Esoteric Speech in St. Paul

When 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 came up in the lectionary a few months ago, I was struck by how important this passage was for any understanding of speech within a religious context. I think we all intuitively understand that we don't say exactly the same things in all contexts, but we rarely examine the implications this simple insight has for learning and human development. Nonetheless, in 1 Corinthians 2, St. Paul provides us with a succinct explanation of how he approaches modulating his speech depending on his audience. For this reason, it bears close examination.

A brief summary of the passage

Paul tells the Corinthians that he came to them not proclaiming any wisdom or lofty ideas, but only endeavoring to know among them "Jesus Christ, and him crucified." He explains that he did this so that their faith wouldn't rest on "plausible words of wisdom" but rather "on the power of God." However, he then pivots to clarify that "among the mature we do speak wisdom," although he goes on to clarify that this wisdom differs radically from what one might expect. This is a secret wisdom hidden in God, but which can be known in so far as God makes it comprehensible through His Spirit.

He then distinguishes between those who are spiritual and those who are unspiritual, describing the spiritual as those who are taught by the Spirit and receive God's gifts. The unspiritual cannot understand God's hidden wisdom, for this can only be understood through a reception and participation in God's Spirit. God's Spirit is precisely that power which plumbs God's depths and provides the spiritual person access to those depths. In this Spirit then, the spiritual person can discern all things, and need not be subject to the scrutiny of others, just as the mind of Christ required no certification or instruction other than the Spirit.

Mature/Immature

The distinctions Paul draws in this passage regarding (1) how he speaks to "the mature" and (2) how the "spiritual" vs the "unspiritual" know things does require some untangling, most especially because the opposing term to the mature seems to remain mostly implicit in the text. He doesn't refer to any particular group in the passage as immature, as distinguished from the mature, but he nonetheless indicates the distinction is real when he discusses why he chose to speak and conduct himself in a particular way amongst the Corinthian churches.

His careful language here insinuates that the Corinthians to whom he is writing are the immature ones, not yet ready to handle the discourse of wisdom in the Spirit which Paul reserves for the mature. In the opening lines of the next chapter, Paul will be more explicit about the immaturity of the Corinthian Christians (3:1-3), saying "I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food."

We see similar language used in Hebrews 5:12-6:2 (of disputed Pauline authorship) where the writer to the Hebrews admonishes their readers for still drinking "milk" and not being ready for "solid food." Infants live on milk, which the writer compares to one who is not versed in "the teachings of righteousness." Solid food remains reserved for the "mature" who have engaged in continual practice such that they are now capable of discerning good from evil.

Continuing into the beginning of chapter six of Hebrews, this paradigm of opposing couplets (milk/solid food, immature/mature) is used to describe the "elementary teachings about Christ," in contrast with those things which one must press on towards in order to achieve perfection. The author indicates that such teachings as "repentance from dead works and faith towards God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement" are all examples of foundational teachings which should not need further review, and that the author aims to move beyond these doctrines when they instruct the Hebrews in the faith.

Spiritual/Unspiritual

What relation does this spectrum of immature to mature have to do with the distinction which Paul introduces between the spiritual and the unspiritual then? On the one hand, Paul treats the immature as within the faith but in need of further practice and training. The movement from immaturity to maturity seems to nonetheless be within the spiritual, pointing to degrees of development.

However, at the beginning of chapter 3, Paul complicates this conception by saying that he could not "speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ." So, the immature are not spiritual people? But if they are people of the flesh, how can they be in Christ, albeit as infants? Paul seems to be muddying his distinctions the more that he actually bears them out in his discourse. The immature are at once not spiritual people but are in Christ.

My current attempt to make sense of Paul's language here is that it serves a particular rhetorical function. Paul says that the fact that he observes jealousy and strife among them makes him question whether the Spirit is really at work among them. Yet, he's clearly writing to them as a community who confesses Jesus as Lord. He seems to be calling them to live up to the reality of what that confession actually entails. Simple dichotomies of believer/unbeliever, Christian/non-Christian, or in-Christ/not-in-Christ will make not sense of this situation where Paul must adapt his language to a group of people at varying stages of development and where he cannot operate with perfect knowledge about the state of their souls.

Some initial reflections

• Paul clearly states that he speaks differently to different people, depending on their level of spiritual maturity and depending on the fruit which they display in their lives. This seems to entail that certain doctrines or approaches may be more or less appropriate at different times, meaning that we cannot necessarily hammer the same ideas, approaches, or emphases at all times.
• This distinction between the spiritual and unspiritual evokes for me some of the research I've been doing into the role of theurgy (divine possession) in Greek philosophy and the mystery religions which were contemporaneous with the emergence of Christianity. This is part of a much larger research project I'm working on which uses esoteric speech as a critique of modern knowledge, which then serves to urge us to re-think how we design education today.
• Spiritual knowledge is not simply information, and understanding also includes one's subjective orientation as a crucial element. This does not exempt us from practicing certain epistemic virtues or excuse us for displaying a laziness in our inquiry, but it does relativize the knowledge standards imposed by the model of the German research university, and it also suggests that training within a religious context must involve a much more robust and dynamic system of practices than many churches currently cultivate.

Thanks for your patience as I've had little time to devote to my writing, even as my brain is constantly intruding into the mundane tasks which I need to focus on. Much of my work here at Samsara Diagnostics is an unburdening of myself. Hopefully this work can also be valuable for your own reflection. This week I'm enjoying a break while visiting the Grand Canyon, so I'm hoping that this mental space can open up new horizons for reflection in the coming months.