A short command that the followers of Christ do not quench the in-dwelling Holy Spirit (1 Thess 5.19). Can I suggest that Paul writes to the Corinthian Church by way of explanation, at least in part?

Spiritual gifts were being misused, so Paul spends some time in chapters 12-14, providing clear direction. In particular he addresses three barriers to proper use of the gifts.

The problem of unimportance.

For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body”, that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body”, that would not make it any less a part of the body. (1 Cor 12.14-16)

The problem some have is that we compare ourselves with someone else, thinking, ‘I am not good at anything, because I am not like him or her.’ Paul uses the metaphor of body parts, foot and hand, ear and eye, to address this problem.

We should not go into comparison with others. Each one in Christ is a new creation (2 Cor 5.17), and part of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12.27). We belong and are gifted; and most likely in a different way to the person we are comparing ourselves to.

The problem of individuality.

But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. (1 Cor 12.18-20)

Our western culture emphasizes our individual importance. We are encouraged to gain strength and education to enable us to profess and succeed on our own. We have become self-sufficient, living in our personal bubbles. Our minds default to ‘me’ instead of ‘we.’

We must re-learn the ‘many parts, one body’ message as we serve Christ together.

The problem of independence.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”, nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, (1 Cor 12.21-22)

The problem is that some look down on others. Shockingly, one Christian says to another, ‘I have no need of you.’ Our culture promotes independence. (We even had a political party with the word  ‘independence’ in its name.) We think independence is better than dependence. Paul would strongly disagree! Those parts of the body which seen to be weaker are actually indispensable. The needy are needed. The seemingly weak are essential.

I’ve read and enjoyed Marva Dawn’s intriguing book, Powers, Weakness, and the Tabernacling of God. It presents a powerful antidote to any success or strength orientated writings, which have become quite common in recent decades.

This article highlights a theme in the book which I found very helpful.

2 Cor 12.9, Paul writes that his power was brought to an end in his weakness; Paul glories in his weakness because Christ’s power tabernacles in him. The well-known phrase, ‘my power is made perfect in weakness’ is more accurately translated ‘my power dwells in weakness.’ And, remarkably, the word dwells, or tabernacles, means ‘the shekinah glory of God dwells.’  These familiar words provide a strong link between my weakness and the in-dwelling glory of God.

In the description of the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 24-38), this same word appears 140 times. Such was the significance of God dwelling in the midst of Israel.

Just as God had revealed Himself in shekinah glory at Mount Sinai, so He continued to dwell amongst the people in their subsequent journeys.

A key theme, which occurs elsewhere (e.g: Acts 7) is that God’s dwelling amongst His people is not a stationery thing. The NT continues the OT  theme of God dwelling among His people, but without any geographical restriction. In particular, the emphasis, from the time of Solomon onwards, on the temple in Jerusalem, can no longer apply.

The NT picks up the theme of ‘tabernacle’ in John 1.14; the new dwelling place of God amongst men is Jesus Christ. And this opens up a further subject for contemplation, of Christ’s genuine human weakness.

I was part of a discussion about how we define ‘bribery’.  At what point does the passing of money become wrong? This may be more subtle than we sometimes think. The Old Testament book of Proverbs is key here.

A bribe does have an effect, changing men’s decisions. ‘Bribe’ is too harsh a word! A generous and timely gift to another, perhaps a person of influence, can lead to success. David Adeney comments on this lack of condemnation of a bribe; ‘Such equivocation in the Old Testament seems to reflect a recognition of the power differential between a poor person who gives a gift in order to stave off injustice and the rich who uses his power to exploit the poor. The powerful and the powerless are not judged by the same abstract absolute.’ (Strange Virtues, Ethics in a Multicultural World, quoted by Andy McCullough in Global Humility)

The real test is not the passing over of a sum of money, but the motivation and purpose behind it. Can I suggest the following distinction:

Bribery condemned

17.23 and 22.16 look at the purpose of a bribe. Where it is given to prevent justice or to oppress the poor, then it is properly condemned. 15.27 likens a person giving a bribe to someone greedy for unjust gain.

Generosity with purpose

In 17.8, a precious stone changes a person’s decision in the donor’s favour. In 18.16, generosity opens door. And in 21.14 a gift soothes anger. If I buy someone flowers or chocolates to cheer them up, we do not think of that as bribery. It is a gift with a purpose.