We continue this week hearing from a well-known section of the letter that Paul and Sosthenes wrote to the believers in Corinth. In the chapter proposed in the lectionary passages last Sunday and this coming Sunday (1 Cor 12:1–31), Paul and Sosthenes address the nature of the community that has been formed by those who formerly were “pagans … led astray to idols” (12:2). They have now have come to believe that “Jesus is Lord” (v.3) and desire to follow his way in their lives through offering their gifts in service (vv.4–7).
In Corinth, however, the gifting of the Spirit has been claimed by some as a basis for unedifying behaviour, which as Paul and Sosthenes say, tears apart, rather than builds up, the community. This is manifested in various ways, including (as we noted last week) in the worship of the Corinthian community, where, fuelled by their sense of being “the spiritual ones”, some people unleash chaos in the gathering. This is in contrast to the desire of the letter writers that in this gathering “all things should be done decently and in order” (14:40), as befits the God who is “a God not of disorder but of peace” (14:33).
In the passage from 1 Cor 12 proposed as the Epistle for this coming Sunday (1 Cor 12:12–31), Paul and Sosthenes offer a strong affirmation to the Corinthians about the wide reach and inclusive invitation that characterises the work of the spirit: “For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:13).
I rejoice that these words have been taken up in my church, the Uniting Church in Australia, as the basis for fostering a broad community of faith, across multiple social factors which could divide rather than unite (in paragraph 13 of the Basis of Union). Ministry is enabled by the gift of the spirit. To anyone. To everyone. It is a fine ideal.
That paragraph of the Basis affirms that “every member of the Church is engaged to confess the faith of Christ crucified and to be his faithful servant”. It continues with a declaration, grounded in the scriptural witness (1 Cor 12) that “the one Spirit has endowed the members of Christ’s Church with a diversity of gifts”.
In writing to the Corinthians, Paul and Sosthenes first identified a range of gifts (1 Cor 12:8–10), and then emphasised the claim that “the body does not consist of one member, but of many” (1 Cor 12:14). As a result, each and every member plays an integral role in the whole. From this, they deduce that “the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable … God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honour to the inferior member” (1 Cor 12:22–25). The context in Corinth has shaped the direction into which Paul develops this image.
Honour and shame were central features of ancient Mediterranean societies. Possessing much honour reflected a high social status; gathering much shame reflected low social status. Public debate amongst males was a key way in which honour was demonstrated; besting another person in such a debate was a means by which an increase in honour could be attained. Acting in a way that brought shame upon oneself meant that the amount of honour attributed to you would diminish. Women acting in ways that were not in accord with the patriarchal structures of the time would also be considered as shameful. A woman’s place was, literally, in the home.
Jesus did not shy away from the challenge to his honour and authority that public debating posed. He engaged in many debates, responding with confidence to challenges to his honour as various questions were posed to him, as is reported in Mark’s Gospel: “why does this fellow speak in this way? it is blasphemy! who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7); “why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (2:16); “why do your disciples do not fast?” (2:18); “by what authority are you doing these things?” (11:28); “is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” (12:14). According to Mark, he bested his opponents on each of these occasions; he was a public debater of the first order.
Honour was praised by the Greek philosopher Aristotle as “the greatest of all external goods” (Aristotle, Nic. Eth. 1), whilst Xenophon considered that honour was what differentiated humans from animals (Hiero 7.3). Philo of Alexandria, bridging both Jewish and Hellenistic worlds, affirmed that “fame and honour are a most precarious possession, tossed about on the reckless tempers and flighty words of careless men” (Abraham 264).
The honour—shame culture runs through the Hebrew Scriptures. The ancient Hebrews affirmed that honour belongs primarily to God (1 Chron 16:27), so that God could bestow honour on those who were faithful to his ways (Ps 92:14-15). The same idea is expressed in the version of Isa 28:16 which is cited at 1 Pet 2:6, which modifies the ending to provide explicit reference to the claim that God will not shame believers. God can thus honour human beings (Ps 8:5), even those regarded as shameful (Zeph 3:19); and conversely, God could shame those accorded honour by humans (Isa 23:9). Paul later reflects this early in his first letter to Corinth (1 Cor 1:27).
And later in that letter, Paul and Sosthenes addressed the hierarchical ranking that is integral to the honour—shame culture, and offered a completely counter—cultural perspective. “The members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable”, he asserts; and so too, “those members of the body that we think less honourable we clothe with greater honour” (1 Cor 12:22–23). Accordingly, he advocates that “our less respectable members” should be “treated with greater respect; whereas our more respectable members do not need this” (12:23:—24). This is how this part of the letter upends the conventions of his time.
Then Paul and Sosthenes provide the theological rational that undergirds this perspective; “God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honour to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another” (12:24–25). The pastoral conclusion that they draw from this—reinforcing the sense of equality that should mark the community of followers of Jesus—is that “if one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honoured, all rejoice together with it” (12:26). It is the fundamental lesson in standing firm against the culture because of the demands that the Gospel places on believers.
An Informed Faith 