More Than Human?

For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? (1 Corinthians 3:4 NASB)

 Science fiction, one of my favorite genre's of fiction, often looks at the evolutionary development of humans beyond where we are.  What would we look like? What would we be able to do?  And often, something powerfully mental, sometimes insubstantial, yet almost 'godlike' follows.  As if the transition from flesh to spirit is evolutionary.  I'm not sure why people don't see what's being grasped for is what is promised in Scripture, but they don't.

Yet, one of my own personal ambitions is to be able to live my life in both the spiritual and physical realms simultaneously.  I believe that this is part of what my Master intends for His followers, but I have met very few who I would say live this way; perhaps I haven't met any.  I say that because it seems that such people aren't interested in pointing it out, so I'd have to notice and deduce it from their behavior and attitudes.

So, godless, atheistic Star Trek and Star Wars, and so many other science fiction movies and writings seem to believe in the eventual evolutionary improvement of humanity.  Yet, all the changes viewed in the past 1,000 years (or 2,000) only seem to indicate a downward spiral in the good traits, and a tidal increase in the basest traits.  The trend does not favor a positive evolutionary track for us homo sapiens.

Mostly, I would say that Scripture doesn't offer much hope that way either, except for this verse.  It is possible that Paul is operating out of an assumption on the part of the Corinthian believers about themselves; in that they believe they are spiritual and have left humanity behind.  But his wording in verses three and four leave open the possibility that he is comfortable with their terminology, just not their practice.  Therefore, I wonder if they derived their terminology from Paul's teaching when he was among them.  Is it possible to be more than human?

In answering this question, I have to move along the progression of Paul as he refers to the Corinthian believers, in verses 1 through 4 especially.  He begins by denying their 'spiritual' quality (a Greek adjective derived from spirit), but only in that he couldn't 'speak' to them that way, not denying the essential quality of the people.  In other words, he leaves open the possibility that they are spiritual, yet not acting like it.  He uses the comparison between 'of spirit' and 'of flesh', saying he spoke to them as 'of flesh'

In verse 2 Paul continues the image he introduced in verse 1 of them being 'infants' not ready for meat, and claims they are even then, still infants.  His support for this claim is found in verse 3.  Here his sentence begun in verse 2 is completed by stating they are still 'fleshly' (a slightly different word than used in verse 1, but very similar in meaning).  His support for his claim is their behavior in claiming a 'group' or faction within the church and the resulting strife over polarizing in said factions.  His wording is interesting though.

In verse 3 Paul says the Corinthian believers are 'fleshly' but also, 'walking about according to human' (anthropos, where we get anthropology).  This isn't the word for male or female, but the generic word for humanity at large; not even separated by people groups, but everyone.  It's possible that certain people groups were excluded in common use or reference; as slurs against one group or another.  But the word was used for humanity in its highest form, as opposed to 'gods' or other powerful beings.

So, then in verse 4, Paul now points out that it is these factions that indicate they are simply 'people'.  Let's not lose sight of the contrast between these references and 'spiritual' in verse 1.  While Paul doesn't come back to it, it still 'hangs in the air' probably more so in Corinth because it was their assumption about themselves.  He didn't need to keep repeating it, only his denial of the proof of it in their lives.

If Paul can and does adopt this terminology leaving open the possibility of its validity, then can we consider it as a possibility; that we we can be more than human?  Let me also then throw back into the argument that Paul does not deny that they are the alternative 'spiritual' but that they are not behaving like it.  In other words, Paul also leaves open the option that they are, even in the wrong behavior, still more than human.

I'm not going to 'unpack' that right now, I'm simply going to leave it and return to it later.  I have run out of time this morning, but I also have run out of a 'train of thought'.  If I am right now, more than human, what does that mean?  Hmmm.  Let me think about that.  I'll get back to you.

Of Meat and Milk

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.  I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?  For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? (1 Corinthians 3:1-4 NASB)

Paul refers to the content of his teaching and describes two levels, meat and milk.  He refers to the food of infants and real food for the more mature.  And the teaching references are spiritual references, so I'm assuming the maturity is also spiritual.  I don't think anyone would debate that part, but the content of either I believe would be debatable.

Here, Paul writes to people who consider themselves 'spiritual' and even grade themselves in relation to the spirituality of others; competitively it seems.  Seeing this behavior Paul calls them 'fleshly'; the polar opposite of 'spiritual'.  Since he's writing to such people, is it possible that the content of his letter would constitute 'meat'?

I suppose the problem we face as 21st Century believers, followers of the same Jesus, is that Paul's letters are very often in response to problems within the church rather than to relate deep spiritual truth, the meat.  He is fixing things (or attempting to) for 'infants' so that the content would be expected to be more 'milk' than 'meat'.  This makes the debate about the content of his deeper spiritual content more difficult.  But I wonder if it 'peeks through' in some places.

When I think of 'building on a foundation' and compare or relate that to 'teaching' what I envision is what we call 'unpacking' a topic or truth.  Therefore, if Paul lays the foundation which is Jesus and Him crucified, then what is built on that foundation would be teaching stemming from that truth.  So far you should be saying, 'well duh.'  If you're not, you probably won't like where this is going.

Since teaching stemming from the truth of a Crucified Jesus would have been taught in a culture, over 2000 years old, there is a real possibility what Paul unpacked would not make all that much sense to us today.  For instance, in this letter, he spends an inordinate amount of time on the topic of food sacrificed to idols; not something we concern ourselves with as we shop in Walmart or Windixie.

So, some topics that constituted Paul's 'meat teaching' may have made little sense to us today.  On the other hand, much of what Paul teaches about spiritual gifts does seem to apply today, and gets largely ignored.  That may indicate we have more 'infants' than we thought.  It may also indicate that much of the 'meat teaching' of Paul would apply to us today.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is to catch glimpses of Paul's 'meat teaching' through his letters to churches.  On the other hand it would then be expected much more of this teaching to peek through in his letters to Timothy and Titus, perhaps Philemon.  But what about Luke and Acts?  Luke's writing is accepted because of his association with Paul, so it would also be assumed that Paul's teaching peeks through in Luke's writing.

Considering these sources, the pastoral epistles, to a lessor degree the church epistles, and perhaps below that Luke and Acts; what can be gleaned from them of the deeper teaching, the continued building and growth of Paul's teaching?  I don't truly know.  I don't believe I have spent enough time in depth in these works to be confident that I can relate what I would call Paul's deeper teaching.  But I will, or at least I hope to.  My goal is to work through the whole of Scripture from the original languages (not the original texts, but what my Master has preserved for me through today).  As I do, I will be looking for the gleanings of Paul's deeper teaching.

I suppose the lesson I learn from this passage is that there is more than even what I read in the 'milk' of Paul's teaching.  But part of what I learn from this more shallow teaching is that what lies below will correspond to what has been found already.  I won't dig to find some acceptance of a sinful lifestyle which he denounces in the more shallow stuff.  I won't find toleration of sin below.  I won't find a weakening of the deity of Christ Jesus down there.  I won't find some teaching that undermines the inspiration of Scripture in among the tilings as I mine the words of Paul.  I have no doubts about that, none.

I suspect I will find as I dig clearer understanding of what it means to perambulate before the throne of my Master every minute of every day, and the unimaginable joy found therein.  I will be characterized by peace, kindness, gentleness, and the wholeness sought so diligently by Eastern Mysticism in the wrong place.  But I also believe I will loose myself, forgetting somewhat who I am and what I have tried to make myself about.  Discovering instead that my striving was all for nothing compared to what my Master had for me all along, there will also be mourning over the waste I created, but only momentarily.  For I will also discover eternity.

The Creator of My Soul... Again

One aspect or term of life with my Master is the use of the preposition "in" to refer to it. It's a great way to refer to it, but is uncomfortably general. What I mean by that is that the use of "in" has a lot of range in English, and a lot of that is metaphorical. So while the Christian Scriptures can, and probably do, use "in" this way, the question is to what degree is it actually a real positional reference and not metaphorical.

That may sound weird, but when speaking of the Spirit living IN me, is that metaphorical or positional? Most likely it is positional, rather than metaphorical. So when Paul refers to believers being IN Christ, how much of that is positional and how much is metaphorical? I don't see it as all or nothing but with the ability to be taken both ways at once. So, I can be positionally in Christ in a situation or decision, but also metaphorically in Christ as I go through the process or event.

So when do I become a new creation? When do old things pass? When do I or my things become new? 2 Corinthians 5:17 skips a lot of detail about that. The chapter is about reconciliation and my part in my Master's work of reconciliation. The idea is that I see people from a different perspective once reconciled to my Master. So perhaps this verse should be limited to those things in reference to relationships, so being IN my Master changes my relationships, not necessarily all things. In that case as I sink positionally into my Master, I metaphorically relate from being in my Master, like being metaphorically in trouble. Yet the spiritual relationship I have with my Master also puts me positionally in Him at the same time.

So, today, from within my Master, I will relate to my family, other drivers, and anyone met along the way as if I'm in my Master. Well, that will be the goal reached only to the degree that the metaphor become more positional.

Oswald Chambers - Readings

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4