These letters are known as the Pastoral Letters. (Pastor came into English from Latin pastor, “shepherd.”) They are addressed not to congregations, but to individuals who are themselves ministering to congregations. Full of counsel, less of doctrine.

And here, like Hebrews, most scholars are convinced that Paul didn’t write them. Why? The following is summarized from the conservative Protestant Word Biblical Commentary volume on the Pastorals by eminent Greek teacher William Mounce. (See his blog here.) There are several problems.

1. A Historical Problem– These don’t seem to fit into Acts, and also seems to assume a fairly well-developed Church structure.
2. A Theogical Problem– Some of the themes and approaches of the Pastorals run directly counter to other letters known with a high degree of certainty to be Paul’s. In other cases, they assume a good degree of doctrinal development and “orthodoxy”, both of which require time and stabilization to develop.
3. A Linguistic Problem– The style and vocabulary is quite different than the other letters. At times, the same words are used, but in very different ways. At other times, rare but significant words are used that don’t appear in his other letters. In some cases, the vocabulary seems to match a 2nd century Greek vocabulary, not a 1st century as it should.

Each of these problems depends upon limited data, certain assumptions, and methodologies, but taken together, they are a problem. Three general responses exist (still summarizing from the WBC.)

1. The pastorals were written by someone in the early 2nd century, which rules out Paul. This would make them pseudepigraphal, written in Paul’s name, but not by him. In theory, I have no problem with this.
2. The pastorals were written by an amanuensis, that is, someone (or a group or school) working under Paul to write the letter, using their own phrasing, style, vocabulary, etc. I have no problem with this either.
3. In the 2nd century, fragments of Paul’s genuine letters that have not survived were edited and rewritten together, “in an attempt to preserve the fragments and make Paul’s message relevant to a later church.” WBC, cxviii. I don’t have a problem with this either.

Note that none of the solutions is “well, Paul REALLY did write them anyway.” It’s just something we have to wrestle with. Is it possible? Perhaps.  Purely for ease, I’m going to call the author Paul even though I’m inclined to think Paul didn’t write them directly (I like the amanuensis view). But on to more important things.

First, note Julie Smith’s important comments on a few bits of today’s chapters. Julie has a MA in NT, is authoring the BYU NT Commentary on Mark, and knows what she’s talking about.

Second, since there’s no real overarching them to these letters, it’s hard to find A Big Picture to focus on.

Timothy (or Tim, as some call him) gets mentioned a lot: Rom 16:21, 1Co 4:17, 2Co 1:1, Phi 1:1, Col 1:1, 1Th 1:1, Phm 1:1…

Who is this Timothy guy?

According to Acts Timothy was a native of Lystra in Asia Minor (Act 16:1, 2), the son of a Jewish woman and a Greek father (16:1). Because of the matrilineal principle of descent, Timothy would have been considered a Jew, although the applicability of this principle in the 1st-century Diaspora has been questioned…. The author of 2 Timothy, preserving what is probably historically reliable tradition, names his mother as Eunice and his grandmother as Lois, both of whom are described as Christian believers (Act 1:5). Timothy’s mother did not have him circumcised (Act 16:3). This together with her marriage to a (nonbelieving?) gentile suggests that Timothy, living in the Diaspora, did not grow up in a pious or strictly observant Jewish home (although see 2Ti 3:15).- Anchor Bible Dictionary”

1Ti 2:9 What does “modest” mean here, as Paul elaborates on it? It’s not showing too much leg, nor have anything to do with chastity. (We’ve recently made “modesty” very narrow, and all about sexuality.) Rather, it seems to have more in common with the Book of Mormon’s warnings about “costly apparel.”

1Ti 3:1ff Qualifications of Bishops and Deacons-

Deacon– Gr. diakonos means “someone who serves, waits tables, ministers” e.g. Mat 4:11, 8:15, 20:26, 20:28, Mar 9:35, 15:41, John 2:5, Act 1:17 (“ministry”), Act 6:1 (“distribution”). It’s a generic term that takes on specific meaning within the early Christian Church, as it was a secondary, assistive role, and “may parallel the role of the assistant (חַזָּן, chazzan) of the synagogue”- “Deacon,”  The Lexham Bible Dictionary. (This is a free resources for Logos users; you get the engine/software for free, but books/packages cost.)

LDS deacons tend to giggle at 1Ti 3:12, but it shows that deacons were married men. Today among LDS, “deacon” is synonymous with “tie-askew awkward pre-teen male.” It has not always been so in the LDS church. In the early decades of the church, there was no set age or progression for Melchizedek or Aaronic offices. (And note that in the NT, there’s no mention of priesthood connected to the office of deacon, let alone distinctions of Melch. vs. Aaron.) For a variety of practical reasons, these offices in the LDS Church were shifted from grown and older men to younger men, as BYU Prof. William Hartley’s title implies, “From Men to Boys: LDS Aaronic Priesthood Offices, 1929-1996,” Journal of Mormon History. It’s a fantastic article.

Bishops– This word is an anglicization of Greek episkopos, which quite literally means “overseer.” (If broken up into parts, epi+skopos, the latter is what gives us all our -scope words in English, like telescope, microscope, etc.) Bibles like the ESV, NET, and NIV actually translate as “overseer.”

Among the other qualifications, it says a Bishop must be “the husband of one wife.” Does this mean, not polygamous? Does it mean married-but-not-divorced? Only married once? I mentioned William Mounce above. He takes a look at this passage here, and offers that “1 Tim 3:2 is a confusing text, and whatever it says, it does not say it clearly.” This goes to show that learning Biblical languages does not solve all problems, as Kevin Barney has talked about here.

1Ti 4:13- Since there are no personal copies of the scriptures (far too expensive, far too little literacy), this must refer to a public reading in a congregation of the Hebrew Bible (probably in Greek translatin), and NRSV, NIV, and others translate that way.

1Ti 5:23 Drink wine, for health reasons. This was indeed wine, not grape juice. If not so, then there was no point in Paul specifying to Timothy that Bishops should not be “drunkards” in 1Ti 3:3. Wine was something everyone drank… but not to excess.

1Ti 6:4 Note in 1Ti 6:4 NET, this is translated as “an unhealthy interest in controversies.” I’ve known people like that. They’re not well-grounded in scriptures or the basics of the Gospel, but really want to get into speculative out-there doctrinal discussions.  On a different note, Joseph Smith said, “be careful in speaking on those subjects which are not clearly pointed out in the word of God, which lead to speculation and strife.” –Words of Joseph Smith, p.16

2Ti 3:1 The scriptures sometimes speak of “the last days” (as here) or “the latter days” (Num 24:14, etc.) These aren’t what they appear on the surface, namley, prophecies of our day today. Let me give two perspectives. In Hebrew idiom, this phrase simply meant “in the future.” Way back in Gen 49:1, the first of the patriarchal blessings, Israel says to his sons, “Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.” Other translations opt for the less-apocalyptic “in the days to come” (JPS, NASB, ESV, TNIV, NRSV) or “in the future” (NET). The JPS Torah Commentary here draws on the cognate phrase,

its Akkadian counterpart ina aḫrat ume, means simply “in the future,” without precise definition. In the Torah the phrase is used in a context of historical time, but in prophetic literature the phrase became a technical term for the “end-time” (eschaton), when the historical process would reach its culmination and God’s grand design for the human race would be fulfilled.”

So it does take on some more apocalyptic tone later on, but still means “in the future.”

The other view, held by the early Christians, was that “the last days”, the end-time, the new world, began with the resurrection of Jesus. In that sense, we’ve been in “the last days” for the last 2000 years, and I anticipate at least several hundred more.

2Ti 3:15-16 “Scriptures” throughout the entire New Testament refers only to the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, mainly because the writings of the New Testament didn’t exist yet, or weren’t canonized. The early Christians accessed their scriptures in translation, because they mostly didn’t know Hebrew. For them, the Greek translation simply *was* the Bible. See the recent When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible.

Lastly, as always, you can support this site and my research by making Amazon purchases through this link, or the Support My Research links at the bottom of the About page. You can get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box on the right). If you friend me on Facebook, please drop me a note telling me you’re a reader.

First of all, I’ve made a Facebook page for Benjamin the Scribe. I’m not sure what one does with such pages, but feel free to become a fan there.

Second, I’m hunkering down to finish my Genesis book, in preparation for something new and big, that I hope to be able to announce in December, if all goes well. Fingers crossed.

Third, a bunch of the New Testament books by N.T. Wright are for sale on Kindle right now, as part of a larger sale by Fortress Press which includes books by Wright, Brueggemann, Bonhoeffer (mentioned in General Conference!), and others.

Fourth, since I’m making announcements, here’s my usual plug for supporting my research by making your Amazon purchases through this link.

The chapters today are Paul’s final travels, ending in Rome. Indeed, it reads a bit like a travelogue, as Paul returns to Jerusalem, and then travels under Roman custody by stages to Rome.

One thing of note, although we’ve seen them before in chapter 16, is that pronoun “we”, which starts immediately in 21:1.

“The surprising shift to the first-person plural (16:10) introduces the first of four “we” passages in Acts (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16). These intriguing references may signify that the author of these sections here joins Paul’s entourage and thus writes from the perspective of an eyewitness. By extension, this same traveling companion may very well have written the entire book, enhancing his overall credibility by subtle, occasional references to what he saw and experienced personally. Or, these sections may be travel diaries from an unnamed traveling companion, employed by the author, though loosely edited. Tradition has seen behind the “we” a reference to “Luke the physician,” elsewhere mentioned as Paul’s companion during his imprisonments (Col. 4:14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11). The change may be purely stylistic, however, yielding no concrete historical information either about Paul’s traveling companions, eyewitnesses to these events, or the authorship of these sections and the book as a whole.”- Harper’s Bible Commentary (Harper’s is a 1-volume commentary.)

For the rest, I’ll focus on Paul and Jerusalem.

First, note in Act 21:11, that there are still prophets, receiving revelation, and teaching it via symbolic acts, which happens in the Old Testament often. Agabus does not appear to be hold any office, and indeed, prophet is not a formal office. He’s just spiritually in tune. Earlier in Acts, he had prophesied a famine (Acts 11:27-30) and now he warns Paul about what will happen to him if he goes… but he goes anyway.

Once in Jerusalem, Paul visits James, in particular.  (This is probably James, Jesus’ brother, who led the Jerusalem Church,  not James John’s brother, son of Zebedee.) We learn that many Jews are believers in Jesus, but embrace the law (21:20). Paul’s rep in Jerusalem is that he’s a traitor, that he preaches against the Temple and Torah. So again, let’s split some hairs. Paul joins four men who have taken a Nazarite vow, which they end by shaving their heads. (See Numbers 6.) Paul’s preaching has been that Torah observance is not the means to salvation, and that non-Jewish converts to Christianity don’t need to keep most of it (but note Gentile converts “should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication”) …. but should Jews who accept Jesus keep the Torah? The answer, at least here, seems to be “yes, they should.”

This is what concerns those who are ‘zealous for the law’ (v. 20; cf. ACTS 5:17), and it is not a problem about the past (are Jewish Christians saved by the law?) but about the future (should Jewish Christians go on keeping the law?): as so often, it is in the rituals surrounding the birth of children that crucial questions of identity crystallize. James suggests that Paul should demonstrate publicly that he himself remains an observant Jew by sponsoring and joining four men who are going through the procedures of a nazirite vow (vv. 23–4), and he agrees to do this (v. 26; cf. 18:18). The same issue arises here as over the cirumcision of Timothy (see ACTS 16:1–5): is this action unthinkable for the Paul of the epistles (as some have suggested) or does it fall under the rubric of being ‘all things to all people’ (1 Cor 9:22)?- Oxford Bible Commentary.

So Paul goes into the temple, a riot breaks out, and Roman soldiers show up almost instantly. Good times.

How and why does this happen?

First, the Jerusalem temple complex made by Herod was huge. Massive. You really can’t tell how massive until you’re there, dwarfed by an 80-ton ashlar. Then you realize the walls are made of hundreds of these. The disciples were rightly astonished when Jesus talked about “all these stones” being thrown down.

not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down…

Second, remember that in the New Testament, “temple” translates two different words. One refers to the entire temple complex, the other to a much smaller, holier subset of that complex.

From Logos/Faithlife.

Right outside the naos, the temple proper,  in the Gentiles Courtyard was a small wall, about 5 feet high, the soreg wall or wall of separation between Jew and non-Jew. (This is probably what dividing wall Christ has torn down in Eph 2:14.) At regular intervals, it had carved signs in Greek, saying, in essence “Any non-Israelite who crosses this line shall bear the responsibility for his own death.” Only Israelites could proceed past this wall. This was the one Jewish law involving capital punishment where Rome had delegated their power. That is, a Gentile who crossed this wall could be put to death without having to get Rome’s permission.

A complete plaque was discovered in the late 1800s, and a fragment later, see the pics here on the left.

Paul is recognized as that traitor preaching against Torah in the company of Gentiles, and suspicion that he has brought a Gentile inside the soreg wall escalates quickly into a riot.

In the pic above, on the NW corner of the temple was a roman fortress with a stairway down into the court of the Gentiles. Romans knew that if there was another Judean revolt, it would start there. So when they see a riot in the temple, down the soldiers go, and grab Paul… who turns out not to be that revolutionary Egyptian, but a fluent speaker of Greek, who wishes to address the crowd, which he does. (“There’s been a riot about me. Guess I’ll bear my testimony.”Ok Paul.) The Romans decide to beat out of him the reason for the riot, and he coyly asks why they’re beating a citizen, which puts real fear into them. The law applied differently to slaves, freemen, and citizens, and they were in real trouble. Paul eventually appeals to Casear, and off to Rome he goes.

Lastly, as always, you can support this site and my research by making Amazon purchases through this link, or the Support My Research links at the bottom of the About page. You can get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box on the right). If you friend me on Facebook, please drop me a note telling me you’re a reader.

I’ll be speaking tomorrow morning on BYU campus, as part of the conference of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology. The full schedule is here.

My title is “Faith and Perfect Knowledge: Parsing Alma and the Hebrew Lexicon.” I look at an Israelite conception of “faith” which has strong overtones of certainty as a background of Alma 32. Does Alma share this conception, that faith borders on certainty? If not, what does Alma mean by “faith” and what is its relationship to “perfect knowledge”?

I wrote an early post with a paraphrase of Alma 32 and some notes on it here at Times&Seasons.

I’ll put up the post on Acts 21-28 tomorrow afternoon.

Lastly, as always, you can support this site and my research by making Amazon purchases through this link, or the Support My Research links at the bottom of the About page. You can get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box on the right). If you friend me on Facebook, please drop me a note telling me you’re a reader.

2 Corinthians constitutes the first preserved “sequel” in Paul’s letters.  In fact, Paul wrote three or possibly four letters to Corinth. Some scholars speculate 2 Corinthians is actually an edited copy of two letters smushed together, based on differing tone and structure. (There’s a break in 2:14 that picks back up in 7:5). In fact, the whole thing is a bit confused. This is one of those letters that emphasizes the fact that we get only one side of the conversation, and have have to muddle through in trying to piece it together. We know Paul’s travel plans to revisit Corinth had changed, that something or things significant had happened since the last time he had written. Let’s look at a few things about the entirety of the letter, then some specifics. Continue reading

The latter half of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians has a definite flow and organization to it. While our tendency is to zoom in on a single verse or even sentence, sometimes we miss the forest for the trees. So, start with an overview and then we’ll zoom in a little.

We pick up Paul in chapter 11, where he regulates some issues about how the community should function, both relating to gender and the Lord’s Supper, which we call “the sacrament.” Then he moves on to a potentially more destructive issue, namely, the Corinthian saints are highly competitive and trying to one-up each other, but with spiritual gifts. Who is the most blessed? Who is the most spiritually in tune? (This is not terribly unusual. The Apostles themselves had argued about which of them “was the greatest” and even asked Jesus to settle the matter- Luke 9:46, 22:24, Matt 18:1)

For whatever reason, the Corinthians decided that the highest manifestation of spiritual gifts is speaking in tongues; not in known languages (like missionaries), but unknown languages. Consequently, their meetings appear to be disproportionately filled by babbling in sounds that no one understands.

Paul’s response is brilliant. First, he points out why speaking in tongues isn’t worth much unless someone also interprets. Second, he tries to equalize the spiritual gifts somewhat by introducing the body of Christ metaphor. A body needs feet as well as hands, eyes as well as ears. If everyone does the same thing, the body can’t function. Third and most brilliantly, Paul harnesses their competitive nature for good, by saying in essence, “Fine. You want to compete? Love (KJV “charity”) is the highest spiritual gift.  Why don’t you see who can best embody charity instead of speaking in tongues?”

Lastly, Paul turns to the important issue of a physical resurrection. The crux is in 15:12, “Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1Co 15:12 NET) He makes several arguments here, beginning with Jesus resurrection, moving on to one of the rare New Testament mentions of Adam, and the otherwise cryptic reference to baptism for the dead. If there’s no real afterlife, what’s would be the point of baptism for the dead?

That’s the overview.

Tidbits, trees, and details–

11:1-16 Men, women, long hair, “nature”, and other weird stuff

Paul says several confusing things to us, likely due to operating out of a very different cultural mindset. Basically, the ancient view of physiology underlies part of his statements here. If you’re interest, see this technical article in Journal of Biblical Literature. LINK

Long hair is tied to two other confusing things: head coverings and the question of what women could or should be doing in Church.

Taking the latter question first, 1Co 14:34 (NRSV) says “women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says.” Two points- This passage seems a bit out of place, and if you remove it, the text flows nicely. Some scholars think it’s a later interpolation, while others think it’s original. Second, if it is original, however we understand this passage in light of  1Co 11, where Paul specifies that women who pray and prophesy in church must do so with covered heads. The clear implication is that women are praying and prophesying in church, and Paul thinks that’s perfectly fine,  which means, at minimum (and if original) the silence of 14:34 is not absolute.

But what about the other aspect, “head,” head coverings/veils/hair? Frankly, the whole thing is puzzling. Says NT Wright

I have to admit that I didn’t understand this passage [in the past], and I’m not sure I’ve understood it yet. But I think we can see the main point Paul wanted to make, even if the reasons why he’s put it like this may still be puzzling.
Paul wasn’t, of course, addressing the social issues we know in our world. Visit a different culture, even today, and you will discover many subtle assumptions, pressures and constraints in society, some of which appear in the way people dress and wear their hair. In Western culture, a man wouldn’t go to a dinner party wearing a bathing suit, nor would a woman attend a beach picnic wearing a wedding dress. Most Western churches have stopped putting pressure on women to wear hats in church (Western-style hats, in any case, were not what Paul was writing about here), but nobody thinks it odd that we are still strict about men not wearing hats in church.
In Paul’s day (as, in many ways, in ours), gender was marked by hair and clothing styles. We can tell from statues, vase paintings and other artwork of the period how this worked out in practice. There was social pressure to maintain appropriate distinctions. But did not Paul himself teach that there was ‘no male and female, because you are all one in the Messiah’ (Galatians 3:28)? Perhaps, indeed, that was one of the ‘traditions’ that he had taught the Corinthian church, who needed to know that Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female were all equally welcome, equally valued, in the renewed people of God. Perhaps that had actually created the situation he is addressing here; perhaps some of the Corinthian women had been taking him literally, so that when they prayed or prophesied aloud in church meetings (which Paul assumes they will do regularly; this tells us something about how to understand 14:34–35) they had decided to remove their normal headcovering, perhaps also unbraiding their hair, to show that in the Messiah they were free from the normal social conventions by which men and women were distinguished.

That’s a lot of ‘perhaps’es. We can only guess at the dynamics of the situation—which is of course what historians always do. It’s just that here we are feeling our way in the dark more than usual. But, perhaps to the Corinthians’ surprise, Paul doesn’t congratulate the women on this new expression of freedom. He insists on maintaining gender differentiation during worship.

Another dimension to the problem may well be that in the Corinth of his day the only women who appeared in public without some kind of headcovering were prostitutes. This isn’t suggested directly here, but it may have been in the back of his mind. If the watching world discovered that the Christians were having meetings where women ‘let their hair down’ in this fashion, it could have the same effect on their reputation as it would in the modern West if someone looked into a church and found the women all wearing bikinis.
The trouble is, of course, that Paul doesn’t say exactly this, and we run the risk of ‘explaining’ him in terms that might (perhaps) make sense to us while ignoring what he himself says. It’s tempting to do that, precisely because in today’s Western world we don’t like the implications of the differentiation he maintains in verse 3: the Messiah is the ‘head’ of every man, a husband is the ‘head’ of every woman, and the ‘head’ of the Messiah is God. This seems to place man in a position of exactly that assumed superiority against which women have rebelled, often using Galatians 3:28 as their battle-cry.

But what does Paul mean by ‘head’? He uses it here sometimes in a metaphorical sense, as in verse 3, and sometimes literally, as when he’s talking about what to do with actual human heads (verses 4–7 and 10). But the word he uses can mean various different things; and a good case can be made out for saying that in verse 3 he is referring not to ‘headship’ in the sense of sovereignty, but to ‘headship’ in the sense of ‘source’, like the ‘source’ or ‘head’ of a river. In fact, in some of the key passages where he explains what he’s saying (verses 8, 9 and 12a) he is referring explicitly to the creation story in Genesis 2, where woman was made from the side of man.

The underlying point then seems to be that in worship it is important for both men and women to be their truly created selves, to honour God by being what they are and not blurring the lines by pretending to be something else. One of the unspoken clues to this passage may be Paul’s assumption that in worship the creation is being restored, or perhaps that in worship we are anticipating its eventual restoration (15:27–28). God made humans male and female, and gave them ‘authority’ over the world, as Ben Sirach 17:3 puts it, summarizing Genesis 1:26–28 and echoing Psalm 8:4–8 (Ben Sirach was p 142 written around 200 BC). And if humans are to reclaim this authority over the world, this will come about as they worship the true God, as they pray and prophesy in his name, and are renewed in his image, in being what they were made to be, in celebrating the genders God has given them.
If this is Paul’s meaning, the critical move he makes is to argue that a man dishonours his head by covering it in worship and that a woman dishonours hers by not covering it. He argues this mainly from the basis that creation itself tends to give men shorter hair and women longer (verses 5–6, 13–15); the fact that some cultures, and some people, offer apparent exceptions would probably not have worried him. His main point is that in worship men should follow the dress and hair codes which proclaim them to be male, and women the codes which proclaim them to be female.

Why then does he say that a woman ‘must have authority on her head because of the angels’ (verse 10)? This is one of the most puzzling verses in a puzzling passage, but there is help of sorts in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There it is assumed that when God’s people meet for worship, the angels are there too (as many liturgies, and theologians, still affirm).
For the Scrolls, this means that the angels, being holy, must not be offended by any appearance of unholiness among the congregation. Paul shares the assumption that the angels are worshipping along with the humans, but may be making a different point.
When humans are renewed in the Messiah and raised from the dead, they will be set in authority over the angels (6:3). In worship, the church anticipates how things are going to be in that new day. When a woman is praying or prophesying (perhaps in the language of angels, as in 13:1), she needs to be truly what she is, since it is to male and female alike, in their mutual interdependence as God’s image-bearing creatures,  that the world, including the angels, is to be subject. God’s creation needs humans to be fully, gloriously and truly human, which means fully and truly male and female. This, and of course much else besides, is to be glimpsed in worship.
The Corinthians, then, may have drawn the wrong conclusion from the ‘tradition’ that Paul had taught them. Whether or not they could follow his argument any better than we can, it seems clear that his main aim was that the marks of difference between the sexes should not be set aside in worship. At least perhaps.
We face different issues, but making sure that our worship is ordered appropriately, to honour God’s creation and anticipate its fulfilment in the new creation, is still a priority. There is no ‘perhaps’ about that.

Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians

So. There you have it.

1 Co 11:17 onwards

This is the prime example of the occasional nature of Paul’s letters. If the Corinthians hadn’t been screwing it up so badly, we’d not have any passages about the Sacrament outside the Gospels.

Now, the Lord’s Supper was more of a community meal, an actual supper. It probably had a special loaf of bread and cup of wine (and yes, it was wine), but was otherwise a regular group meal.

Paul hints at several purposes

1. Remind/memorialize Christ’s death (11:26), which is covenant-related.
2. But also, to build unity (1Co 10:16-17)

Irony is, the way the Corinthians are doing it totally violates the purpose, leading Paul to say in 11:17 “your meetings do more harm than good.” Note Elder Packer’s statement, “It takes a pretty good meeting to be better than no meeting at all.” This is actually the case here! In fact, things are so bad that Paul suggests in v. 30 that divine punishment, sickness, and death has resulted.

What’s happening here? Remember the diversity at Corinth? The problem is that church is held at someone’s home, generally a large enough home to accommodate people, which probably means some degree of wealth. But most of them are not wealthy or high-born. Perhaps the Corinthians are following the cultural norm, wherein wealthy people invited less well-off people and the upper-class folks ate the nice food in the nice room, and the others… well, not quite as good. Some who have leisure arrive early, chow down, and drink wine excessively, getting drunk. The others who arrive later find the communal meal already eaten. That’s not going to erase class lines and build unity.

Paul’s suggestions?

1) eat and drink at home beforehand (11:22, 34)
2) Examine yourself, that you do not partake unworthily (11:27-28)
3) “discern the Lord’s body” (11:29), which probably refers both to the church community as a whole, a la chapter 12, as well as Christ’s body, atonement, crucifixion, resurrection.

In contrast to the previous issues around sexuality and gender,

Paul now has to tell the Corinthians that, if they have been blurring the lines between male and female which should have been clearly marked (11:2–16), in another area they were marking out clearly a line which should have been obliterated altogether. When they are coming together to celebrate the Lord’s meal, the ‘supper’ or ‘eucharist’, they are reinforcing a social distinction which has nothing to do with God’s intention in creation, and nothing to do, either, with God’s achievement of salvation through the Messiah. This is the division between rich and poor, which ran like an ugly line through ancient society as much as in our own if not more, and which threatened to deface the very celebration at which the church’s unity in the Messiah ought to have been most apparent.

Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians, 144.

Now, to put to bed a not uncommon LDS reading of the New Testament, if you’re getting drunk on the wine of the Lord’s Supper, it’s clearly wine and not grape juice. (This is not the only place this is clear in the New Testament.) Further, in an LDS context, the First Presidency and Apostles continued using wine in their weekly sacrament meeting in the temple until 1906, according to BYU prof. Thomas Alexander’s Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints from 1890-1930. (Page link to reference in google books. The whole chapter on the Word of Wisdom is great.)

 1 Corinthians 13– “Charity”

Very quickly, this chapter doesn’t use a special word meaning “charity” here, but  the same Greek for “love” agapē (“ah-GOP-eh”) as elsewhere in the New Testament. (There are three greek terms translated as “love” which are sometimes distinct and sometimes overlapping.) Why the KJV chose to translate it as “charity” here, I don’t know. Both the Bishop’s Bible (1595) and Tyndale read “love”, as do most modern translations. Here, it’s quite worth reading in a modern translation, to hear it differently.

Mormons mostly know “charity” from Moroni 7, which has some literary connections to 1Co 13.

One of my personal philosophies in Gospel Doctrine is that I don’t make a comment unless it’s productive and constructive. (Or, in extreme cases, if something really really wrong is said about a central principle, I’ll speak up without spending time carefully formulating my thought. On that line, Paul says “Let all things be done for building up.” (1Co 14:26 NRS) Love that verse. Similarly, 1Co 14:12- “Try to excel in gifts that build up the Church”

That’s a good takeaway.

Resurrection in chapter 15

Why might the Corinthians struggle with the idea of a physical resurrection?

Both Paul and much Greco-Roman thought held that the soul is immortal, and some of the Corinthians, thinking in Greco-Roman categories, denied the resurrection of the body. But they seem to have accepted Jesus’ resurrection (v. 4) as being similar to the so-called resurrections of many Greek heroes.- NIV Zondervan Study Bible (2015), 2354.

And so,

Paul follows the standard argument technique of beginning with an agreed-on premise; the Corinthians must agree with the very gospel by which they were converted…. Following a typical rhetorical form, Paul’s argument forces the Corinthians to accept the resurrection of all believers, because they already agree with him (and objectively could not help but do so—15:1–11) that Jesus had been raised. Jewish teachers also often used the particular to prove the general principle that it presupposed.- The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament 

Lastly, as always, you can support this site and my research by making Amazon purchases through this link, or the Support My Research links at the bottom of the About page. You can get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box on the right). If you friend me on Facebook, please drop me a note telling me you’re a reader.

This week, we’re all in one place, 1 Corinthians, which is a smorgasbord of interesting topics, conflict, and controversy. There is a lot to say, and as long as this is, I’ve left out plenty.

First, I’ve uploaded a copy of the rough text (link now fixed) from my presentation at the BYU Conference on the New Testament a few weeks ago, “Christian Accommodation at Corinth.” It’s adapted from one of the groundwork chapters in my Genesis book.

Second, some background from Jim Faulconer’s New Testament Made Harder– Continue reading

We’re moving into very very dense historical, textual, and doctrinal territory today. Today I lean pretty heavily on Wright and the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Continue reading

Since I am posting this and the last lesson two nights apart, I’m going to repeat my housekeeping remarks.

First, at the bottom of every post and on the About page, there is a special Amazon link. You can support my work by buying things on Amazon through that link; whatever you would normally buy on Amazon, just buy it through that link. All my book links go to Amazon as well, and clicking on one of them and then purchasing other things has the same effect. Thanks for your support.

Second, I’ve stopped accepting Facebook requests from people I don’t know, unlessthey send me a message via Facebook explaining who they are, that they’re a reader, etc.

Third, I posted the midterm and final I gave when I taught the 2nd half of New Testament at BYU in 2006. (Handouts and answers are down in the comments of that post.) Although we’re just getting into the material covered there,  it may be useful for study/question ideas.

Fourth, we are starting to run out of story and narrative, Paul is approaching fast. If you haven’t already gotten one, in Paul’s letters it becomes critical to supplement the KJV with a modern translation of the Bible to grasp what he’s saying. As C.S. Lewis said, ” I cannot be the only reader who has wondered why God, having given [Paul] so many gifts, withheld from him… that of lucidity and orderly exposition.” My Bible recommendations and reasons are here. Please check them out.

On to the text!

10- Cornelius and Gentiles The visions leading to the full conversion of Cornelius mark the beginning of a major shift, which will prove to be both a source of strength and conflict in the early Christian Church. There were far more non-Jews than Jews in the Mediterranean, and many of those non-Jews would become Christians. That rapid growth would create challenges, and as well as the cultural confliect between the Judaic base and Gentilic influx of convert, which Paul must address multiple times in his letters, as those of the different backgrounds clash. Cornelius, as v. 22 explains is both a Roman centurion (a man of rank and importance) in the Italian Regiment (“Italian Band” per the KJV always conjures up visions of accordions and such) as well as a “God-fearer.”

The latter term refers to non-Jews who did not convert completely (circumcision?), but played a role in the life of the synagogue, became quasi-monotheistic, and kept  some Jewish laws. The God-fearers were apparently numerous in the ancient mediterranean, though just how much has been the subject of debate. They show up several times in Acts, e.g. 13:16, where Paul addresses synagogue attendees in Antioch. He addresses them this way- “You Israelites, and others who fear God, listen. (NRSV). In 1987, a long inscription from a synagogue was published, which listed some of the God-fearers of that synagogue. See this post elsewhere.

10:10 Peter falls into a “trance” – The Greek word has broad meaning, variety, but in here refers to “a state of being in which consciousness is wholly or partially suspended, freq. associated with divine action, trance, ecstasy.”- BDAG The Greek word, in fact, is  ekstasis, and English “ecstasy” is a cognate. Elsewhere, ekstasis means something closer to our modern ecstasy, “a state of consternation or profound emotional experience to the point of being beside oneself” as in Mark 5:42.

10:15– What is divinely commanded is sometimes counter-intuitive. Peter’s response is one of instinctive rejection. From the time he was a small child, he has been taught the divine commands of the Torah, which designate some animals as “profane” or “unclean.” (The latter word is not terribly helpful, as a dirty animal could be “clean” or legal to eat, and a clean animal could be illegal to eat.) Peter has to be shown this three times, and even then he is “greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision” (v17). At this point, Cornelius the Gentile appears, and this coordinated revelation helps make clear to Peter what is to be done, at least initially. However, it does not clearly resolve questions about how non-Jews are to be integrated into this salvation that was taught by a Jew, made possible by a Jew, and prophesied by Jewish tradition and scripture. Shouldn’t they still have to become, well, Jewish, with everything that entails? This and related questions will prove a trial to the early Christians, and we’ll see it addressed repeatedly.

Later on in v. 45, Peter is preaching to Cornelius and the group of Gentiles he has assembled at his house.

While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter said, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they invited him to stay for several days.- (Act 10:44-48 NRSV)

Now, I want to suggest something without being dogmatic about it. We tend to take “the gift of the holy ghost” as a technical term for something that only happens after baptism, and by the laying-on of hands. Whatever is going on here, the Apostles are clearly surprised, but view it as a divine sign. Are they in fact receiving the “gift of the holy ghost” as we understand it? I would suggest that it’s possible. Note the view of Joseph Fielding Smith.

“the Lord gave the commandment to Joseph Smith that those who are baptized for the remission of sins shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and this is the practice in the Church. This does not prove, however, that the gift of the Holy Ghost may not be received without the laying on of the hands, although we assume that this was the general custom of the Church in ancient days….We discover in the reading of the scriptures that the Lord conferred authority on some of his chosen servants and gave them exceptional powers without the laying on of hands, but merely by his spoken edict. In this manner Elijah obtained the keys of power in the priesthood to raise the dead, heal the sick, close the heavens that it did not rain only by his word, and for more than three years there was no rain, and moreover he had the power to call down fire from heaven to destroy the enemies of the Church….We may correctly believe that the Lord may bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by other means than by the laying on of hands if occasion requires it. While it is the practice to lay on hands, there are many incidents recorded in the scriptures where divine authority has been bestowed by the divine edict to the prophets.” – Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:93

In Chapter 11, Peter’s actions are immediately controversial to “the circumcised believers” (Act 11:2 NRSV), since he seems to be abandoning the Jewish nature of salvation. Peter explains, convincingly, that although surprising, this seems to be God’s plan and intent. The reaction in v. 18 is

“When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.” (Act 11:18 NRS)

Clearly, that God would extend salvation outside Judaism was a surprise. God acts in surprising, sometimes counter-cultural, and unpredictable ways. There is tension between holding fast to what has been revealed through God’s prophets, while also anticipating new revelation pointing in new directions.

Now, something similar happens in Antioch, and Barnabas brings Saul/Paul there to preach. The stay for a year, to great success. Notably, it is in Antioch that “the disciples were first called Christians.” (Act 11:26 NRSV) Well, what else would they have been called? As it turns out, the following of Jesus was called “the Way” sometimes “the Way of God” or “the Way of the Lord.” This is obscured in the KJV, but appears in several passages. Back in Acts 9:2, for example, Paul had asked “for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.” (NRSV)

Then some itinerant Jewish exorcists tried to use the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” (Act 19:13 NRS)

Jesus’s name has been found in the so-called “Greek magical papyri,” being invoked among many other names as a name of power used to drive out or conjure spirits. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that some had seen Jesus as a “magician” and a powerful one at that. I put the word in quotes, because there is no good definition of “magic” vs. “religion” really, except that “magic” is someone else’s illegitimate religion. (Not really a good definition.) The suggestion that some of Jesus’ contemporaries viewed him as a “magician” was put forth by a controversial scholar (Morton Smith), and has been widely criticized. John Welch of BYU has reexamined it, however, in an interesting paper which  can be downloaded here. I’ll post, if I can get permission. It was presented at SBL, later published here, and spoken of positively by the editor, James Charlesworth.

11:27-28 and 13:1 Note that there are explicitly prophets after Jesus; contrary to some Christian views, Jesus did not mark the end of revelation or prophesy (which is usually an interpretation of Hebrews 1:2). LDS on the other hand, tend to misunderstand prophesy and “prophet” as if it were a priesthood office, instead of a gift of the Spirit.

Lastly, as always, you can support this site and my research by making Amazon purchases through this link, or the Support My Research links at the bottom of the About page. You can get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box on the right). If you friend me on Facebook, please drop me a note telling me you’re a reader.