The
doctrinal position defended in ”God’s
covenant people”
is no exception to everything said above. It’s certainly not without its share
of opponents who are convinced (or inclined to believe) that it’s contradicted
by at least some verses or passages of scripture. What I want to do in this
series of articles, then, is “tie up some loose ends” by responding to the most
common scripture-based objections I’ve seen to the position defended in my
study. Throughout this series of articles, I will be presupposing that those
reading have already read my previous study, and will be familiar with the
conclusions at which I arrived.
Objection:
Based on what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 1:10-13 and 1 Cor. 3:21-23,
we can conclude that Peter was in the body of Christ (and that those who deny
this fact are guilty of “dividing Christ”).
In 1 Cor. 1:10-13 we read the following: “Now I am
entreating you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all
may be saying the same thing, and there may be no schisms among you, but you
may be attuned to the same mind and to the same opinion. For it was made
evident to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe, that there are
strifes among you. Now I am saying this, that each of you is saying, ‘I,
indeed, am of Paul,’ yet ‘I of Apollos,’ yet ‘I of Cephas,’ yet ‘I of Christ.’
Christ is parted! Not Paul was crucified for your sakes! Or into the name of
Paul are you baptized?”
Some see this passage as evidence for their
position that Peter was a member of the body of Christ, and that those who deny
Peter’s membership in the body of Christ are guilty of “parting” (or
“dividing”) Christ. In contrast with this view, I believe that everything Paul
wrote in these verses is perfectly consistent with the position I defended in
“God’s covenant people.”
First, it must be emphasized that Paul didn’t say
that either an affirmation or a denial of Peter’s membership in the body of
Christ is what led to Christ’s being “parted” (or potentially “parted”). Instead, what led to Paul’s rebuke in the above passage was the existence of rival factions within the ecclesia in Corinth (one of
which apparently involved a preference for, and sectarian loyalty to, the
apostle Peter over against Paul and Apollos). The root of the problem to which
Paul was responding was not “merely” doctrinal in nature (even if the doctrinal
understanding of those involved may have played a part); rather, the root of the problem was a divisive, contrarian and
dissentious attitude.
The primary problem was, in other words, “of the
heart” rather than of the understanding. This means that if (as I believe)
those who were claiming to be “of Cephas” were mistaken for believing that
Peter was just as much of an apostolic authority within the body of Christ as
was Paul or Apollos, it would not have helped the situation for Paul to have
attempted to correct their mistaken belief. Pointing out their error in this
doctrinal area would’ve been beside the point (and, for Paul, a waste of ink
and parchment space – his first letter to the Corinthians is long enough as it
is!).
Moreover, it should be noted that Paul didn’t
actually say that Peter was,
in fact, a member of the body of Christ. Those who think this passage supports
the view that Peter was in the body of Christ are making an inference based on what some of the
saints in Corinth were saying (i.e., “I of Cephas”). The assumption is that,
even if those who were saying “I of Cephas” were wrong for claiming sectarian
allegiance to Peter, they weren’t
mistaken for thinking that Peter was an apostolic authority within the body of
Christ. But what reason do we have for believing that those saying “I of
Cephas” were even justified in believing what they did concerning Peter’s
apostolic status in relation to those in the body of Christ? If - as argued in
“God’s covenant people” – we have good reason to believe that Peter wasn’t a
member of the body of Christ, then we can dismiss the position of those who
were saying “I of Cephas” as being based
on a mistaken belief.
Based on what Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 3:1-9, it
would seem that the main two rival factions in the ecclesia in Corinth involved
Paul and Apollos.[1] That the two main factions
would’ve involved Paul and Apollos shouldn’t really be surprising given the
important roles that these men played in establishing this ecclesia (see 1 Cor.
3:6 and :10). However, in contrast with what we know about Paul and Apollos, we
have no reason to believe that the apostle Peter had ever been to Corinth, or
that he played any role whatsoever in the establishment of the ecclesia there.
But if that’s the case, then how do we account for the presence of an actual
“Cephas faction” in Corinth?
Given Peter’s lack of direct influence on the
saints in Corinth, a “Cephas faction” can, I believe, best be accounted for as
having been the result of the influence of Judaizers (who would’ve undoubtedly
viewed Peter - rather than Paul or Apollos - as their highest apostolic
authority). We know that there was a Judaizing presence and influence in
Galatia (see Gal. 1:7; 5:7-12), and it can be inferred from parts of Paul’s
first and second letter to the Corinthians that there was one in Corinth as
well. In 1 Cor. 9:1-7, Paul was compelled to write in defense of his
apostleship, and part of his defense involved the claim that he had the same
apostolic rights as “the rest of the apostles and the
brothers of the Lord and Cephas”
(v. 5). The fact that Paul would single out Cephas here suggests that those
against whom Paul was defending his apostleship were partial to Cephas (which
would further suggest that those calling into question his apostleship were, in
fact, Judaizers).[2]
This
seems further evident from Paul’s defense of the validity of his apostleship in
2 Corinthians (which, among other things, was being challenged on the basis
that he had no “commendatory letters” - likely from Jerusalem - as others did,
and that he was not a qualified or powerful speaker).[3]
Consider especially Paul’s words in 2 Cor. 11:22-28, where there can be little
doubt that those who had been leveling charges against the validity of his
apostleship (and to whom he had been responding) were, in fact, Judaizers. But irrespective of why a
member of the ecclesia in Corinth may have been saying, “I of Cephas,” what
needs to be emphasized for the purpose of this response is that the mention of
Cephas in 1 Cor. 1:12 is no proof whatsoever that Paul himself believed that Peter was an apostolic member of the
body of Christ.
But what about 1 Cor. 3:21-23? In these verses we
read, “So that, let no one be boasting in men, for all
is yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death,
or the present, or that which is impending – all is yours, yet you are
Christ’s, yet Christ is God’s.” Everything Paul wrote in these verses
is perfectly consistent with the view that the apostle Peter belonged to a
company of believers distinct from the body of Christ. We can learn and benefit
from what Peter wrote in his two letters just as we can learn and benefit from
what John wrote in Revelation, or from what Moses wrote in the Pentateuch, or
from what the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel wrote in their respective works. But
that doesn’t mean that what Peter wrote (or any other inspired author) is just
as relevant and applicable to the saints in the body of Christ as what Paul
wrote in his thirteen letters.
It
may be objected that Paul specified Peter (Cephas) as being ours right after
referring to himself and Apollos. However, Paul went on to include “the world,”
“life,” “death,” “the present,” and “that which is impending” as part of the
same “all” that is ours. Clearly it wasn’t Paul’s intent in this passage to
convey the idea that each of these people or things is “ours” in the same exact sense. And given that
this is obviously the case, this passage is useless as a “proof-text” for the
position that Peter is an apostle of the body of Christ, or that his letters
are just as equally to and for those in the body of Christ as Paul’s thirteen
letters.
Objection: Based on what Paul
wrote in 1 Cor. 11:23-26, we should understand those in the body of Christ as
being beneficiaries of the new covenant.
As demonstrated in “God’s covenant people,” the eonian allotment of those in the body of
Christ is as distinct from that belonging to the beneficiaries of the new
covenant as heaven is distinct from earth. But if those in the body of Christ
are not going to be beneficiaries of the new covenant, what, then, are we to
make of Paul’s reference to the words Christ spoke on the night that he was
betrayed? Paul wrote that he’d accepted certain facts “from the Lord” (i.e.,
from Christ in his glorified, post-ascended state) which pertained to what took
place on this night (1 Cor. 11:23).[4] Now, based on what Christ
himself declared on this night (and which Paul quotes him as saying), all that
the twelve disciples would’ve understood - or would’ve eventually come to
understand - concerning Jesus’ death was that it was by means of this that the
new covenant between God and Israel was ratified, or confirmed. This was the
extent of the meaning that Jesus’ words and actions on that night would’ve had
for them. But by the time Paul began heralding his evangel among the nations,
he knew something about Christ’s death that the twelve apostles didn’t
understand at that time, and which gave the observance of the Lord’s dinner by
the body of Christ a whole new meaning and significance.
Concerning
the Lord’s dinner, Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, “The
cup of blessing which we are blessing, is it not the communion of the blood of
Christ? The bread which we are breaking, is it not the communion of the body of
Christ? For we, who are many, are one
bread, one body, for we are all partaking of the one bread.”
The “one body” to which Paul was referring here
is, of course, a reference to that company of saints that Paul elsewhere called
“the body of Christ” and “the ecclesia which is [Christ’s] body.” Paul went on
to refer to the means by which those to whom he wrote had become members of
this “one body” of Christ as a spiritual
baptism:
“For in one spirit also we all are baptized into one body, whether
Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and all are made to imbibe one spirit” (1 Cor. 12:12-13).
In Romans
6:3-10, Paul further described the status of those spiritually baptized into
the body of Christ as follows:
Or are you ignorant that whoever are baptized into Christ Jesus, are baptized into
His death? We, then, were entombed
together with Him through baptism into death, that, even as Christ was
roused from among the dead through the glory of the Father, thus we also should
be walking in newness of life. For if we
have become planted together in the likeness of His death, nevertheless we
shall be of the resurrection also, knowing this, that our old humanity was
crucified together with Him, that the body of Sin may be nullified, for us
by no means to be still slaving for Sin, for one who dies has been justified
from Sin. Now if we died together with
Christ, we believe that we shall be living together with Him also, having
perceived that Christ, being roused from among the dead, is no longer dying.
Death is lording it over Him no longer, for in that He died, He died to Sin
once for all time, yet in that He is living, He is living to God.
Here we
find that, by virtue of our spiritual union with Christ, Christ’s justified
status before God (as manifested in his resurrection and present deathless
state) is, and will be, ours as well, and everyone in the body of Christ is
thus certain to “be living together with [Christ] also.”
Whether
circumcised or uncircumcised, every member of the body of Christ has been
reconciled “in one body to God through the cross”
(Eph. 2:13-18). We are “now justified in [Christ’s]
blood,” “conciliated to God through the death of His Son,” and “shall be saved from indignation, through Him” (Rom.
5:6-11). Because of our spiritual union with the One who “gave himself for our sins,” we who are members of
Christ’s body will be extricated “out of this present
wicked eon” and thus rescued by Christ “out of
the coming indignation” so that “we should be
living at the same time together with Him” (Gal. 1:4; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9-10).
From everything said above, it is evident that the death of Christ
has a far greater significance for those in the body of Christ than was made
known by Christ during his earthly ministry, and as heralded by the twelve
apostles after the events of Pentecost. When, by taking part in the Lord’s
Dinner, we are “announcing the Lord’s death until his coming,” it is not merely
Christ’s death as the fulfillment of prophecy or as the ratification of the new
covenant that we’re announcing. Rather, it is Christ’s death as the basis on
which we who’ve been called through Paul’s gospel have been justified and
reconciled to God “in one body,” and have been given an expectation that is
completely distinct from Israel’s covenant-based expectation (i.e., eonian life
“in the heavens” and “among the celestials”). And the “coming” of the Lord that
Paul had in mind is not Christ’s return to the earth to establish his kingdom (i.e.,
when he descends upon the Mount of Olives), but rather his manifestation to the
body of Christ in the air, at the time of the “snatching away” (as referred to
in 1 Thess. 4:13-18, Phil. 3:21 and Col. 3:4).
But what is the
Lord’s dinner, as referred to by Paul? It was (and is), I believe, simply this:
a shared meal between members of the body of Christ when we come together “in
the same place” to fellowship with one another. Whenever this occurs - and
there is an endeavor to “keep the unity of the spirit” (Eph. 4:2-4) - our
eating and drinking together is the Lord’s dinner (cf. 1 Cor.
10:16-17). Through the sharing of a meal in a way that displays this unity, those
who’ve been justified in Christ’s blood and reconciled “in one body to God
through the cross” are “announcing the Lord’s death until He should be coming”
(1 Cor. 11:26). However, to the extent that disunity characterizes the
gathering together of the saints in the body of Christ - and the ecclesia of
God is “despised” through selfish, unloving behavior (vv. 21-22) - the Lord’s
dinner is not being eaten.[5]
[1] Some commentators have suggested that those who were creating
divisions among the saints in Corinth had ranged themselves under these two
names only, and that Paul’s inclusion of “Cephas” and “Christ” was only a
rhetorical device. According to this view, Paul’s inclusion of Cephas and
Christ as individuals around whom some were forming factions would’ve served to
vary Paul’s illustration and drive home his point more forcefully by making the
absurdity of the sort of “strife” that was present among the saints even more
apparent. Although I don’t hold to this view, I do see it as a possibility.
[2] Concerning 1 Cor. 9:3, the Cambridge Bible for
Schools and Colleges notes as follows: “The Judaizers of whom we hear in the Epistle to the
Galatians and in Acts 15, are now heard of here also, and this Epistle seems to
have stirred them up to a still stronger antagonism, for St Paul is obliged to
travel over the same ground in his second Epistle, and with much greater
fullness. St Paul, therefore, though he ‘transferred in a figure to himself and
Apollos’ what he had said with reference to the Corinthian teachers, had
nevertheless in view also some who disparaged his authority. It is worthy of
note that the terms answer and examine in the original are the
usual legal expressions (Olshausen), as though the Apostle conceived himself to
be on his trial.”
[3] See 2 Corinthians
3:1-3 and 10:10-12 (cf. 10:1-3 and 11:5-6).
[4] Although some have claimed that the Lord’s dinner was
the Passover feast, there are several considerations that show this position to
be mistaken. We know, for example, that there were uncircumcised Gentiles in
the Corinthian ecclesia, and that some of the Gentile saints (perhaps most)
were even former idol-worshiping pagans (as has been argued in a previous
section). However, we know from Exodus 12:43-48 that uncircumcised Gentiles
were not allowed to participate in Israel’s Passover feast. In addition to
this, it is implied that the meal which Paul had in view was not an annual
event (as was Israel’s Passover feast); it was, rather, something that occurred
(or, at least, was suppose to occur) whenever they came
together to eat (1 Cor. 11:33-34). Not only does the Lord’s dinner not refer to the Passover,
but the meal of which Christ and his twelve disciples partook on the last
night of his arrest was not the Passover, either. The
so-called “last supper” occurred on the night before the
Passover (John 13:1, 29; 18:28; 19:14, 31, 42). Although certain preparations
were made for the Passover feast by Christ's disciples, Christ knew his intense
yearning to celebrate it with his disciples before his suffering would not be
fulfilled (Luke 22:15), and that he would not be eating of the Passover meal
with his disciples until after the coming of the kingdom of God (v. 16).
[5] But what about the
judgments that fell upon those who were eating and drinking “unworthily?” At
this time in Paul’s ministry, the “signs and wonders” that Paul mentions in
Rom. 15:18-19 (as being part of his apostolic ministry “for the obedience of
the nations”) were still being manifested. This was never meant to have a
permanent place in the secret administration that began with Paul’s calling;
rather, these signs and wonders simply served to authenticate his apostleship
and apostolic authority. Such signs and wonders (including miraculous healings,
the infliction of judgments and the power to speak in foreign languages) do not
indicate a different administration, for they were never meant to be a
permanent part of the administration which began with Paul’s calling.
No comments:
Post a Comment