Stuart wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:05 am
What strikes me however, as the passage 1 Corinthians 14:23-25 is not attested in Marcion, is that we have arrived at a much later date in the churches formation that the early evangelizing days symbolized by Paul and other legendary apostles.
Stuart,
The passages you cite would seem to support the opposite conclusion from the one you draw.
1 Corinthians 14:23-25
20 Brothers and sisters, do not be children in your thinking; rather, be infants in evil, but in thinking be adults. 21 In the law it is written,
“By people of strange tongues
and by the lips of foreigners
I will speak to this people;
yet even then they will not listen to me,”
says the Lord.
22 Tongues, then, are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, an unbeliever or outsider who enters is reproved by all and called to account by all. 25 After the secrets of the unbeliever’s heart are disclosed, that person will bow down before God and worship him, declaring, “God is really among you.”
The scenario pictured here would seem to be a likely one in an early, expanding, evangelical church. Where do you suppose converts to Christianity came from, if not from unbelievers? The scenario described seems to envision an unbeliever visiting a church service (perhaps at the invitation of an already converted friend). Paul is arguing that if everyone is speaking in tongues (i.e., incomprehensibly) the unbeliever is likely to think they’re crazy. But if the prophets disclose (comprehensibly) the secrets of the unbelievers heart, he or she will acknowledge that God is among them (this would seem tantamount to becoming a believer).
1 Corinthians 7:12-16 pronouncements on how to handle mixed marriages of a Christian and an "unbeliever." including whether their children are considered clean (i.e., Christian) in 7:14
12 To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any believer[a] has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you. 16 Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife. (1 Cor. 7.12-16).
This would seem to be a very early issue the members of the church might have to face. If a woman was a recent convert to Christianity, perhaps converted by Paul himself, would she not be concerned about her as yet unbelieving husband and her unbaptized children? I would suggest that this applied to women more often than men because a man of the householder class could probably have his whole household baptized if he saw fit (as appears to be the case with Stephanus in 1Cor. 1.16), as might a woman who is a widow with underage children who is herself head of household (as I think Chloe in 1 Cor. 1.11 may have been).
6:1-8 concerns about lawsuits among members
6 When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels—to say nothing of ordinary matters? 4 If you have ordinary cases, then, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to decide between one believer[a] and another, 6 but a believer goes to court against a believer—and before unbelievers at that?
7 In fact, to have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—and believers[d] at that. (1 Cor. 6.1-8).
Again, this would seem to be a new issue that arose and that Paul has to deal with. There are not Christian courts already in place, and Paul is suggesting an ad hoc solution. The church in Corinth might be small, maybe only a very few of the householder class (like Stephanus and Chloe) who converted their entire households – spouses, children, slaves, and possibly freedmen or hirelings, and maybe several more who joined as individuals. If just two of those householders got involved in a lawsuit with each other, that could cause a major rift in the church that Paul had to rule on.
1 Corinthians 12:28 κυβερνήσεις
27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But strive for the greater gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.
The word, which literally means “helmsman”, could be applied to any person who governed or gave guidance. You do not know what the responsibilities of that person were. It might have been something as simple as making sure everyone knew where and when the church would be meeting. It appears from the context of the letter that the helmsman did not have the authority to decide the issues that the church needed to have Paul rule on. (This is one of the things that scholars use to separate the Pastoral Epistles from the seven generally accepted letters of Paul; the Pastorals seem to picture a single bishop with authority in each church). Also, Paul is not referring to titles fromally bestowed by the church, but to gifts that people claim to have had bestowed on them by the holy spirit.
Verses 14:21-25 share the term unbelievers with 7:12-16, 6:1-8 and 10:27.
1 Cor. 10.27 envisions an unbeliever inviting a Christian to dine at his house, and whether it is acceptable for a Christian to attend. If Paul is writing to recent converts from paganism (Polytheism? Hellenism?), and the vast majority of that person’s friends and associates are still pagans, this is quite plausible. (Paul rules in the affirmative, within limits)
You do not make rules unless you need them. You do not formalize structure unless you need to. If it's a house church with fewer than a dozen worshipers coming over, you don't need a rector (what properties? what accounts?), you don't need all these titles. Why would what looks like an originally cenobitic movement be worried about offspring?
You have not shown that Paul in 1 Corinthians is doing anything other than making ad hoc rules as he needs them. The scenario depicted by the letter, that one of Chloe’s people brought Paul a letter describing some problems that had arisen in the church at Corinth while he is away (1 Cor. 1.11) is entirely plausible.
Best,
Ken
PS - I am assuming that the Corinthian church consists primarily Gentiles converted by Paul and his missionary associates. Gentile Christianity is an idea Paul has in his head, which is why he needs to rule on so many issues. There are Jewish-Christian churches that have been in existence for longer and not face the same issues (there were already rules on marriage to unbelievers, eating with pagans, and attending pagan worship in Judaism).