Closing Thoughts (16:1-24)

16:1-4 The Collection for the Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem
16:5-18 Travel Updates
16:19-24 Farewell

This final section of Paul's letter consists of information about the collection being taken up for the church in Jerusalem, updates on travel plans of Paul and the brothers, and some final greetings.

The purpose of the collection may have been two-fold. First, by having a largely Gentile church give free-will offerings to the largely (or exclusively) Jewish church, Paul was hoping that the Gentile church would recognize the important role of Judaism within the Christian faith. Second, by having the Jewish church of Jerusalem receive free-will offerings from the largely Gentiles churches around the world, Paul was hoping the Jewish Christians would have their hearts warmed and consider the Gentile Christians truly their brothers and sisters in Christ. Thus, this offering may be viewed as a large part of Paul's strategy to bring unity to the Jewish and Gentile segments of the Church. It was also a chance to unify the Corinthians themselves, for each member was to contribute, whether rich or poor, according to their ability. It was to be from ALL of the Corinthians. Even the distributors of the offering would be selected by the entire Corinthian Church community.

The second section of the conclusion contains Paul's remarks about his own travel plans along with the plans of Timothy, Apollos, and Stephanas. Paul, writing from Ephesus, alerted them to the fact that he wasn't going to be sailing straight to Achaia, but rather would be travelling by land through Macedonia before visiting them. But for now, he was staying in Ephesus (on the other side of the Aegean Sea from Greece) until Pentecost b/c the door for ministry was wide open. Paul did, however, want to visit the Corinthians for an extended time. Timothy, it seems, was possibly going to visit the Corinthians. Paul wanted him to be treated well and with due respect. Apollos had been adviced (by Paul) to visit the Corinthians, but was unwilling at this point. Paul expected Apollos to visit at some point in the future. Stephanas, Fortunatus & Achaicus were from Achaia (souther Greece) but had visited Paul (perhaps with updates on the church that provided content for this letter). Now they were returning to the Corinthians and Paul considers them worthy of submission

Finally, Paul sends greetings for the churches in the province of Asia (including Ephesus, where he was writing from). Paul confirms his authorship of the letter by writing signature with his own hand. In Aramaic, he curses any who do not love the Lord and says Maranatha (come, Lord!).

On Inspiration

Most Christians believe that the Bible is inspired. Fewer Christians have taken the time to actually think hard about what they mean by the word inspired. In my observation, there are about 7 significant treatments of the doctrine of inspiration. These range from one extreme (idolizing the book as divine) to the other (viewing the book as almost or completely human in origin).

The Stork Theory
Some treat the Bible as a completely divine book given to us without any real human involvement. In other words, they think of the whole Bible as being given in a way similar to how the 10 Commandments were given. But outside of that example, this theory doesn't seem to fit with the evidence. It ignores the human element, God's desire to deliver truth incarnationally (as with His Son). This view is closer to the LDS view of how we got the book of Mormon.

The Trance Theory
Some treat the Bible as a basically divine book without anything more than a nominal human role. Indeed, God has been known to speak through people almost against their will (Balaam, Saul). But is this how we got the vast majority of the Scriptures? Were the writers in some sort of trance in which God worked around their humanity instead of through their humanity? It doesn't sound like Luke was in a trance when he thoroughly researched and planned his writing. Nor does it sound like Paul was in a trance when he forgot which people he had baptized. This view is closer to the Muslim view of how a supposedly illiterate prophet wrote a divine book.

The Fundamentalist Theory
Some treat the Bible as a perfect book in the sense that God made sure that every detail was accurate. Most conservative evangelicals take this sort of view. If God is perfect and knows how to preserve His word (by perfectly inspiring), shouldn't we expect a perfect book? Weren't the prophets simply repeating God's exact words to the people? On the other hand, are all biblical texts inspired in this way? Is the NT? Over the past years a few different facts have given me some caution about this solid view. First, we have to be honest about the fact that there are some seeming contradictions. It may be possible to solve them all, but we haven't done so yet. We should allow for copyist errors and we shouldn't de-emphasize the human nature of the authors themselves. Second, we must remember that Jesus (for instance) spoke in Aramaic and the Gospels were written (most probably) in Greek. So the authors were already 'interpreting' Jesus in a sense (and somewhat paraphrasing considering the different wording in parallel accounts). Third, I came to realize that certain aspects of the Fundamentalist theory were more reactions against liberalism than long held views of inspiration. Even still, I think this treatment of inspiration has a lot of merit, especially in regards to the OT prophets.

The Authority Theory
Some treat the Bible as a divine/human book in which authorized people wrote Spirit-led truth. This is the position I favor for the bulk of the Bible (yes, that means I believe different parts of the Scripture are inspired in different ways). The NT sources were not only Spirit-filled Christians (and thus inspired in that sense), but they were also authorities in the field (in that they had been with Jesus). This view allows us to maintain the fully human element of Scripture writing while understanding why only certain people (or other people with certain connections) are allowed to write what is considered Scripture. This view keep Jesus as the possessor of all authority since He's the one who appoints who can speak for Him (the Apostle's).

The Message Theory
Some treat the Bible as a perfect book in its area. God made sure that the message stayed intact. Indeed, it realy was the message of Jesus that changes lives (the earliest church didn't even have the NT yet). And we really do only have copies, not originals. So why bother defending probable mistakes. The Bible isn't so much synonymous with the word of God, but it certainly contains the word of God. There is a degree of truth to this when we're talking about the purpose of Scripture, copied manuscripts, and translational difficulties. But is this view really saying that even the originals were only truth insofar as the main message was concerned? If all of the Bible can't be trusted, can we trust any of it? And who gets to choose what the main message is?

The Masterpiece Theory
Some treat the Bible as a human book that was written with great passion and precision. In other words, the Bible is sort of like Shakespeare at his best. Certainly the Bible is quite beautiful (especially in spots). But in this view Scripture ceases to be revelation from God (and isn't that what Scripture seems to be?). And in this view, wouldn't it be quite possible (even likely) that an even better Masterpiece will be written someday (or already has been!). This is pretty much the view of the Bible that most non-Christians take and, in my opinion, when Christians view their book the same way non-Christians do... that's a red flag.

The Reader Theory
Some treat the Bible as a completely human book, but that inspired readers can glean from it. It's not necessarily the Bible that is inspired (after all, it is just paper and ink), but the readers who read it (as they are Spirit-filled). The Bible was meant to be experienced and has no power unless it is communicated to a human being. Of course, this view suggests that we have to pick either or (Is Scripture inspired, or is it the reader?). Isn't it really a both/and (the Bible works best when an inspired reader reads an inspired text?). Isn't God's word God's word whether we read it or not?

I suggest that the first two views place too much emphasis on the divine side of inspiration and the last two views place too much emphasis on the human side of inspiration. But even these views have elements of important truth for Christians to consider. The middle three views, I think, are where Christians should spend some time in thought. I prefer the Authority Theory mixed with a bit more Fundamentalist theory than Message theory. How about you?

The Nature of Resurrection (15:35-58)

v. 35 may be a 'foolish' question because of its tone. Some were denying the very possibility of any future resurrection (15:12) and these very people may have asked the 'how' and 'what kind' questions mockingly (expecting there to be no good answer). Nevertheless, after calling them 'fools,' Paul does indeed answer their question.

Paul compares our current bodies to seeds. Seeds don't become what they were intended to be until they are buried. Likewise, people cannot become what they are intended to be until they die. Burial, then, is not the sign of the end of the seed/body, but a necessary step before transformation. The seed is transformed into something different while maintaining some core-level characteristics. The body will be transformed into something different while maintaining some continuity as well. It is God who determines the nature of the transformation for both seeds and men.

Some of the Corinthians had trouble imagining eternal flesh, so Paul discusses the fact that there are obviously different kinds of flesh. They could already see the difference between the flesh of humans, animals, birds, and fish. Paul submits that there is also a distinction between pre and post resurrection flesh, allowing the latter to be eternal. The former is perishable, dishonorable, and powerless for the very reason that it is of the earth. But those same bodies can become immortal, glorious, and powerful via resurrection.

Paul has thus indicated that just because human flesh is obviously mortal and weak, that doesn't mean that it has no capacity to be transformed into something immortal and strong. We all participate in Adam (dominated by the fallen flesh), but we may also participate in Christ (dominated by the Spirit). For those who do participate in Christ's death and resurrection, this transformation of the flesh awaits. This is the point of redemption, victory over death itself. And because of this hope in the resurrection, our present lives on earth are of great significance.

IS RESURRECTION PHYSICAL?
"8 Reasons to Say Yes"

1. The word resurrection means bodily
2. What is sown is the same thing that is raised (continuity)
3. It's called a spiritual BODY
4. Paul's backdrop is Genesis 1-2, creation
5. We will be CLOTHED (with a body)
6. The dead will be raised (graves opened)
7. It's a VICTORY (victory over The Fall which ruined creation)
8. Life is significant (this is most true if the created world will always exist)

Why this is sometimes denied...
1. Because we don't see examples of it yet
2. It's hard to imagine flesh that isn't broken
3. Because the translation 'spiritual' makes us think of non-physical
4. Because v. 50 says flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of God

The Wheat & Weeds (13:24-30, 36-43)

The Gospel According to Matthew
Jesus for President (Part 38: Wheat & Weeds)

Jesus told them another parable:
"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' 'An enemy did this,' he replied. The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "

The Man = The Son of Man
The Field = The World
The Wheat = Children of the Lord
The Weeds = Children of the Devil
The Enemy = The Devil
The Harvest = End of the Age
The Harvesters = The Angels

Wisdom for the Wheat

1. We belong to a different kind of Kingdom
2. We lose ground when we fail to watch & pray
3. We tend to blame God for our troubles
4. We lack the patience of God
5. We lack the tact of God
6. We should focus on growing
7. We will be harvested when the difference is evident

The Historical Resurrection (15:1-34)

What We All Agree About (1:1-11)
1. Christ died for our sins (3)
2. Christ was buried (4a)
3. Christ was raised on the third day (4b)
4. Christ appeared to many (5-8)

What We Don’t All Agree About (1:12-34)
Some were rejecting the concept of resurrection,
but if resurrection isn’t a true doctrine then…
1. Christ himself wasn’t resurrected (13, 16)
2. Our faith is futile, we’re still in our sins (14, 17)
3. We are false witnesses (15)
4. Those who have died are lost forever (18)
5. We are the most pitiable of all people (19)

Arguments for Future Resurrection in Christ
1. Those ‘in Christ’ will share in His life (21-28)
2. Certain practices point toward belief (29-32a)
3. Rejection leads to bad character (32b-34)

Seven Possible Interpretations of 14:29
1. The deceased should be baptized by proxy
2. The deceased were being baptized by proxy (Christians who had died before baptism)
3. Why get baptized on your deathbed?
4. Why have your body buried if it has no future?
5. Why get baptized into Jesus if Jesus is dead?
6. Why would people be willing to die for Jesus?
7. What about those who convert b/c of the testimony of the martyrs or the death of a Christian loved one (they want to see them again)?

The Four Soils (13:1-23)

The Gospel According to Matthew
Jesus for President (Part 37: Jesus the Story-Teller)

S.M.A.R.T. Strategy for Studying Jesus

Stories
Miracles
Actions
Relationships
Teaching


Why Study Jesus’ Stories?
His stories are memorable
His stories are mysterious
His stories are metaphors
His stories are meaningful
His stories are meat
His stories are mirrors

The Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:1-23)
A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. He who has ears, let him hear.

You can respond with a Hard Heart (19)
You can respond with a Shallow Heart (20-21)
You can respond with a Polluted Heart (22)
You can respond with a Good Heart (23)

Next: The Wheat & the Weeds (13:24-30, 36-43)

Love (13:1-13)

The Corinthians should have been able to experience unity in diversity, but had not because of a lack of love. True unity is found in love, not the removal of diversity.

The best tongues w/o love is worthless
The best prophecy w/o love is worthless
The best wisdom w/o love is worthless
The best knowledge w/o love is worthless
The best knowledge w/o love is worthless
The best faith w/o love is worthless
The best giving w/o love is worthless
The best sacrifice w/o love is worthless
*Even all of these added together w/o love is worthless

Love...
is patient
is kind
rejoices in truth (focuses on good)
protects
trusts (assumes the best)
hopes (future focus)
perseveres

Love is not...
envious
boastful
prideful
rude
self-seeking
easily angered
keeping a record of wrongs
delighting in evil
failing

Love will last even as prophecies, tongues & knowledge cease.

What is the 'perfection' mentioned here? Cessationists attempt to argue that it refers to the NT, so that once the NT Canon was established, the gifts were removed. This is a completely arbitrary and unreasonable interpretation. Much more likely, the perfection refers to coming age (eternity) after Christ's return. There will be no need for spiritual gifts in eternity. Since love is the thing that will last, we best cling to it now.

The Family of God (12:46-50)

The Gospel According to Matthew
Jesus for President (Part 36: The Family of God)

While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."

He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

Jesus’ Genetic Family (Family in Notion)

1. Jesus had a genetic family

2. At this point, they think Jesus is out of his mind

3. Later, they believed Jesus was the Son of God


Jesus’ Kinetic Family (Family in Motion)

1. Jesus rejects the request of His genetic family

2. Jesus establishes a new kind of family

3. Jesus defines the new families core characteristic

The Body of Christ (12:12-31)

The unity of the body despite diversity (ie. sports teams, 12-13)

What can destroy unity in a church?

1. Depression (14-20): Some parts think only other parts are valuable, they try to become those parts

2. Dessertion (14-20, alternate interpretation): Some parts simply don't try to unify with different parts b/c they are different

3. Deletion (21-26): Some parts try to get rid of parts they don't view as valuable

We just divide into 'gift' groups
(stereotypes below!)
Brain- Presbyterian
Mouth- Pentecostal
Feet- Baptist
Hands- Mainline
Heart- Wesleyan

We over-emphasize certain roles over others (pastors, singers, etc.)

Desire the greater gifts, but realize that how you (fill in blank with gift) is een more important than THAT you (fill in blank with same gift)