New Thoughts (10/18/18-10/23/18)
Apostolic Authority (10/19/18)
This is a point that may not jump right out at us from the text, and yet it is very much there: Paul is once more making a clear declaration as to his authority and rank in the Church. Understand the implications of this. “What I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.” He is not suggesting he is merely relaying what others told him. He is not imparting learned traditions. He is an Apostle, and that is a unique office with a unique claim to authority – a claim which nobody in Corinth could rightly make, and one which most assuredly nobody in our own day can make.
Understand as well that Paul’s claim is not one to be made lightly or taken lightly. Neither was it one to simply be taken at face value. If he delivers it simply on this occasion, it is solely because the proof of his claim had long since been given them. They had seen the power of the gospel demonstrated in his preaching. They had seen the Spirit work through him, and had known the fruit that came of it. They were, in a very real sense, the proof themselves, as he had pointed out earlier. “For in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” (1Co 4:15b).
Paul could make this claim of divine inspiration, indeed he had to because it was true. But, the sad reality is that through all the ages there have been many who pretend the same inspiration, and on that basis, the same authority. This is the great issue that the Conservative end of the Church has with the Charismatic end. Those at the Charismatic end are all too ready to lay claim to divine inspiration, and to do so with no distinction between their own experience of it, and that authority uniquely given to the Apostles as the arbiters of Truth. This is only exacerbated by the more recent trend toward laying claim to the apostolic mantel, and the attempt to promote some apostolic anointing that is available to all, like it was simply some lifestyle choice. That whole movement demonstrates a painful level of ignorance as concerns the Truth of God and the nature of the Apostles. We will shortly see Paul’s response to such people which, to be clear, carries the weight of being Christ’s response.
So, yes, Paul’s claim is, as the JFB says, “a direct assertion of inspiration.” That’s the weight of the acknowledgement required by verse 37. What he is saying, bold though it sounds, is that what he writes, Christ speaks. Now, lest there be any twisting of the point by our pride and our lust for power, be very clear. Paul is not suggesting he instructs Christ as to what He should say. Neither is he ever going to be found suggesting he should tell Christ what to do. Far from it! No, what he is claiming is that his teaching is not his own, his message is not something so minor as a relaying of his personal opinions. As I have, somewhat uncomfortably, observed before, even on those occasions where he suggests that it is merely his opinion that he is giving, the weight of the Apostolic authority still bears in on us.
It bears in on him as well, I should think. The simple fact that he attempts such disclaimers demonstrates the truth of that. Imagine, if you would, going through life with every bit of advice you give having the weighty significance of being the revealed will of God! I see some today who do in fact attempt to make such claims for their most pointless prognostications, and do so blithely, as if this should be expected of anybody who claims to be spiritual. Well, welcome back to Corinth. But, the one who truly speaks by and for God must surely feel the enormity of the responsibility set upon his shoulders.
I am sure pastors feel this to a degree, at least when they are at their labors amongst God’s people. I am quite sure of it, because I know that as an elder that weight is felt, if in a lesser degree because of a less time spent in pursuit of that office. That is to say, the pastor is on duty pretty much every day, at least for some portion of the day. He is in the office, giving counsel, making visitations, fielding questions from this parishioner and that. It is often the reality that he is doing so at any hour of any day, regardless of whether he is officially at work, or officially on vacation. As elders, we are less likely to experience so much of that ‘on-call’ life. But, when we have cause to speak with our fellow sheep, we are aware of the need for care in what we say. We are aware of the weight of living as an example. We are aware of the significance of our actions, however seemingly innocent and meaningless the situation.
Yet, not a one of us would join Paul in this claim – not with the strength he puts to it. Oh, I dare say we would hope and pray that what we teach and advise is fully in accord with Christ’s Word, but we would never lay claim to delivering it as having an authority equal to the Scriptures. We would, I trust, deliver it as the clear message of the Scriptures, and resting on its authority, but by all means, if you discover that the Scriptures do not teach as we do, please do us the service of bringing correction to our views, that we may indeed teach truly. We are not apostles. We are elders; interpreters of the Apostolic Word made sure.
Now, if Paul’s authority is so effectively absolute, as concerns any contest of human authorities, what are we to make of those who would attempt to reject his instruction? As to what we should do with them, I’ll save that for the next sub-section. Right now, it’s assessment time. Well, if they are claiming divine inspiration, here’s one thing that really ought to be pretty obvious: Their message will not contradict that of Paul – or any other part of Scripture. This, too, is found in the strong words of verse 37. If anybody promotes himself as a prophet or one spiritually gifted, let him offer at least this minimum proof. One so inspired of the Spirit must affirm Paul’s commands as being the Lord’s own commands. As Calvin writes, if he is truly an organ of the Holy Spirit as he claims to be, he will, ‘declare fearlessly with Paul, that those who shall reject his doctrine, are not Prophets or spiritual persons’. [Emphasis mine.]
It cannot be otherwise. If Paul does not speak with authority, then we really don’t have any authority to which we can appeal. The Scriptures are unsound, and this must hold equally for the Old Testament as for the New. If the authority of its authors is not founded in the Holy Spirit, then this is not the Holy Word of God. If it is, then we must insist that there can be no true contradiction within its words, for they are the words of One Holy Spirit. If it is the word of One Holy Spirit, it is One Word. If it is One Word, it will not brook addition, subtraction, or alteration, however much the one seeking to act in such a fashion may claim to act with divine inspiration. If the inspiration is real, and if it is truly divine, it will not even suggest any such activity. How shall God, Who is One, contradict Himself? How shall Truth change? He is God. He is Truth. He does not change. If He ever did, it should be the final proof that He is not God after all.
So, then, we can acknowledge this much, based on our understanding of how we have come to be in possession of this Word which is the revealed will of God. Such zeal as dismisses its authority, or as disrupts the peace and order of the church, is not genuine, as Barnes observes. It may be zeal, but it is ill-founded and ill-directed. That spirit which would disrupt the order of the church is not, to be sure, the spirit of God, for He is not the God of confusion, but of Peace – Peace in the shalom sense, with everything in its proper place and as it should be: All Things In Order.
Assessing Claims of Inspiration (10/20/18)
We have spent a great deal of time in this letter looking at the subject of spiritual gifts, and within the discussion of that topic the greatest focus has been upon this comparison of prophecy and tongues. Why? Well, for one thing, these two gifts are primary tools for the declaration of the gospel. They are, if you will, the speaking gifts. For another thing, they make the most immediate claim to inspiration. Tongues may be taken to be little more than a capacity to speak Hebrew, which would, I suppose, be a bit unusual for a Greek culture. But, I don’t really think it’s that straightforward. It is, however, a gift of actual language. I’ve hammered that point enough in the last few years. It is a gift of language because it is not something learned. It just happens. Because it just happens, it tends to carry the weightiness of an implied, “Thus sayeth the Lord.” Given the insistence on having an interpreter available, it goes beyond implied, and enters into the direct claim inherent in the gift of prophecy.
You may observe that I do not incline toward conflating prophecy with preaching. These are separate matters in my view. You can write that off as the effect of having come to faith in a Charismatic setting. But, I find the Scriptural evidence for a distinction compelling. They are mentioned as multiple offices or gifts, and as such, I see no reason to suppose them the same thing. It would be a very rare thing, for example, for a preacher to resort to a “Thus says the Lord,” in the course of presenting his sermon, unless it was to introduce a quotation from Scripture.
There is your main distinction. One relays what has been written. The other, in some sense, adds to what is written. You cannot, as the Reformers express the concern, prophesy without making a claim to authority equal to that of Scripture. I get the concern, and yet I have to observe that Paul did not share it. Paul does not deny the gifts, nor does he declare them to be a local phenomenon, or a temporary condition in the growth of the Church. If they were so fleeting a thing, I can’t imagine he would have spent this much ink and parchment on their regulation. I can’t imagine the Holy Spirit would have opted to include such a constantly troubling doctrine in His text to cover a period of a few decades – not without making clear that this was the case, at least.
Paul, I have noted before, and observe again, does not deny the inspired nature of these prophets and tongue talkers. He doesn’t declare them frauds for the simple act of exercising such gifts. He does not deny the revelatory nature of their words. He does, however, set them on a different level than himself and his fellow Apostles. Theirs was the unique authority to establish the doctrines of the faith. Theirs was to lay the foundation, to establish the standards against which all other claims of revelation must be measured. That is the message we have in these first two verses: If your gift is real, and your message from the Holy Spirit of God, it will accord with what I have taught, and uphold the authoritative nature of my teaching and my office. If it leads to a disregard for Apostolic authority, there may yet be spiritual inspiration involved, but it’s not the Holy Spirit.
These prophets were not so endowed as to impart new doctrines, or alter old ones. That was neither their office nor their gift. Such duties were and are reserved to the Apostles. Yes, there’s s clear implication to that statement: There are no new doctrines. There are no revisions to be made to the old ones. The Apostolic office has passed from us, whatever one may think in regard to the gifts, and whatever the frequency of false claims to office in our day.
To be an Apostle is to be in such direct communication with our Lord as to have had Him as one’s personal tutor, to impart His doctrine directly. It was upon this immediacy of instruction that their authority hinged, and the opportunity for such immediate instruction is long gone – again, whatever claims the modern mystics may make to dreams and visions. It’s not the same thing. It might – might – elevate to the level of a prophet. It does not and cannot elevate to the office of apostle. However spiritual you may be, and however sanctified, yet you have no authorization to try and establish any doctrine or order that is not already to be found in the pages of God’s Word.
Again, that is in the strength of Paul’s words in these first two verses. If these claimants to revelation are such as disregard the Apostolic teaching, they are to be disregarded. “If anyone doesn’t recognize that my words are the Lord’s commandment, he is not recognized.” If he insists on ignorance, he can have it. He will be ignored. Again, they may be spiritual, but it’s not the Holy Spirit. It’s the spirit of antichrist. But, Church, they need not be feared. The message of the text is that they can be safely ignored. They are not worth the debate, because they have already declared themselves closed to debate.
It comes back to the fact that these gifts all drive from one Spirit, one God, and He is the declared God of Truth. “I AM the Truth.” That’s an important declaration, both for Jesus in laying claim to divinity, and to God in establishing divinity. Truth, contrary to popular fantasies of our day, is not subject to change, and is not subject to contradicting itself. On that basis, if the One Spirit speaks through the Apostle on Sunday, and the prophet on Monday, their messages must correlate. It should be unimaginable for the prophet to suppose he had need to overrule a true apostle. Even the true Apostles would find such a thing unimaginable, for they, too, spoke from one Spirit. There might well be need to correct one another’s practices, but as to doctrine, no. Truth cannot be truth which denies itself in order to declare itself.
So, then, whatever the prophetic gift, it was not the gift of delivering new doctrines, only of expressing that which had already been declared, and doing so in a fashion particularly well adapted to some present need of the church. They were gifted with discerning what best served the Christian cause and getting it done. In such a degree, they could be accounted agents of revelation, but not such revelation as the Apostles experienced. They could proclaim with authority, but it was a lesser authority. So long as this was recognized and understood, they were recognized. Where they ceased to acknowledge the restraints of a higher office, they were not recognized, and any claim to authority they may have made were declared null and void.
It has to be thus. The Spirit cannot contradict itself. The spokesmen of the Church cannot contradict themselves – not on doctrine. When it comes to traditions and opinions, yes, there’s some room for variation – some. But, as to the established Truths of God, there can be no argument, no redefinition. The message for the prophets of Corinth was clear. It’s equally clear to every preacher, teacher, or practice of spiritual gifts today. To quote Matthew Henry, “If he will not own what I deliver on this head to be the will of Christ, he himself never had the Spirit of Christ.”
That said, we are not to come at such issues as if we were warrior theologians of some sort, armed and ready to crush our detractors. There’s a place for stiff defense, and even offense, but it’s not every debate. We are shepherds first and foremost, and our primary concern must be for the sheep, not the wolf. The sheep, we lead back to the still waters of Christ. The wolf, if he insists on a continued attack upon the sheep, must be dealt with severely. I again return to the images of the shepherd that Table Talk provided a few months back. There’s a time when the staff is indeed a weapon of violence against those that would prey on the sheep. There’s a time when it’s even a bit violent in goading the sheep back towards safety. Sometimes, sheep can be a bit ornery, and take some convincing. But, it’s an exception case, and to be done in the loving hope of restoration.
All that having been said, we have this clear test for all teaching, and it’s one about which we really oughtn’t to need reminding. Yet we do. Whatever the teaching, and however it may be presented, the same test applies. If the purported teaching is at odds with the Apostolic record, the canon of Scriptures (and to be clear, this excludes the Apocrypha, and the spurious pseudo-apostolic writings, as well as those of the church fathers), we can be absolutely assured that the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with that teaching. “He is not recognized.” He has rejected the God-ordained authority of the Apostles. He is rejected. Have no more to do with him.
I observe this: Here is not the occasion to seek to minister to such a one in hopes that maybe you can bring him back around. For one thing, to come back would require that he had been in the camp of Truth originally. But, if he had been, he would be still. There would be no cause for this whole set to. If he is in fact counted among the elect, then even so, it is time for him to be turned over to Satan for his own disciplining. If he is in fact counted among the elect, then we can rest assured the time will come when he is safely back in the fold. But until such time, the safety of the fold is of paramount concern, and that safety requires that the shepherds adhere to the definitive authority of the revealed will of God – the text of Scripture rightly understood and rightly taught.
Dealing with the Contentious (10/21/18)
In verse 37, Paul has established his authority and declared the most basic test of those who claim to be exercising spiritual gifts: They acknowledge his authority and uphold it. In verse 38, he passes judgment on those claimants who do not uphold his authority. But, the phrasing is such as may give us some difficulty. You can see it in the variety of translation when it comes to this verse. The NASB chooses, “If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.” The NKJV offers, “If anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.” The NIV tries the middle road with, “If anyone ignores this, he will be ignored.” I don’t account any of these wrong, and might suggest that each of them expresses in part what Paul is saying.
The underlying concept is that of ignorance, to be sure. He lacks knowledge, for one reason or another. It could be an incapacity to understand. It could be lack of instruction. It could be an inclination to ignore and disregard instruction. Well, we can certainly rule out the second case, given that we have Paul’s instruction right here. There has been no lack in that department. As to capacity, I would have to suppose if they were claiming to be teachers in their own right, there had to be some capacity for understanding there, or they would simply have been laughed off. That leaves the third option: Willful ignorance. It is the willful aspect of it that renders it unworthy of further attention.
Ignorance due to incapacity we would sympathize with. Ignorance due to lack of instruction we would seek to instruct. That is, after all, the basics of evangelism, isn’t it? Think of the case of Apollos when Aquila and Prisca met him. He was ignorant of much that pertained to Christian faith, but he was not rejecting it. He was simply uninformed. So, they took him under their wings and informed him, and what a wonderful result! Paul, for all his violence to the fledgling Church, was found to be in the same condition, it seems. It wasn’t that he rejected the message. He just hadn’t really received it. So, Jesus took him under His wings and informed him, and again, what an entirely marvelous result!
Here is something quite different. It is willful ignorance, held to in the face of clear and authoritative teaching. They have heard the Truth, and chosen to ignore it because they are disinclined to abide by it. It is, as the JFB describes it, a desire to refuse recognition to Paul’s authority. That is the fundamental issue here. It’s not that Paul’s pride is wounded by their rejection. It’s that by rejecting his authority, they really are rejecting Truth, and taking their stand with antichrist. Disregard for Paul must encompass disregard for God’s ordering of His kingdom. Such disregard is an act of rebellion, an attempt on the throne by a usurper.
If I may offer a brief comment on current events, this same thing holds true with governments in the human realm. To insist on a disregard for the law of the land cannot be anything other than an attempt on the governing authority by a usurper. Whether this comes in the form of local governments ignoring national, or in the form of protests which refuse even the governance of common decency, it amounts to the same thing. Consider what we might deem the least of infractions, those involving how we drive. If the authorities either prove erratic in their enforcement of simple things like speed limits and stop signs, or if they decide not to heed them themselves, then in short order, driving becomes a case of every man for himself. I could simply say, “Welcome to Massachusetts.” If, on the other hand, there is a clear recognition and expectation on every driver’s part that failure to heed these laws of the road will be met with stiff fines and stiff punishment, oddly enough, one finds himself more inclined to heed the laws.
How this applies to larger issues is being put on display all around us. State after state has decided there is no reason to heed federal law in regard to various matters such as recreational drug use. The feds can’t be bothered to address the issue, apparently, so the rebellion spreads. Likewise, the issue of illegal immigration is openly, flagrantly disregarded by various municipalities, and seemingly without any sort of repercussions. This cannot long persist and the federal government continue to have any relevance. It is the beginnings of a national dissolution which must either be addressed or the consequences accepted. But, back to Corinth.
Now, how this willful ignorance plays out in the second clause is a bit of a question for us. Are they simply ignored? And if so, by whom? Well, in short, the answer to the first is yes. As to the second, it’s a bit ambiguous, but I think we could say, safely by all. One line of thought has it that it is God who ignores them, which may very well be the case, I suppose, at least so far as the impact is concerned. It becomes a case of God saying, “You have chosen. So be it.” I am more inclined to read it as referring to Paul, however. They have chosen to reject and oppose his teaching, and on the one hand, Paul is saying that given their doubting of the Apostolic word, ‘they must be left under the power of this ignorance’, as Matthew Henry writes. They are effectively setting themselves under church discipline by rejecting church authority.
Understand, again, that it is not Paul’s pride that is under attack. It is God’s authority, embodied in the Apostolic teaching as He has ordained it. We can take the next step and apply the same sense to present day church governance, at least so far as said governance itself adheres to Apostolic authority. The sum of the message, as Barnes proffers it, is that God’s authority has been demonstrated, and God’s instructions have been delivered. There is the summation of Paul’s efforts to date. God’s ambassador has done his part. Now it’s on you. If you choose to reject the law of God, then to God you must answer for it. That ought to be a most fearsome thing to contemplate.
The problem, you see, is that such people are never content to abide in their ignorance. They insist on spreading their doubts and discontent. They will couch it in the form of inquiry, taking inquiry as a pretense for contentious dispute. Such an attitude will not cease to argue until and unless the opponent concedes, be it out of agreement or merely a recognition of the futility of continuing. Paul’s effectively saying, “No mas! I can’t be wasting my limited time on such fruitless efforts.” You can hear this same advice in Paul’s instruction to Titus as he ministered in Crete. “Shun foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law; for they are unprofitable and worthless” (Ti 3:9). He’s not suggesting that discussions of doctrine and correcting of errors in understanding are worthless. No! Consider what he writes to his spiritual son Timothy. “Guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly empty chatter, and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called ‘knowledge’ – which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith” (1Ti 6:20-21). Where there is error amongst the faithful, loving correction is the answer. Where there is willful ignorance demonstrated in insistent debate and undermining of truth, correction cannot apply.
What to do? I am inclined to hear Paul saying that such as these can be safely ignored, but I don’t really think that’s the message. To simply ignore them is to let the poison of their false doctrine spread. Yet, to debate them is to do likewise. Yes, they must answer to God for their insistent opposition of His rule, but there are other sheep that ought rightly to have our concern. How are we to protect them from this one’s falsity? Well, dear shepherd, it is not by entering into debates with the rebel camp. Neither is it by heated denouncements. I must suggest that the correct course is to stand fast, and to calmly, consistently declare the true Gospel. Teach well, that the sheep may recognize the falsity of this rebel on their own. Demonstrate God’s authority, and your own determination to abide by it. Instruct in the Truth of God, and do so to your uttermost ability, that those who sit under that teaching may recognize the Truth of it and themselves determine to abide by it. The false teacher will find he has no audience here. He may find one elsewhere. God knows there are plenty of willing ears who will give him opportunity. They must be left to God’s discipline, and these usurping liars left to His judgment.
For your own part, heeding Calvin’s advice, don’t let their querulous inquiries diminish the authority of sound doctrine. I do seem to be stuck on this phrase: “Stand fast, young mule. Stand fast.”
Liberty and Worship (10/22/18)
When it comes to the worship of our orderly, peaceable God, we are granted a great degree of liberty. What we are not granted is absolute freedom. Some years back I arrived at a distinction between freedom and liberty in my understanding. I have come to describe liberty has the field of freedom around which the border fences are clearly to be seen. The freedom of the sheep in the presence of their shepherd is hardly absolute. If it were, his position would not exist, and he certainly would not have need of his rod and his staff to comfort and manage those sheep. They would be free to wander off wherever their noses led them, regardless of the dangers. They would be left utterly to their own devices. Much as we often act as if this were the case with us, it is not so. We are not given freedom in Christ such that we have become a law unto ourselves. We have been granted liberty. That liberty is sweet because its bounds are clearly identified. We see the fence. We see the expanse which the fence encloses, and we know that so long as we are in this field our safety is assured and our desire to follow our nose is not going to get us into trouble.
What brings this up at present is the pleasure of discovering Calvin using the same image in regards to worship. On this subject, he says, “The Lord has left external rites in our choice with this view – that we may not think that his worship consists in these things.” But, observe: It is not, as he describes it, unbridled liberty. It is not absolute freedom. The range of choices given to us for worship are depicted as a field with boundary fences. This is not to present us with an unwanted hardship, nor is it simply for the sake of God reminding us who’s in charge. It is for our comfort. Within these bounds we know we can range freely and still be found pleasing to God. Beyond these bounds, we transgress. We know our limits and our liberty, because the one defines the other.
Understand, then, that there is indeed a distinction to be made between freedom and liberty. There is likewise a great distinction to be found between tyrannical edict and godly regulation. The anarchy of pure freedom is to be rejected, as is the tyranny of absolutism. But, this does not leave us without regulation. It simply removes the detritus of our fallen nature from the picture, and leaves us with that godly regulation which upholds principles of decency and order. These may appear to us to be no more than human traditions, but those traditions, while not binding law, are nothing to be dismissed out of hand. They may very well be markers defining the boundaries on our field of worship.
This is something we do well to remember when we encounter those who wish to promote some new and novel approach to worship, whether it’s a change of days, a new requirement on attire, or an elimination of any requirement. It should be a center of our attention when we consider matters such as how baptism is to be approached, how often communion ought to be served, and by whom. It should be our focus as we consider matters of women’s roles in worship, what sort of music we present as worship music, and the content of its words. Even such matters as may seem more trivial to us, or simply outside the realm of our considerations ought really to be considered in light of the boundaries established by tradition. Do we introduce incense, periods of silent mediation, and so on? If the suggested change has no body of tradition behind it whatsoever, at this late stage of things, we ought certainly to eye with greater caution.
This is not to say that tradition is our sure guide to matters of worship. No, Scripture is our sure guide here, as elsewhere. But, to the degree the traditions we consider are the product of faithful believers, pursuing a worship that is decent and in order, we may well find that these prior expressions of good sense serve well to restrain our own proclivities for excess and disorder. Cast your eyes back across what Paul has been saying in these last several chapters. Repeatedly, we see his appeal to the practice of ‘all the churches’. If you look around the landscape of current Christian practice and discover that you are alone in your practices, yes, it’s possible – at least theoretically possible – that you alone have been left as a proper church in the present day. It seems far more likely, however, that any such assessment on your part is as wrong as it was for Elijah as he hid away from Ahab’s machinations.
Do not, then, consider yourself bound by traditions. But, you do well to be bounded by them.
The Nature of Worship (10/22/18)
It is intriguing to discover that Paul is once more drawing on military imagery in his description of how church should be done. We could, I suppose, write that off as simply being the imagery most readily at hand to his experience and that of his readers, but I think there’s more to it. When he instructs us to do all things in an orderly manner, it is the Greek phrase kata taxin. This, as Barnes points out, is an image of the army drawn up in ranks. If ever there was a place where freedom was bounded about, this would be it! Arguably, both freedom and liberty have been removed. But, in reality it is not so. The soldier still has a great deal of liberty in the midst of battle, to carry the fight forward as best fits the circumstances around him. But, he is also tightly bounded about in that field of battle. He is bounded by the commands of the trumpet. He is bounded by concerns for his fellow soldiers, those in the ranks to either side. He is bounded, most assuredly, by the urge to survive this battle.
But, in fairness, it is that moment before battle that is in view. I have to think that there was little which was better formed to strike terror into the enemy than the sight of the Roman army drawn up in its ranks, each man in perfect order, each shield at the fore locked with that of the men to either side, that wall of metal bristling with the points of spear and javelin. This was not a rag tag militia, this was a military machine.
Welcome to church! Church is not a rag tag presentation of strays, where it is appropriate to shout “Every man for himself!” It is a worship machine. It is not that the significance of the individual is denied in worship. It is that the significance of all, when set over against the majesty of God, is rightly recognized. It is on this head that Paul instructs us that everything is to be done properly, decently. God is orderly. His people must be likewise. Think about that first arrangement of the tribes as they departed Israel. Every encampment and every departure was an exceedingly orderly arrangement. It was, in point of fact, the same orderly setting of the army in its ranks as Paul describes here. Each tribe had its position and its duties clearly established. Whether it was in worship, in camp, or in travel, each tribe knew its proper place and its proper actions.
What we learn is that decency in church-related arrangements is our best security as we consider Christian liberty. We may go further with this assessment. Hear Matthew Henry, for example. “Manifest indecencies and disorders are to be carefully kept out of all Christian churches, and every part of divine worship.” Now, that may point us back to the greater offenses addressed earlier on, such as tolerating sexual deviancy or mixing Christian worship with pagan idolatries. Those would certainly count as ‘manifest indecencies’, but disorders are, as we might consider, lesser matters. This gets nearer the immediate issues addressed in the last few chapters, matters of how worship is done. Can you imagine a church that thought it sensible to have the pastor preach while the worship team continued to belt out songs of praise and worship? Who could focus on either? Yet, the situation in Corinth was not far removed from this, as it would seem.
So, we concur with Clarke (and pretty much everybody else) when he advises that where this concluding summary instruction is ignored, there can be no worship. I will push it harder. Where there is a disregard for decent, orderly pursuit of the matter, there is no act of worship. Whatever is going on there, it is not the worship of God.
Let me present a bit more of Clarke’s position, which again, is very little different from what is said pretty much universally by all our commentators. “Everything in the church of God should be conducted with gravity and composure, suitable to the importance of the things, the infinite dignity of the object of worship, and the necessity of the souls in behalf of which those religious ordinances are instituted.”
It’s an interesting bit of providential arrangement that this morning’s Table Talkdevotional was commenting on our American tendency toward a more relaxed sense of propriety. We are less rigid in our relationships in professional settings. Whereas managers and workers were rarely found to socialize in past ages and societies, here it is almost the norm. Whereas prior ages would have fairly formal arrangements for suitors seeking a young woman’s hand in marriage, now parental involvement in the process is negligible, and parental consent hardly even a thought. As the devotional pointed out, this infects our approach to worship. We come to view God in Christ as our buddy, our equal partner, rather than the awesome ruler of all Creation. We come to party with God, rather than to bow our hearts in holy reverence and proper fear for the One who can destroy both body and soul. No, we are not called to come cringe before our Maker. But, neither have we come to slap Him on the back in jovial comradery. He remains our sovereign Lord, and we His bondservants. It would be well for us to keep that in mind. It would be well for those of us given charge of maintaining order in His house to likewise keep that in mind, and to shepherd His sheep accordingly.
Gifts in Order (10/23/18)
Well, here I am: The end of the discussion on spiritual gifts, which was, after all, the primary reason I had in view for pursuing the study of this particular text. What have I heard? What have I learned? In many cases, I have seen my understanding confirmed. In others, I have seen it challenged and even shifted a bit. As I consider what Paul has written, I pray I might have my focus where he has his. For example, as I have repeatedly observed, I see that Paul does not anywhere urge his readers to seek to be apostles, or pursue the apostolic gift. There’s a reason for that, and the simple reason is that said gift was not available, nor the office of such a nature as could lead a man to aspire to it.
This whole section has been a lengthy argument explaining the proper valuation of spiritual gifts as well as their proper use. Their value lies in their capacity to edify others, for that is their intended purpose. On that basis, Paul has just demonstrated the prime value of prophecy, declaring it not so much the chiefest gift, but the chiefest to which one might aspire. Desire this. Desire this ardently, yet don’t set so high a value on it that you despise other gifts. Desire it on this basis: That you might be more effective in edifying your fellow believers and aiding their growth. It’s not about you. It never was. It’s not about promotion or demonstrating your superior spirituality. It’s about being an effective bondservant of Christ, and the effective bondservant of Christ cannot operate out of pride. He must operate out of love.
The sum is that prophecy, certainly at the time of Paul’s writing, and I maintain still today, is the best and most desirable gift available to the believer. That said, there is a counterbalancing message, contained particularly in this closing section: Don’t put on airs. Don’t seek to lay claim to a greater inspiration than is yours. Remain wary of that urge to insist that you speak what the Lord says – unless, of course, you are actually quoting Scripture. This is no holiness on display. It is pride. It is pure, unadulterated pride that leads one to take their every thought and opinion and seek to give it the weight of having come direct from God. It’s the utmost hubris, and such hubris is ever a dangerous thing to play with before a holy God.
If, in point of truth, you have been inspired by His Spirit, then as we have it written here, recognize that this of necessity means you will recognize the authority of Paul, the authority of Scripture. If your inspiration has you spouting things that run counter to that text, then your inspiration is no holy thing. It is a spiritual power that ought rightly to be tested, and having been tested, be most thoroughly rejected. Not every spirit is from God (1Jn 4:1). Learn to recognize the spirit of error when it comes masquerading as the spirit of truth. Don’t suppose, either, that the mere fact of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit is your assurance that you will never hear a lying spirit, nor fall for its lies. Remember that John was writing to the Church, to believers who could assuredly lay claim to that same indwelt state, and do so with assurance. Yet, the liar remains, and our ears are all too ready to hear the lie.
Neither expect the falsity to be presented in so obvious a form as to lead to instant rejection. Your enemy is a clever sort. He knows to couch his lies amidst a field of truth, to veer but slightly from the Way, lest you note the deviation and resist. He comes with subtlety. “For even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their deeds” (2Co 11:14-15). Don’t be deceived. Be transformed by the renewing of your mind. That’s not a call to seek some sort of supernatural experience that renders one somehow more than human. It’s much more the case that this renewing begins with a clear recognition that you are in fact far less than human should be. This comes joined to a recognition of just how holy a God it is with Whom we have to do. Seek, then, that which best fulfills His purposes in you. Seek to be the best servant you can be, and let that be enough, more than enough.
Now, while Paul lays the gift of tongues at the bottom of his ranking, he does not, I must observe, dismiss it outright. Rather, he grants it credence. “I speak in tongues more than you all” (1Co 14:18). That’s not a rejection of the gift, but a confirmation. The issue is not a false gift. The issue is a gift misused, and even abused. Those of us who would insist that these gifts have no place in the church have really got a rather serious problem presented to us by this passage. “Do not forbid to speak in tongues.” This comes on the heels of Paul reasserting his authority. If you are spiritual, then you know that what I write has the full weight of the Lord’s commandment. What I command is the Lord’s commandment. Well, spiritual one: Here’s the commandment: Don’t forbid tongues. That’s the wrong response. It’s natural enough. We see disorder, and we see this as a cause of that disorder. How, then, shall we restore order? The first response of mankind is: Forbid the thing that’s causing trouble.
Don’t we see this play out in all aspects of life? Consider the majority of laws and regulations that we enact. Why is the speed limit set where it is? Well, it used to be faster, but some number of fatalities transpired. What to do? For, surely we must do something! Well, the easiest answer is to forbid one and all from driving so fast. Perhaps, in the present climate, we should forbid them driving at all, and leave it to the automated cars. Because, we all know automation systems never fail, right? Right? Oh. We see it with matters as serious as weapons possession. Somebody went on a killing spree, and the government feels it must respond. So, what to do? Do we seek to understand and address root causes? No. That takes too long, and doesn’t look enough like we recognize the seriousness of the situation. So, let’s ban guns for everybody. Never mind that the majority of the wrongs we seek to right are actions taken by people who have already demonstrated a disregard for the law. We see it in little things, as well, in children’s toys. Somewhere, over the course of some period of time, some miniscule number of individual children, for whatever reasons, managed to injure themselves on this toy. Therefore, none may have this toy.
Do you recall Jarts, those giant lawn darts of days past? Why don’t they exist any longer? Oh… They’re dangerous! Somebody could stand in the way of that thing and get stabbed by it. Well, yes, that’s true. Of course, that same somebody could as readily stand in the way of a horseshoe and suffer the consequences. Or, (don’t ask me how I would know this), he could simply drop a pitchfork and discover that it makes a surprisingly angular hole in one’s foot. Short answer: You can’t protect against every possible accident, nor should you. The answer is not found in forbidding everything you can come up with to forbid. The answer is to edify those who might be using such things. Disciple your children in the safe use of their toys, and their toys will present no danger to them. Spend more time teaching them, and less time coddling them.
OK, so a bit of a diversion there, but the point remains that in the Church, gifts suffer a similar urge to regulate out of existence. Paul does not command any such action. Indeed, his command is directly to the contrary: DO NOT FORBID. That’s the lazy answer. Don’t forbid. Manage. Edify the tongue talker, that he may use his gift as it was designed to be used, for purposes befitting the gift. “Let every gift have its own place and operation,” as Clarke amplifies the message. Now, granted, his view is that we’re discussing envy here; i.e. tongues had gained ascendency here because it was deemed the rarer, more spectacular gift, and as such, those with less exhilarating gifts such as prophecy were ready to toss it in pursuit of this fancier thing. And, yes, I think that’s part of what was happening, but that really hasn’t been the focus, has it? The focus has been how to rightly assess and rightly deploy. The command, then, is a stopper against over-reacting. Don’t forbid. Edify.
Looking more at that command, we have something for those more inclined towards gifts: The command is not to prophesy, nor even the suggestion that it would be wise if everybody could. It might be. But, then, if it were, I think we could rest comfortably in the assurance that God would make it so. At any rate, it’s hardly our place to insist on a gift, and it’s certainly not our place to insist we have one which in fact we don’t. No, the command is to desire that you might prophesy. Leave the granting to God. It’s His prerogative anyway, and to fall into demanding gifts from Him is to fall into a most perilous place. It sets you right back under verse 38, I think: If he insists on willful ignorance, let him remain ignorant. Let him answer to God for his folly.
So, then, one thing we assuredly cannot find in this letter is a call to reject the pneumatikos, not in whole, not in part. Nowhere is Paul saying to knock it off. He’s commanding that they set things in proper order, and teaching them to first recognize that order, and second to correct their value system. Prioritize correctly. If you are given gifts, praise God for them, and use them correctly. Recognize that their correct use always seeks your fellow believers’ best interests. Their correct use always upholds the Apostolic Word. Their correct use always promotes peaceable order in the house of God, even as it turns to those outside the house, seeking those whom God is calling to Himself.
There is so much more that could be written on this topic. I admit that there is something in me that suggests that I should launch off on a lengthy sidebar at this point, to seek to synthesize and summarize all that I have learned (hopefully) over the last few years of looking at this text. But, there is a larger part of me that grows anxious to move on. Under the circumstances, while I have little cause to doubt I’ll be revisiting this matter over and over again, I am going to proceed into the next chapter.
May the Lord be so gracious as to seal to me those things I have learned aright, and to aid my vision that I may correct those things I have gotten wrong. Lord, You know my every need, my every concern, my every weakness. I lay them in Your hands, and ask that You guide me, whether in guiding Your Church or caring for Your child here at home. Grant that I may speak as You would have me speak, that I would be bold where You call for boldness, and meek where You desire meekness. Let Your Love indeed be my motive strength in all things, that in all things I might more fully represent Your kingdom.
