Business Traffic Plans

Hi,

Tired of keep looking for quality business traffic?

your search is over, we provide the best business traffic available on the
market

check our deals and offers here
https://basedbusinesstraffic.co/


Contact us
support@basedbusinesstraffic.co







http://basedbusinesstraffic.co/unsubscribe/

The More Excellent Way (1 Cor 13)

With its sheer beauty and power 1 Cor 13 is one of Paul's finest moments and a greatly loved NT passage. Unfortunately, the love for this love ch. has caused it to be regularly read [at weddings!] out of context. This doesn't make love less true, but it misses Paul's concern with the situation in Corinth. Then when reading in context love is set over against "the gifts of the Spirit," which it isn't, because love belongs in a different category altogether. For Paul it is not "gifts to be sure, but better yet love." Rather, love is to be the primary motivation lying behind everything they are and do--including Spirit manifestations [="gifts"] in the gathered church. An eager desire for expressions of the Spirit that will build up the church is HOW LOVE ACTS in this context. Love is the essential "ingredient," the one that seems to be missing to a large degree among those in the church.

Correctives regarding Spirit manifestations. In 3 paragraphs Paul puts their zeal for tongues-speaking within a broader ethical context that ultimately disallows uninterpreted tongues in church. The context is love for others over self-interest. In ch. 14 such love will be specified in terms of "building up" the church.

Picking at the differences between him and them--the opposing views of what it means to be people of the Spirit. They speak in tongues, which Paul doesn't question as a legitimate activity of the Spirit. But at the same time they at least tolerate, if not endorse illicit sexuality, greed, and idolatry (1 Cor 5:9-10, 1-5; 6:1-11, 12-20; 8:1-10:22). They spout "wisdom" [sophia] and knowledge [gnosis], but in the former they stand boldly against Paul and his gospel of a crucified Messiah (1:18-31), and in the latter they "build up" weaker brothers or sisters by destroying them (1 Cor 8:10-11). In short, they have a "spirituality" that has religious trappings [asceticism, knowledge, tongues-speaking] but have rather generally abandoned truly Christian ethics, with its supremacy of love--which manifests itself in terms of concern for others that they be "built up" in Christ.

To love is to act. We miss Paul's concern because of the lyrical nation and thinking of love as an abstract quality, or worse yet, as a "feeling" toward someone. Love is primary for Paul because it has already been given concrete expression in the coming of Jesus to die for the sins of the world (Rom 5:6-8; 8:30-32; Eph 5:1-2). Love is NOT an idea, NOT even a "motivating factor" for behavior. LOVE is BEHAVIOR. To love is to act. Anything short of action is not love at all.

The eschatological dimension--that our present existence, for all its blessings, is but a foretaste of the future. This present partial existence ["not yet"] will one day give way to that which is final and complete.

The preeminence of love (12:31b—13:13). Ch. 13 portrays love as the sine qua non of the Christian life and insists that love must govern the exercise of all the gifts of the Spirit. Paul's lyrical prose has caused many to take it out of context as a lovely meditation on the nature of love. But the many verbal and conceptual links between 1 Cor 13 and the rest of the letter show that this is NOT an independently composed oration on love. Within 1 Cor its clear purpose is to reform their understanding and practice of spiritual manifestations in worship.

After an introductory sentence (12:31b) that announces the beginning of an epideictic interlude (in ancient rhetoric, epideictic referred to a type of demonstrative speech in praise or blame of some person, thing, or quality), the unit breaks into 3 parts:

• 13:1–3  --   The absolute necessity of love. The futility of all religious/spiritual practices without love. It doesn't benefit the person doing them. Paul uses himself as a hypothetical negative example, urging the absolute necessity of love.
• 13:4–7  --   The character of love. Encomium [praise] to love, describing the character of love, especially adapted to the Corinthian situation and their differences with Paul.
• 13:8–13  -- The permanence of love. Contrast love with 3 selected charismata, including tongues [middle item]: Juxtaposing the eternal abiding nature of the one [love] and the relative, temporal, provisional nature of the other [spiritual gifts], placed within the context of both his and their "already/but not yet" eschatological existence. This doesn't make charismata less valuable for the present life as one awaits the consummation, but it is against their "over-realized spirituality" that these things have a relative life span [for the "already" only], while love is both now and forever. Paul urges that they eagerly desire "gifts of the Spirit" (1 Cor 14:1) for the sake of the common good (1 Cor 12:7).

Love is the love of God shown in the death of Jesus (Rom 5:8; Gal 2:20b; 1 Cor 13:13), yet there's no reference to Jesus in ch. 13. Agape is presented here as a quality or character attribute that is to be shown in the actions of church members, as in "Let all that you do be done in love" (1 Cor 16:14). Ch. 13 is ethical. By describing the qualities of love, Paul promotes the character formation of the church. John Calvin says, "I have no doubt that Paul intended it [1 Cor 13] to reprimand the Corinthians in an indirect way, by confronting them with a situation quite the reverse of their own, so that they might recognize their own faults by contrast with what they saw." The description of love (1 Cor 13:4–7) is not only a reprimand but also a positive model. It's Paul's overall appeal for the healing of divisions in the church. Love is the antidote to factionalism in the church: "Love is the principle of Christian social unity which Paul urges on the Corinthians" (Margaret Mitchell). This concern decisively shapes ch. 13, both negative and positive, of love. The argument for unity builds throughout the letter and reaches a climax in ch. 13.

2 common misunderstandings of the chapter must be set aside.

1. Love should govern the use of gifts in the church is Paul's point, not to debunk tongues or that love should supersede spiritual gifts—ch. 14. Love is NOT a [higher and better] gift, but a "way" (1 Cor 12:31b), a manner of life within which all the gifts are to find their proper place.
2. Love is the name for specific actions of patient and costly service to others, not merely a feeling or an attitude. Attending closely to what Paul says, all sweetly sentimental notions of love will be dispelled and replaced by a rigorous vision of love that rejoices in the truth and bears all suffering in the name of Jesus Christ.

Spiritual actions without love are meaningless (13:1–3). 3 religious practices are declared futile if love is not present:

• speaking in tongues (1 Cor 13:1),
• prophesying, receiving revealed knowledge, working miracles by faith (1 Cor 13:2), and 
• ascetic self-deprivation (1 Cor 13:3) are all worthless if not accompanied by love.

Tongues, knowledge--gifts they're fond of (1 Cor 13:1-2) and prophecy, which Paul prizes highly (14:1–25). Paul isn't polemicizing against tongues and revelatory gifts of the Spirit, but properly evaluating them. By themselves they're of no account, including even morally praiseworthy acts such as giving away one's possessions to the poor (1 Cor 13:3). 2 ways to understand Paul, with both making good sense.

1. condemning "doing the right thing for the wrong reason" and calling for love as the proper motivation.
2. condemning moral inconsistency (doing some of the right things but lacking love in other areas of one's life) and calling for love to be lived out in all aspects of existence.

"...speak with the tongues of men and of angels" (1 Cor 13:1) doesn't simply mean speaking well with great eloquence, but by the special inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the language spoken by heavenly beings. A most illuminating ancient parallel is in the Testament of Job, an Egyptian Jewish text [1st century B.C.E. or C.E.]. It contains the legend of 3 daughters of Job, each of whom is given a multicolored cord as an inheritance; the cord confers upon them the power of angelic speech and song. "Thus, when the one called Hemera arose, she wrapped around her own string just as her father said. And she took on another heart—no longer minded toward earthly things—but she spoke ecstatically in the angelic dialect, sending up a hymn to God in accord with the hymnic style of the angels" (T. Job 48:l-3a). Such was the "speaking in tongues" as understood by them and by Paul also: "those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God; for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit" (1 Cor 14:2). Tongue-speaking, then, was revered as a mode of communication with the superior heavenly world. But even something as glorious as speaking with the tongues of angels is of no value without love.

Speaking in this way but lacking love is "an echoing bronze or a clanging cymbal" (1 Cor 13:1). Corinth was famous for its bronze vessels. Chalkos ("bronze") is never used elsewhere to refer to a musical instrument. So some scholars propose that it refers to bronze acoustic vases used in the theater to echo and amplify the voices of the actors. The "clanging cymbal" was associated with the wild ecstatic worship practices of the cult of Cybele. To paraphrase Paul: "Even if you can speak with the heavenly language of angels, but have no love, your high-toned speech has become like the empty echo of an actor's speech or the noise of frenzied pagan worship." This is forceful imagery. Paul is pulling no punches.

Prophecy (1 Cor 13:2;12:10; ch. 14) means speaking a word from God to the gathered congregation. Paul understood this gift from the OT prophets. Understanding "all mysteries and all knowledge [gnosis]" means having access to inside information about God's plans. To Paul "mystery" (1 Cor 15:51) is revealed knowledge about the final resurrection of the dead. Such language is from Jewish apocalyptic thought, where the heavenly mysteries from God are revealed. The prototype of the apocalyptic seer is Daniel, to whom "the mystery was revealed" of how to interpret Nebuchadnezzar's dream concerning "what will happen at the end of days" (Dan 2:19, 28), and who therefore praises God, saying, "Blessed be the name of God from age to age, for wisdom and power are his… . He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding. He reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what is in the darkness, and light dwells with him" (Dan 2:20–22).

With Paul's apocalyptic emphasis on wisdom and knowledge, they fused it with Greek philosophical traditions. ["knowledge" (1 Cor 1:5; 8:1; 8:7–13; 12:8; 14:6).] But whether one gains mysterious truths through revelation or philosophical reflection, such knowledge counts for nothing without love. Paul holds himself as an eg.--describing himself as speaking "God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory" (1 Cor 2:7), but without love he'd be "nothing" (1 Cor 13:2).

Performing mountain-moving miracles by faith is nothing without love. ["Faith" is one of the manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:9.)] This may be from Jesus (Mk 11:22–24; Mt 17:20; also Isa 40:4). Paul's point is closer to Mt 7:21–23: those excluded from the kingdom may have prophesied and done mighty works, but they count for nothing if they have not done the will of the Father in heaven—which, in Matthew, is linked with love and mercy. So, without love they have any significance at all.

2 different forms of self-denial: giving away one's possessions (Lk 14:33) and giving up one's own body (1 Cor 13:3). The meaning of the second example is complicated by a notoriously difficult textual problem: some ancient Greek manuscripts read hina kauthsomai ("to be burned"), while others read hina kauchsmai ("so that I may boast"). One of the usual objections against "be burned" is that Christian martyrdom by fire was not yet known in Paul's time; however, this objection carries little weight, for traditions of martyrdom by fire were thoroughly familiar in Judaism, as demonstrated by the narratives of the deaths of the Maccabean martyrs (e.g., 2 Mace. 7:1–6; 4 Macc. 6:24–30). Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine why later scribes would have changed "be burned" to the rather perplexing "boast," whereas the reverse change is entirely understandable. Thus, on balance, the reading kauchsmai ("so that I may boast") is to be preferred.

What does "in order that I may boast" mean? Paul uses "boast" a few times, not always in a pejorative sense. 1 Cor 9:15–16 is pertinent--Paul declares that his boast is that he surrenders his legitimate rights for the sake of the gospel. His boasting seems linked with eschatological reward for apostolic labors (Rom 5:3; 2 Cor 1:14). If this eschatological boasting is in 1 Cor 13:3, the meaning would be, "if I hand over my body so that I might boast/glory in the eschatological reward for my self-sacrifice."

A possible further sense for "giving up the body" is provided by 1 Clement, a late-1st-century text that refers explicitly to Paul's correspondence with Corinth. Offering examples of what it means to be "filled with love" (54:1), 1 Clement says, "We know that many among ourselves have given themselves to bondage that they might ransom others. Many have delivered themselves to slavery, and provided food for others with the price they received for themselves" (55:2). This passage is particularly interesting because the two verbs translated as "delivered" and "provided food" are the same 2 verbs in 1 Cor 13:3, there rendered by the NRSV as "hand over" and "give away." It seems likely that 1 Clement is explicitly echoing 1 Cor 13:3 and interpreting the giving over of the body as a reference to voluntary slavery rather than martyrdom by fire (Fee).

There's nothing to be gained by self-sacrifice where love is absent. With this declaration, his impressive opening paragraph comes to an end, having asserted forcefully that all religious action is meaningless unless encompassed by agape.

Love as the antithesis of their behavior (13:4–7). Paul praises love by detailing what love (now poetically personified) does and does not do. The 1st 2 positive items--"Love is patient; love is kind"--attribute to love qualities that Paul ascribes to God (Rom 2:4). However, the weight falls upon the 8 negative items in the list, which correspond to their behavior as described elsewhere in the letter.

1. "...love is not envious [zlos]" is the first negative description--the same word Paul had applied to their contentious behavior: "For as long as there is jealousy [zlos] and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh?" (1 Cor 3:3) Paul immediately states that love is the opposite of the divisive rivalry that he deplores.
2. "...boastful" the 2nd item echoes Paul's repeated reprimands of their boasting (1 Cor 1:29–31; 3:21; 4:7; 5:6), though using a different Gk word, he'd just used "boast" positively (1 Cor 13:3).
3. Love "is not puffed up [physioutai]--the 3rd item where even the dullest among them would recognize that he's explicitly contrasting agape to their own behavior. [Most English translations opt for a less colorful synonym--"arrogant" or "proud."] This is precisely the word that Paul uses to castigate them (1 Cor 4:6, 18–19; 5:2). Paul also deflates their pretensions of knowledge by declaring that "Knowledge puffs up [physioi], but love builds up" (1 Cor 8:1). Thus, these items in Paul's catalogue of what love does not do functions as a cross-reference back to these earlier passages, especially 1 Cor 8:1.
4. "...rude"--the 4th item [weakly translated by NRSV, NIV, NEB, JB] —is a stronger term referring to shameful behavior. A related noun in Rom 1:27 characterizes the "shameful act" of male homosexual intercourse. In 1 Cor, it referenced an unmarried man who is "behaving shamefully" in relation to his betrothed virgin (1 Cor 7:36). Here it may be the sexual misconduct he condemned (1 Cor 5:1–2 -- link with "puffed up" in 1 Cor 5:2; 6:12–20), and the "shameful" behavior of women prophesying with heads uncovered (11:2–16) and the humiliation of the poor at the Lord's Supper (11:20–22). All these offenses constitutes "acting shamefully" that Paul sees as contrary to love.
5. Love "is not self-seeking"--the 5th item repeats the precise language in his response to the idol-meat controversy: "Do not seek your own advantage but that of the other" (1 Cor 10:24). 1 Cor 13:5 is identical to Paul's self-description: "not seeking my own advantage but that of many" (1 Cor 10:33). Paul links his own self-renunciation for the sake of others as the example of Christ (1 Cor 11:1; Phil 2:4).

6-7. They surely got the picture: Paul implies that everything about their behavior contradicts the character of love. The next 2 negative items are harder to relate to specific passages in the letter, but they can be in contrast to the rivalry and dissensions in the church: love "is not easily angered" and "keeps no record of wrongs" (NIV; these forceful formulations are much closer to the Greek than the NRSV's pallid adjectives, "not irritable or resentful").

8. Paul closes the list of negative attributes with a positive contrast: Love "does not rejoice in wrongdoing [adikia], but rejoices in the truth" (1 Cor 13:6). Adikia may better be translated as "injustice"—prominent in 6:1–11--Paul deplores their taking one another to court unjustly. Juxtaposing "wrongdoing" with "truth" has a moral sense, as in John (Jn 3:21; 1 Jn 3:18). To rejoice in the truth means, among other things, to embrace God's way of righteous living—a sharp contrast to their present conduct.

Paul uses the figure of "love" in counterpoint to their divisive and self-centered behavior. 1 Clement understood this: "Love beareth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing base, nothing haughty in love; love admits no schism, love makes no sedition, love does all things in concord" (1 Clement 49:5 with explicit references to 1 Cor in 1 Clement 47). As this very early interpretation recognizes, Paul's poetic depiction of love's character is aimed at calling the members of the church out of schism and into unity with each other.

After saying what love isn't, Paul ends with 4 strong verbs that characterize agape positively. "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (1 Cor 13:7). Paul has used the first verb to characterize his own conduct as an apostle: he will "bear anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ" (1 Cor 9:12). So if they embody the antithesis of agape, Paul models authentic agape in his long-suffering apostolic role. Paul shows them "a more excellent way" (1 Cor 12:31b) not only through his word-picture of love but also through his eg., which he wants them to imitate (1 Cor 11:1).

The 2 verbs "believes" and "hopes" foreshadow the conclusion of the ch., in which faith and hope join love as the abiding marks of Christian character. The final verb ("endures") creates an inclusio with the 1st item: "Love is patient" (1 Cor 13:). This places love eschatologically in the present: love persists in a hostile world, awaiting the coming of the Lord. The hyperbole of the repeated "all things" (1 Cor 13:7) is not to think that love is infinitely credulous and utterly indiscriminate in its believing and hoping. Love doesn't make its adherents into foolish Pollyannas. Paul's point is accurately conveyed by the NEB: "there is no limit to its faith, its hope, and its endurance."

Spiritual gifts and love (13:8–13)--the final section moves the discussion in a different direction by contrasting the permanence of love to the transitory character of the spiritual gifts. This part most clearly shows that it deals with the specific problem of the evaluation of spiritual gifts in the church. Love is mentioned only in the beginning and end of the unit (1 Cor 13:8a, 13); all the intervening material (13:8b-12) highlights the temporary status of spiritual gifts, especially tongues, prophecy, and knowledge (1 Cor 13:8b-9). If Paul wrote a general "hymn to love," he'd hardly emphasize this contrast so strongly.

"Love never fails" (1 Cor 13:8a) is the opening affirmation in the treatment of the gifts to establish the point of contrast. ("Love never ends" [NRSV] is an interpretative paraphrase.) But prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will all be brought to nothing eschatologically. The verb Paul uses of prophecy and knowledge [katargein] (1 Cor 13:8) is a favorite word of his; it refers to God's nullification and abolition of everything that is ephemeral or—in some cases—opposed to him. For eg., God has chosen lowly and despised nonentities "to reduce to nothing [katargs] things that are" (1 Cor 1:28; 2:6; 6:13; 15:24–26; Rom 6:6). The gifts listed (1 Cor 13:8) are not allied with powers hostile to God, but they will be abolished simply because they will no longer be necessary when Jesus returns and the fullness of his kingdom is present. These gifts of revelation are suited to the time between the times, when the church must walk by faith; prophecy and gnosis are only "partial" (1 Cor 13:9), giving believers a real but imperfect glimpse of God's future truth. When that which is complete comes, however, these partial instruments of knowledge will no longer have any purpose, and so they will be discarded by God (1 Cor 13:10).

{In dispensationalist Christian groups, it is sometimes claimed that "the complete" [to teleion] (1 Cor 13:10) refers to the completion and closure of the NT canon, so that the charismatic gifts were only for the apostolic age and have now ceased to function in the church. This interpretation is simply nonsense. There is nothing in the passage about "the NT" or about a future revocation of revelatory gifts in the church. Paul had no inkling that Israel's Scripture would be supplemented by a new collection of canonical writings. 1 Cor 13:10 is simply a general maxim stating that the perfect supplants the partial. The abolition of the gifts (1 Cor 13:8) are to be understood in light of the patently eschatological language of 1 Cor 13:12: the contrast between "now" and "then" is the contrast between the present age and the age to come.}

Within the eschatologically determined symbolic world of his gospel the logic of Paul's argument is impeccable. The Corinthians lost the future temporal orientation of Paul's preaching. They moved into a frame of reference that thinks only in spatial categories of "above" and "below." They believe that their spiritual gifts give them immediate access to the divine world, and they are not thinking at all about the future event of God's judgment and transformation of the world (15:20–28). In their frame of reference, therefore, revelatory spiritual gifts have assumed ultimate significance, because they provide the open, "hot line" links to heavenly reality. Paul relativizes these gifts by situating them within the unfolding epic narrative of God's redemption of the world: they have a role to play for now, but the time of their usefulness will pass.

The analogy of 1 Cor 13:11 reinforces this point; just as the perceptions and communicative strategies of childhood are put aside when one arrives at maturity, so also the church's present spiritual gifts will be put aside in the eschaton. This ruffles the feathers of those Corinthians who consider themselves far advanced in their spirituality and who think of the gift of tongues as the pinnacle of spiritual maturity. Just as when Paul addressed them as npioi--little children not able yet to eat solid food (3:1-4), so here too Paul confronts them with a different assessment of their place in the unfolding plot of God's story.

One last analogy drives home Paul's point. The knowledge provided by the spiritual gifts is like the picture of the world reflected indirectly in a mirror (1 Cor 13:12), not false but indistinct. (Paul uses a metaphor well suited to his audience, for a noted industry of Corinth was manufacturing mirrors.) The time will come, Paul affirms audaciously, when God will speak to us face to face—as he did to Moses: "When there are prophets among you, I the LORD make myself known to them in visions; I speak to them in dreams, Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house. With him I speak face to face—clearly, not in riddles [LXX: di' ainigmatn; cf. 1 Cor. 13:12]; and he beholds the form of the LORD" (Num 12:6–8).

This direct encounter with God, Paul insists, belongs to the eschatological "not yet" of salvation. The contrast between "now" and "then" is critical to understanding 1 Cor 13:12. Only "then," in the consummation of God's kingdom, will we know fully—as God knows us already in the present. This last turn of phrase deftly sets those who claim "knowledge" in their proper place. God alone is the one who really "knows" (Gal 4:9).

"faith, hope, and love remain" (1 Cor 13:13a) now in the time between the times, even with our partial knowledge. In light of the eschatological imagery (1 Cor 13:8–12), the "now" of verse 13 must surely be read as a temporal adverb, not merely a logical connective. Paul is NOT saying, contrary to the opinion of some exegetes, that faith, hope, and love will all abide eternally. (This statement would be nearly nonsensical in relation to hope; after "the complete" has come [v. 10], after we have seen God face to face [v. 12], what will remain to hope for [Rom 8:22–25]?) No, faith, hope, and love are the enduring character marks of the Christian life in the present time, in this anomalous interval between the cross and the parousia.

• Faith is the trust in the God of Israel, who has kept faith with his covenant promises by putting forward Jesus for our sake and raising him to new life; 
• hope focuses our fervent desire to see a broken world restored by God to its rightful wholeness (Rom 8:18–39); and 
• love is the foretaste of our ultimate union with God, graciously given to us now and shared with our brothers and sisters. 

This triad of terms, grouped in various ways, to portray Christian life (Rom 5:1–5; Gal 5:5–6; Col 1:4–5; 1 Th 1:3; 5:8; Eph 4:2–5; Tit 2:2; Heb 6:10–12; 10:22–24; 1 Pet 1:3–8). Love is the greatest of the three because—unlike the revelatory gifts and even unlike faith and hope—it will endure eternally when the love of God is all in all (1 Cor 15:28). It is also the greatest because, even in the present time, it undergirds everything else and gives meaning to an otherwise unintelligible world (1 Cor 13:1–3). Only when love presides over our common life in the church will the spiritual gifts find their rightful place and achieve the purposes for which God has given them to us.

REFLECTIONS. The first task is to rescue the text from the mushy romantic sentimentality in its common use in weddings, that link it with flowers, kisses, romance and wedding dresses. This is not at all Paul's concern. He didn't write about agape to rhapsodize about romance and marriage. He was writing about the need for mutual concern and consideration within the church, with special reference to the use of spiritual gifts in worship. It may be legitimate to appropriate his words in another context to speak of the love that binds man and woman in marriage, but only if we're clear about the hermeneutical transfer being performed when doing so. Our thoughts about love should be challenged and sharpened when we reflect in a sustained way about 1 Cor 13 in its original historical context. The passage is originally an impassioned plea for the "more excellent way" in which members of the church should treat one another, and not just in the context of romantic love and marriage.

How does Paul's word to them on this matter speak also to us [once we understand the context]? How do our own actions and relationships in the church express—or fail to express—love for one another? This applies not only to the use of charismatic gifts in worship but also to all our actions and interactions in the life of the church. Love is the criterion by which we should assess all that we do. So, does love mean uncritical acceptance? This answer is obvious in Paul's vigorous and sustained confrontation and sarcasm on numerous issues! The love that "rejoices in the truth" often requires us to speak hard truth to those we love.

Theological implications of 1 Cor 13. 3 major observations stand out, one based on each subsection of the passage.

1. Love is the ground of meaning (1–3). Even the most apparently spiritual and meritorious activities become, without love, literally meaningless. 1 Cor 13 encourages us to step back from our most cherished projects and ask, "Why am I doing this?" If we can't honestly say, "I am doing this for love and in love," then its legitimacy comes under serious doubt. This applies to everything we do: business, academics, politics. Laudable causes by people who lost this become loveless zealots, likely like those Corinthians who were single mindedly focused on spirituality but had divided the community and despised their brothers and sisters. We are all susceptible to self-deception that we need others around us who can keep us honest and remind us, as Paul does, that love is what really counts ultimately.
2. Love requires the formation of character (4-7). Love is not just a matter of feelings; feelings come and go, while love abides. Paul's description of the attributes of love (4–7) is a picture of habitual actions and dispositions. One cannot just decide in a day's time to start doing this. They are learned patterns of behavior that must be cultivated over time in the context of a community that models and supports such behavior. We must learn patience, how NOT to keep score of wrongs. The church should be a school for the cultivation of these habits and practices. Sadly, churches tend to adopt the political habits and strategies of secular democracies, rather than character-formation. We must be deliberate about fully devoting our energies to learning how to love. Only this context of 1 Cor helps marriages—and of celibacy and friendship.
3. All our knowledge is partial (8-13). The eschatological reservation looms heavily over all that we say and do: We know only in part and act constantly on the basis of incomplete information. We have no choice about that in this time between the times. The force of 13:8–13 encourages us to have a sense of humility and a sense of humor about even our strongest convictions and activities. When the perfect comes, when God judges the secrets of human hearts (Rom 2:16), when we see this life from the other side of the resurrection, we'll discover that even the things that have seemed most glorious and exalted to us (tongues, technology, humanitarian causes) have been like child's play. Paul teaches us to sit loose in the cares and conflicts of present existence and particularly to what we think we know. Only love will not be obsolete in the end.

Less says more--a final word. This passage shows the power of vivid language. Why is this passage so memorable? Its power comes from its metaphorical richness: sounding bronze and clanging cymbal, mountains moving, memories of childhood play and speech, dim reflections in the mirror. The images carry the message with a minimum of didactic commentary. Learn from Paul the concision and power of metaphorical speech. Also, the diction is clear and simple, with short phrases, repeated syntactical patterns, and forceful verbs. Love "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." Long before Lincoln's Gettysburg Address or Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, Paul knew that less could say more.

re: I need to make a website`s ranks go down

hi

Yes, it is possible, with our service here
https://negativerseo.co/

for further information please email us here
support@negativerseo.co

thanks
Peter









Unsusbcribe
https://negativerseo.co/unsubscribe/

The Lord’s Supper: Discern the Body (1 Cor 11:17–34)

Commendation and rebuke. Paul commended them for keeping the traditions that he passed on to them regarding worship practices (1 Cor 11:2), but is subject to severe qualifications (11:17–34). Paul received word of divisions in the church during their celebration of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:18); thus, he rebukes them for their disunity and offers a stern corrective of their common worship meal.

Church disunity and division. The unnamed report about their disunity at table was from either Chloe's people (1 Cor 1:11) or Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor 11:16:17). Division is a consistent concern of the letter (1:10–17; 3:1–4) with differences in the Lord's Supper. The meal should be the symbol and seal of oneness but some of them shamed others (1 Cor 11:21–22). Their assembly for the common meal became an occasion for them to "eat and drink judgment against themselves" (1 Cor 11:29). Paul says that "when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse" (1 Cor 11:17).

The Revised Common Lectionary has 1 Cor 11:23–26 as the Epistle reading for Holy Thursday each year but not the full passage (11:17–34). This retells the Lord's Supper without having any context. Paul uses the specific situation of the Lord's Supper tradition to address issues of inequality and conflict in the church. 2 preliminary observations.

1. Paul's reference to the Lord's Supper is not about a liturgical ritual celebrated in a church building. At the time, there were no separate buildings for Christian worship. The Lord's Supper was an actual meal eaten by the community in a private home. There's a distinction—later in church history—between "the agape" (love-feast) and "the eucharist," but Paul makes no such distinction. The sharing of the symbolic bread and cup of the Lord's Supper occurred as a part of a common meal, or the passage makes no sense. Christians who experienced the Lord's Supper only as a ritual "in church" removed from a meal setting, must keep this original setting in mind.
2. The problem addressed is not sacramental theology, but social relations within the church with their conventional social mores, requiring distinctions of rank and status to be recognized at table: the more privileged members expect to receive more and better food than others. This humiliates the community and is an abuse of the Lord's Supper, for it contradicts status divisions. Paul reminds them of the tradition of Jesus' institution of the meal to highlight Jesus' death. This memory of him as they eat together should halt their selfish behavior.

3 main parts.

1. Paul describes and deplores their behavior (11:17-22). Divisions at the Lord's Supper.
2. Remember the tradition of the institution of the Lord's Supper (11:23-26). It's the proclamation of the Lord's death.  
3. A call to discern the body. Infer the meaning of the tradition to reshape your practices of sharing the meal (11:27-34).

Divisions at the Lord's Supper (11:17–22). 1 Cor 11:17 is a deliberate counterpoint to 1 Cor 11:2. After commending them for keeping the traditions, he will now not commend them for what happens when they gather for worship. Note the 5 fold repetition of the verb synerchesthai ["to come together"] (1 Cor 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34). This means either "to assemble" for a meeting (the obvious primary sense here in 11:17–34) or "to be united." Paul's rebuke plays off this double sense: when they come together as a church they paradoxically do not "come together" in unity and peace. Rather, their coming together makes things worse, because their schisms [schismata (1 Cor 1:10)] are clearly brought to light. Aristotle suggested that the coming together of citizens in the polis promotes the common good: "For it is possible that the many, though not individually good men, yet when they come together may be better, not individually but collectively...for where there are many, each individual, it may be argued, has some portion of virtue and wisdom, and when they have come together, just as the multitude becomes a single man with many feet and many hands and many senses, so also it becomes one personality as regards the moral and intellectual faculties." But Paul sees the opposite effect in their worship: rather than acting as one body when they meet, they are divided, and their disunity damages all.

Paul "partly" believes the report of divisions among them (1 Cor 11:18). He has emphatically scolded them for their factionalism. Here Paul's rhetorical "mock disbelief" implies that they've fallen way short of the norm expected of them, for he believes the reports (1 Cor 11:20-22). That he believes the report only "to some extent" (NRSV, NIV) is indirectly expressing his shock about what he's heard. His incredulity heightens his characterization of their conduct as outrageous. It is as though he wrote, "I can't believe it! You couldn't possibly have done what they report, could you?"

To expose authentic members of God's people and those who are not (1 Cor 11:19) is Paul's sobering observation that it's "necessary"—presumably in the divine plan—for there to be factions in the community. This foreshadows the theme of God's judgment (11:27–32), which is rooted in Jewish apocalyptic soil. Apocalyptic texts warn that times of trial will bring out the true colors of those who profess the faith (Mk 4:14–20; 13:9–13). Those who are dokimoi ["approved by God" [NIV] will stand the test, while those who are not will fall away or separate themselves from the community (1 Jn 2:19)]. Paul doesn't welcome this community split, but acknowledges its inevitability. Placing the community's divisions in an apocalyptic context emphasizes the gravity of the situation.

The problem: Those with greater resources feast on their own food and wine when the church gathers for its communal meal, while others "who have nothing" go hungry. As a result—contrary to what they may suppose—what they eat is not "the Lord's Supper," but their own private meal (1 Cor 11:20–21). This scenario seems strange in our time. It's hard to imagine how the wealthier could show such overt snubbing of the poor. But in the context of 1st-century Greco-Roman culture, they saw their actions as entirely normal. What is the concrete setting of the meal and the dinner party conventions in their cultural environment?

The Christian gatherings were held in private homes, not in large public spaces. Roman houses from this period show that the dining room (triclinium) of a typical villa could accommodate only 9 persons, who would recline at table for the meal. Other guests sit or stand in the atrium, with space for another 30-40 people. The host would, of course, be a wealthier member of the church. Therefore, the host's higher-status friends would be invited to dine in the triclinium, while lower-status members of the church (such as freedmen and slaves) would be placed in the larger space outside. So, the higher-status guests in the dining room would be served better food and wine than the other guests—like 1st-class passengers on a plane receiving much better food and service than others on the same plane. Pliny the Younger describes his dining experience as a guest of a man who boasted of his hospitality: "The best dishes were set in front of himself and a select few, and cheap scraps of food before the rest of the company. He had even put the wine into tiny little flasks, divided into three categories, not with the idea of giving his guests the opportunity of choosing, but to make it impossible for them to refuse what they were given. One lot was intended for himself and for us, another for his lesser friends (all his friends are graded), and the third for his and our freedmen."

The wealthier who host the meals continue to observe status distinctions, and while eating their own meals, there was no food for "those who have nothing" (1 Cor 11:21-22). Was it bad manners and not social inequality? "...each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else" (1 Cor 11:21). The Greek verb "go ahead without waiting"—has a temporal sense ("to take beforehand"), but not necessarily. A simpler translation would be "For, when you eat, each one consumes his own supper." So it's not that some are refusing to wait for others but that they're eating their own private food without sharing it.

Such practices—however "normal" in respectable Roman culture—is outrageous. He doesn't deny the more prosperous to eat and drink however they like in their own homes (1 Cor 11:22a), but he insists that the church's common meal should symbolize the unity of the community through equitable sharing of food at the meal. Their present practice demonstrates "contempt" for the church and "shames" the poor in the church (1 Cor 11:22). This powerfully indicts the high-status members who disregard their shameless behavior for the church as a whole. Paul's exasperation with the status-conscious Corinthians is forcefully expressed: "In this matter I do not commend you!" (1 Cor 11:22, 17).

The Lord's Supper as proclamation of the Lord's death (11:23–26). In response to this problem, Paul reminds them of the tradition he had taught them about Jesus' last meal with his disciples (11:23–26). The language of "receiving" and "handing on" refers to early Christian tradition (1 Cor 15:3). It wasn't in some experience of revelation (Gal 1:11–12), but that he received it "from the Lord" in that it was Jesus himself who originated the tradition of sharing the bread and cup as a sign of his death and of the new covenant. This shows clearly that Paul's original preaching and teaching included the events of Jesus' passion (1 Cor 15:3–5; Gal 3:1b). There were no written Gospels in Paul's time. So the telling of the story of Jesus' death and resurrection stood at the center of Christian proclamation from the beginning. Paul is not giving them new information, but is recalling the story that he told them about the foundational redemptive event, a story that they repeat—or should repeat—every time they gather at table.

God gave Jesus up/handed him over. "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was handed over took a loaf of bread…." (1 Cor 11:23). Translations don't repeat the verb paradidmi ("hand on, hand over"). The 2nd instance refers to Judas's handing over of Jesus to the authorities, and is translated as "betrayed." Though this is a possible interpretation, Paul's own usage of the same verb elsewhere suggests a different sense: Jesus was "handed over" (paredoth) to death by God "for our trespasses" (Rom 4:25), and God "gave him up [paredken] for all of us" (Rom 8:32). If Paul thinks similarly here, the meaning would be, "on the night when God handed the Lord Jesus over to death for our sake, he took a loaf of bread. …" This must be heard as echoes of the Septuagint: "And the Lord gave him up [paredken] for our sins" (Isa 53:6) and "And he bore the sins of many, and on account of their iniquities he was handed over [paradoth]" (Isa 53:12b). This is the background of 1 Cor 11:23. Even if the story of Jesus' betrayal was circulating in the early Christian tradition, Paul never mentions it. Instead, he consistently interprets Jesus' death as an act of obedience to the divine will—as foreshadowed in Isaiah 53—and at the same time as God's own act for the salvation of the world.

The eucharistic tradition in 1 Cor 11:23–25 is closer to the pattern in Lk than in Mk and Mt. The differences (Paul and Luke place the cup after the meal) is of interest for scholars to reconstruct the evolution of the eucharistic liturgy, but such comparisons are unnecessary for understanding Paul's advice to them. (See schematic comparison, Fee.) Paul's point rests not on any particular "order of service" for the Lord's Supper but on his overall interpretation of its significance.

Paul's emphasis on memory in his renarration of the tradition: "do this in remembrance of me" [twice (1 Cor 11:24, 25)]. The precise interpretation of this phrase is much debated: Is the church to perform these actions to remember Jesus, or that his memory might be kept alive in the sight of God? Whatever Jesus originally meant, Paul thinks of the symbolic action as reminding the church of Jesus' death: the proclamation of Jesus' death (1 Cor 15:26) occurs in and for the church. This "remembrance" is consonant with the Passover: it's to be "a day of remembrance for you" (Exo 12:14) a day Israel recalls God's deliverance of his people from bondage. Similarly, the Lord's Supper is for the people of God to remember God's action of deliverance through Jesus' death.

"Remembrance" (anamnesis) is suggested to be the actual making-present of the Lord through representing his body and blood in the eucharistic elements. But this is far removed from Paul's concerns in 1 Cor. The Lord's Supper expresses the community's memory of his death in the interval between cross and parousia: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death—until he comes" (1 Cor 11:26). This is precisely the opposite of the "real presence" of the Lord (1 Cor 11:26). Thus, the meal acknowledges the absence of the Lord and mingles memory and hope, recalling his death and awaiting his coming again.

2 closely linked themes stand out:

1. the sharing of the Supper calls the community to think of Jesus' death for others, and 
2. that death is understood to initiate a new covenant (1 Cor 11:25; Jer 31:31–34).

A covenant relation with God is to belong to be bound together by responsibilities to God and to one another. This new covenant is in the sharing of the meal. But their celebration of the Supper disregards the covenant obligations and shows amnesia about Jesus' death. By showing contempt for those who have nothing, they act as though his death had not changed their relationship with one another. Paul therefore retells the story to spotlight the death of Jesus as the central meaning of the Supper. His recounting of the tradition is only in 1 Cor 11:23b-25 and 11:26 is not a part of the tradition but Paul's explanatory commentary. Thus, the meaning of the meal is the same as the fundamental message of Paul's preaching: Christ crucified (1 Cor 2:1–2).

Not the Lord's Supper. Proclaiming the Lord's death isn't just in preaching accompanying the meal. The community sharing in the broken bread and the wine is itself an act of proclamation, an enacted parable of the death of Jesus "for us" and the church's common participation in the benefits of that death. That is what they're doing in their common meals is not the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:20). It's not that they don't say the right words but that their enactment of the word is deficient: their self-serving actions obscure the meaning of the Supper so thoroughly that it no longer points to Christ's death.

Call to discern the body (11:27–34). From 1 Cor 11:27, Paul draws conclusions and proposes remedies. 1 Cor 11:27–28 have often been taken out of context and seriously misinterpreted. Eating the bread and drinking the cup "unworthily" (1 Cor 11:27) is misunderstood to mean that only the perfectly righteous can partake of the Lord's Supper, and the call for self-examination (1 Cor 11:28) is heard as a call for intense introspection. This is a grave misreading. The context is that the more affluent are consuming their own food and shaming the poorer members (1 Cor 11:20–22). Thus, to eat the meal unworthily means to eat it in a way that provoke divisions (1 Cor 11:18), with contemptuous disregard for the needs of others in the church. Paul's call to self-scrutiny (1 Cor 11:28) must be understood not as an invitation to probe the inner recesses of their consciences but as a straightforward call to consider how their actions at the supper affect brothers and sisters in the church, the body of Christ.

This is indeed Paul's concern: "For all who eat and drink without discerning the body eat and drink judgment against themselves" (1 Cor 11:29). "Discern the body" cannot mean "perceiving the real presence of Christ in the sacramental bread"--a complete non sequitur. It means recognizing the community of believers for what it really is: the one body of Christ. Paul has used this image for the church (1 Cor 10:16–17), and he'll develop it at greater length (12:12–31a). Those who fail to "discern the body" are those who act selfishly, focusing on their own spirituality and exercising their own social privileges while remaining heedless of those who share with them in the new covenant inaugurated by the Lord's death.

You sin against Christ. Those who eat and drink in this selfish way, are "answerable for the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:27). What does this mean? The NEB says, "guilty of desecrating the body and blood of the Lord." But this puts the emphasis wrongly on the holiness of the eucharistic symbols per se. [Paul avoids identifying the wine directly with the blood of Christ (1 Cor 11:25).] It's not desecration of the sacred elements but rather offense against Christ himself. It's similar to 1 Cor 8:12: "When you sin against your brothers in this way …, you sin against Christ." By mistreating other members of the church, they repeat the sin that made the death of Christ necessary; they place themselves "among those who were responsible for the crucifixion, and not among those who by faith receive the fruit of it" (Barrett). They're like the lapsed Christians in Hebrews who continue to sin, who are "crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt" (Heb. 6:6).

You're courting disaster by your division. Rather than find grace at the Lord's table, they bring God's judgment on themselves (1 Cor 11:29), which is already felt in sickness and death befalling church members (1 Cor 11:30). This is God's displeasure and his corrective discipline to make them recognize the error of their divisions, and change the church's behavior to avoid eschatological condemnation along with the unbelieving world (1 Cor 11:32). [Suffering as God's loving discipline (Heb 12:5–6; Prov 3:11–12).] If they make right discernments about their own church life—i.e. mend their divisions—they'd not be subject to the judgment of God (1 Cor 11:31). This reasoning may be disturbing to many, but Paul's judgment is clear: you brought suffering on your church by your divisiveness.

Paul may also be calling on the church as a whole to exercise disciplinary authority over those abusing the common meal. To understand this, note a series of etymologically related words for judgment that Paul uses (1 Cor 11:29, 31-32): "All who eat and drink without discerning (diakrinon) the body eat and drink judgment (krima) against themselves… . But if we discerned (diekrinomen) ourselves, we would not be judged (ekrinometha). But when we are judged (krinomenoi) by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we might not be condemned (katakrithonen) along with the world."

Paul used the verb diakrinein (to discern or judge) with disputes earlier in the letter: "can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to decide (diakrinai) between one believer and another?" (1 Cor 6:5), and again to describe the community's activity of judging and regulating prophecy in their midst (1 Cor 14:29). So 1 Cor 11:31 may not just be a summons to individual self-judgment but as a call for the community to exercise self-regulatory judgment to bring order to the Lord's Supper by disciplining those who treat it as their own private dinner party. Where the church exercises disciplinary discernment, it averts God's judgment. But where the church fails to exercise discernment, God's judgment intervenes to prevent them from falling under final condemnation.

Specific practical directions (1 Cor 11:33-34) close this discussion. There are 2 possible readings of 1 Cor 11:33 [ambiguity of the verb ekdechesthai ("to wait for" or "to receive").] Most English translations and commentaries says to wait for (ekdechesthai) one another when they assemble to eat. If too impatient or hungry to wait—the wealthier Corinthians—are told to eat at home before the meeting ["Do you not have homes to eat and drink in?" (1 Cor 11:22a)] so that they won't shame the poor by gorging themselves on their private store of rich food in front of the whole assembly, perhaps before the poor have arrived. [ekdechesthai elsewhere in the NT consistently means "wait for," including Paul's only other use of it in 1 Cor 16:11.]

In 1 Cor 11:21–22 the problem is not in the timing of the eating as in the unequal distribution of food. A 2nd interpretation is to not just wait for one another but to receive one another as guests (Rom 15:7) when they come together. Thus, Paul calls the more affluent not merely to preserve a public appearance of unity in the celebration of the Supper but to break down the barriers of social status and to receive the poorer members as guests in their homes, sharing their food with those who have none. This 2nd interpretation is a more satisfying solution to the problem (1 Cor 11:21–22), and is preferred.

Paul stops far short of calling for radical economic equality.  Eat at home (1 Cor 11:34a)—a stopgap solution until Paul can get to Corinth to straighten things out—presumes that the wealthy may continue to eat as they like in private."Within their own four walls they are to behave according to the norms of their social status, while at the Lord's Supper the norms of the congregation have absolute priority. Clearly this is a compromise." (Gerd Theissen)

"About the other things I will give instructions when I come (1 Cor 11:34b)" What are the "other things?" We'll never know. Paul had a list of matters in which he couldn't commend them (1 Cor 11:17-18). "to begin with"/"in the first place (1 Cor 1:18a) is not followed by any additional items. Perhaps he decided that the other matters were too complicated to deal with in a letter, or he deemed them less important and able to be deferred until his arrival. Alternatively, 11:34b means that he'll give further instructions about the Lord's Supper or about issues of economic sharing when he returns. But we'll never know.

REFLECTIONS. We're indebted to them messing up their celebration of the Lord's Supper. If not, Paul wouldn't have written to correct them, and we'd know nothing about the tradition and practice of the Lord's Supper. (Some NT scholars insist that the Eucharist was unknown in the Pauline churches, since he doesn't mention it elsewhere in his surviving letters!) Their trouble serves for our instruction: Paul's rebuke and advice helps us reflect theologically about what we're doing when we come together as a church around the table. 3 important themes.

1. The Lord's table must first of all express the community's unity as the new covenant people of God. Divisions and conflicts in the church are incongruous with the meaning of this common meal; indeed, disunity turns the celebration into a hollow parody of the Lord's Supper. This pertains not only to doctrinal conflict but also to divisions caused by social and economic disparity in the church. The major emphasis of Paul's pastoral response to them is in 1 Cor 11:21–22, 33: the rich must stop shaming the poor and begin sharing their food with "those who have nothing."
• This applies at the level of the local congregation, but also to the church on a larger scale: as long as some Christians go hungry, the Lord's Supper calls the prosperous to share their bread with those in need. This is a challenge for those who live in affluent societies--U.S., Europe. We tend to separate into different churches distinguished by social class, and we have made the Lord's Supper into a tidy rite disconnected from real eating and drinking. So, it's hard for economically comfortable Christians to see the connection between the Lord's table and the needs of the poor. The Eucharist is not just a private act of piety focused on receiving individual forgiveness but a coming together of the Lord's people at a common meal. This requires "discerning the body" (1 Cor 11:29): perceive the connection between ourselves and our brothers and sisters in Christ. If we discern the body rightly, we will symbolize our oneness in Christ by sharing what God has given us to eat and drink.
2. The church's memory of Jesus' death by telling the story of his death again and again at the Lord's Supper. The story Paul received and handed on highlights his self-offering: "This is my body that is for you" (1 Cor 11:24). Jesus' death wasn't an accident, or a tragic mistake of the judicial system; Jesus freely gave himself up to death for us, and the sharing of the bread and the cup signifies our acceptance of that incalculably great gift. To know Jesus rightly is to know him through the eucharistic story. To know ourselves rightly is to know ourselves as the recipients of his self-giving. How?
1. 1st, we acknowledge our desperate need: we were strangers alienated from God who could be brought into the new covenant only through this costly act of God's radical grace.
2. 2nd, we're called to live in a way that expresses such divine generosity: we too are to live sacrificially, not pursuing our own interests and pleasures but giving ourselves for others in remembrance of the one who gave himself for us. Because they failed to grasp this connection, Paul told them the story yet again: the task of all Christians is nothing more—and nothing less—than that.
3. The Lord's Supper is an occasion for us to ponder God's judgment. Some Christians are so conscious of their own guilt and unworthiness that they avoid church and the Lord's Supper, because they recognize that their lives are laid bare before God. But the Eucharist is 1st of all an offer of grace, not condemnation. In any case we cannot ultimately avoid accountability to God by staying away. Paul's point in 11:27–32 is that the Lord's Supper allows us to exercise discernment about our own lives in anticipation of God's eschatological judgment. This doesn't mean that sinless perfection is a prerequisite for eating the bread and drinking the cup: if so, no one could ever come to the table. It does mean that this supper calls us again and again to confess our sin and to open ourselves to leading a new life. In particular, this meal summons us to live—as the invitation to the table in the older Methodist communion service proclaimed—"in love and charity with [our] neighbors." When Paul speaks of eating the bread and drinking the cup "in an unworthy manner" (1 Cor 11:27), he's referring to those who ignore their poorer brothers and sisters in the church. The function of judgment language is very much like the parable of the sheep and the goats (Mt 25:31–46): it summons the church to care for "the least of these" in their midst.

God punished the church by causing illness and death among those who failed to discern the body (1 Cor 11:30). This is disturbing, due to of our discomfort with God's judgment. But this is in continuity with Israel's prophetic tradition from Amos onward, and particularly with Dt, which proclaims that curses and misfortunes will fall upon Israel if they disregard the covenant that God has made with them. Also Jesus describes the fate of the disobedient in Mt 25:46: "eternal punishment." Paul doesn't posit a one-to-one correspondence between disobedience and suffering, which wouldn't be coherent with the cross as the center of the gospel. He does, however, believe that God takes human sin seriously and sometimes acts to discipline those who defy his will. It's a message they/we need to hear. Don't we?

Reference:

1. Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. 1997.
2. Gordon D. Fee. First Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the NT. 1987, 2014.
   
3. Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. A Contemporary Introduction to N.T. Ethics. 1996.

Whitehat monthly plans for blogger.com

hi there

After checking your w^bsite SEO metrics and ranks, we determined that you
can get a real boost in ranks and visibility by using any of our plan below
https://www.cheapseosolutions.co/cheap-seo-packages/index.html

Cheap and effective SEO plan
Onpage SEO included

For the higher value plans, DA50 DR50 TF20 SEO metrics boost is inlcuded

Thank you
Mike
support@cheapseosolutions.co












Unsubscribe:
https://www.cheapseosolutions.co/unsubscribe/