Imitatio Christi - is the following Biblical?

[Always in His Presence]

I’m not summarily dismissing them; I am stating that, exegetically, we have no evidence of St. Paul living post-conversion in a manner not consistent with Christian ascetics, or of him failing to encourage asceticism, even expressing the idea that virginity is superior to the married state.

I never said anything about Paul being married, not sure where that came from.

But I did demonstrate exegetically that he new how to abound and how to suffer lack of

I used his own words to demonstrate.

We will have to disagree.

 

[The Liturgist]

I never said anything about Paul being married, not sure where that came from.

But I did demonstrate exegetically that he new how to abound and how to suffer lack of

I used his own words to demonstrate.

We will have to disagree.

What do you think he meant by “abound”? Are you suggesting he was living luxuriously, with abundant wealth? I would assume not. I am not claiming that St. Paul engaged in the kind of self-abasement one associates with some, but rather asceticism from the perspective of moral restraint and living only for Christ. Even a monastery has its beautiful portions, and I have never seen one devoid of creature comforts.

My primary objection is of course to the Word of Faith / Prosperity Gospel view that suggests the Apostles enjoyed great riches.

 

[Always in His Presence]

My primary objection is of course to the Word of Faith / Prosperity Gospel view that suggests the Apostles enjoyed great riches.

I never said any of that. In fact, if you read my post in this thread, you’ll see I don’t align with the prosperity gospel. Nor do I align with poverty gospel.

Why does it bother you so much that proper exegesis shows Paul said he had times of abundance and times of want.

I really have to wonder why you take such a stance against what the word plainly states.

 

[Always in His Presence]

What do you think he meant by “abound”? Are you suggesting he was living luxuriously, with abundant wealth?

If you read my post, I already showed you the definition from the Greek.

 

[The Liturgist]

Nor do I align with poverty gospel.

What do you mean by “poverty gospel?” If you mean the idea that poverty is in and of itself salvific obviating the rest of the Gospel, then I would also not align with it.

But of course, Christ our True God said, in the Gospel according to St. Luke

“And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

“But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.”

 

[Always in His Presence]

What do you mean by “poverty gospel?” If you mean the idea that poverty is in and of itself salvific obviating the rest of the Gospel, then I would also not align with it.

But of course, Christ our True God said, in the Gospel according to St. Luke

“And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

“But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.”

Why are you not addressing what Paul plainly stated?

 

[Always in His Presence]

The bolded and underlined I concur.

The assertion that Paul lived as an ascetic is partially correct - there were times that he indeed suffered want - but there were also times he experienced abundance.

As evidenced in his own words

Philipians 4:11 Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content: 12 I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 13 I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.​

Let's review:

To be full and to be hungry - one end of a spectrum to another -

(then in the same sentence) both to abound and to suffer need.

There is no change in thought - The word ABOUND means

1. to be abundantly furnished with, to have in abundance, abound in (a thing), to be in affluence.

Which is the other end of "suffer need" -


Have you not read what Paul said in 1 Cor 9:
My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no [b]right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? 7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?

Look closely Please

1 Cor 9:11 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?

What does it mean "reap material things"

Please answer that question.

 

[The Liturgist]

Why are you not addressing what Paul plainly stated?

I have addressed it; I am now providing exegetical context for the Patristic interpretation of it.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I have addressed it; I am now providing exegetical context for the Patristic interpretation of it.

1 Cor 9:11 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?

What does it mean "reap material things"

Please answer that question.

Second request.

 

[The Liturgist]

1 Cor 9:11 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?

What does it mean "reap material things"

Please answer that question.

Second request.

According to the Church Fathers, this passage refers to the need for Christian clergy, including monastics, to be sustained. Specifically, quoting the Orthodox Study Bible, “Clergy must be given material support to be free to sow spiritual things. God saw to this under the Old Covenant (vv. 8, 9), and Paul implies that most Christian pastors are similarly supported (vv. 5, 6).”

But we interpret the following verses as referring to asceticism (which they clearly are).

The context you’re missing with this pericope is that St. Paul is responding to an attack on his apostolate in Corinth in addition to problems with gross immorality in that church, with one particular member, and a refusal to adhere to tradition (1 Corinthians 11:2) which threatened the integrity of the Body of Christ, which is the subject of the Epistle entire, and posed a real danger to those partaking of the Eucharist, to the extent that, according to 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, some of the laity were ill, and some had perished, from partaking unworthily.

If any of my Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran friends have a different interpretation (@prodromos, @FenderTL5 , @Xeno.of.athens , @RileyG , @chevyontheriver , @Jipsah , @MarkRohfrietsch , @ViaCrucis or @Ain't Zwinglian ) I would love to hear it.

My goal is to repeat only the Patristic views on subjects like these, hence my desire to make sure my interpretation is correct; this may surprise you @Always in His Presence but I try to avoid forming my own opinion about Scripture as much as possible; I have the freedom of Theologoumemna where there is a lack of a defined Orthodox doctrine, which covers quite a lot of material, but wherever a Patristic consensus exists, I would rather take the view of the Church Fathers than risk a novel interpretation, for the latter is to my mind like building a house with a foundation laid upon sand rather than rock. The Fathers and the ecumenical councils and the ancient liturgy are the bedrock of my faith (indeed, the hymns of the Orthodox Church contain the entirety of our doctrine, thus, websites like st-sergius.org , which host all of our service books, such as the complete Monthly Menaion, which would if purchased in a printed edition cost over $1,000 for all twelve volumes, are invaluable (although the most important subjects would be covered by a used copy of the Book of Prayers and Divine Services of the Catholic Orthodox Church of Christ by Fr. Seraphim Nasser, nicknamed the Nasser Five Pounder for its weight (and its published in quarto format, so its quite bulky to handle; finding one with an intact binding in good condition is difficult; they probably should have printed it as a folio, but hindsight is 20/20).

Also given that Lutheran monasticism is a thing, but that confessional Lutherans incline towards monergism, I would be very interested to hear a Lutheran view on the OP of this thread as well; from my perspective, imitatio Christi is not “works righteousness” or implicated as Pelagian, but rather theosis, a fruit of a salvific faith, and what another member says about consolation from illness knowing that Christ suffered alongside us is also a great consolation. In addition Martih Luther did live under ascetic conditions for much of his life, even after he separated from the Roman church.

 

[Always in His Presence]

According to the Church Fathers, this passage refers to the need for Christian clergy, including monastics, to be sustained. Specifically, quoting the Orthodox Study Bible, “Clergy must be given material support to be free to sow spiritual things. God saw to this under the Old Covenant (vv. 8, 9), and Paul implies that most Christian pastors are similarly supported (vv. 5, 6).”

Ah, we have an answer - Paul is talking about receiving material support - money -

That lines up perfectly with having experienced abundance and being in a place of need - but content in either situation.

Finally! Thank you.

What we are seeing here is the difference between solely Biblical Exegesis and Exegesis through tradition.

It also explains why it takes 200 words to answer even the most basic of questions, and why so much extemporaneous information is included in every post. It make people have to dig for an answer I'd rather hear what you personally believe other than repetition from your school books.

 

[The Liturgist]

Paul is talking about receiving material support - money -

That lines up perfectly with having experienced abundance and being in a place of need

Abundance to what end?

I don’t see any implication of St. Paul having had abundance in terms of personal comfort.

My position, that he was an ascetic, stands.

 

[FenderTL5]

Abundance to what end?

I don’t see any implication of St. Paul having had abundance in terms of personal comfort.

My position, that he was an ascetic, stands.

Agree.
There's no "prosperity gospel" in that passage.
It's also interesting that in the posts above, that passage is chopped at the seemingly rhetorical question in 1 Cor 9:11

11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things?

Which echos another Pauline passage from Romans on the same topic.
if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things.

It's not a rhetorical question. he addresses it in subsequent portion of that passage.
Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ...
.. I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; .. I have been entrusted with a stewardship. What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel.

The Apostle had a right to monetary contributions but rejected them. To "present the gospel of Christ without charge.." he asked nothing from the congregants. Which is quite contrary to today's prosperity teachers who consistently "fleece the flock."

 

[Always in His Presence]

Abundance to what end?

He does not state and I never implied -

I don’t see any implication of St. Paul having had abundance in terms of personal comfort.

So when he said he knew what it was like to abound - he was not speaking of himself?

My position, that he was an ascetic, stands.

Only in your eyes -

 

[Always in His Presence]

Agree.
There's no "prosperity gospel" in that passage.

Only my friend @The Liturgist is mentioning the prosperity gospel - I have never brought it up and have clearly stated I do not support it. Not sure why it is even part of the discussion.

It's also interesting that in the posts above, that passage is chopped at the seemingly rhetorical question in 1 Cor 9:11

11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things?

Which echos another Pauline passage from Romans on the same topic.
if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things.

That is what the Word of God says -

It's not a rhetorical question. he addresses it in subsequent portion of that passage.
Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ...
.. I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; .. I have been entrusted with a stewardship. What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel.

The Apostle had a right to monetary contributions but rejected them. To "present the gospel of Christ without charge.." he asked nothing from the congregants. Which is quite contrary to today's prosperity teachers who consistently "fleece the flock."

Now that is an interesting point - plainly stated and from scripture - thank you - a refreshing change to the discussion.

 

[FenderTL5]

So when he said he knew what it was like to abound - he was not speaking of himself?

imho, He was speaking of himself but based on his testimony in various parts of the Holy Scriptures, this is most likely pre-conversion, pre-Damascus Road as a Pharisee among Pharisees. There's no scriptural evidence that he lived anything but in humility, if not ascetically, post conversion.

 

[Always in His Presence]

imho, He was speaking of himself but based on his testimony in various parts of the Holy Scriptures, this is most likely pre-conversion, pre-Damascus Road as a Pharisee among Pharisees. There's no scriptural evidence that he lived anything but in humility, if not ascetically, post conversion.

Is there any scriptural evidence supporting the comments came from a pre-conversion time? If so - it is completely out of place with the context.

Phil 4:10 “Even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid more than once when I was in need… I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent.”


2 Cor 11: I robbed other churches, taking wages from them to minister to you. 9 And when I was present with you, and in need, I was a burden to no one, for what I lacked the brethren who came from Macedonia supplied. And in everything I kept myself from being burdensome to you, and so I will keep myself.

Acts 28:10 10 They also honored us in many ways; and when we departed, they provided such things as were necessary.

Paul openly received gifts - took wages from churches and raised money by making tents and marketing them

Acts 18:After these things Paul departed from Athens and went to Corinth. 2 And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them. 3 So, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and worked; for by occupation they were tentmakers. 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.

 

[The Liturgist]

So when he said he knew what it was like to abound - he was not speaking of himself?

Clearly, based on the entirety of the NT, if he was speaking of himself it would have been before His conversion on the Road to Damascus, but rather, the implication seems to be an abundance of resources to sustain the ministry - not personal resources, certainly not disposable income. The idea of St. Paul spending money on himself beyond the bare necessities is unfounded.

imho, He was speaking of himself but based on his testimony in various parts of the Holy Scriptures, this is most likely pre-conversion, pre-Damascus Road as a Pharisee among Pharisees. There's no scriptural evidence that he lived anything but in humility, if not ascetically, post conversion.

Indeed, and also there is the important issue that ministry requires resources. A well funded church, monastery or missionary can accomplish much more than one which is poorly funded, without regards to the compensation or lack thereof of its members. For example, Franciscans and other friars take vows of poverty, but these vows do not constrain them from use of resources for ministry; likewise, while our Orthodox monks do take a vow of poverty, they do not live luxuriously, but rather spend the funds of the monastery to glorify God.

 

[The Liturgist]

Paul openly received gifts - took wages from churches and raised money by making tents and marketing them

No one is disputing that. What we are disputing is that he did this for his own personal enjoyment of the funds, beyond the most basic necessities of life.

It should be noted even monks sustain themselves by selling items they make in order to raise money for the monastery. Indeed most monastic rules require the monks live by the work of their hands, in imitation of St. Paul.

There is a huge difference between Christian ascetics and the extreme austerities practiced by, for example, Hindu saddhus, or the self-deprivation of Diogenes and other cynics.

 

[The Liturgist]

Now that is an interesting point - plainly stated and from scripture - thank you - a refreshing change to the discussion.

I referred to the same Scripture but did not supply a chapter and verse number - for this reason I have in the past suggested that when you are in doubt on Patristics or are confused by something I’ve said, you reach out to one of my colleagues.