Do All Commentaries Get 1 Corinthians 11:19 Wrong?

[TCC]

The actual title i think should be: Do Just About All Commentaries Get 1 Corinthians 11:19 Wrong? If I am mistaken and any find commentaries that proport according to the one listed below, please do mention and provide.

HOWEVER -– Every commentary, I have seen (including DA Carson’s own comments aside from being the senior editor of PNTC), sees Paul affirming that God has division in the church for the purpose of proving those who are His. Which seems to imply that the modern church kind of assimilates in ways the brokenness expressed in this passage as if it were something we ourselves should be doing.

Please see the commentary below from The Pillar New Testament Commentary (PNTC):

11:18–19 Paul’s first concern is that he has heard a report of divisions among the Corinthians when they come together as a church. To come together as a church was supposed to represent the coming together of one body (10:17) of people who together participate in the body and blood of Christ (10:16). BDAG indicates that the term “church” or “assembly” was used by early Christians “for chiefly two reasons: to affirm continuity with Israel through use of a term found in Gk. translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, and to allay any suspicion, esp[ecially] in political circles, that Christians were a disorderly group.” The sad irony was that the Corinthians were not actually “coming together” when they came together, but gave clear indications of being a divided and disorderly group, which reflected poorly on Christ and on themselves.

Paul’s comment, to some extent I believe it, seems a bit strange, since all the evidence from the rest of this passage and this book clearly indicates that he thought it clear that the Corinthian church was a divided church. It is probably intended to introduce his own ironic comment in the following verse with the sense, “I suppose, to some extent, it stands to reason that there would be divisions among you since No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval!” Paul is most likely referring ironically to a view that was reported to him as being held by some Corinthians. They thought the differences among them were a reflection of those who had God’s special approval. The following verses make it clear, however, that the divisions were provoked by the insensitive behavior of some of the social elites within the Corinthian church and that that behavior most certainly did not meet with God’s approval. If anyone could be said to have God’s approval in the Corinthian church, it would not be any of those wealthier and more socially advanced Christians who were snubbing their brothers and sisters! The behavior that, according to worldly wisdom, would have distinguished some of the members as socially superior members of the church who were “considered worthy of high regard, respected, esteemed” was actually shown to be unworthy of high regard, respect, or esteem since that very behavior was a disgrace to the community and an insult to God. That which distinguished the social elites in the Corinthian church was not worthy of praise (cf. v. 22) but had already brought God’s judgment on them (vv. 29–32) and now Paul’s sarcastic blame. They needed to recognize that behaviors that they thought merely marked them as social elites in fact ironically marked them as standing under divine judgment.

As will be pointed out in the comments on vv. 23–26, the Lord’s Supper entailed a reappropriation and reapplication of the Passover tradition in which Christ’s death on the cross was understood to provide the basis for the new and final redemption of God’s people, the second exodus. Peter Craigie points out that “the Passover became the act, symbolically speaking, of the one large family of God.” In 2 Chronicles 30 the celebration of the Passover is depicted as a unifying and sanctifying event that “fit well into Hezekiah’s designs to reunify the nation.” The Lord’s Supper, like the Passover meal on which it was based, should have served as an experience that strengthened the unity of God’s people, not one that would divide them.

. . . . .

Although DA Carson himself differs from this passage, it is understandable why so many see it this way:

This verse reflects the idea that divisions within the church community are necessary to reveal the true believers among the crowd. D. A. Carson explains that these divisions can manifest as heresies or factions, which serve as a means for God to discern the authenticity of faith. The presence of such divisions is seen as a test for unity and love within the church, ultimately highlighting the importance of maintaining harmony and unity among believers.

. . . . .

CONCERN – According to PNTC, Paul is being sarcastic.

What PNTC sees as Paul being sarcastic about, the modern church adopts to incorporate “sarcasm” seemingly into our own theological grids as theology proper itself. A main concern I believe this can suggest is mistaking literary style for doctrine. In this passage, it is as if all our commentaries adopt a heresy while assuming our so doing offers “explanatory power." meanwhile we believing we are being discerning in that.

At the end of the day, DA Carson’s personal take makes sense. But something like the PNTC’s likely accuracy can in ways mirror our own era’s tendency to perhaps idolize preachers/pastors and/or some senses upon our own theology guarded. Not to say we should not guard, but I believe we do tend today to see factions/tribalism serving as orthodoxy, might we not?

 

[Margery]

CONCERN – According to PNTC, Paul is being sarcastic.

What PNTC sees as Paul being sarcastic about, the modern church adopts to incorporate “sarcasm” seemingly into our own theological grids as theology proper itself. A main concern I believe this can suggest is mistaking literary style for doctrine. In this passage, it is as if all our commentaries adopt a heresy while assuming our so doing offers “explanatory power." meanwhile we believing we are being discerning in that.

At the end of the day, DA Carson’s personal take makes sense. But something like the PNTC’s likely accuracy can in ways mirror our own era’s tendency to perhaps idolize preachers/pastors and/or some senses upon our own theology guarded. Not to say we should not guard, but I believe we do tend today to see factions/tribalism serving as orthodoxy, might we not?

That's a good observation.

If we live in an age of deception, an age of increasing apostasy within the church, we should see that very fracturing into tribes of thought, factions of belief, and I think we do. If Laodicea is the end state of the church before the Tribulation period then each one does what is right in his or her own eyes, refusing to see Christ's instruction to the church. That is how people are whether it's in the periods of the Judges, during the Kings, and thru the history of the Jews on thru to the church.

I've been on this Forum (and a previous one) and I've noticed that the best defences of orthodoxy come up when there are challenges to it. We don't have to agree on minor points, but the major ones determine the fences, the boundary lines between Christianity and the cults that are not Christian.

However discussions need to remain kindly and civil otherwise the truth is ignored as people take sides and take up arms against each other.

In order to hear someone out, you have to listen and not judge their motives. Looking always to the Scripture together to determine the truth of the matter. Judging the fruits of a teaching and how it lines up with the Word, but not judging the person who might just be unwittingly caught up in error.

In the same passage that Jesus talks about judge not that ye be not judged, Mt 7:1 he talks about judging fruit just after in Mt 7:15-20 where he explains how to spot a false prophet- by judging the fruit. 2 kinds of judgement- of the heart, that one belongs to God, and of the fruits and that one is expected of those who follow Christ.

We can't judge another person's heart toward the Lord- only God can judge the heart, but we do need to be careful to examine the Scriptures that various teachers bring to the body, in order to be noble as the Bereans in Acts 17:11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.



So looking at the context: NIV here so v19 says differences, rather than factions. There is the idea of discernment, differences that show where people are coming from.

The key is down in v 29. To discern the body of Christ. Then v 32- summing it up. It's to have a humble servant heart towards the body. The last half of v 32 contrasts the judgment of the Lord (our conscience, the ongoing work of sanctification) vs condemnation with the world.

1 Cor 11:17-32
(Paul states the problem here- and it's to do with the attitudes towards others in the body)
17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!

(Paul is focused on the proper order of communion)
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

(Paul shows how to be sure that our attitudes are correct towards others in the body)
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

 

[mattfivefour]

Interesting thread. I don't have time to answer right now. But I'll try to get back to it in the next day or two, because I think many commentaries do in fact have this passage wrong.

 

[mattfivefour]

Thanks for asking this question, Teren.

I do not believe God causes factions. And therefore, I don't think He places them in the Church. However, the Greek does literally say "It behooves that there be factions ..."

The key word in the opening of 1 Corinthians 11:19 is the Greek verb dei (δεῖ) which is often defined as "behooves" because it carries with it the sense of necessity and of appropriateness. Many translators render it as "must". It occurs 104 times in various forms in the New Testament.

In some places it implies necessity, such as Matthew 16:21 where Matthew writes "From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must (δεῖ) go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things“ and in Luke 24:44 when Jesus says "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must (δεῖ) be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.”

In other places the word implies appropriateness, as in Matthew 18:33 where Jesus says "Should (δεῖ) you not have had mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had on you?" and in Romans 12:3 where Paul says "Do not think of yourselves more highly than you ought (δεῖ)."

But I think even in the two examples of necessity I gave you that can see the sense of appropriateness in there as well. And in the two examples I gave you of appropriateness I believe you can also see the sense of necessity. And it is that duality --necessity and appropriateness--that comes into play both in translations and in commentaries around our verse. Which is why many tend to think that God placed factions in the Church because it was necessary in order for those with right doctrine to be revealed.

But certainly there has to be a proper determination of what Paul was saying. After all, Scripture must speak clearly. In my studies, I have come to view that, in the verse in question, Paul was intending appropriateness or fittingness in relation to the use of δεῖ in 1 Corinthians 11:19. To me it seems the apostle is saying that it is fitting that there are factions, for by their very existence they enable correct teachers to be identified. Look at the Greek: δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι, ἵνα οἱ δόκιμοι φανεροὶ γένωνται ἐν ὑμῖν. Literally it reads "It behooves (or, it is fitting) for also factions among you there to be, so that also the approved evident should become among you." Or putting it in proper English syntax: "For also it behooves (or is fitting) there be factions among you, so that the approved should become evident among you." It seems clear to me that what is being conveyed is that the existence of factions should not be regarded as some outlying thing that had somehow found its way into the Church but that it is something natural (thank you, human nature) but negative that actually by its very presence reveals something positive. And it is for this reason that God permits it.

Remember, by factions we are not speaking about heresy versus orthodoxy, even though the word translated factions is the Greek hairesis (αἵρεσις) from which we get the word heresy. In those days it mostly referred to a sect or a faction of a group. In the context of First Corinthians I think it safe to say that here Paul was speaking of people separating into their own little groups, each thinking their group is superior for some reason or other-- perhaps the Greek Christians thinking they are superior to the Jewish Christians, or vice versa; perhaps those following Peter or Apollos thinking they are better than those following Paul (as Paul writes about in 1 Corinthians 1); or perhaps some believers in Corinth felt that showing off conspicuous and flamboyant spiritual gifts made them superior to those who lacked them. These things are natural, as a result of human nature. And those who engage in such thinking are revealing that they are operating in the flesh rather than the Spirit.

Thus, the members of these factions provide a good background against which spiritual believers may be clearly discerned or recognized. Think of a bright room. Shine a light in that room and it would not be clearly seen. Let there be darkness in that room and then shine the light: it will immediately be seen. I believe that is why God permits (not causes but permits) such things as factions to exist: so that those who have true spiritual maturity may be recognized as such.

I hope this helps someone in their own studies.

 

[TCC]

Interesting thread. I don't have time to answer right now. But I'll try to get back to it in the next day or two, because I think many commentaries do in fact have this passage wrong.

Thanks brother. I appreciate the feedback. I look forward to readying your reply post shortly. Blessings.

 

[TCC]

In the same passage that Jesus talks about judge not that ye be not judged, Mt 7:1 he talks about judging fruit just after in Mt 7:15-20 where he explains how to spot a false prophet- by judging the fruit. 2 kinds of judgement- of the heart, that one belongs to God, and of the fruits and that one is expected of those who follow Christ.

Thanks Margery for you reply. You know this reminds me of a discussion I recall at a bible study some 30 years ago. There was a missionary from Morrocco who shared at one of the bible studies (but casually) where he differed with John Macarthur (the church that sponsored him) on the passage about not throwing peals to swine. I recall the missionary saying that the standard way to read that in Greek is pretty much how we have all understood. But this missionary from Marrocco (a rather dangerous place to be a missionary) had some profound takes.

The missionary stated that from his earnest takes from the Greek, to him, the import was not as much about not throwing high value spiritual things at those fleshy who could not appreciate it and will kill you (although this seems to just about be somewhat prophetic because Jesus said it and what happened to Him). But rather, the import was on giving those that cannot discern much or have not the capacity at the movement--what they can appreciate. Not in a seeker sensitive way. But like in a Luke 6:38 way. Where they can even bless you back for relating to them from where they are at.

I never really understood how the Greek got that missionary to see the emphasis more on how to interact with those lacking in discernment more than simply not beating your head against a wall trying to convince others we have the truth. But when i looked this up on What did Jesus mean when He said to not cast your pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6)? | GotQuestions.org I was kind of impressed by the context it starts out on. I believe what is shared at gotquestions is pretty standard in how we see it. But in the beginning of the topic of discussion the placement of the pearl/swine teaching seems to be in the epicenter of how we judge wrongly MORE than on the suburbs of exegetical nuance of withholding clarity to the proven stubborn.

FOR STARTERS
This passage falls within the greater context of the sermon on the mount. Which direction its due north exegetical narrative flows is profoundly "mostly" an address of Jesus to Israel about the real conditions of their own hearts biblically before God in contrast to what they have grown to understand as the virtues of men in Judaism. The warnings to them about false teachers is what the leadership had done with Judaism, yes, in contrast to the Good Shepherd before them. But I think it is important to keep in mind a view upon the sermon on the mount through an Israeli historical filter more than how we understand things work today and overlay those ideas back onto the passage.

When we see the sermon on the mount beyond gotquestions placement, what we see in chapter 5-7 is:

• Beatitudes
• Believers are to be light not hidden or lose flavor
• Living attitudes towards others
• Charitable giving / prayers / fasting
• Trust dont fear

The force of focus is on the community he is speaking to and the radical differences of the word and how they could have been misled by bad faith leaders. In Chapter 7 the pearls before swine passage is in between:

* Do not judge others
* Take the log out of your own eye

And...

• Trust in God's good heart toward you
• The golden rule

Culminating at v12 “In everything, therefore, [n]treat people the same way you want [o]them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

I believe the narrative arc bending toward vs 12 is likely where this missionary saw in the Greek ordered structure out of a plethora of ground swelling verses frothing up best good faith attitudes in the congregation toward in climax in v12. Viewing this section of scripture from a modern 21st perspective would naturally seek to honestly harmonize the pearls before swine warning as "don't you be judging others but don't be foolish in what the actual context of some might be." This standard rendering has common sense as well proverbial spiritual responsibility motifs that make sense to us. In addition, it comes right after Jesus says you can see soberly if you remove the log from your own eye. And what that looks like is to not cast pearls before swine. This harmonizes excellently, actually. In that sense there is a way to see things as very fitting. And the ability to see clearly likely an incentive not to judge with logs in our eyes. And the word of course can work that way. Amen.

But looking at it from the roots up bent historically and contextual as to what meaning for them in the 1st century it would have, it would also make sense though the emphasis not be in as much as what removing a log from our eye can help us to see, taking verse 12 into account, but in noticing what we don't want to happen to us (to be trampled) as a setup for verse 12. "I don't want to be trampled. And maybe I should consider too how I might treat those i would see as swine, how might i want to be treated by them other than being trampled?"

I imagine it could be understood that the best way that interlocking of concept flow within the passage could be as the Moroccan missionary understood, would be discoverable perhaps better in the Greek (as far as placing emphasis on an authorial intend driving to a climax point). It works in english but is a bit disjointed there. Supported missionaries from that church have to be seminary graduates with some real working introductory knowledge (at the colligate level) to be a missionary....so perhaps that may explain this missionaries views.

In all honesty though, the way it reads to me is not "give what is best for others who cannot discern well" but rather a river flowing idea current force leading to "treat others, all others, as you would want to be treated." Not recklessly throwing spiritual gems around as a sense of duty while so much else about us may not be fitted toward even knowing how to provide what could be best for others. I would have to say, as an overview of the authorial intend of the sermon on the mount (at face value) in combination with what all that is later to be discovered meant for Israel and the 1st century (a people who as a group would end up being actually the swine in the crowd), Jesus giving parables only after much stubborn pushback from Israel, might be an example, yes, of not letting them see so much...but also letting them see something. In this way...the way we see parables in the21st century are more like holistic teaching tools. But for Israel it was a judgement. Yet even in that it still left crumbs that fell from the table that the self righteous would refuse to grapple for. But those, like Nicodemus (who had some spiritual hard concepts thrown at him), who wrestled with impossible metaphors might yet see. And even so, the intent of Jesus shading meaning in parabolic language could be seen as not throwing pearls before swine while those who might see could have "something." And i suppose in that sense, looking at the whole of the purpose of the sermon on the mount (a condition Israel was to receive in readying herself for the kingdom God was wanting to literally give them), AND the pearl/swine passage conveyed so close to verse 12 ground zero...it is understandable that helping others to see Jesus "one moment at a time" could also be derived from the pear/swine metaphor. Although to our grammar of mind structure, it would seem a bit forced. But still would have a seat at the greater "sermon on the mount purpose" table, i reckon.

. . . . .

Having said that, it would seem that your second half of your post would come to see that the struggles in the body of factions exists for the body itself to mature in contrast to, if i am tracking correctly. Historically this would be demonstrated in the church councils over hundreds of years and in that sense might be the most observable sense of what 1 Cor 11:9 infers. Would that be the understanding takeaway you might have?

If so, is that the sense you would see commentaries trying to make? That they actually are not far off at all? The reason I ask that is because from the sense I have had over the years in considering what is going on in 1Cor11:19 and how commentaries generally handle it = this:

"The good that God brings out of factions (like also: stumbling blocks are inevitable and they will come) is that at the end of the day, we see whom God has approved. In one sense as you are looking at it I can see a hair line reasoning of that to be sober, even to the point that is what might be meant in commentaries. But the way it seems to grow in the background, from what i would witness, is a sense the church might consider a passage like this to empower some kind of "necessary friction" in the church. Hopefully appreciating this bent I'd having coming out of the American Reformed perspective, the way this verse 11:19 seems to function has been that which authorizes church takeovers. In America, there had been a growing wave of stealth reformed perspective to enter churches that were not reformed and slowly convert the congression over time toward a reformed perspective. And in so doing, affirming 1 Cor 11:19 as the sovereign condition in which God approves of stealth church takeovers. If that makes sense? I assure you, that would be a way a majority of the America Calvinist camps would be thinking like. But it is something that is often not considered because it is (a) a smooth operation, and (b) it requires quite a bit of mature spiritual insight to notice. Almost at a seminary level. The reason I have noticed is because of my deep interest in having to understand the differences and nuances for my own sanity. While going faithfully to those reformed churches I had been taught at seminary levels from the mere pulpit. But had no clue any of that was a rubber meets the road potential application considered by the reformed world.

I just use the reformed take above as an example of what difficulty i would see in letting 1 Cor 11:19 ride the coattails of its surface level sense because i can demonstrate the species of concern i would have with it. Something i am familiar with. Alternatively, another good example of this vers being used in Christendom inappropriately would be in what we see Mike Winger's ministry to have turned to. An expose' of rampant threats in the continuationist movement. "Do not touch the Lord's anointed" kind of being a derivative of this kind of thinking. Where the false or in grave error continueist leader would use this kind of verse to point to their own vindication in "being approved." And the false or in grave error cessationist leader use it to show how God approves of stealth church takeovers. This line of thinking to me tends to provide too much opportunistic entitlement like thinking in the church. And that swollen state of mind in the church has seemingly gained quite a power grip over congregations as a whole. So in looking at that kind of contrast, it would seem to me that Paul was most likely using it as sarcasm.

I mean although churches will of necessity grow in contrast to heresy if confronted by it in them and they are of healthy enough condition to stand against it, it would just seem that sarcasm would seem more contextual than for Paul to use that condition in the church to teach that there must be factions. Because in the same book he is striving to wean people off from being already. It would not seem reasonable that Paul is also saying "no, no" while saying "yes, yes." The mature could absorb the differences for sure, but Paul does seem to be, with the Corinthians, somewhat about speaking to them as fleshy. Inserting such a mature principle before them would likely, in my estimate, be cause for them to further stumble I reckon is why it would also seem to be more likely sarcasm. If that makes sense.

 

[TCC]

But certainly there has to be a proper determination of what Paul was saying. After all, Scripture must speak clearly. In my studies, I have come to view that, in the verse in question, Paul was intending appropriateness or fittingness in relation to the use of δεῖ in 1 Corinthians 11:19. To me it seems the apostle is saying that it is fitting that there are factions, for by their very existence they enable correct teachers to be identified. Look at the Greek: δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι, ἵνα οἱ δόκιμοι φανεροὶ γένωνται ἐν ὑμῖν. Literally it reads "It behooves (or, it is fitting) for also factions among you there to be, so that also the approved evident should become among you." Or putting it in proper English syntax: "For also it behooves (or is fitting) there be factions among you, so that the approved should become evident among you." It seems clear to me that what is being conveyed is that the existence of factions should not be regarded as some outlying thing that had somehow found its way into the Church but that it is something natural (thank you, human nature) but negative that actually by its very presence reveals something positive. And it is for this reason that God permits it.

Thanks brother for sharing. I would say in the several discussions i have had posting this question here and at one other forum, there is a sense of course in where you (and as well Margery) could see some things from this kind of perspective. And it is possible for me to have seen a lot of misuse to color the distaste for its actually import even, for sure, it could be this. It could be my not being open more to consider it as is (because just because a verse is misused does not mean we change its meaning to protect it). So I have appreciated the responses here for sure. And of course any others should others weigh in, amen.

But the thing i would ask here is this: Is it possible that the "behooves" sense used in this verse permissibly be in the Greek phraseology as sarcasm? If we read it literally, it sounds like God is clearly saying a condition that must exist even as there must exist stumbling blocks (because it is a necessary symptom of the fall). I think the Greek helps clarify a lot. But i have also seen the Greek be used in monstrous ways too. The Greek, for example, in my reformed days went very far. And was a favorite use of the camp. I would go even as far as to say that their own use of it helped me to see that they could actually be in so doing arguing against their own position with it. Which i did see actually occur at times. What seemed to be greater than Greek rendition was context. It is literally "the" thing that had me reconsider so many things I was looking at as a reformed believer. Context won.

So in the contextual sense, if the context in which Paul is speaking (both in overall thematic tones in which he addresses this church with, as well as the specific situation where the wealthy would use the Lords table to get drunk...and the congregation perhaps even accommodate that to a degree), might those two conditions not suggest a reasonable red carpet for context override? I'm not suggesting that the Greek in its grammar would not literally say this situation must be that way. But just like in English, we can state things as literal that are also sarcasm. The best known form of this is deadpan comedy. So is it possible that Greek mind in the first century read something literal to be taken as sarcasm? I don't believe i have seen a study on that. But it just seems that there would be such allowance. But if so, I am not aware of the rules involved. So I guess my question would at this juncture have to serve on its own if possible. That it might be that Greek can say utterly literal things and yet mean them completely in sarcasm?

I believe their can be a case to be made for this from Paul and Corinth in 2 Corinthians where the all too familiar passage of 2 Cor 13:5. There is a verse commonly used to assert that we should examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith. Leaders use this as encouragement to do so. And not that that is an unreasonable takeaway. For it is good to be encouraged, to a degree, in this manner. But that verse, as literally as it is saying "examine yourself" to be understood as something we should do and that that is its most saliently used import among churches, However, I don't believe that verse is there necessarily to convey that. Secondarily it could be used as such, amen. But very rarely have i ever heard it be used as secondary. It is always used as primary.

I believe the primary sense of 1 Cor 13:5 is that Paul was saying, "If you doubt that I am a real apostle, judge your own condition because of having met me. Does not your claim to be Christian come from my having preached to you? So examining that you are believers is because of God using me in your life. The same life you now use to think me to be a false teacher. If you are able to think that, it is because of the word spoken by God in me to you. The one you see as a heretic. So if you are a Christian, does that not attest that I also am one?"

Being able to sit with that and find its salient application would be a bit more nuanced work. I believe i can come up with some, but it would take a while. Its not something that just sits on our sleave for easy access use. I believe it would be somewhat in the neighborhood of how apologetics minister in the body more than self evaluation. But it would take careful prayerful study to see helpful takeaways aside from a low hanging fruit version in use of it today. But i just state it to demonstrate that whatever Paul is doing here, it is not this:

"I Paul would have you examine yourself in the faith even as i don't (1 Cor 4:3)." Whatever Paul is saying there, that would not be it. I just use this ironic sarcasm comparison I suppose to just help give some flavor from where I am asking. If that makes sense? Blessings.

 

[Margery]

Your missionary friend grabbed onto something I like which is to make whatever teaching available to the one being taught. Make it like milk if they are young, increase the meat for the stronger older ones.

Teaching as a gift operating in the body HAS to account for all different ages from babes in the Lord to those who are ready to attack a passage and gain the meat. Whenever I've taught in a group setting I have both in the group.

In both the older and younger members of the body, they are able to take the pearls, they are not the swine.

So in the usual sense of that pearl/swine passage I take that we need to be exceptionally wise in how we present things to unbelievers and those who profess belief but spend their time ripping others to shreds.

I was at my hairdresser last week. Since I met her in 2003 I've witnessed to her as the Lord opens the door. This time she was very angry at God. I was careful, cautious with what I said not to inflame her view further, but still tell the truth. The swine isn't her, it's the demonic forces holding her captive in unbelief. She couldn't have endured a pearl flung in her direction. The swine in the background (she does have a lot of demonic influence) wouldn't let her see it as anything other than an attack.

That is 1 Cor 9:19-22 (NKJV)
19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

She is a precious lost lamb that I want to see saved.

Back to the business of 1Cor11:19 and the reason for factions/differences.

"Do not touch the Lord's anointed" kind of being a derivative of this kind of thinking. Where the false or in grave error continueist leader would use this kind of verse to point to their own vindication in "being approved." And the false or in grave error cessationist leader use it to show how God approves of stealth church takeovers. This line of thinking to me tends to provide too much opportunistic entitlement like thinking in the church. And that swollen state of mind in the church has seemingly gained quite a power grip over congregations as a whole. So in looking at that kind of contrast, it would seem to me that Paul was most likely using it as sarcasm.

You make another excellent point, and one I've had serious problems with in the past. Touch Not the Lord's Anointed was used in that awful church I belonged to in the mid 90's and was excommunicated from (from the pulpit via the head pastor) because I dared to point out publicly that he had lied from that pulpit to attack another pastor under him and that the church was going into anti semitic teaching (along with a lot of other heresies). He actually had the gall to steal a business (too long to get into here) from some members of the congregation (that I happened to know and know all the ins and outs of)

God used that experience to really ground me into why discernment ministries are essential. Winger wasn't there at that time, (obviously- probably about 5 years old if that then) proving the other side of this passage 1Cor 11:19 - the very good effect that we can have in sheer reaction to enough nonsense flying thru the church. A little nonsense, we might ignore, (and shouldn't as these things grow like leaven) but when it gets to be an absolute storm of factions/heresy etc, we HAVE to stand up and counter it.

That heretical ungodly man's view was that God would hold him accountable (IF) he was in error, and that I should just sit back, shut up and let the abuse and the heresy just flow thru the church under his authority. Because he sat in the seat of Moses and "touch not the Lord's anointed".

I wrote 88 letters to the denomination headquarters (he was a past president but they needed a swift poke in their consciences), to the elders, and the deacons as well as every family and person that I felt deserved an explanation as to why George and I were leaving (even before the ex comm- that happened when the letters hit the fan so to speak).

They immediately invoked the clause Matt 18:15-17

15 If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

---and complained that I should have kept it between G and me and that head pastor. But the sin was public, from the pulpit, it was no mere fault. It was actually a pattern. At the same time as this was taking place I was president of a large homeschool group of over 100 families, and I had knowledge from some of my "flock" of homeschoolers of how they had been worn down to exhaustion trying to bring it privately, only to have that head pastor excommunicate them and make their information hidden to the congregation (most of whom had stopped hearing truth because that was termed "gossip")

A beautiful catch 22.

I was irritated enough- (having seen one of the junior pastors lied about from the pulpit (and God having placed me a few weeks prior in a position to KNOW THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER) in order to take his character away from him (again another cover up from the seat of Moses there))

- that I felt we'd covered Matt 18 just fine, and it was time to rip the thing wide open. George backed me up on this and we let 'er rip! He more than backed me up, he was even more angry than I was, but I'm more articulate so I did the talking/writing etc. Of course I was seen as a woman who didn't know her place (be quiet at home, never upset a man in the congregation, let alone the head pastor!)

Now the aftermath of this- being excommunicated, losing most of our social network, seeing our kids hurt as they were also shunned wasn't pleasant.

But it DID have the salutary effect of helping me grasp the differences between the heresy that blew thru that church and the reality of God's sure foundation in His Word. Same for G and the kids.

And the months I spent searching the Word to figure out why they'd given themselves permission to destroy the flock and claim immunity was EXCELLENT!

And as Paul might have intended, I got a much better grounding in the Word as a result of their crazy crap.

And I wasn't the only one to benefit. The net result was that quite a few people quietly headed for the Exit - as if God blew the exit doors wide open for them, and quite a lot more got some healing from seeing someone succeed where they had been silenced before they COULD bring it before the congregation! I didn't bring that business back to the ones that had it stolen, but their unsaved son got saved watching George and me do our thing with all this! Daniel is still serving the Lord to this day.

Win Win Win!