1 Corinthians 11:27-30 - This is why you are sick

11:27

Having looked at what the Lord's Supper should be about we now come to the errors. First Paul highlights the seriousness of it all. If we eat the bread or drink the wine in an unworthy manner we are sinning against the body and blood of Jesus. This is no trivial matter, but one that needs to be taken seriously.

11:28,29

So we must not eat it in an unworthy manner, we are to examine ourselves. Now, what does this mean in practice? It cannot mean that we are without sin, for the whole point of the cross is to deal with the problem of our sin. Instead, it means we are aware of our need for forgiveness, and are seeking to be more Christlike. These are things the Corinthians manifestly were not doing. Rather, they came with pride. “Discerning the body”, there are some who take this as referring to the church, but as throughout this section body has referred to Christ’s body, this seems unlikely to say the least. We need to recognise what the cross is all about, if we do not we are only bringing judgement upon ourselves.

11:30

So can sickness be a result of sin? The answer is clearly yes as Paul states here. The disregard for the Lord by the Corinthians was the reason many of them were falling sick. Now is all sickness a result of sin? Ultimately, again yes. The root cause of all sickness can be traced back to the fall. However, this does not mean that all sickness is a direct result of the person’s sin, but some sickness is. As often happens, we tend to go to one extreme or the other. Either we say that all sickness is a direct result of your sin, so if you are sick you must be guilty of something, and if only you were good enough you would never be sick. Such talk is unbiblical nonsense, but in reaction against it we then assume, at least implicitly, that sickness and sin are never related. Such talk is equally unbiblical nonsense.

"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (17)

Chapter 15

This is mostly a rambling chapter with Wright highlighting a number of areas where the world needs to be put to rights. Or, to put it more kindly (and accurately), where the mission of the church is needed.  The final paragraph, rather fittingly, kind of sums up all that I think is wrong with this book. Here he says: “The message for us, then is plain. Forget the “works contract”, with its angry, legalistic divinity...” Well, I never believed in this pathetic caricature, so it is rather difficult to forget it.

If any of you have read through all this blog, congratulations! It was way longer than I envisaged at the start, and far more negative than I anticipated it would be. Wright sets up this ridiculous caricature of evangelical/reformed atonement theology. The tragic thing is that most, maybe even all, of the positive things in the book (ie the great purpose God has for His people, and the absolute and ongoing significance of Israel) could have been said based on an evangelical/reformed theology. I am part of a charismatic church, we firmly believe in the atonement view of the cross. We are also actively committed to social action in a variety of ways, to preaching the gospel, and a gospel that changes people’s lives, both on an individual level, and at a societal level. No waiting to get to heaven. There is another quite different church a few hundred yards up the road, but with thoroughly reformed view of the cross. They too are no “ticket to heaven” merchants, but a church with a mission to make a difference.

Wright could have written a much better and more relevant book. There are also things that trouble me, particularly the approach to sin. On the other hand, the theme of seeing the cross in the light of the whole Bible is vital. In view of that, I shall now go on to re-read Leon Morris’ book on the Atonement, and John Stott’s “The Cross of Christ”.

Don’t worry, I have no intentions of writing reviews of these books!

1 Corinthians 11:18-26 - The Lord's Supper

11:18,19

One of the problems was that there were divisions among them. It may be that Paul is being sarcastic here when he says there have to be divisions, perhaps looking back to the issues discussed right at the start of the letter. In Christ there is meant to be unity, not division. Before the cross there is no superiority, for all are utterly guilty on their own merit, and all receive the mercy of Christ.

11:20-22

These problems carried over to practicalities as well. The meal highlighted material differences, the differences between the well off and not so well off. One would have plenty, another nothing. They were eating for themselves, not honouring the Lord. So we see the dishonouring of God and of each other going together. Paul was not going to commend them for this. There is a time to be totally blunt about things that are wrong.

11:23

Paul had left instructions that he had received from the Lord. Now Paul, of course, was not present at the Last Supper. These instructions could have been given to him either by direct revelation or passed on by one of the twelve. We need to remember that the focus of the Lord's Supper is on what happened on the cross, if we try and make the focus something else, such as “community” we are deeply mistaken. Fellowship and community flow from the cross, without the cross we have nothing.

11:24-26

Jesus became flesh for our sake. He lived his life in order to give it for us. He lived a life of perfect obedience, perfect trust and perfect love so that He could offer Himself as the perfect sacrifice. We are to eat the bread in remembrance of Him. In the same way we are to drink the wine in remembrance of Him. Covenants were often sealed in blood, it is Jesus’ blood shed on the cross that seals the new covenant.

When we take the Lord's Supper we proclaim His death until He returns. The cross is the foundation of our lives, as individuals and as a church.

"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (16)

Chapter 14

Wright argues that missions has too often been “Jesus died so that we can go to heaven”. Now, as I have said on several occasions already, I am in complete agreement that salvation is much more than this. However, Wright, who is keen for us to see the fuller or deeper meaning in various phrases, should perhaps look at the fuller meaning in “Jesus died so that we can go to heaven”. Behind it says that sin is our greatest problem, that there is now something fundamentally wrong with the human race, both on an individual level and as a whole. And it then goes on to to say that on the cross God, through Christ, did something to fundamentally and concretely change that situation.

He then goes on to say some “have come to regard any talk of working for God’s kingdom in the present world as a dangerous distraction”. Well, I am sure there are such people, but I don’t know any of them. The church I am in, and many other churches I know, certainly do not hold this view.

Only one more post to go, then we'll be done! And I'll be as glad as you are.

1 Corinthians 11:16,17 - No praise for you!

11:16

Paul simply says that this is the way things are done in the church, so there is no point being contentious about it. So what are we to make of all this? The cultural context today is so different and we can be blinded to the underlying truths by the cultural application of the principles. And if we accept that most or all of the instructions here are a cultural application there is a danger that we then start saying all sorts of things in the Bible are “cultural”. Well, let’s look at the male-female relationship. In the culture male and female were often in opposition, or men dominated women. In today’s culture we can still see some of that, and for all the changes in society women are increasingly treated as sex objects, with even children being sexualised. Then we have the transgender nonsense that is seeking to divorce gender from biology, and causing all sorts of chaos. The Bible teaches something very different. God created us male and female. We were created in His image, our humanity is a reflection of His glory. Men and women are equal, but they are also different, and these differences are also to our glory and to our authority (men’s and women’s). Again, notice how society tries to obliterate the differences, sees them as a nuisance, for example the attitude to childbearing and rearing. We should rejoice in God’s creation, especially when society around us is losing its marbles.

11:17

In 11:2 Paul had said that he commended the Corinthians, here he is very blunt about his displeasure with them. The Lord's supper was meant to be a remembrance of the Lord and what He has done, it was meant to be honouring to the Lord and upbuilding for the church, but at Corinth it was neither. We need to remember that our church services have this dual role, and this is the yardstick by which we are to measure them. It is very easy to get distracted from this.

"The Day the Revolution Began" - Wright or wrong? (15)

Wright really seems to have a problem with punishment, and also he seems to say that sacrifices in Leviticus were predominantly associated with accidental sins. This raises a number if questions. With regard to the latter point. What about our deliberate sins? Are they not dealt with? The more serious questions relate to the former. Wright’s view seems to leave out the question of justice. One the most important aspects of penal substitutionary atonement is that God has acted justly in forgivings us (see 1 John 1:9). It is more than just God deciding to forgive us, and definitely more than overlooking our sins. On Loc 4856 Wright says “the sacrificial blood is the sign of God-given life, a life more powerful than death”. Well, maybe, but he seems to say this is the prime purpose of the blood. This really does raise the question of why did Jesus have to die. Was his death merely symbolic, or did it actually achieve a concrete purpose., and if the latter, how did it achieve that purpose. The atonement view seems to me to provide proper answers to these questions, Wright’s view does not provide satisfactory answers.

Wright considers Isaiah 53 and I have to say I find some of the things he says very strange. (Loc 4890) he says

“punishment that made us whole” (Is 53:5), means what it means and makes the sense it makes not within the moralistic works contract, an abstract scheme of sin and punishment, but within the covenant of vocation, the image bearing, glory sharing covenant.

First, Wright often uses his own translation, which are not always that familiar! Second what is abstract about sin and punishment? My sin is not abstract, it is utterly real. My sin has offended God, it has hurt me, and it has hurt others. There is nothing abstract about it. And under penal substitutionary atonement there is nothing abstract about the cross. Indeed, it is the harsh reality of the cross that brings the covenant of vocation into reality.

At Loc 4924 Wright says “the idea of punishment is in reality a sharp metaphor for the consequence that is writ large across the history of Israel”. Wright seems to see the “punishment” as consequences, almost as if God is not directly involved. Wright is aware of this danger, but I don’t think he avoids it. There are philosophical problems, more importantly there are Biblical problems. The Bible shows God as actively punishing sinners. He cast Adam and Eve out of the garden, He sent Assyria and Babylon against Israel, Jesus says “I never knew you”.

1 Corinthians 11:12-15 - Long hair?

11:12

Paul now demonstrates the reality of this. Yes, woman was created from man in Gen 2:22, but ever since man has come from woman, and in this God is demonstrating man’s dependency on woman. Now see how the natural order demonstrates theological truths. This also has great relevance for the LGBT debates, in particular for the church's’ attitude on the matter. Nature quite clearly demonstrates that sex is meant to be heterosexual, and that we are created male and female, and all this is completely in line with the word of God. So any Christian or any church that seeks to take a sin-affirming line on LGBT issues has not got a leg to stand on, they are completely wrong and are most definitely not being led by the Spirit.

11:13-15

This is another verse that seems utterly meaningless to us. Nowadays, the vast majority of churches do not apply this instruction, and think nothing of it. This is an example of a cultural application of an important principle. The principle remains (ie the order of God’s creation), but the practice , or the particular implementation of the principle, is no longer relevant. The comments on hair are a little more relevant today, but only slightly so. Men having long hair has gone in and out of fashion. There were times in Greek history when men had long hair, if we look at paintings from long ago sometimes men had long hair. Indeed, paintings of Jesus often show him with long hair, though theses pictures are of course more a reflection of the artist’s mind than bearing any real resemblance to what Jesus actually looked like. Conversely, hair has always been important for women. Again, there seems to be a cultural context to this. However, what is undoubtedly true is that men tend to lose their hair!