Michael B. Thompson provides a comprehensive description of Paul’s vision for church meetings and worship:
Paul’s vision begins and ends with God, whose mercies in Christ by the Spirit are the ground, motivation, and enablement of praise. That praise is characterized by thanksgiving, and glorying in what God has accomplished (in addition to Rom 1 and 12: Col 3:17; 1 Thess 5:18; 1 Cor 11:26). It includes considerable singing of psalms and hymns (1 Cor 14:26; 14:15; cf. Col 3:16; Eph 5:19); we may have a song fragment in Phil 2:6–11 (although this continues to be disputed); cf. Eph 5:14; 1 Tim 3:16; etc. Prayer is an obvious feature (1 Cor 14:15), including blessings and thanksgivings in the Spirit (with interpretation, 1 Cor 14:16f), supplications and intercessions (e.g. Phil 4:6; 1 Thess 5:17). In particular we find prayer for Christ’s return (1 Cor 16:22; cf. Rev 22:20), and in a later letter, prayer for those in authority (1 Tim 2:1ff, 8).
Paul assumes a coming together (1 Cor 11:18, 20) for worship that remembers (particularly in the Lord’s Supper, 1 Cor 11:24f), that proclaims (1 Cor 11:26), and that is worthy (1 Cor 11:27–33). The Lord’s Supper is celebrated as part of a meal, which is to be entered into with discernment and consideration for the needs of each other (1 Cor 11:17–34). It is a sharing with and in Christ (1 Cor 10:16, 21f). The frequency with which Paul’s churches met and observed the eucharist is uncertain; at any rate, corporate worship was regularly on Sundays (1 Cor 16:2).
Worship is fundamentally corporate and united. We have already seen this implied in the singular ‘sacrifice’ (θυσία) of Rom 12:1, and 1 Cor 11:18 makes this explicit. It is inclusive of Jews and Gentiles glorifying God with one voice (Rom 15:6, 7–13—arguably the climax of Romans; cf. 1 Cor 12:13), if exclusive with regard to those who cause dissensions in opposition to the teachings received by the community (Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 5:3–5). It is characterized by uniformity of aim (Phil 2:2; Rom 15:5) but is wide enough to allow for diversity of expression and practice (Rom 14:5f).
Spiritual gifts are to be used for the common good (1 Cor 12:7). The gifts to be foremost in worship are the greater gifts (1 Cor 12:31), i.e. those which are intelligible and build up the community (Fee 1994:196f; 1 Cor 14:26). Love should govern their use (1 Cor 13; 14:1) and is the goal of instruction (Phil 1:9; cf. 1 Tim 1:5). Potentially each person has a contribution to make (1 Cor 14:26), although unintelligible speech should be accompanied by interpretation (1 Cor 14:27f), and prophecies should be weighed (1 Cor 14:29; 1 Thess 5:21). Like synagogue meetings, it probably includes readings from the Old Testament (Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:6; cf. 2 Tim 3:16); the reading of Paul’s letters has already been noted.
Paul envisions a worship that is ‘free’, enabled and empowered by an unquenched Spirit (1 Thess 5:19), yet orderly (1 Cor 14:40). This call to order implies local leadership (cf. Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 5:12; Phil 1:1), although some students of Paul see the existence of leaders in worship as a later development. Both sexes played leading roles (women prayed and prophesied, 1 Cor 11; cf. Horbury in this volume), but there were differences and limits as seen to be appropriate (1 Cor 14:34f). Here, as no doubt in many other respects, Paul’s vision was constrained by social realities. We may consider him to have been inconsistent in carrying through his declaration of equality (Gal 3:28; see Chester’s discussion in this volume), but any failure to eliminate all ‘barriers’ between men and women was probably rooted in a concern for mission; Paul urged what was ‘seemly’ in order not to erect barriers to others coming to faith. The same issue of consistency appears in his own policy of being all things to all people, that he might by all means save some (1 Cor 9:22).
For Paul, worship is not simply cerebral but worked out in appropriate postures (kneeling: Rom 14:11; Phil 2:10; cf. Eph 3:14; prostration: 1 Cor 14:25; standing: 1 Tim 2:8), attire (1 Cor 11:4–16) and ritual acts (the holy kiss: Rom 16:16; 1 Thess 5:26; 2 Cor 13:12) which signify and depict theological truths (baptism as a death: Rom 6:3f, and resurrection: Col the washing/rebirth in Tit 3:5; eucharist proclaiming the Lord’s death: 1 Cor 11:26). It could take particular liturgical forms such as the Amen (1 Cor 14:16) uttered in Christ’s name (2 Cor 1:20), the Maranatha formula (1 Cor 16:22), the cry ‘Abba’ (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6), confession formulae (Rom 10:10; Phil 2:11), benedictions (Gal 6:18; Phil 4:23; 1 Cor 16:23), doxologies (Rom 1:25; 9:5; 2 Cor 11:31; Rom 11:36; Gal 1:5; cf. 2 Tim 4:18; Eph 1:3), and the triadic blessing (2 Cor 13:14).
Where then would Paul ‘go to church’ today? Who best reflects his ‘vision’ for worship? An unspoken assumption in such questions of course is that his vision remained static and never changed. Nevertheless, we can offer a few observations with some degree of certainty. Besides the usual ingredients of prayer, praise and instruction that we might expect, the sort of gathered worship Paul hoped would characterize his congregations featured freedom yet form, unity yet diversity, authority yet mutuality. Gathered worship was not escape from the world where a life of worship is lived, nor an individualistic exercise in piety, nor essentially a one-way flow from a person ‘up front’ to the rest of the flock. Precisely in his insistence on the use of gifts and mutual ministry (1 Cor 14:26) he summoned his hearers to take risks that many find difficult to accept today. The risk includes the possibility of a genuine encounter with God that challenges, renews and transforms—and potentially embarrasses. The extent to which a church replaces that risk with control reflects its departure from at least a part of Paul’s vision.
Michael B. Thompson, “Romans 12:1–2 and Paul’s Vision for Worship,” in A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J. P. M. Sweet, ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1997), 129–131.
James D. G. Dunn writes the following:
34.3 Paul. Of the two early patterns of worship [temple and house-meeting] Paul was apparently more influenced by the free house churches of the Hellenists, though to what extent is not clear. Certainly house churches were an important locus of community life in Paul’s mission (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 2), as well of course as the larger (weekly?) gatherings of the whole community (1 Cor. 11; 14; cf. 16:2). But his concept of worship is more than a rationalizing of inherited forms and stems primarily from his concept of the local church as the body of Christ. We recall that the body of Christ is for Paul the charismatic community, that is, the community functioning charismatically. The body of Christ comes to expression, lives and moves, through the mutual interplay of gifts and ministries, the diversity of manifestations being integrated into a unity of purpose and character by the controlling Spirit of Christ (see above §29). But this means that the body of Christ comes to visible expression pre-eminently in and through worship: it is most clearly in worship that the diversity of functions (= charismata) demonstrate their mutual interdependence and unifying force (hence the discussion of charismata in 1 Cor. 12–14 centres on the assembly at worship).
How did this work in practice? The clearest answer is given in 1 Cor. 14:26–33a: ‘When you meet for worship, each of you contributes a hymn, a word of teaching, a revelation, an utterance in tongues, an interpretation …’. Here, beyond dispute, Paul conceives of worship as a very spontaneous affair, without regular structure or form, and wholly dependent on the inspiration of the Spirit. The only regulations he gives are: that there should not be an unbroken sequence of glossolalic utterances—an utterance in the vernacular, an interpretation, must follow each utterance in tongues, otherwise tongues should be wholly excluded; that each prophetic utterance should be evaluated by the prophets and/or the whole community (cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–15; 1 Thess. 5:19–22); and that no more than two or three glossolalic and two or three prophetic utterances should be allowed in any meeting. The period of worship then would consist in a sequence of contributions in which those with regular ministries would participate (prophets and teachers), but where any member might experience the urging of the Spirit to manifest a particular charisma (including a prophecy or teaching). The regular ministries were not expected to dominate the meeting or necessarily to provide leadership. Leadership would be provided by the Spirit, possibly through a regular ministry of leadership, but possibly also through an occasional gift of guidance or word of wisdom (1 Cor. 6:5; 12:28). As we noted above (pp. 122f.), in I Corinthians anyway Paul does not seem to envisage any established leadership as such.7
Whether women participated in this charismatic worship is not clear. 1 Cor. 14:33b–36, if original, appears to exclude any contribution from women, but a less rigorous interpretation is possible (for example, it forbids only their interrupting the process of evaluating prophetic utterances (14:29–33a) by asking unnecessary questions), and should probably be accepted in view of 1 Cor. 11:5 which clearly envisages women prophesying. Compare Acts 2:17f.; 21:9; Col. 4:15 and Rom. 16:1–12 (see above p. 134).
Finally we might note that there is no hint in 1 Cor. 11 or 14 as to how the meeting for worship was related to the common meal. The discussion of each does not seem to embrace the other or to leave much room for the other, and we best assume that Paul envisages two separate gatherings for the different purposes (cf. particularly Pliny, Epp., X.96.7).
Footnotes
7 However, one of my doctoral students, John Chow, argues that the leaders could not provide the answer because they were the problem!
and:
40.3 The Lord’s Supper in Paul. Paul speaks of the Lord’s Supper only in 1 Cor. 10:14–22; 11:17–34, but these few paragraphs are enough to show us where the communion celebrated in the Pauline churches was continuous with earlier tradition and where it had developed. The continuity with earlier tradition is most evident at three points. (1) Paul cites old tradition as the basis for his understanding of the Supper (1 Cor. 11:23–25)—a tradition which stems ultimately from the last supper of Jesus and his disciples. This is tradition which must have been handed on to Paul from earlier believers, even though its authority for Paul lay in the fact that he received it ‘from the Lord’ (see above p. 72). (2) The continuing eschatological emphasis of the Supper—1 Cor. 11:26: ‘… until he comes’. Though we should also note that the emphasis is not so strong: indeed v. 26 (‘For …’) looks very much like an explanatory note added by Paul himself rather than part of the tradition he received. (3) The Supper is still seen as a fellowship meal: in 1 Cor. 10:18–22 he draws a double comparison between the sacrificial meal in Israel’s cult (Lev. 7:6, 15), the Lord’s Supper and the feast in a pagan temple—and the point of comparison is that each is an expression of fellowship (koinōnoi, ‘partners’—10:18, 20);20 and in 1 Cor. 11:17–34 the Lord’s Supper is clearly thought of as taking place within the context of a meal.
At the same time certain developments are also evident.
(a) The relation between the fellowship meal and the words of interpretation over the bread and the wine is now somewhat clearer, since the partaking of the bread and the wine seems to be in process of becoming something in itself and to come at the end of the meal. This is somewhat speculative on the basis of a few clues, but the probability is that the rich Corinthian Christians were going ahead with their meal, while the poor (slaves, etc.) were usually able to arrive only in time for the Lord’s Supper itself (11:21, 33). Hence the rebukes of 11:27, 29: ‘not discerning the body’ probably means an eating and drinking which does not express fellowship with the poor and weak; ‘guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord’ is probably a re-expression of 8:11f. and means sinning against the weaker brother.21
(b) Although the eschatological note is present, the backward look to Jesus’ death is much stronger in 11:26. Here a shift in emphasis again becomes evident—from the fellowship meal as a whole as a symbol of the messianic feast, to the Lord’s Supper as such as a proclamation of Jesus’ death.
(c) Has Paul also allowed himself to be influenced by syncretistic thought so that the Lord’s Supper has become something of a magical rite? The case has been argued on the basis that pneumatikos in 10:4 should be understood to mean ‘conveying Pneuma (Spirit)’, that 10:16f. reveals a much closer equation between bread and body of Christ and between wine and blood of Christ than that of symbolism alone, and that 11:29f. is evidence of Paul’s own superstition at this point.22 Paul’s language is certainly open to such an interpretation. But it is clear from 10:1–13 that Paul is warning against precisely such a sacramentalism on the part of the Corinthians—such a view of the Lord’s Supper is a corruption of the Lord’s Supper. And since 10:1–4 is an allegory (‘the rock’ in the tradition is to be interpreted allegorically as ‘Christ’, etc.) pneumatikos is better understood in the sense ‘allegorical’ (see above p. 98). The passage 10:16f. could be taken as implying the Hellenistic idea of union with the cult deity (Christ) through eating his body. But v. 20 shows that Paul is thinking rather in terms of fellowship or partnership—a fellowship expressed through participating in the same meal, at the same table. The emphasis is not so much on what was eaten and drunk as on the sharing (koinōnia) of the same bread and cup (v. 16); believers were one because they shared the same loaf (v. 17) not because of some efficacy in the bread itself (see above p. 179 and n. 20). And in 11:29f., since the Corinthians made too much of the Lord’s Supper rather than too little (10:1–13), Paul is probably thinking of the illness and death as a result of sinning against the community (the body of Christ—cf. 5:5) rather than as an effect of the elements themselves.23
Footnotes
20 Not that each is a sacrificial meal; see e.g. W. G. Kümmel, An die Korinther, HNT, 1949, pp. 181f.; C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, A. & C. Black 1968, pp. 235ff. See also below n. 23.
21 Schweizer, Lord’s Supper, pp. 5f.
22 See e.g. E. Käsemann, ‘The Pauline Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper’ (1947–48), ENTT, pp. 108–35; J. Héring, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, 1948, ET Epworth 1962, p. 120.
23 See e.g. A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, SCM Press 1952, pp. 72f.; Kümmel, Theology, pp. 221f.
James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity, Third Edition. (London: SCM Press, 2006), 140–141; 178–180.
No comments:
Post a Comment