Pedagogical Pattern in Paul’s Epistles, Part 2

My previous post introduced T. D. Bernard’s Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament. In his 1864 Oxford lectures, Bernard notes a striking difference between how the NT teaches God’ people, in contrast to the OT methodology. The most striking example of Paul’s pedagogical method is 1 Corinthians 8–10.

In the first 6 chapters, Paul addresses problems in Corinth apparently reported by members of Chloe’s household, who had come to deliver a letter to Paul from the Corinthian church. You can see the transition clearly in 7:1—Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me. The first question they raised had to do with divorce and remarriage (ch. 7). The second (8:1) was a question “concerning things offered to idols”—specifically, whether or not it was permissible to eat meat if it was involved in a pagan ceremonial offering.

Paul could have answered this whole question both simply, scripturally, and with divine authority in one word (No), and with only one sentence of explanation (This question was addressed at the Jerusalem Council). Only 3 or 4 years earlier, the delegates at the Jerusalem Council—under the direction of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28)—penned four binding rules for all Gentile converts, including this one: “keep yourselves from things offered to idols.” End of discussion? Not for Paul.

It is remarkable that in fielding this very question from the Corinthian church, he never even mentions the Jerusalem Council or its rule. Instead, he spends three chapters guiding the Corinthians through this issue from various angles. He raises scenarios, asks questions (about 30!), and anticipates objections. He cites Scriptural principles (e.g., cf. 1 Cor 8:4 and Dt 6:4; 1 Cor 8:9–10 and Ezek 14:3–7, Ex. 23:33, 34:12). He quotes Scripture directly (cf. 1 Cor 9:8-12 and Dt 25:4). He gives personal examples (1 Cor 9). He alludes to scriptural examples (1 Cor 10:1–11) and identifies scriptural priorities—all of which is designed to help them come to the right answers.

In other words, Paul’s approach is to inculcate a way of Christian thinking based on Scriptural principles and priorities that would be flexible enough to serve the Corinthians—and us—in a wide variety of situations.

He begins by identifying three priorities that must regulate liberty.

• Liberty is regulated not merely by knowledge but by love (1 Cor 8:1); he will return to this in 1 Cor 10:23.
• Liberty is regulated not merely by my own conscience but by its impact on others (1 Cor 8:7).
• Liberty must recognize that non-essentials are not essential (1 Cor 8:8); a “right” is not a command, and “liberty” is not a master.

Beginning in 1 Cor 8:9 he begins applying these principles directly to the specific scenario that they asked him about.

Chapter 9 sounds at first like a total digression on ministerial remuneration, but it is closely tied to the issue at hand. Marking the recurring words tips you off as to exactly where Paul is going.

Back in chapter 8, Paul’s main applicational point has to do not with them and their knowledge, but with others and their conscience. You see it expressed in the repetition of the word “weak” (1 Cor 8:7, 9, 10, 11, 12) and then “my brother” (2x in 1 Cor 8:13).

How does he begin chapter 9? “Don’t I have some freedom/liberty?” he asks; “after all, I’m an apostle!” (1 Cor. 9:1). Then he spends most of the chapter discussing the necessity of voluntarily curtailing one’s right in the interest of broader considerations (1 Cor, 9:4, 5, 6, 12, 16) before returning to the issue of personal liberty (1 Cor 9:19) and the weak (1 Cor 9:22). What is he doing? He is using scriptural principle, scriptural quotation, and personal application to lead them to a conclusion: there are larger and more important things to consider than my rights—and that goes for apostles, too! G. K. Chesterton put it succinctly: “To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.”

All this reaches its climactic application in chapter 10. Paul highlights some lessons from biblical history that intersect with the very issue they are raising:

• discontent with what God provided for them to eat and drink (10:6)
• idolatry (10:7)
• immorality (10:8)
• presumption (10:9)
• complaint/rebellion against their God-given leadership (10:10)

In 1 Co 10:14 he returns to the bedrock issue at stake—shunning idolatry—and then, remarkably, appeals to their own judgment: Doesn’t this line of reasoning commend itself to your conscience and your Scripture-informed reason (1 Cor 10:15)?

He further reasons with them (1 Cor 10:16–20) on the basis that there is more to this than meets the eye: “To you it’s just about a piece of meat offered to a god who we know doesn’t even exist. Nevertheless, there actually is a spiritual dimension to this issue.”

In 1 Cor 10:23–24 he comes full circle to the bedrock priorities with which he began back in ch. 8—the issue is not about me and my right, but about others and their edification. “So,” Paul says in 1 Cor 10:25ff., “back to your specific question, if you find yourself in this situation or that circumstance, here’s what applying these principles looks like.” 

Finally, in 1 Cor 10:31, he wraps it all up in the ultimate principle. This verse was not penned as a generic principle about doing even mundane things for God’s glory; it was penned with a very specific contextual application in mind. Whenever you confront these kinds of liberty/rights-oriented questions—when you are deciding whether or not to buy that meat in the marketplace, when you are deciding whether or not to drink that beverage, when you are deciding whether or not to go to the temple or to a friend’s house—make that decision with this governing principle in mind: the glory of God.

This 3-chapter section echoes in microcosm the message of the entire epistle:  Maintaining the unity and purity of the church by always seeking the glory of God and the good of others.

All this, remember, without any reference to the Jerusalem Council decision. Why? In part, because there are specific circumstances here that the Jerusalem Council rule did not address. (“What if I’m in the market and I don’t know whether it’s sacrificial meat; should I ask?” “What if I’m a guest at someone’s house and I think it might be? What do I do?”) But perhaps more importantly, because the Apostle is educating them, leading them, training them how to think prioritizingly and scripturally for themselves.

And because not only the content but also the method is inspired by God, he is providentially modeling for us a pedagogical pattern for how we can most effectively educate God’s people—whether they are in our churches or in our colleges or in our Christian schools or in our homes. Before we can do that, of course, we have to be able to think in terms of scriptural priorities and scriptural passages.

Law (rules) may be a bottom line, but God’s glory is the highest motive. That does not mean it is wrong to have specific rules or regulations. The Jerusalem Council, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, laid down specific rules. But Paul demonstrates that the rule should not be the reason we don’t do certain things; and he demonstrates it by never even referring to the rule.

• Emphasizing law causes people to look legalistically for loopholes: “If the Bible doesn’t specifically say it, I don’t have to do it.”
• Emphasizing liberty encourages people to look libertinely at loopholes: “If the Bible doesn’t specifically prohibit it, I get to do it.”
• Emphasizing love compels people to forego their rights for higher considerations: “The Bible doesn’t specifically address this, but which choice is (a) most profitable for me, (b) most edifying for others, and (c) most glorifying to God?”

When we are trying to determine the right direction to go, the glory and pleasure of God is the North Star that guides our decisions. Folded into that priority—i.e., part of what pleases and glorifies God—is seeking the good of others. What could possibly be more Pauline . . . or Christlike?

May God help us to think scripturally and to educate others to do so as well.