D. Análisis a la observación de la clase a OD2M
10.2.3.3. El análisis de los encuentros en parejas o tríos
Before examining the details of this, two initial and related observations must be recognised. First, and by comparison, what Paul says about the
‘natural’ person in 2.14 is noticeably longer and more detailed than his
comments about the ‘spiritual’ person in 2.15. Moreover, Paul’s remarks about
‘spiritual’ people appear to be unrelated or unconnected to what he says about
‘natural’ people in 2.14. Thus, if we understand Paul as creating a contrast between the two, then the relationship is not readily seen. Specifically, the focus in 2.14 is on the ‘natural’ person’s refusal to accept the things of God’s Spirit and that person’s decision to view such things as folly.33 This refusal is based on his or her inability to know because he or she does not measure them according to the Spirit. However, the focus in 2.15 is on the ‘spiritual’ person’s ability to judge or discern all things while at the same time remaining immune from the judgment or assessment of others.34
A likely solution for the apparent disjointedness comes when we consider the second observation: while contrasting the ‘natural’ and the ‘spiritual’ person
33 As Robertson-Plummer helpfully point out, ouj devcetai does not refer to an inability; it refers instead to a posture of resistance, or non-acceptance (see First Epistle, 49).
34 While the focus of his remarks is more specific than mine, Dunn’s observation in this regard is worth noting: ‘Pneumatika (spiritual things/gifts) should be subjected to scrutiny and evaluated, but not pneumatikoi (spiritual people). The charisma of evaluating does not include the passing of opinions about this or that man’s worth or status; it is confined to the
investigation and evaluation of particular charismata on the occasion of their manifestation’
(Jesus and the Spirit, 235).
in general, Paul also contrasts the particular ways of knowing and how such ways manifest themselves. In this way, we see Paul working with clear
recognisable opposites: ‘natural’ vs. ‘spiritual’ and inability vs. ability to discern the things of the Spirit. Moreover we see Paul—albeit implicitly—furthering his overall case: the ‘natural’ person sees the message of Christ crucified and its proclaimer as foolish, whereas the ‘spiritual’ person sees the message and
messenger as wise. With this basic idea in mind, we now turn our attention first to the categories themselves and then to Paul’s treatment of the two modes of discernment.
4.3.2.1. Definition of the Category (yucikovV a[nqrwpoV)
Paul appears to define ‘natural’ discernment negatively. Specifically Paul
identifies it as not spiritual or not of the Spirit. (Admittedly, this is based on the details and conclusions drawn from the other half of the definition.) Moreover, Paul states that the ‘natural’ person does not receive or accept the things of the Spirit of God (2.14a). The specificity of the giver relates back to Paul’s remarks in 2.12, where he distinguished to; pneu:ma tou: kovsmou from to; pneu:ma to; ekj tou:
qeou:. Thus we can say that Paul associates the ‘natural’ person with those who have not received to; pneu:ma to; ekj tou: qeou:,35 which then explains why such people do not receive the things of the Spirit, why they see these things as foolishness and why they are unable to know otherwise (mwriva gavr aujtw:/ ejstin kai; ouj duvnatai gnw:sai). As with the specificity of the giver, the connection between having/receiving to; pneu:ma to; ekj tou: qeou: and the ability to know the things of God’s Spirit relates to the resultant clause in 2.12: i}na eijdw:men ta; uJpo;
tou: qeou: carisqevnta hJmi:n.
Therefore if knowing the things of God is contingent upon having the Spirit of God (cf. 2.11), and if the ‘natural’ person has not received God’s Spirit, then it follows that they cannot (or are unable to) know the things of God revealed by the Spirit. Yet more is involved than a divinely-given capacity or ability to know; for Paul the knowledge given by the Spirit carries with it a framework for how to know (or discern) the things of God. Thus, the ‘natural’
35 Cf. J. –M. Sevrin, ‘La gnose à Corinthe. Questions de méthode et obversvations sur 1 Co 1,17–3,3,’ in The Corinthian Correspondence (ed. R. Bieringer; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 135.
person not only fails to receive the things of God’s Spirit but he or she lacks the ability to understand the things of God o{ti pneuamtikw:V ajnakrivnetai (2.14c). As Litfin observes: since the things of God can only be spiritually discerned, and since it is only God’s Spirit who reveals the wisdom of Christ crucified, and since the ‘natural’ person does not have God’s Spirit, which therefore implies he or she must discern the message of Christ crucified by other means, we cannot be surprised that such a person considers this message to be foolishness, since
‘foolishness’ is the conclusion formed when the message is measured via human wisdom.36 This reinforces my original point regarding the identification or nature of this form of discernment—i.e. it is not spiritual; it is merely human.37
4.3.2.2. Basic Characteristics
When we see this discernment in the light of Paul’s earlier remarks about human wisdom (1.18–2.13), a few important conclusions follow. First, ‘natural’
discernment is rooted in the categories of human wisdom and that wisdom’s criteria for examining the teachings of others, especially those purporting to be wise. This stresses the source and manner of knowing, a stress that helps Paul distinguish it from the mode of discernment he advocates. Second, ‘natural’
discernment is exercised through the efforts of the individual and that person’s ability not only to reason on his or her own but also to assess the merits of
another’s teaching. This stresses the dependence upon the particular source and manner of knowing, which in this case is human wisdom. Third, ‘natural’
discernment supports individualistic or even self-interested perspectives. This stresses the motivation for either asserting one’s views or judging the merits of another’s, which often results in self-praise or boasting.38 Finally, such efforts and abilities are ultimately limited in scope and effect. This follows from two key points in Paul’s argument: 1) God has rendered human wisdom impotent in being able to know true (divine) wisdom (1.19-20), and 2) only through divine self-disclosure can God’s wisdom be known (2.9-11); human wisdom and effort
36 Cf. Litfin, Theology of Proclamation, 220.
37 We can add here Paul’s claim in 2.13 with regard to how the things of God are taught not in accordance with wise human speech but in accordance with the Spirit, or pneumatikoi:V pneumatika; sugkrivnonteV. To teach the things of God by means of wise human speech would be attempting to discern spiritual things by human means, yet Paul has already rejected this approach as not only illogical but also completely incapable of achieving its goal.
38 Cf. esp. Finney, ‘Conflict in Corinth,’ 44-45, 84-87, 114-19; Donahue, ‘From Self-Praise to Self-Boasting,’ 79-84.
on their own cannot know what has not been revealed. None of these features, either individually or collectively, represent the type of discernment that Paul has in mind for those who believe.