1 Cor 6.12-20; Jn 1.43-51; 1 Sam 3.1-21; Ps 139
In reading these four passages together and meditating upon them, I see a
common characteristic: they display a certain ambiguity and defy neat and
simplistic interpretation. On the Sunday before the observance of Martin
Luther King Jr Day, and the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, it behooves
Christian activists of all stripes to adopt a self-critical stance and
meditate upon the complexities of all issues and the breadth of possibility
which divine grace opens to sinners all.
Often when Paul answers inquiries from his correspondents or debates with others, his argument takes the form of "Yes, but..." Paul may concede the general accuracy of his interlocutors' premise, yet points out that their conclusion is not necessarily correct, or that they may have overlooked other aspects of the matter. Here we see a good example.
Yes, all things are lawful for Christians, redeemed from tyranny of the law; but we must not let freedom end in license, which itself becomes a tyrannical master. Yes, food and the stomach mutually complement each other; but do not absolutize such complementarity, for both end at death. Perhaps the libertines at Corinth asserted another complementarity, "The body is for sex and sex is for the body." However, Paul cannot make a "yes, but" rejoinder to that. He won't even repeat the (supposed) assertion. He rebuts any such thought by insisting that the body is for Christ, not for sexual promiscuity. In Hebrew/Christian terms, the body involves the whole human personality (as the stomach does not). Therefore in all matters involving the person, but especially in such a powerful human drive as sexuality, one's relation to Christ and Christ's ultimate lordship over one, must determine the extent to which one enjoys Christian freedom.
Contrary to traditional interpretation of Paul as puritanically anti- sexual, he does not contemn human sexuality nor condemn sexual activity. In 1 Cor 7.3-6 Paul encourages mutual sexual satisfaction between husband and wife, thus approving the pleasure principle in sex. In his feminist mode, Paul grants the wife equal rights with the husband to take the initiative in sex. Only reluctantly does he concede that a couple might temporarily abstain from sex for the purpose of devotion to prayer, but he insists that they limit such abstention and soon return to normal relations (7.4-7).
Paul prepares the ground for championing such sexual freedom in Ch 7 by this Ch 6 teaching on the sanctity of the body, including its sexual capabilities, because of the Lordship of Christ. Based on Gen 1.24, Paul interprets the "one flesh" of husband and wife as the result of sexual unity, and that same unity comes about between any man who engages in sexual union with a prostitute. Thus sexual congress with a person other than one's spouse creates another fleshly unity which pollutes the unity of the spouses and consequently the believer's spiritual unity with Christ. Trying to trace out all possible consequences of this teaching in a purely logical fashion most likely would exceed the Apostle's intention. There is a great deal of "yes, but" in this passage; the biblical teaching on sex is by no means unambiguous (consider, e.g., that polygamy is never forbidden). Problems inevitably arise when we try to absolutize one or another view. Many have relaxed old stringencies against divorce and remarriage, but others strongly insist on them.
In all his dealing with the sex question, Paul never argues for sex on the
basis of reproduction. The time has now come when we must consider
seriously a loving, faithful, "monogamous" relationship between two people
of the same sex, especially if they are united to Christ by faith. Should
not the Church encourage persons of homosexual orientation to establish
that kind of relationship, and to bless and support such unions?
The ambiguity of this pericope lies in Nathanael's attitude toward Jesus. Nathanael's slighting view of Nazareth has attracted abundant comment over the centuries. In the total biblical perspective, and certainly here, one's geographical origin has no determinative control over one's character and/or mission. Does the author of John subtly rebut some primitive believers' attempts to locate Jesus in David's lineage and hometown (cf 7.41-44)? Do such points, along with virginal conception, determine Jesus's status?
Confronted by a display of clairvoyance (vs 48) Nathanael hails Jesus as Rabbi, Son of God, King of Israel. Elsewhere in John, all who address Jesus as "rabbi" reveal a lack of understanding or perhaps even an enmity toward Jesus (1.29,49; 3.2,26; 4.31; 6.25; 9.2; 11.8). "Son of God" stands in parallel with "King of Israel" which probably governs Nathanael's understanding: this person with supernatural powers can be our national liberator. Jesus deprecates such belief based upon a perceived miraculous occurrence (vs 50). John seems to take an ambiguous view of the miraculous: see 2.23-24 & 4.48 for a negative view of the efficacy of miracles as basis for faith; yet 2.11 states that Jesus's turning water into wine was a sign which revealed his glory and elicited the disciples' faith. What is the place of miracle in our faith?
Jesus goes further to rebut Nathanael's misperception, declaring, "You will
see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the
Son of Man" (vs 51). As John in toto shows, here Jesus refers to his death
on the cross, for Jews the exact antithesis of their expectations of "Son
of God" and "King of Israel." Who of us can say with finality and
exactitude who or what Jesus is? With what authority can any of us insist
that all others adopt his or her own view, or deny the validy of the
other's? Should not one have a subtly nuanced view of one's own, and a
gracious and tolerant respect for the views of others?
Yes, as the context shows, Samuel constantly saw before him the evil
example of Eli's sons, but he did not fall into their wicked ways. Yes, old
Eli was a rather weak character, especially in his failure to discipline
his sons, but his own sense of spiritual discernment contributed to the
formation of the child entrusted to his tutelage. Yes, young Samuel did
learn of Eli's failures and became the reluctant messenger of God's
judgment; but he showed diffident respectfulness in his messenger role, and
we have no record that Samuel himself ever turned personally against his
mentor. Yes, the judgment on Eli's house seems total and final, but in fact
a later member of that family became one of the most influential of all
prophets, Jeremiah of Anathoth. Yes, God said, "The iniquity of Eli's house
shall not be expiated by sacrifice or offering forever," but the Bible in
toto opens up to us a new and better way what embraces even the house of
Eli.
Yes, the omniscience and omnipresence of God ovewhelm the psalmist with fear and prompt a desire to escape from God, but in the end he or she understands that despite the awesomeness of divine majesty, one is better off lining up with God than trying to get away. Yes, the confession of faith in God's total foreknowledge of one and the divine agency in one's conception and birth make one reluctant to advocate "abortion on demand," but one cannot conscientiously believe that an aborted fetus otherwise destined to a brutish and unwanted existence would be better off being born. There appear to be all too many people of whom one might honestly say, "It would have been better for that one not to have been born" (cf. Matt 26.24)