1:4 a couple of troubling thoughts about translation and petty modifiers:
- "my God" in stead of "God" is a superficially petty distinction, but the theological implications are profound. The original text no doubt makes it difficult, if not impossible, to choose from these two potential translations. "My God" makes the text a personal affirmation, but also leaves open the possibility of other gods beside this one. An unmodified "God" is more authoritative, but correspondingly offhanded. The worst thing about questions like this is that there can be no answer.
- giving thanks "for you", in common usage, signifies "because of you", but here seems to mean "in your behalf", acceptable grammatically, but a strange usage--and one with theological ramifications. Is it possible to act as a thanksgiving proxy? If so, what would be the point? It is possible, that the original meaning is closer to a combination of the two denotations, something like "I give thanks that you are so blessed".
I don't have much to say on any particular verse in this chapter, because I find the whole thing quite brilliant. Paul masterfully transforms a question of sectarianism among the Corinthians into a soaring discourse on the relationship between power and wisdom. In v. 17 he (perhaps disingenuously) decries his own wisdom, and leverages this bit of self-deprecation into a unavoidable focus on the message of Christ. By the end of the chapter, the writer has disappeared completely, and the reader has forgotten everything but the message. Brilliant.
2:6 Paul cannot deny for long, of course, that there is real wisdom to be had in the message of Christ. His distinction is the means by which is it gained: by revelation, and not by reason.
2:11 I'm not sure what to make of this verse, but I love it.
3:2 and he then uses this to bait his audience a bit, reminding them that as long as they are arguing over fleshly things, the real wisdom of God will not be revealed to them.
3:12-15 I consider this to be a misstep, a bit. It feels like Paul got carried away with his metaphor, and took it down a path that doesn't really relate to his subject. Mercifully, he catches himself quickly.
4:5 He seems to be setting up his next step, namely a rebuke of certain behaviors.
4:14 Yes, this whole chapter is definitely ground work for what comes next.
5:3 This seems to contradict his caution against judgement in 4:3-5, and he also seems to be making a rather striking claim of prescience. Is he claiming some sort of astral travel, or merely speaking metaphorically?
5:12 It is probably fair for Paul to claim the right of judgement here, it just seems to go against his own theology.
6:2 This verse is commonly used as justification for the despicable practice of handling such matters as pedophilia internally without informing secular authorities. I think the presence of the word "trivial" in the description should take the power out of that argument though.
6:7 This is the natural extension of Paul's argument in ch.1, that the highest virtue is to allow oneself to be wronged in the service of the higher good. One has to wonder where the line is drawn, though. At murder? Pedophilia? Petty theft? Purely civil matters?
6:9 In this context, the implication is that sin is its own punishment, rather than all such ones should be judged by the congregation.
6:12 an elegant transition into a larger point, one that I can get on board with--as weighty as it is.
7:4 This may be the only authority Paul grants to a woman in his entire ouvre.
7:7 And what gift may it be that Paul has? Extraordinary self-control? That seems unlikely, in light of other statements he makes. What could it be, other than that certain things do not tempt him? And considering the context, what could that be but certain sexual temptations?
7:10 does this represent a typo on Paul's part, one that without the benefit of an eraser he had to amend? Furthermore, what does the slip represent? Does the command come by divine inspiration, or by virtue of his apostolic authority?
7:12 Aah, perhaps not a typo after all, but a setup for the next statement. Nicely done, Paul.
7:14 In what sense are they made holy? In that they are converted, or in that they are grandfathered in, so to speak?
7:17 Leading the life to which God has called you could take many forms. Paul has already allowed concessions for certain personal defects, such as the lack of self-control. What if one was born with a natural attraction for members fo the same sex?
7:21 As tempting as it is to rebuke Paul for his endorsement of slavery, it is a consistent and natural extension of his command to let yourself be wronged. In the broader scheme, what difference does it make, slave or free?
7:25 again, Paul inserts his own opinion, a bald admission that all of the Bible is not inspired by God.
7:29 Is this inconsistent with v.3? Or is it more metaphorical?
Paul spends quite a bit of time on the question of whether or not to have sex. Is this a preoccupation on his part, or a response to a preoccupation on the part of his audience?
8:2 Beautifully consistent with more Eastern thought.
8:9 A running theme in this book. I really like it. Really.
9:4,5 Now wait a minute. Is Paul willing to follow his own counsel here, and allow himself to be wronged?
9:12 Evidently so. Still, he seems to leave certain loopholes for the other Apostles.
9:15 Though for dubious reasons--surely this is not his real motivation.
10:1 Certainly not "under a cloud" in the sense that we would expect.
10:6-13 These verses change the tone of the book, from one of gentle and reasonable suggestion, to intense and urgent command.
10:29 This question, which seems to contradict his point, is promptly answered by the most utilitarian of arguments, "For the Lord," AKA "Cuz I said so."
11:2-15 This seems out of place to me. He has spent so much time dealing with weighty matters, why does he now devote an entire chapter to what he admits are mere customs? Especially one so seemingly trivial as how long one's hair should be? I wonder what the background situation was such that he felt it of such import?
11:20 I don't see how to reconcile this with the Witness' insistence that the Lord's Supper take place only annually. "When you come together" certainly seems to apply to more than an annual occurrence.
11:27 And what would constitute and " an unworthy manner"? To excess? In a morally unclean state?
11:34 This seems to argue for the former.
12:3 This is a rather convenient way for "false" prophets to establish some credibility.
12:11 The Spirit here certainly has agency, as though an individual, rather than a mute force.
12:24 In what way? Paul may be belaboring the metaphor here. To pick it apart:
- What are the more honorable members of the literal body? One would imagine the head and the heart, while the more dishonorable members are the feet or the pudendum.
- In what way to the feet get more honor than the head? In that they are clothed?
- In what way does the pudendum get more honor than the heart? In that it is secreted?
- This seems to connect to his discussion of hair in ch.11: That the head recieves its own glorious apparel, and it is shameful to cover it.
CH 13 Perhaps one of the most famous and widely memorized of chapters in the entire Bible, and for good reason. I can't think of much to add--other than that he has what amounts to a pronoun referent problem: What is it that will signify the end of these things? "The Complete" is certainly an intriguing appellation. I see no clue here even.
14: Now, how exactly is one supposed to strive for gifts of prophesy when the assignation of such things is purely arbitrary, as determined by spirit?
14:2 The Witnesses often claim that The Complete that Paul references in ch.13 has already come, and that correspondingly all such gifts have disappeared, and that all who seem to exhibit such gifts are either fraudulent or influenced by Demons. They say that the early Christians' gifts of tongues were in actual tongues, known languages, and modern speaking in tongues is mere babble--not from spirit. This verse contradicts that claim--clearly at least some speaking in tongues was incoherent. Furthermore, their assertion does not seem possible under Paul's theology in 12:3.
14:13 The power to speak in tongues is lower in the hierarchy than the gift of prophesy or interpretation for a very good reason.
14:18 If Paul's gift is one of tongues, does that mean that he is lower in authority? Does he ever actually claim the gift of Prophecy? It is convenient that he has put the gift of Apostlehood first in 12:28.
14:26 I love this model of worship. I have often wanted to have a group of friends that I could do this with--void of pedagogy or dogma, free from instruction of all sorts--a simple sharing of love and inspiration.
14:34 Is a woman not permitted the gifts of prophecy then? Or tongues? This is manifestly untrue. So where are these gifts to be shared, if not in the church?
15:1 So it's time for a little pure theology, rather than applied . . .
15:10 Paul doesn't ever shy away from truths--pleasant or un.
15:29 People often laughingly criticize the LDS for this very practice, but there seems to be a clear precedent.
15:32 My sentiments exactly, at one poiont in life. Nowadays, however, I feel that if the dead are not raised, let us be all the more virtuous--for its own sake, not that of a reward.
15:52 Not a common justification for the doctrine of the Rapture, but certainly in support of that belief.
16:21 Not true of every letter of his--worthy of note. What part did Sosthenes play in this letter then?
