THEOLOGICAL LITURGICAL AND SACRAMENTAL COMMENTARY
FOR TEACHERS PREACHERS AND STUDENTS OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
(copyright Dean Kavouras, Cleveland, Ohio June 1, 2018)
The Translation And Interpretation of Second Corinthians Chapter Eleven
1 O that you would but indulge me in a bit of foolishness – do bear with me. 2
I am jealous with the jealousy of God for you because I joined you in marriage to one husband, to present you a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid lest, as the snake seduced Eve by his cunning, your minds should be diverted from exclusive devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you proclaiming another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you allow for a different Sprit than the one you received, or a different gospel than the one you received you tolerate it well enough! 5 For I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these eminent apostles of yours. 6 And even if I am less than eloquent when speaking I am not so in knowledge, as we have well demonstrated to you at all times, in all things.
7 Did I commit a sin by humbling myself that I might exalt you because I preached the gospel of God to you free of charge? 8 I robbed other churches taking wages from them in order to minister to you! 9 And when I was with you and in need I burdened no one but depended on the Brothers who came from Macedonia to supply what I needed. So I refrained and will refrain from making myself a burden to you. 10 As the truth of Christ is in me this boasting of mine will not be silenced throughout the realms of Achaia. 11 And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!
12 But what I do I will continue to do in order that I might undermine the opportunity of those who would boast that they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles! Doers of deceit. Disguising themselves as apostles of Christ, 14 and no wonder! For Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 And so it is no wonder if his ministers should be transformed into ministers of righteousness, whose end will correspond to their works.
16 I repeat let no one take me for a fool! Or if you must then at least accept me as a fool so that I, too, might boast a little. 17 What I will say here is not by the Lord’s authority, but I speak foolishness in the conviction that I have something to boast about. 18 Seeing that many boast on merely human grounds, I too will boast; 19 for you gladly bear with fools, yourselves being so wise. 20 For you tolerate it if someone enslaves you, or is someone devours you, or takes advantage of you, or exalts himself, or even slaps you in the face. 21 I speak to my shame when I say that we were too weak for that! But what anyone else dares to boast of – I speak as a fool here – I also dare to boast of the same.
22 Are they Hebrews? So am I!
Are they Israelites? So am I!
Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I!
23 Are they ministers of Christ … I speak as a fool? I am a better one!
With far more labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, exposed time and again to mortal danger. 24 On five occasions I received thirty-nine lashes from the Jews. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; I was shipwrecked three times and spent a night and a day adrift in the deep. 26 I have traveled extensively and suffered:
danger from rivers,
danger from bandits,
danger from my own people,
danger from Gentiles,
danger in the city,
danger in deserts,
danger in the sea,
danger from false brothers.
27 In toil and hardship, through many sleepless nights, often in hunger and thirst, often fasting, cold and naked; 28 and apart from other things there is my daily concern for all the churches. 29 Who is weak and I am not? Who is not brought down, and I do not inwardly burn?
30 [But] if it is necessary for me to boast, it will be of my weaknesses.
31 “The God and Father of the Lord Jesus knows!
“He who is blessed unto the ages of ages” knows that I do not lie!
32 In Damascus the provincial governor under King Aretas staked out the city in order to capture me, 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped his hands!
At this juncture one wonders if Paul wrote this entire homily in one sitting. Earlier he is gentle, humble and irenic, but here he displays his anger and sarcasm. Why the change in mood? It is impossible to know – other than to state the obvious: Holy men of God spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:16) This includes verse 17. And so we must receive this inspired writing as is, and continue to interpret it incarnationally, liturgically, saramentally and ecclesiastically because his writing is not a “literary document” of human origin, but the church’s inspired scripture!
Some wonder: was Paul’s “foolishness” a momentary lapse into his own personal thoughts and feelings, or was he being clever in order to advance his assault against his opponents? As above, it is impossible to know and it matters not. It does no damage to the doctrine of scripture’s divine source (though some have tried to use it that way, and by such a verse cast doubt on all of scripture). And if one complains that this was not very saintly behavior, then their assertion only confirms the truths of Romans 7:14 FF. But let us not overthink it.
That Paul’s opponents are trying to separate this Bride of Christ from her Holy Bridegroom elicits the strongest possible negative response from him. Not only would it be a failure in his all-important ministry, but then he would have suffered so much (see below) for nothing – if he were to lose this church to a faux Christ, ersatz gospel and simulacrum of the Spirit. Paul was infused with love for both Christ and his baptismally-cleansed Bride, the church; and this God-appointed match-maker would not tolerate any coquetry or flirtation from the Bride.
Perhaps the most frequently used icon in scripture as regards the relationship that obtains between God and his people is the nuptial. In the Old Testament the LORD was married to Israel and he categorized her flirtations with foreign gods as marital unfaithfulness, adultery and prostitution. In the New Testament the betrothal of Christ to his Bride the church, dominates. There are others, but the intimacy of the marriage relationship rises to the top.
By preaching, teaching, baptism, crismation and finally eucharistic liturgy, Saint Paul joined this church in marriage to “one husband.” He presented her a “chaste virgin to Christ,” made chaste and pure by the marital bath of baptism in the blood of Christ shed on the cross, and imbibed in eucharist. The intimacy is flawless so that even the slightest flirtation would adulterate perfection. A tragedy that would be equivalent to undoing the fine-tuning of the universe.
Paul’s fear is that the sin of Eden might be repeated if this fetching Bride, perfectly purged of sin, death and Satan were to forsake her Good Husband, her Beautiful Savior by returning, even only partially to the signs of the Old Testament sacrificial system. A system which died when our Lord died declaring not only of sin, but also of the Old Testament sacrificial system: “It is finished.”
It would be a type of theological necromancy to lapse into those proleptic sacraments. Though once lively and salvific they are as dead, and drained of blood as the animals they once offered. “Let no man judge you, therefore, in meat or in drink or in respect of an holy day … which were a shadow of things to come, but the fullness is Christ.” (Col. 2:16). Or as the church has been singing for 500 years:
1 Not all the blood of beasts
On Jewish altars slain
Could give the guilty conscience peace
Or wash away the stain.
2 But Christ, the heav’nly Lamb,
Takes all our sins away;
A sacrifice of nobler name
And richer blood than they.
Let us take a moment to consider the sin of Eden. The created universe was God’s church, Eden the chancel, Adam the priest, and Woman, congregation. Our first parents lived in Holy Communion with their God and with one another. Their relationship was a model of the marriage that existed between God and his church.
While the Liturgy of the Sacrament was in progress they chose a facsimile of eucharist instead of the genuine item – much like churches today that celebrate a replica of eucharist, but whose eucharistic doctrine and patent verbal admonition at the time of distribution flatly denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and its power to transmit the forgiviness of sins, life and salvation.
They further blacken their crime by employing elements other than natural bread and natural wine. We refer here primarily to grape juice, “communion juice” (a painful term) as well as gluten-free “bread.” Or as is done in Rome, people are denied the quenching of their thirst for righteousness as they are deprived of the Cup which is “the New Testament in my blood.”
Indeed it is our opinion that the most hotly disputed doctrine in all of Christendom is eucharist. The disbelief began in John chapter six and continues to this day.
That said, for most of the first four centuries the celebration of Eucharist was understood to be the very practice of the Christian faith. It is why the church missionized, so that men might hear, inquire, learn, be baptized and chrismated; all to the end that they should be restored to factual Communion with the Holy both in this life, and unto the ages of ages. Amen. For what is eternal life other than Eucharistic intimacy with the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus’ post-communion Collect says just this. (John 17:3)
However beginning in the 5th or 6th century a demonic pall was dropped over the church in the form of “dread of the sacrament.” The Sacrament of the Altar was so highly exalted, and people believed it with such faith that they began to feel unworthy and afraid. This dread of the Sacrament continued for a millenium or more, when a temporary light was restored by the Lutheran Reformation. Now people understood that worthy reception was achieved by “faith in these words, given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins,” and not by harsh bodily preparations: such as those that still keep many Serbian Orthodox Christians away from the Blessed Sacrament because of the hurdles that must be first jumped.
But according to Lutheran theology whoever confessed his sins, and believed in this unutterably gracious remission of sins, by faith, had exactly what the words said: remission of sins, peace with God, everlasting rightousness, innocence and blessedness.
However (and this is but the briefest of outlines) this new found glory did not last for long. The Radical Reformation denied the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament and declared the two sacraments to be works, which denied salvation by faith alone “without the deeds of the Law.”
By such folly they returned the heart and soul of the Christian faith into to a faux sacrament worse than that of Rome’s. And lest a sacramental Christian think that because of his own personal faith he can receive the true Sacrament in such a church he is mistaken. Mistaken because no church can give what it does not possess. If the Blessed Sacrament is now but a symbol, then that is the most its proponents can give to its people.
The struggle for the Sacrament was once again afoot.
Rationalism and Pietism both devalued what is of ultimate value in this world. Then as Lutherans throughout the ages co-existed with churches of the Radical Reformation, Lutherans were made to feel “too Catholic” if they celebrated Eucharist every Sunday. And so a tradition began among Lutherans of celebrating Holy Communion four times a year. Later once a month. Later every other week (which we unscientifically suspect is still the major practice among LCMS Lutherans).
But now by the blessings of the New Lutheran Reformation, as we might style it, whose seeds began to noticeabley sprout in the U.S. in the late 1980’s, many Lutherans have now returned to the reservation. Not the Catholic church, but the church Catholic, which True Lutheranism has always been.
However, even with this return all is still not well. Too many Lutheran churches use the faux elements of grape juice, de-alcoholized wine, and gluten-free bread. Besides the obvious insufficiency of these non-consecratable elements, such usages create even a larger problem. What is meant to be “koinonia,” Communion, is neither “comm” nor “union,” because the participants do not eat from “one loaf” and drink of “one cup.” Let us hear Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:15-18 “I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”
This understanding of “one loaf” was immediately put into practice by the earliest known non-canonical Christian writing, the Didache: “Just as this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and then was gathered together and became one, so may your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.”
One loaf is not a suggestion or dispensible tradition. The loaf itself incarnationally and sacramentally indicates that the church scattered throughout the world is one with Christ, and one with each other precisely in and by means of this single loaf and single cup. To give worshipers a choice as to what loaf they will eat of, and what cup they will drink of, is to destroy common union, Communion.
We should also consider here that gluten is likewise indispensible precisely because it is the gluten that holds the wheat together so that it mightly resists tearing or separation. Anyone who has baked bread knows how difficult it is to separate a portion of the dough from the rest. To separate a piece from the rest it must be torn, or cut with a knife, both violent actions, which is why communicants must always declare their unity with one another in Christ, and be ready to suffer violence for another.
But to return to our point the Blessed Sacrament will always be the most disputed practice of Christian doctrine, and this is why churchmen must study it unceasingly, keep guard over it, and be prepared to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. Nor must a priest think at any given time, that all is well and there is no danger, because the devil has no greater foe than Christ who intervenes into the affairs of men bodily at every eucharist.
v. 4
In verse 4 Paul’s Eucharistic theology continues. Here Saint Paul strikes at the heart of the false theology that tempts his once-fetching-but-now-tainted Corinthian Bride. False eucharistic theology is a product of wrong Christology and erroneous pneumaticological and sacramental theology. Yes, this once glorious church fell from the Pedestal of Christ.
But first let us understand what is involved in this confusion and how the Corinthians got there. Saint Paul is not simply referring to theological talking points or written confessions and creeds – though they existed early on. Subscription to the same by all clergy was and still is vital! Our minds must be formed in, on and by true doctrine, so that our thinking patterns are at all times Christian. To read and study holy dogma should be a life-long pursuit for all Christians. Nothing is more satisfying, nothing makes one more calm and wise than to know the doctrines of God as given in sacred scripture.
That said Holy Doctrine is not a stand-alone matter. To read and study it apart
from Divine Service will do little good. It can likened to the person who takes dancing lessons but never goes to the dance. Christians take dancing lessons in order to dance. That is, in order to liturgize the Father in Spirit and Truth. (Jn 4:24).
Paul is not only disputing with these Christians over the content of the church’s established creeds and confessions – which the ordinary Christian may not have ever read in any case. But his argument is with their practice, specifically their liturgical and sacramental practice, because the accuracy of a church’s creed is made manifest as true, or untrue, in the church’s worship, sacramental practice and moral theology. (Which is why an ELCA congregation e.g. that follows true liturgy, while endorsing homosexuality, “gender confustion,” or female “clergy” is untrue.
And so Saint Paul is not arguing one set of talking points, over another. His versus theirs. But he easily detects false doctrine by false practice. A false or inadequate liturgy in which the Christian verities are not clearly and exclusively stated.
What do we mean?
First we should know that the form of eucharistic liturgy was well-establilshed from the beginning. What Jesus did on Maundy Thursday is still repeated to this very day. This subject’s depth is far beyond our remit at this time, but there is hardly a more fascinating, and edifying study in all of Christian pursuits than the history of liturgy and sacraments.
We don’t know the exact form of Corinth’s liturgy except that it was given to them by Saint Paul who, by the power of the Spirit, composed it and gave it to them. We find pieces of it in the opening chapter of his present homily, which is not an “introduction,” as critics like to call it, but out and out, full-blown liturgy. Verbiage that was prayed with faith by the Corinthian church, and likely others as well, wherever the Apostle’s influence was felt. Consider also chapter 13:11-14 as Saint Paul gives them a final Eucharistic admonition before stating the first line of the church’s eucharistic Preface which Lutherans still use today, be it in shortened form, but which eastern liturgies use as is.
The church has from unbroken usage known that this, and other portions of the New Testament, are factual liturgy that was prayed then, and should be prayed now. Liturgy not literature! Liturgy not narrative or information. Consider for example the so-called prologue of St. John’s Gospel. It is liturgy, not narrative. Or the Beatitutdes. Liturgy not literature. The list is long.
The main outline of Christian worship from the beginning has been the Liturgy of the Word, followed by the Liturgy of the Sacrament. These must be done “eusxeimenos” – with propriety, and “kata taxis” – according the the given form. This is “Pope” Saint Paul’s expectation for “all the churches of God.” (1 Cor 7:17 and 14:33. cf also Phil. 4:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Other forms of liturgy are not acceptable than the liturgy served and prayed by the church catholic. Here again the discussion is immeasurably beyond our ambit, but know that this original, Biblical form: Liturgy of the Word followed by Liturgy of the Sacrament is still practiced by most of the world’s churches every Sunday – be it the Roman i.e. western Mass, or the Divine Liturgy of the East. While the particulars may be different, in form they are the same. Like fraternal twins their looks are similar but no identical, and their personalities are their own. But they are twins nonetheless. Children of the same Spirit that overshadowed the Blessed Virgin Mary so that what she conceived was the Son of God.
On what basis, then, does Saint Paul judge that the Corinthian church is worshiping another Jesus, hearing a different gospel, and dealing with something other than God’s Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity? (11:4) No doubt their doctrine and practice give them away; their insistence for example on circumcision before baptism: which nominalizes baptism. But error is almost always made obvious in the church’s eucharistic worship. The same factors he dealt with in 1 Corinthians 10-14, as well as other intelligence.
v. 5
The chatter of Paul’s opponents, and of the infected Christians at Corinth, is that Saint Paul was inferior to what he sarcastically terms “eminent apostles of yours.” As opponents do they cavilled, among other things, over Paul’s speaking abilities. But as we know from 1 Cor. 2:1ff Saint Paul purposely eschewed elegent forms of speech, those that were the stock in trade of 1st century luminaries.
While they may have spoken with silver tongues, their nattering was devoid of divine content. Even if Paul’s speech were less than elegant, which we can be sure it was not, the content was irresistable, glorious and satisfying as no other. It was “the foolishness of God,” Christ crucified. That Christ and Christ alone is God’s wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. (1 Cor 1:31)
Paul takes the opportunity to turn the tables. He does a “rope-a-dope” as regards his speaking abilities, then launches himself off those same ropes to assert that his knowledge of Christ, and of things divine and ecclesiastical and eternal are second to none.
Where did Saint Paul obtain this superior knowledge? He makes perfectly clear in Galatians 1:12 that he did not receive his knowledge of Christ and his gospel from any man, but by the immediate revelation of Jesus Christ. Nor, when he did receive it, did he go to Jerusalem to consult with those who were apostles before him. But rather went to Arabia, and Damascus, and only three years later did he go to Jerusalem where he consulted with Peter and met James as well.
However we must not ignore the influence of the Christian witness of Stephen (and other martyrs) whose death he attended. Nor must we diminish the work of Annanias (not the high priest) and Judas (not Isacariot) who received Saint Paul into the church. They baptized him into the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (cf. Romans 6), then gave him food to eat. But what was that food? Was it simply bodily nourishment, or was it more? The sacramental interpretation of Scripture would lead us to believe, short of any clear evidence to the contrary, that they fed him with the Body and Blood of Christ.
Consider this convocation of three men (and possibly others in attendance).
Was it a church Board of Administration meeting? A strategy session? Or was it the baptismal and eucharistic liturgy of the earliest church conducted to praise God for Saint Paul, to bless this newly appointed apostle, to initiate him into Christ and and impart the church’s ultimate benediction upon him? One should carefully note all of scripture’s words. In particular we read that Paul “rose” (“anisteimei”) as did Christ from the grave, and was baptized. Such a word should lead us to think in terms of ritual practice, and liturgical gestures.
We must also remember Paul was drawn up to the third heaven where he saw and heard things that human language cannot communicate. This, too, expanded and gave unparalleled might to Paul’s knowledge and message.
Nor must we forget his sufferings. A theologian tested in Satan’s sieve (as was Paul Gerhardt later), where a man becomes a true theologian. It is not until one has skin in the game that he becomes a theologian. We remember here Luther’s maxim as regards the making of a theologian: oratio, tentatio, meditatio (prayer, suffering and study), which Luther no doubt learned from our apostle, viz., “1:8 For we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, of the tribulation we suffered in Asia; and how we were crushed beyond endurance so as to despair even of life itself; 9 and were certain that the sentence of death had been pronounced upon us – so that we should not rely on ourselves but on God who raises the dead; 10 who delivered us from such mortal danger, and will deliver.”
And so neither Saint Paul’s knowledge or the divinely persuasive power of his speech should ever be questioned. He is rightly called “The Teacher of the Church” because no other person possessed the knowledge he possessed, or communicated it with such authority and persuasive powers.
As regards these opponents of Saint Paul, we know little of of them because they are never patently named. But we do know that they wanted a following – because large followings equate to success: to money, power and glory. We can say with much regret, that some today who fancy themselves Christian clergy or evangelists etc. pursue these same things.
In verse 6 Paul patently reminds his hearers that he has, in every time and circumstance, demonstrated his knowledge, power and divinely given authority. In his theological instruction to new converts. In his preaching. In his correction of error. By his establishment of true liturgy and sacramental theology and practice among them. In sacrificial love, and in competent administration of all the churches. And in 11:11 he openly declares his love and devotion to these, his dear children.
There was only one Paul!
Born “late in time” to be sure. “The least of the apostles” per his own estimation. The last of the apostles to whom the risen, exalted, glorified Christ appeared. (1 Cor 15:8-9) But also set apart from the womb (as was Jeremiah) and called by God’s grace. (Gal 1:15 & Romans 1:1).
verses 7-11
Saint Paul once again speaks harshly to his erring, but beloved Corinthian children. He furthers his argument with a rhetorical question that drips with sarcasm.
Rhetorical questions, being statements rather that questions, require no answer, yet we learn even more about the “apostle to the Gentiles” in this question. Paul was factually humbled in every way one could be shamed as we will learn in more detail later in the chapter. He sacrificed is life, his sanity, his safety, his peace, his liberty – and indeed counted all things as loss for the for, “the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but refuse, that I may gain Christ.” There is niether shame, nor self-pity nor regret in this statement. Indeed quite the opposite. Instead he hopes that by what he writes here, and in Philippians 3:8, will serve as a bucket of cold water on sleeping fools, in thrall to “another gospel.” A gospel that can neither save nor comfort sinners.
And in humbling himself, as did our Lord himself (Philippians 2:5 ff), he exalted the Corinthian church. He raised them up from devil, death and sin, and “seated them in heavenly places with Christ” by the gospel.
Under the rubric of needling, he reminds them that he conducted his missionary ministry at no cost to the Corinthians. By saying this he hopes to further provoke them to come to their senses as to who is the catholic apostle, and who the heterodox! He futher provokes the denizens of this great city of world commerce and world finance to be shamed, if nothing else, on a profit and loss basis. This is something they could understand. To say nothing of his statement that he plundered, as it were, other churches so that he could serve the Corinthians. But as a seasoned prosecutor he futher presses his case until there is no escape. He details the fact that did not “burden” any of them, but that another church, a poverty-stricken one! (8:1 ff) took care of all of Paul’s needs so as not to trouble the Corinthians.
But still Saint Paul does not rest his case! He lets them know that he will not remain silent about this, but see to it that all the churches of Achaia (Greece) will know just how cheese-paring and penurious the Corinthian Christians are. And as if to “beat a dead horse.” Just in case. He states that he will continue to refrain from burdening them!
What a roast!
This is what Lutherans call: preaching the second use of the Law, the usus elengthos – that which convicts men of their sins. Yet why does Paul metaphorically beat them to within an inch of their lives? Because he does not love them? No. Quite the contrary because he does, and God knows that he does.
Verses 12 – 15
Now, even when Saint Paul’s diatribe is over, it’s not over. A regular Lt. Columbo our apostle is. Not only does he strafe the devotees of the false apostles but he expects his harangue to reach the ears of these same false apostles, who were intimating that they, and Saint Paul, were preaching the same Christ. The church’s teacher will have none of this. The two cannot be compared. And now he takes after them with all the fervor of an opposition researcher.
However we should not take Saint Paul’s statements as ad hominem attacks. One usually engages in ad hominen when he has nothing of substance in his arsenal. There was no limit to Paul’s weaponry, for he wielded the “sword of the Spirit,” and so do all who teach and preach the Word of God. When one carries a loaded gun with the safety off, he had better be very careful. You, Oh Christian priests and pastor have it within your power to kill or make alive in Christ with a word. The bow of the nave is no place for week-end boaters, wannabe’s and thinks-they-can. It’s one thing to render first aid which every Christian ought to be able to do when needed. But quite another to do surgery. The former does not qualify one for the latter.
No these are not ad hominem attacks but facts that Saint Paul knows by the Lord Jesus himself by the gospel that he “received from no man.” These men are:
False apostles!
Doers of deceit!
Disguised wolves!
Pretenders!
Are these the men we want feeding us, and our children? Those who are just like Chief Impersonator himself!
And so when Saint Paul engages in what seems like ad hominem it is actually “ad satanem” The Old Serpent who may rightly be accused for, “all his wicked works and all his wicked ways.” When one comes this close to devil, who can even show himself as an “angel of light” the church is left in amazement, and speechless, except to pray: “Begone Satan!” “Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy.” Mindful of St. James’ word, “Resist the devil and he will flee from you.”
As regards Satan’s “ministers.” Their chief charade is to disguise themselves apostles of Christ. There are too many disguises to detail, but let us name a few in passing.
Churches that have abandoned the church’s Divine Liturgy which is Eucharist which is Worship which is well and truly “the New Testament In My Blood.” All others simulacra that raise their children far beneath the “spiritual poverty line.” Enough, perhaps, to keep them alive, but not enough to thrive.
The same obtains with assemblies who play patsy with the world, or to commerce as it were in psychology, self-affirmation, politics and any of the causes du jour. It’s one thing when the shpe is in the water, and quite another when the water is in the ship.
And need we say anything about pedophile clergy, nonces whos detonate spiritual nuclear bombs to satisfy their twisted desires? Or the clergy who are asked to lead a public prayer in the civil realm, but purposely omit the name of Jesus lest it offend?
The list goes on and on with sects and subsects too many to number, who may have a semblance of the Holy Christian Religion, but very faint and fading more each day.
These are they whom Luther has in mind when he explains the Second Commandment thusly: “What does this mean? We should fear and love God so that we do not curse, swear, use Satanic arts, lie or deceive by his name. But call upon it in every trouble pray, praise and give thanks.”
Hear the warning of St. James all who take up the Scripture to feed Christ’s sheep: “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” Also the word of Jesus in Matthew 7:23 “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (ASV)
Verses 16 – 21
But nor have we yet exhausted Paul’s indignation and zeal. His opponents, both the “super apostles,” and those in Corinths who are of their party, want to take Paul for a fool. Part of their nominalizing, as we have said, ad hominem argument. But there is also the fact of his multitude of sufferings, that make him look weak, even as did our Lord! After all, argued his opponents, if Paul is well and truly Christ’s apostle why does he suffer such? Would not God protect him from all harm and danger? It is a theme they likely played to the hilt until it became reified in the minds of all.
But Paul who is divinely wise and no fool at all, turns the tables on his opponents. He counts his many sufferings as badges of honor! Stating in Gal. 6:17 “for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.” And that is the proper understanding of suffering for the sake of the gospel. But this is not a passing idea of Saint Paul’s. He states in Phil. 1:29-30 “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.”
Also the Lord to his disciples, “They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me. (John 16:2-3)
And again, Jesus says in John 16:33, “In the world you will have tribulation.”
And Peter, the chief of the apostles says to Christians, “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.” (1 Peter 2:2)
To view Paul and the gospel with the eyes of the flesh, rather than with the eyes of faith, one might conclude that God was not on Paul’s side. But, again, that was the flesh’s estimation of Jesus on the cross as well. “If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” (Mt. 27:40) “He saved others but himself he cannot save.” (Mt. 27:42). The Lord’s deriders were wrong, and so were Paul’s and so are all who scorn the Holy One of God.
The Saint’s acerbity continues as he will now play the fool for them. However they will soon understand that they, and their false apostles, are the gits. And that Saint Paul and company are Christ’s genuine apostles.
The heretics no doubt boasted (v. 18) about their followings and their polished message, Saint Paul boasted only about his sufferings and his weakness. He gloried the cross. In Christ’s sufferings for us, and his own which he endured in order to: fill up what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings for the sake of his body the church. (Col. 1:24)
This is a delicious verse that delights RC’s and drives Protestants to drink. Protestants believe, teach and confess that the passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ was all sufficient, and atoned for all the sins of all the world bar none. There is nothing left to do as regards atonement. Not by Christ over whom death no longer has dominion; and certainly not by men. RC’s no doubt teach the same. However Rome considers the sufferings of Christians to be meritorious both for themselves, and for others (supererogation). While Lutherans understand this verse to describe Saint Paul’ experience as he suffers great agony and torment in order to bring Christ to the nations.
But were the Corinthians’ super apostles really such lovely people? Not according to Paul who recognizes what the victims do not. Namely that these heretics enslave, and take advantage of their flock, perhaps even stooping to violence, (“slaps you in the face”). What is described vss 18-19 sounds suspiciously akin to a co-dependant relationship between the Corinthian church and their new suitors. Ascerbic Paul replies, “I speak to my shame when I say that we were too weak for that.” (v. 21)
Now after many disclaimers and doubts as to the wisdom of saying what he is about to say, Saint Paul begins to lay out his credentials, his sufferings for Christ, like no one ever has. Which sufferings are the fulfillment of the prophecy of Acts of the Apostles 9:16, “For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name.”
Now the time for rhetorical questions is over, revealing as they are. Here instead Paul treats the Corinthians (and their super apostles who will also surely learn all that Saint Paul wrote) like the hostile witnesses by asking leading questions.
In the first question we learn that his opponents are Jews, most likely the ones that theologians call “Judaizers.” That is those Jews who became Christians but believed that one must become a Jew before becoming a Christian, and that Christians must then follow the Mosaic Law. Paul is well aware of them and their teaching as they try to blend the religion of Moses and the religion of Christ which, of course, is impossible. The former was promise, the latter completion. At the Lord’s incarnation the Old rapidly began to pass away, upon his death it too died.
There was now no benefit to anyone who practiced torah. But there was indeed a curse, stated as clearly as it can be stated in Galatians 5:2-7, “2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.”
And again Romans 3:28, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith (in Christ) and not by the deeds of Torah.” And again, “Christ is the end (telos) of Torah for righteousness, for all who believe (in Christ). (Romans 10:4)
These Judaizers were doing the same thing here as there were in Galatia, and among the assembly address in the Sermon to the Hebrews.
And so Saint Paul asks three fiery quesetions, and answers them: “Are they Hebrews? So am I! Are they Israelites? So am I! Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I! Are they ministers of Christ … I speak as a fool? I am a better one!
Here we learn more of the opponents’ identity in that they claim to be “servants of Christ,” but Paul “is a better one,” which he proves not by his eloquence or his mass following, but by his sufferings, which make him like Christ. The same can be ascribed to all Christian suffering: it makes us supremely like Jesus. As Christians suffer they can convert their suffering into prayers not only of supplication, but also of thanksgiving to our Lord for the immeasurable pains he joyfully suffered to procure the world’s salvation. He truly was “A man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.” (Is. 53).
Paul’s labor for Christ and his church was tireless and so he can exhort the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 15:58 “Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.”
As regards Paul’s imprisonments for the gospel we know that he was imprisoned in Philippi, Rome, Jerusalem and Caeserea; and possibly at other times and place. But we do not know for how long. We do know that his time in prison was productive. In Philippians 4:22 it appears that he coverted “Caesar’s household” to the faith which implies that he conducted catechism classes, baptized, crismated and celebrated Eucharist with his church.
While in prison he also wrote several epistles: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon. In the latter we learn that while in jail he meets and converts a certain Onesimus, who is the run-away slave of his friend and son in the faith, Philemon. We can also safely suppose and expect that Saint Paul composed many prayers, rites, rituals and liturgies for his churches. We find any number of such elements in all of his letters. Most of Colossians chapter one. Ephesians chapter one and segments of chapter three (vss 14-21), and certainly 6:10 ff. Philippians also includes a great deal of out and out liturgy, most notably 2:5-11 and 4:4-9. Indeed it is the author’s studied conclusion that Ephesians and Colossians are specifically baptismal admonition, teaching and encouragement written for the newly baptized in named cities. (The same case obtains for 1 Peter in the author’s studied opinion.)
It is incomprehsible to this author why Ephesians 2:5-11 is commonly referred to as a hymn, and not liturgy. Everyone seems to recognize that it is not simply narrative or a dogmatic statement. By why hymn and not liturgy? The answer may lie in the fact that Protestant religion has little use for liturgy and therefore is not anxious to find the same in Scripture. And yet there can be no doubt that when first century Christians gathered for Liturgy which is Eucharist which is Worship, that they followed the same format each Sunday. The form was not identical in every place and at every time, but like brothers the family resemblance was unmistakeable. Nor was the first century church the charismatic enterprise that many assume. An operation living only on verbal tradition with every man doing what was right in his own eyes. But the broad order of Christian worship was firmly in place. The Liturgy of the Word, followed by the Liturgy of the Sacrament. Enough for now. Let us continue.
The list of hardships has hardly begun. Besides arduous labor, mistreatment and much time spend in prison (which was no pleasant place), he was tied to the whipping post at least eight times, an unimaginable experience. No wonder he says in Galatians 6:17 that he: bears the stigmata of the Lord Jesus Christ on his body. What a decrepit wretch he must have appeared. Perhaps his opponents were right after all! How could such a wretch, who like his Lord had “no form or comliness that we should desire him,” be God’s spokesman?
Further he mentions stoning, or lapidation as it is known. There were two methods of stoning. One witness to a crime would knock down the convict to his knees and then see to it that lay supine. Then from a place that is twice the height of the condemned another witness to the crime would drop a huge stone onto the chest of the condemned. If he died then, the deed was complete. If not, he was left to die a slow death. The other method was to continually throw stones at the victim until he was overcome by injuries and bleeding. Both where frightful and gruesome ways to die. Both were what Americans today would call “cruel and unusual.” That was the fate of this servant of Christ. Was this Saint Paul’s just deserts for the stoning of Stephen? Such a thought is theologically untenable in the holy Christian religion since Christ answered for all sins, of all men of all time. But also because Stephen himself prayed for his murderers. Prayed, in fact, the same prayer that our Lord offered on the cross for his his executioners and for the world.
Jesus: Father forgiven them for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)
Stephen: “Lord do not hold this sin against them.” (Acts 7:58-60).
In the opening verses of our sermon, vss 8-10 Saint Paul recalls the things he was willing to suffer for his beloved children. He says, to wit:
“For we don’t want you to be uninformed, Brothers, of the afflictions we suffered in Asia; how we were pressed so hard, so far beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. Indeed we bear in our own selves the sentence of death so that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead! Who rescued us from so great a death, and will yet rescue us, he on whom we rely for all rescue.”
And yet the parade of sorrows has hardly begun. Consider:
-shipwrecked three times
-spent a night and a day adrift in the deep
-traveled extensively and suffered:
in danger from rivers,
danger from bandits,
danger from my own people,
danger from Gentiles,
danger in the city,
danger in deserts,
danger in the sea,
danger from false brothers.
In toil and hardship
through many sleepless nights
often in hunger and thirst
often fasting
cold and naked
my daily concern for all the churches.
Who is weak and I am not?
Who is not brought down and I do not inwardly burn?”
His references in v. 29 seems likely a continuation of his “daily concern for all the churches.” He is not concerned only about the church as a whole, but of individuals who are struggling with temptation, persecution or other un-named troubles. Paul is concerned for all, and prays for all. And when one is “brought down” or “scandalized” that is: either lead into temptation, or on who has indeed caved in, then Paul himself feels it inwardly like fire in his belly. These are his children in the Lord, and he feels their folly and losses sharply.
But now that he has fought fire with less than fire – and defeated the boast of the oppononents Saint Paul puts paid to the charade and returns to his point which is that he will only boast in his weakness. (v. 30)
There is an inscrutable theology afoot here. One that sinful flesh is utterly incapable of comprehending! (Romans 8:7) And one that even the New Man resists mightily because of the weight of the flesh – clinging to him like white on rice. Said theology cannot be spoken of apart from Paul’s crescendo in 12:9 – 12 (which we will examine more closely later).
“But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.”
Or to channel Herman Melville in Moby Dick, “This willful world hath not got hold of unchristian Solomon’s wisdom yet. But he who dodges hospitals and jails, and walks fast crossing grave-yards, and would rather talk of operas than hell; calls Cowper, Young, Pascal, Rousseau, poor devils all of sick men; and throughout a care-free lifetime swears by Rabelais as passing wise, and therefore jolly; — not that man is fitted to sit down on tomb-stones, and break the green damp mould with unfathomably wondrous Solomon.”
As we’ve said before: Paul was so … Paul! His commitment was seamless so that he had enough courage to boast before “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is one thing to confess our faith before man, another to profess it in God’s House before God. Paul was that certain. Not because of any inherent power in him, but as he says, “By the grace of God I am what I am.” (1 Cor. 15:15) While the purest gold is .9999 pure, Paul was 1000 Christ’s.
Another question is raised at this time, one that we do not unfortunately have the time to delve into, but let us ask in passing: where did Paul gain this Christlogical knowledge? We ask because many of the more extreme Biblical critics assert that Paul was the founder of the Christian religion, and that the gospels only came later. This is speculation built upon reified speculation, and therefore assinine.
Paul learned his christology from several sources. First from the Old Testament scriptures now read through Christian spectacles. He learned it from the Lord’s followers whom he persecuted before his conversion: notably Stephan whose sermon and execution he attended. He learned from Jesus himself who saw fit to knock him off his horse in order to recruit the “least of the apostles” to be the foremost. Through the catechesis, baptism, crismation and Eucharist given him by Annanis (Acts 9). And finally from the gospels themselves of which there is zero proof (only more reification) that they were written after 70 AD. Indeed it is the firm conviction of this writer that the four gospels may have begun even during the Lord’s ministry. And that they were completed either during the 10 days between Ascension and Pentecost, or shortly after Pentecost, and began to circulate immediately.
What is the evidence? Paul’s intimate knowledge of the gospels for one thing, since we are on that subject. But even if our evidence is circumstantial, it is no less circumstantial, and far more substantial, than the theories of critical scholars repeated ad infinitum ad infinitum.
Let us also note the liturgical refrain, “He who is blessed unto the ages of ages.” (v. 31) Most likely Paul is quoting liturgy with which the Corinthan church is familiar, and which Saint Paul himself may have composed for them.” All good preaching is liturgical preaching.
The term “to the ages of ages” is also of much interest. Commonly Bibles translate it forever and ever, but there is much more to be considered which is most beautifully stated by Joseph Ratzinger in his book “The Spirt Of The Liturgy”
“All time is God’s time. When the eternal Word assumed human existence at his Incarnation, he also assumed temporality. He drew time into the sphere of eternity. Christ is himself the bridge between time and eternity. At first it seems as if there can be no connection between the “always” of eternity and the “flowing away” of time. But now the Eternal One himself has taken time to himself. In the Son, time co-exists with eternity. God’s eternity is not mere time-lessness, the negation of time, but a power over time that is really present with time and in time. In the Word incarnate, who remains man forever, the presence of eternity with time becomes bodily and concrete. All time is God’s time.”
— The Spirit of the Liturgy — Commemorative Edition by Joseph Ratzinger, Romano Guardini, et al.
https://a.co/eOnxUF7
As if Paul needed to list one final tribulation he speaks of his time in Damascus. No doubt due to his turncoat status Paul was a persona non grata in Damascus, and so, as he narrates, a dragnet was set around the city, and Paul barely escaped the evil hands of King Aretus. He was let down in a makeshift basket through a window in the city wall.
But there is still more to come!