Bibliography

Burdan, Steve. “Sacred Actions among Contemporary Churches.” In The Sacred Actions of Christian Worship, edited by Robert Webber, xliii, 366 p. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993.
Dawn, Marva J. A Royal “Waste” Of Time : The Splendor of Worshiping God and Being Church for the World. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1999.
Detscher, Alan. “The Sacred Actions of Christian Worship.” In The Complete Library of Christian Worship V. 6, edited by Robert Webber, xliii, 366 p. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993.
Hippolytus. Apostolic Tradition. Translated by Burton Scott Easton. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1962.
“Imagine…”. Nowra City Church.
Jensen, Peter. “A Great City and a Great God.”.
Kauflin, Bob. Worship Matters : Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008.
Lang, Bernhard. Sacred Games : A History of Christian Worship. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997.
“Order of Worship : A Service for the Ordination of Kamaloni Tu’iono as a Minister of the Word and His Induction as Minister of Sutherland and Loftus Uniting Church Congregations.” The Uniting Church in Australia, Synod of NSW & ACT, Presbytery of Georges River, 2009.
Percy, Natasha & Halcrow, Jeremy. “Historic Live Tv Hook up Launches Sydney Anglican Campaign Connect 09.”.
Uniting Church in Australia, The. The Basis of Union : As Approved by the Congregational Union of Australia (1973), the Methodist Church of Australasia (1974) and the Presbyterian Church of Australia (1974), for the Formation of the Uniting Church in Australia. 1992 ed. Melbourne: Uniting Church Press, 1992.
Webber, Robert. Ancient-Future Worship : Proclaiming and Enacting God’s Narrative, Ancient-Future Series. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2008.
———. Worship Old & New : A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Introduction. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994.

Endnotes

1. The ordination was approximately 3 hours in duration (compared to 1 to 1.5 hours for the other services) and this is reflected to some extent in the consideration given to each below.
2. This latter is difficult because, of the three events attended, I have ongoing contact with only one of the congregations involved.
3. e.g. Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Worship : Proclaiming and Enacting God’s Narrative, Ancient-Future Series (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2008), 90. cf. ———, Worship Old & New : A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Introduction, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994), 149ff.
4. cf. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, trans. Burton Scott Easton (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1962), 2.2. Hippolytus advocates that the ordinand ‘with the presbytery and such bishops as may be present, assemble with the people on a Sunday.’
5. “Order of Worship : A Service for the Ordination of Kamaloni Tu’iono as a Minister of the Word and His Induction as Minister of Sutherland and Loftus Uniting Church Congregations,” (The Uniting Church in Australia, Synod of NSW & ACT, Presbytery of Georges River, 2009). It is unclear to what extent this liturgy is a derivative work. It was certainly customised to the extent that names and hymns were inserted at the appropriate locations; it may, however, have been developed entirely for this event. In any case, as we shall see, it incorporated many elements common to worship throughout the Christian era.
6. e.g. the theme of the youth band’s musical item was the lyric ‘We’ll be faithful in our calling / You’ll be faithful to finish the work you’ve begun in us.’
7. This is an illustration of the essentially presbyterian ecclesiology of the Uniting Church in Australia, with pastoral appointments being made by the local presbytery rather than by a bishop (Roman Catholic, Anglican) or the local congregation (congregational). cf. The Uniting Church in Australia, The Basis of Union : As Approved by the Congregational Union of Australia (1973), the Methodist Church of Australasia (1974) and the Presbyterian Church of Australia (1974), for the Formation of the Uniting Church in Australia, 1992 ed. (Melbourne: Uniting Church Press, 1992), §14.
8. Ibid. This is subtly different to the Anglican and Catholic traditions, where the participation of those previously ordained is indicative of an unbroken apostolic succession. cf. Alan Detscher, “The Sacred Actions of Christian Worship,” in The Complete Library of Christian Worship V. 6, ed. Robert Webber (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), 306.
9. Uniting Church in Australia, Basis of Union, §14. . cf. Detscher, “The Sacred Actions of Christian Worship,” 301, 06.
10. Uniting Church in Australia, Basis of Union, §14.
11. cf. Baptisms and marriages, where the witnesses (the worshipping community) are charged to uphold those being baptised and married respectively.
12. “Order of Worship,” 6. cf. ‘And when he is made bishop, all shall offer him the kiss of peace, for he has been made worthy’ Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 4.1.
13. “Order of Worship,” 12. cf. Detscher, “The Sacred Actions of Christian Worship,” 303-04. Detscher notes that the vesting of ordinands with symbols of office was a common practice by the 10th century, although were in many cases rejected by the Reformers.
14. “Order of Worship,” 11. cf. Medieval ordination rites, where bishops were presented with a pastoral staff and ring, presbyters with a chalice and paten, and deacons with the book of the Gospels. ———, “The Sacred Actions of Christian Worship,” 303.
15. “Order of Worship,” 18.
16. cf. Webber, Worship Old & New, 150. Webber identifies ‘four basic acts of Sunday worship': the assembling of the people; Scripture readings and preaching; communion and prayers of thanksgiving; and sending the people forth. Thus, the pattern above matches Webber’s, with the inclusion of the two occasion-specific acts of ordination and induction.
17. ‘Because the entire congregation constitutes the players in the drama of worship, it is important that all of the members know their parts, understanding the meaning of what is being done, and participate purposefully.’ Ibid., 82.
18. ‘The Lord be with you: / And also with you!’ “Order of Worship,” 16. cf. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 4.2-3.
19. ‘Lift up your hearts: / We lift them to the Lord!’ “Order of Worship,” 16. cf. ———, Apostolic Tradition, 4.3. Interestingly, whilst both the salutation and the sursum corda are traditionally associated with the Eucharist, their first appearance in the Apostolic Tradition is in connection with instructions for the ordination of bishops.
20. ‘Holy, holy, holy Lord…’ “Order of Worship,” 17.
21. Ibid., 4-5.
22. Officially the Annual General Meeting follows the morning service. However it is customary in our church to present the reports from the Churchwardens and Pastor during the service, the latter forming the sermon for the day. On this occasion the Pastor’s report was postponed until the formal meeting, in deference to the Archbishop’s message during the telecast.
23. e.g. the recent heat wave, and the Victorian bushfires.
24. i.e. the telecast and AGM.
25. This was how much time had been booked on the digital television station.
26. Marva J. Dawn, A Royal “Waste” Of Time : The Splendor of Worshiping God and Being Church for the World (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1999), 72.
27. Natasha & Halcrow Percy, Jeremy, .”Historic Live Tv Hook up Launches Sydney Anglican Campaign Connect 09.”
28. e.g. Anglican Media recently launched a plaform they call SX Digital, offering ‘video news, apologetics, illustrations, notices and other biblical content’ Ibid.
29. The most common setup is that one preacher preaches live at one campus and that is then relayed to other campuses via satellite or DVD. e.g. at Seattle’s Mars Hill, the preaching pastor (Mark Driscoll) preaches live at the four services held at the ‘main’ campus. All of these sermons are recorded, and the best is selected and played at each of the ‘secondary’ campuses the following week.
30. Dawn, A Royal “Waste” Of Time, 83. Dawn also highlights the risk of reinforcing and augmenting the unhealthy values that television promotes – consumerism, passivism etc. – when we adopt it as our medium for worship Ibid., 75..
31. Peter Jensen, “A Great City and a Great God.”
32. “Imagine…”, Nowra City Church.
33. Ibid.
34. e.g. All of the seats were laid out for the service, in spite of an expected attendance of less than half of the capacity. This fact was directly referenced by the pastor in his message, the point being that there were many still to be reached with the gospel.
35. e.g. The prophecy was read, in full, at the start of the sermon, whereas the book of Joshua was appealed to only sporadically, usually in support of some point that the pastor had just made.
36. Bernhard Lang, Sacred Games : A History of Christian Worship (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 404-07.
37. These were not the ‘final’ chairs, which were yet to be purchased, but every indication was that the new chairs would be in the same mold.
38. “Imagine…”.
39. The lights darkened so gradually that, at first, I thought it merely a ‘technical difficulty’ in the new building!
40. Steve Burdan, “Sacred Actions among Contemporary Churches,” in The Sacred Actions of Christian Worship, ed. Robert Webber (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), 60.
41. cf. Lang, Sacred Games : A History of Christian Worship, 399-400.
42. Ibid., 399.
43. Burdan, “Sacred Actions among Contemporary Churches,” 60.
44. Bob Kauflin, Worship Matters : Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008), 192.

Question

What is the origin and purpose of gathered worship for Christians? Comment on the biblical foundations for the practice and evaluate the way your denomination and local church conduct weekly meetings for community prayer and praise.

Abstract

Why do Christians gather together to worship? This essay explores the ontological, historical and eschatological origins of gathered worship, noting that it is necessary to look both forwards and backwards in time to properly understand ‘origins’. The ontological origins are found in the action of the Trinity: God acts and men and women respond in worship. Old Testament Israel, the Jewish synagogue, and pagan religion provide the historical origins of the Christian gathering, although the earliest Christians did not adopt all of the teachings or practices they were heirs to. The assembly is also an eschatological foreshadowing of the heavenly assembly, which may be considered an ‘origin’. The purposes of gathering for worship may be considered in terms of relationships: Christians relate ‘up’ to God, offering him praise and receiving his ministration; they relate ‘around’ to one another, serving and edifying the other members of the church; and they relate ‘out’ to society at large, maintaining their distinctiveness as God’s people and holding out and proclaiming the gospel. Finally, in light of this understanding of purpose, the practice of the Sydney Anglican Church is evaluated, including its specific expression at St John’s, Sutherland.

Essay

‘Origins’ are complex things. To understand the ‘origins’ of something, one must consider both its historical antecedents and the historical context in which it originates. When the subject is Christian gathered worship, typological and teleological relationships must also be investigated. Most important, however, are the ontological foundations of corporate worship, and to discover these one looks not for an ‘origin’ but an ‘originator’.

Scripture is clear that Christian worship is always a response to the revelation and action of the triune God. It is God who makes himself known to Moses, then redeems a people out of Egypt to worship him (Exod 3:12),¹ culminating in the first gathering for worship at Sinai (Exod 19-24). It is through Christ that this redemption is extended to all people in all places and at all times (Titus 2:14),² and it is on the basis of this mercy that Christians are able to present themselves as living sacrifices in spiritual worship (Rom 12:1-2). The Spirit joins them to Christ, that they may together be one body (1 Cor 12:13).³ As one author puts it, the vision of God and his work in Christ is the fuel, the quickening of the Spirit the flame, renewed spirit the furnace and worship the resultant heat.⁴ The foundation of all Christian worship, including gathered worship, is forever anchored in the nature and work of the Trinity.⁵ God acts and people respond.

This pattern of God acting and his people responding may be traced throughout the historical antecedents of the Christian gathering. Primarily, these are Jewish in nature and recorded for us in the Old Testament, although both post-exilic synagogue worship and pagan worship were also influential.

The cardinal event in Jewish salvation history is the Exodus, and the primary expression of worship is the Passover which celebrates this event.⁶ The Passover was a memorial for Israel’s benefit, to remind them of God’s redemptive actions, rather than an offering to the God who redeemed them.⁷ The Jewish Seder is ordered to recount the events of the Exodus, as well as to instruct in the meaning of the symbolic foods and gestures of the Passover.⁸ The Passover is reflected in the New Testament in the Lord’s Supper, or Eucharist. The relationship is not one of absolute continuity, for the Passover came to an end with its final celebration by Jesus.⁹ Nevertheless the purpose of the Lord’s Supper, as with the Passover, is remembrance (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24, 25). Jesus took the symbols of the Passover, the bread¹⁰ and the cup¹¹ and reinterpreted them as pointers to his imminent death. The Passover commemorated the Exodus; the Lord’s Supper proclaims the second Exodus, Christ leading his people out of their bondage to sin.¹² Thus, Christians redeem the Passover by interpreting it christologically.
Having led the people out of Egypt, God assembles Israel for the first time at the foot of Mount Sinai. He then sets out the terms of the Mosaic covenant, which were to be foundational to the life and worship of Israel from that point forward (Exod 19-24). Whilst God initiated a relationship with Abraham and the patriarchs, it is this covenant which defined the identity of God’s people.¹³ Several points may be noted. Firstly, Israel gathers in the presence of God. This is of tremendous significance, for God had previously revealed himself only to individuals such as the patriarchs. Now, however, the revelation is to an entire nation, thenceforth to be known exclusively as his. Indeed, the key symbols of Old Testament worship – the ark, tabernacle and temple – seem ‘designed to be a means of acknowledging and living in relation to God’s holy presence.’¹⁴ This presents a problem, however, for how can a sinful people remain in the presence of a holy God? Our second point, then, is that the presence of God necessitates a mediator. Israel tried to secure this mediation in the form of the Golden Calf (Exod 32) but God appointed Moses instead.¹⁵ This leads directly to our third point, that worship is always and only on God’s terms. Only Moses was permitted to meet God on the mountain; the penalty for anyone else setting foot there was death (Exod 19:12-13).¹⁶ Christians, however, are urged to draw near to God (e.g. Jas 4:8). The difference is that they do so on the basis of ‘a better hope’ (Heb 7:19)¹⁷ for God has appointed a better mediator, Jesus Christ (Heb 8:6). ¹⁸

Certain aspects of Jewish worship were emphatically rejected by the earliest Christians. The most significant of these is the sacrificial cultus, which Christians understand to have been fulfilled in Christ. Although sacrificial language is used regularly in the NT, it is clear that the usage is purely metaphorical.¹⁹ Similarly, whilst the first Christians continued to frequent the Temple until its destruction in 70 C.E.²⁰ this appears to have been based on convenience, or perhaps habit, rather than theological conviction. Peter and Paul locate the temple in the community of God’s people,²¹ and the writer to the Hebrews in the heavenly realm.²²

Christian gathered worship also owes much to the tradition of the synagogue. The synagogue was quite distinct from the Temple, being a meeting house for the people of God rather than a house for God himself.²³ The activities of the synagogue included an affirmation of faith,²⁴ prayer, and the public reading of the Scriptures.²⁵ The synagogue thanksgiving blessings, the berakoth, together with Jesus’ prayers and those of the earliest eucharistic liturgies strongly influenced Christian communion prayers.²⁶ Whilst Palestinian synagogues were ‘severely didactic’, those of the diaspora were more likely to incorporate celebration in song.²⁷ Each of these elements – creeds, prayers, Scriptures and blessings – appear in the earliest records of Christian worship.²⁸ Indeed, as Webber concludes,

The practices of the synagogue served as the matrix out of which the early Christian’s experience of worship was initially formed.²⁹

Not all of the influences on early Christian worship were Jewish. Along with the evolution³⁰ of the Gentile Christian came numerous pagan teachings and practices. Some were adopted by the church, such as the use of art as objects of worship³¹ and the singing of hymns.³² Indeed the very word translated ‘liturgy’³³ is a pagan one, denoting the public service offered by a citizen.³⁴ For the most part, though, Christianity stood in sharp contrast to pagan religions, remaining strictly monotheistic (if binitarian)³⁵ and resisting the demands of the imperial cult, Gnosticism³⁶ and other mystery religions,³⁷ and particularly the practice of temple feasts.³⁸

In summary, then, the earliest Christians appear to have adopted a three-fold approach to their historical antecedents and contemporaries. Some things were accepted, like assembling together in the presence of God, and gathering for the public reading of Scripture. Some things were rejected, such as the sacrificial cultus and physical temple. Finally, some things were redeemed or renewed, often by means of typological interpretation, such as the Passover.

Thus, the practice of Christians meeting for worship is instituted by the trinitarian God. Historical precedents may be traced to the practices of OT Israel, the Jewish synagogue and the pagan temple. However not all originals are temporally prior to their derivatives. The aroma is not the origin of the bread, though it may well be the first experienced. The eschatological origins of gathered worship must also be considered.
Christian gathered worship is intended to be a type of the worship of heaven.³⁹ The Revelation of John gives insight into that heavenly reality, and Christians gather together to seek its actualisation; thus believers pray that the Lord’s will should be done ‘on earth as it is in heaven’ (Matt 6:10). In so doing they seek ‘God’s rescue of the entire created order and the establishment of his rule over all heaven and earth’.⁴⁰ The Lord’s Supper allows participation in the life of the age to come,⁴¹ for communicants feed on true bread from heaven.⁴² The future benefits of justification are experienced now as God’s people participate in the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16). The Christian gathering originates from both historical and eschatological realities.
It is good to understand origins, but this is insufficient unless purpose is also studied. The Christian gathering is intended by God to establish and express, develop and define three key relationships: between God and the church; between individuals within the church; and between the church and the world. Just as origins have been considered in temporal terms (ancient and future) the purposes of the Christian gathering may be described in spatial terms (‘up’, ‘around’ and ‘out’).

At the heart of Christian worship is the relationship between God and his people. Worship is about God and us rather than God and me.⁴³ Jesus promises to be present where and when his people gather (Matt 18:20). The writer to the Hebrews urges believers to approach God (Heb 4:16) and to meet together (Heb 10:25).⁴⁴ Believers meet with God when they meet with each other.⁴⁵ At the same time, Christians are to express their relationship with God by identifying with Christ. It is no accident that the two Christian sacraments are symbols of participation. Baptism is the initiation rite, analogous to circumcision under the old covenant.⁴⁶ It is a public declaration of identification and participation in the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom 6:3-41; Col 2:12; 1 Pet 3:21).⁴⁷ Similarly, the Eucharist is considered an act of participation in Christ (1 Cor 10:16). The notion of participation is crucial, for it is only in union with Christ that a believer’s worship is acceptable; by being joined to him, they are one with him (1 Cor 6:17) and are permitted the ‘gift of participating through the Spirit in the incarnate Son’s communion with the Father’.⁴⁸

A necessary consequence, and perhaps prerequisite, of participation in Christ is that the many become one body (1 Cor 10:16-17). Paul writes to the Ephesians that ‘there is one body and one Spirit… one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph 4:4, 5) and on this basis argues for unity in the church (Eph 4:3, 13, 15 etc.).⁴⁹ Perhaps this is why singing, too, has found a place in Jewish and Christian worship since the earliest times, for congregational singing expresses and demonstrates togetherness.⁵⁰ As Hughes writes, ‘We are tragically diminished by non-participation in Christ’s Body. Correspondingly, the Church is diminished by our non-participation as well.’⁵¹ Thus, the relationship between God and his people who gather for worship may be characterised in two corollary statements: (1) as Christians draw near to Christ they draw near to each other; and (2) as Christians meet with each other they also meet with God.

Meeting together with other believers has other benefits as well. Returning to Ephesians 4, Paul expands upon the metaphor of the church as the body of Christ. God has given different people different gifts, and it is only in meeting together that these gifts can be used for ‘building up the body of Christ’ (Eph 4:11-16). Paul regularly uses this imagery of ‘building up’⁵² when speaking of Christian gatherings.⁵³ This work of edification is still God’s work, but he chooses to act through his people, giving gifts to individuals for the sake of the whole.⁵⁴ Believers rightly sing ‘Brother let me be your servant / Let me be as Christ to you’⁵⁵ for they meet in order that they might encounter Christ in one another.⁵⁶ These encounters may come in the form of service, encouragement or teaching. Ultimately, regularly gathering for worship should encourage a life of worship.⁵⁷

Gathering for worship is a distinctive mark of the Christian community, and worship helps define the boundaries of that community.⁵⁸ It provides Christians with the answers to questions of identity, loyalty, values, power, narrative, meaning and hope.⁵⁹ The Apostle Peter pictures God’s people in a series of corporate images – race, priesthood, nation, people – and declares their purpose to be proclaiming God’s mighty works (1 Pet 2:9). The cultic regulations, designed to set apart the people of God, have been fulfilled in Christ (Heb 9:26; 10:12 etc.). Nevertheless, the separation in belief and lifestyle that they engendered is still necessary if Christians are to bear witness to God’s character and will.⁶⁰ Evangelism is a by-product rather than a goal of worship, but believers are the salt of the earth, and charged not to lose their distinctive saltiness (Matt 5:13). Believers are a ‘colony of the Kingdom’⁶¹ and their relationship with the surrounding world is defined by their ambassadorial calling. Thus they remember God’s past works, anticipate his future rule, and actualise both past and future in the present, thus witnessing to, and thereby transforming, the world.⁶²

Worship, then, defines relationships with God, other Christians and society at large. Gathered worship provides the means for defining, expressing and building those relationships, as believers actualise Christ to one another and to the world. Current church practice must be evaluated according to the impact it has on these three key relationships. For example, consider the Anglican Church in Sydney, together with its specific expression in the local church in Sutherland (of which the author is a member).

Broadly speaking, the Sydney Anglican Church’s model for public, gathered worship is set forth in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer,⁶³ supplemented by An Australian prayer book.⁶⁴ The stated aim of these liturgies is,

to do that, which… might most tend to the preservation of Peace and Unity in the Church; the procuring of Reverence, and exciting of Piety and Devotion in the Publick [sic] Worship of God.⁶⁵

Clearly, the framers of The Book of Common Prayer had similar relational goals to those above: unity within the church, and reverent response to God.⁶⁶ They also reflect an understanding of a need to be ‘contemporary’, with explicit provision made for updating language according to cultural idiom and the needs of ministry.⁶⁷ One practical application of this principle may be seen in the recent “Big Day In,” the diocesan-wide satellite-linked church service to launch the diocesan vision. During this service, children were included by means of a special children’s program, and a special greeting and prayer were offered in the Mandarin language, in recognition of the significant Chinese demographic in the Sydney diocese.

In the local church in Sutherland, St John’s, there are three public services held for worship each Sunday. The first is a ‘traditional’ service, where the liturgy outlined in An Australian Prayer Book is followed, and communion celebrated every week. The service is led by an ordained clergyman. The second is billed as a ‘family’ service, starting at 9.45 A.M. The style of this service is contemporary, and attracts a broad range of congregants, from young families to the elderly. The service is led by lay members of the congregation, and varies greatly according to the talents and tastes of these leaders. Lay leadership leads to a greater feeling of ownership, and thus participation, by the congregation for the leader is ‘one of their own’.⁶⁸ The third service is in the evening, generally attracting high-school and university-aged people. Here, again, the leadership is by the laity, although on the whole the leaders are also younger, resulting in less diversity and depth in the services they lead.

Unfortunately this setup naturally leads to a stratification within the church, with members choosing a congregation to belong to rather than a church. It also promotes a consumer approach to worship, since these choices are based on preference and convenience, thus undermining our ability to stand against consumerism.⁶⁹ The church is aware of this, and seeks to supplement its public worship gatherings with monthly mid-week prayer meetings, termly informal social gatherings and a bi-annual parish weekend away, all of which span the three congregations. In addition, there are occasions throughout the church year where all of the congregations meet together in a unified public worship service, such as the major events of the church calendar (Christmas, Easter etc.) and the annual general meeting of parishioners. In doing these things, relationships are fostered throughout the church, contributing to a unified body.

Unity is also fostered by having common elements between all three weekly services. These include preaching,⁷⁰ prayer, communion, music and informal fellowship. Preaching and prayer express the vertical dimensions of worship as God speaks to his people and they to him. Communion and fellowship,⁷¹ articulate our horizontal relationships with one another. Music is a curious admixture of both, since Christians sing praises to God and in so doing exhort and encourage one another. This commonality of practice means that when the whole church gathers together, crossing congregational divides, there is a common vocabulary of worship, without which unity in worship would not be possible.

Of the three weekly services, only the evening service has a formal program for evangelism. This is a semi-annual event, well publicised and promoted, where members of the congregation are encouraged to invite non-Christian family, friends and colleagues. The language employed by those who lead is divested of theological ‘in’ language – or, at least, such language is carefully explained when used. Preachers are carefully selected on the basis of their gifting for evangelism, often involving the invitation of a guest preacher and the occasional guest band. Special effort is made to include fellowship over a meal and opportunity before and after the service for non-Christians to interact with the community of Christians. The service is otherwise identical to any other week, based on the belief that what you win people with is what you win them to and thus making the transition to an ‘ordinary’ service an easy one to make.⁷² This is not to suggest that evangelism doesn’t occur in the other weekly services, for it certainly does. There are teams devoted to welcoming visitors and helping them to establish relationship with church members. Prayers are offered for events of significance to the local, national and global communities. Leaders are instructed to use inclusive language and preachers consistently preach the gospel in the context of their didactic and exhortational ministry. Visitors go away knowing that this church worships God, proclaims Christ, and cares for each other, for the community and for them.

The origins of the practice of Christians gathering to worship are found in the character and action of the triune God. God acts and Christians respond. The earliest believers were influenced in this response by the practices, traditions and teachings of Old Testament Israel, the Jewish synagogue and pagan religions. Some of these practices were accepted, some rejected, and some redeemed and reinterpreted. Christian gathered worship also bears eschatological origins, with the Christian assembly foreshadowing the heavenly assembly. One must look both backwards and forwards in time to understand the origins of Christian worship. Christians gather for worship for the purpose of expressing and defining relationships. Christians must also look ‘up’, and relate to God as his covenant people. Finally, they must look ‘around’ and ‘out’ as they actualise Christ to one another and to the world.

Bibliography

An Australian Prayer Book : For Use Together with the Book of Common Prayer, 1662. Sydney: Church of England in Australia, 1978.
Ashton, Mark, and C. J. Davis. “Following in Cranmer’s Footsteps.” In Worship by the Book, edited by D. A. Carson, 64-135. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2002.
Best, Harold M. Unceasing Worship : Biblical Perspectives on Worship and the Arts. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Carson, D. A. “Worship under the Word.” In Worship by the Book, edited by D. A. Carson, 11-63. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2002.
Dawn, Marva J. A Royal “Waste” Of Time : The Splendor of Worshiping God and Being Church for the World. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1999.
———. Reaching out without Dumbing Down : A Theoloy of Worship for This Urgent Time. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1995.
Gillard, Richard. “The Servant Song.” In Scripture in Song : Songs of the Kingdom (Bk. 2), edited by David and Dale Garratt, 51. Eastbourne: Kingsway, 1981.
Green, Michael. Baptism : Its Purpose, Practice and Power. Bletchley, Milton Keynes: Authentic Media, 2006.
Hughes, R. Kent. Disciplines of a Godly Man. 10th anniversary ed. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2001.
———. “Free Church Worship : The Challenge of Freedom.” In Worship by the Book, edited by D. A. Carson, 136-92. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2002.
Hurtado, Larry W. At the Origins of Christian Worship : The Context and Character of Earliest Christian Devotion, Didsbury Lectures. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000.
Kauflin, Bob. Worship Matters : Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008.
Keller, Timothy J. “Reformed Worship in the Global City.” In Worship by the Book, edited by D. A. Carson, 193-249. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2002.
Kreider, Eleanor. Communion Shapes Character. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1997.
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. Special centenary ed. London: Fount, 1997.
———. The Screwtape Letters : Also Includes, “Screwtape Proposes a Toast”. London: HarperCollins, 2001.
Martin, Ralph P. “Hymns in New Testament Worship.” In The Biblical Foundations of Christian Worship, edited by Robert Webber, 257-62. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993.
Peterson, David. Engaging with God : A Biblical Theology of Worship. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
Peterson, Eugene H. Eat This Book : A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006.
Piper, John. Desiring God : Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. Updated [i.e. 3rd] ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2004.
Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom. 6th ed. 3 vols: Baker Books, 2007.
The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church According to the Use of the Church of England Together with the Psalter, Etc. Cambridge: University Press, 1922.
Webber, Robert. Ancient-Future Worship : Proclaiming and Enacting God’s Narrative, Ancient-Future Series. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2008.
———. Worship Is a Verb : Eight Principles Transforming Worship. 2nd ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.
———. Worship Old & New : A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Introduction. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994.
Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God SPCK, 1992.

Endnotes

1. cf. Exod 4:23; 7:16 etc.
2. cf. Gal 4:5
3. cf. Rom 2:29; Eph 4:4.
4. John Piper, Desiring God : Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, Updated [i.e. 3rd] ed. (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2004), 82.
5. In some ways the community within the Trinity may be considered a model for the Christian gathering. cf. Harold M. Best, Unceasing Worship : Biblical Perspectives on Worship and the Arts (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 24.
6. cf. Robert Webber, who refers to the Exodus as ‘the epicenter for worship with Israel’, Robert Webber, Worship Old & New : A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Introduction, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994), 31.
7. David Peterson, Engaging with God : A Biblical Theology of Worship (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 125.
8. Eleanor Kreider, Communion Shapes Character (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1997), 201.
9. Peterson, Engaging with God, 121.
10. cf. John 6:35
11. cf. 1 Cor 10:16. The cup is somewhat of a paradox, since the cup itself is a symbol of suffering (e.g. Matt 26:42) whilst wine is typically a sign of blessing (e.g. John 2:1-11).
12. Webber, Worship Old & New, 42.
13. Ibid., 20.
14. Peterson, Engaging with God, 49.
15. Ibid., 34. This mediation is distinct from the OT cultus; it is Moses the mediator rather than Aaron the priest in view here.
16. cf. Num 12:8
17. cf. Heb 10:22
18. cf. Gal 3:19-20; 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 9:15; 12:24
19. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (SPCK, 1992), 363-4.
20. e.g. Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:21, 42 etc.
21. e.g. Rom 9:4; 1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 1 Pet 2:5
22. e.g. Heb 3:2-6; 10:21; 12:23; cf. Peterson, Engaging with God, 247. In spite of this, concepts of physicality of place (church buildings), rituals and ministers would all resurface later in ecclesiastical history. cf. Webber, Worship Old & New, 35.
23. Ibid., 112-3.
24. i.e. the shema of Deut 6:4-9
25. Webber, Worship Old & New, 37. The latter is likely founded on the events recorded in Nehemiah 8, where the people gathered to hear Ezra read from the Book of the Law of God, and finds direct parallels in the Christian Service of the Word. Peterson, Engaging with God, 198.
26. e.g. Compare the blessings over bread and wine prescribed in m. Ber. 6 with Jesus’ blessings at the Last Supper (Matt 26:26-27; Mark 14:22-23; Luke 22:19-20) and early church practice (1 Cor 11:24-25; Justin, 1 Apol. 66). The later Didache (ca. 2nd c.) shows that what was initially descriptive had by this time become prescriptive (Did. 9-10). cf. Kreider, Communion Shapes Character, 165.
27. Ralph P. Martin, “Hymns in New Testament Worship,” in The Biblical Foundations of Christian Worship, ed. Robert Webber, The Complete Library of Christian Worship (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), 258.
28. e.g. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 11:17-34; Ign. Eph. 13; Justin 1 Apol. 65-67; Ireneaus Haer. 1:10; 3:4; 4:33 etc. See also possible credal fragments in the NT e.g. 1 Cor 8:6; 15:3-8; Phil 2:6-11; 1 Tim 3:16; Heb 6:1-2 etc. cf. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 6th ed., 3 vols. (Baker Books, 2007), 2:3-40.
29. Webber, Worship Old & New, 58.
30. Or, perhaps more accurately, revolution.
31. Larry W. Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship : The Context and Character of Earliest Christian Devotion, Didsbury Lectures (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 23.
32. Martin, “Hymns in New Testament Worship,” 259.
33. Gk. leitourgia.
34. Eugene H. Peterson, Eat This Book : A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006), 75.
35. Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship, 17, 63ff.
36. Martin, “Hymns in New Testament Worship,” 260.
37. Webber, Worship Old & New, 106.
38. Peterson, Engaging with God, 124. cf. 1 Cor 8-10.
39. Ibid., 205, 77-78.
40. Robert Webber, Ancient-Future Worship : Proclaiming and Enacting God’s Narrative, Ancient-Future Series (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2008), 57-58.
41. Peterson, Engaging with God, 144.
42. Ibid., 100-01. cf. John 6:51.
43. Bob Kauflin, Worship Matters : Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008), 197.
44. cf. Ign. Eph. 13.
45. Peterson, Engaging with God, 198. cf. Timothy J. Keller, “Reformed Worship in the Global City,” in Worship by the Book, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2002), 210.
46. Michael Green, Baptism : Its Purpose, Practice and Power (Bletchley, Milton Keynes: Authentic Media, 2006), 29. cf. Webber, Worship Old & New, 230.
47. cf. Ibid., 60. and Green, Baptism, 31f.
48. James Torrance, cited by D. A. Carson, “Worship under the Word,” in Worship by the Book, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2002), 42-3.
49. cf. Ign. Phld. 4.
50. Best, Unceasing Worship : Biblical Perspectives on Worship and the Arts, 143ff. Best argues that this is because ‘The human voice is the only musical instrument that God has directly created’ and that people can engage together in congregational singing regardless of talent or training.
51. R. Kent Hughes, Disciplines of a Godly Man, 10th anniversary ed. (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2001), 174.
52. Gk. oikodomeō.
53. e.g. 1 Cor 14:4, 17; 1 Thess 5:11. Peterson, Engaging with God, 206.
54. cf. C. S. Lewis, who writes that ‘[Jesus] works on us in all sorts of ways… through Nature, through our own bodies, through books, sometimes through experiences which seem (at the time) anti-Christian… But above all, He works on us through each other.’ C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Special centenary ed. (London: Fount, 1997), 157.
55. Richard Gillard, “The Servant Song,” in Scripture in Song : Songs of the Kingdom (Bk. 2), ed. David and Dale Garratt (Eastbourne: Kingsway, 1981).
56. Peterson, Engaging with God, 220.
57. R. Kent Hughes, “Free Church Worship : The Challenge of Freedom,” in Worship by the Book, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2002), 142. cf. Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship, 49.
58. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 368.
59. cf. Marva J. Dawn, A Royal “Waste” Of Time : The Splendor of Worshiping God and Being Church for the World (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1999), 22ff.
60. Peterson, Engaging with God, 268.
61. Dawn, A Royal “Waste” Of Time, 89ff.
62. Webber, Ancient-Future Worship, 43.
63. The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church According to the Use of the Church of England Together with the Psalter, Etc, (Cambridge: University Press, 1922).
64. An Australian Prayer Book : For Use Together with the Book of Common Prayer, 1662, (Sydney: Church of England in Australia, 1978). See especially the Preface, which outlines the relationship with The Book of Common Prayer, Ibid., 7.
65. The Book of Common Prayer, viii-ix. cf. An Australian Prayer Book, 7.
66. The third aim (not quoted above), that of ‘cutting off occasion from them that seek occasion of cavil or quarrel against the Liturgy of the Church’ (The Book of Common Prayer, ix.), is rooted in the historical circumstances in which The Book of Common Prayer was forged. Nevertheless, it shows a concern for the way the church is perceived and responded to by ‘outsiders’, even if those outsiders were other Christians.
67. e.g. ‘[W]hereas Saint Paul would have such language spoken to the people in the Church, as they might understand, and have profit by hearing the same; The Service in this Church of England these many years hath been read in Latin to the people, which they understand not… here is set forth such an Order, whereby the same shall be addressed’ (Ibid., xi.). cf. Ashton and Davis, who write that the criteria for planning worship in Cranmer’s tradition are, in order (1) biblical content; (2) accessibility; and (3) balance. Mark Ashton and C. J. Davis, “Following in Cranmer’s Footsteps,” in Worship by the Book, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2002), 82ff.
68. cf. Robert Webber, Worship Is a Verb : Eight Principles Transforming Worship, 2nd ed. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 129ff. Webber argues passionately that worship needs to be ‘returned to the people’, although his vision for this is more than just lay leadership extending also to cover congregational participation.
69. Marva J. Dawn, Reaching out without Dumbing Down : A Theoloy of Worship for This Urgent Time (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1995), 41ff. and Dawn, A Royal “Waste” Of Time, 88ff. Dawn maintains that the worshipping community needs to innoculate us against secular worldviews, particularly consumerism. cf. Lewis, whose demonic character Screwtape writes to his nephew, ‘Surely you know that if a man can’t be cured of churchgoing, the next best thing is to send him all over the neighbourhood looking for the church that ‘suits’ him until he becomes a taster or connoisseur of churches… the search for a ‘suitable’ church makes the man a critic where the Enemy [i.e. God] wants him to be a pupil.’ C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters : Also Includes, “Screwtape Proposes a Toast” (London: HarperCollins, 2001), 81.
70. Even the content of preaching across the two morning services is consistent, with the same preacher preaching on the same topic at each. The evening service usually follows its own independent program of preaching. Sadly, this does not foster church-wide community as well as might be the case if the preaching was uniform across all three services. The decision to have separate ‘streams’ of preaching is based on the ‘needs’ of a younger congregation in the evening, so church-wide unity is traded off in favour of more focused and directed discipleship.
71. Usually in the form of coffee and food after the service.
72. Kauflin, Worship Matters, 192.