01-06-2024, 04:51 PM
The balance of Paul's letter here is almost entirely personal in nature. It is by far the strongest defense of his apostleship. While very critical historically, telling us so much about Paul the man, and incidentally very much about the folks at the church in Corinth, there is very little doctrine, which is the subject of this study.
However, there is one strong statement of doctrine in 10:1-11. Here again, I can offer nothing better than my previous written comments:
Jesus once said that the traditions of humanity, specifically the Talmud, were a poor replacement for the Word of God. Those who regard His Word as mere traditions of men prove they are spiritually dead, for no one in the Spirit can think that way. [It is, after all, the Spirit of Christ.] The one indicator we have of spiritual birth in someone is how they respond to the Word. A spiritual message brings a spiritual power to bear; the mind and flesh must obey, however poorly. Human traditions of scholarship could only apply to the level of the fleshly intellect and have no place in the Spirit Realm.
While Paul’s scholarship was easily the match of any other, and his ability to understand politics deeply seasoned by experience and his knowledge of God’s Laws, he never relied on these things when it came to matters of the Spirit. Since it seems he lacked some sort of natural charisma or oratorical talent, those were dead issues from the start. Such abilities were fine for mundane matters where the Spirit is silent, but utterly outclassed against the imperatives of the Kingdom.
Thus, moving the hearts of the Corinthians would necessarily be a matter of spiritual power through gentleness, not political power or scholarly argument. Paul jokingly noted that some who operated by fleshly authority found this sort of approach wimpy, inconsistent with his forceful letter writing ability. He much preferred the gentle and friendly approach, but some who operate purely on the level of the flesh were going to see his other side, which he reserved for those who didn’t appear to have a clue about the Spirit. He may have been confined to a fleshly form, but his friendly demeanor was effective spiritual warfare, overwhelming fleshly powers.
Adding to those three paragraphs of commentary, we are reminded that Paul struggled more with the Corinthians over the spirit versus flesh issue than any other church we know about. They were so enamored of their proud Greek heritage of reason, but failed to recognize the even more ancient Hebrew heritage of mysticism. They kept trying to reassert their human judgment against the revelation of God. Shouldn't God be reasonable? There are some things in His ancient Law Covenant that touched on the very root of Creation itself. The issue of sexual defilement is simply not open to moderation, and this was the core issue with the Corinthian church.
However, there is one strong statement of doctrine in 10:1-11. Here again, I can offer nothing better than my previous written comments:
Jesus once said that the traditions of humanity, specifically the Talmud, were a poor replacement for the Word of God. Those who regard His Word as mere traditions of men prove they are spiritually dead, for no one in the Spirit can think that way. [It is, after all, the Spirit of Christ.] The one indicator we have of spiritual birth in someone is how they respond to the Word. A spiritual message brings a spiritual power to bear; the mind and flesh must obey, however poorly. Human traditions of scholarship could only apply to the level of the fleshly intellect and have no place in the Spirit Realm.
While Paul’s scholarship was easily the match of any other, and his ability to understand politics deeply seasoned by experience and his knowledge of God’s Laws, he never relied on these things when it came to matters of the Spirit. Since it seems he lacked some sort of natural charisma or oratorical talent, those were dead issues from the start. Such abilities were fine for mundane matters where the Spirit is silent, but utterly outclassed against the imperatives of the Kingdom.
Thus, moving the hearts of the Corinthians would necessarily be a matter of spiritual power through gentleness, not political power or scholarly argument. Paul jokingly noted that some who operated by fleshly authority found this sort of approach wimpy, inconsistent with his forceful letter writing ability. He much preferred the gentle and friendly approach, but some who operate purely on the level of the flesh were going to see his other side, which he reserved for those who didn’t appear to have a clue about the Spirit. He may have been confined to a fleshly form, but his friendly demeanor was effective spiritual warfare, overwhelming fleshly powers.
Adding to those three paragraphs of commentary, we are reminded that Paul struggled more with the Corinthians over the spirit versus flesh issue than any other church we know about. They were so enamored of their proud Greek heritage of reason, but failed to recognize the even more ancient Hebrew heritage of mysticism. They kept trying to reassert their human judgment against the revelation of God. Shouldn't God be reasonable? There are some things in His ancient Law Covenant that touched on the very root of Creation itself. The issue of sexual defilement is simply not open to moderation, and this was the core issue with the Corinthian church.
