Seeking the truth...

The word which is really the first and the last word is undoubtedly that the man Jesus, like God himself, is not against men but for men-even for men in all the impossibility of their perversion, in their form as the men of the old world of Adam. The decisive point to which we now turn is that the royal man Jesus is the image and reflection of the divine Yes to man and his cosmos. It is God's critical Yes, dividing and disclosing and punishing with all the power of the sword. And in this respect too, as we shall see, there corresponds to it the Yes spoken in the existence of the man Jesus. But, like the Yes of God, it is really a Yes and not a No, even though it includes and is accompanied by a powerful No. It is the image and reflection of the love in which God has loved, and loves, and will love the world; of the faithfulness which he has sworn and will maintain; of the solidarity with it into which He has entered and in which He persists; of the hope of salvation and glory whic...

You can read the text here . Paul concludes his lengthy discussion of the rights and freedom of the Christian in community while clarifying his basic position on eating meat sacrificed to idols. Freedom from the law does not entail freedom to worship idols. It must be avoided at all costs and so must eating cultic meals in a pagan temple. The basic argument is that participating in the Lord's Supper is an act which collective binds us together as the body of Christ, bringing us into union with him. While idols themselves are not real, there are demons/demonic forces behind them to enslave people.[1] Eating at cultic meals similarly binds one in union with the demon/demonic force. That kind of union is incommensurate with union with Christ. God cannot be brought into union with a demon. Why would an individual Christian think they could do so? Underlying all of this is the covenantal background. The Last Supper which the Lord's Supper reenacts was a Passover meal and provoking...

You can read the text here . Paul continues to issue a dire warning, mostly to the strong. He continues with another set of examples, however, these are examples to avoid imitating, drawn from Israel's time wandering in the wilderness. Their status before God, from a superficial perspective would seem to be clear. They had been baptized and had been consumed spiritual food and drink just as the Corinthians had.[1] Nevertheless, God judged them (and implicitly he could judge the Corinthians depending on their conduct). In fact there were a series of judgments for a series of failures. Idolatry, sexual immorality, putting God to the test, and complaining. The first two have obvious import to the Corinthian situation as they are the concerns addressed in the past few sections. The other two may be forward looking, especially the issue of complaining, as Paul may anticipate grumbling at his advice to strong leave off eating meat in temples.[2] Paul urges the Corinthians to heed the...

From The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco "Why the Jews?" I asked Salvatore. He answered, "And why not?" He explained to me that all his life preachers had told him the Jews were the enemies of Christianity and accumulated possessions that had been denied the Christian poor. I asked him, however, whether it was not also true that lords and bishops accumulated possessions through tithes, so that the Shepherds were not fighting their true enemies. He replied that when your true enemies are too strong, you have to choose weaker enemies. I reflected that this is why the simple are so called. Only the powerful always know with great clarity who their true enemies are.

In our most recent post on 1 Corinthians we covered chapter 9. In that post when commenting on 9:19-23, I stated that, following Mark Nanos , Paul changed his basis of argument in his preaching depending on his audience. In saying this I was resisting the standard interpretation that Paul varied his behavior, particularly in relation to the law depending on his audience. Since I'm breaking with the consensus a bit, I thought I should give a fuller explanation of why I cam to that conclusion. But first let's present the text from the NRSV: 19  For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them.  20  To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.  21  To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s la...

You can read the text here . Paul continues to offer his own example as one where, for the sake of others, he has laid down his rights. He is an apostle after all. No one in the community would have higher status than he did. Certainly he (and his coworkers) had rights to financial support and also the personal support of a wife while he traveled just like Peter and the other apostles. Nothing could be more natural than for him to share in some financial benefit for his labors. Paul makes this point using a number of obvious analogies from normal life and Scripture. Others took advantage of this, should not Paul and his coworkers? Paul does not make use of his rights because it would be a hindrance to the proclamation of the gospel. It would prevent some from coming to salvation. He is willing to endure anything for the sake of the advancement of the gospel, something the strong are not willing to do. The source of this commitment is rooted in Paul's transformed heart. He wants...