1Co 12:2-3 Were the Corinthians cursing Jesus?

[JEBrady]

/unsubscribe

 

[Biblicist]

/unsubscribe

I can understand why.

I hope that Yahyu shows some grace by not adding in unnecessary information which will only serve to derail a very important subject.

 

[Biblicist]

A question was raised earlier in this topic regarding the relevance of the work that was undertaken by Anthony Thiselton in his work titled; - The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text.

A good example of why good exegesis is important can be found in the footnotes to the MacArthur Study Bible which shows how MacArthur has employed the tired and dated cessationist view that the believers or visitors were involved in some form of hypnotic ecstatic activity within their meetings.
Even though we could easily dismiss MacArthurs cessationist diatribe as being simply misleading and ridiculous, this errant cessationist doctrine of which he is one of the main proponents is being read by many believers and of course to their great detriment.


The MacArthur Study Bible (NASB)

12:2 pagans. That is, Gentiles (1Th 4:5; 1Pe 2:12). led astray. Incredibly, some church members were mimicking certain dramatic and bizarre practices of the mystery religions in which they had been formerly involved. The practice of ecstasy, considered to be the highest expression of religious experience, involved supposed supernatural interaction with a deity, induced through frenzied hypnotic chants and ceremonies. The practice frequently included drunkenness (cf. Eph 5:18) and sexual orgies, to which the devotees wilfully yielded themselves to be led into gross sin.

12:3 accursed. This is the most severe kind of condemnation. Some of the Corinthians were fleshly and given over to ecstasies that were controlled by demons. In that condition, they actually claimed to be prophesying or teaching in the Spirit while demonically blaspheming the name of the Lord whom they were supposed to be worshiping. They had been judging the use of gifts on the basis of experience and not content. Satan always assaults the person of Christ. It is possible that the curser of Christ was a Gentile claiming to be a Christian, but holding to a philosophy that all matter was evil, including the human Jesus (i.e., pre-gnosticism). They might have said that the Christ spirit left the human Jesus before His death, and therefore Jesus died a cursed death as a mere man. Jesus is Lord. Cf. Ac 2:36; Ro 10:9,10; Eph 1:20,21; Php 2:9-11. The validity of any speaking exercise is determined by the truthfulness of it. If the speaker affirms the lordship of Jesus, it is the truth from the Holy Spirit. What a person believes and says about Jesus Christ is the test of whether he speaks from the Holy Spirit. He always leads people to Christ’s lordship (cf. 2:8-14; Jn 15:26; 1Jn 5:6-8).

 

[Tobias]

I knew a high priestess of Ashtoreth that was the prime candidate to be the next world wide high priestess. It wasn't greco-roman period but the original Canaanite/Babel form. That conflict over 20 years ago triggered many years of research.

For example, do you know what gods/goddesses the three friends of Job followed? They were pagans. The book of Job is littered with pagan religious references. I have yet to come across a single commentary that realizes that.

You know Yahu, I have suspected for some time that possibly the difference between our two experiences with paganism resides in the fact that you encountered the Canaanite gods, while I encountered the Greek/Roman ones. Remember, the Canaanite gods were considered so evil that their followers were wiped off the Earth, while the followers of the Greek and Roman ones were converted. (I cringe every time you make mention of Apollo or Artemis in association with your "pagan cult". It runs contrary to what I know of them. )


Just a thought...

 

[Tobias]

For those of us who have been believers for any length of time, we probably have all heard various stories with how the Corinthians, be it with some visiting unbelievers or even that some odd believers were in some way cursing the name of Jesus in their meetings.

First, some introduction into the history of the subject:

In 2000 Anthony Thiselton released his comprehensive 1446 page work titled;
- The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text

On pages 911 to 927 (17 pages) he discusses these two verses in obviously some detail where he discusses the twelve recognized interpretations for verse 3 alone – with no real conclusion on his part.

In 2006 he released a revised much shorter and less complicated 325 page commentary for pastors titled;
- 1 Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary

On pages 193 to 196 he spent some time discussing the work of Bruce Winter which came out only a few months after his first book on 1st Corinthians whereby Thiselton accepted that Winters’ new solution for these two verses seemed to be the best option, even though he granted that Winters’ view could not be categorically proven, but at least it provided the most sound and plausible reason for Pauls wording.

Bruce W. Winter;
- After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change

The solution that Winter provided can be summed as:
- "Jesus curse (this person)" instead of "Jesus be cursed".

Thiselton summarised Winters’ work, at least in part and I have included the main portion of his comments regarding Winters’ work. Pages 193-194

"This prepares the way for Bruce Winter's exploration of the otherwise
extremely difficult v. 3: No one who speaking through the
agency of the Spirit of God says, "Jesus [is] cursed," or (more probably)
"Jesus grants a curse." This verse has attracted many attempts at
an explanation. In my larger commentary I discussed twelve possibilities
(First Epistle, pp. 917-27). The key to Winter's new interpretation is
twofold. First, because the Greek contains no verb but simply has
"Jesus-anathema" (Anathema Iesous), the translation need not be (as in
the twelve suggestions) "Jesus is a curse," or "is accursed"; it may be
"Jesus grants a curse." Second, in recent years some twenty-seven ancient
curse tablets made of lead have been unearthed in or around
Corinth (fourteen on the slopes of Acrocorinth in the precincts of pagan
temples), and these witness to the practice of appealing to pagan
deities to "curse" rivals or competitors in business, love, litigation, or
sport (Winter, "Religious Curses and Christian Vindictiveness, I Cor.
12-14").
Winter argues that the allusion to when you were pagans, you
used to be carried away to idols (v. 2) refers not to some bogus "spirituality"
of pagan religious frenzy or ecstasy, but to the religious world
in which pagan worshipers sought the aid of their deities to gain advantage
over rivals and competitors in various areas of life. This would
offer a parallel to manipulative advantages in 6:1-8. Many years ago
A D. Nock drew attention to this practice in the so-called "Magical"
Papyri.
Winter argues that within the setting of Corinth attitudes of jealousy
and strife (cf. p-3) might manifest themselves in explicit requests
for the deity to set in motion a curse imposed upon those over whom
the pagan worshiper sought to gain advantage. In the light of p-3, 6:1-
8, and other passages, it is plausible that some Christians claimed to be
"spiritual people" at the same time as asking Jesus to impose some
"curse" of this order against those who had earned their disfavor. Paul
declares that this contradicts any claim that the Holy Spirit is manifest
in their life. This cannot build or manifest Christ's Lordship.
This may well be the best explanation of 12:2-3, but it remains a
strong hypothesis rather than an established fact. Hence we cannot
simply write off more traditional approaches."


Undoubtedly this interpretation will disturb many cessationists who seem to relish the notion that there were some characters (even maybe “congregational members”) who were apparently blaspheming the name of Jesus.
If nothing else I’m simply happy that someone has finally provided what may be the definitive answer to this age old problematic text.

"No one who speaking through the
agency of the Spirit of God says, "Jesus [is] cursed..."


Hmm. Are we assuming that this is talking about those who have received the HS at salvation, those baptized in the Spirit, or perhaps those who are momentarily anointed to speak on the Spirit's behalf utilizing one of the HS Gifts?

I've always taken it to mean the latter. That when Peter, full of the HS stood up to preach to the multitude, would never have been able to say at that time that "Jesus is accursed."

James 3:8 But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; 10 from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.

 

[Biblicist]

. . . Hmm. Are we assuming that this is talking about those who have received the HS at salvation, those baptized in the Spirit, or perhaps those who are momentarily anointed to speak on the Spirit's behalf utilizing one of the HS Gifts?

I've always taken it to mean the latter. That when Peter, full of the HS stood up to preach to the multitude, would never have been able to say at that time that "Jesus is accursed." . . .

Even though every scholar and probably every Bible student since the time of the second century has been totally perplexed by this passage, it would be safe to say that the majority would have presumed that some individuals were in some manner cursing the name of Jesus and most likely this would incredibly be occurring during their meetings.

There was a second opinion which some held, in that Paul was simply trying to contrast the Corinthians previous lifestyle with their current life in the Spirit; even though this may certainly be a more attractive option than the first, as it is impossible to imagine that the Corinthians would have tolerated anyone trying to speak out a curse on the name of Jesus as they would have undoubtedly been quickly shown the door, the problem with this admittedly helpful option is that it does not really fit the context.

The solution which Winters’ (2001) has provided fits in well grammatically as “Jesus place a curse” is just as viable as “Jesus be cursed”. Along with this we have an incredible amount of archaeological evidence from throughout the Mediterranean world along with many examples of lead cursing tablets being used in Corinth and by Christians as well. When it comes to supposed demonic utterances within the various Hellenist religions, the best research shows that there is simply no evidence for this and as Paul has already mentioned that they are “dumb (speechless) idols” then we can safely presume that we have all been adopting an ‘old wives’ tale so to speak.

Most importantly we see this being an issue by Paul not only in Corinth but also in Rom 12:14 where he cautions the Romans, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse” and as you have pointed out, James (3:8) also makes the remark that we foolishly ‘curse men’.

So as Winters’ solution fits in linguistically, culturally and theologically along with the enormous amount of archaeological evidence then it seems that we are best to simply follow where the evidence takes us. Winters’ research has now allowed us to take a passage where the meaning of the passage had we Pentecostals and charismatics a bit stumped to the position where we can now counter the diehard cessationist who proudly (but carelessly) declares that some Corinthians were speaking in tongues while cursing Jesus.

 

[Tobias]

Perhaps you're thrilled because you have a new chunk of theology to refute the claims of the cesationalists. But I'm looking for practical applications.

Didn't Peter curse Ananias and Sapphira, who both immediately dropped dead? How is that different than what you propose this verse to mean? Also Elisha cursed some kids once, and they were killed by a bear. But I don't suppose that one is a problem if we insert some kind of dispensational theology right here and say "God used to work that way, but doesn't anymore." Nevertheless, if it wasn't in the spirit of Jesus that Peter cursed Ananias and Sapphira, then which spirit was it?


Some other reservations I have:

If people in Corinth were cursing exclusively in the name of the Trinity, why would Paul not know this, and say they were cursing in the name of Jesus instead?

"The Trinity" could mean any three particular gods to polytheists. Hekate was (and still is) known as the Triple Goddess. So... I guess I'm not fully satisfied with this man's research. I would like to know if other, secular scholars might agree with his assessment that the "trinity" in this case was definitely the Christian deity and not someone else.

 

[Biblicist]

Perhaps you're thrilled because you have a new chunk of theology to refute the claims of the cesationalists. But I'm looking for practical applications.

Wow. I would have thought that giving release to the captives of cessationism that this would be about as practical an application that one could ever wish for; I have no doubt that there would be millions who would give a heartfelt Amen!

Didn't Peter curse Ananias and Sapphira

No.

Peter never declared a curse on either of them, other than telling Sapphira what was about to happen to her. From what we can surmise, we don’t even know if Peter knew what was about to happen to Ananias before it actually occurred, though of course he certainly might have. As for Sapphira all we can presume is that the Spirit spoke to Peter that as they both lied to the Holy Spirit that Sapphira was at least about to be next.

If people in Corinth were cursing exclusively in the name of the Trinity, why would Paul not know this, and say they were cursing in the name of Jesus instead?

This was not what I was actually trying to say as I would expect that most of the believers who were still involved with this practice would simply apply a curse to a tablet without any reference to any member of the Trinity and leave it where they thought it to be most appropriate. It may very well be that many were simply praying to the Father during the times of personal prayer asking that they deal with some foe or oppressor in a server manner. We can also ask were some Christians praying similar curses during their meetings asking the Father to maybe deal with some Corinthian/Roman officials who were possibly persecuting them?

As I mentioned earlier, I know that I was about to unwittingly do much the same when I was about to apply the old common charismatic approach of saying “May that curse (or silly remark) be returned to you seven fold”.

"The Trinity" could mean any three particular gods to polytheists. Hekate was (and still is) known as the Triple Goddess. So... I guess I'm not fully satisfied with this man's research. I would like to know if other, secular scholars might agree with his assessment that the "trinity" in this case was definitely the Christian deity and not someone else.

You might want to go to the following link which provides a wealth of information on the subject and as you will see it was apparently a common practice for Christians to ask the Father to severely punish their foes.

After Paul left Corinth: the influence of secular ethics and social change, (page 170) Bruce W. WINTER Link

 

[Tobias]

You might want to go to the following link which provides a wealth of information on the subject and as you will see it was apparently a common practice for Christians to ask the Father to severely punish their foes.

After Paul left Corinth: the influence of secular ethics and social change, (page 170) Bruce W. WINTER Link

Hmm. Ok, I'm satisfied.

Thank you!

 

[Biblicist]

Hmm. Ok, I'm satisfied.

Thank you!

That’s great, it was a good outcome for you.

About three years ago I obtained a casual position with a major secular university in our city which not only enabled me to access a wealth of material, both hardcopy and online, but they also provided access to several Christian academic databases which exposed me to an incredible amount of material that has been produced by the best Christian scholars of our time. It seems that due to the almost inconceivable number of articles that are being regularly released to these peer-reviewed databases many of these academic societies tend to limit their resources to material that is no more than 10 years old; but there are still resources that they do not provide links to which means that I still have to (and undoubtedly always will) pay for books such as the one by Winter, which I will purchase hopefully tomorrow.

 

[RDKirk]

WOW!!! Creative, but kind of silly, and not really a "DIFFICULT TEXT" at all - it echoes Isaiah 53, of course:

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Ignoring all the "Scholarship", the meaning of the text is obvious:

3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Isaiah warns that SOME (Probably Judaizers) will consider that Jesus was "Punshed by God" for HIS OWN SIN - since it seemed to the "orthodox religious establishment" of the day that He was a HORRENDOUS blasphemer - making Himself equal to God. Paul warns that NOBODY that accuses Jesus of that was is "Speaking through the unction of the Holy Spirit". This is an EXTERNAL Evaluation statement whereby Ministries can be judged.

And on the OTHER HAND, it's obviously untrue that you can't say "Jesus is the Lord" EXCEPT through the unction of the Holy Spirit. You CAN say "Jesus is the LORD" all day long easily without the Holy Spirit. It's just "Words".

BUT:

ONLY through the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, and the gift of SAVING FAITH that comes only from the Holy Spirit can you proclaim IN FAITH that "Jesus is the LORD"!!! and know what you're really saying. This is an INTERNAL Evaluation Statement whereby you can judge the validity of your OWN profession.

Yes. Harkening back to the early verses of 1 Corinthians, anyone speaking in terms of human wisdom, hearing the details of how Jesus died, would surely say, "Jesus is accursed" because that was His form of death. It would take someone speaking by the Holy Spirit to hear that gospel--Christ and Him crucified--and yet declare "Jesus is Lord!"