Luther's Esteem of 1 Peter

Martin Luther on 1 Peter:

"The one who understands this letter has without doubt enough so as not to need more . . . because the apostle did not forget anything in this letter that is necessary for a Christian to know."

—As cited in Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter (Minneapolis: 1 Peter, 1996), 64.

The Context of Kids Drinking in Corinth Considered

In my previous post on 1 Cor. 11:17-34, I said I’d be considering the context of this text next. Considering the context carefully appears to me to be important if we’re not to miss Paul’s purpose in penning this portion of his letter to Corinth. Understanding his purpose, we’re in a much better position to ask the right questions of the text and follow its flow of thought for a right application with respect to children at the family meal.

Discussion of the context will move from the wider to the nearer context, from the periphery to the center. So I’ll discuss first the larger context of the whole letter, its broad occasion. Second, I’ll then briefly canvass the situation that occasioned the broader section (7:1-14:40) in which 1 Cor. 11:17-34 comes. Third, I’ll briefly consider the narrower section that embraces the common concerns (11:2-14:40) in which the section on the Lord’s Supper finds its appropriate place. And last, we’ll think over what’s going on in the immediate context of the text that concerns us.

So, first, why did Paul write 1 Corinthians?[1] He wrote because the Corinthian church was divided and dirty. Paul had apparently been informed by way of an oral report of a number of problems in Corinth, not the least of which was disunity (1:11). The report communicated not only that the Corinthians misunderstood Paul’s first letter (5:1), but also that there was divisiveness, sexual sin, and social snobbery (1:10; 5:1; 11:18). Paul also received a letter from the Corinthians that communicated considerable confusion over marital matters, participation in pagan practices, order in corporate worship, and the bodily resurrection of believers (7:1; 8:1; 12:1; 15:12, 35).

So he wrote his letter to get this church, divided on account of the arrogance of its more influential members, to work together for the advance of the gospel. He wants them to drop their divisive one-upmanship, build up the faith of the weak, and witness effectively to unbelievers. He argues that much of their conduct was out of step with the gospel. At root of their disunity lay an arrogance (3:21; 4:6, 8, 18–19; 5:2, 6) totally incompatible with God’s free grace in Christ: wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1:30; 4:7). The arrogant divisiveness and selfish disregard of others going on generally in Corinth shows up in a particular way at the Lord’s Table.

Now, second, and more briefly, it seems salutary to take note that the text on the Lord’s Supper comes in a much broader section spanning from 7:1 to 15:58. This broader block of text deals mainly with the questions from the Corinthians (see, e.g., 7:1; 8:1; 12:1). Paul responds to the queries of the Corinthians one by one. As many commentators comment upon, 1 Cor. 11:17-34 may be the only passage in the broader block that does not address specific questions.[2] Paul appears to bring up the ethical chaos at the Lord’s Supper in response to oral reportage, supported by the “I hear” of 11:18. Which leads to the third, even narrower still, context in which 11:17-34 finds itself embedded: 11:2-14:40.

This third, narrower context—11:2-14:40—addresses the gathered assembly, or corporate worship, in Corinth. The section right before our text speaks to the head coverings question (11:2-16). Then chapters 12-14 concern the use and abuse of spiritual gifts. So 1 Cor. 11:17-34 comes in where it does because of its thematic links with the forgoing and succeeding sections. It deals with matters of unity and edification when the church gathers together as one body.

Now last, we ought to think about what the immediate context reveals about Paul’s concerns at the Lord’s Supper and the implications for the practice of the gathered people of God. This context brings still more clarity for how we ought to think about the participation of children in the family meal. And to this clarity I shall turn our attention in the next post. So more anon. 

But for now one might just ask this question: how would our questions about kids eating and drinking with the adults at the church's family meal find a place in the questions and concerns at Corinth? Would they?

---

[1] Much of what follows in this first "context" simply comes from Theilman’s introduction in the ESV Study Bible. Though the commentaries cover much of the same ground, and indeed more, Theilman states succinctly and nicely what was going on in Corinth and Paul’s chief concerns.

[2] See, for example, the commentaries of Fee, Thiselton, and Garland. 

Preaching that Doesn't Jeopardize the Gospel

D. A. Carson on preaching a crucified Christ:

And clearly [Paul] thinks the gospel is jeopardized by any kind of eloquence or rhetoric that does not reinforce the message of a crucified Messiah. Clever, witty, amusing, glittering discourse may be warmly applauded by the literati, but it does not easily square with the odium of the cross. Paul will have none of it.

He continues:

Neither would the early English Puritans. In an age when scholars often used the pulpit to display their great learning, the Puritans resolved to speak with simplicity and forcefulness calculated to do their hearers the most good.

Carson then provides a modern day illustration, and an important concluding question:

I understood this point most clearly, I think, when I heard of an Egyptian believer with extraordinary communication skills. Arabic is a language that operates on two levels. There is a sort of street Arabic—or, more precisely, there are several quite different street Arabics, depending on the region—and a "high" or "literary" Arabic. The latter may be found not only in good Arabic literature, but, in the hands of the skillful, it may be found in oral address. This particular Egyptian Christian was a journalist, widely read as much for the music of his prose as for the quality of his content. He felt called of God to Christian ministry, abandoned journalism, and soon built up a very large congregation. Many of those who attended his church did so simply because they greatly enjoyed listening to his orations. 

But this preacher was troubled. He discovered that many people were far more interested in his Arabic than his Savior. After much soul-searching, he switched to the more colloquial Arabic. His reasoning was quite simple: his purpose was to convey the message of the cross, and he had come to the conclusion that his rhetoric was getting in the way. That man, surely, understood Paul.  

What gets in our way?

—The Cross and Christian Ministry: An Exposition of Passages from 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker:1993), 35-36.

Marvelous Preacher, or Marvelous Savior?

D. A. Carson on 1 Cor. 2:1-5:

These verses do not prohibit diligent preparation, passion, clear articulation, and persuasive presentation. Rather, they warn against any method that leads people to say, 'What a marvelous preacher!' rather than, 'What a marvelous Savior!'

—The Cross and Christian Ministry: An Exposition of Passages from 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker:1993), 35. 

Cleaning Up the Horse Poop in Rome

"One wonders why, if Paul had been focally concerned about being a good steward of creation in his own time, he did not say a bit more about cleaning up the horse poop in Rome."

—D. A. Carson, "Kingdom, Ethics, and Individual Salvation," Themelios 38.2 (2013): 197-201.

"Kingdom" as a Mere Adjective?

"There is nothing in the NT quite like the current infatuation for expressions like 'kingdom ethics,' in which 'kingdom' is reduced to a mere adjective."

—D. A. Carson, "Kingdom, Ethics, and Individual Salvation," Themelios 38.2 (2013): 197-201.

Can Kids Drink Unworthily?

Now before getting into some of the details of the text (1 Cor. 11:17-34), I want to do two things. First, I want to make clearer the difficulty I’m raising in my first post in this series. Second, I want to consider the passage in the larger context and flow of the epistle.

So first, the difficulty. It's often asserted that this passage ought to keep kids who lack a certain level of cognitive development from coming to the table. Why? Well, because they cannot either “examine” themselves or “discern the body” (1 Cor. 11:28-29). 

How we determine that level of cognitive development is worth considering, but it’s not the point I wish to pursue now. What I want to pursue now is simply what is implied in saying that a lack of cognitive development excludes kids from coming to the family meal of the church. For if we want to say that children do not have the capacity to participate in the examining and discerning Paul calls for, then should we not also say that they probably lack the capacity to participate in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner? And if they cannot participate unworthily, then why are we excluding them?

But, someone will say, “Ah, but we don’t have to decide whether or not they can participate unworthily.” Why not? We’ve decided we have to decide whether they are old enough to examine and to discern. So why wouldn’t we also want to ask if they can commit the sin that concerns Paul? Isn’t that why he wants the examining and discerning to be done? So isn’t the question about whether so-called cognitively underdeveloped children can participate in an unworthy manner or not more fundamental to the whole discussion for deciding whether to include or exclude covenant kids from the family meal?

So let’s consider what we might make of answering either “yes” or “no” to our question. Say someone says, “No, covenant kids cannot participate unworthily, for they lack the requisite mental development.” Well, then, why exclude them? Isn’t Paul’s concern to warn those who would participate unworthily? It’s not just to exclude those who lack a certain kind of development. No, that’s not at all the topic of his discussion. He wants to prevent guilt-generating participation in the family meal. He wants to prevent the Lord's judgment from falling on people who participate unworthily.

But say one answers, “Yes, covenant kids are mentally developed enough to participate unworthily.” Okay, so why then do we say they’re not mentally developed enough to examine or to discern? How have we decided this—and done so with such certainty?

Do you see the difficulty? I don’t see how people can get around it. Unless they just ignore it. Which ignoring seems to being going on quite a lot.

In the next post, I will consider the context of 1 Cor. 11:17-34. It seems to me that it’s essential for us to discern properly Paul’s purpose in writing the epistle and his purpose in the section in which our passage comes. The larger context of the whole epistle, with the circumstances and condition of the Corinthians that Paul’s addressing, and then also the flow of thought in the larger section in which our passage participates—these are crucial for asking the right questions of the passage. Who is Paul trying to exclude from the table anyway? Would our questions about children likely be in either Paul’s mind or the minds of the Corinthians?

Well, more to come just around the bend.

Kids Who Drink Unworthily

I'm going to begin a series of posts, probably fairly short, on a text that ought to be far more controversial than it tends to be in most Protestant churches, and especially in Reformed churches. I'm speaking of 1 Cor. 11:17-34, especially verses 27-29.

It's assumed and asserted (far too dogmatically, to my mind) that this text excludes children from coming to the Lord's table until they reach a certain stage of cognitive development that enables them to "examine themselves" and "discern the body" (1 Cor. 11:28-29). But I want to question this assumption. I realize that even the Christian tradition that I respect most—namely, the Reformed tradition—has by and large taken the dominant position today of excluding kids until they attain a certain stage of cognitive development.

In this first post, I simply want to raise a question to consider. If children need first to be able to "discern the body" (whatever that means, and more on that soon) and "examine" themselves as adults do, then by the same reasoning, should they not also be required to be in a position developmentally where they can also eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord "in an unworthy manner" (1 Cor. 11:27)?

In other words, what does it look like to eat and drink "in an unworthy manner" for the one we consider developmentally developed enough? Given that, it seems that we must then ask a couple of preliminary questions, and then some follow-up questions. First, can a child do this? And, second, what would that look like?

For if children cannot eat and drink unworthily, or are not likely to do so, then perhaps we shouldn't so easily exclude them. But, if children can eat and drink unworthily, then can we not discern who is and who isn't discerning the Lord's body among the children? Or can only the child do the examining? And if this is the case, that the child alone can do the examining (in order to be faithful to the text), then is this even possible for a child? And if not, why not? And if so, what might that "examining" look like?

The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment

Leon Morris:

The doctrine of final judgment . . . stresses man's accountability and the certainty that justice will finally triumph over all the wrongs which are part and parcel of life here and now. The former gives a dignity to the humblest action, the latter brings calmness and assurance to those in the thick of the battle. This doctrine gives meaning to life. . . . The Christian view of judgment means that history moves to a goal. . . . Judgment protects the idea of the triumph of God and of good. It is unthinkable that the present conflict between good and evil should last throughout eternity. Judgment means that evil will be disposed of authoritatively, decisively, finally. Judgment means that in the end God's will will be perfectly done.

—The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment, 72, as cited in J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1973), 144.

Heartbeats Cannot Be Hoarded

N. D. Wilson:

Death is now. The choice is here. 

Lay your life down. Your heartbeats cannot be hoarded. Your reservoir of breaths is draining away. You have hands, blister them while you can. You have bones, make them strain—they carry nothing in the grave. You have lungs, let them spill with laughter. With an average life expectancy of 78.2 years in the US (subtracting eight hours a day for sleep), I have around 250,000 conscious hours remaining to me in which I could be smiling or scowling, rejoicing in my life, in this race, in this story, or moaning and complaining about my troubles. I can be giving my fingers, my back, my mind, my words, my breaths, to my wife and my children and my neighbors, or I can grasp after the vapor and the vanity for myself, dragging my feet, afraid to die and therefore afraid to live. And, like Adam, I will still die in the end.   

Living is the same thing as dying. Living well is the same thing as dying for others.  

—Death by Living: Life Is Meant to Be Spent (Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 2013), 84.

What Do I Love When I Love My God?

Augustine:

But what do I love when I love my God? Not material beauty or beauty of a temporal order; not the brilliance of earthly light, so welcome to our eyes; not the sweet melody of harmony and song; not the fragrance of flowers, perfumes, and spices; not manna or honey; not limbs such as the body delights to embrace. It is not these that I love when I love my God. And yet, when I love him, it is true that I love a light of a certain kind, a voice, a perfume, a food, an embrace; but they are of the kind that I love in my inner self, when my soul is bathed in light that is not bound by space; when it listens to sound that never dies away; when it breathes fragrance that is not borne away on the wind; when it tastes food that is never consumed by the eating; when it clings to an embrace from which it is not severed by fulfillment of desire. This is what I love when I love my God.

—Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (New York: Penguin, 1961), 212.