<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</SPAN></span></p>
<h2>LESSON XIX</h2>
<h3>PROBLEMS OF A GENTILE CHURCH</h3>
<p>Christianity, according to Paul, is an escape from the world.
Gal. 1:4. All human distinctions are comparatively unimportant.
"There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond
nor free, there can be no male and female." Gal. 3:28. Such a
doctrine might seem logically to lead to fanaticism. If the Christian
is already a citizen of heaven, may he not be indifferent to the conditions
of life upon this earth? Such a conclusion was altogether
avoided by Paul. In First Corinthians Paul is revealed as the most
practical of men. All human distinctions are subordinate and
secondary—and yet these distinctions are carefully observed.
Paul was a man of heroic faith, but he was also possessed of
admirable tact.</p>
<p>It is not that the one side of Paul's nature limited the other; it
is not that common sense acted as a check to transcendental
religion. On the contrary, the two things seemed to be in perfect
harmony. Just because Paul was inwardly so entirely free from
the world, he was also so wise in dealing with worldly affairs. The
secret of this harmony was consecration. Human relationships,
when consecrated to God, are not destroyed, but ennobled. They
cease, indeed, to be an end in themselves, but they become a means
to Christian service. The Christian man has no right to be indifferent
to the world. If he is, he is no true son of the God who
made the world, and sent the Lord to save it. The Christian, like
the man of the world, is profoundly interested in the conditions of
life on this earth. Only, unlike the man of the world, he is not
helpless and perplexed in the presence of those conditions; but from
his vantage ground of heavenly power, he shapes them to the divine
will. He is interested in the world, but he is interested in it, not
as its servant, but as its master.</p>
<p>So in First Corinthians Paul lays hold of certain perplexing
practical problems with the sure grasp of one who is called to rule
and not to serve. Everything that he touches he lifts to a higher
plane. In his hands even the simplest things of life receive a
heavenly significance.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</SPAN></span></p>
<p>The problems that are discussed in First Corinthians stood in a
special relation to the environment of the Corinthian church. Most
of them were due to the threatened intrusions of Greek paganism.
They are closely analogous, however, to the problems which we have
to solve to-day. Paganism and worldliness are not dead. The
Church still stands in the midst of a hostile environment. We can
still use the teaching of Paul. That teaching will now be examined
in a few of its important details.</p>
<h4>1. THE PARTIES</h4>
<p>Paul mentions four parties that had been formed in the Corinthian
church—a Paul-party, an Apollos-party, a Cephas-party and a
Christ-party. These parties do not seem to have been separated
from one another by any serious doctrinal differences, and it is
impossible to determine their characteristics in detail. In the
section where the party spirit is discussed, Paul blames the
Corinthians for intellectual pride. This fault has often been
connected with the Apollos-party. Apollos was an Alexandrian,
and probably had an Alexandrian Greek training. He might
therefore have unconsciously evoked among some members of the
Corinthian church an excessive admiration for his more pretentious
style of preaching, which might have caused them to despise the
simpler manner of Paul. Even this much, however, is little more
than surmise. At any rate, Apollos should not be blamed for the
faults of those who misused his name. He is praised unstintedly
by Paul, who was even desirous that he should return at once to
Corinth. I Cor. 16:12. Paul blames the Paul-party just as
much as any of the other three.</p>
<p>The Peter-party was composed of admirers of Peter, who had
either come to Corinth from the scene of Peter's labors elsewhere,
or simply had known of Peter by hearsay. It is unlikely that Peter
himself had been in Corinth, for if he had Paul would probably have
let the fact appear in First or Second Corinthians. The Christ-party
is rather puzzling. A comparison with the false teachers
who are combated in Second Corinthians has led some scholars to
suppose that it was a Judaizing party, which emphasized a personal
acquaintance with the earthly Jesus as a necessary qualification
of apostleship. In that case, however, Paul would probably have
singled out the Christ-party for special attack. More probably
these were simply men who, in proud opposition to the adherents
of Paul, of Apollos and of Cephas, emphasized their own independence<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</SPAN></span>
of any leader other than Christ. Of course, the watchword,
"I am of Christ," if used in a better spirit, would have been altogether
praiseworthy, and indeed Paul desires all the parties to
unite in it. I Cor. 3:21-23.</p>
<p>Perhaps it is a mistake to attribute to these parties anything like
stability. On the whole, the passage gives the impression that it
is not the individual parties that Paul is condemning, but the party
spirit. That party spirit was manifested by watchwords like those
which are enumerated in I Cor. 1:12, but that that enumeration
was meant to be complete, does not appear. The whole effort to
determine the characteristics of the individual parties—an effort
which has absorbed the attention of many scholars—should perhaps
be abandoned.</p>
<p>Paul's treatment of the party spirit exhibits his greatness not
only as an administrator, but also as a writer. The subject was
certainly not inspiring; yet under Paul's touch it becomes luminous
with heavenly glory. The contrast of human wisdom with the
message of the cross, I Cor. 1:18-31, where a splendid rhythm of
language matches the sublimity of the thought, the wonderful
description of the freedom and power of the man who possesses the
Spirit of God, the grand climax of the third chapter, "For all things
are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or
life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's"—these are among the
passages that can never be forgotten.</p>
<h4>2. THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS</h4>
<p>The question of meats offered to idols, which Paul discusses in
I Cor. 8:1 to 11:1, was exceedingly intricate. To it Paul applies
several great principles. In the first place, there is the principle of
Christian freedom. The Christian has been delivered from enslaving
superstitions. Idols have no power; they cannot impart any
harmful character to the good things which God has provided for
the sustenance of man. In the second place, however, there is the
principle of loyalty. The fact that idols are nothing does not render
idol-worship morally indifferent. On the contrary, idolatry is
always sinful. If the eating of certain kinds of food under certain
conditions involves participation in idolatry then it is disloyalty to
the one true God. The joint operation of the two principles of
freedom and of loyalty seems to lead in Paul's mind to the following
practical conclusion:—The Christian may eat the meat that has<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</SPAN></span>
been offered to idols if it is simply put on sale in the market place
or set before him at an ordinary meal; but he must not take part
with the heathen in specifically religious feasts. The whole question,
however, is further viewed in the light of a third principle—the
principle of Christian love. Even things that are in themselves
innocent must be given up if a brother by them is led into conduct
which for him is sin. Christ has died for that weaker brother;
surely the Christian, then, may not destroy him. Thus love, even
more than loyalty, limits freedom—but it is a blessed limitation.
The principles here applied by Paul to the question of the Corinthian
Christians will solve many a problem of the modern Church.</p>
<h4>3. SPIRITUAL GIFTS</h4>
<p>The principle of Christian love, with the related principle of
toleration, is applied also to another set of problems, the problems
with regard to the exercise of spiritual gifts. The passage in which
Paul discusses these problems, aside from its spiritual and moral
teaching, is of singular historical interest. It affords a unique
picture of the devotional meetings of an apostolic church. The
characteristic of these meetings was the enthusiasm which prevailed
in them. Paul is not at all desirous of dampening that enthusiasm.
On the contrary the gifts in question were in his judgment really
bestowed by the Holy Spirit. Even the gift of tongues, which
Paul limits in its operation, is in his judgment of genuine value.
Indeed, he himself had exercised it even more than the other
Christians. I Cor. 14:18. This last fact should correct any
unworthy impression which we might have formed with regard to
the gift. If speaking with tongues was practiced by Paul, then it
was no mere unhealthy emotionalism. We are to-day unable to
understand it fully, but in the apostolic Church it was a real expression
of Christian experience.</p>
<p>Paul desires, not to dampen the enthusiasm of the Corinthian
church, but merely to eliminate certain harmful by-products of that
which was in itself altogether excellent. The first principle which
he applies is the principle of toleration. There is room in the
Church for many different kinds of workers. "There are diversities
of gifts, but the same Spirit." The principle is often neglected in
the modern Church. Toleration, indeed, is on everyone's lips;
but it is not the kind of toleration that Paul means. It is often
nothing more than indifference to the great verities of the faith.
Such toleration would have met with nothing but an anathema from<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</SPAN></span>
Paul. The toleration that Paul is commending is a toleration, not
with regard to matters of doctrine, but with regard to methods of
work. Such toleration is often sadly lacking. Some advocates of
missions think that almost every Christian who stays at home
is a coward; some good, conservative elders, on the other hand,
have little interest in what passes the bounds of their own
congregation. Some Christians of reserved habits are shocked
at the popular methods of the evangelists; some evangelists are
loud in their ignorant denunciation of the Christian scholar. In
other words, many very devout Christians of the present day
act as though they had never read the twelfth chapter of First
Corinthians.</p>
<p>The principle of toleration, however, culminates in the principle
of love. If there must be a choice between the exercise of different
gifts, then the choice should be in favor of those gifts which are
most profitable to other men. Finally, even the highest spiritual
gifts are not independent of reason. I Cor. 14:32,33. That is a
far-reaching principle. Some modern Christians seem to think
that an appeal to the inward voice of the Spirit excuses them from
listening to reasonable counsel. Such is not the teaching of Paul.</p>
<h4>4. THE RESURRECTION</h4>
<p>The error which is combated in the fifteenth chapter of the epistle
could hardly have been a denial, in general, of continued existence
after death, but was rather a denial of the resurrection of the body
as over against the Greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul.
In reply, Paul appeals to the resurrection of Jesus. The appeal
would seem to be futile unless Paul means that the resurrection of
Jesus was a bodily resurrection. If the appearances of Jesus were
no more than incorporeal manifestations of his spirit, then obviously
the believer in a mere immortality of the soul remained unrefuted.
In this chapter there is an advance over the simple teaching of
First Thessalonians. Here the character of the resurrection body
comes into view. The resurrection body will have a real connection
with the old body—otherwise there would be no resurrection—but
the weakness of the old body will be done away. There is continuity,
but also transformation.</p>
<h4>5. INCIDENTAL INFORMATION ABOUT JESUS</h4>
<p>Certain passages in First Corinthians, which are introduced only
in an incidental way, as illustrations of the principles which are<span class="pagenum"><SPAN name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</SPAN></span>
being applied, are of inestimable historical value. These passages
include not only the great autobiographical passage in the ninth
chapter, where Paul illustrates from his own life the limitation of
the principle of freedom by the principle of love, but also two all-important
passages which refer to the life of Christ.</p>
<p>It is generally admitted that First Corinthians was written at
about A. D. 55. The eleventh chapter of the epistle gives an account
of the institution of the Lord's Supper, in which Jesus teaches the
sacrificial significance of his death; and the fifteenth chapter gives
a list of the appearances of Jesus after his resurrection. The
information contained in these passages was not invented by Paul;
indeed he distinctly says that it was "received." In A. D. 55, then,
not only Paul, but also the Church generally believed that Jesus'
death, according to his own teaching, was sacrificial, and appealed
in support of his resurrection to a wealth of competent testimony.
But from whom had Paul "received" these things? Hardly from
anyone except those who had been Christians before him—in other
words, from the Palestinian church. We have here an irremovable
confirmation of the Gospel view of Jesus. First Corinthians is a
historical document of absolutely priceless value.</p>
<p>The incidental character of these historical passages is especially
noteworthy. It shows that Paul knew far more about Jesus than
he found occasion in the epistles to tell. If he had told more,
no doubt the Gospel picture of Jesus would have received confirmation
throughout.</p>
<hr class="tb" />
<p><span class="smcap">In the Library.</span>—Purves, "Christianity in the Apostolic Age,"
pp. 213-221. Davis, "Dictionary of the Bible": article on "Apollos";
Purves and Davis, article on "Corinthians, Epistles to the." Hastings,
"Dictionary of the Bible": Robertson, article on "Corinthians, First
Epistle to the." M'Clymont, "The New Testament and Its Writers,"
pp. 58-64. Ellicott, "A New Testament Commentary for English
Readers," vol. ii, pp. 281-356: Shore, "The First Epistle of Paul the
Apostle to the Corinthians." "The Cambridge Bible for Schools":
Lias, "The First Epistle to the Corinthians." Zahn, "Introduction
to the New Testament," vol. i, pp. 256-306. "The International
Critical Commentary": Robertson and Plummer, "A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians."
The two last-named works presuppose a knowledge of
Greek.</p>
<hr class="chap" />
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />
1 of 2
2 of 2
Previous
Next
Update Required
To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.