Tag Archives: St. Paul

Spiritual Milk

Posted on by
Reply
Madonna di San Gugliemo, 12th century (Sienna, Italy). This depiction of the “Madonna Lactans” (Nursing Madonna) is a eucharistic image as much as it is an image of a mother caring for her child. Read more about this type of image here and see more examples here.

And I, brothers and sisters, was able to speak to you not as spiritual people but only as carnal people, as infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not substantial food, because you were not yet capable, nor are you capable until now, for you are fleshy people. (1 Cor. 3:1-3)

In the ancient world, milk-blood-semen were all thought to be the same liquid but warmed to differing temperatures by different internal organs. Blood was the coldest of these and the basic, most natural form of this liquid. Milk was blood, warmed and made frothy in a woman’s breasts. Semen was blood, made even warmer and frothier in a man’s testes. According to this biological idea, when a mother was nursing her child, she was feeding the baby with her own blood.

Because blood and milk were identical, the correspondence of the Virgin’s milk and Christ’s blood was important to early and medieval Christians. The Virgin’s blood becomes milk in her breasts; she nurses Christ, feeding him her warm and frothy blood; he drinks this frothy blood, which becomes the blood in his own veins. Medieval images of the Nursing Madonna (Madonna lactans) are fundamentally eucharistic images, celebrating the identity of the Virgin’s milk with Christ’s blood; she feeds him with her body which becomes his Body and he feeds the Church with his Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

There is no more vivid and elaborate exposition of 1 Corinthians 3 in early Christian literature than that found in Clement’s Paedagogus 1.6…. By combining Galatians 3:28 and 1 Corinthians 3, Clement sets the foundation for his argument that all Christians are already spiritual…and, as a result, milk-drinking infants cannot be viewed as equivalent to “carnal” Christians. Rather, milk is the food of all Christians who “seek our mother, the church.”

John David Penniman, Raised on Christian Milk

Not only did a mother’s milk (blood) provide sustenance to her baby, the infant received religious and ethnic formation as well by ingesting his/her mother’s identity via the milk-blood. This is why receiving Holy Communion was so important: to receive Christ’s blood was to be shaped and formed by his identity, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa.

Discover more about this fascinating subject in Raised on Christian Milk: Food and the Formation of the Soul in Early Christianity by John David Penniman (Yale University Press, 2017).

“Was Paul Crucified for You?”

Posted on by
Reply
A Byzantine style icon of Christ crucified, with Adam’s grave in the hill beneath the Cross as St. John the Divine and the Mother of God stand on each side of Christ. The sun, moon, and angels are aghast at what they see happening on Golgotha. Christ’s eyes are closed, his body slumped against the Cross, and the footrest beam twisted diagonally which all indicate that Christ is already dead.

…each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (I Cor. 1:12-13)

The parish in Corinth was torn apart by various factions, each claiming to be faithful to a different Christian teacher who was prominent or famous in one way or another. How did these factions differ? What did they teach that put them in opposition to each other?

The names of the teachers that each faction claimed to be faithful to are probably familiar. “Cephas” was the Apostle Peter. Apollos was a well-educated Jewish man from Alexandria (Egypt) who was “mighty in the Scriptures” (Acts 18:24) who knew something of Christ but was really taught everything he knew about Christianity by Priscilla at Ephesus (Acts 18:26); he was eventually made the first bishop of Crete (Titus 3:13).

We know that Peter and Paul had intense disagreements about how much of Jewish practice should be embraced by Gentile converts to Christianity. Priscilla and Apollos were dear co-workers with the Apostle Paul; how much could they have disagreed with each other?

If we read the New Testament carefully, we discover that there was not a simple dichotomy between “Jewish Christianity” vs. “Gentile Christianity.” There seem to have been four distinct styles of Christianity with four differing sets of what should be expected from Gentile converts.

Group One insisted that Gentile converts observe the whole Mosaic Law, including circumcision. The missionary work of this group (the “false brothers” of Galatians 2:4) was deeply antagonistic towards St. Paul.

Group Two did not insist on circumcision but did require Gentile converts to keep certain practices of the Mosaic Law (esp. kosher food). We see this reflected in the council described in Acts 15. This group looked to the Apostle Peter [Cephas] and St. James, the “brother of the Lord,” as their leaders.

Group Three did not require circumcision or other practices of the Mosaic Law (kosher food) but did see them as having a certain ongoing value, nevertheless. This seems to have been the group most reflective of the Apostle Paul’s own attitude.

Group Four did not require circumcision or other practices of the Mosaic Law (kosher food) and saw no abiding significance or value in Jewish cult or feast days. These views were more radical than those of the Apostle Paul and seem to be reflected in the sermon of St. Stephen (Acts 7), who insisted that God does not dwell in the Temple and refers to Mosaic Law as “your law” and “their law.”

The factions in Corinth seem to reflect these basic distinctions. As St. Paul discusses the problems in Corinth, we see how the factions are rooted in these differing attitudes toward Jewish practice and expectations of Gentile converts to the Church.

For more about these differing groups of “Jewish Christianity” see Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity by Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier. (Paulist Press. 1983, 2004)

And the winner is….!

Posted on by
Reply
Two icons of the Apostle Paul: on the left, a contemporary icon in classic Slavic style; on the right, an icon painted by St. Andrei Rublev in 1400s Russia. The apostle is always depicted with a large forehead and receding hairline (bald spot) but with dark hair and beard. He looks similar in many ways to icons of St. John Chrysostom–except the apostle’s beard is longer!–because both were famous as powerful preachers … who both had voices that were reportedly difficult to listen to!

This is not a democracy! Remember? I said that last week about the selection of the topic for my next series of blog posts. I am interested in what my readers would like to read but the final decision has to be mine.

I presented three choices and was greatly surprised by the results! Far and away, the most frequently requested topic was First Corinthians! I expected Genesis to be the most popular and Romans to probably be a close second. But I was wrong. Many MANY more readers are interested in First Corinthians than in either Genesis or Romans, combined! Which is not to say that I won’t write about Romans or Genesis in the future but I will bow to the pressure of popular, public opinion and begin a series of posts on the Apostle Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians!

A few words to set the stage:

St. Paul evidently wrote at least four letters to the parish at Corinth; we only have two of them (1 Cor. 5:9, 11; 7:1). In 1st Corinthians, he says that he is writing in response to a letter they had already sent him. (Some people think that 2nd Corinthians is a mash-up of two separate letters, which means we have three of the four letters he sent.)

First Corinthians is the longest ancient Hellenistic (Greek language, culture, and style) letter that we have. Hellenistic letters were usually dictated to a scribe or secretary; they were often not read by the recipient, but the recipient listened to another secretary read the letter aloud when it arrived. They were not “signed” at the end; the author identifies himself at the beginning of the letter.

There were three typical styles of writing a Hellenistic letter. A forensic letter, which was about the past and aimed to move the readers-listeners to make a judgement; this was similar to a speech in court. A demonstrative letter was about the present and aimed to move the readers-listeners to assign blame or praise; this was similar to a speech at a funeral or a wedding. A deliberative letter is about the future and aims to move the readers-listeners to make a decision and act accordingly; this was similar to a speech in a political assembly. First Corinthians is written in the deliberative style, aiming to move the Corinthians to make some decisions and act accordingly.

In Hellenistic writing, a “friendly” letter was usually written by someone in a position of authority to those who owed him some kind of obedience or allegiance. First Corinthians is a “friendly” letter; St. Paul addresses the Corinthians as “my brothers and sisters” at least 20 times! So, this letter is a friendly, deliberative letter that wants the readers to behave in a way that fosters unity rather than division.

First Corinthians was written in approx. AD 59 while St. Paul was in Ephesus (Acts 20:31). It is one of the oldest New Testament texts that we have; there is a papyrus copy written in AD 200 in a museum near Dublin.

Next week: chapter one!