Paul's Greeting to the Church at Corinth: Not "Skip" Material

 “Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, to the church of God, which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their lord and ours. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” – I Corinthians 1:1-3

At first glance, Paul’s greeting to the church at Corinth may seem like something we can safely skip over in order to get to the meat of the letter, as if it were really nothing more than a drawn-out way of saying, “Dear Church at Corinth.” If we take time to focus in on it, however, I think we’ll find that there’s actually some good food for thought here.

Paul begins his letter by identifying himself as “an apostle of Jesus Christ.” The word “apostle” comes from the Greek term apostolos, meaning “sent from.” An apostle is effectively an emissary or a representative, something along the lines of an ambassador: one empowered to speak and/or act on behalf of another. For this reason, to receive an apostle and heed his word is to receive and heed the word of the person who sent him, as if the apostle were in fact that person. By the same token, to reject an apostle and disregard his word is to reject and disregard the one who sent him. When Jesus sent his twelve apostles out to minister, he endowed them with his own authority and said, “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me” (Matthew 10:10). In this way, we see that Christ was an apostle in his own right, as he was sent to minister in the name and authority of the Father. As Jesus himself said in John 10:25, “The works that I do in my Father’s name, these testify of me.” To come or go “in the name” of someone was a common way of invoking emissarial authority in the past, even up until relatively recent times. For instance, we’re all familiar with the phrase, “Stop in the name of the law!” Anyone who says this is claiming the power to invoke the law in a given situation.

By referring to himself as an apostle at the outset of his letter, Paul is telling the Corinthians that Jesus Christ has sent him out to teach and preach as an empowered emissary. Note that he refers to himself as having been “called” to his office by the will of God. In the book of Galatians, Paul is even more clear on this when he addresses the church: “Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of men, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead)”. Thus, Paul asserts that his apostleship is of divine origin, not human: he is truly an emissary of God.

He then addresses the church at Corinth as “the church of God.” The word translated “church” is the Greek word ekklesia, which was used in the Greco-Roman world to refer to a public assembly that was called out by an authority for some reason. By using this sort of terminology here, Paul is reminding the Corinthians that they have been called out into their assembly by God, and that he is God’s emissary to them, sent for their instruction. “You have been called by the authority of God, and thus for God’s purposes, not your own,” Paul is telling them, “and I am God’s emissary, empowered by God to speak and act on his behalf. For this reason, you should pay attention to what I’m about to say to you.”

Now, anyone can say they’ve been sent by God, but it’s another thing to prove it. This is what Jesus was getting at in Matthew 9, where some people brought him a paralyzed man who was lying on a mat. Jesus said to him, “Take courage son; your sins are forgiven.” When he said this, some of those standing nearby said to themselves that he was committing blasphemy, for only God had the authority to forgive sins. Knowing this, Jesus turned to them and said, “Which is easier to say? ‘Your sins are forgiven?’ or ‘Get up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins—He then said to the paralytic, ‘Get up, pick up your bed and go home.’”

Which is easier to say? “Your sins are forgiven”? or, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home”? It’s far easier to say “Your sins are forgiven,” because there is no evident demonstration that forgiveness of sins has actually taken place. Anyone can say this; it doesn’t mean they act with divine authority. But when you say, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home,” something had better happen, or else everyone will know right away that you’re a fraud. So, when Jesus said this, and the paralyzed man actually did get up and walk home, he had demonstrated the power of God, and his claim to be God’s emissary—endowed with the authority to forgive sins—was to be taken seriously.

The New Testament tells us that, when the apostles began to go out and teach in Jesus’ name, they also did the works that Jesus did: meaning the supernatural signs. Paul had performed such signs amongst the Corinthians, as he notes in II Corinthians 12:12: “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.” Anyone can claim anything as long as he isn’t required to prove it. Paul had proven his authority, however, and he reminds the Corinthians of it here at the outset of his letter to them, just as he does a few chapters later: “But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I shall find out not the words of those who are arrogant but their power. For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power” (I Corinthians 4:19-20).

All of this is instructive for us in a few ways.

First, the church—the called-out assembly—is God’s, and has been called out for his purposes. The church does not exist to do its own thing, but rather, to hear the word of God and to do the will of God. I have nothing against denominations, per se, but in the past I’ve seen a lot of pride go into what essentially boils down to “I am of Calvin,” “I am of Luther,” “I am of Rome,” etc., as per I Corinthians 1:11-13: 

 

“For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, ‘I am of Paul,’ and ‘I of Apollos,’ and ‘I of Cephas,’ and ‘I of Christ.’ Has Christ been divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

The body of Christ is just that: Christ’s. It doesn’t belong to anyone else, and we shouldn’t treat it as if it does. The man who stands in a pulpit and says, “This is my church,” has forgotten himself. It’s Christ’s church, and it should be about the business of listening to his word and doing his works. Yes, I recognize that there are differences of opinion on many matters, including how the faith ought to be practiced. We have no central authority to settle these differences; and, to be frank, from what we find in the New Testament, it doesn’t look like the apostles—certainly not Paul, anyway—were concerned about resolving all such matters. Denominations exist for a reason, but we cannot afford to become so caught up in catechisms, confessions, doctrinal statements, associations, schools of interpretation, and cults of personality that we lose our primary focus: It is Christ’s church, called for his purposes, to hear his word, and to do his will. Those are really rather simple matters, but it seems like secondary issues have come to occupy most of the church’s time. This cannot do anything but divide us and even set us against one another, whereas Christ called for unity based on adherence to his commandments (see John 13-17).

Second, not everyone who claims to speak for God actually does so. This would seem rather self-evident, and it’s certainly easy to spot false teachers in other churches and denominations, yes? (to borrow from Paul, “I speak as though mad”); but in our midst, and among our own kind, we tend to miss the imposters. In the most tragic of instances, we deliberately overlook or even apologize for them so as to “not hurt the ministry.”

How many people serving in ministry today are not, as Paul was, “called” by God, but have rather been called by parents, by churches, by denominations, by deacon boards, by schools, by Grandmas who wanted a preacher in the family, and so forth? Before someone cries “Touch not the Lord’s anointed!” may we ask what evidence there is that the person of concern is, in fact, the Lord’s anointed? Paul, who had performed miracles amongst the Corinthians, made it plain that he was going to challenge his rivals to (in the language of Exodus) throw down their rods. In other words, he was going to hold an old-fashioned contest of power, such as Moses and Elijah might have done. Now, miracles do still happen. In the past two years, I’ve seen two instances where someone’s declining health turned on a dime after they received prayer; and the change was so rapid and remarkable that I’m convinced it was not happenstance (and I’m a skeptic by nature). So, yes, the miraculous is one type of test for an individual who comes along claiming to be a real emissary of God, but they are not common, and they can be fabricated. It would also do us good to remember that emissaries of the other kingdom can sometimes do such things as well. If you see what you believe to be a truly divine act, it’s best to ask: Who has just been glorified here? No true man or woman of God is going to direct the praise for a genuine miracle to him or herself.

In lieu of supernatural attestation, the next best test is that of Christlikeness. Does the person in question act like the Christ you read about in the gospels? Is he or she humble? Do they appear to seek attention and glorify themselves? Do they appear to be their own authority? How do they respond to criticism and/or disagreement? Can they correct someone without humiliating them? Do they lead like a shepherd or bludgeon like a tyrant? Do they handle the church, its affairs, and its people like it all belongs to them, or like they’re caring for someone else’s prized possessions?

We ought to exercise caution in our assessments here. At times, even the apostles could behave in an un-Christlike manner (see Acts 15:36-39, Galatians 2). We are all still human, after all. We have our failings; and, as James says in his epistle, “We all offend in many ways.” Ultimately, the story is told in a person’s overall character. A person may have off-moments, but what is it that defines their life? Are they habitually aggressive? Habitually prideful? Habitual attention-seekers? As Christ himself said, “You shall know them by their fruits”:

 

“Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.” – Matthew 7:16-18).

It’s also important to remember that a person can start off well, but ultimately turn against Christ, seeking to do his own thing. Witness how Paul refers to a man named Demas as being among his companions who sent greetings to the churches in Colossians 4:14 and Philemon 1:24, but later refers to him as having forsaken Paul and the work of the gospel, “having loved this present age” (II Timothy 4:10). The author of Hebrews instructs Christians to actively guard one another against the danger of departing from the faith:

 

“Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. But encourage one another, day after day, as long as it is still called ‘Today,’ so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” – Hebrews 3:11-13

Such people sometimes leave the church altogether, but others hang around trying to carve out kingdoms for themselves, and they can do tremendous harm.

 

“I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not receive what we say…he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.” – III John 1:9-10

 

“These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted…” – Jude 1:12

Bottom Line: Paul’s greeting to the church at Corinth underscores the nature and responsibility of the church as belong to God and called out for his purposes, as well as the importance of ensuring that those who instruct believers in the name of the Lord have actually been called and sent for that purpose by God rather than by men.

 

***

All scriptures cited here are from the NASB.

If you would like to support this blog, you can donate via PayPal to: https://paypal.me/rhawes73?country.x=US&locale.x=en_US

 

Responding to Terry Mortenson on "Old-Earth Creationism -- Is It a Sin?"

In an article for Answers in Genesis (Aig) entitled “Old-Earth Creationism – Is It a Sin?”, young-earth creationist Terry Mortenson argues that “despite sincere intentions to the contrary,” old-earth creationists have “severely damaged the Bible’s teaching about death and unknowingly assaulted the character of God, thereby undermining the authority and reliability of the word of God and subverting the gospel.”[1] The point of the article is to argue that, even though old-earth creationists may be sincere, they are still sinning by teaching (in Mortenson’s opinion) false doctrine:

“Let’s consider whether error must be intentional to be sin. Deceiving others is clearly sinful because it is deliberate and premeditated. But what about the times we are unintentionally wrong due to our finite knowledge, human weakness, and sin nature? Few, if any, Christians are intentionally deceiving others about the age of the earth. In fact, few have studied the topic or seem to care.

Yet, doing wrong or teaching what is false, whether done intentionally or unintentionally, is sin. God required sacrifice for unintentional sins as He did for the other sins (Leviticus 4:2-3, 13-14, 22-23, 27-28).”[2]

In all candor—and, I think, without malice—I have to say that this is a ready example of the type of over-simplified biblical treatments and sweeping denouncements that characterize the young-earth movement. Yes, under the Law of Moses it was possible to sin unknowingly, and sacrifices were required for such sins once they became known, but let’s look at a few examples from the list of scriptures that Mortenson cites in support for his claims. Note especially the phrases in bold:

“Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them, if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. – Leviticus 4:2-3

“Now if the whole congregation of Israel commits error and the matter escapes the notice of the assembly, and they commit any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and they become guilty; when the sin which they have committed becomes known, then the assembly shall offer a bull of the herd for a sin offering and bring it before the tent of meeting.” – Leviticus 4:13-14

The issue of unintentional sin in the passages Mortenson references is not a matter of exegetical misunderstanding. It has to do with known aspects of the Law that the people, whether individually or corporately, had unknowingly violated. An example of a provision of the Law that might be unknowingly violated is found in Numbers 19:16:

“Also, anyone who in the open field touches one who has been slain with a sword or who has died naturally, or a human bone or a grave, shall be unclean for seven days.”

Jesus references this commandment in his indictment of the Pharisees in Luke 11:44:

“Woe to you! For you are like concealed tombs, and the people who walk over them are unaware of it.”

Here, Jesus is talking about innocent people who had been defiled by the teachings of the Pharisees, just as those who unknowingly walked over a grave were considered ceremonially unclean under the Law of Moses, and might afterward unwittingly enter the Tabernacle or the temple in that unclean condition.

Yes, false teachings can lead us into sin, but as the apostle Paul states in Romans 4:15, “where there is no law, there is no violation.” Sin results from false teaching when that teaching somehow causes a person to violate some clearly stated biblical principle, prohibition, or admonition, just as the “Jezebel” of Revelation 2:20 led some of the people of the church at Thyatira to commit sexual immortality. God is not in the “gotcha” business. He doesn’t spring traps on people for fun. As the apostle John writes in I John 3:4, “sin is lawlessness.” One cannot violate the law unless there is a law in the first place.

Furthermore, Jesus himself shows us that being mistaken about something does not automatically equate with sin. In Mark 12, when the Sadducees present him with a parable concerning a woman who died after having seven husbands, they ask him: “In the resurrection, whose wife will she be, since all seven had her?” Jesus responds that they are “mistaken” about the resurrection because they do not understand the scriptures or the power of God. He corrects them from the scriptures and finishes his reply with “You are greatly mistaken.”

Compare this account with how Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, whom he accused of setting aside the Law of God in favor of their traditions (Matthew 15:3-6). In his indictments of these religious leaders, Jesus was telling them that they knew the provisions of the Law and had purposely set them aside in favor of their own mandates. Had the Sadducees been likewise sinning in their misunderstanding of the resurrection, there is no reason for us to believe that Jesus would not have plainly told them so.

In lumping those who hold to inaccurate views of scripture in with those who sinned unknowingly under the Law of Moses, Terry Mortenson is drawing an unnatural and entirely unjustified comparison. There is no biblical mandate of any kind to affirm any particular view of the creation account. No particular understanding of animal death and the fall of man are required to be a Christian or to qualify for Christian service. One may think that the young-earth perspective is the correct interpretation—even obviously so—but that is a far cry from establishing that it is actually sinful to believe otherwise. Nor can it be demonstrated that the old-earth interpretation somehow leads to sin, or as AiG president Ken Ham likes to argue, to unbelief:

However, we also know that around two-thirds of young people are leaving the church in America by college age, and the research we detailed in the book Already Gone shows clearly that the teaching of evolution and/or millions of years is a major factor in these young people doubting and then disbelieving the Scripture. The solution to this problem is not to offer them a contorted creation “story” that claims to accept the truth of Scripture while all the time denying it![3]

Young people who are leaving the church over faith versus science conflicts are doing so because they see the Bible as teaching things that have been disproven by modern scientific discoveries, and the specific sticking point is the young-earth interpretation of Genesis. I have seen the testimonies of a number of believers who nearly forsook the faith because they were taught that accepting the Bible as God’s authoritative revelation also meant accepting a young creation, which was entirely incompatible with the findings of the rigorous scientific disciplines in which they were trained. Discovery of the old-earth interpretation ended a tremendous crisis of faith for these believers, allowing them to embrace and defend Genesis—and theism as a whole—with a new vigor. Indeed, some have even come to faith in Christ as a direct result of old-earth teachings, after having been hindered by the perception that they had to embrace young-earth teachings to be a Christian

The following story from well-known Christian apologist William Lane Craig demonstrates this quite clearly:

I remember when I was speaking at the University of Northern Ireland once, and a student after my talk came up to speak with me and he said to me, “My friends have been sharing with me about Christ. In order to become a Christian, do I have to believe that the world was created in six twenty-four days?” And I said, “No, you don’t have to believe that to be a Christian.” And this kid threw up his hands in the air and said, “Hallelujah! That’s been the one thing that’s been keeping me from giving my life to Christ.” So, just explaining to him that there’s a range of options was all he needed to hear...

I do say…in all candor, at least in my talking with high school kids and college students…they think that if you’re a Christian you’ve gotta believe the world was created six thousand years ago in six consecutive twenty-four hours days, and they can’t believe that. Even good-willed kids, like my friend in Northern Ireland, they just can’t believe that. For them, it’s like committing intellectual suicide.[4]

As this story illustrates, old-earthers are not running young people out of the church. It is Ken Ham’s young-earth-or-nothing dogma that is creating the conflict that is resulting in this exodus. He has persuaded many that they must either accept his interpretation of Genesis or else reject the Bible entirely. It’s a tragic state of affairs, and all the more so because it is completely unnecessary. The Bible does not impose any sort of test of orthodoxy with regard to creation.

The conflict that we find here in the church is no different than other theological conflicts that have arisen among Christians throughout the centuries. Calvinists and Arminians have long disagreed on what the Bible has to say about the sovereignty of God and the nature of salvation. Proponents of various prophecy schools—such as pretribulationism, posttribulationism, and preterism—read the same passages of scripture, pronounce them “perfectly clear,” and yet come to radically different conclusions as to their meaning, sometimes even denouncing their opponents as heretics and agents of the devil.

All of these groups—and others that could be named besides—believe in the authority of the scriptures. All of them see themselves as defending what God has said against what men have said to the contrary. Thus, contrary to what Ham, Mortenson, and others are arguing, authority is not the central issue in these debates; interpretation is the central issue. Unfortunately, this truth is often obscured in the heat of debate, just as it has been obscured in other theological controversies over the centuries.

For my part, I would argue that it is Terry Mortenson who is mistaken about creation and the related issues of sin and death. I would argue that he does not understand the character of God as well as he thinks he does. I would argue that he and other young-earth teachers have unwittingly undermined the authority of scripture and discredited the gospel message by tying the faith to hyper-literal interpretations and pseudo-science. Yet, I do not accuse them of sin in these matters. I believe that they are acting in good faith, genuinely trying to uphold the authority of scripture against what they perceive as attacks by liberalism and atheism.

Where I would caution Mortenson and others in the young-earth movement is that some of their material and rhetoric drifts dangerously close to slander and bearing false witness. They know very well that their old-earth brethren hold a high view of scripture and its authority, and that we affirm the gospel, yet they consistently behave as though we twist scripture and “compromise” from the corrupt motivation to earn the praise of men.[5] Some of their rank-and-file followers carry the rhetoric even further, actually asserting that anyone who does not share the young-earth view is probably not even a genuine believer.

I call upon young-earth leaders to dial this rhetoric back to a more responsible and productive level. Accusing a brother of sin is a weighty matter, and you have not met the burden of proof required to sustain the charge. Your interpretations are potentially as fallible as anyone else’s. It’s time you admitted this.

***

For those who are interested, I have been writing a series of articles on aspects of the creation controversy in the church, beginning here. In this series, I explain in detail why I believe that Terry Mortenson and other young-earth leaders are wrong in their interpretations and the conclusions they derive from them.

* Unless otherwise noted, all scriptures are taken from the NASB.

** If you enjoyed this article and would like to support the author, you can donate via PayPal to rhawes73@gmail.com (or send an email to this address if you would like to donate by some other method).

*** Click here to visit my YouTube channel.

---

[1] Terry Mortenson, “Old-Earth Creationism—Is It a Sin?”Answers in Genesis, July 1, 2012, accessed July 23, 2020. https://answersingenesis.org/hermeneutics/old-earth-creationism-is-it-a-sin-to-be-wrong/

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ken Ham, “Hugh Ross Twists The Bible to Fit Man’s Fallible Opinion,” WVW Broadcast Network.com, September 29, 2014, accessed July 23, 2020. https://www.worldviewweekend.com/news/article/hugh-ross-twists-bible-fit-mans-fallible-opinion.

[4] “Doctrine of Creation: Excurses on Creation and Evolution Part 12,” YouTube video, 23:51 – 24:23, 26:36 – 27:03, posted by “ReasonableFaithOrg.” July 12, 2013.

[5] Ham, “Hugh Ross Twists the Bible.”